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. ^{— Unsigned, by: Azathoth / talk / contribs}

@Azathoth 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)