Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Technique/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

AT in "20 Best so called alternative treatments" by Ernst

The ’20 best’ can be roughly divided into three main categories:

1. physical therapies such as Alexander Technique, Feldenkrais Therapy, Lymphatic Drainage, Pilates, Tai Chi, and Yoga.

2. relaxation therapies such as autogenic training, hypnotherapy, laughter therapy, music therapy, progressive muscle relaxation, and visualization.

3. pharmacological therapies such as chondroitin, fish oil, glucosamine, St. John’s wort, and garlic.

That exercise, relaxation, and pharmacology can be effective is probably no surprise to anyone. In other words, unlike the ’20 Most Questionable’, almost all of the ’20 Best’ are supported by some plausibility. Very rarely does one find a therapy that is both implausible and effective. Among the procedures discussed in this book, this is the case only for Feldenkrais therapy.

https://edzardernst.com/2021/02/the-20-best-so-called-alternative-treatments/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

His 2015 book "Alternative Medicine" he rates AT:
Plausibility - Moderate
Efficacy - Very Good
Safety - Good
Cost - Good
Risk/Benefit balance - Very good 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

More evidence AT is miscategorized

AT is named as a "Movement-based embodied contemplative practice"in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience by Schmalzl, L., Crane-Godreau, M., & Payne, P. (2014)

Over the past decades, cognitive neuroscience has witnessed a shift from predominantly disembodied and computational views of the mind, to more embodied and situated views of the mind. These postulate that mental functions cannot be fully understood without reference to the physical body and the environment in which they are experienced. Within the field of contemplative science, the directing of attention to bodily sensations has so far mainly been studied in the context of seated meditation and mindfulness practices. However, the cultivation of interoceptive, proprioceptive and kinesthetic awareness is also said to lie at the core of many movement-based contemplative practices such as Yoga, Qigong and Tai Chi. In addition, it likely plays a key role in the efficacy of modern somatic therapeutic techniques such as the Feldenkrais Method and the Alexander Technique. In the current paper we examine how these practices are grounded in the concepts of embodiment, movement and contemplation, as we look at them primarily through the lens of an enactive approach to cognition. Throughout, we point to a series of challenges that arise when Western scientists study practices that are based on a non-dualistic view of mind and body.

As pointed out in a seminal article by Kerr (2002) and more recently by Payne and Crane-Godreau (2013), several challenges arise when Western scientists study practices that stem from ancient Eastern traditions. These authors underline the importance of having a thorough understanding of a system in its own terms before attempting to interpret it from a modern scientific perspective. They point out the risk of attempting to shoehorn a system into an already existing conceptual framework, which often eliminates the possibility of genuinely new discovery.

So what does it mean to look for the mechanisms underlying MECPs? Most of these practices have their own intrinsic complex bodies of theory. As both scientists and practitioners of MECPs, we are naturally drawn to wanting to operationalize them and understand them in our own “language.” In doing so however, our aim is not to replace their already existing frameworks with new scientific explanations (Smolin, 2013). Rather, our task is one of translation—the translation of phenomena and theories emerging from one world-view into a language based on a very different world-view. Neither of these languages is right or wrong, but each of them has advantages and disadvantages. If neuroscience will remain open to encountering phenomena not previously recognized, this will undoubtedly improve our scientific understanding of human functioning and of how ancient practices can enhance human wellbeing in our modern times.

Schmalzl, L., Crane-Godreau, M., & Payne, P. (2014). Movement-based embodied contemplative practices: Definitions and paradigms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00205 68.129.197.221 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Another Systematic Review

Evidence for the effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons in medical and health-related conditions: a systematic review

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22171910/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

From the conclusion - "but there is insufficient evidence to support recommendations in these areas." -Roxy the dog 14:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
You have selective reading comprehension dog. The full quote:
Strong evidence exists for the effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons for chronic back pain and moderate evidence in Parkinson's-associated disability.
Preliminary evidence suggests that Alexander Technique lessons may lead to improvements in balance skills in the elderly, in general chronic pain, posture, respiratory function and stuttering, but there is insufficient evidence to support recommendations in these areas.
"insufficient evidence to support recommendations in these areas" only refers to the later sentence. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:CIR applies. -Roxy the dog 17:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, can you read dog? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Asked and answered. - Roxy the dog 18:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Clearly you need some help with comprehension, let's get a 2nd opinion from another editor. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

History of AT research section proposal

The AT is in the interesting position of having been practiced for over 125 years in a wide variety of educational and medical settings yet a proper biological understanding of the mechanisms underlying AT has only recently become possible. This was also the case for many of the early psychotropic drugs that were discovered serendipitously with no clear explanation for their purported mechanisms of action (Carey et. al 2020).

