MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

You might think that the question asked in the title of this post is a bit impertinent. Let’s see whether you change your mind after reading on.

“Come along for a ten minute taster sessions and experience the Bowen Technique.
It is appropriate for a wide range of acute and chronic conditions, including back pain, sciatica, neck, shoulder and knee problems, arthritis, asthma, migraine, sports injuries and stress. Ten-minute taster sessions will be offered so that you can experience the therapy first hand. Many find their aches and pains melt away!” 

It is with these exact words that the Royal College of Nursing advertises a session on Bowen Technique to be held during their major conference on Saturday 13 – Wednesday 17 May 2017, Liverpool Arena and Convention Centre.

You may not have heard of the Bowen Technique, one of the more exotic types of alternative medicine. So, let me fill you in:

According to proponents, it is “a system of subtle and precise mobilizations called “Bowen moves” over muscles, tendons, nerves and fascia. The moves are performed using the thumbs and fingers applying only gentle, non invasive pressure. A treatment consists of a series of specific sequences of moves called procedures, with frequent pauses to allow time for the body to respond.”

Wikipedia explains: “recipients are generally fully clothed. Each session typically involves gentle rolling motions along the muscles, tendons, and fascia. The therapy’s distinctive features are the minimal nature of the physical intervention and pauses incorporated in the treatment. Proponents claim these pauses allow the body to “reset” itself. In 2015 the Australian Government’s Department of Health published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by health insurance; Bowen Technique was one of 17 therapies evaluated for which no clear evidence of effectiveness was found.”

Medline lists just one single trial of Bowen Technique; it is not a clinical trial with patients but a study with healthy volunteers; here is its abstract:

The hamstring muscles are regularly implicated in recurrent injuries, movement dysfunction and low back pain. Links between limited flexibility and development of neuromusculoskeletal symptoms are frequently reported. The Bowen Technique is used to treat many conditions including lack of flexibility. The study set out to investigate the effect of the Bowen Technique on hamstring flexibility over time. An assessor-blind, prospective, randomised controlled trial was performed on 120 asymptomatic volunteers. Participants were randomly allocated into a control group or Bowen group. Three flexibility measurements occurred over one week, using an active knee extension test. The intervention group received a single Bowen treatment. A repeated measures univariate analysis of variance, across both groups for the three time periods, revealed significant within-subject and between-subject differences for the Bowen group. Continuing increases in flexibility levels were observed over one week. No significant change over time was noted for the control group.

So, whichever way we look at it, there is no evidence whatsoever that Bowen Technique is helpful for patients suffering from any condition. This clearly means that therapeutic claims made for it are bogus, and that the way the Royal College of Nursing advertised it is misleading to the point of being unethical. By definition, the promotion of bogus treatments is quackery. Ergo, the Royal College of Nursing is promoting quackery.

If that is so, there is of course another question that needs an answer: Why does the Royal College of Nursing promote quackery?

As I see it, there are several possibilities, for instance:

  • They see nothing wrong with the Bowen session.
  • They don’t know better.
  • They don’t adhere to EBM.
  • They don’t care.
  • They were asked to run the session by someone with influence.
  • They believe that nurses want this sort of thing.
  • They think it’s trendy.

I would be fascinated to hear from someone who knows the correct answer.

105 Responses to Is the Royal College of Nursing promoting quackery?

  • This therapy is one of many events listed under “Fringe” at the convention.

    E.g. Yoga, karate (yes KARATE!), bath-tub…
    https://www.rcn.org.uk/congress/agenda
    (Monday)

    I’ll cut them some slack if they are viewed simply as being stress-busters – and not magical cure-alls.

  • In case anyone isn’t sure what Bowen therapy/technique is and lest anyone should think it’s just a form of relaxing massage, there are many videos on youtube (an attractive model in a bikini seems to be an essential prop) demonstration it such as this one. Note the waiting time after a Bowen move: this is a requirement of Bowen therapy. The practitioner sometimes has to leave the room to let the brain re-learn from what the Bowen move has just taught it…

    • Meh, as massage goes Bowen is just pants…

    • Unbelievable!! The guy in this video claims that a single, gentle rub to the thigh or elsewhere causes muscles to ‘unwind, untwist and elongate’. Lots of the moves are made over major meridian points [qué?!] which release chemicals and electrical currents from the meridian points…also opens up channels so the meridians can flow more freely. Elongation of tissues allows water, blood and lymph to flow more freely…in addition it releases endorphins from meridian points…”it turns out that endorphins is [sic] one of the mechanisms by which the immune system, the central nervous system and the endocrine system internet [qué?!] with each other”. Last but not least the Bowen move balances the autonomic nervous system…

      I’m really not sure this is actually better than the guy who told us recently that all disease is caused by “blockages” (without giving any details). At least most people have probably heard of infectious agents, vitamin deficiencies, injuries, etc. and might be in a position to challenge the “blockage” theory of pathology. But the fellow in the video Alan links to knows a lot of medical terminology and mixes it all together freely in a word spaghetti that just might sound convincing to anyone who knows zilch about biology and medicine. The fact that it’s total, utter, unmitigated bollocks, guff and horse manure might well pass over many people’s heads.

      I dread being managed in any way by a nurse who believes this tripe makes any contribution whatsoever to a patient’s health or well being.

      Though I guess it has to be better than the automatic death sentence people receive by visiting a doctor and coming away with a prescription for a synthetic drug. 🙂

      • The effect of a mere mention of ‘meridian points’ or mysterioys ‘energies’ is enough to send my blood pressure up, so the only effect of yet another nutty quack therapy is a negative one!

        • Don’t worry Joanna if your blood pressure goes up because there’s a pill your doctor can give you that will lower it. Then when low blood pressure becomes an issue, don’t worry there’s a pill you can take that will raise it.

          Unfortunately there are negative side effects but who cares. Um and the catch is you’ll have to take these magic pills for the rest of your life.

      • “Though I guess it has to be better than the automatic death sentence people receive by visiting a doctor and coming away with a prescription for a synthetic drug.” ?

        Oh finally someone’s actually getting it. Hip, hip, hooray.

      • You really don’t have a scoobie do you?

  • I know someone who is studying this “therapy”. There’s booklets with funny manipulations, whose effects are measured by trying the same stretch before and after poking or prodding the hapless patient’s body and saying out loud “ah! much more flexible now”. I saw a “patient” feeling much better as if by magic after a gentle poke in the shoulder. Not clear to me that her range of motion changed between the before and after, but I didn’t spoil it for her.

    As far as I could see, nobody is taking photos or measurements of said flexibility or range of motion. If we keep things low on details and slightly ambiguous, it’s easier to carry on.

    Sadly, this looks like a pyramid scheme where trainers and “schools” find more and more levels of accreditation for customers to pay for additional chapters of the little booklets of techniques. It is attractive for massage practitioners who realise that their normal job is hard on their own joints. If poking the patient with a finger does a convincing job, why bother with tiresome manipulations and the endless laundry that goes with massage?

