Why not get back to the school problem at hand for the purpose of this conversation?

Here we have schools in the UK trying to tackle kid’s unwanted behaviours :
‘They will work with children under age 13 who are considered badly behaved.’
‘It’s incredibly important that we address young people’s behavioural problems and we make no apologies for using different and innovative methods, but this obviously won’t replace more traditional ways of dealing with anti-social behaviour.’

Isn’t it clear to you that traditional methods seem to have failed ?

I’m gonna ask this in another way. If you were sitting on the board of UK schools and you were now trying to tackle unwanted kids behaviors, what would you try ?

http://themilligan.wordpress.com/

I’ve been following this thread (for obvious reasons) and I’ve borrowed a little from some of the posts here & pasted a link bank to the original article.

Oh, and sorry for the shameless plug.

You’re in a hole. Stop digging.

Sincerely,
Neuroskeptic

I have not slandered you, period

The term you should have used was “libel”. Perhaps I should have written “If you tell people you are providing something more than massage and charging extra for it, then you are cheating people.” Perhaps you are unaware of cheating; but ignorance is no excuse …

Still, you rave on- with no reliable supporting data. Show me what you think supports your claims.

I have done my research, I stand by my judgement of the current scientific literature.

Let me explain once more, no clinical trial of reflexology (in any form) has been undertaken in which a credible, double-blinded control has been used – being that neither the researchers nor the participants were aware of the nature of treatment or placebo being administered – and which shows that reflexology has any more effect than a relaxing foot massage.

No, I do not think a “worldwide conspiracy to bias the results of studies” exists.

There have been no reliable studies which show reflexology to be anything other than that which Dr. Novella and others (including myself) have previously stated.

There is no need for a conspiracy. Any real follower of honest science only needs to be able to judge a clinical trial and the methodology used.

A skill you appear to be lacking.

Once again, I will clearly state that I have indeed done my research – and taking ALL of your arguments into due consideration – I stand by my judgement of the current scientific literature. That being, reflexology, is (at best) of no more use to anyone, than a relaxing foot massage and a nice chat with a good listener.

That means, Mr. Kunz, that unless you have anything new to say that is more convincing than the rest of your arguments, you can be safely discounted as a “noisy” irrelevance in this forum.

Lastly, I keep “my heroes” to myself Mr. Kunz, you are speaking from a position of ignorance and would be well advised to remain rational in your arguments.

You allowed slander against me to be put on your forum. I believe that I have the right to address your behavior with you dean.

Please forward his/ her name and telephone number so I can discuss this matter with him/ her.

Thank you.

Kevin Kunz

You did not refute a single one. Looks like you can’t refute them. Looks like you are bluffing. Smoke and mirrors.

And how can a misconception be intentional? That would make it an intentional misconception. How does that work? How can you intend to have a misconception?

> Foot reflexology is based on the fictional premise that some sort of direct connection exists between areas of the feet and other organs of the body. My point in recommending the text book was that you could learn more about how the Central Nervous System works, thereby gaining some understanding of how you might make such a misconception.

I don’t believe that theory either. You won’t find that in our writings. Every bit of our theory is based within the nervous system. We can go through every structure and function if you like. So stop trying to spread misinformation about our work. this is a tactic and not academically honest.

>Beyond that, reflexology in any form, remains entirely unproven (which I think is probably being a little too kind).
No clinical trial of reflexology (in any form) has been undertaken in which a credible, double-blinded control has been used – being that neither the researchers nor the participants were aware of the nature of treament or placebo being administered.

Typical science by proclamation. You haven’t done your research. There are studies done to NIH standards and peer reviewed to boot. Check Medline before making such foolish statements. More misinformation.

>Studies have examined this flaw in the past (e.g. Oleson and Flocco, 1993; Stevenson and Ernst, 2001), criticising just such a limitation. In Oleson and Flocco (1993), participants in the study reported that the placebo administered was “either overly light or very rough.” Showing a clear difference in the perceptions of the treatment administered, thereby invalidating the methodology.

I didn’t like the blinding process for either Flocco/ Oleson or Ernst. Ernst is one of the worst at blinding. Your point? It is difficult to blind when the practitioner does both the reflexology and the so called placebo reflexology. I plain don’t think it works. But Ernst, your hero, does it.

>Un-biased, double-blinded, peer-reviewed, studies which show a consensus that reflexology has any more effect than a relaxing foot massage just do not exist.

Just don’t bother to research do you? And what do you think we have a worldwide conspiracy to biased the results of studies. Hogwash.

And you have ignored the fMRI, doppler sonograms, ekg’s and eeg’s studies. They definitely not only show that pressure to the feet creates a physiological change but does so in the appropriate body part (brain, kidneys, heart, intestines, eyes, cerebellum and so forth).

Simply your statement is false.

Is it some type of skeptic thing to do to try and palm off the idea that reflexology is no different than a simple foot massage? Ernst seems to follow this agenda.

But the point is that the type of stimulus is quite different. In foot massage you are effecting the General Adaptive Syndrome as described by Selye. It is a protopathic response to the stimulus. Warm and fuzzy but not without benefit.

Reflexology is more focused on the epicritical sensitivity. It is finer discrimination and involves precise two point localization. Reflexology has more to do with Local Adaptive Syndrome.

Science tends to ignore the epicritical sensitivity in favor of protopathic sensitivity. In other words we view stress as a system wide response and do not look at the finer response to stress.

Reflexology addresses the finer response to stress. If you want to relax a foot massage will just do fine. If however you want to address the very specific adaption to stress that occurs reflexology is very good at this.

>Until they do, reflexology is unproven and may be judge to be founded upon an entirely fictitious premise.

So what you are contending is that pressure to the feet does not cause a shift in the ANS. And that change in the ANS (since it doesn’t exist) can not impact the allostatic load. Feet are like wheels on a cart in another words. No connection to the internal organs at all even mediated by the brain.

And because you believe this to be the case the discussion is over. Fascinating.
Kevin Kunz

************************************

My response to Joe, the plumber.

>“… Or can you pull the opinions and start working off facts.”
Why rave on? All you have to do is present the convincing evidence that has been peer-reviewed in high-quality journals. It doesn’t get simpler than that …

It is simple Joe. You haven’t done your homework. There are peer reviewed research studies in high-quality journals. Check Medline. Peer reviewed to NIH standards.

>If you offer a simple foot-massage (properly priced) that some people enjoy, that is fine. But you misrepresent your abilities,and cheat people. That bothers me (call it a character flaw).

Sorry Joe. Is sentence does make sense. Why should I give up what has been an amazingly successful technique in favor of a adequate but not as effective technique? That is like giving up your present computer is favor of the computer you started out with.

Your real character flaw is that you are a coward for slandering me and not giving your real name. Slander is actionable.

And to Dr. Novella you have also displayed a character flaw by allowing Joe, the plumber to slander me. This is a moderated forum. You didn’t have to allow this type of behavior. Shame on you.

I deserve an apology from both Joe and Dr. Novella.

Kevin Kunz

“… Or can you pull the opinions and start working off facts.”

Why rave on? All you have to do is present the convincing evidence that has been peer-reviewed in high-quality journals. It doesn’t get simpler than that …

If you offer a simple foot-massage (properly priced) that some people enjoy, that is fine. But you misrepresent your abilities,and cheat people. That bothers me (call it a character flaw).