Talk:Reflexology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Archives
Feb 2004 - Article was originally written by Chinese students as a school assignment

Contents 1 Non-sensical energy statements 2 Re-doing the whole thing 3 Picture 4 NPOVing 5 This article could use some TLC. 6 pseudoscience 7 Keturah points? (Resolved) 8 Inherent POV sentences? 9 Project 10 Lots of Weasel and Peacock Words Here 11 Hey I am referenced in this article... 12 POV 13 Addition by Cynthia B Hill 13.1 Reflexology Association of America 13.2 mechanisms of operation 14 History 14.1 Criticism 14.1.1 Potential dangers 14.1.2 Reflexology as a pseudoscience 15 Potential dangers 16 Weight issue 17 Criticism section 18 Put images back in 19 What about foot problems? 20 Sceptical slant 21 "Found" vs. "claimed" (v pedantic, I know!) 22 Pseudoscience (2) 23 I've been referred to you on the subject of Pseudoscience... 24 Reputable/Reliable studies

[edit] Non-sensical energy statements

It doesn't mean anything to balance someone's energy. This is a non-sense statement. You can say 'Practitioners believe that they are balancing the patients energy'. However, I think any casual reference to the balancing, manipulating, or re-directing energy should be removed, because, lacking a scientific meaning, these statements only serve to establish the pro-reflexology viewpoint of the writer.

However, one alternative to removing the energy statements is to include a definition (if there is one), of what reflexologists mean when they refer to energy, and what they mean by balancing it. From that point forward, the word energy can be used and taken to mean whatever it was defined as. 74.99.19.249 08:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. I intend to sort this out. It's just finding the definition in a place that can be referenced, I think. Lottie 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove some of the contradictory statements and spread the definition of energy (Qi) through the article - as for rebalancing, I'm working on it! Need to find the definition. Lottie 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-doing the whole thing

Right, I am a woman on a mission.

As has been stated several times, mainly on this page, this whole article is completely POV and generally badly backed up. I completely support this statement, it's definitely not a great article for people looking for info. It's biased, it's badly structured and as a result it's basically conflicted and baffling. I think I can change it so that it's objective, NPOV and digestable. You have as long as it takes me to re-write it to object, under this paragraph if you please. But first, please read the following points, explaining what I plan to do:

• I'm going to take out anything that is far-fetched and uncited. This is a very opinion-based thing, so if you're going to revert it please cite!
• I'm going to restructure it, because some of the sections can be merged and rebalanced and so on. I think that this will be a lot better afterwards, but if you disagree I won't resent anyone for wiggling it about.
• I will leave in as much cited material as I can, sometimes moving it to a different section, unless I feel that it is completely irrelevant. I think cited information is a wonderful thing in an article like this, whether to support or refute its validity
• Where possible, I will find citations for any statements that I feel should stay in.
• I will remove any inconclusive studies, or summarise. I don't feel they're relevant, as they don't help either way.
• I will remove any suggestion that reflexology is meant to diagnose or cure any medical problems, as it is a treatment on the energy body
• I've just found a shocking amount of plagiarism, and I'll be working to remove that.

OK, go. Lottiotta 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's now done, let me know if you have any issues with it. Lottiotta 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a lie. I spent a bit more time mending badly coded links (my fault!), but I think it's a lot better now. :) Lottiotta 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, no one has objected yet - I guess no one minds. :) Lottie 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I utterly agree. The criticism section is even labelled "Analysis" unlike EVERY other page on pseudoscience subjects. Given that I know little about reflexology, I don't want to change it, but having a solid science background, this page infuriates me. In short, this article is POV tripe right now. mr_happyhour 16.2.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.19.21.168 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree that it is probably POV in the other direction now, though having no books to refute the theories of reflexology I can't give relevant citations. I took out all statements that were extreme and also unsourced and irrelevant, and unfortunately that was most of the refuting statements!

As for the "Analysis" section, I was reluctant to call it "criticism" as there was supporting evidence as well as refuting evidence. It just seemed the most sensible title, but I feel that "criticism" would be inaccurate unless the section contained only refuting cited comments and studies.

Something that really puzzles me is why do people think that reflexology is trying to be a science? I've never seen it as a science and I'm a practitioner!

Lottie 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The picture is nice, a few more details about would be useful. Is it a photograph or a drawing ? Where is it from ? What do the hyrogliphics say ? How do you know they are practisin reflexology rather than something else (a beuty treatment for example)That sort of thing. theresa knott 14:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting web sites [1][2]this one is a large pdf file containing tonnes of stuff

75% of illnesses ae stress related. Interesting. We must TELL the world!!! The stress cancers and stress diabetes and stress COPD all will dissapear if we just de-stress! People this is your call to arms! De-stress the world with reflexology. If you don't you will go to hell. --unsigned

Good job this statement has been removed, eh? Lottie 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOVing

This section:

How can reflexology help?

The body has the ability to heal itself. Following illness, stress, injury or disease, it is in a state of imbalance, and vital energy pathways are blocked, preventing the body from functioning effectively. Reflexology can be used to restore and maintain the body's natural equilibrium and encourage healing.

A reflexologist uses hands only to apply gentle pressure to the reflex zones on the feet, palm of hands or the ears. For each person the application and the effect of the therapy are unique. Sensitive and trained hands can detect tiny deposits and imbalances in the feet. And by working on these points the reflexologist can release blockages and restore the free flow of energy to the whole body. Tensions are eased, and circulation and elimination is improved. This gentle therapy encourages the body to heal itself at its own pace, often counteracting a lifetime of misuse.