  • From ‘Real Secrets of Alternative Medicine’:

    “Bowen Technique.
    Thomas Bowen (1916-1982) was born in Victoria, Australia, to parents having emigrated from Wolverhampton. He went on to be actively involved in the Salvation Army. For many years, he was a general hand in a cement works, but over time developed a technique for dealing with the musculoskeletal problems of his colleagues.

    Being profoundly deaf, Bowen did not talk much with patients and often saw up to fifteen patients an hour. They were told ‘If I don’t get you right in two sessions, go away and save your money’. His technique involved massage to tendons, ligaments and fascia by ‘rolling moves’. This may only take a short while and the therapist then leaves the patient to have a break and rest, before another ‘move’. Bowen held that the breaks allowed time for the body to heal itself, particularly by re-balancing muscle length. Although he appears to have used some osteopathic thrust methods, he strongly opposed other ‘body work’ techniques being used in conjunction with his own.

    Bowen’s work was reviewed by the Victorian Government Inquiry into Chiropractic, Osteopathy and Naturopathy in 1975. He told the Commission he was seeing 13,000 patients a year with an 80% success rate. This was due to having studied books on osteopathy and having ‘a knack’. He applied to be a registered osteopath in 1982 but was unsuccessful.

    As practised by Bowen, his technique involved ‘seeing’ what was wrong with the patient by using his fingers to ‘sense the vibrations in musculo-skeletal tissue’ and so determining what imbalance needed to be corrected in order that the body would heal itself. Bowen’s method also applies finger touch analysis of a patient’s entire skeleton in order to detect misalignments. These are then corrected by light, fast movements known as ‘toggle-torque-recoil’, which induce minute vibrations and allow the body to readjust itself. Patients hardly feel the force of the ‘toggle’.

    Many of Bowen’s students were osteopaths and chiropractors who wanted to diversify their techniques. Bowen’s ‘knack’ comprised 90% of his own method, based on A. T. Still’s concept that ‘structure governs function’ and that disease requires structure to be corrected. Osteopath Oswald (Ossie) Rentsch controversially claimed that he had been commissioned by Bowen to document his technique. Certainly it has been Rentsch who has promoted the Bowen Technique worldwide. Together with his wife, Elaine, a Bach Flower Therapist, they introduced Bowen Technique to the US in 1990.

    The Bowen Therapy Academy of Australia has trademarked the name ‘Bowenwork’ as a ‘manipulative/body-based practice in the same category as osteopathy and massage.’ It is postulated that gentle hand movements stimulate nerve pathways and cause a transitional state of realignment of microfibers within the nervous system to stimulate healing pathways. ‘Conditions that are seen to respond well include: Crohn’s disease, bed-wetting, scoliosis, haemorrhoids, infertility, uterine fibroids, asthma and anxiety.’ There is no plausible scientific evidence offered in support of these prepostulations, and no indication of any better outcome than from regular physiotherapy. In the UK physiotherapists are regulated by the Health & Care Professions Council, Bowen practitioners are not.”

    Quite what Bowen’s methods of massage have to do with nursing I cannot see.
    Are nurses being encouraged to stray from the limits of their professional competence?
    Is such encouragement unethical?

  • and, of course, what’s sauce for the human is sauce for the horse: http://www.equinebowentherapy.com/…….they “set the standard” for Bowen therapy for horses. What could that possibly mean?

    • Thank you for this! I particularly enjoyed: “[Bowen Therapy] can be anything you need it to be; a sports therapy; a functional muscula-skeletal therapy; a hormone/blood pressure balancer; an aid to comfortable respiration; a stress reliever; and energy booster; the possibilities are infinite!” This can probably be applied to any branch of the Big Snakeoil industry. Of course, evidence to support these extravagant claims is non-existent.

  • I particularly liked the fact that the Bowen Technique is also a sheep shearing technique. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_shearing but not invented by the same Bown.

    It could be touchy though: Go for a gentle massage and get scalped

  • Participants were randomly allocated into a control group or Bowen group. Three flexibility measurements occurred over one week, using an active knee extension test. The intervention group received a single Bowen treatment.

    A repeated measures univariate analysis of variance, across both groups for the three time periods, revealed significant within-subject and between-subject differences for the Bowen group.

    Continuing increases in flexibility levels were observed over one week.

    No significant change over time was noted for the control group.

    That’s the study you quoted. Did I miss something?

  • My back regularly goes in spasm. Doctors offer pain killer and antiflamitory tablets and I am still struggling for a month. Since using Bowen treatments within a week I am back to yoga. Even if it only works 80% of the time the potential saving to the NHS is massive. Thank goodness we have some progressive thinking nurses and I for one am very sorry to see the way the under minded and attacked from reading previous posts.

    • Does anyone else get the impreßion that this strange comment- “under minded and attacked”…”offer..and I am still struggling”..has been generated by some sort of software?

    • Funny, in Chiropractic and most quack circles everything always “works” 80% of the time. That’s the universal figure for all scams.
      Backs don’t spasm, and even if they did how would you differentiate it from a deeper tissue manifesting as pain “in the muscle” (disc, facet, ligament). Spasm has no objective standard. Rubbing the body in “any” way activates receptors which deactivates nociceptors….rubbing with menthol does even better. Proposing there are “specific ways and specific points” is always on the buisness card of frauds.

  • Laura Burke said:

    Even if it only works 80% of the time

    There’s no good reason to believe it works even 0.00001% of the time.

  • Great to see we’re still in the Middle Ages where accepting Alternative medicine is concerned!! I suggest you speak to those who have had their lives changed by what you term as ‘quackery’. Allopathic medicine does not work for all and in the current trend of shoving pills on to a patient in the ten mins they get surely if an alternative works that can only be a good thing, Don’t be so closed minded!!

    • “if an alternative works that can only be a good thing…” Hear! Hear! We have a name for alternative medicine that works: “medicine”.

      But you have to define what you mean by “works”. For what diseases, under what circumstances, with what level of improvement or cure? “It worked for me!” may sound terrific as a testimonial, but real medicines need to provide cooler, objective proof of their efficacy.

  • Dear oh dear. Most people on here are writng The Bowen Technique off without any knowledege or experience of the technique. It seems to me that if it isn’t mainstream therapy then it can’t work. I have been to Physio’s in the past that did nothing for the problems I had. I have been to doctors who couldn’t make me feel better, in fact I think we have all had those experiences at some point. Some pain killers don’t work for me whereas others will. If you haven’t expereienced The Bowen Technique then you shouldn’t be dissmissing it out of hand. There have been favourable studies done on the Bowen technique. Research and studies into the Bowen Technique shows that it is not quackery and it does work. Bowen practitioners themselves stress that it doesn’t work for everybody. They never promise that it will work. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12184347

    • I don’t think this is about dismissing anything out of hand; it’s about pointing out that, in order to make therapeutic claims, one needs evidence which the Bowen technique lacks.

