Talk:Applied kinesiology/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I know that here in many newspapers ads "kinesiology" is used as an euphemism for prostituion, I'm not writing that into the article as I've got no evidence to this and I'm not sure whether it involves this, diagnostic or both kinesiologies, if someone knows better it could be added.... -GTB 5:06 7/10/2006

Can someone dumb this article down and expand it a bit? It would be more handy if it were more open to the normal lay person. --Ravedave 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone felt the civic duty to insert parts of the previous article in a heading to the article. I deleted it because the definition of AK they provided was innaccurate. (damn right I'm a proponent of applied kinesiology). kleindoc

These former entries on Applied Kinesiology focus on a minor curiosity within AK without recognizing the main thrust of the technique and its contribution towards understanding complex biomechanical mechanisms. Crude muscle testing can indeed confirm whatever false findings the expectation of the Dr. or subject desires. The point is that careful muscle testing, with efforts to isolate the prime mover and observation to detect recruitment does give useful information about function in associated joints. kleindoc; 7/22/03.

since the methods used are easily explained with the

suggestion, and the explanations offered by its practitioners radically depart from accepted scientific knowledge. In fact, some of the techniques have been used in conjuring

tricks for many years.

For example, suppose the patient has a Candida infection, which the pratitioner believes can be healed with pau d'arco. The patient holds his arm horizontally while the doctor tries to push it down. Then the patient touches the infected area with the other hand and the muscle holding up the arm goes weak and the doctor easily pushes it down. He then puts some pau d'arco on his tongue and touches the infection; this time the muscle remains strong.

Such "diagnoses" serve merely to reinforce the expectations of the practitioner and the patient.

This is one of those highly POV approaches to the subject. If you're going to make claims about easily explainable methods, you should at least state what methods you are trying to explain. Departure from "accepted scientific knowledge" is not a sufficient argument to make something pseudoscience.

The "candida" paragraph strikes me a a "straw man" type of argument. It begins with a technique that might be accepted by a minority of knesiologists, ridicules it, and uses that as a "proof" that the entire subject is pseudoscience.

Also what "expectations" are trying to be reinforced? Eclecticology 19:06 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

AK claims that certain substances (that the subject may be allergic to) interfere with their "bio-energy" field, or aura. When the substance is placed near them, it disrupts the aura and weakens them, when removed they are strong again. This is pure nonsense, and fits the definition of "pseudoscience" perfectly. Also, "quackery" and "magical thinking". If there are any valid studies which demonstrate the existence of this mystical energy field, let alone that it can weaken you, please provide them for reference. It's not trolling or ignorance to point out that this sort of thing cannot stand up to simple, basic scrutiny. --StoatBringer 19:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

From the perspective of vibrational psychology, AK is a valid technique for measuring the relative strength or weakness of a thought form without regard to whether it is strictly true, eg: the thought "I can stand up" may have a pronounced effect on whether a person in a wheelchair can gather the strength to stand up. -- 70.29.131.204 18:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

From the perspective of science, vibrational psychology is quackery. --Hob Gadling 11:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ha! well, science is about making

Mind control, you should be able to come up with a few yourself -- 216.234.56.130

19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So what? I don't get your logic. Are you saying that vibrational psychologists are qualified to judge AK because they are capable of inventing falsifiable hypotheses? AK should be tested in double-blind procedures. But those who practice it seem to chicken out every time this is attempted. Not science. Quackery. --Hob Gadling

AK has failed appropriate tests:

• Kenny JJ, Clemens R, Forsythe KD. Applied kinesiology unreliable for assessing nutrient status. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 88:698-704, 1988.
• Triano JJ. Muscle strength testing as a diagnostic screen for supplemental nutrition therapy: a blind study. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 5:179-182, 1982.
• Haas M and others. Muscle testing response to provocative vertebral challenge and spinal manipulation: a randomized controlled trial of construct validity. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 17:141-148, 1994.
• Applied kinesiology - Double-blind pilot study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 45:321-323, 1981.

-- JM

I'm saying that calling a whole field of research quackery is like hiding your head in the sand. Regardless of the academic rigour (or lack thereof) of the bulk of research in any field, it's all too easy for detractors to come up with soft targets when they want to deprecate something. Would you call a researcher like Susan Blackmore a quack? Rather than call on credentials, would it not be far more useful to expose which hypotheses are testable? None of the above papers look at AK from the perspectives of memetics. So, quite frankly, a null result says to me they are simply not asking the right questions. -- 216.234.56.130 19:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is so confused...