Needs to be NPOVed. Unfortunately i don't have enough knowledge to do a good job if it myself. So instead I'll ask some questions to show yo'all some of my concerns.

1. Who says the body is in a state of imbalance ?
2. What are vital energy pathways and is there any medical evidence that they exist?
3. what type of deposits and can they be detected by anyone else? ( I mean could a conventional doctor cut out these deposits if they were so inclined or are the deposits not "real" but instead represent something spiritual)
4. circulation of what is improved? and what does elimination mean?

Hopefully the answers to these questions will go a long way to help me NPOV the paragraph. theresa knott 15:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey Theresa, I'm going to answer the questions even though they're from 2004. It might help, I guess. These I can't exactly cite, but it's what I've picked up as a practitioner. So could well be a load of rubbish, but then so is the above paragraph in wikipedian terms!

1. Chinese ideas of meridians etc say that energetic imbalance goes alongside physical illness. Hard to include that though...
2. No medical evidence, but it's those meridians again.
3. The deposits can be felt by anyone who's looking for them. Crystal/grit textures under the skin, mainly. I imagine a doctor could cut them out, but within the energy-healing-thing this wouldn't help - the imbalance in the body would be reflected in the feet again with the gritty textures. How massage works more effectively I'm not sure...
4. I can only guess that they meant cardiovascular and lymphatic circulation. Elimination I think refers to elimination of toxins through the lymph system.

Lottie (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article could use some TLC.

Overall a rather disappointing article; many spelling, grammatical, and (IMHO) conceptual mistakes; biased, impertinent, and poorly-researched. --192.240.46.100 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the conceptual mistakes are annoying me. I'm going to try to find some decent references for the theory of reflexology and cite them, because paragraphs of analysis and theory are being deleted unfairly, IMO. Lottiotta 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry, don't know how to add my own comments into the edit Talk discussion. Reflexology - we don't know how it works, but it works in helping to relieve pain. Having treated a good few people I know this. However, no-one knows that that Egyptian picture is of people giving reflexology treatment - so we cannot say that it is. So I just added 'may be' to the first paragraph. The real work in developing Reflexology as a healing therapy was done by Eunice Ingham, published in her book 'Stories Feet Can Tell'. She deserves the credit, not the Egyptians. Ixobel.

[edit] pseudoscience

The article (as of 1/17/07) contains highly biased reporting and an over-abundance of criticism. The article begins well, by explaining Reflexology as a practice and theory. However, it then continues to make several false statements about the claims of Reflexology as a practice. It is unfair to criticize a theory on an informative site when the purpose of an encyclopedia is to define and explain... not offer criticism. There are theories of Reflexology that claim scientific base, and validity through scientific explanation. However, it is unintelligent to couple the practice of Reflexology with its theories and explanations, to the point of discrediting the field based on a possible explanation of its results.

Furthermore, the "Scientific View" section needs to be separated into two separate sections entitled, "Scientific Studies" (or similar) and "Criticism," as it is obvious that the section has evolved into, or initially was, highly composed of criticism. The section states various facts about the possible hurdles involving the testing of any practitioner-patient therapy which is entirely unnecessary and unwarranted. Similarly, the claim that the effects of Reflexology are untestable and cannot be proven via the scientific method, is entirely closed minded and unscientific. The claim that "reflexology is a “no-fail” system" is false and mis-representative of the practice of Reflexology... it again chains the practice to the theories/explanations of Reflexology to a point that assumes the scientific study and method of drawing conclusions is more akin to a lawyers closing speech rather than the objectiveness of the scientific method. In all honesty, I believe that the last two sections should be entirely removed (except for the sources and links) in order to retain the spirit of sharing knowledge (as opposed to drawing conclusions) that Wikipedia stands for. This is the most biased and negatively written Wikipedia article of the approximately 900 I have read. Reflexology as a practice is a healing art... not a scientific claim. It deserves the respect that is due to any healing art. Science does not have the technology yet to prove or disprove the validity of healing arts just as it does not have the technology to prove or disprove the existence of a God. To have Reflexology listed as a pseudoscience is inaccurate and misleading and I would hope those are two qualities that Wikipedia strives to avoid. --End of this user's contribution, I guess they forgot to sign it.

