Talk:Applied kinesiology

Keep to the facts, please
It seems to me that this article is rather slighted toward opinionated rather than factual information. I think it needs to be cleaned up to provide information about the subject that isn't so slighted toward someone's opinion on the subject. The External Links has a tag that says it should be cut short. Can we get rid of some of the links that have redundant info? I also think those links should be things that use facts, not just opinions. Just my 2¢. (Jif101 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Firstly, I beg your pardon for not being nativ English... Honestly, at first sight I liked the article because there are many references, it is long, seems to give lots of information. Reading only the first passage was a great disappointment! And reding the source text of only the first paragraph reveals that a number of the quotations were from secondary "sources", i.e. articles in magazines about AK. For me, scientific writing has to draw from the most original sources possible. Quote Goodheart or the ak-organisations when it comes to describe how AK works, what it is about. Quote a (hopefully!) scientific magazine when it comes to studies and let an article contribute when it comes to media response. In the section about Denmark - that's quite unreal. Homeopathy and AK have as much in common as your sliced apple and the cereals in the müsli bowl at breakfast.... Who is writing such press releases and how can we honestly put this here?? I dare not change anything because of my lack in language proficiency. Totally agree with Jif101 (above)! Can someone please do something about this lengthy article and help save its great informative potential? --Gela1 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I know that this is being explained to you now well over a year after your comments, and well after your user page has vanished, but the fact is that for purposes of being consideredwp:rs, primary sources are generally shunned as being unreliable, whereas secondary sources from reliable media sources ARE considered wp:rs If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Snertking (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

POV
The article had a POV tag before which another editor removed without any clear discussion that I can see in the archive. I have reinstated it as the article seem too much of an attack piece to be NPOV. For example the lede soon uses tendentious, weasely language such as purportedly and continues in the same vein. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:Weasel words are statements without adequate attribution. WP:Tendentious editing is partisan, biased or skewed editing.  To use words like purportedly without adequate citations would give us an NPOV problem, but this article is rammed full of citations to credible research showing that AK is pseudoscientific nonsense - in this case to remove the word purportedly would give us an NPOV problem.  I've removed the tag again - I hope this explanation is sufficiently clear.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not an RS
This would fail the WP:RS test for sure, but it is a double-blind experiment (ahem) worth watching with an open mind. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT, please? I am not sure why all these (in general, I think none of them involved the above editor) talkpage digressions have been bugging me lately, but it really would be nice if we could stick to the topic of improving the article. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I struck it, but feel free to remove my comment above as well. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead section, and is it a "chiropractic technique"?
Whoa, couple rounds of reverting   (and not even an ES in that last one) and no one's using the talk page?

If we're going to say it's a "chiropractic technique", we need a source that unambiguously says so. Barrett doesn't reach that threshold. He says "Most practitioners are chiropractors, but naturopaths, medical doctors, dentists, bogus nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, nurse practitioners, and multilevel distributors (most notably for Nature's Sunshine) are also involved." How is he an RS for this? What survey does he cite? None; and as it turns out, what he says a little later contradicts his assertion: after citing various stats for how many chiros use AK (ca. 30-40% in the US), he says:  "The prevalence among other types of practitioners is unknown." It's unknown? Then how on earth can anyone claim to know what percentage of AK users are chiros! Maybe it's just a plurality. Who knows? Anyway, lacking an RS saying unambiguously that it's a chiro technique, the line doesn't belong in the lead. I'm going to retain Barrett but change the wording to stick close to what the source reliably says. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, no info is lost with my edit; I kept the Quackwatch ref. Just a rewording per what we can reliably infer from that source.  If Barrett ever put his article through anything like peer-review, he'd get nailed for baldly asserting that most practitioners are chiros and not backing it up.  Well, at WP we do have some small measure of editorial review, so not everything he says gets to go in articles here. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The edits are a spillover from a discussion elsewhere (link below).


 * I'm not sure why QG put the Quackwatch ref in there, and it's certainly not a good reference to be used there, especially since it doesn't back up the edit. Two of the best existing refs do so, and will likely be used soon, but right now a discussion is ongoing elsewhere.


