Talk:Reflexology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fellow classmates and editors, could you all please think about the style of paragraphs before editing the page? I am surprised that there is a sentence written in the following way: "Could we use reflexology......?" This is not the standard style of encyclopedic publishing. Please avoid such patterns again in the future, also avoid using YOUs, thanks :) 80jimmylouie 04:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

This stub is incredibly puerile. It reads like a DIY manual, has no encyclopedic value, uses the second person, keeps referring to Hong Kong for obscure reasons or POVs, and the thinking behind it could be tremendously improved. Also the English used is less than basic and sometimes inintelligible. I suggest a complete re-writing by a competent editor.

- Sorry that we had made so many studid mistakes and had kept on referring to HK. It is because editing this Wiki page is our assignment. I am a student in Hong Kong and the Wikians with username starts with 2 digits are my fellow schoolmates. As this is the first time we try to get involved into a wiki-page editing, we had done some nasty thing that is unacceptable under the Wiki rule. I am sorry about this and now then I really enjoy in editing this Wiki page. Hope that you honourable editors will bear our mistakes and help us to improve :) Jimmy

Hi jimmy, you don't need to apologise. The above comments were written by user:irismeister a user who has been rude to many others over the past few weeks. They only reason he wrote those comments is because I made an edit to the page. They have nothing to do with you or any or your schoolmates. Please do not think your efforts are unvalued, they are not. Every page I have ever worked on here has started off not very good. Pages improve over time as people edit them. That is the wonderful thing about wikipedia. If irismeister insults your efforts again just ignore him (advice I really should have taken myself long ago), You do not need to apologise to anyone for working on an article.

Incidentally I've been searching the web for info to add to the page (Some links are at the bottom of this page for you to check out) So far I've not been able to find a tranlation of the hieroglyphics on the picture, but I'm still looking. We should mention however that not all scholers believe that the picture demonstrate reflexology. Some believe that it demonstates a manicure and pedicure. Others think it shows some kind of surgery! again I've not been able to find good sources (I found out that a variety of different views are held, but not who actually holds the views. So there is plenty of work left to be getting on with. :-) Again a warm welcome to you and your classmates. theresa knott 09:21, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just found a possible translation of the hieroglyphics. Please visit the Wikipage or [1] to see whether it is acceptable or not. Anyway I have added into the wikipage. See whether other will remove it :P

Jimmy It's OKish although a translation from a university site would be a lot better. I sometimes specify site = .edu into google advanced search options or alternatively site /= .com to try and get references from university sites only. I've edited the section a little to make it more NPOV (neutral point of view) as the tranlation indicates that something possibly painful is taking place, but doesn't -prove- it's reflexology. theresa knott 11:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oops, sorry :P But I just found another web, which is very worthy to read Jimmy

The translation, I found from Here, is originated from the International Institute of Reflexology. 80jimmylouie 13:59, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No need to be sorry about it. I'll take a look at the web site you mentioned.theresa knott 12:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That site adds valuable independent information. Congratulations for your critical spirit - a rare and much more laudable scientific and NPOV quality, which we all welcome here on Wiki. With your help, indiscriminate, uncritical cut-and-paste from web sites only because they are in Google, even if they bring no independent additions, becomes rapidly a thing of the past :-) Happy editing - irismeister 12:20, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

---

You are welcome, Jimmy :-) Please apologize me if some other editors on this page made it look like a personal critic. It surely wasn't, and I am glad you came back. You did a great job! Wikiquette (the informal rules of good will for all of us here) is about ALWAYS assuming good will, while NEVER entering personal attacks. Keep up the good work! Wiki is great as long as we write articles together, as you do so nicely. We also greatly welcome pupils, especially since you are so nice, and show some of us teachers here how NOT to behave as children :-) Happy editing, with all your class :-) Sincerely - irismeister 09:48, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

---

Nice to meet you both Jimmy

---

Nice to meet you too, Jimmy. Keep up the perfect job. Sincerely, - irismeister 12:20, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

---

Jimmy - It's just occured to me that this page could really do with a map of the zones on the foot etc. Is anyone at your school/college/university good at drawing ? theresa knott 11:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I could use computer to edit it if I got a base map to edit, or simply to say, I can draw a better version based on an existing one :P BTW, we are university students :) I have several maps in a book, but they are copyrighted :(Jimmy

Here is a foot that I drew (Don't laugh, it'll look better when you put the zones in {I drew round a photo of a real foot by the way})

Can you add the zones in ? I suggest you add areas of colour, then we can add a colour coded key to the text. theresa knott 15:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK~ I can get it done on Saturday 80jimmylouie 15:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry theresa, my scanner is out of order, I have drawn the chart and I will get it ploaded once I fixed my scanner 80jimmylouie 16:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a shame. If you don't manage to get your scanner fixed you may want to consider drawing the chart with a graphics program rather than by hand. See wikipedia:graphics tutorials for details.

