CT Simple Contact: The Great Conversation

[Dave Vollmers]

Life is getting alittle hetic lately so I don't think I'll have time to respond for a while so I wanted to just sum up my part in this discussion for now (I'll try to at least read posts until I can respond)

I still don't think anyone has given me enough of a definition as to how ideomotion is the core of SC and backed it up with research citations, at least not without broadening it's originial definition - still no citations for that either. I have done some thinking about ideomotion, it's definition and how it could be utilized and I feel comfortable with seeing how, in a limited sense, it is utlized in my treatments. If I traction a person's leg caudly it is ideomiton if the patient continues to move into that direction but once the person's leg moves into abbduction/adduction or flextion/extension it is no longer ideomotion and it is a natural movement.

the bottom line is that I can't see how you can treat someone souly with ideomotion but I can see how you might initiate a treatment session with it. Maybe one day I'll take Barrett's course and finally get an answer from him, until then thank you to everyone for your attempts at answering my question.

Dave

[Jon Newman]

John -

looked at the first article and although it was interesting I'm not sure if you are infering that ideomotor apraxia is what is treated by ideomotion?

No.

I would like to confirm that (you) have taken (Barrett's) course

Yes.

You can get Spitz's book for 14.95. Not bad.

[Barrett Dorko]

You've decided to define ideomotion in your own way. Why you think you know more about it than those who have been describing and studying it since 1852 is beyond me.

Wall's description of the third stage of instinctive response to painful sensation may mean nothing to you, but it's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the unconsciously generated motion (ideomotion) we see. No magical "forces," no biologically implausible action by inert tissue, no channeling the spirits of ancients warriors, no power animals anywhere.

Perhaps the absence of all this is too boring for some, but the intricate nature of the neuroscience behind it is enough for me.

Some dowsers don't want it known that they're the one moving the rod. Shown that this is always the case they'll continue to believe otherwise because their story is simply better than the one that's obviously true.

[nari]

Dave

Pavlov and his dogs are ancient history, and are no longer useful to interpret what is going on in the brain. Descartes was a great fellow, but he was wrong with some of his conclusions.

Read Spitz, and look at what has happened with physiology, particularly neurophysiology over the last 10 years.
Until you learn some basic details on responses, emotions and other aspects - you will not understand ideomotion, I'm afraid.

Hope your hectic weeks settle down.

Nari

[bernard]

Hi All,

I haven't been trained to Simple Contact and I must say that Barrett and I, were quite ennemies, two years ago. Now, open minded have worked for the best and differences are still present but a mutual comprehension exists.

It took, three or four months to understand the point of view of Barrett and now, there is no more difficulty. Damasio but surely, Diane and Nari, helped me a lot.

Originally Posted by Dave Vollmers

Smiling and frowning I would catergeroize as conditioned or learned responses or even straight voulntary actions (at least in adults).

Dave,
Such assertion is a full disappointment for all readers and enlightens us at the deep chasm where you're trapped. That is at 20,000 light years distance from actual knowledge.

Where have you been?

[Luke Rickards]

the only thing I have see or read on yawning (granted I don't look for it) is that yawning is a result of the brain looking for more O2

Lehmann, H. Yawning: A Homeostatic Reflex and Its Psychological Significance. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1979, 43(2), 123-136.

Man's psychological reasons for yawning are of equal, if not greater, importance than the physiological causes. While real yawning cannot be produced by direct voluntary impulses, it is an ideomotor action: easily elicited by autosuggestion, by mental preoccupation with yawning, and by unconscious imitation.

As I have said, there are many pathways for ideomotor expression, not just imitation. It functions to express us and correct us (homeostasis). But you can continue create your own definitions if you like.

[Eddy Maillot]

Dave,

Thanks for confirming that you have taken Barrett's courses. I just wanted to make sure because I'm sure everyone can agree that I'm still asking about the fundimentals for ideomotion and the use of it with SC,

It seems to me that the fundamentals of ideomotion have and are still very well documented and the use of it with SC does make scientific sense. However, I checked my fascia last night and even this morning and I don't recall any repressed emotions.

