It's Homeopathy Awareness Week!

Sarah-I said:
Yes, I do think that re-experiencing her accident helped this woman.

She told me that when the accident happened originally, that she tripped from the tube train and then hit her head on the bench. As she hit her head, she let out an 'ouch'. She was quite dazed, but when she came to she looked at her watch and thought that she was going to be late for her appointment, so carried on walking.

When this re-experiencing happened during the consultation her body shook too, as well as letting go of her emotions. This helped her because she told me afterwards that during this, she was able to feel the pain then that she should have felt during the actual accident itself. She never allowed herself to feel this at the time and it also enabled her to let go of her feelings of fear that the same thing would happen again.

This helped her because it allowed her to let go and move on. Her symptoms very quickly resolved following this session.
Click to expand...


It seems you have embraced a number of common misconceptions about how the mind and body works. Among them:

1. Letting go of emotions fixes everything

As I said before, emotional catharsis creates a feeling of euphoria that has led people to believe that there is long-term benefit to expressing emotions. This may be true from a social standpoint -- it lets other know where you stand emotionally -- but the euphoria is only temporary.

2. Re-experiencing things fixes everything

This probably stems partly from the idea that gaining a greater insight into one's own psyche will have immediate healing results. Cognitive research has shown that this just isn't true.

3. Emotions are stored in the body

They aren't.

4. We will become psychologically unstable if we don't feel what we should feel (for example, the woman "should have" felt great pain when she hit her head)

Who decides what we "should" feel? We feel what we feel. Everyone reacts differently to different situations.

Here's what I think happened: The woman hit her head. She felt all right afterwards and went on with her day. Later, she started hurting...naturally, since the adrenaline and endorphines that masked her pain initially eventually wore off. Unfortunately, she concluded (probably with a little outside help) that her lingering pain was caused by her failure to acknowledge the pain of the original incident. She was led to believe that if she re-experienced it, she would get better. Maybe she did feel better after this, but the placebo effect could easily explain that.

I would guess that it was not the original pain she failed to acknowledge, but the pain she continued to feel after her treatment. After all, acknowledging that pain would require her to re-examine some cherished beliefs.
 
Sarah-I said:
When this re-experiencing happened during the consultation her body shook too, as well as letting go of her emotions. This helped her because she told me afterwards that during this, she was able to feel the pain then that she should have felt during the actual accident itself. She never allowed herself to feel this at the time and it also enabled her to let go of her feelings of fear that the same thing would happen again.

This helped her because it allowed her to let go and move on. Her symptoms very quickly resolved following this session.
Click to expand...
I'm a little surprised that on this two-year course you undertook, which apparently qualifies you to practice this technique (which, if it works, is undeniably hands-on and skilled), they didn't explain to you why or how the treatment works, so that you have to rely on this sort of psychobabble explanation from your own patients.
 
Sarah-I said:
The original reason that she came to see me was because of continuing symptoms from the whiplash injury that occurred with the head injury.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, what were the symptoms from the whiplash injury that led her to consult you?
 
puppy_032604.jpg
 
Eos, this isn't you by any chance is it?

Cute photo if you like that sort of thing, but of what significance?!!!!!
 
Nous commençons toujours Ã_ signaler des chatons et des chiots quand quelqu'un devient trop aliéné pour davantage de conversation.
 
Sarah-I said:
Eos, this isn't you by any chance is it?

Cute photo if you like that sort of thing, but of what significance?!!!!!
Click to expand...
Well, at least you replied to it.

So, what were the symptoms from the whiplash injury that led the patient you were discussing to consult you?
 
Yes Zep, I think you might have done. Fortunately or unfortunately for you, I can read French.
 
Sarah-I said:
A young woman came to see me who had suffered a head injury about a month previously.
Click to expand...
Sarah, this is one of those anecdotes that sends shivers down my spine.

If this girl hit her head a month ago, and is still experiencing problems, it's very possible she's badly damaged herself - post-concussion syndrome, or a more serious brain injury, are possibilities. Regardless of whatever fashionable new-age treatment she wanted to receive, you should have sent her to get checked out with her GP, who may have referred her on for a brain scan.

Is the girl still alive?
 
Nucular said:
Sarah, this is one of those anecdotes that sends shivers down my spine.

