Talk:Applied kinesiology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Prostitution

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

First comments

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 placebo effect and 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)

not quackery

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 testable hypotheses and trying to disprove them. So if you take another look at vibrational psychology from the perspectives of Memetics and 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 placebo would have to be established if this is to be a 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)

Diagnostic kinesiology

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)

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)

Consensus view?

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.

Studies on Applied Kinesiology

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

Reversion of Scott Cuthbert's massive changes

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)

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)

Confusion between scientific kinesiology and AK

Currently the article contains this sentence:

• Applied Kinesiology is considered an application of academic kinesiology by some, 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 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)

Bullying by Deglr6328

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)

Danish Chiropractic Association position

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. -- Fyslee 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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]

POV

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)

Just asking for some citations

"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)

Doing the Fyslee Routine

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))

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.)

Your blatant personal attack has been noted. The DC after your name says it all, but unfortunately your behavior reflects on other chiropractors who can behave themselves. -- Fyslee 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience - a loaded term/category to discredit

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)

Support - peer reviewed journals

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

Dispute of Neutrality

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. ArbCom is the Arbitration Committee, which makes rulings that, while not binding precedent, tend to be observed as indications of what would be ruled if the dispute went to them. WP:RfAR/closed lists all of the cases, and WP:AP/PD gives some of the important findings. The Pseudoscience case, Omura case, and Paranormal case may all have bearing on this article to various extents. In addition, you should know the relevant policies and guidelines here, such as Verifiability, No Original Research, Reliable Sources, Neutral Point of View, Fringe Theories, and 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. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 20 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)

First of all, I did not add the text. This article is written through collaboration by many editors, some are experts, others are not, but here we are all equal. Content reflects many aspects of AK in many variations, and is not (solely) about the ICAK or it's definitions or recommendations. As far as "truth" goes, you are in the wrong forum. While we all wish that content were true, Wikipedia expressly avoids limiting content to what individual editors consider to be the "truth", because what is truth to one is error to another, and we document existing facts and opinions, including erroneous opinions. I suggest you read this valuable essay:

• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing:

"Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability." (emphasis and wikilinks added by Fyslee)

As I mention above, Wikipedia is not a normal website and the rules here are quite different that elsewhere. Please be careful. I suggest that you start with non-contentious articles for awhile to help you learn the rules and culture here. Then you may end up becoming a useful editor, and that would be great. If you fail to heed friendly warnings, you may end up getting blocked or banned for behavior and editing that is not allowed here.

You have already added some tags. That's fine if not done in excess. Now let them stay there for a couple months so editors will come here (having been alerted by the tags) and improve the sourcing or text. They may well have sources that very precisely back up what you feel to be erroneous information, in which case that information may well stay in the article because it is properly sourced. (It may not be considered erroneous by others, and its "truthfulness" is beside the point anyway.) -- Fyslee / talk 16:41, 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)

AK through surrogates

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.

(From merged "Intuitive kinesiology" article)

Some Applied Kinesiology practitioners will test a surrogate using the premise that the muscles of a trained "healer" can be used as a proxy for the actual client to convey information about the client's physical or spiritual condition. This has been called "Intuitive Kinesiology," which is a trademark registered by Susan Shumsky with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The trademarked term refers to "ways to receive and test intuition through the use of dowsing tools, muscle-testing, and inner sensory signals.".