 * We can't be carrying on this dispute in two places, so PLEASE confine this discussion to the ongoing discussion here. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) For posterity, note this edit that completely ignores the point that Barrett doesn't source his claim. That wouldn't be the first instance of WP:IDHT from QuackGuru. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to copy a list from a source, at least copy it properly - I've added the word 'bogus' because that's in the source. It might seem NPOV, but if we're quoting it should be accurate. Actually that para is probably good for deletion anyway, thoughts? CheesyBiscuit (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is trying to revert the above change, please explain why on this talk page before doing so again. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal observation
This edit added what appears to be Original research. If any Reliable sources make these observations and comparisons, please introduce them here for discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific Research" section needs to be brought into balance
WP:UNDUE Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. This section should lead with the scientific consensus, instead of ending with it. Additionally, the intro sentence creates an impression of a false balance: i.e. that some studies weight in favor, and some against. The mainstream scientific research should also make up the majority of the section's content. Dogweather (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I read through the section, and it's a huge mess. It would give the mistaken impression that the scientific community is in disagreement about AK's efficacy.  I'll fix when I have time. Dogweather (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A Guideline for writing about Physical Practices
It is very, very useful to start with an experiential basis for writing about a physically based practice. Whilst I would by no means suggest that we throw theory out of the window, I am arguing that it is important that we understand what we are talking about. Without the experience the theory is an abstraction, without a clarity of how it relates together. In learning these disciplines there is a certain extent to which it has to be part of an oral tradition. I cannot teach you ballet just by telling you about ballet: I may be able to give you certain maps, I may be able to illuminate certain principles of it, but in the end, we would need to be in a room together doing it for you to really learn how to do it.

In the same way that I would never suggest that someone who has never seen ballet, or been to a ballet class focus their writing on ballet; I would not suggest that someone who has no unmediated experience of Applied Kinesiology focus their writing on it. This is not to say that it is bad and should not be done, but if it is, maybe it is good write from a point of an open honesty and humbleness.

There are many disciplines that have a strong experiential basis for them, but are yet to be accepted by the scientific mainstream, and this is more to do with a lack of research and dialogue than it is to with the work being scientifically unviable in itself. What I am saying is that we should be critical of what we read and write - if most of the literature says one thing, then most of what we say is in danger of just regurgitating what everyone has said. To be critical is to digest, integrate and express what we experience, through the being and the doing of it and through the thinking and the reading about it. Sebbi (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Websites
I think someone should mention about stuff like this: http://kinesiologybydenaplaice.co.uk/ http://www.icpkp.com/Story?Action=View&Story_id=1636 I put ADHD into my local city and found this. (Was looking for an ADHD support group locally). I would never use one of them websites but it would be a good to mention this for other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.140.137 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * UM, NO. The webpage in question, for starters, is in no way wp:rs Secondly, why would an advert for a particular AK practice be relevant to the article? Snertking (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Feedback for a new article on BodyTalk
The article is currently in my namespace. I am concerned about potential deletion, but I do believe the topic has become sufficiently notable, for better or worse, as demonstrated by the references in my draft of the article (most of which are more recent than the last deletion in 2007). Any contributions or suggestions would be appreciated. -Hugetim (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Link rot
This article has several dead links. I can only assume that these link once worked. Please replace the sources with existing ones. 68.120.89.89 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard R. Hawkins
Some information more suitable for this page was posted at the article Richard R. Hawkins :


 * Mainstream scientists and scientific skeptics, notably the author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll, state that applied kinesiology's results are triggered by the ideomotor effect and recognize Hawkins' use of applied kinesiology to be a pseudoscience when scrutinized with the scientific method. This is evidenced by double-blind studies, including some that found applied kinesiology to be "no more useful than random guessing", as well as additional research and reviews contained in the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. Chiropractic researchers who reviewed the studies that came out of International College of Applied Kinesiology concluded that "no valid conclusions could be drawn concerning their report of findings".

