Talk:Bowen technique/Archive 1

The Bowen Technique

The Bowen Technique can be combined with other therapies. Accordign to Kevin Ryan and Romney Smeaton, Tom Bowen often experimented with other techniques.

When Ossie Rentsch began teaching he students to performe skeletal manipulations as well. It was not until he was told that it was illegal to do so that he changed his teaching to include the self-manipulation of the elbow using an osteopathic technique.

Tom Bowen would often refer clients to Nigel Love if he wasnt able to perform the manipulation himself.

When in a wheelchair Tom Bowen made use of assistants to hold the clients clothing so he could work on the skin. He did not believe that he had the palpatory skills needed to treat someone through their clothes and also saw the skin as an important area of diagnosis.

neutrality

This article seems to be pushing one or several agendas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.82.163 (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Research papers are mentioned in this article, but not properly cited. Without proper citation scientific evidence is at best meaningless, at worst plagerism. Povmcdov 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The article reads like an ad -"medicine" for example; that needs to be explained. Madgenberyl (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern Times

Most clients were told by Tom specifically not to have any other forms of treatment than his. It's a step from Tom suggesting or even performing a certain minor ostepathic adjustment, to suggesting that Bowen can be successfully mixed with the thousands of therapies now in existence. This creates confusion and a problem of identification. Rightly or wrongly it has been accepted within its definition that with regulation, the protected title of Bowen Technique will be as a stand alone therapy.

Perhaps the four principles of Bowen should be posted as part of the article?

Also a bit wary of unsigned posts.

Joolsbaker 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Julian Baker

Homeopathy

Given that Homeopathy effectiveness is highly questioned, should this article really say so authoratively (without any evidence) that Bowen works well with Homeopathy?

Chris Fletcher 0:44 AEST, November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Fletcher (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

While reading this I was getting ready to add the pseudoscience template on it, then I realized I was on the wrong wiki. I don't see how homeopathy would interfere with BT - or anything, for that matter. Water is good for you, necessary, even. Huw Powell (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Untitled comment

No clinical tials means that the Bowen Technique simply joins the ranks of pretend medicines alongside homeopathy etc. If this 'therapy' worked beyond a placebo effect it would cease to be alternative and become fully-fledged medicine. So-called trials, by those with vested interests only make matters worse, suggesting that even its proponents don't believe that it could stand up to a clinical trial. Go on, set up a double-blind trial and overnight these accusations would go away. Remember that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, it's not scientific and it's not clinical. If Bowen evangelists are OK with this then why not just say it's a massage that can make people feel better-in the same way as a placebo does. Otherwise quit the pretence.

Response: Bowen has been clinically trialled under ethical approval. The work on hamstring flexibility presented at Conference and the abstract published and peer reviewed in Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapy (Elsevier). This was a study with a control group. With any degree of understanding of either trials or Bowen, the above author might know that double blind trials would be extremely unlikely for manual therapy. Evidence based clinical trial does not mean 'fully fledged medicine' and in reverse most medical practice in common use has not been subject to clinical trial. Bowen is practiced widely in primary care situations throughout the United Kingdom and efficacy and safety accepted

Further trials are under way, and early dissective evidence is being collected. The relatively new understanding of structural function and fascial integrity is lending weight to the growing scientific interest in soft tissue manipulation such as Bowen. Bowen is still relatively new, but is taking steps to subject itself to widespread scrutiny.

81.107.76.244 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)joolsbaker81.107.76.244 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The article currently mentions, and links, to, the hamstring study but makes no reference to the findings of the study. I would think the findings should be summarised. Interlope (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Article restored

I have just restored this article, deleted via PROD in October 2008. I think it is notable and has potential to be a good article. If anyone disagrees, feel free to take it to AfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Links

I have deleted two links to clinics using Bowen Technique. The reason being, if such links were allowed, there would be thousands of links with little added value. If someone wants a therapist in their area google is the place to go - not Wikipedia.

