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. |
Archive 1 |
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.
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)
AK has failed appropriate tests:
-- JM
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
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
There's a closely-related article at Diagnostic kinesiology, however the two articles conflict on their relationship. Much of the "DK" article seems to overlap with this AK article. If anyone is interested and knowledgeable they might visit the other article and see what can be done. Perhaps just a few words changed, a re-write, or a merger. Thanks, - Willmcw 06:26, 7 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] -- Fyslee 00:24, 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:
Currently the article contains this sentence:
We need a citation for the claim that some, mostly chiropractors, consider AK to be "an application of academic kinesiology." Among people that don't know anything about these two subjects there can be confusion, but among scientists there is no confusion. I know that Cuthbert confuses the two, but he's an exception. There must be other examples. We need their explanation of why they confuse the two. Without a citation that sentence should be deleted as it reflects badly on chiropractors. Even though AK is a chiropractic technique, the Danish Chiropractic Association has an official policy that nearly forbids its use by chiropractors in their clinics. This is the only example to my knowledge of any chiropractic organization taking a position against a form of quackery (with the notable exception of the NACM. -- Fyslee 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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. -- Fyslee 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
No I haven't. Please direct me to the source of the statement. Thanks, Steth 23:30, 25 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.
Scott Cuthbert, D.C.
Cranial Therapeutic Care: Is There Any Evidence?: A Reply to Dr. Steven Hartman, Professor of Anatomy, University of New England
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.)
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.
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 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)
Thanks for the feedback. It is greatly appreciated. However your assumptions about different POV are incorrect. I am ok with both sides having their say. However when the material is so poorly written, lacking inline references, and not reflective of the facts, then it needs to be rectified. It doesn't ring true to me because I know what AK is and isn't. I know that it is a young immature science in need of much research before a consensus on its true efficacy will be reached. A lot of the detractors of AK are conflating 'bastardizations by lone practitioners and their followers' with 'AK as taught by the ICAK.' This isn't any different then any professional public forum, except perhaps the participants are more civil, good intentioned, and are not experts in the subjects they are writing about. But that's ok and to some degree helpful. Anthon01 ( talk) 14:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am interested in the truth. The truth trumps POV. Is that your interest also? Anthon01 ( talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
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.
Is that what you did before you added this text on intuitive kinesiology? Anthon01 ( talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs
That's not what I think. I understand the issue of verifiablility. I understand that what what I might think, know or think I know about AK is not important, it is what is verifiable from informed sources. Anthon01 ( talk) 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This section is not AK. It is a bastardization of AK. It should be removed. Anthon01 ( talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed this section from the article because it is not AK.
How about a discussion before restoration? Are you talking about the section SURROGATE TESTING: ITS HISTORY, CONTROVERSY AND RECOMMENDED USES? I would be in agreement with you if Goodheart introduced the procedure. However, present it the way it is defined by Goodheart and the ICAK, not the way a lone pratictioner has bastardized it.
Re: Magical thinking. Do you have any peer review articles to support that? Anthon01 ( talk) 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
What you've done is assumed that I removed it just because I don't like. But you are incorrect. I removed it because intuitive kinesiology isn't AK. You're conflating several different things together under the banner of AK. The errors in your text are many. First
..muscles of a trained " healer" can be used as a proxy for the actual client...
Not according to the ICAK.
The trademarked term refers to "ways to receive and test intuition through the use of dowsing tools, muscle-testing, and inner sensory signals."
Muscle testing isn't AK. It is a tool used in AK. All muscle testing used in an 'unproven' therapeutic or diagnostic manner isn't AK. Inner sensory signals, and dowsing isn't AK. If you point is about surrogate testing, then lets put it in the text, but have it reflect the technique as taught by the ICAK and Goodheart. Anthon01 ( talk) 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This article deals with non-ICAK? Why is non-ICAK information in an article about Applied kinesiology? Variations of AK are not AK. The title of this article is Applied kinesiology. So why are non-applied kinesiology techniques being discussed here?
Surrogate testing is indeed AK, no matter what variation you practice or what the ICAK says.