Thanks for those points, it gives me something to work on. This article really needs a major refurbishment!Lottiotta 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV to accurately describe this practice as pseudoscience. After you have checked the definition and if you still want to revert, please discuss. Mccready 07:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You may notice that most of my edits to this article have been to edit or expand the section regarding the skeptical view. I agree pseudoscience may be an appropriate description, but I disagreee that it is neutral. The wikipedia article on pseudoscience even says in the opening sentences that the term has "negative connotations", and is likely to be rejected by advocates. This page generated a fair amount of activity and argument in the past. Although it's been pretty quiet lately, calling it pseudoscience in the first opening sentence is just bound to stir up trouble. So, I partially reverted your edit, but I included the word in the following sentence referring to skeptics views. So it is still in the intro, but a little more respectful of people with a different opinion. --Michaelfavor 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael, while I understand your sentiments I think we have an obligation to our readers to describe things accurately and concisely. If we had to qualify the word pseudoscience everytime we used it, that would be tedious, wasteful of time and words and teleological - who else would describe a thing as pseudoscience? Encyclopedists I hope. So I have reverted again. You may also like to consider WP:LEAD regarding your comment about putting it at the top. If you think my reasons lack logic I'd be happy to hear your reasons. I'm curious as why you added the link you added? What extra benefit does it give the article? Mccready 13:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that from a strictly logically perspective the word "pseudoscience" implies "Scientists and skeptics believe..." (...Reflexology is a pseudoscience) making those four words redundant, but just four words. From a more diplomatic and aesthetic perspective, without that phrase, the sentence strikes me as somewhat cold and belligerent. WP:LEAD says "some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article". I believe such an unqualified use of the perjorative is more likely to simlply alienate "non-skeptical" readers, rather than creating any interest in reading further. And as a purely practical matter, crafting a more balanced presentation that is less likely to offend "believers", is less likely to be edited, and may require less time and attention in the future in order to keep the skeptical view fairly represented for the benefit of the uninformed. I firmly believe the perjorative with the qualifying phrase is less offensive, but if you still disagree, I will not revert. I will leave it up to you and other editors.

The link I added was based on a broken link on the talk page, which I was in the process of archiving. I found the correct link and added it to the article as a "reference" for the statements about the contradictory "theories", lacking anything more definitive. I also thought it was a fairly interesting and informative reference, in the sense that the web page was written by Reflexology practicioners, yet also tends to support the pseudoscience characterization. --Michaelfavor 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your discussion Michael. I hope encyclopedias emphasise logic and concision over the more nebulous and perhaps controversial "aesthetic perspective". I also think it dangerous to change articles to suit the POV or beliefs of readers. So I'll revert as invited by you to do. Thanks again for your input. Mccready 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

pseudoscience section only has reference from one book, giving the section an unbalanced point of view —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.11.132.22 (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

This article honestly pissed me off. Even if i ignored the obviously bias thoughts from the arrogant, close minded author of this article, i'd still have to point out that for one, research has proven a connection between people's feet and their all around health. If you don't believe me you can go into any good feet store. Two, all sciences recognize the simple fact that their are different kinds of energy. If you have taken any physics class in your life, you should be able to realize that gravity pulls us towards the earth. That means that the kinetic energy of our body weight is transfered to the the ground through our skeletal system (that means the energy goes through our spine to the hips, then from the hips to the legs and you guest it, FEET). If energy goes through the skeletal system in a way that it wasn't designed to, it causes problems in the skeletal system and therefore throws off the rest of the body's systems. Three, the authors' time line is off. This theory is strongly connected to Chinese medicine which has been around since way before 1900s. Chinese medicine has been researched and practiced far beyond our western medicine. Besides, was it not our medical community that believed bleeding patience could cure diseases by getting rid of "bad blood",or that smoking was good for your lungs? I'm not saying that science is bad, I'm just saying that our understanding of science is not complete by any means and that the sooner our arrogant scientists realize that we as people are not all knowing, the sooner we can learn to understand science and how it works with life itself.

[edit] Keturah points? (Resolved)

Reflexology, or zone therapy, is the practice of stimulating keturah points on the feet, hands and ears, in order to encourage a beneficial effect on some other parts of the body, or to try to improve general health.

This puzzles me - I've never heard of a "keturah" point, the term is unfamiliar to me... There's no citation or anything, and I can only find two pages on something called keturah on wikipedia - a woman from the Bible and a kibbutz. Hmmmmm.

I'd love some clarification, here. :) Thanks! Lottie 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be gone, so there we go. Lottie 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inherent POV sentences?

"Contrary to some beliefs, reflexology does not seek to diagnose or cure medical conditions - merely imbalances in the life energy or Qi of the body."..."Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the mechanism behind reflexology, although none have been scientifically proven."

Both sentences, though well-refuted with subsequent sentences, seem to assert in and of themselves that there is an actual "mechanism" or effectiveness of the treatment. It may be best to keep sentences free of POV rather than just adding a counter-POV one after it to balance it out. I'm currently working on fixing up Indigo children but I think I might take a crack at fixing this article up too. -Wooty Woot? contribs 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project

right im doing this assignment in collage about reflexology i need help please. what do i look at !? are there any good websites ? xx

xx, here are some pages about reflexology that should help yowu tih your collage report.

Professional Bodies and Organisations

• Association of Reflexologists
• Federation of Holistic Therapists
• International Council of Reflexologists
• Reflexology in Europe Network
• Reflexology Organisations in Different Countries

Supporting Pages

• Aetna InteliHealth
• Reflexology FAQ

Refuting Pages

• Reflexology: A Close Look by Stephen Barrett MD
• Skeptics Dictionary: Definition of Reflexology - Robert Todd Carroll

Other Resources

• Interactive Reflexology Chart for the feet or hands
• Reflexology Research Project
• Hypotheses on how Reflexology might work
• World Reflexology Week

These are at the bottom of the main article, where the links are active. Lottie 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of Weasel and Peacock Words Here

This article is filled to the brim with weasel words and peacock words. Many of the people that have has contributed to this article seem to have no idea of how such words compromise the material. Please click on the links above to weasel words and peacock words for details on why these words and phrases are shunned on Wikipedia. There are so many here that I don't even know where to begin. At this rate, this article will never come close to Good Article status, much less become a Featured Article. ask123 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As a writer the worse thing is to try a rewrite something that is messed up. This article is full of Weasel and Peacock words. It has a split personaltiy. And neither personality looks very good. I think you can either start fresh and do a rewrite from the ground up or have two objective points view. Footc 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)footc (Kevin Kunz)

[edit] Hey I am referenced in this article...