    • Even as a ‘pilot study’ this is an abysmally designed ‘trial’ which is about as far removed from providing evidence as one can get. It’s equivalent to 20 anecdotes: “A quantitative case series approach supported by post therapy client interviews was adopted” may sound sciency, but it’s just another way of saying “we compiled anecdotes”. The graphic depiction of so many data that could have been simply tabulated reflects the lack of acumen of both the authors and the editor of the journal.

  • There is evidence. Look at the Study on Frozen shoulder and other studies are under way. I don’t think anyone has made therapeutic claims. I have never seen any Bowen practitioner claim that they will cure anyone.

    • please provide links to studies cited

      • There is a link in my first post. Now show me where a Bowen practitioner claims to cure.

        • The efficacy of the work of Thomas Bowen was first assessed in 1975 in the Report of the
          Committee of Inquiry into Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Homeopathy, and Naturopathy by the
          Victorian Government, which found that Thomas Bowen saw more than 13,000 clients a year
          with an 80% success rate in alleviating symptoms for both acute injuries and chronic conditions
          (Hansen and Taylor-Piliae, 2011).
          Although this study was conducted in 1975, these findings are supported today by anecdotal
          evidence provided by BAA members in the Bowen Workforce Survey 2012 (Bowen Association of
          Australia, 2012), conducted by the BAA (n=359) in December 2012, which found that 93.8%
          (n=337) of the respondents reported greater than 71% symptomatic success rate with 69.6%
          (n=250) reporting greater than 80%.
          Even more significant are the findings of a range of clinical trials, outlined below, which clearly
          demonstrate the resultant benefits of Bowen Therapy in assisting patients in a range of clinical
          situations including: the speed of recovery from injury or surgery; regaining muscular flexibility;
          pain management; returning to work following injury; improvements in neuromuscular function
          in people with chronic stroke; and, improvements to the general wellbeing in patients. While
          limited in number, these clinical trials clearly demonstrate the clinical efficacy of Bowen
          treatments.
          Also significant is the standing given to Bowen Therapy by governments worldwide, in particular
          the British Government, which in 2000 assessed available clinical evidence and classified Bowen
          Therapy as a complementary therapy (House of Lords, 2000) rather than a ‘alternative therapy’,
          which were regarded in the report as lacking an evidence base.

          • 3.4 Bowen Therapy as a preventative health strategy in the community and
            workplace
            Bowen Therapy in an established modality being used by patients and workplaces throughout Australia
            as a preventative health measure.
            Evidence of the positive benefits of Bowen Therapy treatments in the occupational setting can be found
            in the Winter and MacAllister (2011) report, mentioned earlier, which showed significant clinical
            improvement in the client’s occupational abilities after Bowen treatment.
            Winter and MacAllister (2011) also showed a significant improvement in general health and wellbeing,
            and high client satisfaction with the treatment. The clients assessed as part of this research report were
            assessed using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) at both entry and discharge.
            In addition, a study by Dicker (2005, Bowen Technique – its use in work related injuries) examined the
            effectiveness of Bowen Therapy on work related injuries (n=49) with treatments performed in the
            employment realm on workers in the health sector who had injuries they considered were a result of
            their employment. The study found that, as a result of the treatments and the discussion about work
            habits and conditions that resulted from their treatment, staff: altered their work habits; sought early
            intervention; received regular treatment; and, experienced a greater positive morale and ongoing
            maintenance of their health.
            Another study by Dicker (2005, Using Bowen Technique in a health service workplace to improve the
            physical and mental wellbeing of staff) assessed the effect of up to six Bowen Therapy treatments on 31
            staff over a six week period. The study (Dicker,2005) found that that the 28 participants who remained
            for the duration of the study reported a 90% positive response rate with quantitative and qualitative
            data indicating that Bowen Therapy was successful in reducing pain, improving mobility, reducing stress
            and improving energy, well being and sleep. The average number of treatments study recipients
            received was 2.7 (Dicker 2005).
            Importantly, the BAA can also offer many examples of Bowen Therapy practitioners working
            cooperatively with employers throughout Australia to provide treatments to workers with a
            14
            preventative health goal – including Bowen therapists currently working with multinational companies
            with an Australian presence. Unfortunately the effectiveness of these programs has not been assessed
            via clinical trials, but survey and anecdotal evidence demonstrating the positive contributions made via
            these programs on the health of workers is available (subject to compliance with the BAA Privacy Policy)
            and can be provided, as part of this submission, if required.
            Outside of the workplace, Bowen Therapy is also commonly used as a health maintenance tool by
            individuals, who have previously sought treatment for an acute injury with more than 46% of Bowen
            therapists who responded to the Bowen Workplace Survey 2012 (N=360) reporting that 50% or more of
            the patients sought maintenance treatments.

          • @Barry Trestain

            Thanks for providing some detail on what you regard as supporting evidence for the Bowen technique. But, I’m sorry to have to say, merely citing ‘Smith and Bloggs (date) doesn’t cut it: we need to see the papers you’re referring to! Please provide either hyperlinks to the articles concerned or cite the full reference (including the name of the journal, volume and page number) or the doi or the PubMed ref.

            You’re not doing the Bowen (non-)therapy much good by citing publications in a way that means we’re expected to take time finding the darn things”!!

        • no need, others have been quick to do this already

    • I don’t think anyone has made therapeutic claims.

      If that is so, why are many Bowen practitioners calling their practice a ‘therapy’?
      Just one example, plucked from the Internet: http://www.bowen-healthcare.ca/
      Google finds 658thousand mentions of “Bowen therapy”, by the way. “Bowen therapy”, a therapy not claimed to be therapeutic? Interesting.

    • Look at the Study on Frozen shoulder

      I did. The only thing you could possibly – and then only tentatively – conclude from this article is that Bowen Technique did not make the situation any worse, in the opinion of the participants.

  • @BT: IF they make NO “claims” and cure no one….then who the hell “goes” to them for their so-called “therapeutic-intervention”?? Why would you?
    They must be attracting clients based on something THEY have claimed to be their forte.

    • LOL gotta laugh. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Anyway, I am old enough to remember when Ostepaths were labeled as quacks and that wasn’t that long ago. Some still think they are. Anyway had my say. I have been to a Bowen practitioner for back problems 3 times and each time it worked. If it is Placebo does it matter if it works? I don’t believe it is placebo there are too many people saying they found it helpful. There are still some peple saying Accupuncture is Quackery lol. A therapy that has been giving relief for pain for thousands of years. That is my last say on this subject. Mind your bubble doesn’t burst. Otherwise you’ll have nowhere to live.

      • I have been to a Bowen practitioner for back problems 3 times and each time it worked.