American education philosopher and Columbia Teachers College president, John Dewey, adopted principles of the AT into his philosophy and wrote introductions to three of Alexander’s books. Dewey, in How We Think (1910), summarized his ‘analysis of a complete act of thought;’ which became a classic and was adapted by science-textbook authors as a concise description of the scientific method. Incidentally, his introduction to Alexander’s The Use of the Self (1939), was the first to claim that Alexander’s development of AT followed the scientific method. Dewey saw the AT as tied to the discovery of the location of various postural reflexes in the brainstem by Rudolf Magnus, a German researcher on the physiology of posture.

Magnus' discovery was used as scientific proof of Alexander’s concept of ‘primary control,’ a crudely defined neologism referring to the head-neck-back relationship and its implications for coordination and general wellbeing. The term ‘central control’ was used in England to refer to Magnus’ discovery of the location of postural reflexes in the brainstem. Magnus claimed this region co-ordinated sensory input and that it was responsible for postural muscular tone. Magnus’ experiments were never done on humans, however, Magnus suggested the applicability of his findings to humans. Because of early poor translation or intentionally liberal application of Magnus, there are several issues in AT literature concerning Magnus and explanations of the AT, however, Magnus is still referenced by some contemporary AT teachers; i.e. Neurodynamics (2015) by Columbia Professor, Dr. Theodore Dimon.

Between 1923 and 1951 the British Medical Journal published 30 articles and letters testifying to the AT’s efficacy. A letter published May 29th, 1937 was signed by 19 doctors and surgeons who reported that patients had greatly benefited from AT and urged the medical community to investigate. It took 70 years more for such research to be published in the BMJ. In 1939, three doctors published letters in the BMJ claiming anatomist and researcher Dr. George E. Coghill’s work on the embryonic behavior of the American newt, amblystoma, provided scientific confirmation of Alexander’s discoveries.

The similarity was drawn between Coghill and Alexander’s idea of Primary Control by a number of supporters in the medical field looking for a biological basis for the AT. Coghill in response, acknowledged Alexander’s work established the same principles in vertebrate behavior, and subsequently wrote an appreciation section in Alexander's fourth and final book: The Universal Constant in Living (1941). However, A scathing critique of the AT in 1944, ‘Quackery Versus Physical Education’ published in the South African Fitness Journal, Manpower, insisted that Coghill’s research did not provide any evidence in support of Alexander. It also referred to Alexander’s ‘followers’ as a ‘head balancing cult’ and put their belief down to ‘group hystero-neurosis typical of a new faith.’ As a result, Alexander sued the journal for defamation in 1945. The article contained a section, ‘The misquoted Sherrington’ which claimed Alexander had mischaracterized Sir Charles Sherrington’s research as being supportive to his work, although interestingly Sherrinton wrote a letter of support to Alexander that helped him win the libel case in 1948. Slowly, teachers of the Alexander Technique started to view Coghill’s research as not relevant to the Technique, but Coghill was widely quoted until at least the 1970s.

Dr. Wilfred Barlow, a rheumatologist who married Alexander's niece, was the first AT teacher to conduct research into the Technique. Barlow was the only AT teacher who developed the idea of making a formal diagnosis of pupils. Recognizing that Coghill, and in relation the AT principle of ‘primary control’ where head-neck relationship was thought to positively affect the ‘total pattern,’ was over-emphasised, Barlow subsequently came to think AT effects are caused by separately learned components, rather than simply by a generalized total pattern. Between 1946-1959 Barlow conducted a number of “before and after” AT lessons studies where pupils would undress and stand against a grid so that any asymmetries or deviations would be easy to identify and record via photography.