I am the type of PT that will try most anything for my patients and if I know of someone that does Craniosacral or Barnes Myofascial release, why not have those patients try it? However, the underpinnings of MFR have way too many holes to hold any scientific water. and in a rehab/medical world that is evidence-based ( a term in my estimation that is losing some of its true definition), scientific reasoning intrinsically prevails without any effort.

Eddy

[Barrett Dorko]

Eddy,

I see that you are still under my spell.

Good to know.

[Eddy Maillot]

Barrett,

Eddy,

I see that you are still under my spell.

Good to know.

Yes, YOU WIZARD, YOU. I couldn't help it but bleat it.

Eddy

[junglelord]

nice web site about personal beliefs, some good science, and a lot of ego.
the anti fascial bias is pure ego.
fascial therapy and emotional release, aka Rolfing and patients emotional release does occur...
i know i am a Rolfer.
i do not take a Upleder approach of somtaemotional release (what a bunch of hogwash).
still if a emotional release happens for the patient in the context of the Rolf postural recipe, then it happens.
it is not look for, or wished for, but it is healing for the patient.

tissue does hold memory.
people are tissue, they are memory, and mainly water.
when you die, your water goes away and so do your memories.

it has been nice looking around here, but way to much ego.

good luck. and thanks for the memories.

you bunch of tensegrity water bags of emotional memory...with way too much ego.

[bernard]

Originally Posted by JungleLord

tissue does hold memory.
people are tissue, they are memory, and mainly water.
when you die, your water goes away and so do your memories.

Please elaborate the links between all these allegations. These assertions needs references.

The first statement is true and false at once. It depends the way you look at it.

[EricM]

Tarzan, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your last post. I'm glad you have everything pretty much figured out. You must sleep well at night.

Since when does being a Rolfer equate with being all knowing? Or does your sentence "i know i am a Rolfer," just mean you know that you are a Rolfer?

Eric

[EricM]

This must explain why I forget where I put my keys everytime I go to the bathroom. Now I understand! Thanks Tarzan!

Eric

[Barrett Dorko]

Can anyone else see the irony in the "ego" comment coming from someone who refers to himself as "lord"?

Again we see baseless and absurd theories backed up by nothing more than the personal claims of success that anybody could make. This guy leaves after an uncalled for ad hominem comment. Nothing new.

I will always, always wonder about therapists who refuse to use their actual names when posting in a professional discussion forum. Their claims of privacy are no longer reasonable given what the Internet has become. Any longer, this is just an illusion of anonymity, and I personally feel that those who use it aren't adequately expressing the courage of their convictions.

[Diane]

Jungle came swinging through and leaving his opinions for posterity. I think it's ok; if it's a representative sampling of what's out there in the world, then it's important to have a voice like that, here. Temporarily.

People who are this vehement about what they've been taught (probably by those equally vehement) likely are either a) young, or b) content to maintain a belief system based on conjecture/perceptual fantasy, or c) both. It's not easy being human. We have issues with being alive and knowing we will die. (Jungle nearly did, apparently... his life is now devoted to propogating what he was told by the handlers he had, who helped him physically a great deal. Add to that, our brains escape into perceptual fantasies. It's normal. Doesn't make it "right", but it's normal. Forgivable. Temporarily..)

The sea monster of pseudoscience/antiscience has nabbed another one with which to make itself stronger, the only escape being through honing the mind.

(Eric, you're a scream. )

[nari]

I don't think any of us who practise according to what we know about the brain/body say that we know the truth. The truth doesn't exist, really. It's been hunted for millennia, unsuccessfully. Usually there are plenty of folk eager to fill the gaps on the way to truth (whatever truth is) with their own agenda.

As Andre Gide says:
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Jungle, if you have found the truth, you should be a Nobel prize winner.


Nari

[stevemaden]

walt Fritz I will stand by your request for peer reviewed juried journal with RCT's of this treatment Vs any other.

I mistakenly, and rather innocently querried a question to Mr. Darko and was rather rudely answered. I now see that rudeness may be a common reply from him and that I should not take a slight from a peer as a personal attack.