        Of dear, Barry, your credibility drops another peg with your every new post. FWIW I’m perfectly open to the idea that the Bowen technique might have something going for it (its prior probability is less immediately hilariously low than, say, homeopathy or reiki). But from the quote above you clearly have zero notion of what constitutes supporting evidence for a claim. You don’t even bother with essential details like what back problems or definition of worked.

      • I am old enough to remember when Ostepaths were labeled as quacks and that wasn’t that long ago.

        They still are, even more so. Nothing has changed in that respect other than medical science has moved even further along.

        If it is Placebo does it matter if it works?

        The definition of ‘Placebo’ is that it is inert, i.e. that it does not work. If it did it would not be placebo.

        I don’t believe it is placebo there are too many people saying they found it helpful.

        What you personally decide to think will not change facts.
        That many people think something works is not evidence. There are several simple and plausible reasons why people are led to think inert treatments work.
        You still have to find the true ratio by dividing the number of subjects who think the treatment worked for them by the number of people who do not think it worked. To eliminate bias and error you have to perform such an analysis on a population large enough to detect the expected difference and allocated to the study groups in a blinded and random fashion.

        There are still some peple saying Accupuncture is Quackery.

        Science says they are right.

        [Acupuncture] has been giving relief for pain for thousands of years.

        You are wrong. Acupuncture as we know it today is about 80-90 years old and has never been shown to bring better relief for pain than sham (placebo) acupuncture – nor any other ailment.
        What was called ‘acupuncture’ over a century ago was philosophy based ritualistic blood-letting and lancing for imaginary imbalances of imaginary humours and energies. These are documented facts.

        That is my last say on this subject.

        That is your privilege. If you decide to return, it would help if you read something recent and rational on the subjects you intend to weather your opinions about.

        • Hi all, lol. So, let me pose a question. Have any of you had The Bowen Technique?

        • Accupuncture has been used for thousands of years. What are you talking about you silly man?

          • Acupuncture has been used for thousands of years.

            Depends on what you mean by “acupuncture”.

            What is known as acupuncture today was invented, not discovered, during the twentieth century.
            Using coarse, unsterile lances and knives to punch holes in the body to release imaginary excess of imaginary elements or blood was the basis of rituals known as “acupuncture” before the invention of thin needles. Even if this “medical” torture was known for thousands of years it did no one any good and was actually banned by the emperor in 1822.
            Just as the case was with “western” blood letting rituals, it was superseded by scientific sensibility.

            The thin needle theatricals of today called “acupuncture” are not substantiated by a rather remote resemblance to the ancient ritualistic torture called “medicine” in ancient times.

          • Accupuncture has been used for thousands of years.

            That’s an oft-made claim. Do you have any evidence for it?

          • Bjorn, kudos for changing your normal bloodletting story to now include “to release imaginary excess of imaginary elements”.

            But really, you should read Unschuld’s latest translation of “Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen”. And, do some research on historical acupuncture needles. You’ll be surprised.

          • Don’t worry “jm”, history doesn’t change, we only find out more of the facts as research progresses. Why don’t you tell us which of the fantasies recorded by your idol, the yellow emperor we are missing, that Mr. Unschuld has revealed in his translation?
            Your being all secretive and smug about something I am supposed not to know, only makes you look silly, not smart.

            And why don’t you tell us what you think is with the classical instruments that we do not know about.
            As you have been repeatedly taught, the thin needles that the modern invention called acupuncture nowadays were not even possible 2500 years before Christ. The technique of making sitff, thin steel needles was discovered only a few hundred years ago, not 4000 years ago.
            Whatever old Huang Di supposedly jotted down about the ancient magic rituals involving sticking the poor patients with crude needles is not and never was any good for much more than lancing boils. The “Acupuncture” of our times is an even more useless theatrical act without any benefit other than money in the bank for the perpetrators.
            So what’s new “jm”?

          • It’s not me that’s being secretive, Bjorn. You’re keeping yourself in the dark. I only mentioned Unschuld because you seemed to find it hard to get through more than a line or two of the other English versions. And (from some of your previous posts) you seem to have a liking for Unschuld.

            Fair warning though – Unschuld’s translation doesn’t make the material any easier to get through. You’re still going to have to do a lot of work. Lots of strange terms, different meaning for ‘blood’ and ‘liver’. References from a different culture, and a different time. Things like that you have to sort and navigate through.

            Until then…you might want to just avoid talking about ritual bloodletting, “medical torture”, and your weird obsession with the really thin needles that have become quite popular in the west. You end up sounding like a flat earther, or a religious fanatic that thinks carbon dating is a hoax and dinosaurs roamed the earth with Adam and Eve.

            Although, it is fun to trace back where you got your ideas from. One dog barks a lie and 100 more repeat it as the truth, so to speak. A couple of your “source dogs” – it’s hard to tell if they’re being satirical, or if they actually believe what they’re writing :).

            Oh, and I’ve meant to ask for a while now – what’s your “What is known as acupuncture today was invented, not discovered” all about? It’s common knowledge that Mao pretty much took a bunch of different systems, did extensive editing, put them in a blender, and called the resulting mess “TCM”. But…discovered? What’s up with that?

          • A lot of words, the old charred straw men are still there. but no information, no coherent argument.

            Why don’t YOU tell us what we should know about ancient wisdom that emperor Huang Di so cleverly documented more than 4500 years ago (if I am not mistaken about this mythical emperors position in time, I seem to recall reading somewhere he died in 2598 BC?).
            You keep telling us that we do not know some big secret and allude to inner organs and mystical culture as if you are privvy to a wonderful truth. Tell us dear “jm”. Enlighten the world around you. Otherwise we will have to continue dismissing your yawn inducing gish gallop as just as full of gas as when you first appeared on this blog… or should I say full of Qi?

          • Bjorn, I’ve never told you there’s some big secret. I’ve told you quite the opposite. Anyone that wants to can read up.

            The only secrets seem to be your thin needle obsession, and whatever you mean by “discovered”. Oh, and why you insist on making things up that are easy enough to disprove simply by reading a text or two.

          • by reading a text or two

            What about providing links to those ‘text or two’? Björn is making things as easy for you as he possibly can: he is giving you the opportunity of providing the very best and most solid evidence you have, and he is most definitely not the only one who is intensely curious to see what you consider the best of the best.

          • Not a clue what you are talking about fella. There was no positive response to my question as you well know. I am beginning to think you are just on a wind up. Still no answer to my question though. So, once more and do try to answer please. HAVE YOU EVER HAD THE BOWEN TREATMENT?. It’s in capitals so you can see it properly.

          • Then please tell us “jm”, what evidence are we missing? Give us some examples, some quotes from the original source, to guide our obsessed and ignorant minds… enlighten our poor ignorant souls. You have the books and you have the understanding. Show us your profound wisdom. Don’ just tell us you have it.
            The audience is waiting, you know. Soon the hecklers in the back will be reaching for the rotten tomatoes, again, if you don’t start acting dear “jm”, we might think you have no act.