In a related vein of research, Nikolass Tinbergen wrote The Study of Instinct in 1951, in which he questioned the roles of internal and external stimuli in controlling behavioral expression and expounded on innate behavioral reactions in animals and the adaptiveness and evolutionary aspects of those behaviors. Tinbergen, writing about Coghill in 1951, concluded: ‘It seems that one cannot “crystallize out” from a diffuse total response, and that a kind of additive type of integration may play a part too, perhaps especially in the higher levels.’ Tinbergen dedicated a large portion of his acceptance speech for the 1973 Nobel Prize in Medicine to Alexander and the AT, calling it an ethological approach to medicine similar to his own.

Tufts University professor Frank Pierce Jones did many experimental studies involving the AT between 1951 and 1972. Jones endorsed the AT adopted view of Magnus, that ‘the postural reflexes, the response of the organism to gravity is a fundamental feedback which integrates other reflex systems.’ In his book Freedom to Change he refers to the stretch reflex, the righting and attitudinal reflexes as part of the explanation for the mechanisms of the AT. Jones predominantly measured changes in posture and movement (mainly sit-to-stand behavior) using multiple image photography with markers on various parts of the subject’s body illuminated by flashes. A summary of these studies was published in Psychological Review in 1965 and the book Body Awareness in Action (1976) which was published posthumously.

A physiologist and medical research scientist at the University of New South Wales, Dr. David Garlick, made a preliminary survey of possible physiological explanations involved in the AT and laid the groundwork for current theories. He stressed that the awareness of inter-relationship of muscle and mental states (body schema) as one of the most important effects of the AT. Garlick’s research included various types of postural analysis, the majority of which were published in The Lost Sixth Sense (1990). The “sixth sense” in this context refers to underdevelopment and/or malfunctioning of kinaesthesia and proprioceptive senses. Garlick postulates that the AT mainly operates on these senses and the brain mechanisms related to them; he lists sensory nerve inputs from neck muscle spindles, Golgi tendon organs, skin and joint receptors, and different types of muscle fibers as physiological factors relevant to the AT.

Although the effectiveness of these therapies has been shown at the behavioral level, their effects on altering brain circuitry are still unclear. In his 1985 book, The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat, Oliver Sacks describes an extreme case of the loss of proprioception in the chapter, ‘On the Level.’ The patient discovers AT-like strategies of additional feedback (in this case affixing a spirit level to his glasses) coupled with the recruitment of cognitive mechanisms to help regulate what should be automatic, consciously adjusting his balance. In the chapter Sacks writes, “The awareness of relative position of trunk and limbs, derived from receptors in the joints and tendons - was only really defined (and named ‘proprioception’) in the 1890s; the complex mechanisms and controls by which our bodies are properly aligned and balanced in space - these have only been defined in our own century, and still hold many mysteries.” 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No sources. Where is it copied from? -Roxy the dog 15:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I wrote it, reference list is a separate document will add in a comment so you can reject it shortly. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A Medical Scientist Looks at the Alexander Technique

Perhaps some of the "incomprehensible" wiki can be replaced with this 3rd party description:

https://mouritz.org/system/files/libitemfiles/1990/1990GARLF036.pdf 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A self published pamphlet??? -Roxy the dog 14:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
3rd party source. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
In The Lost Sixth Sense (1990), a medical scientist, Dr. David Garlick made a preliminary survey of possible physiological explanations involved in the AT. Garlick lists sensory nerve inputs from neck muscle spindles, Golgi tendon organs, skin and joint receptors, and the type of muscle fibers used as physiological factors relevant to the AT. Garlick stressed the awareness of inter-relationship of muscle and mental states as one of the most important effects of the AT. The lost “sixth sense” in this context refers to underdevelopment and/or malfunctioning of kinaesthesia and proprioceptive senses. Garlick postulates that the AT mainly operated on these senses and the mechanisms related to them.
In his 1985 book, The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat, Oliver Sacks describes an extreme case of this loss of proprioception in the chapter, “On the Level.” The patient discovers AT-like strategies of additional feedback (in this case affixing a spirit level to his glasses) coupled with recruiting of cognitive mechanisms to regulate what should be automatic, consciously adjusting his balance. In the chapter Sacks writes, “The awareness of relative position of trunk and limbs, derived from receptors in the joints and tendons - was only really defined (and named ‘proprioception’) in the 1890s; the complex mechanisms and controls by which our bodies are properly aligned and balanced in space - these have only been defined in our own century, and still hold many mysteries.” 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The proffered source appears to be:

  • Garlick D (1990). The Lost Sixth Sense: A Medical Scientist Looks at the Alexander Technique. Stat Books. ISBN 0733400019.
Garlick was an AT vendor[1] and the press is not reputable, appearing to specialize in AT. Sources need to be WP:FRIND. Bon courage (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
He was a medical doctor for about 30 years before training as an AT teacher it appears, not sure what's not reputable about it? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
So it's an old book by a some guy, from a publisher dedicated to this fringe milieu. It is not a useful source, other than maybe for stating what practitioners believe – provided than is contextualized by sensible mainstream sourced material. Bon courage (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Well currently the wiki has the majority of what practitioners believe marked as "incomprehensible." Perhaps this can help bridge the gap? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
https://p2psrv.com/companion/article/david-garlick%E2%80%99s-research 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Primary source, fails WP:RS. - Roxy the dog 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Your source for it being a primary source fails WP:RS 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
More nonsense. - Roxy the dog 15:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

3rd sentence

Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.

There's quite a bit of research supporting some claims, the word "the" should be changed to "some":

Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support some claims.

The next sentence in the wiki contradicts the previous as is, not to mention is blatantly incorrect as is, tried to edit but it was reverted. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The third sentence says -He credited his method with allowing him to pursue his passion for performing Shakespearean recitations. There is nothing wrong with it.
We wont be changing the fourth sentence until there is some research to support the claims. You needs to supply some evidence in the form of WP:MEDRS sources that we can use to back up what you want to say. Such sources are lacking. -Roxy the dog 16:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Among the many others I've already listed up page, check the zotero archive for all the MEDRS your heart desires in the talk section above. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't work like that. If you think you have sources that support changes that you want to make, you have to show them. AS I already said one response ago, such sources are lacking. -Roxy the dog 18:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
What's hilarious is that the sources you say aren't good enough are good enough for the Mayo Clinic, the NHS of the UK, The British Medical Journal, god knows how many schools and peer-reviewed journals... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Nonsense. -Roxy the dog 18:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
You behave as if there is not research yet when I give you the access you say nonsense dog? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Even your boy Ernst says AT works for back pain and Parkinson's so how come we can't change "the claims" to "some claims" dog? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Everything works for back pain. Most things work far far better than AT for back pain. - Roxy the dog 18:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Source dog? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
What about the parkinson's associated disability dog? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Fine then the 4th sentence is contradicted by the 5th, point still stands. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
But that isn't true!!! - Roxy the dog 18:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Why so excited? Do you have conflict of interest in editing this page? Sure seems like it. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's not waste any more time here. If appropriate references aren't indicated for change requests, reject the request for that reason. --Hipal (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Spoilsport!! I normally do, but I'm bored. - Roxy the dog 18:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
More and more evidence of your harassment of this page dog. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Hipal there are plenty of sources already cited in the wiki to make the relevant change, not all claims are unsupported therefor the statement "the claims" should be "some claims" hell even "a number of claims" would be more accurate than current 68.129.197.221 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Please don't waste our time. --Hipal (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
It makes a big difference in tone of the opener and it's more accurate to say some; the claims makes it sound like ALL claims of AT proponents lack research support; which is obviously not true 68.129.197.221 (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
wiki statement is a poor regurgitation of how it appeals on the NHS website source 6 Exact quote(NHS):
Evidence suggests the technique has the potential to improve certain health conditions, but there are some claims made about the technique that haven't been scientifically tested. Supporters of the Alexander technique often claim it can help people with a wide range of health conditions. Some of these claims are supported by scientific evidence, but some have not yet been properly tested.There's evidence suggesting the Alexander technique can help people with: long-term back pain – lessons in the technique may lead to reduced back pain-associated disability and reduce how often you feel pain for up to a year or more long-term neck pain – lessons in the technique may lead to reduced neck pain and associated disability for up to a year or more Parkinson's disease – lessons in the technique may help you carry out everyday tasks more easily and improve how you feel about your condition 68.129.197.221 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
We don't use citations that are based on "some people say". Sgerbic (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
What if "some people" = the NHS? That's not some people, sheesh. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
We do summarise the NHS in this article, rather generously I think. Roxy the dog 14:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Can you read? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, can you? - Roxy the dog 14:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Apparently you can't:
We do summarise the NHS in this article, rather generously I think. Roxy the dog 14:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC) 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
How is this a generous summary dog?
NHS:
Evidence suggests the technique has the potential to improve certain health conditions, but there are some claims made about the technique that haven't been scientifically tested. Supporters of the Alexander technique often claim it can help people with a wide range of health conditions. Some of these claims are supported by scientific evidence, but some have not yet been properly tested.
WIKI:
Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an excellent summary. Well done. - Roxy the dog 16:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
It would be with a change of one word:
Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support some claims. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
again the NHS statement this is coming from says:
"there are some claims made about the technique that haven't been scientifically tested" 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
in the context of the statement "the" = all which is factually incorrect and misrepresents the statement source; "some" is this same word used in the source, more accurately represents the source and the fact that supportive research is cited elsewhere in the wiki so there is some 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
"Their results are promising and imply that AT is effective in reducing the disability of patients suffering from Parkinson's disease and in improving pain behaviour and disability in patients with back pain."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14707481/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
How many wiki editors does it take to understand the difference between some and all? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
"Their results are promising and imply that AT is effective in reducing the disability of patients suffering from Parkinson's disease and in improving pain behaviour and disability in patients with back pain."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14707481/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
From the conclusion - "The few controlled clinical trials of AT yield encouraging albeit not convincing evidence." -
Roxy the dog 14:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Not convincing to the world's leading alternative medicine skeptic? Shocking, Why are we using the world's foremost alt. med. skeptic as the main source material this wiki again? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Access to most peer-reviewed and 3rd party papers on AT