Below is my initial mail, his reply and my return replies to date:

Start at the bootom and scroll up:

Show me the RCT's.

I will gladly do my own homework. I read and review several peer reviewed journals a month and work on providing EBM on an ongoing basis. Presently, the topic is a Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.

You seemed to suggest that all I needed to know regarding this topic was on your site. My comment regarding your course was that there must be some info you could give that was not on the site- if not why have a course. I would have imagined that an expert educator could have a conversation on the topic- that's all.

All I asked for were references with RCT's and some background. I thought who better to ask than the source.

Who has not been assisted in some way by someone along the way. You must have had mentors who assisted you. Not an answering machine- but you are the expert-no?



good bye Barrett Dorko


-----Original Message-----
From: Barrett Dorko [mailto:bldorko@bright.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:29 PM
To: Maden, Stephen
Subject: RE: Clinical questions




I didn't assume your mistake was intentional. I assumed it was just thoughtless.

I don't force anybody to come to my courses and I can't figure out why you would think I shouldn't charge for the work it takes to put on a workshop. If you feel that just reading the site would be sufficient than go ahead and do it. Why should I feel obligated to explain personally anything to you when you aren't willing to spend more than five minutes investigating your concerns? Go to a discussion group somewhere and ask your questions. There's one linked to my front page.

What I can't figure out is why you think I should save you time. Do some work, I'm not an answering machine.



At 08:19 PM 2/2/2006, you wrote:







Lighten up Dorko. The mistake on the name was innocent enough, having a commonly misspelled name myself I am rather used to it. I assure you the error on your name and your degree was unintentional. I had hoped that by posing my questions directly to you ( an expert in this area) I could actually save time through your experience. I viewed it for all of 5 minutes between clients and was unable to locate the information I was seeking. I thought it may be akin to Butler's neurodynamics.





In response to your closing statement- I can't imagine why I should spend the time necessary to answer all of this when the work has already been done repeatedly on the Internet for several years.



Why than do you perform con-ed on the topic? Just let them read the site. Why charge money for the course? It's on the site. I assume it is to further the body of knowledge and techniques available to clinicians who have dedicated their careers to helping others. I mistakenly sought some assistance from you.



I was hoping to discuss levels of evidence, as described by Sackett, and open a channel for dialogue between clinicians who both read the " literature" ahem - in their areas of expertise. I must admit feeling a bit of disappointment at the poor level of communication between professionals.





Steve Maden, PT






-----Original Message-----

From: Earle, Danielle

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:58 PM

To: Maden, Stephen

Subject: FW: Clinical questions




-----Original Message-----

From: Barrett Dorko [ mailto:bldorko@bright.net]

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:57 AM

To: Earle, Danielle

Subject: Re: Clinical questions




You've misspelled my name and assigned me a doctorate I don't possess. Are you sure you've been to my site? Did you read anything? Did you follow the link to Soma Simple where your questions have all been addressed intricately and in detail?


I can't imagine why I should spend the time necessary to answer all of this when the work has already been done repeatedly on the Internet for several years.


Barrett L. Dorko P.T.





At 02:28 PM 2/2/2006, you wrote:

Dear Dr Dorka:

I am a clinician unfamiliar with your technique. What are you treating? What is the proposed mechanism of effect? How can you tell if a client is a good candidate for the technique? Have there been any RCT's comparing this technique Vs other interventions in peer reviewed, juried publications? What is it's effectiveness Vs a placebo technique in order to rule out the placebo effect or the healing effect of the laying on of skilled hands?


I have a co-worker who recently attended your course and I am unfamiliar with this treatment modality.


I briefly viewed your website, yet have many questions.


Thank you for your time



Steve Maden, PT

[EricM]

"Good Grief!"

Charlie Brown

[nari]

Seconded...

Nari

[Jon Newman]

Barrett,

I'm so sorry. I guess I never realized it could be so bad.

[Diane]

Amen Brother Walt

?????? Same "church"?

[Barrett Dorko]

I sat down to dinner in Seattle, opened my computer and saw what I had received and written earlier in the day suddenly appear in this thread.