No arguement there. Surrogate testing is part of AK. So lets re-right that text so it reflects the technique as taught by the ICAK and Goodheart. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It also mentions claims about AK which you feel to be wrong, but those claims are documented and sourced, and therefore should stay
Sourced? Please specify. State the claim I don't agree with and then source that supports it. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Touch for Health is not Applied Kinesiology. Touch for Health is Touch for health. Conflation. Conflation. Conflation. Anthon01 ( talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Touch for Health is not the AK practitioners' "bible." You are grossly misinformed. Anthon01 ( talk) 02:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The individuals listed in this section are not practicing AK. It should be removed. Anthon01 ( talk) 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Dick Versandaal is not an AK practitioner. Anthon01 ( talk) 14:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Versandaal
The following is the ICAK's position on the use of AK procedures.
Applied kinesiology-based procedures are administered to achieve the following examination and therapeutic goals:
- Provide an interactive assessment of the functional health status of an individual which is not equipment intensive but does emphasize the importance of correlating findings with standard diagnostic procedures
- Restore postural balance, correct gait impairment, improve range of motion
- Restore normal afferentation to achieve proper neurologic control and/or organization of body function
- Achieve homeostasis of endocrine, immune, digestive, and other visceral function
- Intervene earlier in degenerative processes to prevent or delay the onset of frank pathologic processes
When properly performed, applied kinesiology can provide valuable insights into physiologic dysfunctions; however, many individuals have developed methods that use muscle testing (and related procedures) in a manner inconsistent with the approach advocated by the International College of Applied Kinesiology-U.S.A. Clearly the utilization of muscle testing and other A.K. procedures does not necessarily equate with the practice of applied kinesiology as defined by the ICAK-U.S.A.
There are both lay persons and professionals who use a form of manual muscle testing without the necessary expertise to perform specific and accurate tests. Some fail to coordinate the muscle testing findings with other standard diagnostic procedures. These may be sources of error that could lead to misinterpretation of the condition present, and thus to improper treatment or failure to treat the appropriate condition. For these reasons the International College of Applied Kinesiology-U.S.A. defines the practice of applied kinesiology as limited to health care professionals licensed to diagnose.
APPLIED KINESIOLOGY STATUS STATEMENT
Dr. Versandaal does not use standard diagnostic procedures to coordinate his findings. He is not prqcticing AK. Anthon01 ( talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article is AK. BDORT isn't AK. You seem to want to conflate all muscle testing techniques as AK, when if fact they are not. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Under Notable practitioners and theorists you or someone listed Yoshiaki Omura. He is not an AK practitioner or expert. Why would you put his name here when he is not an AK practitioner and when his technique is not an AK technique. The one individual who associated it with AK isn't an expert in AK. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you removed Yoshiaki Omura. Now David R. Hawkins; he has nothing to do with AK. He is not a notable pratitioner or theorists of AK. He should not be there either. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Proponents of AK provide what they believe to be evidence about the methods, clinical efficacy, and neurologic rationales of applied kinesiology examination and treatment.
The reference page on this sentence is incorrect. That page includes "evidence about the methods" in the first link only. Most of the data on this page represents papers on observations, theories, opinions etc... written by practitioner of varying degrees of proficiency. These papers do not represent the opinion of the ICAK. They only provides a medium for communication of ideas. These three links reflect what trained AK practitioners consider to be evidence about the methods.
http://www.soto-usa.org/SOTLiterature/Applied%20Kinesiology/Applied%20Kinesiology%20Research.htm
http://www.soto-usa.org/SOTLiterature/Applied%20Kinesiology/AK%20Related%20Research.htm
http://www.soto-usa.org/SOTLiterature/Applied%20Kinesiology/AK%20Books%20Publications.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This response does not address my point. The reference does not reflect what AK practitioners consider to be evidence in support of AK. The references I stated reflect that.