If it is not duplicated, then please make use of it.Oranjblud (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

the lead and NPOV
per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV

the lead should place the subject in context and the context needs to accurately reflect the mainstream opinion. per policy the lead MUST therefore place AK as the pseudo scientific quackery that the mainstream academics view it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV again
A new editor has come along, and as their first ever edit in Wikipedia, has marked this article for NPOV, apparently disregarding all prior discussions on this page of the neutrality of this article. I invite the editor to review the prior discussions to understand that the consensus view of the Wikipedia community does not support the idea that calling AK a pseudoscientific practice violates neutrality, because of the preponderance of citations available to back that point of view. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Again 2
(being the first time editor that I am, I finally! figured out how to post this here...)

The main reason that I offered this flag was not to dispute the factual information already in place, but that basic content about AK and Clinical Kinesiology theory and methods is lacking, and that this lack contributes to the article's overall taste as biased in conjunction with the particular placement and use of parenthesis and words/phrases that add a negative connotation, rather than straight-forward facts. The statements in the opening paragraph are certainly informative, however would they not be more appropriately placed in the 'Criticism' section? The use of parenthesis in the History and Current use section, regarding ICAK also seems unnecessary, and meant to express the author's option about the nature of the organization, its people and activities - i.e. "certified", "diplomats". I could also be reading into this, but as a common wikipedia viewer, I am probably not the only person to process the use of punctuation as a method to maintain a tone of opinionated skepticism. Also see: "The essential premise of applied kinesiology, which is not shared by mainstream medical theory..." - this phrase seems unnecessary, and further reinforces, what appears to be the overall slant of the article. These are a few examples of why I placed the NPOV. I think the content already in place has the potential to read and inform in a more expansive way through reorganization and with additions to the text.

As you pointed out that I am a first-time editor, so I appreciate your patience with my kindergarten like-style of jumping in to this discussion. If there is a more appropriate way to do so, I will be happy to follow that avenue since I am just one voice of many in an old discussion here. If it is not appropriate for me to have placed a NPOV on the article, than let it be removed. Ancora Imparo...

I have studied Kinesiology and am a Kinesiologist and in no way do we ever claim to 'diagnose' any patient. That is one of the first things we are taught in Kinesiology, we never treat, prescribe or diagnose. So that part of this article certainly needs to be revised as it is misleading and false information. The article is quite obviously a very biased/opinionated article and I strongly believe that it should focus on the facts and getting true Kinesiology information out there without any opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.21.128 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look - and it does seem that the claim that it's used to "diagnose" and "treat" are backed up by Reliable Sources. I appreciate that your personal experience might offer additional information, but following WP:ORIG, that is not useful as WP:RS. On the other hand, if your educational establishment has published course material saying that AK isn't to be used for diagnosis and treatment (and hence what it would be used for), then add it to the page in context. I'd suggest also posting it here so that if your edits are reverted later, other editors can still appreciate your newbie-ness, and use your information.
 * In line with existing consensus, though, I'm removing the WP:NPOV tag.
 * Ian McDonald (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian McDonald (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

misleading information - needs to be rectified
I have studied Kinesiology and am a Kinesiologist and in no way do we ever claim to 'diagnose' any patient. That is one of the first things we are taught in Kinesiology, we never treat, prescribe or diagnose. So that part of this article certainly needs to be revised as it is misleading and false information. The article is quite obviously a very biased/opinionated article and I strongly believe that it should focus on the facts and getting true Kinesiology information out there without any opinion.