            Or perhaps there is nothing? Perhaps deep in your muddled mind, you know that qi is an empty fantasy. That Yin is a silly old idea and Yang too? That the yellow emperor couldn’t even treat an ingrown toenail and the chinese medicine-men did more harm than good with their crude bronze needles, cups and scrapes and poisonous potions. There must be some reason the emperor banned the traditional medicine in 1822?
            No, I think you are just making up your wisdom. You don’t know anything for real about oriental medicine. You just read something in Harper’s Bazar and Readers digest and pretend you have read Paul Unschuld’s new translation of the yellow emperors notes on ancient magic.

            Like the bloke claiming to have a fire breathing dragon in his garage, in Carl Sagan’s famous parable, you keep finding excuses to hold your feeble fantasies alive. Let’s see some real signs of your (chinese) dragon – or the tomatoes will start flying, and some rotten eggs too, I fear 😀

          • HAVE YOU EVER HAD THE BOWEN TREATMENT?

            As I said in a comment above, in reply to:

            Have any of you had The Bowen Technique?

            I have not. How does that change anything?

          • Not seen that before but anyway. If you haven’t had the Bowen tecnique then how can you comment on it’s efficacy? You have no experience of it. I would never comment on anything that I hadn’t experienced. By the way my Straw men don’t burn. It’s just a fallacy that they do lol.

          • ” If you haven’t had the Bowen tecnique then how can you comment on it’s efficacy?”
            YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!!
            do you think that oncologists need to have chemo to find out whether it works?
            do surgeons need to be operated upon, to know the evidence?
            WHAT A HOOT!

          • ” If you haven’t had the Bowen tecnique then how can you comment on it’s efficacy?”
            YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!!
            do you think that oncologists need to have chemo to find out whether it works?
            do surgeons need to be operated upon, to know the evidence?
            WHAT A HOOT!

            Well, ditto. Do you think Bowen Therapists need to have it to know that it works? As you say WHAT A HOOT.

          • TRY TO MAKE SOME SENSE, PLEASE.

          • If you haven’t had the Bowen tecnique then how can you comment on it’s efficacy? You have no experience of it.

            Let me reply with a question: if you haven’t had an amputation, how can you comment on its efficacy?

            Please note (to avoid misunderstandings): this is a question, not a comment.

          • Bart,

            Here you go:
            https://www.amazon.com/Huang-Nei-Jing-Wen-Translation/dp/0520266986/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1528127387&sr=8-2&keywords=unschuld

            It’ll give you some insight into Bjorn’s weird claims of ritual bloodletting, medical torture, etc. He’s making it up.

            It won’t explain the weird modern needle obsession though. Intact needles from a couple thousand years ago match descriptions from the text. And if you’ve ever used a needle, you know that it’d be tricky to let blood with the ones that were designed to not let blood. (which is why I was happy to see Bjorn changed his normal story to “release imaginary excess of imaginary elements or blood”)

          • Hahahahahahahahahaha curiouser and curiouser said Alice.

          • “Don’ just tell us you have it.”

            I din’. I’ve told you the opposite…you’ve just constructed another fantasy in your mind – and now believe it to be true :).

            Speaking of constructed fantasies, what’s up with the “discovered”?

          • Still obfuscating old “jm”. The rotten eggs will soon start flying.
            It is your job “jm” to tell us. You are the ine making fantastic claims so it is you who have to cough up some evidence. We are not buying a $200 old chinese scripture when you can explain for free what you consider evidence. Don’t you have the book yourself? Or the dragon in your garage doesn’t exist, perhaps 😉

          • Here you go:

            I appreciate that you try, but I’m rather disappointed. As far as I know, the supposed author of this text is now generally thought not to have existed and the text cannot be dated with accuracy. That does not do much to increase its credibility. Surely, this cannot be the best and most solid evidence?

            As an example, very few people are using the story that Jesus cured blindness by spitting in people’s eyes as evidence that he actually did that. After all, the Bible is about someone who is mythical, the book is written at an unknown time by unknown authors and is rife with errors, i.e. it is not a credible source.

            Why would the information provided by the Huangdi Neijing be any more trustworthy? I don’t think many people would doubt the presence of the acupuncture stories in the book, but how do we even dare to think these stories are actually credible, let alone accurate and thus provide genuine evidence?

            On top of that, Björn has a point: stabbing people with the crude needles that were possible at the time, does not seem too encouraging. Could it be that the blind fear caused by even looking at those needles, made the patients run away, and encouraged the practitioners to declare them ‘cured’? That would be a phenomenon that is not unheard of even today, many people have their toothache disappear in the dentist’s waiting room and they leave, only to have the pain return shortly afterwards.

          • I’m hoping you’re joking, Bart.

            If you’re not, you’d be the first person I’ve run into (that I know of, anyway) that thought it was an actual text by or about the Yellow Emperor…

          • Actually Bjorn, it’d be your job to cough it up…since you’re the one making the fantastic claims (ritual bloodletting, medical torture, etc). And, no one has to buy the book to figure out that you’re making things up. Just hit the little “look inside” link, and read Unschuld’s intro.

            What’s up with the “discovered”? (3)

          • I’m hoping you’re joking, Bart.

            I’m dead serious. We asked for your best evidence. You came up with a book by a mythical author, of suspicious provenance, and containing questionable information.
            Please provide *evidence*, not foggy poetry.
            If you can’t do that – for example, because the claimed evidence does not exist – it is OK to say so.
            As Carl Sagan said: it is OK not to know something.

          • yes, but it’s not ok not to know something and nevertheless claim something!

          • … and round it goes 😛

            The votes have been tallied!
            “jm”‘s proverbial “dragon in her garage” doesn’t exist. She is full of gas (Qi?) – has her wisdom about ancient Chinese medicine from what she read in cheap romantic novels from the fifties.
            Keeps parroting commonly known tropes and vaguely referring to the same ancient scripture but never quoting a sentence or discussing details.
            Never once in all these years has she answered a question or countered an argument with anything more than obfuscation and strawmen.

            Verdict: A fake scholar of “TCM”.

            The audience is already throwing the eggs and standing up to leave the show. 😀

          • yes, but it’s not ok not to know something and nevertheless claim something!

            Indeed, and it is even worse to know something isn’t quite right, and claim it is anyway. I find the use of the Huangdi Neijing as ‘evidence’ rather peculiar. While the claimant may indeed simply be unknowingly ignorant, it certainly raises suspicions about her/his sincerity.

          • Bart,

            “I’m dead serious.”
            I hope not. The text (that had several contributors, over many years) is structured as a conversation (question and answer) between the mythical Yellow Emperor and his physician (also mythical). The mythical characters were said to exist a couple thousand years before the text was written. Attributing texts to mythological figures was standard practice.

            “I find the use of the Huangdi Neijing as ‘evidence’ rather peculiar.”
            Why is that? If you want to look at Chinese medicine, why would you avoid the foundational text? It’s generally considered that that particular text marks the move from shamanistic/animistic medicine (Bjorn’s magical ritual idea) to medicine based on natural laws/sciences. The text also documents the steps Chinese medicine took moving away from letting blood to manipulating qi.