The numbers of practitioners is small since practice typically involves two different and rare systems of belief: the medical intuitive view and the body work view. This kink of AK for purely spiritual purposes require only a combination of the ideomotor effect and some spiritual belief system. Anthon01 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In my textbook (the AK practitioners' "bible")

• Touch forHealth (T4H), designed by an International College of Applied Kinesiology (ICAK) diplomate, John Thie, DC.

this is listed as one of the most valuable techniques an applied kinesiologist possesses, with astounding results. Sure it's pseudoscientific magical thinking, but AK uses plenty of that. Goodheart introduced it in 1974 and it is controversial, but it is used quite a bit by AK practitioners, mostly chiropractors (since it is a chiropractic technique). It is mentioned many places online, including here. Just because you don't like it, you shouldn't remove it. It is basic AK as taught by the founder, chiropractor George Goodheart. All sides of this matter must be included in the article, so please restore the material. -- Fyslee / talk 06:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

healer"

..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 information and variations of AK, and information that was merged here from other articles on variations. It also mentions claims about AK which you feel to be wrong, but those claims are documented and sourced, and therefore should stay. Surrogate testing is indeed AK, no matter what variation you practice or what the ICAK says. Even if it becomes a discarded technique, you would have to find a good source that says it, and then you could include that, but that doesn't mean it isn't practiced as AK (it definitely is) or never was AK. The part about "magical thinking" was my own statement on this talk page, IOW my own opinion and not suitable for the article itself, but the idea is already mentioned in the article and referenced from, a reliable source, so I just happen to share it with many scientists and skeptics. BTW, at Wikipedia "reliable source" has another meaning than in the outside world, and it is very important for you to understand that before proceeding. We use many kinds of sources here. Peer reviewed articles are the best for scientific claims, but not the only sources allowed, and non-peer reviewed sources are used for documenting notable opinions. Opinions obviously don't need to come from peer reviewed sources. You have also added tags to the section. Now let other editors have a chance to improve it before just deleting it. Deletionism is frowned on here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:52, 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)

Notable practitioners and theorists

The individuals listed in this section are not practicing AK. It should be removed. Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On what basis? Since when is it a requirement for them to be practicing? -- Fyslee / talk 16:53, 20 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)

BDORT

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)

First (again), "I" did not write that or include it, and I don't "want" anything, much less to "conflate". I am not the only one who edits this article. Did you read the source about BDORT? We aren't stating in the article anything about BDORT or that BDORT actually is AK, only including a reliable source that has said it (or associated it with AK). BTW, please find another type of article until you are familiar with Wikipedia. This is wasting our time. -- Fyslee / talk 17:47, 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 didn't do it. I suspect he was listed because his technique is somehow related (ideomotor action, totally subjective influence of the practitioner, scientifically untested, etc.). That may be too tangential a relation for inclusion. I won't protest if you remove him. -- Fyslee / talk 18:03, 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)

Science and AK

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 article is not solely about ICAK or SOTO. -- Fyslee / talk 17:12, 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)

Read my comments above. This includes information about related matters, even if not directly AK. It also includes what some AK practitioners (who apparently believe differently than you or the ICAK) do. While your comments are not irrelevant, please find another type of article until you are familiar with Wikipedia. This is wasting our time and is becoming disruptive. When you have learned more about how to edit here and about the purpose of Wikipedia, and about collaboration and consensus, then your concerns will be dealt with more appropriately. I think they deserve it, but right now your inexperience here is going to cause more grief than it's worth. -- Fyslee / talk 17:55, 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)

Your statements reveal that you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia or what article inclusion requirements are, and I'm not going to use alot of time to teach you. Please get used to the climate here by editing other articles that are non-controversial. If you continue I'll have to call administrator assistance. They may be inclined to teach you, or just to block you for disruption if your editing causes too many problems. -- Fyslee / talk 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already done that. Anthon01 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done what? -- Fyslee / talk 18:22, 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)

Recent edits

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)

Okay - "one at a time." Right now we are dealing with a two-part improvement to the article which I have made:

1. Enlarging the article by bringing good content (as suggested there) from the "List of pseudoscience...." article.
2. Addition of some good references that definitely are justified, and in fact required.

Your other concerns will have to wait as they are all-encompassing: "article needs major improvement" and "the article to reflect...."