It's just a minor driver problem, should be done within days. It's hard to draw such a complex foot chart with graphic program, at least in a precise way. Therefore I prefer to draw by hands.80jimmylouie 17:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, I have got the chart uploaded. I use the Image:xxx page to include the index. See if you rather want to include the index in the image itself. 80jimmylouie 16:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Edit war

"Belief" and "theory" are pretty much the same, in this context. I'm going to unprotect both the article and the talk page now. Then I'm going to start counting reversions. First one to go over 3 reverts per day gets a temporary ban. Agreed? --Uncle Ed 15:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Agreed :O) I mean in theory, although my belief is that you'll soon ban me :) Competence has a poor press these days... Sincerely, but respectfully dedicated to quality no matter what - and passionately the same,irismeister 15:54, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

---

http://www.pacificreflexology.com/theory.htm gives several theories on how reflexology works. It labels them all as conjecture.

Seems like reflexology and acupuncture are in the same boat, as far as gaining acceptance from the English speaking world's Official Medical Bodies. --Uncle Ed 16:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is the pacific institite of reflexology an official medical body ? theresa knott 16:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so; I think it's a reflexology advocacy group. Hmm, if even its advocates admit they don't know how it works, what does this mean? <grin> --Uncle Ed 16:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

(1) Who deleted my earlier comment here? I stated that I disagree with Ed, and why I had reverted to Theresa Knott's version: theory is not the same as belief. (2) I gave the article a once-over copyedit, fixing grammar, reducing emphasis on Hong Kong, and removing anything that might have been read as medical advice. Vicki Rosenzweig 17:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oups, Vicky - could have been me by mistake - sorry about that

I was in the heat of inspiration and in this vein I thank Uncle Ed who inspired me but I apologize to you if I acidentally wiped your interesting comment here. However, here is what I wrote in the mean time. Please answer me about how you feel it after you have read it carefully. I am very interested in your opinion. Here follows the answer to Uncle Ed:

Uncle Ed, thank you for caring about these poor tired soles, and here are my 2 cents: As we have all read there:

To date we do not know how foot reflexology works. All of these theories are based upon conjecture. (stress added).

We base our judgement, sentences, uttered stuff and other instantiations or expressions of our deep knowlege, (institite (sic, sp?) notwithstanding), on theories.

Theory, kindly note, is a system of understanding based on much more structure than mere belief. What would be an action based solely on belief ? Look, I strongly and passionately believe that we should exorcize bad thoughts. Do I make a batallion of witch hunters out of my belief ? Do I buy explosives ? (all of these have been tried, sadly, in history) Do I organize a medical office to massage the bad thoughts out of those tired soles, if I believe it's soles which harbor bad thoughts ? Or do I sit, judge, talk and respectfully argue before I cut what my opponent just said, and protect the page to prevent him from defending his own ideas ? In short, do we really need to go back to the Stone Age ? A theory has hypotheses in which that theory is deeply based, and these hypotheses are of course anything but random.

Moreover, a theory has structure, something much more interesting to behold and deconstruct, than the structure of belief, if any (and how would that be described, if it really existed ?). Furthermore, a scientific theory has experiments which are designed according to hypotheses and also according to an explicit purpose. These experiments yield data which are generally held to be objective. Moreover, data are to be separated from interpretations and comments, and reviews.

Finally, out of conclusions we can go to new hypotheses, through nasty logical stuff called logical thinking aka conjectures. That's how it is, period. All in all, that's the main strength in the inner workings of the structure of scientific theories. Quite a loooong way afar and away from beliefs, don't you think so?