...and I don't like it. Is there a way I can help? -Unsigned

Yep, edit the article and reference professional sources that comment on the subject matter. :) God knows it's needed!

Why don't you like it? Where are you referenced? Lottie (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Sheesh, did someone go through this article and remove anything negative? This is an appallingly biased article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried and tried to find references for studies/statements for and against, mostly in my book collection - it's hard. No one does anything concrete in favour or against this subject, and I'm coming to the conclusion that unless this article is very tiny, it's always going to be mostly outlandish statements. Doom. Lottie 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition by Cynthia B Hill

This section was added to the main page as well, which I reverted for containing buckets of WP:OR and unsourced statements. I'm refactoring it for easier reading. WLU 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reflexology Association of America

Cynthia B Hill 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Cynthia B Hill

In an effort to educate the public both lay and professional, reflexology strives to present accurate information concerning the work, the education involved and the professional practitioners who serve the public.

Reflexology is a scientific art based on the premise that there are reflexes (think reflection in a mirror) that exist in the feet, hands and ears which correspond to everything in the body. By accessing these reflexes by means of thumb and finger manipulation, these reflexes are capable of stimulating a response in the body to bring the body into a more balanced state.

Although there are quite a few theories on just how reflexology works, it does not negate the fact that it does work. Recent discoveries in the body's DNA recordings would indicate that each cell in our body is capable of recording the same information so it is really no different to hypothesize about the many ways reflexology transfers its information from reflex site to the rest of the body.

The American Academy of Reflexology conducted the first reflexology research study to ever be published in scientific medical literature, when the study appeared in the prestigious journal, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 82, #6, December 1993. This ground-breaking study was reported around the world, including in Journal Watch, which is published by the same people who publish the New England Journal of Medicine. Publishing of the study, and the wide spread reporting that followed in magazines, newspapers, numerous professional journals, as well as on radio, television, for the first time, gave Reflexologists around the world the ability to say, "Yes" when asked if there was any published scientific Reflexology Research validating that Reflexology works. Since the study was published, many other Reflexology Research Studies have been reported around the world. For any number of reasons, the PMS Reflexology Research Study has helped open doors for others around the world to conduct their studies. (From www.reflexologyresearch.net) The results were so astounding it is impossible to ignore. To say that reflexology has no basis in science is to purposefully ignore that study and the subsequent studies that followed. Dr. Shewta Choudhary, India, Reflexology and Post Operative Pain [3] Dr. Shewta Choudhary, India, Reflexology and Post Operative Nausea [4] Reflexology Research Study By M. Piquemal, M.D., E.E. [5]

As to the safety of the treatment, no drugs or needles are used, and tools, lotions, or oils are not used by methods that correspond to guidelines of the American Reflexology Certification Board (ARCB). The recipient removes only their shoes and socks, which renders the recipient far less vulnerable than say, naked on a massage table.

[edit] mechanisms of operation

With 7,200 nerve endings in each foot, stress can be reduced by soothing of those nerve endings which distribute the sensation to the rest of the body. The reduction in stress alone makes reflexology a valuable tool. As science becomes more knowledgeable of the way our nervous system actually operates, no doubt the mechanism that allows for that shared response will become apparent. Semantically the use of words like qi, ki, chi, manna, prana, and so on are used to demonstrate the presence of life. To deny the existence of qi, for example, would be the same as denying you are alive. While much of what works in reflexology seems to be at odds with modern medicine, modern medicine works in a completely different aspect from reflexology. While germ theory cannot be denied to be certain, we still have much to learn about how those germs are able to infect a human being to begin with. An example would be meningitis or encephalitis. What seems to be a mystery to the medical field as to how a seemingly random germ is able to infiltrate the meningi, is something scientists have yet to discover, yet we still acknowledge that it happens.

[edit] History

Reflexology was introduced into the United States in 1913 by William H. Fitzgerald, M.D. (1872-1942), an ear, nose, and throat specialist, and accompanied by Dr. Edwin Bowers. He found that applying pressure had an anesthetic effect on another area.<ref name=" fitzgerald proof ">Broken citation - WLU </ref>

Reflexology was further developed by Eunice D. Ingham (1899-1974), a nurse and physiotherapist, in the 1930s and 1940s.^[1] Ingham found that the feet and hands were especially sensitive, and then mapped the entire body into "reflexes" on the feet. It was at this time that "zone therapy" was renamed reflexology, and the number of conditions it was found to affect.

Modern reflexologists in the United States and the United Kingdom often learn Ingham's method first, although there are other more recently developed methods.<ref name="natural standard">Broken citation - WLU</ref>

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Potential dangers

Reflexology has the potential to be harmful indirectly if:

• The reflexologist tries to diagnose an illness
• The reflexologist relies upon the feet to tell the patient that they don't have an illness, when they do
• If reflexology is used instead of, or delays an effective therapy

Response Reflexologists do not diagnose, prescribe, or adjust medications. To do so is completely out of the scope of practice of Reflexology. The purpose of Reflexology is to relax and balance the recipient giving the body’s natural ability to heal the opportunity to take effect.