• "calling a whole field of research quackery is like hiding your head in the sand" is cheap rhetorics. Replace AK by flat earthism or whatever, and your sentence works just as well, or rather, just as badly.
• "Soft targets" - see JM's response below.
• "Would you call a researcher like Susan Blackmore a quack?" - she does memetics, but not, as far as I know, "vibrational psychology" or AK. This is an attempt at freeloading.
• "Rather than call on credentials" - who called on credentials? Straw man.
• "a null result says to me they are simply not asking the right questions" - yeah, right. The possibility that it does not work is the most reasonable assumption. Of course you can believe otherwise, but that's your POV. --Hob Gadling 11:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

So, where are the properly done studies supporting AK? Surely they exist for such an old "field of research." It is extremely simple to test the claims of AKologists. Take the claim that one can distinguish between two compounds applied to a test subject. Then repeat the test under conditions in which nobody in the room, including the subject, knows which compound has been applied (you can't compare water and maple syrup)- the AKologist cannot do better than random guessing. Find any AKologist and try it yourself. JM

True. But my argument is not to debunk the claims of such a soft target as that, but to find out what science actually could do with applied kinesiology if-only people would ask the right questions. Testing for whether a person can distinguish between water vs maple syrop is just plain wrong (and a waste of time). Testing for whether a thought form (eg: "I'm being chased by a bear", or "there's a beautiful woman watching") affects my ability to climb a rock face may well be useful. -- 216.234.56.130 15:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

for this it doesn't make sense to use double-blind because the patient must read/picture the thought form ("what is really being measured here?") and performance or mood enhancement above

medical treatment. -- 70.29.131.204

00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If there is a way to test that in a proper procedure without gaping holes - go on, test it. Then come back and write that AK failed. Or that it worked. Until then, it's pseudoscience because it makes claims it can't back up except with ridiculous, amateurish "experiments". --Hob Gadling 11:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well firstly, there are devices for accurately measuring muscle strength that do not involve pitting the researcher's will against the subject's. See ([1]). Next, there could be many variables affecting strength, so small numbers of trials should not be expected to produce meaningful results. Instead, the test group should be given randomized thought forms to test, (include in this a collection of thought forms that are stratified w.r.t. the supposed helpfulness or harmfulness of their vibration; The book power versus force by David R. Hawkins has a number of these) and Monte Carlo methods can be applied in the case of small effect sizes, to show just how significant are the results. This will likely mean using a few hundred subjects with a total of perhaps a thousand trials spread over a few weeks. Now because AK does not currently have status as a credible science, this work will be difficult to fund, and researchers will have a hard time finding journals to publish their results. But if this work is done, then its results must be reported somewhere. What else will tighten up the protocols? -- 216.234.56.130 19:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As a long-time Wikipedia supporter, it saddens me to see its editing sink into little more than ignorance-by-choice and namecalling.

Perhaps the original Wikipedia editor said it best:

"(Larry) Sanger's stated reason for ending his participation in Wikipedia and Nupedia as a volunteer was that he could not do justice to the task as a part-time volunteer; later he admitted that there had existed "a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in the project" which had also accounted for his departure.

"In December 2004 Sanger wrote a critical article for the website Kuro5hin. While claiming "to appreciate the merits of Wikipedia fully" and to know and support "the mission and broad policy outlines of Wikipedia very well", Sanger maintained that there are serious problems with the project. There was, he wrote, a lack of public perception of credibility, and the project put "difficult people, trolls, and their enablers" into too much prominence; these problems, he maintained, were a feature of the project's "anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise." The article was the subject of much controversy in the blogosphere and led to some reaction in the news media as well."

This, dear reader, is __precisely__ what is going on here with the disdainful language on the part of (as Sanger has said) "trolls" for matters that they merely unknowledgable of (in this case, the paradigm-shifting and highly validated concepts of 'Applied Kinesiology'), but are in fact both quite real and readily available.

I regret that I must withdraw future support for Wikipedia. It clearly is an agenda-of-ignorance run amok. --66.69.219.9, 20:18, August 27, 2005

That sounds like a pompous but not backed-up-by-reasoning way of saying "I am right and you are wrong. I am going home now. So there." I wonder if it was intended to sound like that... --Hob Gadling 11:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

doubtful.Geni 11:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

When dealing with

trolls, arguments alone have teeth. The statement "I must withdraw future support..." is unconvincing. -- 216.234.56.130

19:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

these should not be merged, but their differences should be clarified. The terms are distinct; diagnostic kinesiology appears not have the stigma of AK. -- 216.234.56.130 17:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they should stay separate. I was just mentioning the conflict. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We should be careful not to conflate "science" with "mainstream scientific thought". "Science" is fundamentally a method of pursuing truth and does not make inherent truth claims. It would be more accurate to say "most scientists dispute" or "... has not held up to specific scientific scrutiny" rather than simply to say "Science says that ..."