https://www.zotero.org/groups/2389008/alexander_technique_studies/library 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Crowd sourced, unreliable. - Roxy the dog 18:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Bahahaha, the first folder is nothing but journal published peer-reviewed papers; are you in denial dog? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Tell me about it dog, I'm seeing first hand how unreliable crowdsourcing can be! 68.129.197.221 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that Wikipedia is also unreliable as a source, you are totally correct, a quite unusual event for you. - Roxy the dog 17:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Congrats on being a part of why it's so unreliable. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Systematic Review By Ernst on AT

"Their results are promising and imply that AT is effective in reducing the disability of patients suffering from Parkinson's disease and in improving pain behaviour and disability in patients with back pain."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14707481/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

From the conclusion - "The few controlled clinical trials of AT yield encouraging albeit not convincing evidence." - Roxy the dog 14:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
So put both in the wiki; translation is results are promising and imply that AT is effective in reducing the disability of patients suffering from Parkinson's disease and in improving pain behaviour and disability in patients with back pain but Ernst is not convinced (goal posts moved) 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
But that would fail WP:V as I have shown you when I quoted the Conclusion to the review. - Roxy the dog 17:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
From WP:V "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences." How is Ernst a legitimate source in light of that? He literally makes it his mission to disprove all modalities of alternative medicine via deeming them implausible, contradicting most clinical trials, and uses his own primary research constantly yet editors seem to have no issues with Ernst. Many people have taken note of Ernst's idiotic crusade and he has lost most of his career as a result. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you understand what a review is? - Roxy the dog 15:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
How many have I posted here now? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki contridicts itself

A false uncited statement under uses: The Alexander Technique is used and taught by classically trained vocal coaches and musicians in schools and private lessons.

Contradicted by the correct statement under method: To qualify as a teacher of the Alexander Technique, instructors are required to complete 1,600 hours of supervised teacher training, spanning three years. The result must be satisfactory to qualified peers to gain membership in professional societies.

Correct statements: The Alexander Technique is taught by Alexander Technique instructors that are required to complete 1,600 hours of supervised teacher training, spanning three years.

