Talk:Biofeedback

cite tags
I think that stuff was cribbed from Wikipedia, which as usual will have exhaustive links if someone can be bothered lifting them - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a joke involving yowling quackers? Anna Livia (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not consistent with https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_biofeedback
In page https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_biofeedback there is stated: Quantum biofeedback is a repackaging of biofeedback (a phenomenon that actually works) to....

and on theis page (and also on https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Brainwave_woo) there is stated that it is woo and alternative medicine. But if the page Quantum biofeedback mentions that biofeeback actually works, then I don't get why it should be considered as woo or alternative medicine. Also in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofeedback#Clinical_effectiveness there are mentions of both non-effective treatments, and effective treatments using biofeedback. I get that biofeedback lies in a gray area where some applications are proven to work and some applications not, but when there are some cases when biofeedback is proven to help, with control group, then I don't see any reason to call it woo.


 * I listed it as woo and alternative medicine because I have found some sources which classifies it as alternative medicine, such as | Wikipedia's category mind-body interventions, a subcategory to alternative medicine. There is also a lot of bollocks around it, and if we look in the current | woo category, we have alternative medicine, which biofeedback is, and other things which does have some merit, but also have some woo sourronding it (such as massage).

SassLass (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)