Personaly I believe the external links are should only link to schools, research and professional associations. To this end I have also linked so some schools that teach various forms of Bowen.

Dicksb (Brian Dicks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicksb (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I plan on changing several things in this article over time, and would like to begin with the introduction, and definition of the terms.

A short search on the web would show that Bowen Technique is a generic term used to describe various therapies inspired by the work of Tom Bowen. "Bowen Technique" is often interchangeable with the term "Bowen Therapy" and both should be reflected in the introduction.

I will make this change next week, to give time for feedback and discussions before doing so.

Thanks

Brian Dicks

Dicksb (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Gutted

There's no substantive research on the Bowen technique, so I used the only reasonable secondary source I could find (the For Dummies book) to put in a brief description and a note that it's unsubstantiated. If you dislike this, see WP:MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a substantial expansion [1] that was poorly sourced and ignores the concerns discussed on this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed it again. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Research

user WLU has made an edit without doing the most basic of pub med searches. Substantive evidence has been available since August 2007 when the RCT was published. The edit removing this reference was not followed up or verified. I dislike this sort of edit because it displays a basic ignorance and lack of effort involved in any degree, lacks any citation of where WLU looked to try and find research, shows that he or she did not read any of the links that were previously on the page and lastly shows a questionable intent and no respect for the authors of serious scientific papers.

As for the silly Dummies reference; Four publications exist on the technique for a start and wide ranging discussions which take place examine the veracity of soft tissue techniques in many journals around the world.

Knowledge in any field may not be readily available to those disinclined to search for it, but ignorance is served up on a platter.

Joolsbaker —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC).

See WP:MEDRS. Secondary sources are required, not primary studies. Also, no medical treatment is considered acceptable, safe, useful or effective after a single study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is there as a source of reference and therefore needs to have information which is relevant, available. The article in Dummies was inaccurate and does not reflect the technique. The research carried out is on PUbMed. It is peer reviewed and takes steps to seek safety outcomes. The Bowen Technique does not claim to be a medical treatment, nor does the article claim the Bowen Technique to be effective in anything other than its specified research protocol. However the research is valid and the page must reflect the work that is being carried out.

Elaine Rentsch was never a student of Tom Bowen and does not claim to be. Other men were taught by Tom Bowen and it is well documented that each of them spent one morning a week with him.

This page serves as an important portal of information and needs to be accurate. Vexatious and mischievous editing by sources with no knowledge of the history or background of the subject, or with a personal agenda, cannot be acceptable. Fair editing please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs) 10:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment above, and the MEDRS guidelines I linked to. Sources win out over editor opinion. Being discussed in a book with "medicine" in the title is a pretty clear indication that it's a form of medicine. If your opinions reflect the mainstream knowledge about the Bowen technique, it should be trivial to find sources to verify the information. Since the information you added was unsourced, it can be removed without recourse, per WP:PROVEIT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

whoever keeps editing this page to remove the referenced work, please be a little more, or a lot more thoughtful and edit rather than just delete. You are contradicting your own comments regarding the rules of wikipedia. These are all now factual statements, referenced according to the desired referencing rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through it bit by bit, providing an explanation for each sentence. I noticed that sourced information was removed without comment previously, and restored it.

Going down the list of problems: the material overall was heavily skewed to be promotional, in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again a Randomised Controlled Trial, an independent piece of research by Coventry University, peer reviewed,published by Elsevier is promotional material? Explain. . Wikipedia makes clear that this piece of research is verifiable in all its rules, is clearly not first or second party and is superior to much of what passes in the rest of Wikipedia. I am beginning to think you have a personal agenda and your lack of objectivity concerns me greatly. Joolsbaker (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Joolsbaker

Please focus on content.

