Birdbrained ideas

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 5:19 am

Ian

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

What if the subjects can unblind themselves by the feel of the first point?

Yea...so what? It happens in drug trials all the time. I have a rash. One creme helps the rash, the other is a placebo. I happen to be assigned to the side that is getting the good stuff. In addition to any placebo effect, the stuff actually has some efficacy. I get better. I think "Wow, I got the good stuff. Cool!! Thank god the rash is gone." No big deal.

My only concern is that the second person (the kyusho guy) doesn't hear the subject saying something like "Oowww!!" in the next room. Then he'd have an unfair advantage, particularly if he wanted to differentiate between the two groups.

Actually this kind of format has been used on research of acupuncture for various illnesses. In the placebo group, the folks get needled in an "uninteresting" point. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

What if the set-up effect is pain mediated?

I suspect it very well may be, or at least partially so. This would explain "nonresponders", and iron shirt training.

And that addresses your question, John. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

If the real and fake kyusho points are equally painful, then, there'd be no difference.

Certainly one would want to avoid hitting on any known kyusho point. Since they cover all the major exposed nerves, then a non-point area would likely not hurt so much.

Dr. MK

Thanks for the references. The JACC one in particular looks interesting.

Have you noticed how much of this stuff has been coming out just in the last decade? No wonder folks couldn't figure this stuff out so well at first (other than the obvious connection between getting hit and getting knocked silly).

Mike

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

My thought is that I wouldn't want to train a skill that I don't have complete faith in, and only by using the techniques could one confirm their efficacy.

Look at it this way, Mike.

* All martial arts pretty much are a game of putting a hurt on someone, or otherwise controlling the bad guy with as little effort as possible. We all are practicing kyusho to some extent or another. Some of us are a little more elegant about it than others.

* I don't have complete faith in anything I do in martial arts - period. I don't have complete faith that when I take my Glock 21 and aim it at a bad guy, that I'm going to hit him. Policemen get shot with their own weapons all the time. Imagine how difficult this all is without "the great equalizer" to do away with the bad guy. It's all a game of chance. Training merely improves our odds. Good training improves your odds better and faster than training that is a general waste of time. And the improvement of odds isn't necessarily a function of how much money you gave to whatever person with whatever famous name.

We are all struggling with the whole concept of good practice and good instruction. Those of us who understand more rigorous methods of assessment are trying to quantify the relative usefulness of various training methods. With any luck, we'll know more in the next generation than we did in the last.

But in the end it's you and the bad guy, with nobody else to help you - period.

Get used to it. Get over it.

- Bill

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:27 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

* I don't have complete faith in anything I do in martial arts - period. I don't have complete faith that when I take my Glock 21 and aim it at a bad guy, that I'm going to hit him. Policemen get shot with their own weapons all the time. Imagine how difficult this all is without "the great equalizer" to do away with the bad guy. It's all a game of chance. Training merely improves our odds. Good training improves your odds better and faster than training that is a general waste of time. And the improvement of odds isn't necessarily a function of how much money you gave to whatever person with whatever famous name.

Amen,Bill.

This is the most vexing aspect of martial arts teaching and practicing today.Some people will not believe what you wrote no matter what the evidence you present simply because they have a better lineage than yours and have been subjected to a more effective brainwashing.

It is pretty sad, and in a way I blame the O'senseis for their failure to get this point across.

Then look at the real good teachers, like Tomoyose sensei, among many stellar others:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

When will you be able to defend yourself with Uechi? Wait ten years, and then maybe, just maybe.

------------------
Van Canna

Ted Dinwiddie · Post by **Ted Dinwiddie** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 2:42 pm

Mike,

I lost your email address from our exchanges regarding the Raffi Derderian Seminar you hosted, so I am replying here.

This Wednesday, 10 July, 7PM to 9PM, is the monthly black belt meeting hosted by Joe Aldridge at his home dojo.

We practice kyusho and tuite and kata breakdowns at these sessions. Mr. Aldridge has a high level knowledge, skill, and, especially important, control. We are not at the level of scientific understanding that is displayed on this forum, but the TCM paradigm is well understood and followed. This a controlled and safe opportunity to learn and practice with other respectful and serious martial artists.

I invite you to come with me and check it out. I would be glad to meet you somewhere and give you a ride or let you follow me out. My email is available in my profile here on the forums.

------------------
ted

"I learn by going where I have to go." - Theodore Roethke

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 4:56 pm

Ted

Please e-mail me directions. If I can fit it in the schedule, I'll make the drive.

To all

Check this out.

Study: Antidepressant barely better than placebo

I dare say that some of our favorite kyusho techniques (or other martial strategies, for that matter) wouldn't fair much better. And here's a case were there WAS a statistically significant effect. I sure wish we could all be as rigorous in the assessment of what we do as the healthcare system is with the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries. A little bit of truth in advertising would be refreshing.

There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We all just need a little Van Canna cold water now and then whenever we think too highly of ourselves and what we do.

Understand though that I can live with this. I'd rather know the naked truth so I can make informed choices when the stakes are high. And any good investor knows that risk and reward sometimes go hand in hand.

- Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited July 08, 2002).]

LeeDarrow · Post by **LeeDarrow** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 8:42 pm

Pantazi-Shihan, and the rest of the contributors,

My comments are inserted in the text with a ** to denote whan I am writing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Evan Pantazi:
Glasheen Sensei,

The point was, is and will always be, if you have no experience and can't make it work, then how are you going to qualify any test.

**While this is fine, it simply means that a means of controlling unconscious communication to the subject of the strike needs to be developed to rule out the possibility of either conscious or unconscious cooperation, nothing more. Also, the volunteer should have little to no knowledge of kyusho so that expectation does not enter into the trials, that's all.

1. The information lacking is the practical experience of making a a Kyusho strike work.

**So, we use someone who IS trained in the application of kyusho and use a subject who is unfamiliar with kyusho and its effects. Perhaps the blindfolding of the subject would also lower the possibility of unconscious communication to them of what is expected in their response, which is all that needs be controlled in a pilot study such as this.

2. Who has it is the person that actually practiced it until success was achieved.

3. Qualifications would be both #1 & #2.

4. Letters don't count because they don't give you any skill unto themselves...practical hands on will, just theory till then. Belt Ranks won't count as well.

**So, please define who would qualify. I really think that this is all anyone is asking. The study is a pilot study, not a fully controlled experiment. Pilot studies are done all the time to "iron out the wrinkles" in the experimental design and have no weight, per se, other than to help design a better experiment. I honestly believe that this is all anyone is trying to do here.

5. You will recognize one when you see them actually be able to do it.

**However, scientific criteria are a bit more stringent than that. Knowing that something works is great (and I applaud you for being able to both do it and teach it), but knowing WHY something works makes both teaching it and learning it better and easier. IMHO all anyone here is looking to do is help improve and validate kyusho's techniques.

4. I suspect as has happened in the past a qualified individual will be willing to be tested under correct and qualified testing.

**I sincerely hope so. It's unfortunate that I have to be at the National Guild of Hypnotist's convention that weekend. I would volunteer as a striking dummy. I know very little about kyusho, per se.

As for Blaurs staement read the part of the post where several friends and LEO have used this under real circumstances...folks don't forget that part.

As for the Surgeon he still would not touch my electrical panel in my home as the degree, skill and letters after his name will not make him any more qualified in a different arena.

In short we do do the seminars, we don't wait for the world to catch up, we went to them. The back tracking is those that originally stated that Kyusho dosn't work period, but now admit to the "Basic Kyusho", and so it will be with more advanced concepts...5 years, more, who knows.

** And the more we learn, the more we understand, the better it will be for the MA as a whole. Teaching will be easier, because the basis for HOW it works and WHY it works will be understood. Knowledge is power, verification OF knowledge is a force multiplier.

All I am stating here folks is if you can't do it, you can't test it...theory and book knowledge dosn't mean you can. Also coming in from a negative standpoint is rather a bad method.

**Agreed! Experimenter bias can seriously skew any study. This is why the volunteer needs to be blindfolded (at least) to eliminate the Kyusho-ka's inadvertently telegraphing to him (or her) which is a valid kyusho technique and which ones are not.

There is nothing personal here sir, just stating an opinion, based on many years of research, hands on application and observation of history (recent)...this is my perogative.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope that my comments will be taken in a constructive and non-critical way, as this is how they are meant.

We must all remember that any work of this kind done at Summer Camp would be in the manner of a pilot study - a study meant to help define more thorough experimental design for later research, should any ever happen.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 10:54 pm

Lee

As a certified Hypnotherapist, I'd love to have you as part of many discussions on this subject.

So many people view this as a black-and-white issue (or TRY to make it so as a means to and end). I'm a multivariate statistics guy, and appreciate that the world is wonderfully complex. In my mind, some (not necessarily all) of what we view in various "cooperative" environment comes from suggestibility. That's not to discount it's value, but only to point out that: 1) what we see in some environments may be the sum of many causative factors, and 2) some factors may not be relevant in an uncooperative environment.

In a way, it's a lot like those diagrams that my physiology teacher used to draw when discussing the control of some organ system. At the center were blocks of the fundamental control units (on the autonomic and hormonal level). Then there was the interaction of the various systems. And finally there was the influence of cognitive factors.

It's ALL important.

It's nice having folks around who can contribute their own views of the world so we can appreciate the true complexity of reality.

- Bill

Evan Pantazi · Post by **Evan Pantazi** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 11:30 pm

Contradictions.

From the beginning when you didn't believe Kyusho was real or that it worked...now you believe basic Kyusho undoubtedly works. As a matter of fact your seniors have done it all along and even Believe in "Death Touches"!

The sequential striking you now question and that is all well and good, even commendable, yet there are contradictions. You can't hit these because they are too much of a Health Risk, yet some you have tried and still say you shouldn't! You also want to "Test" these points, a question arises in my mind is if you can't hit them because they are so dangerous, then how do you test them with any sense of validity? And if you do test them what is all the clamor about safety issues? Don't the rule of engagement apply equally? I just recieved a newsletter today stating:

Kyusho Technique will be tested at camp!
Check out all the details on Bill Glasheen's Forum in the "Birdbrain"
thread.
We will be looking for volunteers!!

What happened to the necessity you argued of a double blind study?! Volunteers now and yet more contradictions. So it is OK for you to test volunteers for test and accuracy but it is not for us to merely demonstrate. And how do you accurately test it if the deliverer of the Kyusho Method is not well practiced and reliability becomes an issue.

As for advanced Kyusho, what it has become and where it will go are beyond what everyone here is ready for. We do know we are affecting the body in predictable and interesting ways. It also wouldn't matter anyway as it would be deemed fraudulent even though that is what was originally said about the basic Kyusho, now you copy and try to understand, also commendable, but still the negativity and claims made from little understanding do not warrant further information, so I will not say.

I don't understand why you dwell on trying to shoot everything not "Uechi" down. You have a great Art that you should concentrate your efforts on understanding, improving and sharing rather than criticizing areas beyond expertise or knowledge base...

A bold statement by Mattson Sensei proves this point: No touch techniques are very controversial and will be proven, whenever fairly tested, as totally ineffective as a martial art technique. Any martial art system that links itself to the no-touch coat tails will suffer serious public relation fallout eventually. It is just a question of time.

You see the problem first is that it is still an ongoing experiment, we act before we talk and when we talk we always state "this is something we are working on". Of course our detractors, not present at these seminars and classes, always know what we say although they did not come to listen...a curiosity that I hope most of you readers pick up on. We are blamed for teaching this as a Martial Method...we don't, but I will say we have come so far that it may someday be a possibility. But to be so negative and shut all doors, trying to dissuade a following not to believe it, as it isn't in the seniors scope of understanding, is negative leadership. There are no barriers as time has always pointed out. When someone said "it can't be done"...it usually is, and thank God we have visionaries that didn't listen to people, like Franklin, Edison, Bell...the list is huge! All told they were wrong, delusional and would fail. A teachers goal is to lead by example and to encourage new method and thought, not to condemn and make claims of fraud when nothing has proven it...unfortunate.

I hope you have the courage to keep this posted...as I have to bear the negativity sure to follow it. I will not respond from here, I wish all of you Health, Happiness and Prosperity for you and yours.

------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.kyusho.com

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 11:44 pm

Bill, volunteers unblinding themselves can matter. An example from our epidemiology class: Zinc lozenges were shown to be effective in an RCT trial as a cold rx, when the Zn lozenges were compared with a placebo that was mild tasting, compared to the nasty Zn. A followup study with nasty tasting placebos showed no difference. In other words, the Zn worked because people thought it was more "real" than the placebo, and that was its only advantage to the placebo. If the people hit on a kyusho point think it's more real than people hit elsewhere, they will be more likely to fall down as they will expect more from the next strike. We could get a false positive result.

Re: setup points in general, my understanding is that accupuncture has been shown to be effective, but not more effective than random needling. So if the set up effect is real but the way the set up is done doesn't matter, the test described will not see this. Which is fine, it's one test only.

Re: antidepressants, what we were told in psych class was that they were indeed underwhelming. A substantial people get better on their own, and in the real world they associate this with the med. Take my mother--she is sold hook line and sinker on having too little serotonin, and thinks her meds work for a while then stop.

If she weren't taking them she could well have had an identical wax and wane course, she just wouldn't be hopping around the pharmacy trying different antidepressants.

Quite frequently docs give up on a med and start a new one at the time a patient is expected to cycle out of depression anyway--giving the mistaken impression of a response to the new drug. In fact they take weeks to do ANYTHING and more than a month to reach full effect, which again, can be modest.

The word from psych class and our rotations was that therapy was as effective as psych meds alone--some get better on their own, more get better treated, but not an overwhelming response.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 12:25 am

Evan

It's difficult to know where to begin with a post like this. But that never stopped me before.

Take for example...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

From the beginning when you didn't believe Kyusho was real or that it worked

Huh? Who are you referring to when you use the term "you"? Why do you insist on binary arguments? Does it bother you that people ask questions? Are we to presume you are a sole source on the subject and that when we disagree with you, that we don't believe in kyusho (whatever that is)? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

As a matter of fact your seniors have done it all along and even Believe in "Death Touches"!

The sarcasm continues... WHICH seniors? What death touches?

Do you ever read anything but your own material? There's a lot on this that's been discussed from many points of view - East and West.

Don't you believe that death is a risk when engaged in martial arts in the dojo? The term "Death Touch" is such a useless melodramatic moniker.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The sequential striking you now question and that is all well and good, even commendable, yet there are contradictions. You can't hit these because they are too much of a Health Risk, yet some you have tried and still say you shouldn't! You also want to "Test" these points, a question arises in my mind is if you can't hit them because they are so dangerous, then how do you test them with any sense of validity? And if you do test them what is all the clamor about safety issues? Don't the rule of engagement apply equally?

I believe it was Disraeli that once stated that people should never view laws and sausages being made. This is an open forum where all may comment. You are witnessing the process of inquiry and investigation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Kyusho Technique will be tested at camp!
Check out all the details on Bill Glasheen's Forum in the "Birdbrain"
thread.
We will be looking for volunteers!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's nice to know. I'm glad someone has my time planned for me and has done all my work for me.

Maybe it's my evil twin...

Sounds to me like someone has a sense of humor, Evan - and you don't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I don't understand why you dwell on trying to shoot everything not "Uechi" down.

Perhaps, Evan, you just don't understand the process of scientific inquiry. Do you take everything told to you as fact? I hope not.

By the way, if you'll bother to read The Bubishi by Patrick McCarthy, you will see that Uechi Kanbun allegedly came over with a copy... Interesting stuff, that Bubishi.

The truth is that the Uechi style (and most good martial arts systems for that matter) is a fairly broad and general collection of material that can be expressed in many ways. We are a diverse community with many differing points of view. In fact if you spend any time on these forums, you will note that we are the "hardest" on our own. That is healthy - not destructive. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

You see the problem first is that it is still an ongoing experiment

Yes, Evan, I'm glad we agree. We all have different approaches to this experiment. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Of course our detractors...

To whom are you referring when you use the word "our", Evan? Do you represent all of kyusho? If not, why must you pick up this cross? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

But to be so negative and shut all doors, trying to dissuade a following not to believe it, as it isn't in the seniors scope of understanding, is negative leadership.

Check out the reasons why I didn't want to start out with the no-touch KO. Remember how I said I get more out of positive results, and would prefer instead to start validating simple concepts that likely can be proven? This is why I suggested starting with the concept of a setup point.

Why take offense at this simple individual attempting to put together a few Lego blocks? Why take offense to ANY of the bantering back and forth here? Heck...if you look long and hard enough, you'll find one or two people agreeing with just about any point of view expressed here, and a few more disagreeing with it. That's the beauty of an open forum. We like bringing everything to the table. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

A teachers goal is to lead by example and to encourage new method and thought, not to condemn and make claims of fraud when nothing has proven it...unfortunate.

And in leading by example, a teacher should consider operating under a few simple rules. Having the safety of students in mind is a good start. Truth in advertising is another. There is a right way to lead.

There was much learned during WWII by the Japanese when they experimented on prisoners (American) and even common citizens (Nanking). While this is an extreme example, it points to the need for careful consideration when approaching a subject that is clearly fraught with danger.

Sure, some risk their own lives along the way. A famous UVa scientist infected himself with helicobactor pilori in order to prove that they (and not stress) caused duodenal ulcers. I suppose we should call him a hero of science. But there are better ways...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I hope you have the courage to keep this posted...

My pleasure, and not my courage, Evan. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

...as I have to bear the negativity sure to follow it. I will not respond from here...

Shame on you, Evan. Reminds me of an emotional person that hurls insults before slamming the door with perfect timing. That way they don't have to hear the response to childish behavior.

My door is always open for those that respect their peers.

Hope you had a nice July 4th weekend.

- Bill

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 12:31 am

Contradictions.

From the beginning when you didn't believe Kyusho was real or that it worked...now you believe basic Kyusho undoubtedly works. As a matter of fact your seniors have done it all along and even Believe in "Death Touches"!

It's not a secret that people have been hitting the jaw, the radial nerve, the neck, the thigh in muay thai for years without knowing a thing about kyusho. As they learned more about it, they realized it's not magic, just what they were already doing in a way. This is less a change of belief about what's going on than a change of attitudes about labels.

The sequential striking you now question and that is all well and good... You can't hit these because they are too much of a Health Risk, yet some you have tried and still say you shouldn't!

For example?

You also want to "Test" these points, a question arises in my mind is if you can't hit them because they are so dangerous, then how do you test them with any sense of validity? And if you do test them what is all the clamor about safety issues?

I think the preceeding posts have fairly clearly spelled out the legitimate concerns about safety. Mechanisms purportedly involved in these strikes (and I mean by the kyusho set too) are known to (rarely) cause serious medical problems including death. We are in the process of figuring out how to test without putting people at risk. There isn't an unreasonable aspect to this kind of reasoning that I can think of, and I don't know why it upsets you.

What happened to the necessity you argued of a double blind study?! Volunteers now and yet more contradictions. So it is OK for you to test volunteers for test and accuracy but it is not for us to merely demonstrate.

Evan, I honestly think the problem here is not the method being employed, but your udnerstanding of what goes on in a randomized controlled trial. They ALWAYS EVERY SINGLE ONE employ volunteers only. We can't go around beating up unwilling victims!

In an RCT people volunteer, are made fully aware of what goes on and what happens to both arms. However they are blinded to which arm they are in. We mentioned making additional efforts to KEEP them blinded, by choosing informed volunteers who wouldn't know kyusho points and wouldn't know, after a strike, which wing they were in, so their experience of the effects would not be altered.

There is no contradiction, just standard science.

And how do you accurately test it if the deliverer of the Kyusho Method is not well practiced and reliability becomes an issue.

We've addressed this. People including myself have agreed with you that someone capable of working the points HAS to be used otherwise finding nothing will not be significant. We agree here!

As for advanced Kyusho, what it has become and where it will go are beyond what everyone here is ready for.

And how did you conclude that we are so small minded that we can't even grasp a description of what it is you do? I'm a doctor. I deal with very complicated issues. I never tell anyone interested in what's going on that they couldn't grasp it. I teach on an appropriate level from very basic to peer, as I've had experienced physicians as patients. If I were to tell everyone my business was a secret, they wouldn't trust me. They wouldn't believe I could accomplish anything meaningful.

I can't figure out what you are trying to accomplish by saying that you're so far above us, we can't even relate. The only response a free thinking person is going to have to that is skepticism, and possibly to feel insulted.

Is that what you want? To insulate yourself from this kind of discussion? It's happened before.

We do know we are affecting the body in predictable and interesting ways.

So tell us, and we'll help you prove it, publish it, and everyone will be happy. Why make claims you refuse to allow to be tested and refuse to even be specific about??? I taught karate at UVA for 5 years and I made claims, and they were ALL up for discussion and competing styles claims and opinions were always welcome. Why are yours exempt?

It also wouldn't matter anyway as it would be deemed fraudulent

We are talking about a test. The point of the test is to determine whether something works or not. We want to see the result. As Carl Sagan said about God before he died, "I don't want to believe, I want to know." We will go by the results. Even if the results don't support some kyusho claim, we wouldn't call it fraud. How do I know? Mooney's test was negative for any effect. We've expressed doubt in his ability to do his empty force stuff without convinced subjects, but, no one said he was a fraud or deliberately deceived people.

You charge us with mistreating you in the future, without basis. It's an insult, not a discussion.

...but still the negativity and claims made from little understanding do not warrant further information, so I will not say.

Then we have to carry on without your input. If the people making claims refuse to be tested, they'll never be proved wrong--or right. What negativity are you talking about? Could you respond to specific questions and bring up specific comments when making these charges, as I am responding specifically to your points and am willing to answer any of your questions?

I don't understand why you dwell on trying to shoot everything not "Uechi" down.

We don't, but neither do we accept things at face value. Notice that on these forums, everything is up for debate. This includes Uechi. Over and over we trash our own system--the seisan jump, the blocking, the stepping back, the structures of drills and exercises. We are analytical and we are not picking on your art any more than our own. You are apparently just more sensitive.

rather than criticizing areas beyond expertise or knowledge base...

You seem to be doing your best to stymie our efforts to improve our knowledge base by pointedly refusing to answer questions, cite specifics, or even provide definitions. Care to comment?

Sensei Mattson expressed an opinion about whether no touch KO's would work. You dispute it. I share it. Fine. I am willing to be proven wrong when data exists that shows no touch KO's do work (provided the subjects are blinded to suggestion). Are YOU, then, WILLING to have your beliefs tested as I am?

We are blamed for teaching this as a Martial Method...we don't

Evan, please do not dispute the many references to fighting effectiveness contained in the books I have on Kyusho, including Dillman's, and including your own tapes. I will quote if need be.

But to be so negative and shut all doors, trying to dissuade a following not to believe it, as it isn't in the seniors scope of understanding, is negative leadership.

We are not trying to shut all doors. This thread is quite obviously rich with posts trying very hard to find explanations for how kyusho works. I am not sure what you are talking about. But it is not this thread or this forum.

Thank God we have visionaries that didn't listen to people, like Franklin, Edison, Bell...the list is huge! All told they were wrong, delusional and would fail.

They all were willing to define their results and open their techiques to public scutiny, weren't they?

A teachers goal is to lead by example and to encourage new method and thought, not to condemn and make claims of fraud when nothing has proven it...unfortunate.

We are trying to arrange a series of examples--aka a test. A scientists job, an objective person's job, is to evaluate--not to approve or condem before there is data. When cold fusion was claimed, a flurry of tests followed--not universal approval before proof, and not premature condemnation. Eventually, the burden of proof was on the people making the claims. As it will be with kyusho.

Perhaps the negativity you sense is your own. I have personally sought out your opinions and advise on our tests in this very thread. Instead of helping, you make vague claims of expertise and then vague claims of bias on our part.

But I (and I'm sure many others, as I represent only myself here) look forward to actually discussing specific points with you, when you are ready. I'm willing, when you are, and I'm positive, when you can be.

I hope you have the courage to keep this posted

Of course Bill will. He'd just prefer something constructive.

...as I have to bear the negativity sure to follow it. I will not respond from here, I wish all of you Health, Happiness and Prosperity for you and yours.

I applaud your courage to post views you feel will come under attack. But our response (failing to appreciate vague condemnations for failing to appreciate vague claims) does not qualify as negativity. And I hope you have the courage to respond, rather than just post and disappear.

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited July 08, 2002).]

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 12:39 am

Ian

I see all your points.

I especially agree with the issue of antidepressants. I only brought it up to illustrate how messy it all can be, and how underwhelming even a statistically and medically significant result can actually be. That's life!

Now...imagine the therapies (or methods) that don't even reach statistically significant status.

- Bill

Post by **gmattson** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 2:28 am

Evan:

You left out something in my quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Kyusho Technique will be tested at camp! Check out all the details on Bill Glasheen's Forum in the "Birdbrain" thread. We will be looking for volunteers!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the missing

My attempt at humor apparently wasn't as successful as I thought. Sorry about that. I was simply trying to lighten the mood of a thread that had a very funny title and turned out to very serious.

Now about the other quote where I stated that any art that links itself to "no touch" knockouts will be hurt. . . My belief as a thinking person. Time will tell who is right.

No one is attacking you as a person Evan. We recognize that kyusho (as you defined it) is very much a part of traditional martial arts. But there is so much Bull@#$% in much of what was passed down as "secrets" in the "old ways", that we must not be afraid to question those things that defy logic or reason. . . simply because it is old, secret or works in controlled circumstances.

As mentioned before, if we don't do it, someone else will.

------------------
GEM

Greg · Post by **Greg** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 7:04 am

Bill/Ian,

At the risk of going off-task

Re: Antidepressants

A review in USA Today of a study published in "an e-journal of the American Psychological Association"? Hmmm, excuse me for being underwhelmed... All placebo effect? It's possible I suppose, but without minimizing how powerful placebo can be, I've worked with some pretty sick folks who have shown tremendous improvement from using these meds...

So we've got the psychiatrists on one side and the psychologists on the other of this debate. Clearly the truth of this matter must rest with the social workers

Seriously though, this just underscores the importance of designing studies as 'cleanly' as possible, keeping in mind the always important empirical factor: Cui Bono There will always be a bias of some sort in any study and anyone who participates in or designs experiments attempts to minimize it, yet accepts it and moves on... to design the follow up.

Well, whaddaya know - got back on task after all...

greg

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 3:38 pm

Greg

First of all, we welcome the comments and they are on task.

I brought this to review because:

1) There was indeed SOME clinical efficacy shown by these drugs. It wasn't impressive (check out the stats wrt the proper control), but at least there was something.

2) The article talks about all the things (placebo effect, regression to the mean) that we observe in the course of illness, wellness, and treatment that have absolutely NOTHING (nada, zilcho, zippo) to do with true clinical EFFICACY.

Yes, some of your patients received meds and they got better. In real life, people who seek treatment get better for a combination of reasons. First, sick people get better anyhow. It is the natural cycle of wellness and sickness. Generally sick people see the doc when they have hit bottom, and they can't do anything BUT get better. What happens after that is by definition regression to the mean. Second, belief helps. Bedside manner counts. And finally there is the true efficacy of the treatment(s) chosen (drugs and/or psychotherapy).

So... in the end, a combination of things cause the patient to get better. It's a little of this, and a little of that. The wise, experienced clinician learns to apprecate the complexity of it all, and take what (s)he can get.

So what happens when we see a setup strike and then someone whacked on the back of the head in a cooperative demo? Probably a COMBINATION of things are going on. How much of that is going to work for you in an uncooperative environment? What's going to work when the bad guy thinks HE'S the man and you are two swings away from roadkill? Good question!

How imporant is it for you to project confidence when facing the bad guy? Does it have a measureable effect? Good question!

Wouldn't it be neat to start unraveling the twine and see what it's made of?

- Bill

LeeDarrow · Post by **LeeDarrow** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 9:14 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:
Lee

As a certified Hypnotherapist, I'd love to have you as part of many discussions on this subject.

So many people view this as a black-and-white issue (or TRY to make it so as a means to and end). I'm a multivariate statistics guy, and appreciate that the world is wonderfully complex. In my mind, some (not necessarily all) of what we view in various "cooperative" environment comes from suggestibility. That's not to discount it's value, but only to point out that: 1) what we see in some environments may be the sum of many causative factors, and 2) some factors may not be relevant in an uncooperative environment.

In a way, it's a lot like those diagrams that my physiology teacher used to draw when discussing the control of some organ system. At the center were blocks of the fundamental control units (on the autonomic and hormonal level). Then there was the interaction of the various systems. And finally there was the influence of cognitive factors.

It's ALL important.

It's nice having folks around who can contribute their own views of the world so we can appreciate the true complexity of reality.

- Bill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glasheen-Sensei,

Thanks for the kind words. I will strive to be worthy of them.

You are quite right about some folks looking at things in a binary system - black or white, works, doesn't work, etc.

For my money, it's the people who are willing to say, "Let's see what happens when..." and do their best to design a study that eliminates other causal factors that have the right of it.

No egos on the line, no personalities involved, just science.

My greatest concern here is that there will be a "normal variation" in responses from various subjects, which will amount to a range of reaction. Defining the norm of the reactions from the stimuli applied will be a real challenge as the test will be done without a lot of sophisticated measuring systems on board.

But what the heck? It's a PILOT study, not the definitive, be-all, end-all experiment that will prove or disprove anything.

It's simply a more regulated demonstration, when one gets right down to where fist meets flesh. And that's all I believe it should be at this stage.

In psychological studies, we are held to a more stringent level of proof than many other sciences, due to the extreme number of variables that can contaminate a study. In parapsychological studies (something I actually have college coursework in - with statistical analysis included) the constraints are even more stringent, so I'm used to having to really "tighten the screws" in a study.

In a basic, fundamental, pilot study as has been proposed for Summer Camp, such controls are simply not feasible, let alone possible.

I am hearing a lot of concern that hard-held beliefs will be challenged and unfairly attacked by such a study.

Earnestly and with all seriousness, I would suggest to ALL involved that they agree that this study is NOT binding (and scientifically, it is NOT, nor can it be) and that no one will use it to "rub someone's nose in it" regardless of the results.

Once we have that agreement (and people hold to it!), then I believe much of the emotion we have seen in this thread will be eliminated.

At least I hope so.

This is an exploration into the how and why of a set of phenomena that fascinate many people. I would strongly urge all involved to approach it with the wide open eyes of a child and see what there is to see, setting preconceptions and presuppositions aside, at least for that moment. For such is the true mind set of an experimenter, IMPO.

Kind regards,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.