The Alexander Technique is used by classically trained vocalists and musicians in schools and private lessons. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can teach AT. I could set up a web site and advertise AT services right now if I wanted to. Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I could do that for any modality but I wouldn't be a qualified teacher and I wouldn't be hired at university which is what the Wiki implies that it's taught at univiersity by non-trained teachers; which is not true. If you want a job teaching AT and not a private practice you must have the training and certification. Frankly your logic is wrong on this. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Why not put that in the wiki? "Anyone can set up a web site and advertise AT services right now if they want to" 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The Alexander Technique is used by classically trained actors, dancers, and musicians. That's a fact. The Alexander Technique is taught by Alexander Technique instructors that are required to complete 1,600 hours of supervised teacher training, spanning three years. That's also a fact. Why not present the facts? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Are there any independent sources describing AT training? Bon courage (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
AT training courses are approved and registered with the national organizations, independent of any individual training courses, that oversee professional standards. STAT in the UK and AmSAT in the US are the largest such organizations. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Any sources for this? According to the NHS there is only one AT organisation registered with the Professional Standards Organisation, and that's the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Where are you seeing that? Also I'm not based in the UK nor familiar with UK regulation and AT. Here is a 3rd party review of a book that can be a source that AT is taught by trained teachers at the conservatory/university level:
"As noted by Professor Colin Lawson, director of the Royal College of Music, London, in the foreword of the book, "Since the 1950s, the Royal College of Music has been leading the music world in the use of the Alexander Technique in the training of the music students from countries throughout the globe." In the book's appendix, there is an overview of the development of the Alexander Technique into the core curriculum at the college, as well as a description of its present course offerings."
Herbein, J., N.C.T.M. (2014). The alexander technique for musicians. The American Music Teacher, 64(1), 48-48,50. http://library.esc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/alexander-technique-musicians/docview/1547940066/se-2 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I've put the UK stuff in the article. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Your intent to make the wiki as negatively biased as possible is noted. There are many therapy methods that are not regulated at all beyond self monitoring organizations. Again you are ignoring the fact that in order to be hired at an institution like a university or hospital you must have certification, even if there is no law prohibiting it in practice; i.e. in many jobs do not require you by law to have a master's degree but the employer requires it to be hired. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
You are butchering the few accurate facts in the wiki. Might as well rename the article to Ernst's Circle Jerk on the AT... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The NHS is a great source. With more great sources we could improve the article. That's why I'm asking for sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The info is not very relevant to the "method" section. Perhaps it would be relevant in new section titled "regulatory status" 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Also regulatory status and teaching credentials are not synonymous 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
You should be clear in the wiki that to acquire the appropriate credentials to teach the AT one needs to successfully pass a 3 year 1600 hour course, however there is not state regulatory guideless at present. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but we need an appropriate source to provide verifiability and show it is WP:DUE to mention: independent, secondary, etc. Otherwise who cares? Bon courage (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I see you're well practiced at weaponizing WP policies. The skeptical editors' club runs a tight ship harassing various Alternative medicine wikis I've noticed. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
There is only one wiki here, the english language one. You are talking about Wikipedia articles. Please, I beg you, get something right. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm referring to a similar cabal of organized skeptical editors that likes to vandalize the Acupuncture, Yoga, Feldenkrais etc. pages. The editing history is clear to see dog. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

AT Review

"This paper qualitatively reviews two complementary therapies: Qi Gong and Alexander Technique (AT). An up-to-date research into the AT has focussed on its effectiveness for improved performance, improved physiological functioning such as breathing, and the reduction of pain [4,9,11,12]. In addition to decreased pain, the magnitude and asymmetry of the patient’s responses and balance were improved after AT sessions."