As written, the article is very hostile to the idea of AK, a view that not all of its readers, including the present author, are inclined to share. In light of the non-unanimity of the views presented in this article, I would urge greater levels of detail, explaining in the fullest detail possible the means by which AK has been scientifically investigated, while providing a link page that provides at least one view that is favorable toward AK. As written, and by looking through this talk page, the "scientific" view against AK has a very dogmatic and angry tone, which might reflect poorly upon this otherwise fine encyclopedia.

Double-blind Study on Materials Testing with Applied Kinesiology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16246943&query_hl=1

Test-retest-reliability and validity of the Kinesiology muscle test. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11926427&query_hl=1

Applied kinesiology unreliable for assessing nutrient status. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3372923&query_hl=1

A review of the research papers published by the International College of Applied Kinesiology from 1981 to 1987. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2351880&dopt=Abstract

Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16047707&query_hl=1

"Applied kinesiology" in medicine and dentistry--a critical review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15791778&query_hl=1

Unproved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to food allergy and intolerance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12840706&query_hl=1

Interesting:the person above felt it appropriate only to post studies that disprove applied kinesiology or are inconclusive. a lot of people seem to like doing this. my own bias not withstanding, i think it's more appropriate to show you both sides and let you decide for yourself, so above are entirely studies that disprove applied kinesiology (posted by our biased person who wants to unfairly influence you... hopefully you can see that it upsets me when people do that) and below are a few studies that support it. make up your own mind and search around for yourself, don't let the bias of closed-minded people influence you.

orrelation of applied kinesiology muscle testing findings with serum immunoglobulin levels for food allergies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10069623&dopt=Abstract

Interexaminer agreement for applied kinesiology manual muscle testing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9106846&dopt=Citation

Diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction: applied kinesiology compared to clinical observations and laboratory tests. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6747487&dopt=Abstract

Applied kinesiology for treatment of women with mastalgia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14965552&dopt=Citation

IMPORTANT NOTE: studies can give you an idea but don't forget, a study can say anything you want it to (and this is for both sides of the table). so make sure you read the methods each study uses and determine for yourself if it's unbiased.

131.156.224.17 04:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Jeff

Message copied to Cuthbert's Talk page: Wikipedia articles are written and edited as a team effort. This is not a place for someone to ride roughshod over everyone else's hard work and collaboration. Please refrain from making such edits, which amount to vandalism. [2] --

Whoever has written this definition of applied kinesiology -- apparently an American living in Denmark, full of the expatriates common arrogance -- is unqualified to speak about it. The arm pull down test, which this writer maintains is the diagnostic test in applied kinesiology, is not an AK muscle test at all, at all. Which muscle is being tested in the arm pull down test. In AK, every muscle in the body that can be specifically isolated and tested is done so. Inhibitions of these muscles upon testing are then specifically treated so that both the patient and the doctor will know whether the treatment has "cut the mustard."

Wikipedia is rejecting a much more comprehensive and accurate definition of AK for this one which is mostly rancorous bile and dust in the eye of a reader who, like the author, knows very little about the art and science of manual muscle testing and AK... Scott Cuthbert 02:00, 5 March 2006

Message copied to Cuthbert's Talk page:

If you believe in the reasonableness of your craft, please apply the same rational thinking in the context of Wikipedia. The logical construction of meaning is driven by the whole society--just because you strongly --believe-- "x" doesn't mean that "x" is the best thing for people to know about a subject. Please stop vandalizing this site, which constitutes the time and effort of several other people.

Pschelden

03:42, 5 March 2006 (PST)

I think that Scott Cuthbert's contributions are valid. It explains to the reader what Applied Kinesiology is, what doctors who use it are doing, looking for, etc. Explaining with endless links why people don't like AK is very self-serving and doesn't give the reader a NPOV. This IMO makes the purpose of the article to be why some people hate AK. Some insist on making this a link farm for their dubious websites. Steth 13:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

At no point in time have I dealt with or examined the validity, accuracy, or appropriateness of the contents of Cuthbert's article. It might even be an excellent article, but that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for Wikipedia, and certainly not when introduced in this manner.

The issue at hand has strictly to do with an inappropriate way of dealing with an existing article. It is a team effort, and no one - regardless of viewpoint or even outstanding qualifications - has a right to delete the work of many other editors in this manner. There was also an objection that there might be a copyright issue here.

He has already received a warning, and any repetitions will be dealt with promptly.