In response to your statement, the article should be either be retitled or the non-AK material should be removed. If you don't agree then explain why you think conflating different techniques together under the AK banner helps advanced the users understanding of AK and Wikipedia mission. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
But that's not what the article says, does it? This article is not titled "What some AK pratitioners think or do" is it? THe official position of the ICAK should be predominately reflected here, not the opinions of practitioners that go rogue or tha include modify or bastardize AK. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've already done that. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken this to an adminstrator. Perhaps they will agree with you and teach me. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please. Lets go one at a time. I am willing to write this with you from NPOV. However the article needs major improvement. We will probably end up agreeing on most content, however the POV issue concerns me. I would like the article to reflect the current mainstream POV of AK. -- Anthon01 13:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting news! Skepsis, The Finnish Skeptic Society, has given their annual Humbug Award to the Finnish Kinesiology Association. What do you think, would this be worth mentioning? Piechjo ( talk) 14:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused with the changes to the research section, and am considering reverting them, as they seem rather misleading at best. The review article criticizing past research was actually written before the majority of the critical papers cited, and both of the two supporting papers, which receive much more space in the article than the many critical papers, were written before the review article. I don't currently have time to rewrite this section, but it needs to be changed. -- Philosophus T 10:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Also Anthon01 I would like to see you seek consensus here with others here before making further POV related changes. All the edits you have made in recent history have been reverted by both myself and others eg Philosophus due to questionable scientific content. JamesStewart7 ( talk) 05:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to adjust the wording to fit the sources. As a rule, it's not OK to say any topic is "generally considered as X" when the citation provided is a single author. Since I'm not very familiar with AK, I may well have weighted the favorable/unfavorable evidence, and the pro/con arguments, improperly. But I do have some grasp of the bigger issues of CAM and EBM, and hope the spirit of what I'm trying to do, i.e. stick close to V RS's and not overstate them, is agreeable. regards, Jim Butler( talk) 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the following two sentences: "However, the arm-pull-down test is considered by the International College of Applied Kinesiology (I.C.A.K.) to be a very poor form of muscle testing. The arm-pull-down test involves so many different muscles that no specificity as to the muscle with the problem can be ascertained upon testing. citation needed" I did not find anything in the way of a position statement from the ICAK to this effect, but I find it plausible that such a thing may exist, so I am moving it here. In its place (after reworking) I left a sentence cited to ICAK stressing the importance of making sure that the muscle group under investigation is the one actually being tested. Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 08:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I just talked with Sapphic about the removal of the New Age category. AK is no longer in the New Age category according to WP:SUBCAT because both are in the category of pseudoscience. This is a matter of the cleaning policy. Anthon01, you did the right thing to revert my revertion, but I'm not sure why you wanted to do it. Do you actually believe AK is not New Age, and that there are no citations implicating it might be? What is it, then? Piechjo ( talk) 10:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But in fact, it convinces many many people. It works, just like aspirin did before it was proven. And there is evidence. Just not enough yet. Now conflating AK with New age is what we were discussing. Anthon01 ( talk) 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And Pseudoscience doesn't equal "New Age." Anthon01 ( talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 |
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.
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)
AK has failed appropriate tests:
-- JM
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
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
There's a closely-related article at Diagnostic kinesiology, however the two articles conflict on their relationship. Much of the "DK" article seems to overlap with this AK article. If anyone is interested and knowledgeable they might visit the other article and see what can be done. Perhaps just a few words changed, a re-write, or a merger. Thanks, - Willmcw 06:26, 7 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] -- Fyslee 00:24, 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:
Currently the article contains this sentence:
We need a citation for the claim that some, mostly chiropractors, consider AK to be "an application of academic kinesiology." Among people that don't know anything about these two subjects there can be confusion, but among scientists there is no confusion. I know that Cuthbert confuses the two, but he's an exception. There must be other examples. We need their explanation of why they confuse the two. Without a citation that sentence should be deleted as it reflects badly on chiropractors. Even though AK is a chiropractic technique, the Danish Chiropractic Association has an official policy that nearly forbids its use by chiropractors in their clinics. This is the only example to my knowledge of any chiropractic organization taking a position against a form of quackery (with the notable exception of the NACM. -- Fyslee 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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. -- Fyslee 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
No I haven't. Please direct me to the source of the statement. Thanks, Steth 23:30, 25 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.
Scott Cuthbert, D.C.
Cranial Therapeutic Care: Is There Any Evidence?: A Reply to Dr. Steven Hartman, Professor of Anatomy, University of New England
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.)
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.
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 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)
Thanks for the feedback. It is greatly appreciated. However your assumptions about different POV are incorrect. I am ok with both sides having their say. However when the material is so poorly written, lacking inline references, and not reflective of the facts, then it needs to be rectified. It doesn't ring true to me because I know what AK is and isn't. I know that it is a young immature science in need of much research before a consensus on its true efficacy will be reached. A lot of the detractors of AK are conflating 'bastardizations by lone practitioners and their followers' with 'AK as taught by the ICAK.' This isn't any different then any professional public forum, except perhaps the participants are more civil, good intentioned, and are not experts in the subjects they are writing about. But that's ok and to some degree helpful. Anthon01 ( talk) 14:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am interested in the truth. The truth trumps POV. Is that your interest also? Anthon01 ( talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
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.
