Talk:Rolfing

Marketing

The lede makes the claim that "Rolfing is marketed with unproven claims of various health benefits." This implies that all marketing of Rolfing is based on unproven claims; which seems like an unreasonable implication. The citations are paywalled and cannot be easily verified (even with Wikipedia Library). I intend to remove this sentence unless someone can provide the parts of those citations that make about how it is marketed. Or at best, the word "sometimes" needs to be added to this sentence. Does anyone have access to the cited works? — Epastore (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that (though it may be so). Also, if you have been editing here WP:LOGGEDOUT be aware it's bad behaviour which if continued will see you banned. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:PAYWALL. The fact that you don't have access to the source is not a reason why the information should be removed. --McSly (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does; the word "is" does not give room for variance. Your answer is unexplained and therefore meaningless. I repeat my request that the relevant part of the citations be provided, or I will remove the sentence for being unsubstantiated weasel words. I question the substantiation because it is hard to believe that they reviewed all marketing of all Rolfers. In reference to paywalls; I am asking for validation; I did not simply remove the sentence, see? — Epastore (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I added this text and you can be assured it's fine. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not so assured. Please provide the relevant text, This is a reasonable request, given that I have challenged the claim and your only response is "it doesn't.".

(Also, I missed your earlier comment about editing logged out. I do not know what you are referring to; all of my edits are under my username. If you believe someone is editing logged-out, it is not me.) — Epastore (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the whole article. It seems good as is; we already list the claims made for Rolfing and the lack of evidence for those claims. I am not your library (you could always visit one for sources). An IP from Riverside, CA was removing the "marketing" material from this lede, but since this is not you please disregard by comments about that. As far as I can see, there is no claim Rolfers make, that is backed by evidence. Perhaps we need to bring that out more? Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

A valid point. My real issue is with the overall tone and bias of the article, which reflects a religiosity of science (the very unscientific doctrine that anything that is not proven to be true must therefore be presented as false). I do see the tone is improving gradually over time, so I'll bow out of this trivial dispute; though I still strongly disapprove of the bias implicit in the current wording. — Epastore (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. The last paragraph of the summary is in no way a balanced view and represents an attitude that in of itself betrays the spirit of scientific study.

At the very least, another paragraph needs to be added citing the growing research showing myofascial and neuromuscular therapy to be beneficial and therapeutic when performed correctly. 73.243.37.110 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree

I agree that rolfing is psuedoscience but is it not basically massage therapy of which there is 'some' evidence for? 2A00:23C6:1E82:8601:84EC:A89A:8C4B:B8AC (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Massage is "the manipulation of the body's soft tissues," while Rolfing is specifically the manipulation of fascia, which surrounds all kinds of tissue. While the two may look similar in practice, there is no basis to evaluate the efficacy of Rolfing based on evidence about massage. — Epastore (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverts

Hob Gadling vandalised my factual edits on this page and personally smeared me, stating that I had a "pro-quackery POV"

Unless biased, why would he/she delete the factual information I included that Ida Rolf had a PhD? JRBC1 (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute is _NOT_ vandalism. Please read WP:VANDAL carefully. Falsely accusing people you don't agree with of vandalism will get you nowhere.--McSly (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You still have no consensus for your edits. The probelm is not the users who revert you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous watchers of this page who edit with a heavy bias of scientism, holding on to the dogma that because science has described things, it has therefore somehow explained them. That's just the nature of Wikipedia; which has a scientism-dominated culture. Try making one edit at a time (eg, the PhD after Ida Rolf's name) and see what arguments they come up with to revert it. If you do several edits, they'll revert the whole thing with a bogus or insulting explanation (because hurling insults appears to be a part of scientism), regardless of how factual some of your edits may be. Good luck! — Epastore (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The horror! People who do not share your peculiar worldview are allowed to edit Wikipedia!

