MFR suing critical PTs

[JasonE]

I personally enjoy working with fascia, but haven't yet received a satisfactory explanation about HOW/WHY it works. Some of my instructors were John Barnes MFR people, others were Rolfers and/or Structural Integration people certified under Thomas Meyers, John Latz, and others. All suggested several different working hypotheses about how fascial work effects changes, but none claimed to really know for certain. Still, I continue using the techniques as appropriate because clients benefit from the work.

Recently I noticed that some PTs voicing critical opinions of MFR methodology have been slapped with a legal gag order pending possible litigation. These PTs are well known on several online forums, and are extremely science-oriented.

It seems to me that simply suing those critical of MFR methods is a short-term answer to a long-term problem. If science-oriented folks doubt the working hypotheses underpinning MFR methodology, it would behoove the MFR community to produce some supporting peer-reviewed research. If unable to do so, the MFR community (and all other fascia-based bodyworkers) certainly would not suffer from some introspection and a willingness to doubt traditionally-accepted concepts.

[Rose of Sharon]

Well.....MFR can't be suing. WHO is filing the petitions/lawsuits?

[WaltFritz]

John Barnes is threatening lawsuits against a number of vocal critics of him and his work. They are therapists who post on a number of PT and other sites, and a few of whom have shown up on John's own MFR Chatline in the past. I've followed this for years now, having been once a defender of John and his methods and going head to head with this main group of critics. You cannot sum up their views/criticisms as one voice, as there are differing viewpoints involved there. The chains of posts have, for the most part, been deleted due to the effects of the threatened lawsuit. The legal threats are still up and readable, so you can at least read one side of the debate.

http://blog.myphysicaltherapyspace.com/ ... qus_thread

As for the science that explains MFR, there is no firm path to take. For years the role of fascia and the benefits of this work were explained by the supposed physiological properties of the collagen and ground substance within the fascia and its ability to induce change in length via sustained pressure at the end barrier of the collagen. Newer models have come to light involving a neurobiological reasoning. Robert Shleip has done quite a bit of research on this and you can view this work and others on the Research page of my website:

http://www.myofascialpainrelief.com/MFRresearch.html

I feel that much of the controversy surrounding these lawsuits, as well as the differing views on how MFR works involve the role that Barnes has given fascia with the holding and releasing of emotions in the context of the technique of MFR. This is truly the core of much of the controversy. Additionally, many of those involved with the threatened lawsuit have called Barnes MFR a cult. The passages on the blog that refer to this have been deleted, but one can find reference to the rationale for this if you do some digging at:

www.somasimple.com

[EgoMagickian]

So after reading the lawyer letter posted at

http://blog.myphysicaltherapyspace.com/ ... qus_thread

it would seem that the title of this thread is a bit misleading... there is a difference between "critical" and "defamatory".

If critics cannot rationally discuss their criticisms and must cross the line into ad hominem and other irrational attacks, then it would seem that a very similar rhetoric as that they use against MFR would begin to apply to them.

Either no one is doing the things alleged in the lawyer letter, and thus the PT community has no problem... or some are, and frankly I don't see why the EBM folks would want them on their team. I can't think of anything less scientific than seriously using a word like "quack".

[WaltFritz]

Jason,

I don't think this is about the EIM folks wanting the MFR folks "on their team". I believe that they are speaking to the credibility of their profession. At times it does seem that they are simply attacking for the sake of attacking. Having been a part of this from one side, then observing it from essentially the other side, both sides have very good points. Myself, having dared to stray from the norms of a culture, and being ostracized for doing so, I must say that I can relate to many of the claims made. Renegades are only acceptable within a narrow range of thinking.