The Facts about Applied Kinesiology
Dear Editor:
The letter to the editor, "Applied Kinesiology -- Quackery, Pure and Simple" which appeared in your May 18th edition is an unfortunate misrepresentation. The author seems to complain that applied kinesiology is unsubstantiated or unscientific. The author quotes a Mr. James Randi, who calls applied kinesiology "pseudoscience." It seems to me that if the author and those he quotes are truly interested in science, they would have done some homework first. Worse yet, they appear to ignore established facts so that they can sensationalize their own unfounded beliefs. If their claim is that there is no scientific basis for applied kinesiology, I must assume that they are interested in facts, as true scientists should be. Let us therefore examine the facts and see where they lead us. As scientists, the facts should be out only basis for judgement.
The facts are:
1. There is research on applied kinesiology. There are numerous studies in the medical literature on the manual muscle testing methods that are the basis of applied kinesiology. These include a study which showed significant differences in cortical activity during the applied kinesiology testing of facilitated muscles versus inhibited muscles (Leisman, 1989, International Journal of Neuroscience); a study showing significant, reproducible differences between facilitated versus inhibited muscles through needle EMG (Leisman, 1995, Perceptual and Motor Skills); a study showing interexaminer reliability of manual muscle testing for individual muscles (Lawson, 1997, Perceptual and Motor Skills); a repetition of the interexaminer reliability study (Perceptual and Motor Skills, in press); and a study currently in press in the Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy demonstrating resolution of a herniated disc with applied kinesiology methods, shown with pre- and post-MRI.
Note that the EMG study was the first time in the medical literature that a study was able to document differences between patterns of so-called strength and weakness that were not attributable to fatigue. There are other studies, but this should suffice to debunk the myth that there is no research.
2. Manual muscle testing is a standard part of any neurologic examination done by chiropractors or medical doctors. Muscle testing and reflex responses are the way neurologists assess neurologic motor function. Somehow, this obvious fact seems to escape the attention of some people. Perhaps they have never looked at a neurology book. Indeed, applied kinesiology is nothing more than an extension of the basic neurologic exam. Neurologists and applied kinesiologists both introduce sensory stimuli of known value in pathways whose anatomy is known, and observe expected changes in motor function. Though applied kinesiology expands the set of sensory stimuli beyond those of the typical neurologic exam, there is no other difference. All that is being done is receptor-based stimulation and observation of changes in motor function.
There are, however, some who have taken this basic observational method beyond the point of science. Observing changes in motor function in response to sensory receptor stimulus is a well-founded scientific practice. However, some people choose to go beyond what can reasonably be inferred from observation of such motor responses. These people typically make diagnoses that are not founded on sound diagnostic principles. The status statement of the International College of Applied Kinesiology states clearly that applied kinesiology is to be practiced in addition to other standard forms of diagnosis. One cannot make a diagnosis solely on the basis of manual muscle testing outcomes, though these outcomes can contribute to an overall clinical impression. This is true for any single diagnostic method. Changes in motor function observed via manual muscle testing must be properly interpreted, according to the doctor's knowledge of neurology, biochemistry, and other relevant diagnostic factors.
Claiming that applied kinesiology by itself can diagnose anything is just as unscientific as claiming there is no research basis for applied kinesiology. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle, where the scientists are.
Samuel F. Yanuck, DC,
FIACA Research Advisor,
International College of Applied Kinesiology
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
"About as Far from Science as One Can Get" Dear Editor:
This letter is being written in response to Dr. Stephen Goldman's letter, "Applied Kinesiology -- Quackery, Pure and Simple" (May 18th issue of Dynamic Chiropractic). The amazing thing about the professional debunkers is how unscientific they often are. The only scientific way to evaluate a clinical method is clinical evaluation of the results. This takes months, perhaps even years to do. The only valid research design is to take a bunch of sick people and divide them into two groups. Treat one utilizing the muscle testing diagnostic technique in question and give the other no treatment. If the muscle testing group is significantly better, it proves that it works. I'll leave the precise design detail to the statisticians.
To attempt to evaluate a complex system of diagnosis in one hour is equivalent to watching an elephant in a cage for a day, then writing a dissertation about a herd of elephants behaves. If the chiropractic profession allows itself to be hustled into a poorly-designed "experiment" by hostile showmen masquerading as objective scientists, it will simply have succeeded in shooting itself in the foot. To dismiss something because it does not look scientific is about as far from science as one can get.
Michael Phillips, DC
Cleveland, Ohio
holistichealth-earthlink.net