[edit] Reflexology as a pseudoscience

There is no evidence for the existence of life energy or Qi in the body. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence for "crystalline structures" or "pathways" in the body that reflexology claims to access.^[2] This suggests that the practice is a pseudoscience.

Response The language here indicates a lack of knowledge of body work, its effect, and perhaps the demand for proof that prayer is an operative force. The word “evidence” seems to be used to imply the thousands of people who have been helped by reflexology are somehow all either lying, or at best have been tricked into believing they are better than they were before the session. If “proof” that radio signals exist because you hear a song on your radio, then “proof” exist that reflexology works from the people it has helped. Perhaps the word “pseudoscience” might better describe the FDA’s approval of aspertame

In recent years reflexology has grown into a self-regulating practice with checks and balances to assure the practitioner will receive the most accurate education available beginning with a minimum 200 hour certification program provided by and ACARET (American Commission for Accreditation of Reflexology Education and Training P.O. Box 19384 ~ Seattle, WA 98109-9384 ~ Email: acaret@acaret.org) approved school of reflexology, followed by a national testing certification provided by ARCB (American Reflexology Certification Board P.O. Box 5147, Gulfport, FL 33737E-mail: info@arcb.net) . National organizations such as RAA (Reflexology Association of America http://www.reflexology-usa.org/and for the many states that have state organizations, which work in tandem with national, exist to provide the public with accurate, responsible information about reflexology. In some instances they can help locate a reflexologist in any given area that meets these criteria.

A reflexology chart shows "reflex zones" found on the soles of the feet. Similar maps exist for the position of the reflexes on the hands.

In this chart, the color codes represent the following organs or parts of the body:

End of section added by Cynthia B Hill. Yup, no citations, bizarrely embedded external links, broken references, unsourced information, OR-syntheses, embedded e-mail addresses and horribly apologist tone. I don't really see anything that should be re-introduced to the main page. WLU 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential dangers

Reflexology may be indirectly harmful if:

• the practitioner tries to diagnose an illness based on the reflexology performed.
• the practitioner advises that the patient does not have an illness based on the reflexology performed.
• the reflexology delays medical treatment or therapy or is used as an alternative to medical treatment or therapy.

This section effectively contains a zero factual content and a 100% "diss" content.
I have no specific interest in reflexology, but it is surely one of the least dangerous forms of treatment one can think of. The dangers listed above are generic, rather than specific to reflexology - except of course if working on the unspoken assumption that reflexology simply does not work, an assumption which an unbiased article clearly cannot make.
Every form of healthcare known to man "may be indirectly harmful" IF it wrongly diagnoses an illness.
Every form of healthcare known to man "may be indirectly harmful" IF the practitioner claims the patient does not have an illness when he actually does.
Every form of healthcare known to man "may be indirectly harmful" IF it delays another more effectual form of treatment.

I've modified the paragraph to make it less biased, but it should perhaps be removed, as it contains no information specific to reflexology.

Well, your whole reasoning is based on the "unspoken assumption" that it works as claimed and that the common methods of practice are safe. The section is indeed a critical comment based on the fact that it does not work as claimed (it's relaxing and has some placebo effect, but influences no body systems as claimed, and does not effectively treat any serious diseases as commonly claimed by practitioners. The effects it does have are not specific to reflexology.). As a critical comment it is of course a "diss". That what critical comments are for and this one is referenced. This is what keeps the article from being a sales brochure, IOW keeps it NPOV. It's a disclaimer. Reflexologists should not be diagnosing disease at all, and in fact that is illegal in many countries. Even if doing it properly (rather than "wrongly") according to their system, it would carry risk, as the system itself is based on false and unfounded assumptions about anatomy, physiology, and pathology. I'll restore it to the state backed up by the reference. -- Fyslee / talk 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyslee! I don't think anything needs to be added here. You said it perfectly. ₪ ask123 {t} 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not actually true, Fyslee. I have no opinion whatever on whether reflexology is effectual or not. I appreciate (and support) your right to a partisan, committed view on this particular subject - however speaking personally my only interest in editing the section was to remove the unspoken assumption that the technique was ineffectual. If this assumption is clearly stated as a subjective POV I have no issue with it. Organica 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be no unspoken assumption of ineffectuality. It is a very open assumption based on lack of evidence in research. IOW it is not an assumption at all. There is enough research to remove false assumptions of any truth of the claims made by reflexologists. They are not true. The burden of proof is on those who claim it works as claimed. They have failed miserably. The only effects are nonspecific effects of no significance for the treatment of serious illness. It's a nice (well, actually can be quite painful!) foot massage, with time to talk to the therapist who willingly indoctrinates the unsuspecting victim in a lot of nonsense. That's one of the greatest dangers. It is the so-called "innocent" doorway into a world of nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is true. When claiming the efficacy of a new treatment or therapy, the burden of proof is on the person/people introducing and practicing the treatement or therapy. These types of things are not considered effective until proven so. In other words, nothing is effective until proven so. If I create a new treatment called ABC Therapy that involves watching television to heal sickness, it is not assumed effective until I have proven so. This is not a POV stance; it is the prevailing stance of scholarly and professional communities around the world, which accepts nothing until it is proven via a standardized modus operandi. It is the way the empirical scientific method works. ₪ ask123 {t} 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight issue