Now, instead of deleting the two-part improvement, let's discuss it here. Using revert warring is a very bad idea. It is here, not in the edit summary, that your objections should be presented. Deleting sourced content is very different than deleting unsourced opinions, as deleting sources weakens the encyclopedia. With few exception, never delete good sources. To ensure that we are talking about the same thing, please copy (do not continue to revert war) the part you wish to discuss (including the reference codes) and place it here. Then point out your objections. If we agree I will be happy to remove or change it. If not then we can seek more input. Barring actual policy violations, there is no justification for deleting it. Your wholesale deletion of a whole paragraph was a very bad move. As a newcomer here, it is important for you to know that it is called vandalism, so please don't do that again. Now let's lay that behind us and try to figure this out peaceably. I do want to understand your reasoning, and an edit summary is far from enough. -- Fyslee / talk 04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please follow WP:CCC --Anthon01 10:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am attempting to collaborate with you, but your edit warring is getting tiresome. We should be discussing right here, so please do not use edit summaries and edit warring. You claim to be new here, but a pattern seems to be developing and your actions are being noted. Please deal with this here on the talk page. Your latest reversion is vandalism. I have provided a format for discussion here, in response to your concerns above. Please respond instead of vandalizing and edit warring. I have also changed the heading here in keeping with the rules for talk page headings. You yourself brought this up earlier and yet violated it here. -- Fyslee / talk 17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please comply with WP:CCC. I did not see "Fyslee's Edits" as a personal attack. If I offended you I apologize. I reviewed the policy and noted the third item. "Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed." I hadn't committed that one to memory yet. My oversight, please accept my sincere apologize.--Anthon01 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't consider it an attack. Now that you are here, please start discussing. It's called "collaboration." I would like to know what your concerns are with the existing content and my references. Deleting them is not collaborative and is a violation of WP:AGF. I want to get to the bottom of this and find out what the problem is. -- Fyslee / talk 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I'll have to wait until Anthon01's block for edit warring expires. -- Fyslee / talk 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

AK awarded in Finland

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)

Yes, let's mention it. This subject is so funny as to deserve some extra comic relief. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I might as well. I'm just not sure where to put it. "International awards"? Piechjo (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a notable organization. Anthon01 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Research

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)

Before anyone changes anything, let me get a full copy of the review article and compare it's comments with the prior and subsequent full copies articles to see the details. Does that seem fair? --Anthon01 (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I got the review article from 1999 and will be looking it over in the next week. The holidays slow things down a bit. I'll get back to you. Anthon01 (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok before I removed this because it was uncited "AK nutrient testing appears to reflect the nervous system's efferent response to the stimulation of gustatory and olfactory nerve receptors by various tested substances. There is considerable evidence in the scientific literature of extensive efferent function throughout the body from stimulation of the gustatory and olfactory receptors". Now it is cited with a rather irrelevant article. There are multiple problems with these statements and the link to the citing article. Firstly "extensive efferent function" in not specified. Extensive efferent function could mean practically any response in any area of the body. The term "efferent" simply means fibres that carry impulses away from the central nervous system. Seeing as there are only three types of fibres (efferent, afferent and interneurons) that hardly narrows it down. The next problem is that the citing article has absolutely nothing to do with AK yet a link is implied by the previous sentence. The cited article cannot support the claim that AK nutrient tetsting actually reflects anything. Efferent function as a result of gustatory and olfactory stimulation likewise cannot support a claim that AK testing is accurate. This implied link with AK constitutes original research and because of this I am removing the claim and the supporting reference. If anyone wishes to reinclude such a reference they must either find a reference that actually has something to do with AK or both specifiy "extensive efferent function" AND supply a refernce stating how this supports the claim that AK is effective.

