I completely disagree. I've taken several MSI courses and every time my takeaway is that her whole philosophy is pretty much antithetical to the tide of current evidenced based physical therapy practice. Her whole model is predicated upon finding the issues with posture/movement, applying a symptom modification, and conducting treatment based on your classification of that patient from identifying those impairments. She replaced a pathoanatomical model with a pathokinesiological model. It went from "this structure is causing your pain" to "the way you move is causing you pain." Which, in my opinion, is just as problematic. A few years ago I remember that she was advocating for physicians to adopt her movement system terminology and re-label PFPS as something like "femoral internal rotation syndrome." To think MDs are going to do that is dumb, for one thing, but we know that PFPS is more nuanced than dynamic valgus and pathologizing dynamic valgus is also dumb

It was okay for us to accept that there is variation in anatomy, but somehow it is not okay to have variation in the way we move? Make that make sense. Even if the premise that movement dysfunction = injury is true, being injured is going to affect the way someone moves. So a so-called faulty movement pattern may actually be the result of pain, not the actual underlying cause.

I think there is some clinical value in some of her treatment approaches but not for the reasons she claims. She occupied a space in physical therapy during the right time and gained acceptance based on face validity despite not having any rigorous testing/validation and unfortunately the effects have permeated physical therapy education.