How shall I put it in conclusion, in order to remain both spartiate and correct? While I might write all these above out of my sheer belief, it is really a theory that I develop in writing. Conversely, every single medical system, from alternative to conventional has to be structured like a theory or else be thrown over the board:

Please use a cup of Chinese gren tea (I'll tell you tomorrow why green and how much) and look here at what I wrote yesterday about Conventional Medicine for more extended ideas on the subtleties of medical business based only on belief.

And a final note: While beliefs are stronger in individuals, it is always theory which lasts longer :-) Even when it looks as if massaging soles were only an action corresponding to a belief or yet another volatile belief, the sage sees a theory underlying it.

Any theory about health and disease, plus diagnosis, plus therapy out pops a new medical system. Consider acupuncture: you have the theory of energy flowing you know where, the Chinese pulse diagnosis (80 volumes - it's no joke) and needles and moxa therapy. We may or may not believe that Ms Yin and Mr Yang walk together along IG and meet at IG-10, but I quit smoking after only a few needles in the right place, and it was no theory.

I do not ask you to believe me, but the theory works. Belief is not placebo, but that's another story - a long one, to be cut short tomorrow, if you care :-)

I must heartily thank all the brave people who volunteered to write here, the very moment I cried for help, and I dedicate the above to their honest, serious work while I beg pardon for not authoring myself for the time being. Sincerely yours - irismeister 17:22, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

Neuronal overlap

---

What is this neuronal overlap stuff ? I am against blatant POVs in the body of text, especially when not substantiated, not marked as such, and spuriously labelled as skeptical. What is the anatomical and physiological basis of such an allegation, if any ? Why putting this here ? The energetic theory has NEVER beeen addressed by mainstram or conventional medicine - so why feeding readers with this genital pleasure diversion ? Does it explain reflexology ? Certainly not. Who can believe, seriously, that reflexology works by this obsessive genital nonsense. It does not help. It neither clarifies nor denies the reflexology article - which otherwise is SUPERBLY written and documented now. Let us not mess it up! Strongly against the terrible quote! - irismeister 20:04, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

I don't talk to people who threaten lawsuits theresa knott 22:13, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

---

Repeatedly reinserting the obsessive passage about genital areas and pleasure are NOT a service for the cause of NPOV !!!!! Wiki is not into an obscure author's speculation as retrived from cloudy web pages and summarily included without foresight, let alone judgement. The "genital" area allegation is absolutely non-substantiated. Indeed it is an insult to the subtlety and effectivity of reflex therapy - surely not for pleasure but for health.

Moreover, dismissing the theories of reflex therapy uder blah-blah and blatant fantasizing about pleasure only dismisses reflexology as such and en bloc in the process, as if it were only some titillation or something - hardly the definition of serious encyclopaedic attitudes ! Not recommended ! Happy editing - irismeister 22:18, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

---

Iris meister keeps removing this quote because he thinks it is obscene:

Robert Todd Carroll from "the skeptics dictionary" speculates: "One reason foot massage may be so pleasurable and is associated with significant improvement in mood is that the area of the brain that connects to the foot is adjacent to the area that connects to the genitals. There may be some neuronal overlapping."

His definition of obscene is clearly very different to mine. He also feels that NPOV means that we can't put in opinions and speculations. I OTOH think that NPOV means that is fine to put in opinions and speculations as long as they are clearly labelled as such.

The reason I put the quote in was to back up the claim that everyone agrees that it relaxing and pleasurable. What do other people think ? Is the above quote obscene ? Is it non NPOV ?(because if quoting people's views violates NPOV we are going to have to remove al ot of material from Wikipedia).theresa knott 09:21, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Theresa and Irismeister, please stop the edit war first, I shall tell you my opinion on this issue. To me, the expression is NO WAY an obscene one. The reason he removes it, according to him, is because he think it is not NPOV. I don't think so because Theresa has already make it NPOV by paraphrasing and changed some POV words.

To my understanding, encyclopedia is a colleciton of information for people to read from. What Theresa put down is a POSSIBLE explanation of the pleasurable and relaxing effect of reflexology. As long as Theresa had put it in a NPOV way, I believe readers are sensible enough to distinguish it by themsevles. Did Theresa put it in a POV way? I am sure it is not.