Kinesiologist1990 (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV yet again
This article is thoroughly rigged. Perhaps some balance between the detractors and proponents would make for something resembling a legitimate article, rather than an attack page on AK and alternative medicine. 94.2.227.10 (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to be specific. A general gripe won't do. Which content is not reliably sourced? Which content is not true? Provide the exact words, in quotation marks, and the sourcing used. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No "general gripe" pal. More like WP:NPOV if we want to throw essays around. I'm talking about the whole article. In my subjective opinion – which is what Wikipedia is all about, whether we pretend or not – it is clearly weighted toward detractors. 94.2.227.10 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, when you have something specific to suggest, let us know.--McSly (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that scientific evidence supports and informs the views of detractors (that's WHY they criticize AK...duh!), is just a fact of life. We follow the RS, and most RS back up the mainstream scientific POV that AK is a pseudoscience. You obviously don't like that. Maybe you need to change your POV and bring it into line with the evidence.
 * Without specifics we can't do much here. Such general complaints are a dime a dozen from pushers of fringe POV and we consider them to be violations of WP:TALK. If this continues we'll just remove the comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew I'd hit a nerve by requesting a little impartiality. Your hostile responses confirm it. I happened to stumble onto the page and have no interest whatsoever in it other than promoting NPOV. I'm well aware that AK is regarded as pseudoscience but some views to the contrary wouldn't hurt. 94.2.227.10 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just saying "NPOV" is far too vague. The next comment without a specific suggestion will get deleted and this whole thread hatted. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hatchet job on AK
Wikipedia, which is generally so informative and rational in its coverage of information of all kinds, has failed utterly to present an honest description of applied kinesiology. The bias here is so extreme that I believe the entire article should be scrapped and rewritten by someone else who actually has experience in the field and does not hold the kind of vendetta against it which is clearly manifest here. It is apparent that the author(s) of the present article has no such experience, for if he had, he would not be able to refute the outstanding contribution AK has made to alternative health care practice.

I was first introduced to AK while I was a student in massage school in 1985. When I first saw it demonstrated I was highly skeptical of seeing a muscle weaken simply by having a subject touch a particular point on his body. But after graduation I decided to take a course in AK, and at the same time began to be treated by a chiropractor who specialized in it. I soon started using muscle testing on my own patients as well. Between the dramatic changes in my own health and that of my patients, I was soon convinced that AK was a tremendous gift to healing. AK should be no more mysterious than acupuncture, which similarly, is an energy based treatment. If acupuncture points can reveal palpable blockages of energy at certain points in the body, why should it seem unreasonable that the same points might cause a muscle to weaken or strengthen when contacted? That Western medicine consistently ignores the existence of energy medicine, does not thereby invalidated it. The beauty of AK is that, through muscle testing, information can be derived from a person's own body directly. Sometimes the information is predictable, based on observed symptoms. Other times the answer to a medical question comes by surprise. It is the latter case that is the more interesting. Sometimes one is confident one will find certain muscle weaknesses and is quite surprised when the expected result does not show up. Sometimes the weakness that does show up is not at all what one thought it would be. It is at moments such as these that whatever doubts one had about the power of muscle testing to accurately reveal the body's health issues are dispelled.