Reference numbers 1 and 7 are both from Stephen Barrett (operator of Quackwatch and NCAHF). Also, a link to Quackwatch is in the External Links section. This is a short article and per WP:WEIGHT, we should limit Barrett's opinions on the matter to just one link. I think the use of reference number 1 is the strongest. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Link one appears to be by William Jarvis, not Stephen Barrett,[6] though the external link is probably superfluous given the reference. WLU 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jarvis and Barrett are partner/board memebers in the NCAHF (See here for exact correlation). Their views are equivilent. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They may be equivalent, but they are not the same person. My brief review of the intros and references show overlap of basic stuff in history and sources, but I'd have to read further to see if they're the same reference. If the references say different things or justify different ideas, I'd say it's appropriate to have two separate ones. If they duplicate each other or the same info can be justified by a single reference, then I'd say use a single reference. As is, I'd say the use of two references isn't violating WP:WEIGHT as they're refs rather than links. Perhaps a better solution would be to expand the 'reflexology positive' aspects of the article if reliable sources can be found. WLU 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the references more closely, the larger problem seems to be the Barrett article does not justify the statement it is appended to. I'm removing the statement wholesale since I can't find accusations of pseudoscience or anything to justify the crystal stuff. WLU 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed, though now I'd like to put the quackwatch link back in the EL section - there's five links to reflexology governing bodies, one to skepdic, and one to intellihealth which isn't so much critical as just a review of the evidence. WLU 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Removal of the "reflexology as pseudoscience" paragraph seems an improvement: a quick google suggests that the majority of its practitioners present it quite specifically as an "alternative" or "complementary" therapy, not as a science or science-derivative.

However having a "criticism" section at all is problematic here, I think. The article needs both factual information, referenced to supporting evidence, and also the subjective opinion of critics, referenced to a statement of those opinions. But having a specific "criticism" section is tending to blur that distinction - it's unclear whether its contents are being presented as fact, or as the views of the technique's detractors. I think clarity would be greatly aided by distributing any criticisms throughout the article, where they can lend contextual balance to the specifics being criticised.

Also, is there some doubt over the authorhsip of the referenced article (1)? Author is listed as William T. Jarvis, but it contains the sentence "Ferris agreed to conduct a trial of reflexology's theory under Jarvis's direction." Is he one of those folks who refer to themselves in the 3rd person? Organica 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferris and Jarvis are two different persons. -- Fyslee / talk 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism section seems superfluous. The concerns outlined are actually already stated at the end of the introduction, so I think it's safe to remove the entire section. --Skeptic za (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the criticism section is appropriate. Since it's not one or two elements of reflexology that are being criticized, but, rather, the entire process that's being debunked, a criticism section is fair. ask123 (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put images back in

There is nothing wrong with keeping the images here. They are presented with the clear caveat that the whole practice of reflexology may have no benefit and that the theories it is based on are likely false. It is quite clear that what the images represent is not proven. The whole practice of reflexology is not proven. That has been said many times. Now we want to see what the practitioners are claiming it is. ask123 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are helpful, it'd be nice to have a non-duplicate picture. How about one of someone getting a foot massage? WLU (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about foot problems?

I originally posted this question, somewhere up above, but either no one saw it, or no one cared. :) Just in case the former is true, I'm reposting here. If it was the latter, then disregard.

Doesn't it seem odd that there is no "pathway" relating to the feet? ....on the feet? Is that an omission in the article, or do Reflexologists refer you to a podiatrist for that? Messiahxi (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) The way I understand it, the reflex points on the feet link up to the energy pathways/meridians in other areas of the body. So the reflex points on the feet are already on the feet, and you're already working them.

For specific problems like verrucas and so on, a podiatrist is presumably a good idea - no reflexologist will say they can heal your calluses by clearing energy pathways, though I suppose it's possible. As for verrucas, don't you get them when your immune system is low? So foot massage equals less stress equals boosted immune system equals less verrucas, I reckon.

Alternatively, if you work the hands then the feet get the benefit energetically - reflexology can be done on the hands and the ears as well. Lottie (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. However, I'm not sure that really answered my question. Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but if you look at the graphic depicting the "reflex zones", it looks as if these areas have been painstakingly pinpointed. The zone relating to the eyes, for example, is this one little 2cm spot near the 2nd and 3rd toe. The entirety of foot real estate is taken up by the seemingly arbitrarily shaped zone for everything from the voice (whatever that means), the brain (whatever that means), and pituitary gland. But, nothing about the feet??? As I said, its possible that this a bad graphic. But I have a feeling that there is no "standardized" chart to replace it with. Messiahxi (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I understand now. When you're working that 2cm eye reflex, you're also (in terms of energy) working that same 2cm of foot. If there's an energy blockage on the big toe but that toe is broken (and therefore unworkable), the big toe reflex is reflected in the thumb so you'd work that instead. And presumably (this is the sceptic-logic talking), since the big toe's reflex is the head you can also massage the head to clear the blockage in the big toe! One of my co-learners did ask this in class but the teacher was mysteriously unable to answer this question...

As for the standardised chart, this has often bothered me. There are so many different charts, and no way of knowing which works better. Someone should re-do the scientific thing again - finding out which points anaesthetised which parts of the body. Perhaps it varies from person to person, and there is no set map. Lottie (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sceptical slant

I have no problem with the sceptical slant in the article, but aren't there guidelines advising against the use of the word "claim"? "Reflexologists claim..." etc.