About obscence, why do you think it is obscene, Iris meister? There is only a word genitals in the whole paragraph. If it is obscene only because this word happens here, how about paragraphs containing 'penis', 'breast', etc.? I don't see any point that it is obscene, could you please clarify your standpoint if ou still insisted it? 80jimmylouie 09:37, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I do agree with Theresa and Jimmy. I can see no POV information here, and no obscene material here. Iris, I would better suggest you to delete all sex-related pages here in Wikipedia and see what will other respond. I am terrbily disappointed with you, Iris. 84denniswong

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)

While I appreciate that not all people beleive in the electromagnetic fields sorrounding the body I feel it important to note, that as a practitioner of the very well documented art and science of reflexology (note that ancient egyptians have been documented using a method similar to that of reflexology) , I have seen results " manipulating the energy of the body".Please note: It is not the intention nor priviledge of a reflexologist to precribe or to diagnose, nor to recomend that a patient leave the care of a licensed and regulated medical profesional: no reflexologist properly trained would dare! Reflexology is meant to be a complimentary medicine to work along with modern medicine. Using the feet as a map of the body: we divide the areas of the feet into corresponding organ/system points: manipulating these points allows the client to relax and lymphatic drainage to increase, circulation is improved, as well as decreasing stress: which has been medically documented to remove vital nutrients from the body and cause illness. The "manipulation of energy" can be somewhat explained by the accupunture/accupressure theories of pressure points: reflexology is a derivitive thereof. The "rebalancing of energy: can be considered a return of health to the whole, if you consider the electromagnetic thoery of reflexology: the theory that energy flows through channels in the body which terminate to form the reflex points in the feet, then when congestion occurs in the form of tension or crystalization of the tissue( which is a build up under the skin which feels like salt grains beneath the skin and in the muscles of the feet (crystalization theory):then disease occurs. By treating the reflex points the blockages are broken down and harmony is restored to all systems.Hence the "rebalancing" of the body and energies inherent therein. And while skeptics will say that statement is nonsensical I suggest they get a treatment or two to better understand what science has yet, after hundreds of years of sucessful use around the world, to explain. May I recomend you take a look at Feet First by Laura Norman for a more eloquent explanation of the above principles. While the article may be considered "pro reflexology" by skeptics who have little or no experience with the Science of reflexology, as a pratitioner I feel it is a fair beginners explanation. More research is needed and perhaps I'll take a stab at filling in some of the theoretical blanks....do keep up the good work!!66.18.239.10 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to insist on referring to reflexology as a science, then the burden of evidence is on you to show that it in fact is. Until you come up with any reliable peer-reviewed study that demonstrates the veracity of your claims, reflexology is best considered a pseudoscience.

Your wall of text shows several typical statements of a complete failure to understand what science is and how it works. On a few occasions you mention that reflexology is old, which is somehow supposed to lend it credibility. This is an argument from antiquity, and does not logically support your position. On other occasions you refer to anecdotal evidence, which is not scientific evidence. Even sillier is your linking of reflexology to acupuncture. Linking crap to crap does not make it less crappy.

Saying "you guys just don't understand!" isn't going to cut it. Us skeptics want proper evidence in order to be convinced, not a foot massage.Stefan Kruithof (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WOW. Such vehement attacks. Did you people realize that the sciences of electronics and quantum physics are the best modes for understanding what is truly happening with energetic medicine? Look up DR Robert O Becker and his work into energetic aspects of medicine. He is truly a pioneer. How about read "The Brief history of QI" so that you can learn that Niels Bohr the father of Quantum physics used the concept of QI to create quantum physics in the first place. SO if there is not any validity to Qi we would never have learned about Niels Bohr. He would have been relegated to the annals of failed scientists. Oh that's right quantum physics isn't taught in high school. I spent 15 years in high tech research and development before I decided to switch over to Traditional Oriental Medicine. I DO have the science background to understand whats going on with energetic medicine. Whats even more funny is that what I learned about microwaves and analyzing analog circuitry has helped me to understand more about my medical field than even many of my colleagues. So I can completely understand your ignorance. But please go back to editing the more fluffy articles and leave the science to the professionals. I might deign to re-write this article for you folks, but wait I would rather make some money writing a books about the scientific aspects of energetic medicine. Redbaronesse (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Redbaronesse

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)

I agree. It is POV in the other direction now.

This page really needs to be deleted as soon as possible, imo, and redone from scratch.