            Here are a couple of Unschuld snippets that didn’t make it into the “look inside” preview:

            “…at some time during the early Han dynasty the diagnosis of disease through an assessment of the status of blood gave way to diagnosis by means of an interpretation of the qi movement in the vessels, and a treatment designed to let blood was replaced by an application of needles to influence the flow of qi. The Su Wen documents all stages of these developments. It is obvious, however, that by the time most of the Su Wen treatises were written, physiology and pathology and diagnosis and treatment were largely directed at manipulating the organism’s qi.”

            “…qi conceptualization may have started from what was known about blood (albeit such knowledge is not attested in pre–Su wen texts). Subsequently, the concept of qi departed to ever more complex associations, leaving the concept of blood far behind. The stage of development encountered in the Su Wen offers evidence of an increasingly widening gap between the levels of conceptualization achieved regarding qi and blood.”

            If you disagree with Unschuld’s assessment…please elaborate. If you want to know how he came to those conclusions, you’ll have to read the book(s). He’s not shy about referencing sources or the methodology used in translation. You can easily look up Unschuld’s credentials.

            On the other hand, Bjorn is basing his fantasies on YouTube videos, and some blog posts whose authors are a bit confused regarding some basic Chinese medicine theory. Oh, and a book (that the author says is anectdotal and not inclusive of Chinese medicine) written by a doctor whose day job is converting people to magica thinking.

            Bjorn’s “discovered” idea reamains a mystery…

          • “yes, but it’s not ok not to know something and nevertheless claim something!”

            If Bjorn took that advice…this blog would not be nearly as amusing.

          • Attributing texts to mythological figures was standard practice.

            [question]
            And why would myths be ‘evidence’ rather than phigments of the imagination?
            [/question]

            Why is that? If you want to look at Chinese medicine, why would you avoid the foundational text?

            I already explained why.

            You can easily look up Unschuld’s credentials.

            Yes, one can.
            [question]
            How does that turn a book of mythology into evidence?
            [/question]

            Bjorn’s “discovered” idea reamains a mystery…

            Björn wrote:

            What is known as acupuncture today was invented, not discovered, during the twentieth century.

            [question]
            What is so mysterious about that?
            [/question]

          • @”jm”
            The name is Björn with an o-umlaut. To type this character on your PC or Mac hold down the option key while punching a “u”. Then immediately afterwards punch an “o” and the “ö” will appear as if by magic.
            If you can’t figure this out, maybe the village librarian is able to assist you?

          • Oh, and by the way.
            Did you intend the quoted texts above as substantiation of your claims?
            Not making much sense. They rather substantiate my point if you ask me. It is evident that the bloke(s) who wrote these fables and whether they are 1500 or 4000 years old, knew nothing about how our bodies work.
            And where does it say the needles were the same as those used today? The ones found in museums are rather ominous if you ask me.
            And as to Mr. Christies stories, of course they are anecdotes. I have never claimed otherwise and you have never provided any evidence that he was making them up. 🙂

          • May I concede to Dr. jm that this discussion has successfully been almost utterly and completely shifted from what TCM/Acupuncture/name-of-fake-therapy-aggregate is effective for (cf. almost nothing) to what TCM/Acupuncture/… is.

            What these methodologies are, in terms of textual definition, of course, is largely irrelevant, as they have been proven to lack efficacy in real life. Descriptions and outdated definitions are of historical significance only.

            […] an application of needles to influence the flow of qi […]

            Thank you Dr. Dumbledore!

          • Bart,

            I asked Bjorn why he insisted on making things up (ritual blootletting, medical torture, “rituals known as “acupuncture” before the invention of thin needles”) that were easily disproven by reading a text or two. You asked for “evidence”. So I gave you a link to Unschuld’s translation, with his expert commentary, of the text that has been the basis for Chinese medicine (including acupunture) for the last couple thousand years. This text and all of the texts it spawned.

            If you take the time to read (even what is freely available from the ‘look inside’ feature on Amazon) you’ll find that for the last couple thousand years, acupuncture was not in fact centered on bloodletting, or rituals of any sort. Quite the opposite, if you believe Unschuld (and everyone else with his level of credentials).

            I’m particularly biased toward Unschuld’s translation. Partly because he’s not shy about slamming TCM. But mainly for the included commentary. He’s considered “one of the leading sinologist worldwide and an expert who has written many books and journal articles on the subject”. According to the Amazon bio, he is a Professor and Director of the Horst-Goertz Institute for the Theory, History, and Ethics of Chinese Life Sciences, Charité Medical University-Berlin, and the author of numerous works on European medical history and Chinese medical history.

            On the other hand, Bjorn thought “Yellow Emperor” might mean he was jaundiced.

          • Bjorn,

            “It is evident that the bloke(s) who wrote these fables and whether they are 1500 or 4000 years old, knew nothing about how our bodies work.”
            Interesting topic, but not what we’re talking about. You say acupuncture for the last two thousand years has been based on ritual bloodletting. Unschuld says more than two thousand years ago treatment designed to let blood was replaced by an application of needles to influence the flow of qi, and the Su Wen documents all stages of these developments.

            “They rather substantiate my point if you ask me.”
            Oddly, just the opposite. Unless you’re using “ritual bloodletting” as secret code for “not ritual bloodletting”. In which case…you should choose different code words.

            “And where does it say the needles were the same as those used today?”
            It doesn’t. Nobody said they were the same. What’s your weird needle obsession? And, what’s up with “invented, not discovered”? (4)

            “And as to Mr. Christies stories, of course they are anecdotes. I have never claimed otherwise and you have never provided any evidence that he was making them up.”
            And I’ve never said they were made up. I hear anecdotes from massage therapists almost every day about patients mangled from surgeries. Only an idiot would think that was standard practice, or that mangling was the intent. Only the mangled end up at the therapist’s office. The ones that went well, they don’t make appointments. Despite being a magical thinking salesman, I don’t think Christie was an idiot – I’m sure he was well aware that people receiving successful treatments didn’t end up at his practice.

            Oh, sorry. Here’s your o-umlaut ¨. You seem to go out of your way to use clever terms for chiropractic, cupping, acupuncture, etc. (my favorite was “belly fondlers”, but I forget which profession you were referring to). So I got the impression that you weren’t really hung up on formalities. 🙂

  • So, let me pose a question. Have any of you had a Bowen treatment?

  • How many of you on here have had a Bowen treatment?

    • Yes. Fondling of any kind is of course nice, but it does nothing more than fulfill a need for touch. Real massage is better.

      • Fondling? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. You haven’t answered the question.

        • You have repeated the same question at least thrice. Am I supposed to answer every instance?