Also, there used to be studies cited in the article that supported the therapeutic benefits - I'm not sure why they were removed, as they were reliable sources. I'll try and put them back in at appropriate points; although I object to the scepticism (which is pretty harsh) I don't want to make it POV the other way.

Has this article ever been neutral? Large sections have been cut since last time I was here, and the rest has been made a bit useless. Lottie (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that, overall, this is a rather poor article, I must say that I don't have a problem with there being a skeptical slant. Sure, there could be more historical info about reflexology, better graphic(?), and grammatical/syntax cleanup. But I think its fair, considering the non-scientific approach taken by reflexologists in general. Any article medical claim that is not supported by empirical data MUST have some skeptical viewpoint, in my opinion. Full disclosure: I am not a believer, but I do know the value of a good foot massage :) Messiahxi (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Found" vs. "claimed" (v pedantic, I know!)

Not so long ago, Adam changed an edit of mine. I don't mean to be aggressive or anything, I'd hate for there to be an edit war, but this is how it goes and I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks. This is from the History section of the main article.

Reflexology was introduced to the United States in 1913 by William H. Fitzgerald, M.D. (1872-1942), an ear, nose, and throat specialist, and Dr. Edwin Bowers. Fitzgerald claimed that applying pressure had an anesthetic effect on other areas of the body.

I changed the word "claimed" to "found", as he did some studies into it (long ago!) and a citation is provided. Personally I would like to see the study repeated under very unbiased conditions, but I'll never get the funding...

Adam changed it, with the comment: "It's not demonstrated that it does have an effect." I'm puzzled as to why his work was not a demonstration? If it's the citation that's the problem, perhaps it could be removed and a cite tag added.

If people think this is too pedantic then I'm happy to drop it - I'm all for scepticism with this subject but it's easy to go too far in either POV direction and I think it's important to avoid POV words at all costs.

Thanks in advance! Lottie (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience (2)

Is Reflexology a confirmed "pseudoscience" in terms of what we require at Wikipedia as mandated by WP:PSCI? IOW, are there strong reliable sources which verify that the scientific community generally considers Reflexology to be a pseudoscience? If not, per my understanding of WP:PSCI, we cannot stick the article in the Pseudoscience category. That being said, if there are reliable sources which support some critic's opinion that Reflexology is a pseudoscience, then that can be included in the article as long as it is stated to be the critic's opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably if the medical community sees it as not trying to be scientific, there won't be any material that says it's a pseudoscience. It's tricky. Thanks though - I'm talking to Fyslee and WLU about it. More people should post bits here too. Lottie (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't force people to post unfortunately. Though I've edited the page, it's not one of my central interest areas. The best thing that could possibly happen Lottiotta, is if you could muster every source you have or can find about Reflexology, try to figure out if they're reliable or not, and gut the page, replacing all the unreferenced stuff with valuable, referenced material. However, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and textbooks published by academic press. I don't think reflexology has had much study by these groups. Failing that, you could try for newspaper articles, but not random websites. WP:MEDRS is a good page to look at as well, it details the most esteemed sources that are the only ones appropriate for medical articles. If reflexology is seen and promoted as a valid form of treatment, pseudoscience may be appropriate if it's never been demonstrated as efficacious, if there's no coherent theory, or if it mis-uses or mis-represents actual science in order to justify it's practices. For me it comes down to 'is there any reason to think that rubbing the feet will help any other part of the body, particularly non musculo-skeletal parts?' If reflexologists assert that there is, but they're not backed up by evidence, it's a pseudoscience. Also, the page on pseudoscience might be surprisingly helpful. WLU (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By wikipedia's standards, I'd say that it doesn't meet the threshold for being characterized as pseudoscience. Basically, our standards here are what the sources say, and I don't think there are any from large, reputable scientific or skeptical bodies which characterize it as such. If there are sources from individual critics alleging this, that information could be included if it's notable, but that isn't enough for us to simply say it's pseudoscience. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've been referred to you on the subject of Pseudoscience...

[This section was started by Lottie on my talk page and is now copied here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

... and having read through some of your talk page, I can see why! I was having a bit of a discussion at my (and WLU's) talk page, about whether Reflexology is a pseudoscience. Two options. 1: It's not, because it never claimed to be scientific, or 2: It is, because it doesn't conform to the scientific method. If you don't mind getting involved, what d'you reckon? Thanks. :) Lottie (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what your interest is on the subject? Are you a user, practitioner, skeptic, etc.? It doesn't make any real difference to me, as I can cooperate with people on either side of the "skeptical fence". It's just nice to know people's background. -- Fyslee / talk 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a practitioner, I've been trying to make the article on Reflexology NPOV but it's hard work. I'm trying to be really careful not to edit it into oblivion, and I don't want to make it seem like the article is promoting it as effective or dissing it as bunkum. I think part of that is establishing whether or not it actually is a pseudoscience, and saying so... Lottie (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Lottie. Keep trying for an NPOV article. When it has V & RS that make claims it's effective and make claims it's bunkum, then you may well have arrived! It's a controversial subject and the article should show that controversy. I believe it's a pseudoscience because it makes some claims that are falsifiable, others that aren't, makes wrong anatomical and pathological claims, and fails to adhere to the scientific method. That's my opinion. What is your position on the matter? -- Fyslee / talk 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My position is a little bit wobbly. I've never really been shown proper scientific evidence that it can find illnesses and make people feel better - on the other hand, as a practitioner I've had many people tell me how much better it made them feel (especially with hormonal problems and pain management). I have a few theories as to how it helps, but they're not exactly proven with the scientific method...