It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia's reputation for objectivity. Apart from the obvious and subjective negative stance that it takes, the History section was factually wrong.

Reflexology has existed for millennia in the Asia and the Middle East, and its practice can be seen illustrated on the walls of the Egyptian tombs, c. 2,500 BC. To give the impression that it was something concocted by an American ear, nose and throat specialist is misleading to the point of mendacity...I'm sorry to have to use that word.

I have now edited this section and I hope that the information I've put into it manages to restore some sort of balance.

But there are only two media references, and both are negative. It couldn't have been too difficult to find some positive ones, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.21.36 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The word 'pseudoscience, which has been used on this page, is a value judgment and a negative term for something that doesn't fall within the remit of conventional modern Western science. It doesn't mean it's false, which is what 'pseudo' means, or even that it's pretending to fit into the parameters of modern Western science. Reflexology, and other so-called alternative health techniques, existed long before Western science decided upon its parameters, and thus excluded them.

There is a problem on all science pages on Wikipedia in that most of the contributors appear to be from a modern Western science background. However, few trained in modern Western science understand ancient Eastern science, and in this article, imo, the problem is writ large.

Ishtar —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

Seems to me it's not a POV issue here, it's that none of these scamsters making money from this pseudoscience can find a shred of evidence to back up their claims. If anything, Wikipedia is being light on this subject. The claims typically made by Reflexologists amount to nothing short of medical fraud. Whether someone they paid to train them assured them it works is irrelevant.

If no-one can find evidence to support it, how can they practice it with any confidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.48.123 (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As a licensed Acupuncturist it is obvious that the people writing this article and rebutting it are completely unfamiliar with TCM or the science/ research behind it therefore it is difficult for you to discuss the salient points or to address the skeptics with valid arguments. I acknowledge that "reflexologists" are a separate profession from a Licensed Acupuncturist with a full medical degree and licensing. But reflexologists fill a role. I resent the unsigned individual above calling reflexologists scammers. If it was a scam as they claim then it would not be part of my approved MEDICAL training. I have a full medical degree, plus have to take several national medical board exams before I can even get my state licensing. And as far as the comment about "no evidence" there is a great deal of evidence out there. Look at these medical journals: (http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/acu_info/primjournals.html), or do a google scholar search or PubMed search for reflexology research. Ishtar's comment only reveals her ignorance of the serious medical research that exists, which is sad because computers make it so easy to find. It also makes me wonder why this person is so vehemently against it. it is one thing to truly protect someone from snake oil, I go after those people myself when I find them. But to claim there is no evidence when the links I've presented state otherwise tells me that something is very wrong. Redbaronesse (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Redbaronesse

WP:MEDRS has pretty strict standards about what sources can be included to make medical claims; this means journals like The New England Journal of Medicine, AAAS's Science Magazine, Nature, etc. With that said, if the research is easy to find, then by all means present the sources here for evaluation. But again, please start a new section, most of these discussions are old. N^oformation ^Talk 00:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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 [2][3]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)

..WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.206 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have found a site that has a lot of good information on it about Reflexology. Have a look at www.reflexologyfootchart.net and see what I'm talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardendale (talk • contribs) 10:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 [4] Dr. Shewta Choudhary, India, Reflexology and Post Operative Nausea [5] Reflexology Research Study By M. Piquemal, M.D., E.E. [6]

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.

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.

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. 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>

Criticism

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.

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. This suggests that the practice is a pseudoscience.

Response: REALLY? as a licensed acupuncturist and MEDICAL professional I HEAL people on a daily basis using QI. I could not legally claim to heal people if I wasn't really healing people. I must pass strict national board exams after rigorous training before I can get my medical license. In states that allow it I can actually use the title "Doctor". So I am far more qualified to speak on this subject than Mr Barrett.