I should begin by saying that I am really quite grateful. When I describe a request like the original one I'm not sure other therapists actually believe me even though I always say, "I couldn't make this stuff up." Now I've been spared the trouble and the doubt I often encounter.

Isn't Walt's first question on this thread essentially the same one? Am I missing someting here? As I've said many times, people (I guess) come to my course in order to experience my presence in some way - and why they'd want to pay for that is beyond me. What I have time to say doesn't begin to match what they could read if they devoted more than five minutes to it. But, as has been said here, "I had hoped that by posing my questions directly to you ( an expert in this area) I could actually save time through your experience."

This is actually kind of hard to argue with. After all, why should I devote my own time to something that someone else could spend their time doing purely for my benefit? I mean, who wouldn't hesitate to just ask another all sorts of enormous questions despite the fact that the answers were all a few seconds away?

Oh wait, that would be me, Mr. Darko.

[nari]

Barrett

You stated you are not 'an answering machine' when there are other connections available; that seems entirely reasonable. I have been asked to explain neurodynamics in a post. Can't do it.

By the way, there was a film called Danny Darko which was rated at #3 of the 100 best films ever, by Australian audiences. Perhaps the association of similar names confused Steve. However, the protagonist in the film was a psychopath; you probably didn't want to know that, either...

Nari

[matt c]

Dear Walt and co.
Something has concept validity if it seems as though it operates via a biologically sound mechanism. MFR does not, ideamotion DOES

2. Something has face validity if it has been shown to operate via the mechanism via which is purported to operate. MFR does not, ideamotion DOES.

3. What type of validity(NONE?) do you attribute to the validation of the mechanism by which MFR is purported to work, NOTE, this cannot be assumed and must be demonstrated, If not, is it not invalid?

[Luke Rickards]

Five minutes! I took me over six months to get through everything on your website Barrett. It was well worth the effort though.

The 'o's and 'a's in this thread is getting very twisted indeed. Nari, it is Donny Darko. And Steve wrote Dr Dorka, not Darko. Barrett, I take it that being such a movie buff you were having some fun with the original error.

[Luke Rickards]

Matt,

You may have missed Walt's recent departure from contributor to lurker, so I wouldn't expect a response. I think he had finished making the case for MFR anyway.

[nari]

Whatever...it was a silly movie anyway....

[Luke Rickards]

[Barrett Dorko]

Luke,

In fact, you'll find "Darko" in the body of Stave's last note.

That thing you said about Walt "making the case" for MFR? Very funny.

[stevemaden]

Mr Dorko,
I feel that all I type is never truly read, or answered. It is just spun a bit back to me. I could expect ( and respect) a reply along the lines of "that many therapeutic PT interventions are done using anectodal and experiential evidence and that we will always seek to blend the art and science of PT". Admittedly, I cannot base thorough care on only "the evidence", but as clinicians I feel we need to strive towards more evidence driven practice. Why not just set up some trials to put it in the light of scientific inquiry? Place patients identified as being good candidates for the treatment in random groups than give one a treatment that includes your intervention and one that doesn't. Than look for a statistical difference in treatment outcome. I'm sure that if the recent attempts to develope a classification and treatment system for manual interventions to a phenomena as complex as back pain( Flynn et al, Childs et al etc...) have been attempted, than it seems a similar system may add the credibilty to your treatment that would ease the minds of the doubting.

I only wanted to discuss the "simple contact " technique. I did not realize I was stepping into the a boxing match that was already in progress.

Enclosed is my last mail to you.

Good bye.

Steve M


Show me the RCT's.

I will gladly do my own homework. I read and review several peer reviewed journals a month and work on providing EBM on an ongoing basis. Presently, the topic is a Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.

You seemed to suggest that all I needed to know regarding this topic was on your site. My comment regarding your course was that there must be some info you could give that was not on the site- if not why have a course. I would have imagined that an expert educator could have a conversation on the topic- that's all.

All I asked for were references with RCT's and some background. I thought who better to ask than the source.