When I was being taught the techniques, never was I told that reflexology could diagnose problems, nor was I told that it was medically... erm... correct? I'm not sure of the right word. On the contrary, we were told that our practice was in no way medical or scientific, and that we could not indicate that the imbalances found in the foot correlated to illnesses, nor could we claim to cure people. It was made clear that reflexology was a relaxing therapy that has roots in Chinese meridian theory and that some people believe in that and find it to be helpful.

So I'm of the opinion that as it's not trying to scientific, to cure people or to diagnose anything other than undetectable energy imbalances, it's not pseudoscience. I think my logic here fits with the wikipedia article on pseudoscience - Pseudoscience may be defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but... Well, it doesn't in my experience. I suppose some people try to make it appear scientific to give it credibility, which may be where the problems come in... I think it must basically be down to individual experience and training, which varies a lot.

Thank you for your input, it's appreciated. If it's okay, could I please paste your answer into the talk page subject? I think the more views we have, the better. Another idea that's been put forward is that we can't say it's a pseudoscience unless we have a reliable source to back it up, which makes a lot of sense to me. What do you think?

Thanks again! Lottie (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[The content above is from my talk page. We can continue below.]

I suspect that the approach you were taught was an attempt to "fly under the radar" (by refraining from making falsifiable claims that get proven false), since in some countries the practice of reflexology gets dangerously close to practicing medicine without a license. By refraining from making medical and scientific claims, practitioners can get away with performing innocent relaxation therapy. I know that Reflexology can be very relaxing, and that can help some things like tension headaches and stress related matters. It generally does make claims regarding anatomy, pathology, and abilities to heal. There should be plenty of sources on that. We can safely ignore the obligatory disclaimers at the bottom of website pages which state the opposite of what the websites actually do. -- Fyslee / talk 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are V & RS that claim it is a pseudoscience, and they could be used. -- Fyslee / talk 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where would I find these medically accepted V & RS? And does anyone know of any sources that say reflexology does work as often described? I suppose reputable medical people have better medicine to test than holistic stuff like reflexology... Thanks, Lottie (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Given what Lottie has said, I'd say that pseudoscience might be inappropriate, though does it get an alt. med category instead? However, if they can be sourced, Lottie's statements about it not being desinged to diagnose or treat should definitely be given due weight to indicate it's not really a medical practice. Alternative medicine might itself be too strong, since it doesn't portray itself as a medical procedure used to diagnose or treat. Perhaps Category:Massage might be best. As for sources, you can't get much more 'reflexology is pseudoscience and practitioners should be beaten with sticks' than quackwatch, though it's a controversial site regards being used as a source. Overall, given your statements above, it might be best to simply start editing the page to add sources and information; problematic statements can be weeded out, tagged or reworked rather than trying to establish a NPOV from the talk page before any editing. WLU (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reputable/Reliable studies

So, I'm having a look at a couple of websites that WP:MEDRS says is okay - namely BMJ.com and Medscape.com. Although I'm not finding much on the pseudoscience front (see above!) I'm finding the odd study on the efficacy of reflexology, here and there.

I'm just wondering how they fit into the article? I think I might make a new section for them, just to say "this source found that reflexology was/wasn't effective in this area", and bung in some of the articles from the above sites as sources.

Most notable so far: Reflexology made no difference---statistically or clinically---to the experience of pain, altered bowel habit, or abdominal distension (British Journal of General Practice 2002;52:19-23). BMJ.com article Minerva

Another trial, involving 55 women, compared reflexology with rest. Reflexology significantly reduced the symptoms associated with oedema (reduction in symptoms: RR 9.09, 95% CI 1.41 to 58.54). There was no evidence of significant difference in the women's satisfaction and acceptability with either intervention (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 39.11). Medscape.com article Interventions for varicose veins and leg oedema in pregnancy

Although all patients greatly enjoyed the treatments, there was no discernible difference in outcome between those receiving reflexology and those receiving standard foot massage. The pilot study was small (only 17 patients), but it was clear that large numbers of patients would be required to prove the null hypothesis and we decided not to proceed. BMJ.com article Research in complementary medicine is essential

All the participants in a controlled trial of reflexology for people with asthma felt better during the trial (Respiratory Medicine 2001;95:173-9). Symptoms improved by about the same amount in both groups---treatment with real or simulated reflexology for 10 weeks ... It's likely that patients were more compliant with drug treatment during the trial. BMJ.com article Minerva

A nurse reflexologist taught partners how to perform reflexology on patients with metastatic cancer pain in the hospital, resulting in an immediate decrease in pain intensity and anxiety; minimal changes were seen in the control group, who received usual care plus attention. Medline article Partner-delivered reflexology: effects on cancer pain and anxiety

PMS treatment: The reflexology study applied pressure to actual reflex points on the ears, hands, and feet and compared the response with application to incorrect reflex points as the control. The group receiving the "true" reflexology treatment improved more than the control group. [http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408913_3 Medscape.com article Evaluating and Managing Premenstrual Syndrome]

Lottie (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)