Kevin Kunz wrote:
> > > Quite the contrary, the mechanism is easy. It is the nervous system. Deep
> > > pressure to the bottom of the feet effects the proprioceptors which act on
> > > reiterative patterns throughout the body to information share new information.
> >
> > Uh, er, what?
>> You know that thing in your body that keeps you from falling on your face when you
> stand up.
I was referring to this: "effects the proprioceptors which act on reiterative patterns
throughout the body to information share new information" Please explain...
> > > This is important because our body needs information sharing to survive. The
> > > foot is a very important part of the survival mechanism.
> >
> > If this gibberish is what you think passes for a theory, then you need to go back
> > to biology 101.
>> No actually it is standard textbook neurology.
No it's not. Your statement says that the foot is a very important part of the
information sharing network. Compared to what? There is nothing that I'm aware of in
neurology that states that the foot is central to the distribution of nerve impulses.
Please provide a cite.
> > > At any rate these messages act on the ANS because food and fuel need to be
> > > adjusted and the gamma efferent part of the nervous system which feeds forward
> > > information to muscles to maintain the proper state of readiness. The
> > > homeostatic balance is thereby readjusted. In essence a new message such as
> > > pressure to the bottom of the feet breaks up existing stress patterns and
> > > reformulates the adaptive mechanisms.
> >
> > This is a joke, right? If so, ya got me. Otherwise, it's right up there with a
> > Quantum Theory of Perpetual Motion. Unnamed atomic particles to tap into and all
> > that.
>> Don't know that one but again it is all in the standard texts.
This is in standard texts?: "In essence a new message such as pressure to the bottom of
the feet breaks up existing stress patterns and reformulates the adaptive mechanisms."
What standard text did you pull that from? This is Earth, right?
> > > I don't know about these claims made. I think Gardiner fell in the same trap.
> > > Publishers frequently make exaggerated claims. They do that to sell books. A
> > > good reflexologists really doesn't have to depend on claims.
> >
> > So you don't claim any effects, other than relaxed feet? Make some claims. Then
> > we'll talk.
>> Why make claims. That is for salesmen. Research is to test the medical applications of
> reflexology. It is a work in progress. Jury is still out. What's your hurry?
Why do research if there are no claims? And you DO make claims: "But then again I have
recently worked with a situation that may make me change my position. It had to do with
the "flesh eating bacteria"." You are claiming to have witnessed something. I'm in a
hurry to figure out what, exactly you're trying to say.
> > Reflexology has been around in one form or another for a very long time.
>> Actually Gardiner was wrong . There is familiar wide spread reference it from about
> 2500 BC until Mark Anthony got in trouble with Octavian for working on Cleopatra's
> feet during dinner parties.
I'm talking about very similar quack modalities from the last century. You're not aware
of them?
> > And it is very clear that it doesn't work as claimed.
>> Again with the claims. I worked recently with the Canadian government on an ad that
> claimed you lost weight wearing reflexology sandals. I also gave an interview to
> Allure magazine on the same subject. My complaint? They said they had research and
> didn't produce it. I don't back claims, I back research.
The claims are the issue. If there are no claims, why test? What are you testing FOR?
> > Now, if you are saying that it does something but nobody's ever observed it in a good
> RCT study, kinda like the Maharishi Effect, then fine.
>> I've been blessed with great research from all over the world. Some of it is truly
> exceptional.
Then post it.
> There are reasons to look at reflexology for medical applications but it
> won't come over night. I figure we have at least another decade to make the call.
Maybe we could speed things up. But first what medical conditions can be diagnosed using
Reflexology. Any?
> > Come back when you can claim something. In the
> > meantime, it stands unproven and, very likely, completely bogus.
>> I'm ready. Where are your facts? Where are your studies? Can you refute the studies
> that have been done?
YOU make the claims. YOU present the proof. That's how debate works. You new at this?
> > Almost ANYTHING that reduces stress in a patient helps the immune system.
>> Agreed. But I still think reflexology has a better medical application before the
> virus strengthening the immune system than after when the virus has set in. But then
> again I have recently worked with a situation that may make me change my position. It
> had to do with the "flesh eating bacteria".
That's a claim if ever I heard one...
> > If reflexology is just a glorified name for a nice foot massage, then OK.
>> Why do you want a glorified foot massage instead of reflexology? Poor you. Everyone
> who has tried the two knows the difference.
This is evidence? How do they know the difference? Can this be tested for in a blind
study?
> > But you are suggesting far greater claims.
>> My claim is simple. Reflexology is the application of pressure to the feet and hands.
> This pressure has an effect on the ANS and we can prove it. The smart money is on
> harnessing this effect not just for health but a myriad of other things. Pressure to
> the feet effects the feed forward mechanism. Simple.
Describe the "feed forward mechanism" in layman's terms.
> > Nice to see you backpeddling so furiously though.
>> That an effect of proprioception. When you are seated in a car and another car backs
> out and you feel in motion. That is your feed forward mechanism. What is actually
> happening is that I am going forward and you are perceiving that as back pedaling. In
> reality it is the effect produced by you going backward.
In reality, as in Earth reality, you are backing further and further away from saying
things that can be proven or disproved. My questions are cogent and reasonable. Your
responses rely on arcane language and vague claims to make your point. And, of course,
the favourite of quacks everywhere, the demand that the skeptic prove them wrong.
erf