          Did you know you can look up the meaning of words on the internet quite easily. Let me help you:

          fondle
          ˈfɒnd(ə)l
          verb
          gerund or present participle: fondling
          stroke or caress lovingly or erotically.
          “he kissed and fondled her”
          synonyms: caress, stroke, pat, pet, pull, finger, touch, tickle, twiddle, play with, massage, knead; maul, molest; informalpaw, grope, feel up, touch up, cop a feel of
          “he fondled the Labrador’s ears”

          Bowen “treatment” is timid massage at best. When marketed and sold with false promises of therapeutic value/efficacy, it constitutes fraud.

          • Yes, as it happens I know what fondle means and I don’t need a dictionary lesson from you. For someone who has never experienced a Bowen treatment you have a lot to say about it but hey, we’re all different aren’t we? As I said above I have had Bowen 3 times and each time I had great results. So, who has the most experience in the efficacy of Bowen? I’ll leave you to think about an answer LOL.

            “You have repeated the same question at least thrice.”

            Yes and it seems you have no answer, either, that or you are ignoring the question. Once again. Have you ever had a Bowen treatment? Because to be honest fella if you haven’t you have nothing to say about whether it works or not. All you are doing is quoting things you have read.

            Oh, and have a look at this.

            Discrepancies in clinical trial reporting raise questions of accuracy
            Date:
            March 12, 2014
            Source:
            Yale University
            Summary:
            In an analysis of 96 research trial results published in top journals, almost all had at least one discrepancy between what was reported on the public clinical trial registry clinicaltrials.gov and what was posted in the journal article. A new research letter raises serious questions about the accuracy of results reporting in both clinical trial registries and publications, and the importance of consistent presentation of accurate results.

          • As for the question No answering it just once would have sufficed but you can’t even do that.

          • @Barry
            Tut-tut… You must have been in such a hurry to set light to your straw-men that you failed to notice my positive reply to the question. Selective cognitive defect at play.

  • You might want to have a look at this discussion of Bowen therapy: https://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/bowen-therapy-and-the-asa/

  • LOL.

  • War against natural medicine
    The Drum By Sarah Schwager
    Posted 20 Feb 2012, 9:10pm

    Hands holding pills and herbs separately (Thinkstock: Comstock)
    PHOTO: Hands holding pills and herbs separately (Thinkstock: Comstock)
    Around 400 high profile doctors, medical researchers and scientists recently joined forces to form lobby group Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) in order to have “alternative medicine” degrees removed from Australian universities.

    Chiropractic, osteopathy, Chinese medicine, naturopathy, iridology, kinesiology, reflexology, homeopathy and aromatherapy are some of the courses on their blacklist.

    The issue has had significant media coverage, but one question has failed to be properly answered.

    Why is a group of prestigious doctors and scientists who have the backing of the most profitable industry in the world according to Fortune 500 – the pharmaceutical industry – targeting a few poorly-funded natural medicine courses?

    The official line of the group is that these “alternative medicines” are making Australia look bad and “trashing” the universities’ reputation. But is that really the reason? With all the countries and all the universities in the world that provide alternative medicines?

    A similar move was made in the UK recently – the British will no longer be able to study certain natural medicine degrees – this does not include chiropractic or osteopathy – at publicly-funded universities from this year. Yet natural medicine has been utilised across Asia and Europe for thousands of years.

    The United States and Canada are pioneers of chiropractic as we see it today, providing university courses long before they were ever offered in Australia. Also, nearly 85 per cent of US medical schools offer elective courses in alternative medicines.

    According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 80 per cent of the world’s population relies on natural therapies. The figures in Australia are much the same.

    So why Australia? What is FSM so worried about?

    The group seems to be particularly concerned about an increase in chiropractic courses after it was announced recently that Central Queensland University would be offering a new chiropractic science degree. The move could also be partly to do with the ruling in 2010 that all chiropractors in Australia may use the title ‘Doctor’.

    FSM has accused what it labels as Australia’s “lesser” universities that offer alternative medicine courses of “putting the public at risk”.

    However, this is a difficult notion to fathom when you compare the tiny number of injuries inflicted on natural medicine patients compared to the hundreds of thousands of deaths recorded each year due to medical errors.

    WHO estimates that one in 10 hospital admissions leads to an adverse event while one in 300 admissions leads to death. WHO puts medical errors as among the top 10 killers in the world. According to the US’s Institute of Medicine, preventable medical errors kill 98,000 people in the US alone each year and injure countless more.

    One of the group’s biggest complaints, according to FSM co-founder Emeritus Professor John Dwyer from the University of NSW, is that natural medicine “doesn’t strive to be tested”. He says that modern medicine is “totally devoted” to taking an “evidence-based approach” and “do good science and do good research into the things we do to people”.

    The argument that modern medicine is evidence-based as opposed to other types of medicine is an argument that is often used by medical lobbyists, and tends to be generally accepted by the public. However, according to a report by a panel of experts assembled by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, “well below half” of medical care in the US is based on or supported by adequate evidence.

    According to the report, between 1993 and 2004 there was a more than 80 per cent increase in the number of medications prescribed to Americans. The panel believes this boom in pharmaceuticals is outpacing the rate at which information on their effectiveness can be generated. “If trends continue, the ability to deliver appropriate care will be strained and may be overwhelmed,” the report concluded.

    What FSM fails to recognise is that natural medicine courses taught at universities incorporate a much higher level of evidence-based studies, such as health science and human physiology, than if they were to be taught outside of a university.

    The Australian universities that have been criticised have all defended their courses, saying they are very much evidence and science-based.

    In naturopathy, for example, on top of herbal medicine and nutrition, students also learn the same things that a physiotherapist, medical doctor or nurse learn. As well as chiropractic studies, chiropractors study biology, physiology, neuroscience, anatomy and pathology, for example. These are all scientific studies.

    Acting head of RMIT’s Health Sciences School Dr Ray Myers has defended its programs as “evidence-based education and practice”, saying clinical research of natural medicine treatments are funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

    If FSM really was so worried about public safety they would not be trying to exclude natural medicine from universities where they are taught with much more of a medical focus. Graduates of these courses are much more likely to refer patients to medical doctors when necessary.

    As Nick Klomp, dean of the science faculty at Charles Sturt University, points out, thousands of practitioners already provide alternative medicine and they are very much in demand. “I could ignore them or I could train them better,” he said. “We actually create graduates who are much better health care providers. It’s all about evidence based, science based.”

    The other question to ask is just how representative the group is of Australian doctors. Dr Wardle, a NHMRC Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s School of Population Health conducted a survey of every rural GP in NSW and found a third did not refer to alternative medicine providers, a third were incredibly open to it, and a third would refer patients to practitioners that they knew achieved results.

    The Australian Medical Association president has withdrawn his support from the lobby group. A number of researchers and doctors have also pulled out of FSM reportedly saying they were not aware of the full picture.

    Many Australian medical doctors recognise their limits and refer to natural providers when necessary. However, others continue to believe that modern medicine – which is only 100 years old – is the only way of curing pain.

