In this light, it is very clear that the studies that you mention are insufficient to support the use of Bowen to treat any medical condition. That’s not to say they don’t shed light on future research questions and processes.

A fair reading of the literature shows that there is no robust evidence to support any claims to treat any medical condition. As a matter of fact, a later review by the ASA has come to the same conclusion (here and here). Interestingly, the only claim they view as supportable is:

“… that the Bowen technique could improve flexibility, in the short term, of hamstring muscles in healthy, fit adults aged 18-50 years with no musculo-skeletal symptoms …”

Of course, this is a claim with respect to healthy adults.

That you feel the need to misreprepresent the theme of this post speaks volumes as to the strength of your criticisms. Though, if you do actually have any additional evidence, I’d be pleased to see it.

Your tone and words are sneering and condescending and not the tone of an impassioned observer but of someone who has written a skewed and judgmental piece. Ironic that at the same time you do clearly point out how many studies and trial have been done and that none of them have shown a harmful element. Compared to the majority of treatments currently available this is actually quite an impressive array.

The hamstring study examined the literature currently available and makes clear the implications for increasing flexibility and the significant impact this has. The study group was very large and the week follow on results has implications for a wide range of presentations.

Research does not always follow the line of ‘finding things that are wrong to make right’ but instead explores what is happening, in order for others to follow.

The stroke study again was significant in respect of the data available for patients in the same range. You could take six patients with brachial plexus issues and due to the severity of the problem and the lack of available treatment changes in 4 of them would be massively significant. So it’s not about the numbers, it’s about the literature reviews that explain the methodology.

I agree that wild claims need to be modified and care taken, but all your evidence presented here does suggest that Bowen has positive effects. That you don’t like it or that it doesn’t fit with your agenda is obvious but bias shouldn’t get in the way of something being explored more.

In future I suggest you present a more balanced view rather than leading inexperienced readers into conclusions that of your personal making.

But thank you for your interest.

Thanks for your comment. I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been through such a rough time and I’m happy to hear of your good fortune.

Let’s hope that an enterprising Bowen academic/therapist conducts a fair trial on chronic hip/knee pain like yours. If it can really help in the way you describe, then the results would be very clear.

Please accept by best wishes for your continuing recovery.

Thanks for your comment. I’m glad that you and your mother-in-law are feeling better.

While I agree that there is much yet to understand about the human body and what ails it, I think that it’s important not to discard what is already known and, I’m afraid that some of the claims that I’ve come across for this therapy do. This takes me to the core of my post: it’s not critical of those who chose to use Bowen (after all my wife has!) but rather those who make marketing claims that have no real substantial basis. What I’ve found is that the majority of the claims are (to be polite) highly speculative and yet are not presented as such. I believe that whatever the product or service sold potential customers should not be mislead, otherwise informed choice is undermined.

In this context well-conducted fair trials are not just “useful” they are essential, otherwise we don’t know whether our individual experiences are the product of chance, the natural history of a condition, the misattribution of an occurance to a cause (part of the human condition I’m afraid) or the proposed therapy. It’s really not a matter of being “fooled” in the usual sense.

As for GPs offering or recommending Bowen, I’m afraid this doesn’t give us a reliable indication of the therapy’s effectiveness: not a few GPs actually recommend homeopathy!

Anyway, I hope that you continue to feel better.

I agree that some controlled study would be useful, but we are constantly learning how much we DON”T know about the body, how much we have yet to understand. I think that in assessing alternative treatments such as Bowen, it would be helpful to approach the writing in a much more open way, that invites discussion and question (as it should – in order to have the much needed evidence) but the overall tone of your article suggest that those who benefit from this treatment have been duped in some way…. As an educated, successful, inquisitive professional, I don’t feel that I am easily fooled….

Finally, it may interest you to know that my condition is called Hypermobility Syndrome, a condition that affects the connective tissue, the facsia…this is one of the things that Bowen ‘claims’ to work on. My condition affects every part of my body; joints, muscles, stomach, heart, kidneys, eyes, sinuses (and breathing)….you name it – all through the facsia. If I can have such a variety of problems through a single fault in my genes, why shouldn’t stimulating this part of my body result in a variety of improvements?

PS. Many GPs offer/recommend Bowen.