Who has not been assisted in some way by someone along the way. You must have had mentors who assisted you. Not an answering machine- but you are the expert-no?



good bye Barrett Dorko

[Luke Rickards]

Oh, you're right. He managed both Dorka and Darko. Sorry Nari.

[nari]

Luke

No probs, as they say in the classics!


Nari

[Walt Fritz]

That thing you said about Walt "making the case" for MFR? Very funny

Glad you're still thinking of me. I think the only case that has been made is confirmation that you care little about what others think. Probably one less Simple Contact attendee. Point made, you can stop now.

I thought you were leaving

though you can still make me laugh.

I've found it interesting how both side see their point of view "proved" via an abstract or paper. Filters, revisited.

I guess this has not worked out well for either of us. You've pointed out to me that I've been unable to convince you or your esteemed panel the scientific validity of MFR. No biggie, here. But, thus far I've yet to see any new convertees, bowing to the feet of neuroscience. Only a few new people willing to be blunt and reveal some dirty secrets. Kind of makes you wish you lived in the clouds, huh?

Will there be halloween costumes in the form of Dark-O this year?

With mutual admiration,
Walt

[Jon Newman]

Walt,

I might have missed it but did you post some abstracts someplace?

I'm not sure anyone is "proving" anything but rather building a case that makes sense by using disparate areas of scientific study that seem to converge to form explanations for what we observe in real life.

[Barrett Dorko]

Mutual?

[nari]

I know I shouldn't ask but does anyone understand Walt's post?


Nari

[bernard]

Originally Posted by Jon Newman

I might have missed it but did you post some abstracts someplace?

I found the scientific rationale of MFR

[bernard]

Hi All,

A direct question for Barrett,

Is there refractory persons/patients to Simple Contact? I mean people that have no reaction during the session?

[Barrett Dorko]

Bernard,

Well, everybody feels it when you touch them of course, and since ideomotion is inherent to life and those are the only sorts of patients I work with, the response will always be felt by me though not necessarily by them. If visible, it won't be missed. This doesn't mean that the movement will solve their problem.

I depend upon the characteristics of correction to indicate whether or not such a thing is occuring, and even though they might be present, this is no guarantee that improvement in pain will remain if it shows up at all.

I saw a slim,strong woman with two years of right upper quarter pain today. She had everything I wanted in the way of findings and seemed a perfect candidate.

But she told me no less than four times that breathing as I suggested (allowing the diaphragm to descend) was going to require "a lot of thought."

I doubt she'll ever get better.

[Dave Vollmers]

Luke -

It's been a while since I was able to come on the web site - so thanks for the response. Unfortunatly you have only caused me to reiterate my original question based on this response.

it is an ideomotor action: easily elicited by autosuggestion,

I must admit it caused me to do some checking on autosuggestion to make sure I wasn't making up any definitions but what I found only confirms my originial question about ideomotion being more of a suggestive response or a form of hypnotherapy. I took a look in the encyclopedia and found a little about Émile Coué.

Starting as a pharmacist at Troyes in 1882, he studied hypnosis, opened a free clinic at Nancy in 1910, and developed his own method of psychotherapy based on autosuggestion, “Couéism,” which most famously required constant repetition of the formula “Every day, and in every way, I am becoming better and better.”

What part of this is a straight involuntary action that the patient wants to perform? To me this clearly states that the use of ideomotion should be in the relm of psychotherapy not physical therapy.


As I said before what is the scientific evidence that ideomotion is not a suggestive response? I would like to see scientific research that shows how ideomotion is an action that a person wants to perform but is scared to and at what point can you prove that the facilitator didn't influence that person to do an action that they may not have wanted to perform until the facilitator told them to?

If you think I've created my own definition than you'll have to utilize quotes and resourses that take out the facilitation aspect.

Dave

[Dave Vollmers]

Matt C

Dear Walt and co.
Something has concept validity if it seems as though it operates via a biologically sound mechanism. MFR does not, ideamotion DOES

The biologically sound concept is the fascial system. If you can learn all you need to from an anatomy book than you wouldn't be able to understand it. Like I challanged this group before - take some time to do some disection on a fresh cadver (before it's embalmed) and you will see more than you ever though you could. Where is the biology in ideomotion?