Posadzki. (2009). Qi Gong exercises through the lens of the Alexander Technique: A conceptual congruence. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 1(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2009.04.001

[4] Stallibrass C, Frank C, Wentworth K. Retention of skills learnt in Alexander technique lessons: 28 people with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. J Bodywork Mov Ther 2005;9:150–7. [9] Stallibrass C, Sissons P, Chalmers C. Randomized controlled trial of the Alexander technique for idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Clin Rehabil 2002;16(7):695–708. [11] Austin JH, Ausubel P. Enhanced respiratory muscular function in normal adults after lessons in proprioceptive musculoskeletal education without exercises. Chest 1992;102:486–90. [12] Dennis RJ. Functional reach improvement in normal older women after Alexander technique instruction. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 1999;54(1):M8–11. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Fringe journals and primary source(s). Looks like WP:POVSOURCING. Why not start at the top of the pyramid per [[WP:MEDASSESS]. Are there any weighty medical authorities making statements about AT (other than the NHS, which we cite already)? Bon courage (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The article is a review from a legit journal. How do you except systematic reviews to exist without any primary source material to review? You are not making sense. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
We don't generally cite primary research on Wikipedia. Which journal are you saying is "legit"? Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
All of these are legit, Ernst even cites the Stallibrass clinical trials in his book that's cited in the wiki and the Woodman and Moore systematic review that is "primary" and not allowed on here per editors. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Not per editors, per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. - Roxy the dog 21:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
You prefer them misquoted and misrepresent by your boy Ernst dog? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Another AT Review

"Thirty six documents were included for analysis, which resulted in 8 evidence-informed theory statements on how and for whom non-physical outcomes can be generated by AT lessons. A variety of non-physical outcomes of the AT were found, including improved general wellbeing and increased confidence to address present and future challenges, as well as identifying that difficult emotions can arise in lessons. Two main causal pathways were identified – 1) improvements in physical wellbeing leading directly to psychological wellbeing; and 2) an experience of mind-body integration leading people to apply AT skills to non-physical situations. The AT may be a useful approach in a range of settings for psychophysical, long-term outcomes."

Kinsey D., Glover, L., & Wadephul, F. (2021). How does the Alexander Technique lead to psychological and non-physical outcomes? A realist review. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 46, 101371–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2021.101371 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Another WP:FRINGE journal. This article doesn't even seem to be in PUBMED. We need WP:FRIND sources - and we do have some. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The European Journal of Integrative Medicine is a quarterly peer-reviewed medical journal covering integrative and alternative medicine. It was established in 2009 and is published by Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Nicola Robinson. It is not fringe lol 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Link to access is included... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It's fringe alright. If in doubt, raise a query at WP:FTN for more input. Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
You are using fringe as an appeal to ridicule. Do you have any actual evidence this journal or topic is fringe? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Its area of coverage is fringe. If in doubt, raise a query at WP:FTN for more input. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I see no list of fringe journals at WP:FTN; you're claiming the journal is fringe with no good reason as an appeal to ridicule to dismiss it 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
It's devoted to "Integrative Medicine". Woo, in other words. Please see WP:FRIND. Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Deeply biased sources for this wiki

https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2011.322 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You can read all about Edzard Ernst. Not sure how it's relevant here? Bon courage (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
AT has been swept into his assault on very questionable practices being pronounced an alternative medicine scam in guilt by association. Yet, even Ernst specifically writes that AT science is better than most alternative medicine. I am not a supporter of alternative medicine in general but there is a serious issue of the AT being miscatecogized I've brought up repeatedly. A major part of the problem being Ernst's classification of AT which is one that comes from no experience with that particular field. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
There is one Ernst publication cited here, a recent Springer book. Not sure why that occasions such angst. Bon courage (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Because the statements that use it as a citation are not included at all in the book or not cited by Ernst and are just his opinion. The AT entry from the book you referenced cited by the wiki:(Redacted)68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Expert knowledge is good, and what Wikipedia likes - in part - to relay. Bon courage (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
So put it in the wiki; it's currently misquoted at best and only quotes the statements Ernst has no citations for. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Well?? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I mean what we have seems fine. Bon courage (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about edits

These were removed on questionable grounds by the usual skeptical editor suspects that have been on a vandalism spree on this wiki.