There is a great deal of research on Qi out there. Dr Becker in the book " The Body Electric" (amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Body-Electric-Electromagnetism-Foundation-Life/dp/0688069711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311893087&sr=8-1)details his research into acupuncture meridians and was the first medical doctor to validate that meridians are areas of greater electrical conductivity. Stimulation of acupuncture points allows electron flow along meridians to affect change in the body.There are tons of research out there validating the effects of acupuncture. Researchers use MRI's Cat Scans, thermal imaging and more to document the effects of stimulating acupuncture points whether it is with needles, electro-therapy or acupressure. To see this for yourself look at ACUPUNCTURE TODAY, look at the society for acupuncture research (http://www.acupunctureresearch.org/) look at the American Journal of Acupuncture, the Journal of Chinese Medicine, the Journal of the British Acupuncture society, the International journal of Clinical Acupuncture, or the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Here's an index of acupuncture journals (http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/acu_info/primjournals.html) Furthermore you can find reflexology research articles here: (http://www.reflexology-usa.org/reflexology-research.html). Or put the word reflexology in to a google scholar search or look on Nih.gov for even more research articles.

As an example; here is an article "The effect of reflexology on baroreceptor reflex sensitivity, blood pressure and sinus arrhythmia " (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229997800039)that shows "The reflexology (n = 10) and FM (foot massage)groups (n = 10) showed significantly greater reductions in BRS compared to the control group (n = 4)"

SO beware of this quack-watch guy, he does not have the correct facts. In fact I would say he is the quack.

Reflexology is originally a subset of Tuina Asian Bodywork therapy, more commonly known as acupressure. It is a micro-system therapy that utilizes the holographic concept that the whole of the body is reflected in the parts. This is very common in Asian medical modalities an acupuncture example would be using ear points to treat addiction. Stimulation of these points does affect change as in the above example. As an individual mode of therapy it has been taken over by "reflexologists" who may or may not get detailed and thorough medical training about Traditional Chinese Medicine and all of its supporting theories and research. As the person states below there is at least an attempt to formalize the training (http://www.reflexology-usa.org/index.html) I learned reflexology as part of my specialization in Tuina while getting my degree in acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. Patients find it to be an extra treat as part of their treatment.

Oh and as far as crystaline structures in the body. Refer to these MEDICAL codes (http://www.icd9data.com/2011/Volume1/710-739/710-719/712/default.ht)m For crystal arthopathies, which in English means crystals in the body causing arthritic pain. Redbaronesse (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Redbaronesse

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)

Potential dangers

Comment: first off when considering dangers one MUST considered the training of the practitioner. If they are merely a "reflexologist" they are not medically licensed and therefore CANNOT make any form of diagnosis. Read your medical laws. They can get in deep legal trouble if they do. If on the other hand the individual performing reflexology is a medically licensed practitioner of Traditional Chinese Medicine otherwise known as a Licensed Acupuncturist, then they are a fully trained medical professional that can diagnose things within the bounds of their medical training. AND following medical laws if after a certain period of treatment, there is no relief from the condition being treated, then the licensed acupuncturist is REQUIRED to refer the patient to the pertinent medical professional. Also realize that depending upon the state, license acupuncturists can be primary care doctors which lends even more medical validity and liability to the case. Reflexologists may fall under "cosmetology laws" which brings it to a different legal jurisdiction, but they still can not give a medical diagnosis. It all depends on the licensing or lack of licensing. Again read your medical laws. Therefore your discussions of whether or not reflexology is dangerous is a waste of pixellated words because those of you discussing reflexology up to this point are not qualified to discuss this or willing to at least put in a bit of detective work to find out. Redbaronesse (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Redbaronesse

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)

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,[7] 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)

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)

the criticism section merely seems to be a soapbox for Mr Barrett to denegrate this alternative therapy. It does not add any informational value. Redbaronesse (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Redbaronesse

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)

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)

As a licensed Acupuncturist who has studied reflexology as a part of my studies I can add this to the conversation: it is possible the chart you are using is incomplete. try this here (http://www.reflexology-research.com/charts.htm) most people only think that the bottom of the foot is used in reflexology. but actually the entire foot is used. It is what is called a micro-system treatment modality which is very popular in TCM. It utilizes the holographic concept that the whole is contained in the part. many "reflexologists" who do not train in TCM have adopted the bottom of the foot chart as their only guide because they do not understand the medical system as a whole. Reading over this discussion it is rather obvious that a majority of the commentators know very little about Traditional Chinese Medicine or the research that is out there. I really don't have the time to do a re-write of this article at the moment but I can do so at a later date. Redbaronesse (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Redbaronesse

1. This thread is three years old, so if you want to propose an article change you should start a new one.
2. If you want to change information like that you'll need to present WP:MEDRS sources.

N^oformation ^Talk 00:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)