2. Something has face validity if it has been shown to operate via the mechanism via which is purported to operate. MFR does not, ideamotion DOES.

In the thread MFR - the great conversation you will notice that Walt, Scott, Pia and myself have stated that the research is just beginning and the evidence isn't there - yet. As for ideamotion all I have seen proved is that it is more linked with hypnotherapy and suggestive therapy than physical therapy.

I'll take a page from Barrett - read MFR the great conversation and you will see how MFR presents the fascial system and how MFR works.

Dave

[Dave Vollmers]

Barrett -

After being away for awhile it was interesting to me to see another have the same experiance as I'm having with asking you questions about your technique. I still don't understand why you don't engage people in conversation regarding SC and instead push them off to read "the research". Last professor I had in college that talked like that was charged and convicted of plagerisim in his research and discredited as an original thinker. I hope that's not you. If you believe that you don't know why people come to here you speak and only charge because it's expensive to run a seminar than why do it? Maybe you should just tell people that if they want to know about SC than read your website and be done with it?

Of course the comment you made regarding having the "right" kind of patient and how you have seen many people that don't feel anything but you still do and that's all that matters is the most interesting to me. Does the "right" kind of patient include someone that is suggestable (same people that are perfect for hypnosis)? I don't know about you but I haven't had anyone that hasn't felt something when I've demonstrated MFR (even those that I haven't explained it to). Everyone that I've ever touched utilizing the MFR approach has commented that they have felt an area not directly under my hands "melt away" that was previously ridgid or tight and causing pain. I've had people report that they felt something moving under their skin and that the area was getting warmer and when they began to move reported that they felt like they were floating. In every case each one of them reports a major decrease in pain after only about 5 minutes of demonstration.

Gee sounds like evidence based practice and sound biological validity to me.

Oh well I'm sure Barrett will be ticked but I couldn't refuse.

Dave

P.S. Barrett is this the reason you like to spend time refuting MFR and John Barnes during your seminars? As you said before it takes about 20 minutes to do your seminar

[bernard]

Dave,

You're very talkative this morning, Dave.
I'm French and I know very well the Coué's Method. It is a self-conditioning one. Nothing new under the sun. And of course, it works because we are able to change our body using our brain. It is a voluntary one.

Barrett is not doing such method but elicits a self response of the patient. Of course, there is similitudes but it works involuntarily. That is the huge difference.

BTW, just a little advice from the site owner: Why are you focusing your words/criticisms on persons (and only one): Barrett? I'll second him and many other will.

Change your microscope lens and site of your attention/awareness => Forget the man and try to bring some arguments on the method. You'll gain certainly some insight and release fortunately some emotions.

[Luke Rickards]

Dave,

Are you saying that you have now come to the conclusion that autosuggestion is the same thing as ideomotion?

http://experts.about.com/e/i/id/Ideomotor_effect.htm

The biological explanation for the existence of the ideomotor effect is that it involves the same involuntary and unconscious movements that make up our non-verbal communication. This includes facial expressions and (small) changes in posture. Though non-verbal communication plays a lesser role among humans than among animals, because humans have speech (verbal communication), it is still important. Many courses in professional communication train people to be more aware of non-verbal communication.

Maybe you should just tell people that if they want to know about SC than read your website and be done with it?

He does. At least that's what he wrote to me when I first emailed him.

[Barrett Dorko]

Ah yes, Barrett Dorko - The Anton Mesmer of Physical Therapy.

Why you keep insisting that ideomotion is something other than what 150 years of careful research says it is is beyond me. Here on Soma Simple such an attitude is now called "Fritzian," or at least I'd like it to be.

Your proposed connection between me and a convicted palgarist could probably have been done with a little more subtlety. If I were to say, "Hey, the last guy who disagreed with me got hit by a bus!" I wouldn't expect you to take it all that seriously. Maybe you were trying to be funny. I can't tell.

More later.