It's been explained three times now (14:03, 9 August 2011) (15:14, 7 September 2011) (13:00, 10 September 2011) --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

err no it hasn't. Cut and paste SPECIFICALLY the rule you think applies to what you are talking about. There is nothing on any of your links that justify your actions. 21:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)joolsbaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs)

It's been explained three times. If you're not satisfied with those explanations, please indicate some understanding for what's been written, or ask for clarification. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Finding better sources

Like WLU (14:03, 9 August 2011), I'm having difficulty finding quality references for this article amidst all the promotional information available. Maybe we can use sources from other alt-med articles? --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Elsevier might have an issue as not being a quality reference. I have edited the page again removing the comp therapy for dummies and the other references, leaving in the Elsevier link. I think this is a good compromise. Joolsbaker (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)joolsbaker

Please take a look at MEDRS. The problem is that there's such little information available on it and reviews. We've one study that didn't bother to do a control with a sham treatment.

I hope that none of Elsevier's problems apply to this research. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS is clear to me and backs up the reference to the article. The link shows the full article with detailed statistical data and full description of methodology. Sham treatments? It doesn't work like that I'm afraid but bless you for trying. It explains a lot! The box plots and statistics show clearly the probability of error factors that are built into the protocol design. If you were going to test the efficacy of a surgical procedure, you wouldn't try to publish a sham treatment! The control element allows for the concept of relaxation to be taken into the study of hysteresis in this very specialised field of fascial study.

These elements are dealt with at the Ethics stage, again a rather rigorous and thorough process. The peer review process also crunches the numbers in every way possible to find things wrong, then throws them back for re-writing. At time of writing the study has been replicated as part of a PhD programme.

Manual therapy is a very different field of study from say, pharmaceutical research. Just so ya know! Joolsbaker (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)joolsbaker

Please WP:FOC. The repeated focus on editors is disruptive.

A sham treatment is a placebo control, which should have been used. When the control is to simply do nothing, the research results can only find differences between doing nothing vs the studied treatment. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've requested help at WP:FTN --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.worksafebc.com/health_care_providers/Assets/PDF/alternative_medicine.pdf --Ronz (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358741.html?d=dmtContent --Ronz (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, stick these up as references on the page. If you read the literature review you will see that everything previously done is of low quality and not peer reviewed. The Pub Med research has to be reviewed in order to get it published in the first place. The edit job on wiki is to present information which is trying to be withheld. The research has been presented at conference www.fasciaresearch.com and is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you referring to? --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Info from Complementary Medicine For Dummies

Seems worth incorporating:

The Bowen technique was devised by Australian Tom Bowen in the 1950s, and later taught extensively by his students, Oswald and Elaine Rentsch. Bowen had no previous training in any therapy or medical system. He simply wanted to alleviate suffering and always claimed that the technique was a ‘gift from God’.

--Ronz (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This source is being challenged [2], but it's not clear why. I've restored and tagged it. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring is taking place over this reference, but still no response here as to why the tagged reference is improper, much less why it needs to be removed even while its tagged and this discussion is here. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Mention of the hamstring research

I've removed the hamstring research. Find secondary sources that discusses the research itself so we can determine if and how it should be presented. --Ronz (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. No. You are simply not the authority to do this. Look around. This is not the rules of wikipedia and you are flying the face of everything written. This is a serious piece of research and has the merit of being mentioned. I am not budging on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE, WP:PSTS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SOAP are the most pertinent rules of Wikipedia that I see applying. MEDRS has been mentioned multiple times now, and is being ignored. Shall we go into the others, or will they be ignored as well?

The research says nothing of consequence. They compared Bowen to nothing at all and found people treated with Bowen had some improved flexibility. How's that compare to simple massage? They didn't bother to check. How's it compare to recommended medical treatment for increasing flexibility? They didn't bother to check. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting into a situation whereby an editor is trying to peer review a piece of research in order to judge whether it should go onto 12 lines of a page. At the same time it's clear that the editor in question knows nothing about the process of publishing research or the process of peer review and has engaged in an edit war as a result.