Actually, it's in the rules. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk)

That's my point: scientism is embedded in the "rules" of Wikipedia (which technically has no firm rules). The followers of scientism (which is indeed mainstream) seem to have an issue with the fact that people who do not share their particular worldview are allowed to edit Wikipedia; and thus there are rules such as WP:FRINGE to enforce that worldview. It is entirely possible to be objective, impartial, and encyclopedic while explaining more than just the scientist worldview. Yet the "rules" do not allow that. And the scientists who revert any edit they don't like often comment with belligerent, insulting, dismissive, and fallacious opinions while applying their reverts. This illogical and rude attitude does not seem to do an encyclopedia justice. — Epastore (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

IRL adepts of scientism and the rest have equal rights. But this is not "real life". It is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia like Britannica and Larousse, meaning heavily based upon mainstream science. Those are not crowdsourced, but all three share the same norms and values.

According to the medical orthodoxy, rolfing is quackery. You cannot change that inside Wikipedia before it changes inside the medical orthodoxy. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that; and am not prepared to take on the entire mainstream orthodoxy. Though I do believe that the scientists could act with more grace when editing this page, as dismissive, fallacious language doesn't serve any useful purpose.

And, in that science is the pursuit of knowledge, I also think that scientists could consider being less extremist (frankly: religious) in their rejections of other worldviews, and instead simply characterize them as having no scientific validity. That can be said without emotion, as emotional statements do not belong in an encyclopedia. — Epastore (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about "emotion", but quackery is a kind of fraud so there is a moral aspect to it. That is found reflected in the sources. Bon courage (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not need to enforce moral standards onto other editors (or do you mean ethical standards?). Just because an editor makes an edit that may put Rolfing in some sort of favorable light does not make that editor guilty of fraud. The OP is asking why an edit noting that a person has a PhD was removed. That does not seem like an attempt to defraud anyone (just perhaps an unclear understanding of Wikipedia norms about credentials). — Epastore (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors do not need to enforce moral standards onto other editors" ← what or earth are you on about? We reflect sources and if they characterize things in ways which you find "emotional" that's not a problem Wikipedia can fix. You are making silly personal attacks and it is beginning to become disruptive. If you have any actual useful proposals for improving the articles then make them; continuing to harp on scientists being extremists, is not helpful. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I am just asking editors to be civil instead of rude. Expressing a scientific worldview doesn't require overt, rude hostility to anyone not expressing it. (I am not talking about you, @Bon courage, as you have been delightfully civil in this thread.)

You're right though; this horse isn't worth beating anymore. This'll be my last reply on this. Thanks again and cheers. — Epastore (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous watchers of this page who edit with a heavy bias of scientism sounds as if editors are your problem. Now, suddenly, when the rules are pointed out to you, the rules were your problem from the start. Whatever your problem is, it does not belong here. Problems with editors go to the drama boards, problems with rules go to the Talk pages of the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

What rule points at me? I am not the OP. Though I have indeed encountered editors being hostile, dismissive, threatening, and fallacious in their responses to my edits on this page. I have only encountered it on this page, so note it here, in response to the OP who also noted it. And the Talk archives for this page contain many similar posts; about the responses of editors to this page. You suggest a drama board for addressing this behavior? I am unfamiliar with that approach. — Epastore (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I said "pointed out to you", not "pointed at you".

All Talk pages of pseudosciences are full of complaints about "biased editors". See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hob didn't remove the PhD, I did. we dont do honourifics like that on wikipedia. - Roxy the dog 20:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

See also MOS:CREDENTIAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Please allow deletions of references which go to blank pages

I am neutral on this subject but really surprised that whoever keeps edit-warring back is obviously not. There is good science around Rolfing for cerebral palsy, fibromyalgia and back pain. I posted these (2014, 2015) sources but they were all deleted in favor of references that are over 20 years old and some which go to blank pages. This article currently states: "there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" and references "page not found". Furthermore it says "...has been characterized as quackery" and then references two articles, neither of which mention the word quackery. Also the reference for this phrase: "The principles of Rolfing contradict established medical knowledge" is literally a book that was published in 1959. Cleajames13 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cleajames13: Don't push your luck. You could get indeffed at any moment. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

But no comment on the substance of the question as to why not add updated science? Cleajames13 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• WP:MEDRS sources are required for biomedical information. Contrary to what the OP asserts, the current content is WP:VERIFIED and the sources are good; none were published in 1959. For advice on dealing with web pages that are not forund, see WP:404. Bon courage (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cleajames13, can you please cite those sources here? I would like to see why @Bon courage thinks they are not reliable sources. Also, I agree with @Bon courage in that I don't even see the number 1959 on the page anywhere; which source are you referencing as outdated? Additionally, the 404 you are getting is from the link to the original, which is no longer available. That's why the first link in the reference is to the web archive. This is an appropriate reference.

However, in reviewing that cited source ("Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance"), it does not really seem to support what the Wikipedia article claims. While the Wikipedia article says "there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition," that cited source basically says that in a review of alternative therapies, the Australian government did not receive submissions of any sufficiently-rigorous studies in support of Rolfing. This is not the same thing as what the article claims. — Epastore (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"the Australian government did not receive submissions" ← This is wrong. The reviewers performed a systematic literature review according to certain criteria and found:

There is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of rolfing and therefore no reliable conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of rolfing for any clinical condition.

This is explained in lay terms in the cited WP:SBM source (with discussion of selection methods). Bon courage (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right. I had trouble accessing that document yesterday, and misinterpreted what I read. I had better luck today, and agree with your assessment: it's a valid representation of the cited document. My apologies for the incorrect assertion.

And I still have questions for the OP, above. — Epastore (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, response as requested:1.) the outdated resource I'm referring to is this one, under the "quackery" comment (published last in 1959): Clow B (2001). Negotiating Disease: Power and Cancer Care, 1900–1950. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0773522107. Before we explore medical reactions to therapeutic innovations in this era, we must stop to consider the meaning of 'alternative medicine' in this context. Often scholars use the term to denote systems of healing that are philosophically as well as therapeutically distinct from regular medicine: homeopathy, reflexology, rolfing, macrobiotics, and spiritual healing, to name a few, embody interpretations of health, illness, and healing that are not only different from, but also at odds with conventional medical opinion.

2.) the other better recent studies (this was just a 10 minute search) are these ones

List of fringe/unreliable sources

(for exact notation go back to the version I changed): FIRST Structural Integration as an Adjunct to Outpatient Rehabilitation for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Pilot Clinical Trial. Eric E. Jacobson, Alec L. Meleger, Paolo Bonato, Peter M. Wayne, Helene M. Langevin Ted J. Kaptchuk, and Roger B. Davis A randomized a clinical trial conducted at Harvard Medical School and Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital compared the Ten Series of Rolf® Structural Integration (SI) as an addition to the current standard of outpatient rehabilitation (OR) to OR alone for chronic low back pain (n=46). Median reductions in pain intensity (visual analog scale, 0-100 mm), were −26 mm in SI+OR compared to 0 mm in OR alone, but were not significantly different between groups (p=0.075, Wilcoxon rank sum). However, median reductions in back pain related disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, 0-24 points) of −2 points in SI+OR compared to 0 in OR alone was significantly different SECONDMyofascial structural integration therapy on gross motor function and gait of young children with spastic cerebral palsy Rolfer® Karen Price collaborated with Heidi Feldman, Alexis Hansen and others on three studies of Structural Integration for children with spastic cerebral palsy (CP) at the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford School of Medicine in 2009-2015. Price provided all SI treatments in each study. THIRD - Clinical trials of Rolfing for fibromyalgia conducted by Paula Stal and summaried by Eric Jacobson. "Fibromyalgia syndrome treated with structural integration Rolfing®"[1] / conclusion was: Each of the three treatment regimens was effective with statistically significant reductions in pre treatment levels of pain intensity, anxiety, depression, and quality of life both immediately post treatment and at 3 month followup. Rolfing® and acupuncture are useful as adjunctive therapies for fibromyalgia patients. There are tons more: 1. Stal P, MJ Teixeria. (2014). Fibromyalgia syndrome treated with the structural integration Rolfingr method. Rev Dor Sao Paul0, 15(4), 248-52. 2. Stal P., Kosomi JK, Faelli CYP, Pai HJ, Teixeira MJ, Marchiori PE (2015). Effects of structural integration Rolfing method and acupuncutre on fibromyaligia. Rev Dor Sao Paul0, 16(2), 96-101. 1. Hansen A. B., K. S. Price, H. M. Feldman (2012). Myofascial structural integration: a promising complementary therapy for young children with spastic cerebral palsy. Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine, 17(2), 131-35. 2. Hansen A., Price KS, Feldman HM (2010). Myofascial treatment for children with cerebral palsy: a pilot study of a novel therapy. Pediatric Academic Society Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC, Canada: May 2010 3. Hansen A., Price KS, Loi EC, Buysse CA, Jaramillo TM, Pico EL, Feldman HM. (2014). Gait changes following myofascial structural integration (Rolfing) observed in 2 children with cerebral palsy. Journal of Evidence Based Complmentary & Alternative Medicine, 19(4), 297-300. 4. Loi ED B. C., Price KS, Jaramillo TM, Pico EL, Hansen AB, Feldman HM. (2015). Myofascial structural integration therapy on gross motor function and gait of young children with spastic cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 3(74), 1-10. 5. Loi E., Buysse CA, Hansen AB, Price KS, Jaramillo TM, Feldman HM (2013). Gross motor function improves in young children with spastic cerebral palsy after myofascial structural integration therapy. Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics Annual Meeting September, 2013 6. Findley N., Jaramillo TM, Loi EC, Buysse CA, Hansen AB, Price KS, Feldman HM (2015). Gross motor function improves in young children with spastic cerebral palsy after myofascial structural integration therapy. University of California,San Francisco, student symposium. 7. Buysse C., Loi ED, Price KS, Jaramillo TM, Hansen AB, Pico EL, Feldman HM (2015). Gait improvement in children with cerebral palsy after myofascial structural integration therapy. Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics Annual Meeting 2015. Jacobson E, Meleger A, Bonato P, Wayne P, Langevin H, Kaptchuk T, Davis R. . Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2015:813418, 2015.

Again - it looks like research in the last 15 years has validated Rolfing technique to treat at least a few conditions. I came to Wikipedia to read about it after I saw it as an option approved to be paid by my relatively conservative insurance company. Was really surprised to see all this old stuff here as I've come to rely on Wikipedia for better (and certainly more current than 1959) information. 73.189.249.162 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PSCI and WP:MEDRS. MEDRS says you have to have at least systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE in order to make medical claims inside Wikipedia. And WP:REDFLAG still applies. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Clow's book was published in 2001, not 1959. Bon courage (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Rolfing updated research

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36233746/

The information on this Rolfing Wikipedia page in outdated and needs to be updated. The Ida Rolf Institute has changed some of the original philosophies to keep with current research on fascia. 2605:A601:ACA2:6400:3093:314C:95A5:9F97 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Have they got a time machine then? No action taken as no sources presented. Bon courage (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The source was in the message but it was at the top so you might have missed it. I did upon first reading. Here it is: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36233746/

There are many other studies that I would be happy to provide links to so they can be represented here on this page. Perhaps in a new section for the page called Current Research?

In looking at the WP:FRINGE/ALT, it seems like current research should be included. It is research that leads us to new understandings and much new research has been/is being done into this practice as well as the underlying presumptions that began this practice 50+ years ago when we knew far less than we do now. The article cited here is measuring AROM which fits into the definition provided for Alternative theoretical formulations as part of the scientific process. Thanks! Wileshadow (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS for why this "research" is hopelessly inadequate for our purposes. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 07:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, primary research in an WP:MDPI journal. Junk. Bon courage (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked at your reference pages but I fail to see where it states that these kinds of research are junk. Research into anything begins where it can and I think it bears informing people that this research is happening. I agree that the individual research projects themselves have not yet risen to a level of changing the top tier of clinical guidelines but I think we might all be able to agree that that kind of thing could be rather fraught and a very long-term goal to achieve for a load of reasons. I do not think that it is untoward or lending undue credence to inform people that there are research projects on this subject. Is that not what Wiki pages are for in the end, to inform the public of a balanced view on a subject? Wileshadow (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope, WP:RULES are WP:RULES. Obey our rules or you're out. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Who is the "our" you are referring to? The general public that Wiki is supposed to be informing? Wileshadow (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We are protecting them from being misinformed by stuff added by people who do not understand how science works and are unaware that they do not understand it. See WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a primary study. Therefore, it fails WP:MEDRS. We will wait until reliable secondary sources collect several such studies and find that the results are consistent. As any competent scientist would do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok gotcha thank you for your responses. Wileshadow (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)