A review by leading alternative medicine skeptic Edzard Ernst suggests that AT is effective for chronic back pain and helpful for patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease. [1]

Membership in professional societies (i.e. STAT in the UK, AmSAT in the US) that grant certification requires sucessful completion of a 3 year 1600 hour course with no more than a 5-1 student-teacher ratio to become instructors of the Alexander Technique [2] [3]. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ernst E (2019). Alternative Medicine – A Critical Assessment of 150 Modalities. Springer. pp. 153–154. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12601-8. ISBN 978-3-030-12600-1. S2CID 34148480.
  2. ^ https://www.amsatonline.org/aws/AMSAT/pt/sp/home_page
  3. ^ https://alexandertechnique.co.uk/
Also see where major vandalism occurred recently:
curprev 21:11, 15 October 2022‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 20,094 bytes −1,967‎ →‎Further reading: these are all primary also; if these books are so important, they should be mentioned in the main text, with some indication by secondary sources what in them is important to include undo
curprev 21:10, 15 October 2022‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 22,061 bytes −6,208‎ →‎Process: without independent sourcing this is way excessive undo Tag: Reverted
13 October 2022
curprev 05:31, 13 October 2022‎ 3mi1y talk contribs‎ m 28,269 bytes −1,675‎ Reverted 1 edit by 68.129.197.221 (talk) to last revision by 3mi1y undo Tags: Twinkle Undo
curprev 05:04, 13 October 2022‎ 3mi1y talk contribs‎ 28,269 bytes −14,494‎ Reverted 1 edit by 68.129.197.221 (talk) undo Tags: Twinkle Undo 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
==== 8 November 2022 ====
68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The above is incomprehensible. - Roxy the dog 17:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Admins please view Roxy's talk page to see advertised bias against alternative medicine; why is the dog allowed to edit this wiki with known bias? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Really? Are you talking about the "All your bias are belong to us. (Yes. We are biased, version 2.0)" essay? So are you saying 68 that you don't agree? Line #1 says "We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience." So you would say that you are biased Against Science and Toward pseudoscience? Is that what you are trying to say 68? Sgerbic (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to say that I am not biased against the AT like you are. You are the one making the claim the AT is pseudoscience which is an appeal to absurdity and not a meaningful statement. You and other editors according to my understanding of wiki rules are distorting the POV of this wiki. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Roxy_the_dog#Blocked 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
See related: in talk page of Bon Courage "Certain words and phrases are strongly indicative of WP:PROFRINGE proclivities: allopathic (except in a historical context), healing arts, medical (or scientific) dogma, modality, pseudoskeptic, scientism, and Western medicine." they work together 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
not sure why I got pinged here, and I have no idea what the point you are trying to make is supposed to be. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been watching this talk page for a while now. I am not impressed with the professionalism of some editor's commentary or the inability of participants to come to a consensus. If no resolution is found, I recommend taking the issue to one of the noticeboards. I leave it to participants to select which noticeboard. Examples are

Were I involved, I would read examples from these and others before selecting one and making a new entry. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we're ready for WP:AE. No need to waste time elsewhere --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh I agree. This wiki is part of wikiproject skepticism and that has vandalized the wiki beyond recognition of its subject. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Also don't expect to have my POV in the wiki but the abuse of this wiki by skeptics needs to be addressed by admins. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Roxy_the_dog#Blocked 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
See related: in talk page of Bon Courage "Certain words and phrases are strongly indicative of WP:PROFRINGE proclivities: allopathic (except in a historical context), healing arts, medical (or scientific) dogma, modality, pseudoskeptic, scientism, and Western medicine." They work together. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Of course vandals would move to mark this wiki as fringe, AT's taught at hundreds of schools... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading your talk page btw. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
IP, you are now blocked from editing the main article. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Now do the skeptical vandals 68.129.197.221 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Line for influences section

Nikolaas Tinbergen, Dutch biologist and ornithologist, dedicated a large part of his Nobel Prize acceptance speech to F.M. Alexander and the Alexander technique. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXr-9kQZ0ow&t=3s 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Anecdote does not equal evidence. -Roxy the dog 14:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
That was Tinbergen at his own Nobel Prize acceptance speech... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
A speech, yes, by a layman on the subject. See this response. - Roxy the dog 17:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Nikolass Tinbergen is a layman? What are you on? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/?id=1584 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The proof is in the watching. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Technique/Archive_7&oldid=1132672072"