The research paper is available on the link. The literature review (an essential part of research) goes through every piece of published literature on hamstring research and cites these. It wouldn't have even got to peer review if it hadn't. MEDRS has been covered and there is nothing that is missing. This is a reliable source accruing to the rules of Wikipedia and there is no question that this is the case. Specific MEDRS sentences or other breach of rules must be quoted, rather than whole sections. In either case the rules of reliable source are not in question here.

This is a piece of research that has been conducted by an independent Academic institution with no connection to any Bowen organisation, is ethically approved, peer reviewed, statistically covers probabilities of error and is published in an international science journal. This is the only piece of research into Bowen that has been published in a journal to date.

Edits should comment on content rather than on subjects for which they are not qualified or enter into personal beliefs as a reason for editing. Joolsbaker (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)joolsbaker

Sorry, expertise in a subject matter is not required. More importantly, editors making judgements of others' expertise is harassment. Editors who use such harassment to drive away others may find themselves blocked. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoting MEDRS

This is copied directly from the MEDRS page. As it is the books written on the subject of Bowen, which have been referenced, have had their references removed by editor Ronz, who then cited MEDRS (see below) as a reason. Puzzling. A peer reviewed scientific journal is as good as it gets.

"Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We have no "general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." If you think we do, please provide them here and be crystal clear what type of source you believe they are. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation

Ronz misunderstands systematic reviews. Previous "book references professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher" have been removed.

Elsevier source as in Pubmed satisfies all University citation and Harvard referencing around the world. Peer reviewed papers are a gold standard. Early papers, first trials etc need to be referenced for replication and critique to ensue. Editors should avoid editing skilled subject matter, such as research protocol, without appropriate knowledge or skill base.

Comment regarding 'nothing at all' again misinterprets reading of research paper. Lit review references indicate that no static treatment has attained any changes over the designated period. Comment could therefore read reasonably 'compared with everything ever tried.' Statistics within design factor in probability of no intervention. Placebo treatment cannot be performed reliably where the practitioner would know it was a sham or placebo as undue influence would be a critical factor.

Language not appropriate for reference work. Comp Med for Dummies cites 2007 with no research being undertaken. 2010 published paper leaves pre-dated material inaccurate and should be removed. Dribblemonkey (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)dribblemonkey

Please focus on content

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please review the discussions above and try to address the concerns expressed there.

"Comp Med for Dummies cites 2007 with no research being undertaken." But we're not using it for that. "2010 published paper leaves pre-dated material" Again, we're not using it for that. Strawman arguments are a waste of time. Please address actual issues and concerns.

This is an encyclopedia article, not a research article, nor a soapbox for Bowen technique therapists.

I've gone ahead and removed the mention of the single study. As a start, find a secondary source that we can use to determine what details, if any, are worth mentioning per WP:NPOV. Of course, WP:MEDRS applies as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Bowen technique is very clearly a fringe treatment. Similar articles are Rolfing and Reflexology. Because WP:FRINGE applies, we need to be sure to follow WP:NPOV and WP:OR. As WP:FRINGE states, "it is of vital importance that they (editors) simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Above link refers to fringe theories, i.e. theories added to existing mainstream articles. It confirms the importance of stating independent reliable sources. Reliable sources is the key. Peer review

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented."

Every way you look at it, published material in a scientific journal conducted by independent researchers is 'reliable source' under every possible rule of Wikipedia. Joolsbaker (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)joolsbaker

The issue isn't whether or not it is a reliable source. No one is saying it is not.

The issue is WP:NPOV and to a lesser extent WP:OR, and the special cases of WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE.

This is a single study. As such it's a primary source. MEDRS says, "Results of studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in sufficient context that readers can determine their reliability." The problem then is what do we mention about this study and what context do we place it in? Without a secondary source about the study, it's not clear. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

The differences between primary and secondary sources explained here.

[[3]]

Joolsbaker (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)joolsbaker

And the individual study is a primary source. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yoga Magazine Article

Given the topic of this article is the technique, not the person, I'm not sure what additional information from http://btpa.co/Bowen/articles/Yoga_Magazine_Article.pdf would be appropriate to add. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)