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)

Hi, You seem a bit angry. You can go ahead and remove all the text in that section if you'd like. I am not partial to it as I believe most of it is incorrect. Go ahead and knock yourself out. I have wanted to do the same for sometime now. The factoid that you removed earlier is obvious to anyone with a bio background. I agree with your POV, that there is an implication caused by the proximity of the two sentences. However I was providing a reference to the one sentence only. I will replace that sentence as it is pertinent to the claims made by AK. Anthon01 (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am quite clear on what efferent means as I have extensive education in Neurology. The text is correct. You could of put a fact tag on the text instead of just deleting it. But that's ok. Anthon01 (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Look I think this sentence "There is considerable evidence in the scientific literature of extensive efferent function throughout the body from stimulation of the gustatory and olfactory receptors" probably is correct which is why I didn't fact tag it. It is, however, so vague it is hard for it to be wrong. The primary problem was that I can't leave that sentence in AND remove the preceeding sentence, "AK nutrient testing appears to reflect the nervous system's efferent response to the stimulation of gustatory and olfactory nerve receptors by various tested substances", as the article will not make sense without it. I am not prepared to merely fact tag this sentence because there is evidence presented in the same article that suggests the claim is false, "Some scientific studies have shown that applied kinesiology tests are not reproducible[14][15][16][17][18] and several scientific studies have shown that AK-specific procedures and diagnostic tests have no scientific validity." Unreliable tests are of indeterminate validity so AK nutrient testing can't possibly reflect anything.

My general policy with unreferenced material is to remove unreferenced material that I believe contradicts scientific evidence or that is particularly contential and fact tag all else. Please note that I do not want to remove all the information I have fact tagged. Practically everything about AK testing procedures is currently fact tagged. If I remove all that there is no article. What I am trying to prevent, is AK procedures being presented as scientifically valid when there is no evidence to support the. What I would like to see though is a nice, referenced, description of what AK practitioners actually do. Surely there is some AK organisation that details this in some published source. Anthon01, as you have disputed much about what AK practitoners do on the talk page, I was hoping that you could provide us with a reliable source about what is involved in an AK consultation. We can then work on presenting that material in a way that is NPOV.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact is that almost all of that info is false. I will update it over the next month. In the mean time few if any citations will support what is currently there. Anthon01 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims of consensus and lead section

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 think its a good edit. Anthon01 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - just did a couple more along those lines; just rv partly or fully if too bold. It's especially important, imo, to have sci research in own section, apart from non-peer-reviewed opinion (whether pro or con). cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably find that most of the "Basics" section is false and the citations don't support the text. Anthon01 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to leave that for editors more familiar with the field. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Arm-pull-down test

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." 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)

Because nearly all AK tests are subjective, relying solely on practitioner assessment of muscle response, observer bias cannot be avoided. Since there is no scientific understanding of the proposed underlying theory and no evidence-based confirmation of the effectiveness of the modality I doubt this text is important as these criticism are unsourced and are pertinent to any profession. Anthon01 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather the first part is. Anthon01 (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That first sentence could certainly use a citation (so tagged, please comment out rather than fully removing if it is felt that it should not stand with source pending), but I disagree as to its lack of specificity. Anything relying on human perceptions will be subject to observer bias, but there are plenty of ways to minimize the damage even without switching to machine-based measurement. This includes development of expertise and strict adherence to consistent practices, hence rewording to "difficult to avoid" (I rewrote that section a little before seeing your comments, but I think the gist of your point holds). Ideally, a source will make all plainly evident.

The criticism section in general is kind of an accident for the nonce, as the text needed to go somewhere but did not really fit in any of the extant sections. Once the practice is outlined and the actual research is described, I am not sure how much utility a separate "Criticism" section really serves for the encyclopedia, so I could support folding these ideas into the rest of the article (bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT, of course). Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 09:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this statement if not to denigrate AK? Every form of medicine performs techniques that are subject to observer bias, but is not mentioned in the articles of other professions. Expertise and strict adherence to consistent practices is a goal of ICAK. Anthon01 (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AK is not New Age?

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)

It isn't "New Age." There are "New Age" types that bastardize it, but AK according to the discoverer and developer of the technique and it's official org, the ICAK, is not AK. Do you think it is? If so please explain why. Anthon01 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they developed something that maybe was supposed to be science. AK is endorsed by New Age people, not scientists. I remember an NLP trainer claiming his therapy builds a bridge between science and New Age. I guess someone could believe the same about AK. You can buy AK books from the New Age book dealer, and the connection is all over the Internet. But of course it could be a mere coincidence. I guess we have to go back to the original question: if AK is not New Age, what is it, then? Piechjo (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for adding it to the category that association is enough - people who come to this article might also be interested in (other) New Age topics. It might be better, though, if we could have something like an "Adoption and use" section between "Basics" and "Scientific research". Or possibly it would be better to roll it into an expanded "History" section - say, an outline of Goodheart's ideas, spread to chiropractic and beyond on the practitioner side, and demographics of users (historical and modern)? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What books from what New Age stores? There are plenty of new age types that use muscle testing to do everything from checking past lives and getting lottery ticket numbers. None of this is AK. Again the problem is many consider all forms of muscle testing to be AK, when in fact it is not. For instance, since 1980 a frequent and most sought out practitioner at the Olympics is the chiropractor practicing Applied Kinesiology. He is practicing along side MDs, PTs and Trainers as an official member of the US Olympic medical team. I don't think he is practicing New Age medicine, at least not the woo woo type. As I have said before, anyone can claim to use muscle test for whatever they claim it works for. It doesn't cost a penny. IF AK muscle testing was performed with a $50,000 machine, then you would not have the problem of the 'average joe' muscle testing (poorly conducted at that) at parties and the vitamin isle of health food stores. Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't change anything if it was a million dollar machine. There's no evidence of anyone successfully doing muscle testing, and I don't see how it would even be possible. You might as well diagnose someone's diseases by rubbing their nose and see if they sneeze. What difference is there if I make the test or this guy makes the test? Piechjo (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think you really know what AK is as you think it's "New Age." The article is mostly wrong about AK. I am going to try to get to it over the next few weeks.

If you have an expensive machine then the general public will not have access to it. That means that only individuals with the means will, like doctors who are trained in biology, anatomy, neurology, biochemistry etc ... When the general public, has access, you get everyone and his mother muscle testing, including the "New Age" types. There exist some evidence.[10] It certainly isn't enough. And due to a lack of money, progress along that line will be slow. The fact that you don't see how its possible doesn't mean it isn't. Aspirin was used for 80 plus years before anyone knew how it worked. There is to this day, some popular drugs that are being used where the mechanism is unknown.

Two years before the 1980 Olympics, the Medical Director of the Olympic Committee, who was an avid runner and an M.D., had sustained a leg injury that kept him from running for 18 months. He had access to the best sports injury technology and practitioners, but was unable to find anyone to help him. At the end of 1979, just before the Winter Olympics, he went to see George Goodheart D.C., the originator and major developer of the technique. In one visit he figured out what was wrong and treated him. The next day he ran 2 miles without a problem. George Goodheart was invited to participate in the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, where he distinguished himself in treating these elite athletes. Ever since chiropractors, many of them highly trained AK practitioners, have participated in the Olympic Medical Team. Anthon01 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That should do nothing to convince anybody. The difference between Aspirin and AK is that Aspirin works. You can say it will take 80 years to understand what lies behind AK, but this won't help to make it work. As the original technique was developed in 1964, we'd have to wait until 2044 to know. Science is ready to accept the evidence anytime the ICAK has it. In 44 years, there hasn't been any proof of efficacy, and yet AK is being practised. This is called pseudoscience. Piechjo (talk) 15:53, 25 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)

You can call it whichever you like. Research has shown it works in an open test but not in a blind test. This means you can use it to confirm your suspicion, but not to give reliable new information. It's really a waste of time. Piechjo (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Anthon01 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)