Dear Henry
As has been stated many times on the list, science is born out of clinical
application/practice, rarely if ever, vice versa. Therefore as clinicians we
should not apologise for techniques which we 'know' work, we should simply
strive to understand how by the scientific process.
Although I believe Mulligan 'obtained' many of his creations via other
therapiests eg Kaltenborn, I at least admire his honesty with regard to the
rationale. He could do a McKenzie, ie produce an inadequate theory for the
success of a technique and then spend the rest of his life defending an
indefensible position.
Regards Kevin Reese PT UK
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Tsao <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: Validity of Therapies
> I have also found that when I attend courses and go to the clinic and use
> them, the results are always different. However, I don't think we should
> blame the technique. Whenever I use a particular technique and the result
is
> not what I expected, I always ask myself 2 questions:
>
> 1. Is it that the technique was not correct??
> 2. Is it that I performed the technique incorrectly??
>
> The problem I found with Mulligan's is that there is no assessment... it
is
> based on trial and error and experience. However, as Mulligan's puts it,
the
> evidence will come, he is just showing use his techniques from experience.
> To prove this, I know 2 friends who are currently doing PhD's on
Mulligan's
> techniques in Australia... there is more in Europe and the US (according
to
> them).
>
> I think Physiotherapy in the future will rest on good scientific research
to
> display to the rest of the medical field and the community.
>
> Henry***
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|