I will not argue that AK is a panacea. Nor will I dispute the fact that it can be performed poorly. In expert hands it is, however, an invaluable and indispensable tool. Again, my main point is that the present article is a disgrace to the reputation of Wikipedia, a blot on its generally excellent presentation of information. It should be replaced. ```Tom Herman — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomHerman1 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry you're disappointed Tom, but we have rules here. We aren't allowed to write our own opinions, and this article is the collaborative production of many editors, describing what they have found in reliable sources (RS). The article describes AK, and it also tells what RS say about it. Since it is generally regarded as pseudoscientific, we document which RS say that. I suggest you revise your real life beliefs and not believe or use pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Applied kinesiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.time.com/time/innovators_v2/alt_medicine/profile_goodheart.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060728105451/http://www.amerchiro.org:80/pdf/PDR/H-Chiropractic%20Techniques.pdf to http://www.amerchiro.org/pdf/PDR/H-Chiropractic%20Techniques.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217004844/http://nbce.org/pdfs/job-analysis/chapter_10.pdf to http://nbce.org/pdfs/job-analysis/chapter_10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Muscle response testing
Despite what is stated in the article, this is clearly an Applied Kinesiology method. A search on Google Scholars yields many sources that confirm this : https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&q=MRT+applied+kinesiology&btnG=&lr= In addition, the article has been created with a possible conflict of interest and is not written from a NPOV. For those reason, the article should redirect to Applied Kinesiology, with possibly a merge of some of it's content. KarlPopper y (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC) KarlPopper y  (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The evidence suggests that MRT is clear and distinct entity to Applied Kinesiology (AK). The main difference is that AK is a system, an intervention, a type of treatment, whereas MRT is simply a test. This reason alone is enough to warrant its own page. However, there are other reasons as well. For instance, there are many technique systems that use MRT but are NOT AK. In addition, anyone who is an Applied Kinesiologist will tell you that MRT is not AK - but if you are not an Applied Kinesiologist, or a Kinesiologist, or if you do not use MRT, then you would not necessarily know the difference. I object to this merger and to the suggestions made in this proposition. [Being new to wiki editing, I do not know how to insert my username like KarlPopper, but I created this page] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne237au (talk • contribs)
 * Nothing worthwhile at the MRT article, just blank it and then redirect here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * did the merge but this was reverted. I have reapplied it after adding a sentence to this article (which requires a citation).  Also see: Talk:Muscle response testing.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Applied kinesiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icak.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51%3Ajohn-thie-dc-1973-to-1976&catid=35%3Ahistory&Itemid=72
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228204150/http://www.allergy.org.au/pospapers/unorthodox.htm to http://www.allergy.org.au/pospapers/unorthodox.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Applied kinesiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016185021/http://intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358738.html?d=dmtContent to http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358738.html?d=dmtContent
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016185021/http://intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358738.html?d=dmtContent to http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358738.html?d=dmtContent
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213081246/http://altmed.creighton.edu/apk/ to http://altmed.creighton.edu/apk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Mass changes
I revert to the last stable version. Not seeing how the changes improved the page. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Applied kinesiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080322003013/http://www.icak.com/college/status.shtml to http://www.icak.com/college/status.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130001429/http://www.icakusa.com/what.php to http://www.icakusa.com/what.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829110654/http://www.icak.com/about/icak_faq.shtml to http://www.icak.com/about/icak_faq.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104221036/http://www.worldallergy.org/educational_programs/gloria/slides/international/Module6_Food_Allergy.ppt to http://www.worldallergy.org/educational_programs/gloria/slides/international/Module6_Food_Allergy.ppt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714195954/http://www.kinmed.com/ to http://www.kinmed.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is not worthy of Wikipedia, because it clearly is written under a grossly substantial lack of competence in the subject.
I read many article in this 'talk' section, and i see that many have also uncovered this page on Applied Kinesiology which is downright unjust. The fact that the main article stands without correction, or warning that it may not be correct, seriously disagree with the fundamental purpose and function of Wikipedia. I am shocked by this, to say the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1419:A07E:5890:F695:3DA3:8F5 (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so are you proposing a change to the article? And if so, what is this change? --McSly (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak evidence in the intro?
'There have been other pseudoscience techniques related to the same ideomotor effect such as “Facilitated Communication” that have been debunked with extensive scientific literature as explained in the Frontline Documentary “Prisoners of Silence on Autism and Facilitated Communication”. The effects of automatic writing, dowsing, facilitated communication, And Ouija boards have been attributed to the phenomenon.'

^ I'm not sure this belongs in the article, and especially not in the introduction. AK is pseudoscience, but other pseudoscientific modalities relying on the same phenomenon as AK isn't good disproving evidence. There's also no reference for the documentary or the other claims (though I believe they are correct). This paragraph could sit under "scientific evidence", if anywhere – but I think it's weak enough that it should be removed altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinders (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * IT should not be in the lead, but, if sourced, it is an interesting fact and should be mentioned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate and misleading
The basic premise of this article is based on a false assumption. Applied Kinesiology does not claim to be scientific. I am a practitioner who has read many books and been to many seminars. I never once heard anyone in this field say such a thing. You can't be pseudo-scientific if you are not claiming to be that in the first place. The author does not understand the basics. The article is written with a big skeptical bias. How to improve? Let someone else re-write the whole thing. Why are We stuck with the work of an ignorant person who seems to have their own personal agenda? It is easy to be skeptical. Skeptics are intellectually lazy people who find it too difficult to understand the truth. Just claim it is false and you're done. 86.81.253.9 (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The article cites fine sources, and they seem well summarized. Best to avoid the WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)