If this girl hit her head a month ago, and is still experiencing problems, it's very possible she's badly damaged herself - post-concussion syndrome, or a more serious brain injury, are possibilities. Regardless of whatever fashionable new-age treatment she wanted to receive, you should have sent her to get checked out with her GP, who may have referred her on for a brain scan.

Is the girl still alive?
Click to expand...
This is why I raised the matter of practising medicine without a licence. I was not aware that nurses were qualified to diagnose and treat such cases.
 
Asolepius said:
This is why I raised the matter of practising medicine without a licence. I was not aware that nurses were qualified to diagnose and treat such cases.
Click to expand...
Of course you're right, they're not. Sarah seems to think that her nursing qualification allows her to practice as a cranio-sacral therapist, which of course it does not: it qualifies her to practice as a nurse.

I wonder what the Royal College of Nursing would think of her blatant attampt here on this board to pass her nursing qualification off as a licence to practice medicine?
 
I am practicing as a Craniosacral therpist, which I am fully qualified to do.

Yes, my patient is alive and is doing very well. Her presenting symptoms have almost fully resolved now.
 
Sarah-I said:
Fulcrum, which is a CST journal.
Click to expand...
Just FYI, Sarah, The Fulcrum is not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, but, so far as I can tell from the sample articles, a trade magazine. Did you think otherwise? Why didn't you link directly to it?

What kind of scientific research into CST did you refer to earlier? I can't even find the word "research" in the Fountain Clinic website at all, let alone any published studies.

Did you intentionally mislead us, Sarah, or were you mistaken?
 
Sarah-I said:
I am practicing as a Craniosacral therpist, which I am fully qualified to do.

Yes, my patient is alive and is doing very well. Her presenting symptoms have almost fully resolved now.
Click to expand...
Well I hope she is.

Why didn't you refer her to get checked out? Are you qualified to assess the extent and nature of traumatic brain injury?
 
My patient went to hospital after the initial accident occurred and was then released the next morning after overnight observation when all scans performed were clear.

She came to see me because of neck problems and if I had felt that she needed to go and have another scan, then I would have had no hesitation in telling her to do this.
 
Sarah-I said:
My patient went to hospital after the initial accident occurred and was then released the next morning after overnight observation when all scans performed were clear.

She came to see me because of neck problems and if I had felt that she needed to go and have another scan, then I would have had no hesitation in telling her to do this.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm relieved to hear that, though it's odd you didn't mention mainstream medical involvement in your anecdote. Almost as if you were being selective!

Incidentally, I wasn't quibbling above with your CST qualification (that's a whole other ball game - how can one be qualified in a medical discipline which has no evidence base? Exactly what would one study?), but with your mention of a nursing qualification in response to Asolepius' question asking if you were qualified to practice medicine:
I am also a fully qualified and registered nurse so who said anything about practicing anything without a licence?
Click to expand...
Also, just to repeat the call: seeing as the "journal" you mentioned is a magazine, not a journal, do you have any evidence for the efficacy of CST to tell us about?

Anecdotes can be illustrative, but are not of evdiential value; however, if the things you say can happen as described in your anecdotes are accurate, there should be no problem shutting everyone up by conducting proper RCTs, should there?
 
Nucular said:

Anecdotes can be illustrative, but are not of evdiential value; however, if the things you say can happen as described in your anecdotes are accurate, there should be no problem shutting everyone up by conducting proper RCTs, should there?
Click to expand...
Sarah, please answer my question regarding the 22 PubMed citations on CST. How many provide RCT evidence in favour? How many support the diagnostic claims you are making?

Your CST qualification is meaningless unless you can answer these questions. Why do you persist in this fantasy that passing an exam somehow proves that the curriculum is valid? Anyone can set an exam in anything they like.
 
Rolfe said:
Les, click on the link in my sig, and realise that Sarah is "Naturalhealth". This page is also interesting, as is this one (see second post).

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Thanks Rolfe - interesting as you say. The tragedy of exchanges such as these is that the quacks never directly answer a question, and any questions that are too hard are simply ignored. I'm still trying to get Sarah to look at those 22 PubMed citations, but apparently a popular magazine carries more weight than peer-reviewed journals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom