Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KrishnaVindaloo (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 16 May 2006 (→Bullying by Deglr6328). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 (). 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 Misplaced Pages supporter, it saddens me to see its editing sink into little more than ignorance-by-choice and namecalling.

Perhaps the original Misplaced Pages editor said it best:

"(Larry) Sanger's stated reason for ending his participation in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages fully" and to know and support "the mission and broad policy outlines of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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

Reversion of Scott Cuthbert's massive changes

Message copied to Cuthbert's Talk page: Misplaced Pages 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. -- 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."

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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.)"

This summary is not only a violation of good taste and Misplaced Pages 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 . 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.