Cuthbert is welcome to contribute to the article, but should discuss changes here first, especially after this violation of Wikipedia practice. --

Fyslee

15:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott, I have no idea what you are talking about, but if you are referring to myself - an American in Denmark - then you are way off base on several points:

• Authorship: I have had very little to do with the content of this article. I am even the one who included the link to the ICAK, and you should be thankful for that. I happen to have a rather complete list of all AK organizations.

• My knowledge of AK: I know more than you are aware of, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

• Your insults and tone: Here at Wikipedia we are to
  assume good faith
  and refrain from attacks and insults. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I don't think anyone has accused you of being a bad person or willfully violating Wikipedia policies. I suspect you are new here and don't understand the "Wiki way" of doing things. We've all made our mistakes and are still learning. Welcome to the club! --
  Fyslee
  15:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently the article contains this sentence:

• Applied Kinesiology is considered an application of academic kinesiology by some,^{[citation needed]} mostly chiropractors, while mainstream scientists consider AK to be a pseudoscience.

We need a citation for the claim that some, mostly chiropractors, consider AK to be "an application of

Why does Deglr6328 insist on removing contributions that are not ‘anti-applied kinesiology’?

Do you have anything other than “STOP NOW”. Do you really know what mainstream scientists are thinking? Multiple links to an ex-psychiatrist’s websites constitute SPAM. Article on Dr. Goodheart is interesting for readers. Many professions, including MDs use Applied Kinesology. I thought this was open to the public. I find your bullying offensive and childish. Steth 17:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I do in fact know what mainstream scientists are thinking as I talk to them every day. This, along with about a billion other areas of quackery is just what most of them think it is, nonsense. I've reverted your highly POV edits while keeping the time link to Goodheart. There do not need to be two links to the exact same thing either. Also, your labelling of anyone who counters your POV edits as "bullys" in order ti garner sympathy for your cause will fail. Wiki is not for POV pushing, it is for the unbiased presentation of fact and professionally consensous views.--Deglr6328 18:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I have to say I'm impressed by the neutralness of the article. The basic assertions of AK are shown, and the light of science is shone upon it neutrally. I noticed similar styles with other articles - the TFT article is getting really clear and neutral, the NLP article also (though the pressure to remove scientific fact and view is enormous). I am doing my own research into confirmation bias in the new therapies. This is an interesting one. Thanks for the facts presented (and maintained). I'm going to do my own searches, so I may add some of my own. I got a huge amount of really good literature about pseudosciences from these controversial articles, especially the NLP article. I hope to contribute some of my own. I know a lot of believers can hardly help themselves and want to remove facts all the time. If I can help maintain facts on my weekly checks, I will. Cheers KrishnaVindaloo 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Restored this significant section.[3] It is the only example of opposition to quackery by any chiropractic organization. Since AK is a chiropractic technique practiced by large numbers of chiropractors, it is very significant that a national chiropractic organization openly opposes it. The edit summary by 24.99.115.221 is a very unWiki attack, and the edit was made without any discussion:

"(deleted Danish chiropractic view. it is irrelevant to a world view and only helps support the ignorant views of the PT who obviously has envy of true doctors.)"[4]

This summary is not only a violation of good taste and Wikipedia policies, it doesn't even make sense. If I were out to paint chiropractic in a bad light, then I certainly wouldn't bring this positive move to light. Here we have an example of a chiropractic organization doing the right thing, and I, a chiroskeptic, commend them for it. --

Above I forgot to mention another case of quackery being opposed by a chiropractic organization. Since 1978 the Chiropractic Association of Saskatchewan has banned the Activator, a quack device invented by a chiropractor and used by many chiropractors [5] [6]. This was a positive move, but it has since lifted its ban, which means that it now acts like other chiropractic organzations by failing to curtail quackery in chiropractic. [7] [8]

Everything besides the introduction of this article is terribly infected with POV. Take for example: "The findings of manual medicine, when tested using manual muscle testing, have been placed into the scientific arena...scientific in the practical sense, meaning that which is explicable, demonstrable, and reproducible.", or "These offer more of the evidence about the methods, clinical efficacy, and neurologic rationales of applied kinesiology examination and treatment:", or just about anything else outside of the introduction. --Philosophus ^T 09:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Scientists regard AK as a pseudoscience and there is concern about businesses, government agencies, and the public at large being duped into adopting AK as a dubious therapy."

Philosophus, I would be happy to leave what looks like an opinion (stated above) in the introduction. Just please cite some references, as I requested, from an unbiased source to back them up. This is done all the time here at WP. It is really nothing new and not too much to ask. Otherwise, it should be removed. Thanks, Steth 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the sourcing for it - I will ask around on the appropriate Wikiprojects. --Philosophus ^T 03:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, any luck yet finding the source for your statement? If not, I would like to remove it today. Thanks, Steth 17:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, please cite the source of the statment above that you want to remain in the article, per Wikipedia policy. I asked Philosophus for the source but he was unable to locate it. If it can't be sourced, then it should be removed. Thanks, Steth 23:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two independent clauses in that sentence. There are sources for the first part, but I haven't looked for sources for the second part. -Will Beback 23:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the references listed at the end? -Will Beback 23:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't. Please direct me to the source of the statement. Thanks, Steth 23:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, splitting the sentences, while they flow better, still are not sourced. The first source you mentioned has nothing to do with scientists. It is a story about why an ex-psychiatrist doesn't seem to like a chap named Stoner.

As for the second part, I checked the references at the end that you suggested and couldn't find anything about "businesses, government agencies, and the public at large being duped into adopting AK as a dubious therapy." Unless I missed something, could you please show me the reference for the statements. Otherwise, according to WP policies, they should be removed. Thanks, Steth 11:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't help you with the second sentence, but here's a better reference for the first, [9]. -Will Beback 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Will, I don't know how many different ways to tell you that the reply written by some MD is about naturopathy, not AK. But since you seem to be wedded to the 'pseudoscience' thing, it is mentioned in the first sentence, isn't that enough? Steth 18:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This letter was written to a "Quackwatch", "Skeptic," and "CSICOP" doctor who, as you'll read below, has never treated a human skull or performed any type of cranial therapy on anyone. In fact, he is not licenced to diagnose or treat any patients. And yet, this Anatomist wrote a "Stephen Barrett/Fyslee" type smear about cranial therapy. Fyslee and his incessant attacks on Applied Kinesiology through Wikipedia are amusing...his certitude must come from the fact that he has only read one encyclopedia. Explore this mentality in the letter below.

(Real name removed above. --

Fyslee (collaborate

) 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

Quackery against Cranial Therapy

To the best of my knowledge (having now read everything that Dr. Hartman has published on cranial therapy) there is no place in Hartman’s writings where he claims that he has examined or treated a single human cranium himself and obtained results contrary to the ones Drs. Blum and Cuthbert claim in their response to him. It appears, from the available resources, that Dr. Hartman has not conducted any experiments to test the claims of cranial therapists. It appears that Dr. Hartman has, or thinks he has, the same kind of knowledge that other fundamentalists have – he knows what is possible and what is impossible, and so he does not have to investigate.

Dr. Hartman’s papal bulls against cranial therapy are very interesting and typical of scientific fundamentalism when enraged, in that one finds a strong, very strong suggestion that doctors who use cranial therapy are amateurish, scientifically immature, hallucinating, and knowingly misleading themselves and their patients.

However the evidence-based and outcomes movements now demand that a priori determinations (pro and con) about the methods of health care delivery be resisted, and that all methods be open to testing. The fact that Hartman is not a clinician nor clinical researcher yet makes insistent claims about clinical therapeutic possibilities points up one of the philosophical problems in the evidence-based movement. According to Tanenbaum [1], the danger is that it may present statistical analysis as superior rather than complementary to other forms of knowledge. The statisticians and those who pay them understandably want neat figures. However uncertainty and subjectivity are at the heart of any clinical encounter. As every clinician knows, good evidence can lead to bad practice if applied in an uncaring way or in an unappealing atmosphere. The clinician wants to know where empathy and the experience of accumulated cases and patterns of clinical responses fit into the equation. According to ‘critics’ like Hartman, 60 years of cranial therapists and thousands of patients who were satisfied with their treatment and also successfully relieved of their conditions mean nothing. Many clinicians take quiet umbrage (more quiet than I am showing in this letter) at the randomized clinical trial as it holds all clinicians equal suggesting that the specific clinician does not matter. There are suspicions with trials that test a single technique – clinicians realize all the time that a single technique is only part of the total management package that they provide and that succeed in getting their patients well.

Black [2] notes that any movement which encourages self scrutiny and self analysis has to be good so long as it stops short of reducing the self confidence of clinicians. (Compare the endless polemics of Dr. Hartman and Norton against those clinicians, scientists, and clinical researchers who cannot see accurately what is directly in front of their faces and have to be corrected by Hartman and other “skeptics” far from the scene to know a priori what is and is not “possible.”)

“We would appreciate specific references to literature supporting this mechanism, associated diagnostic reliability, or practitioners’ ability to modify mechanistic parameters to a patient’s health advantage.” Drs. Blum and Cuthbert’s first response to Hartman included 6 highly-referenced textbooks on cranial therapy wherein at least 50 papers describing the clinical outcomes and measures of cranial treatment were given; where over 100 studies (employing radiologic, neuro-imaging, dissection, histological, ultrasonography, myoelectric and numerous mechanical devises) for measuring cranial motion were provided; another table was offered that exhaustively compiled 260 peer-reviewed papers on cranial theory and outcomes. Dr. Hartman’s certitude must be creating for him (if this term will be permitted) a scientific scotoma regarding the evidence.

I would like to inform Dr. Hartman that his constant refrain that “cranial rhythm based interexaminer reliability is zero” is erroneous. Even the negative studies on cranial therapy that he cites repeatedly in his papers do not show “interexaminer reliability of zero.”

One way researchers determine if a clinical test is consistent and repeatable over several trials is to analyze the reliability. Depending on the type of measurement that is performed, different types of reliability coefficients can be calculated. In all coefficients, the closer the value is to 1, the higher the reliability. For instance, calculating Cohen’s kappa coefficient would allow the researcher to determine how much agreement existed between the doctors palpating the cranial rhythm in a patient’s head. A value greater than .75 indicates ‘excellent’ agreement, a value between .40 and .75 indicates ‘fair to good’ agreement, and a value less than .40 indicates ‘poor’ agreement. [3] Dr. Hartman’s statement that the “interexaminer cranial palpation reliability is zero” means he hasn’t read the literature properly, and is mistaking ‘poor’ agreement for ‘zero’ agreement, whatever he thinks that might mean.

In clinical practice, it is often impossible to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of a clinical test. This is because sensitivity and specificity assume that the researcher or clinician already has the true answer. Sensitivity assumes that one has somehow first identified people with a true positive response, and then determines what percentage the desired test is correct in identifying these people. Likewise, specificity assumes that one has somehow first identified people with a true negative response, and then determines what percentage the diagnostic test is correct in identifying these people. However, in the clinical setting the opposite happens. First the test is performed and then the clinician asks, “Given that the test is positive, what is the probability that my patient truly has a positive response?”

Just suppose that cranial therapists are even partly or occasionally right. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But Dr. Hartman says, with the certitude of the Ayatollah, that cranial therapy “offers little hope that any direct clinical effect will ever be shown.”

It is obvious after reading Dr. Hartman’s proclamations on cranial therapy that he has a dogmatic faith that cranial movement, cranial therapy, cranial involvements in human physiology, and the entire cranial conception are impossible. But to assert this is to claim, tacitly, that Dr. Hartman already knows the full spectrum of the possible. In a century in which every decade has brought new and astonishing scientific shocks, that is a huge, brave and audacious faith indeed. It requires an almost heroic self-confidence and an equally gigantic ignorance of recent (especially osteopathic and chiropractic) intellectual history.

It may be unpopular for me to say so, but Dr. Hartman’s perpetual criticism of cranial therapy (especially relevant when he is not licensed to diagnose or treat patients; when he has no training in cranial therapy; and when he has no clinical experience of any kind) exhibits a learned man behaving with the bigotry of a Mississippi lynch mob, a scholar conspiring to suppress dissident opinion, a savant acting like a circus clown or hooligan.

The comparison of cranial therapists with blood-letters from the previous dark ages of medicine is an example of this kind. Though it may not yet make sense to Dr. Hartman that the cranium is a living, motile mechanism, I’ll remind him that what is “obvious to common sense” is not always true. I’ll remind him also that most great scientific breakthroughs were great shocks to common sense at first. Copernicus was unbelievable to those who “knew” and felt deeply that they were standing on an Earth that did not move; Darwin was equally stunning to those who knew they were not primates; Einstein was almost incomprehensible at first to those who knew that a rod has only one length which is “objective”; Sutherland seemed ridiculous to his peers who knew that no articulation above the atlas had any neurological significance—

And so in Dr. Hartman’s conception of chiropractic and osteopathy and manual medicine, what does a manual physician do about the central nervous system, when for many our initial education finished at the atlanto-occipital joint?

Another aspect of this letter must be cited. Dr. Hartman’s membership in “Quackwatch,” various “Skeptic” societies, and especially CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) apparently has prepared him for his non-stop attacks on all the forms of Complimentary and Alternative Medicine that he dislikes. His use of the term “pseudoscience” in relationship to cranial therapy is a classic smear used in these circles to suggest, only suggest, that everyone who does not support their axioms (“scientific truths, and we know all the ones that count!”) are delusional. CSICOP’s method of “scientific investigation” generally is to wage a campaign of vilification, in the media, against any researcher whose ideas they don’t like.

I am not asserting a dogma regarding cranial therapy in contradiction to Dr. Hartman’s fundamentalist “no” to it. I am merely indicating that – when the experts cannot agree and even seem to misunderstand each other at times – a kind of biological agnosticism is not only scientifically more appropriate, and more in line with that virtue of humility which most sages and philosophers have urged, but also a matter of simple honesty with oneself. I’m still not insisting. I am only asking. Like all ignorant men I don’t know much, so I ask a lot of questions. Or to close with a quote from William Blake:

The Fool sees not the same tree the wise man sees.

-- Scott C. Cuthbert, D.C.

References:

1) Tanenbaum SJ. What physicians know. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1993;329:1268-1270.

2) Black D. The limitations of evidence. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 1998;32:23-26.

3) Fleiss JL. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986.)

Your blatant

Fyslee

21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how this article can be considered anything other than a AK-bashing piece of puerile soapbox crap. I think that it should be rewritten. Smith Jones 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the term Pseudo-science be banned. It's clearly a loaded term used by a select group of people with an obvious agenda (And inferiority complex). There's no need to try to villainize experimental and alternative sciences; stating in the article their status in the wider scientific community should be enough.

Nearly every article with "pseudoscience" in it has a POV tag, which I think proves it's a loaded term. The "scientists" on here with something to prove are too scared to state facts and allow people to come to their own conclusions so they need a term intended to kill credibility. I've read more than a few articles where a "pseudo-science" is obviously being directly attacked, rather than critiqued. Wiki needs to reign these self-righteous science-zealots in. 68.166.68.84 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, their needs to be research done into the world-wide acceptance of AK. As it is, the Danish article seems like it was arbitrarily placed to counter-act the legitimacy the American org gives it.

hi user Smith Jones

I don't understand how this article can be considered anything other than a AK-bashing piece of puerile soapbox crap. I think that it should be rewritten. Smith Jones

yes, it is AK bashing. start rewriting it and watch what will happen.

hi user 68.166.68.84

I propose that the term Pseudo-science be banned. It's clearly a loaded term used by a select group of people with an obvious agenda (And inferiority complex).

in de.wikipedia (german) two VAs (mediating committees) to either ban PS as a category in wiki did happen in 2006. many users did participate in discussing the matter of constant conflict. twice no result, and no change of policy did happen. the conservative labeleing party reigns wiki. this situation of villainizing certain lemmas with a POV-term will remain a constant thorn in wiki's flesh.

There's no need to try to villainize experimental and alternative sciences; stating in the article their status in the wider scientific community should be enough.

fully agreed. NPOV is harshly not kept in a field that harbours an outlet of scientific skepticism and glorified debunkers throwing around 'quack'-weapon, a kind of faith based villainizing of the unwanted will continue disguised as purely 'scientific'.

The "scientists" on here with something to prove are too scared to state facts and allow people to come to their own conclusions so they need a term intended to kill credibility.

agreed again.

Wiki needs to reign these self-righteous science-zealots in.

smile, wiki in US and Europe alike - as it appears to me - is highly undermined by those "science-zealots". as long as this state-of-affairs doesn't change significantly no significant change in handling gross POV cases will come about. --Grazia11

This isn't the place to discuss issues with Wikipedia in general. Try discussing this at

WP:VP or somewhere similar. --Philosophus ^T

04:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Philosophus! Fancy meeting you here. Hey, I've noticed on this and a number of other pages that you seem spend a good deal of time going around telling other people what they can and cannot discuss, post, etc. What's with that? Do you really want to be the WP talk-page poh-leece? Is it something about the particular content of the comments (vis a vis your personal views) that you find needful of poh-leecing? Subjects that perhaps you would rather not see aired? Inquiring minds would like to know. Cheers! -- Alan2012 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that AK has supporters, but tagging it as pseudoscience depends on the fact that it is considered and listed as pseudoscience by people who are experts in the field of pseudoscience. The best Internet source is probably http://skepdic.com but there are many others. My point is that classifying an article as neurology, pseudoscience - or heavy metal music if you like - is ultimately the task of experts in the fields mentioned, not merely of those who support a perspective (or band etc.). --Piechjo 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these chiropractic journals are prestigeous peer-reviewed journals because chiropractic itself is not accepted by most medical scholars, see http://skepdic.com/chiro.html. I suggest a deletion. --Piechjo 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As to the comment above, chiropractors go through a full medical education, using the same texts as medical schools. Chiropractors are licensed in all 50 states. A peer review process is subject to the same rigors, regardless of who is performing it. Many chiropractic papers are published in journals that are multidisciplinary, containing papers by MD, DC, DO and other specialties. --Aarwdc 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to reply to the above comment. No. Chiropracors do not go through a FULL medical education. They "may" use the same text, but I know from experience it is a "selective" usage. ...and no, all peer review is not equal. I've taught at a Chiro school. I know the education well. I've been "called on the carpet" for teaching basics truth of Biomechanics and the vagaries of the term subluxation and was deemed a heretic. -Flargnog

I was appalled to find this entry unchallenged for neutrality. Reading through some of the history I realize that I am coming in to a larger battle, but, I felt the need to offer this notice. Those who simply dismiss such systems as kinesiology out of hand are doing a disservice to both science and humanity; something is occurring on when muscles change their functional state in response to various conditions and treatments, and to simply brush it away as pseudoscience is akin to the dismissals of handwashing in the 19th centuary, preventing an honest look at what might be useful. Conversely, those who make large unsupportable claims without offering some sort of perspective and attempt at moving towards a scientific inquiry make it easy for dishonest skeptics to besmirch the entire field.

A balanced description of Applied Kinesiology is needed to replace the completely slanderous entry that exists. --Aarwdc 01:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of taste because I thought this is a surprisingly informative article of a pseudoscience (not taking much part in it). Talking about science, you say "something is occurring on when muscles change their functional state in response to various conditions and treatments". Of course there is, but it has nothing to do with the conditions and treatments. The funny thing is it's actually even been tested. Piechjo 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider, this article reads as quite neutral. The approach is outlined and discussed. Other positions are described, and the reader is quite free to make up his or her own mind. It does not appear to me that Applied Kinesiology has been dismissed, and at the same time the findings of the research have been summarized. I don't see a need to rewrite at this point--Vannin 16:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As another 'outsider', I think it is ridiculous to consider this article as being neutrally written. I came here looking for information and instead was inundated with subjectivity. The entire article is structured in a way where the intent is obviously to raise skepticism about AK rather than to provide information about what it is, who uses it and for what purposes. One separate section is all that is required to address the controversy of whether it is a valid therapy or science. If the writer wants to express his opinions on AK, doing it under the guise of objectivity is quite pathetic. If one is an 'outsider' by the way, I wonder what led them to look at this page in the first place. I will be open and say that I'm looking to put information on different modalities on a client's massage website and was hoping for a more objective source. Very disappointing. --Luca77 11:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read the "Basic Applied Kinesiology." I am an AK practitioner. The section is a mess. It contains lot of assertions without a single inline reference. Skepticism prevades the whole article. It would be better to state the facts (beliefs and/or truths) first, and then add a criticism section to counter any issues. The basic facts in this section are inaccurate. Anyone interested in writing a balanced article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have an idea how to do it, I think you should go ahead and try :) The criticism should then be moved to a separate section, but if you're not interested in doing it, you can leave it to someone else. Piechjo (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As you are both new users, I would strongly advise against trying to edit this article at this time. Wait until you have much more experience with the intricacies of Wikipedia policy and past ArbCom cases. This is a controversial article, and most of them sit in unstable compromise versions which can easily fall into an edit war if edited without great understanding of Wikipedia. For example, splitting controversy into an isolated area is generally to be avoided. --Philosophus ^T 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of factual errors in the section I mentioned above and that section is devoid of references. You think it should remain as is? And the 'Science and AK' section has 'scientific studies showed that applied kinesiology tests were not reproducible.' but is missing the 'scientific studies showed that applied kinesiology tests are reproducible. ' And how do I find out what ArbCom means? Anthon01 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the sort of thing you are going to need to know, because as soon as you start making controversial changes, a great number of highly experienced editors will quite probably come and turn this into a giant battleground.

Conflict of Interest. --Philosophus ^T

01:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So how does this page move from it's 'unstable position.' The article is clearly biased. Do you think that adding 'scientific studies showed that applied kinesiology tests are reproducible, will trigger an edit war? Anthon01 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you listen to the advice Philosophus has written. You are both inexperienced here and this is a minefield. Your ideas of what is correct, truth, and proper, do not count here. We work by consensus here and all sides (including the skeptical side) must be included in the article. That's why it doesn't ring quite right for you. This is an encyclopedia, not an ordinary website. We tell the whole story here and include many POV (definitely not neutral!). Study the links provided above very carefully before going any further, otherwise you risk getting blocked and even banned from Wikipedia. Advocacy, pushing of one POV to the exclusion of other POV, disruption, etc. are forbidden here. It's a tough environment and you definitely don't want to become the subjects of an ArbCom proceeding, where you do not have civil rights and protections, no lawyer, and the consequences can wreck your life in the real world. I implore you, please be very careful. Make no edits, especially no deletions, from the article before discussing it here and getting agreement from a number of different editors. --

talk

06:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)