[Diane]

More on non-verbal communication/movement for anyone who still thinks it doesn't exist. (Huge extensive site actually, full of comparative anatomy/neuroanatomy and study of social interaction.)

The biologically sound concept is the fascial system.

Dave, we all accept that fascia exists. Most of us don't accept that it has any self-generated "behavior" or that it can "change" state from skin stretching. But the nervous system can. If you think what you are feeling is fascia, behaving, you are deluded.

Where is the biology in ideomotion?

See my link above.

[Jon Newman]

Dave,

I'm struggling to understand the point(s) you are trying to make in your last three posts. In two of the posts you refer to ideomotor activity as not being in the realm of physical therapy. Perhaps it would help if you were to define for us what physical therapy means to you. I'm wondering if that term is just as challenging to you as ideomotor apparently is.

[Barrett Dorko]

While I hesitate to address once again an explaination of ideomotion to Dave, as luck would have it, I got an email request this morning that I am pasting here:

Mr. Dorko:

I am a rehab director in a long term acute care facility. The majority of our patients are fairly low level - about half of them are ventilator dependent. A couple of my therapists are interested in attending your one day course to be held in Jacksonville, Florida on 3/17 but wanted to make sure knowledge gained would be useful for the population we are treating. Can you give me your thoughts?

Sincerely,

(Name witheld)

I answered:

Dear Ms. (name witheld),

I appreciate your therapist's interest in my work and will do the best I can to answer your question.

My workshop focuses on the understanding of pain secondary to nervous irritation that is neither pathologic or progressive in nature as might be found in certain disease processes. Rather, I speak of pain due to an "abnormal neurodynamic," more commonly known as "neural tension" that is amenable to various forms of movement in order to resolve the mechanical deformation responsible for the pain's origin. This accounts for a great many persistently painful problems but certainly not all. Sorting this out is part of the course but a great deal of this is written about on my web site <http://barrettdorko.com> and a good deal more is archived and currently discussed on <http://somasimple.com> where more questions are welcome, often answered by remarkably knowledgeable therapists from around the world. Your therapists are more than welcome there.

I've had many therapists from facilities as you describe and have heard nice comments but cannot say with assurance what their experience with Simple Contact and a new appreciation for the nervous system has ultimately been. Perhaps your staff will prove to be the exception to that. (The silence, I mean)

Again, thank you for your interest, and please don't hesitate to ask something further once the therapists have familiarized themselves with the writing.

My best,
Barrett L. Dorko P.T.

Does anyone see a difference in this request and the infamous letter to Dr. Dorka?

Dave, Ever see "A Few Good Men" with Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise? Remember that scene where Colonel Jessup (Nicholson) says he'll be glad to help in any way he can "but you have to ask me nicely." I think there's a little of that going on here. Think of me as a sort of Colonel Jessup sans the profanity and murderous intent. Pretty much anyway.

I hope that helps.

[nari]

Dave

I too think it would help if you looked at what physical therapy means.

It's about movement, not hypnotism or cadaver gazing.....


Nari

[Dave Vollmers]

Bernard -

The focus isn't on Barrett - it's on Simple Contact and the use of ideomotion in physical medicine when all of the research that this group has suggested I read come off defining ideomotion as a reaction from a suggestion given to the patient prior to an involuntary action. Since a suggestion is given mentally than the reaction, although involuntary, is still based on a suggestion. This is the primary focus on hypnotherapy.

Barrett is not doing such method but elicits a self response of the patient. Of course, there is similitudes but it works involuntarily. That is the huge difference.

This is the exact thing I'm trying to understand about Simple Contact - if all the research you guys have pointed me to continue to state that ideomotion is based on suggestion. Than is Simple Contact utilizing something else - how does Barret elicit an involuntary response if not through suggestion, and if suggestion isn't used than is ideomotion being used?

I know that Barrett posted a letter he wrote to a facility director - maybe there will be some clarification there. If I have singled out Barrett than it is because he is the one teaching this technique - if anything I'm a little perturbed that up unitl now (I'll read his post first to confirm this) Barrett refused to talk about his techinique in depth.

Dave