Is that what you did before you added this text on intuitive kinesiology? Anthon01 ( talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs
That's not what I think. I understand the issue of verifiablility. I understand that what what I might think, know or think I know about AK is not important, it is what is verifiable from informed sources. Anthon01 ( talk) 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This section is not AK. It is a bastardization of AK. It should be removed. Anthon01 ( talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed this section from the article because it is not AK.
How about a discussion before restoration? Are you talking about the section SURROGATE TESTING: ITS HISTORY, CONTROVERSY AND RECOMMENDED USES? I would be in agreement with you if Goodheart introduced the procedure. However, present it the way it is defined by Goodheart and the ICAK, not the way a lone pratictioner has bastardized it.
Re: Magical thinking. Do you have any peer review articles to support that? Anthon01 ( talk) 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
What you've done is assumed that I removed it just because I don't like. But you are incorrect. I removed it because intuitive kinesiology isn't AK. You're conflating several different things together under the banner of AK. The errors in your text are many. First
..muscles of a trained " healer" can be used as a proxy for the actual client...
Not according to the ICAK.
The trademarked term refers to "ways to receive and test intuition through the use of dowsing tools, muscle-testing, and inner sensory signals."
Muscle testing isn't AK. It is a tool used in AK. All muscle testing used in an 'unproven' therapeutic or diagnostic manner isn't AK. Inner sensory signals, and dowsing isn't AK. If you point is about surrogate testing, then lets put it in the text, but have it reflect the technique as taught by the ICAK and Goodheart. Anthon01 ( talk) 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This article deals with non-ICAK? Why is non-ICAK information in an article about Applied kinesiology? Variations of AK are not AK. The title of this article is Applied kinesiology. So why are non-applied kinesiology techniques being discussed here?
Surrogate testing is indeed AK, no matter what variation you practice or what the ICAK says.
No arguement there. Surrogate testing is part of AK. So lets re-right that text so it reflects the technique as taught by the ICAK and Goodheart. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It also mentions claims about AK which you feel to be wrong, but those claims are documented and sourced, and therefore should stay
Sourced? Please specify. State the claim I don't agree with and then source that supports it. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Touch for Health is not Applied Kinesiology. Touch for Health is Touch for health. Conflation. Conflation. Conflation. Anthon01 ( talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Touch for Health is not the AK practitioners' "bible." You are grossly misinformed. Anthon01 ( talk) 02:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The individuals listed in this section are not practicing AK. It should be removed. Anthon01 ( talk) 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Dick Versandaal is not an AK practitioner. Anthon01 ( talk) 14:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Versandaal
The following is the ICAK's position on the use of AK procedures.
Applied kinesiology-based procedures are administered to achieve the following examination and therapeutic goals:
- Provide an interactive assessment of the functional health status of an individual which is not equipment intensive but does emphasize the importance of correlating findings with standard diagnostic procedures
- Restore postural balance, correct gait impairment, improve range of motion
- Restore normal afferentation to achieve proper neurologic control and/or organization of body function
- Achieve homeostasis of endocrine, immune, digestive, and other visceral function
- Intervene earlier in degenerative processes to prevent or delay the onset of frank pathologic processes
When properly performed, applied kinesiology can provide valuable insights into physiologic dysfunctions; however, many individuals have developed methods that use muscle testing (and related procedures) in a manner inconsistent with the approach advocated by the International College of Applied Kinesiology-U.S.A. Clearly the utilization of muscle testing and other A.K. procedures does not necessarily equate with the practice of applied kinesiology as defined by the ICAK-U.S.A.
There are both lay persons and professionals who use a form of manual muscle testing without the necessary expertise to perform specific and accurate tests. Some fail to coordinate the muscle testing findings with other standard diagnostic procedures. These may be sources of error that could lead to misinterpretation of the condition present, and thus to improper treatment or failure to treat the appropriate condition. For these reasons the International College of Applied Kinesiology-U.S.A. defines the practice of applied kinesiology as limited to health care professionals licensed to diagnose.
APPLIED KINESIOLOGY STATUS STATEMENT
Dr. Versandaal does not use standard diagnostic procedures to coordinate his findings. He is not prqcticing AK. Anthon01 ( talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article is AK. BDORT isn't AK. You seem to want to conflate all muscle testing techniques as AK, when if fact they are not. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Under Notable practitioners and theorists you or someone listed Yoshiaki Omura. He is not an AK practitioner or expert. Why would you put his name here when he is not an AK practitioner and when his technique is not an AK technique. The one individual who associated it with AK isn't an expert in AK. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you removed Yoshiaki Omura. Now David R. Hawkins; he has nothing to do with AK. He is not a notable pratitioner or theorists of AK. He should not be there either. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Proponents of AK provide what they believe to be evidence about the methods, clinical efficacy, and neurologic rationales of applied kinesiology examination and treatment.
The reference page on this sentence is incorrect. That page includes "evidence about the methods" in the first link only. Most of the data on this page represents papers on observations, theories, opinions etc... written by practitioner of varying degrees of proficiency. These papers do not represent the opinion of the ICAK. They only provides a medium for communication of ideas. These three links reflect what trained AK practitioners consider to be evidence about the methods.
http://www.soto-usa.org/SOTLiterature/Applied%20Kinesiology/Applied%20Kinesiology%20Research.htm
http://www.soto-usa.org/SOTLiterature/Applied%20Kinesiology/AK%20Related%20Research.htm
http://www.soto-usa.org/SOTLiterature/Applied%20Kinesiology/AK%20Books%20Publications.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This response does not address my point. The reference does not reflect what AK practitioners consider to be evidence in support of AK. The references I stated reflect that.
In response to your statement, the article should be either be retitled or the non-AK material should be removed. If you don't agree then explain why you think conflating different techniques together under the AK banner helps advanced the users understanding of AK and Wikipedia mission. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
But that's not what the article says, does it? This article is not titled "What some AK pratitioners think or do" is it? THe official position of the ICAK should be predominately reflected here, not the opinions of practitioners that go rogue or tha include modify or bastardize AK. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've already done that. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken this to an adminstrator. Perhaps they will agree with you and teach me. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please. Lets go one at a time. I am willing to write this with you from NPOV. However the article needs major improvement. We will probably end up agreeing on most content, however the POV issue concerns me. I would like the article to reflect the current mainstream POV of AK. -- Anthon01 13:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting news! Skepsis, The Finnish Skeptic Society, has given their annual Humbug Award to the Finnish Kinesiology Association. What do you think, would this be worth mentioning? Piechjo ( talk) 14:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused with the changes to the research section, and am considering reverting them, as they seem rather misleading at best. The review article criticizing past research was actually written before the majority of the critical papers cited, and both of the two supporting papers, which receive much more space in the article than the many critical papers, were written before the review article. I don't currently have time to rewrite this section, but it needs to be changed. -- Philosophus T 10:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Also Anthon01 I would like to see you seek consensus here with others here before making further POV related changes. All the edits you have made in recent history have been reverted by both myself and others eg Philosophus due to questionable scientific content. JamesStewart7 ( talk) 05:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to adjust the wording to fit the sources. As a rule, it's not OK to say any topic is "generally considered as X" when the citation provided is a single author. Since I'm not very familiar with AK, I may well have weighted the favorable/unfavorable evidence, and the pro/con arguments, improperly. But I do have some grasp of the bigger issues of CAM and EBM, and hope the spirit of what I'm trying to do, i.e. stick close to V RS's and not overstate them, is agreeable. regards, Jim Butler( talk) 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the following two sentences: "However, the arm-pull-down test is considered by the International College of Applied Kinesiology (I.C.A.K.) to be a very poor form of muscle testing. The arm-pull-down test involves so many different muscles that no specificity as to the muscle with the problem can be ascertained upon testing. citation needed" I did not find anything in the way of a position statement from the ICAK to this effect, but I find it plausible that such a thing may exist, so I am moving it here. In its place (after reworking) I left a sentence cited to ICAK stressing the importance of making sure that the muscle group under investigation is the one actually being tested. Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 08:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I just talked with Sapphic about the removal of the New Age category. AK is no longer in the New Age category according to WP:SUBCAT because both are in the category of pseudoscience. This is a matter of the cleaning policy. Anthon01, you did the right thing to revert my revertion, but I'm not sure why you wanted to do it. Do you actually believe AK is not New Age, and that there are no citations implicating it might be? What is it, then? Piechjo ( talk) 10:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But in fact, it convinces many many people. It works, just like aspirin did before it was proven. And there is evidence. Just not enough yet. Now conflating AK with New age is what we were discussing. Anthon01 ( talk) 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And Pseudoscience doesn't equal "New Age." Anthon01 ( talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)