    Natural therapies have been used for more than 10,000 years, and so they deserve a place in society, in Australian universities, and even in modern medicine. According to Australian trauma and general surgeon Dr Valerie Malka, former director of trauma services at Westmead Hospital, while modern medicine is revolutionary when it comes to surgery, particularly in emergencies, for pretty much everything else, traditional, natural or alternative medicine is much more effective.

    She says in particular, modern medicine is completely unable to treat or cure chronic illness. Rather than focusing on symptom control, natural medicines work on the body’s ability to heal the cause of the illness while modern medicine suppresses the body’s healing mechanism with drugs that attack the body’s natural defence mechanisms, throwing the immune system out of whack.

    Dr Malka believes the attack on natural medicine has more to do with the threat to modern medicine’s power base as well as its “unhealthy relationship” with the “trillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry”.

    This is not the first time natural medicines have been attacked by the medical industry.

    Alternative healthcare professionals such as chiropractors, naturopaths, and midwives have been targeted by the American Medical Association (AMA) for nearly a century, in spite of a federal court injunction against the AMA in 1987 for illegally trying to create a monopoly in the healthcare market.

    Up until 1983, the AMA had held that it was unethical for MDs to associate with “unscientific practitioners” and they labelled chiropractic “an unscientific cult”. They also had a committee on “quackery” which challenged what it considered to be unscientific forms of healing. Five chiropractors including Chester Wilk sued the AMA, claiming that the committee was established specifically to undermine chiropractic.

    Wilk won the case, with Judge Susan Getzendanner ruling that the AMA had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade “to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession,” also saying that the “AMA had entered into a long history of illegal behaviour”.

    If you look at the history of attacks on natural healthcare providers over the last 100 years, it is difficult not to associate this attack by FSM as the latest attempt to influence the public into believing that natural medicine is, as it says, “quackery” by spreading propaganda that most of the time is simply not true.

    “It’s just extraordinary that such undisciplined nonsense is being taught in universities around Australia,” Mr Dwyer has said.

    Why does this group feel that it has the right to talk this way about natural medicines that are ages old and used by 80 per cent of people across the world?

    If FSM really was concerned about patient care and safety in Australia, then perhaps it would investigate medical practices which, unfortunately, seriously injure and kill thousands of people every year, rather than target natural medicine.

    Sarah Schwager is an Australian journalist currently working in South America. View her full profile here.

    • Sarah Schwager does not deserve the title ‘journalist’ because she evidently cannot adequately research even the simplest of subjects.

    • However, according to a report by a panel of experts assembled by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, “well below half” of medical care in the US is based on or supported by adequate evidence.

      Even taking this claim at face value, don’t you think that “well-below half” is rather superior to “not at all”?

    • modern medicine – which is only 100 years old

      Natural therapies have been used for more than 10,000 years, and so they deserve a place in society

      Why does this group feel that it has the right to talk this way about natural medicines that are ages old and used by 80 per cent of people across the world?

      Wow! Three arguments to antiquity and one argumentum ad populum. Never mind the rest of the laughable nonsense contained in this piece. Would you drive a 10,000-years-old car? Fly a 10,000-years-old aeroplane? What’s that you say? These were only invented in the past couple of hundred years. Aha! They can’t be any good then.

      On the ‘reasoning’ included in this article the earth must be flat (people believed this for millennia), the stars and planets must determine everything we do (millions of people still believe in astrology), and the sun god must rule the daytime sky.

      Why on earth do people like you try to sell us obsolete beliefs as if they have anything at all to do with reality?

      Why on earth do people like you contort dubious statistics to create the impression that orthodox medicine (ever striving to improve its techniques, ever ready to learn from its mistakes) is the enemy of healthcare, even though over the past 100 years it has prolonged average lifespans enormously; while your ancient, entirely ineffective nostrums deserve reverence and worship even though they don’t really cure a darn thing?

      Please put your money where your mouth is. Refuse to cross bridges designed within the past 100-200 years (ancient wood and stone must be so much better). Don’t post stuff with computers: use ancient sticks and papyrus — so much more sensible. In fact, don’t use anything electrical at all: too recent so must be wrong. If you want fire, rub sticks together — that’s how it was done 10,000 years ago so it must be superior to anything that’s come since.

      Please do bask contentedly in the turbulent depths of your ancient knowledge and wisdom; just don’t count on any part of current medicine to help you if you’re injured or truly sick.

      • Fly a 10,000-years-old aeroplane?

        I am always wondering, and never have received an answer from the ‘experts’, why the gurus of the New Age are hopping around the globe in aeroplanes, and not by meditation. Surely, Raja Yoga being so old and therefore tried-and-true would guarantee safe travel far more than our modern airplanes, designed by an Evil Government led by reptilian aliens to reduce the population numbers?

      • LOL have a word with yourself. Your bias is shining through like a full moon. That article must have got to you. Job done then I’d say. Tooddle pip old bean lol.

    • Out of curiosity for the way you think… Can you define the term “Natural medicine” Barry, and tell us why it is named “natural”?

      And a small tip: When you refer to a shitload of text, just tell us why you refer to it, what you think is the point you wish to make and then give the reference, like this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-21/schwager-war-against-natural-medicine/3840682

  • Wow, Bjorn, you sound annoyed. Resorting to swear words now. That’s a new phenomonen lol. Well, personally I think all medicine is natural even mainstream. Anything found on the Earth is natural my old son. Simply because it’s on Earth in the first place. All the ingredients for everything are naturally found here on Earth. True you can mix them together and make a new substance but all the pre-requisites are right here on this planet and every single one of them were here naturally. Hope that helps.

    • @Barry
      You are not making sense.
      I would like to know what herbs you have been taking (smoking?) – need to warn others of not messing with such muck.

      • YAAAAAWN and now you are resorting to insults. That means you have nothing of any importance to say and you have run out of argument. May the force of Bowen be with you.

        • now you are resorting to insults.

          Truth may be unpleasant to read, but it is not an insult. Stop playing apologist and start being honest.

  • @Barry
    Why don’t you answer the question?
    How do you define the term “natural medicine”? The new-age nonsense you wrote raises medical concerns. If this was supposed to be a joke, then the insult is on your part.

    You posted a critical, albeit very poorly argumented and ignorant article that promotes natural medicine. Therefore I asked what your understanding is of that term.
    Instead you seem to choose to produce an inane diversion and try to avoid facing a serious discussion about your point in posting said shitload[sic] of text instead of a simple link.
    I showed you the respect to read the long-winded yarn and politely pointed out that you can and should avoid copy-pasting large texts. If you wish to write your own wordiness, then that may be better tolerated.

    If you are offended by the descriptive word I used, that is your problem but your naive diversionary blurbs are not working, it is up to you to produce evidence of the therapeutic value of Bowen manipulation and discuss critique of the matter.

  • It works

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories