well I guess my horse must really like my 6’4 ex-marine Equine Chiro to be lulled into a placebo effect with each treatment.:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=BatCoach;8897734]
well I guess my horse must really like my 6’4 ex-marine Equine Chiro to be lulled into a placebo effect with each treatment.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Placebo effect by proxy is real. You are the one being lulled. Though I imagine the horse does like the massage.
Another boarder at my barn got an AC to come out recently. I declined to participate. It was something like $300 to have your horse “read.”
Anyway, all the AC could come up with for the boarder’s horse was that he was sad about being gelded. The horse was 22 years old with major pain/lameness issues related to old age. And that’s the best she could come up with. Yet the boarder? Was thrilled. She was totally taken with the story that the horse had some innate sadness related to being gelded two decades earlier. It was all I could do to say “oh ok” politely and get out of there.
How does a telephone consultation take place?
[QUOTE=Twisting;8897754]
Placebo effect by proxy is real. You are the one being lulled. Though I imagine the horse does like the massage.[/QUOTE]
So then my trainer, remarking on how great my horse was moving a day after the treatment (she had no knowledge of the chiro visit), was placebo by proxy by proxy? hahaha!
FWIW, most equine chiros that I know don’t do a massage w/ a treatment. So I guess my horse just licks and chews and gets a soft eye when getting pushed and prodded on by a very large man… go figure.
[QUOTE=EmilyM;8897412]
I did it for a horse that I had that I swear had a mental disability. It didn’t help at all. She said someone in his past (a tall blonde and a fat guy) hit him over the head, and he had a vision issue. Vet checked vision and no issue.
Then when my beloved dog was dying, a friend of my mother’s brought in her “healer” woman completely unsolicited. Long story short, they basically told me it was my fault he finally died because I didn’t believe in the healer. Nothing in the world could have made me feel worse even though it’s total BS. SHe was telling me to feed the exact opposite stuff that all the DVMs at UPenn were advising. His illness was GI related so the diet was a critical piece.[/QUOTE]
That was remarkable cruelty on her part.
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8897688]
Further to equine “chiro,” ever watch a butcher break down a side of beef? This requires tremendous strength, training, and focus in addition to extremely sharp knives, sometimes backed up with a mallet. Those structures are BIG, tendons and ligaments holding things together are the size and strength of towing straps or wire rope! Those structures are held extremely stable by some very powerful equipment. Now when I see some 90-lb. woman balancing 3’ off the ground on an unstable styrofoam block, convincing the horse owner she’s going to “move” and alter structures that my 6’3" burly-dude butcher can barely alter even with a razor-sharp cleaver, kind of makes you think a bit about that whole “biological plausibility” thing. ;)[/QUOTE]
Cold and dead is possibly a touch more resistant than warm and living. Also, your strapping butcher is disassembling rather than realigning. 
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8897647]
Pain from a muscle spasm or intercostal cartilage tear is a “thing.” “Rib out” is not, at least biologically speaking. Ask your vet / MD if you don’t believe me.[/QUOTE]
My vet is my horse’s chiropractor.
[QUOTE=fallenupright;8897845]
My vet is my horse’s chiropractor.[/QUOTE]
Rib being “out” is probably more of a layman term for rib sublaxation. There is actually a symdromr in people, Tietze’s syndrome, it can also happen to pregnant women and the cartilage. i don’t know how common it is in horses, but it is extremely painful for people. Indeed, it is a medical “thing”, though the terminology is not medical (but we get the jist )
In people, it is generally a diagnosis of exclusion.
Chiro as a discipline has actually schismed over this whole “subluxation” issue, once imaging got good enough to show that nothing is “out” as they were describing it.
So now you have essentially 2 big schools of chiro. Like Catholics and Protestants … and with roughly as much evidence 
[QUOTE=BatCoach;8897772]
So then my trainer, remarking on how great my horse was moving a day after the treatment (she had no knowledge of the chiro visit), was placebo by proxy by proxy? hahaha!
FWIW, most equine chiros that I know don’t do a massage w/ a treatment. So I guess my horse just licks and chews and gets a soft eye when getting pushed and prodded on by a very large man… go figure.[/QUOTE]
You were likely riding better, thinking your horse was feeling better. And pushing and prodding is massage, of a sort. It’s not a traditional massage, and likely had no effect on your horse’s actual movement, but probably felt good. Anecdotes are meaningless. The human brain is shockingly horrible at objectively measuring things like improvement in performance.
I’ll point you at a study from England, (which has been on COTH before) about headshaking, where the objective measurements of the individuals conducting the study found no difference in headshaking between horses on the real supplements, and those on placebos. The subjective forms filled out by the owners, however, reported an improvement in headshaking symptoms, and many said they would keep buying the ineffective supplement even after researchers told them it did absolutely nothing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994634
Your belief may be strong, but it’s not actually doing anything for your horse. If you can afford it, and it makes you feel better, by all means keep doing it. I am sure your horse will let you know if it has any actual problems that require actual treatment.
The human brain also responds shockingly well to placebo (I know, these are people vs horses, so self-placebo vs observing ‘effect’ in others. But I love this study):
The patients received objective measurements of their ability to move and other Parkinson’s symptoms before and after the medication dose. The measurements were made by people who didn’t know which medication the patient received. About four hours after the first medication they received the other medication, again with symptom measurement before and after.
What the patients didn’t know is that both injections were just saline, salt water without any active ingredient.
Not surprisingly, the patients improved after both injections. What was surprising was that the expensive placebo was much more effective than the cheap one.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/02/power-expensive-placebos.html
Parkinson’s patients injected with salt water got better too - and using objective, tremor and movement symptoms, not fuzzy “I feel better” ones. Scored by blinded scorers.
There was a report of a placebo study that, even when patients knew they were on the placebo side of the study, they too improve as much as all others:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug
Seems that the mere act of doing something can be part of having a positive outcome.
[QUOTE=BatCoach;8897772]
So then my trainer, remarking on how great my horse was moving a day after the treatment (she had no knowledge of the chiro visit), was placebo by proxy by proxy? hahaha!
FWIW, most equine chiros that I know don’t do a massage w/ a treatment. So I guess my horse just licks and chews and gets a soft eye when getting pushed and prodded on by a very large man… go figure.[/QUOTE]
I can get practically ANY horse on EARTH to lick and chew and stick his nose out and wiggle it just by scratching him in his extra Special Spot, of which there are like 5 on any given critter and take your pick. Any horse I KNOW responds ecstatically to an enthusiastic scratch of the sheath, the ventral belly line or that Gypsy thing stroking the underside of the dock. It’s a TRICK, folks, right up there with “hypnotizing” lobsters! :lol:
We ALL love “Feelgood,” man and beast, but clinical effectiveness for Dx and treatment of morbidity or legitimate anatomical injury is another thing entirely.
Getting back on track here, I’ve seen not one shred of reproducible evidence that “psychics” over the phone, from thousands of miles away, charging fat fees are able to “communicate” with any given horse better than the owner, vet, and farrier who are standing right in front of it. So what G. said above holds for me at this point in time.
[QUOTE=Bluey;8897905]
There was a report of a placebo study that, even when patients knew they were on the placebo side of the study, they too improve as much as all others:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug
Seems that the mere act of doing something can be part of having a positive outcome.[/QUOTE]
That’s exactly RIGHT–but it reframes the question as, how much $$ are you willing to pay for something known to be a placebo, for man or beast? I know damn well I could shovel money to any of a whole palette of “healers” who might “lay hands on” the bowed tendon in my ass (glute medius tendinopathy) but I’ve been choking on the idea of paying $100’s of dollars an hour for stuff that I KNOW by the research is a placebo at best and out-and-out quackery at worst.
OTOH, low doses of NSAIDS make me serviceably sound. This is a great example because we’re talking about a condition allopathic medicine doesn’t have tons of answers for, kind of like a horse with sub-clinical muscle soreness.
Precisely the scenario that’s a target-rich environment for Woo.
Right now I’m opting for the human equivalent of “Dr. Green.” :nonchalance:
[QUOTE=Reynard;8897771]
How does a telephone consultation take place?[/QUOTE]
The AC doesn’t have to be with the animal, it makes no difference in the reading, since as I said before they aren’t picking up body language.
In the sessions I have been involved with the AC asks for the horses’ name and color to ensure they are picking up on the right one. Then they answer any questions I have and generally “scan” the horse to see if there is anything they are picking up.
I have had them pick up on many things that I never told them, including a very odd trait my horse has that is fairly unusual.
[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8898175]
The AC doesn’t have to be with the animal, it makes no difference in the reading, since as I said before they aren’t picking up body language.
In the sessions I have been involved with the AC asks for the horses’ name and color to ensure they are picking up on the right one. Then they answer any questions I have and generally “scan” the horse to see if there is anything they are picking up.
I have had them pick up on many things that I never told them, including a very odd trait my horse has that is fairly unusual.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that is the way those card readers work, they ask and ask questions and what you say, how you say it and what you don’t say is all part of how they know what to say?
That some of what they say that doesn’t apply to the client/client’s horse is easily dismissed by the client, or twisted around to make it fit or else.
That what may fit we jump on to declare those people really know, they could not have known that detail, that we picked out of many that don’t?
Laws of average at work there, throw enough at it and some will stick, such is the way those games work.
As a scientist, you keep insisting you are one and that gives you a hands up on being more discerning in this topic than the rest of us mere mortals may, I would say that would be one of the easiest places to come from to see that, when something doesn’t make sense, it probably is not as is represented.
As someone already mentioned, there is a million out there for anyone that can demonstrate any such works.
Surely whoever is so sure they are real communicators would have easily claimed that by now, proving it without question?
All we get is excuse why they don’t.
[QUOTE=Bluey;8898193]
You do realize that is the way those card readers work, they ask and ask questions and what you say, how you say it and what you don’t say is all part of how they know what to say?
That some of what they say that doesn’t apply to the client/client’s horse is easily dismissed by the client, or twisted around to make it fit or else.
That what may fit we jump on to declare those people really know, they could not have known that detail, that we picked out of many that don’t?
Laws of average at work there, throw enough at it and some will stick, such is the way those games work.
As a scientist, you keep insisting you are one and that gives you a hands up on being more discerning in this topic than the rest of us mere mortals may, I would say that would be one of the easiest places to come from to see that, when something doesn’t make sense, it probably is not as is represented.
As someone already mentioned, there is a million out there for anyone that can demonstrate any such works.
Surely whoever is so sure they are real communicators would have easily claimed that by now, proving it without question?
All we get is excuse why they don’t.;)[/QUOTE]
I brought up the science part not that I am better than anyone, that is your phrase not mine, but because I was the one MOST LIKELY TO NOT BELIEVE. I thought it was silly, hokey, and stupid. Very new agey.
Then something changed.
So I totally see your point. I was you, I still have a high degree of suspicion for many of those who have a business- esp if they charge so much. I believe we are all intuitive to some degree but need to create the environment of listening.
I am no better at it than you could be. I believe we do get things in different ways.
That bad feeling something is going to happen, a shock to your system in the middle of the night when someone dies.
Meeting that heart horse and getting a sense/info from your “gut” that this is worthwhile even though everything logically tells you differently.
You insist its the same. its not, but you have never experienced an actual reading with a qualified person so you keep defaulting to what you assume is going on.
No, I don’t lead anything. I shut up and listen.
I have lots of proof, but that isn’t good enough for you-as both the person who received info directly AND paid someone else. There are things they just can not know.
Again, get off the internet and talk to real people.
I’ve said all I can say on this topic, its not a concern to me if you use this tool or not. If it works for you, great. I have been very enriched by my choice to do these reading. It was money well spent for me, and I value the messages.
To each their own.
Anyone else just PM me. thanks!
[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8898175]
The AC doesn’t have to be with the animal, it makes no difference in the reading, since as I said before they aren’t picking up body language.
In the sessions I have been involved with the AC asks for the horses’ name and color to ensure they are picking up on the right one. Then they answer any questions I have and generally “scan” the horse to see if there is anything they are picking up.
I have had them pick up on many things that I never told them, including a very odd trait my horse has that is fairly unusual.[/QUOTE]
I’m a graduate of the Naval Aviation Safety School in Monterrey, CA. Part of our course was training to interview witnesses to mishaps. We all got the chance to practice and we all made a common mistake: we “lead” the witness. It was not intentional, but we did it by unintentionally formulating questions and interpreting answers in ways that altered the information given. It was actually quite a shock for most of us just how badly we did the first one. The moral was to be very careful NOT to prejudge things and let the witness tell the story.
I’m also a SERE Grad. (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). There we were exposed to the various forms of propaganda that are used to influence both large numbers of people and discrete individuals. Again, the class was very surprised at how sophisticated people can be in presenting information that is either totally false (sometimes called "The Big Lie Theory) or, more commonly, partially true (the “Half Truth Theory”).
These two experiences are sort of a Yin-Yang thing in that they represent two sides of presentation of information. It also shows that not everyone who advocates a falsehood is morally or ethically flawed. Some who present information that is highly suspect are not trying to do a Wrong; sometimes they actually believe they are doing a Right. But an OBJECTIVE analysis demonstrates falsehood, or at least a very low probability of correctness.
Your assertions require that a person who would agree accept the idea of non-sensory communication between strangers over long distances. And not only strangers in that they’ve never met but completely different species. Lacking any objective proof of such things it’s quite rational to reject this base premise.
Your second paragraph describes exactly what a person who wishes to “lead” a witness does. If the person is good at what they do you will never know you’ve been “lead” to a conclusion.
Your experience appears to be common but that can be proof of one of two possibilities: first, that the base concept of non-sense based communication is real; second, that you’ve been had by a very skilled charlatan.
G.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8898221]
I’m a graduate of the Naval Aviation Safety School in Monterrey, CA. Part of our course was training to interview witnesses to mishaps. We all got the chance to practice and we all made a common mistake: we “lead” the witness. It was not intentional, but we did it by unintentionally formulating questions and interpreting answers in ways that altered the information given. It was actually quite a shock for most of us just how badly we did the first one. The moral was to be very careful NOT to prejudge things and let the witness tell the story.
I’m also a SERE Grad. (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). There we were exposed to the various forms of propaganda that are used to influence both large numbers of people and discrete individuals. Again, the class was very surprised at how sophisticated people can be in presenting information that is either totally false (sometimes called "The Big Lie Theory) or, more commonly, partially true (the “Half Truth Theory”).
These two experiences are sort of a Yin-Yang thing in that they represent two sides of presentation of information. It also shows that not everyone who advocates a falsehood is morally or ethically flawed. Some who present information that is highly suspect are not trying to do a Wrong; sometimes they actually believe they are doing a Right. But an OBJECTIVE analysis demonstrates falsehood, or at least a very low probability of correctness.
Your assertions require that a person who would agree accept the idea of non-sensory communication between strangers over long distances. And not only strangers in that they’ve never met but completely different species. Lacking any objective proof of such things it’s quite rational to reject this base premise.
Your second paragraph describes exactly what a person who wishes to “lead” a witness does. If the person is good at what they do you will never know you’ve been “lead” to a conclusion.
Your experience appears to be common but that can be proof of one of two possibilities: first, that the base concept of non-sense based communication is real; second, that you’ve been had by a very skilled charlatan.
G.[/QUOTE]
Once? maybe. But I never said how many I used, now did I? Its been several,.
how do they know certain things that I never brought up?
How did I know things about horses I never met?
I know that I have experienced it, with out a doubt, but for me its more the journey than “proof”. ITs too valuable of a message to drown in theory, science, and proof.
Its like riding- the more your TRY the worse it goes. Let it happen, relax. Don’t force. I never have been able to make it happen on the flip of a switch. Many times it happens when I am in a very unfocused state like on a walk, not thinking of anything in particular.
so you see, this is why I am against this negitive talk. It actually prevents people from experiencing this gut feeling for themselves.
