→Category:Pseudoscience?: sure, but... |
→Category:Pseudoscience?: add quote, comment |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
::::: We need to distinguish between calling acupuncture ''as a whole'' pseudoscience (while still documenting that some do say that), and calling most of its (1) claims and its foundational ideas ((2) [[acupuncture points]] and (3) [[Meridian (Chinese medicine)|meridians]]) pseudoscientific. Those three can clearly be labelled and categorized as pseudoscience. The question of whether acupuncture works for some things is actually irrelevant. A parallel situation exists for [[chiropractic]]. We can't categorize chiropractic ''as a whole'' as pseudoscience, but we can categorize many of its (1) claims and its two foundational ideas ((2) [[vertebral subluxations]] and (3) [[Innate Intelligence]]), as well as its (4) [[Applied kinesiology]] diagnostic method, as pseudoscientific. These are all falsifiable beliefs being presented by professions as biological facts, and thus they are pseudoscientific. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC) |
::::: We need to distinguish between calling acupuncture ''as a whole'' pseudoscience (while still documenting that some do say that), and calling most of its (1) claims and its foundational ideas ((2) [[acupuncture points]] and (3) [[Meridian (Chinese medicine)|meridians]]) pseudoscientific. Those three can clearly be labelled and categorized as pseudoscience. The question of whether acupuncture works for some things is actually irrelevant. A parallel situation exists for [[chiropractic]]. We can't categorize chiropractic ''as a whole'' as pseudoscience, but we can categorize many of its (1) claims and its two foundational ideas ((2) [[vertebral subluxations]] and (3) [[Innate Intelligence]]), as well as its (4) [[Applied kinesiology]] diagnostic method, as pseudoscientific. These are all falsifiable beliefs being presented by professions as biological facts, and thus they are pseudoscientific. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::I would agree to that, but would we then use the category "pseudoscience" or restrict it to the subpages that are clearly pseudoscientific? [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC) |
::::::I would agree to that, but would we then use the category "pseudoscience" or restrict it to the subpages that are clearly pseudoscientific? [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::::It would have to be the subpages, but the proper sci-consensus sources (cf. above) would still be needed. And remember, the map (TCM theory) isn't the territory (clinical efficacy), but it's still found useful in practice (e.g., distal points like P6 for nausea and LI4 for dental pain aren't predicted by biomedical knowledge, so the ancient Chinese apparently spotted something and explained it in their own terms, much as an ancient culture might predict eclipses correctly but explain them mythologically.) I don't get why more of the writers for scientific-skeptical publications don't grok this simple distinction. cheers, [[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8|talk]]) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
(de-indent) I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=346961957 reverted] Verbal's revert, which he attempted to justify solely by a bogus COI accusation in the edit summary. AS [[WP:COI]] says, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." Verbal didn't discuss his revert on the talk page or address any of the issues I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAcupuncture&action=historysubmit&diff=346803479&oldid=346706876 raised just above]. Verbal, please re-read [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:DR]], and please stop engaging in the kind of careless behavior that has gotten certain other editors put on restricted editing. thanks, [[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8|talk]]) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:17, 28 February 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
References
RfC: Is noting publication dates of reviews used by the American Medical Association consensus allowed?
Is noting the publication dates of reviews used by the American Medical Association to make their consensus statement allowed?JohnCBE (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is the issue:
In the subtopic "American Medical Association statement" section, it states: "Specifically regarding acupuncture, the AMA cited reviews that stated there was not enough evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease, and called for further research". I wanted to add in publication years by changing it to "Specifically regarding acupuncture, the AMA cited reviews conducted in 1992 and 1993 that stated there was not enough evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease, and called for further research". This has been reverted and re-added (by different) users several times now. I originally added the publication dates. It was reverted by Shoemaker's Holiday along with several other edits of mine. After discussion, I re-added it, as did Middle 8 and finally Shoemaker's Holiday. WLU reverted each of our re-additions.
Since our debate in the discussion topics "recent edits" is very long, I'll present my arguments and the counter-arguments (as well as my response) from WLU who does not want this change. WLU if you feel I have misrepresented your argument or have something new to add, please provide input:
My original argument:
O: Although it states that the AMA recommendation statement itself was released in 1997, it is reasonable to assume readers may be misled into thinking that the cited reviews mentioned in the separate statement are recent, and thus are the reason why the AMA has not released a new recommendation statement since 1997. The AMA in fact has not indicated any of this. The critical reviews mentioned on this page were cited in the report in the statement specifically pertaining to acupuncture effectiveness. Looking through the footnotes of the report, one can see that the critical reviews were published in 1992 and 1993 (see footnote 4 and 19 in the report).
Counter-Arguments from WLU:
I have attempted to group them appropriately.
C1: "The AMA statement is already clearly labelled as occurring in 1997." "It's unnecessary and a not-too-subtle form of criticism." "Regards publication dates mentioned in the text, we don't also include the publication dates of the studies the meta-analyses and reviews reviewed."
C2: "I stand by my earlier statement that the AMA has verifiably made a statement, it's up to other editors to indicate that they have since changed their minds." ""The AMA has neither updated, nor removed their statement, suggesting it's still their opinion (and really, since 1997 there has been no unequivocal evidence to suggest it's inaccurate)."
My responses:
R1: First, my original argument is basically my response to the necessity counter-argument. In addition, we are only adding a few words. Second, I do not think adding publication dates of reviews is criticism. It is done all over Wikipedia and this page itself. I am only interested in adding publication dates, something factual- not subjective criticism. He responded by saying that they don't mention publication dates of studies used in reviews. My response is that context matters in this case, as it's not clear whether the cited reviews mentioned are recent when the AMA statement itself was released a while ago (see original argument). The other reviews on this page are recent and follow strict guidelines on which studies to use that are available at the time they are conducted- old or new. The main difference here is that the AMA statement was released a long time ago. Thus, it is not known whether the reviews they used are old or new (if they used newer reviews and decided not to release a new statement) unless it is clarified by noting the publication dates of the reviews.
R2: My response is that this isn't relevant. We are not saying that the AMA has changed its mind, nor are we trying to prove they have done so. That's why the AMA statement remains in the first place. We are arguing that publication dates of the reviews they used should be noted. That has nothing to do with whether the AMA has changed their minds.
Hope that helps. Others, please feel free to jump in!JohnCBE (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- A quicker way of resolving this may be the WP:NPOVN. My thought is essentially that with the 1997 date of initial publication clear in the first words of the sentence, there's no need for further dating of their evidence. Trying to read in to what the reader might be "misled" to think is both unnecessary and pretty close to an editorial judgment that the evidence is too old and the reader must be informed of this, an NPOV concern. Also, debating whether a 1992 or 1993 review is "recent enough" on a 12 year old publication seems rather absurd. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment -
At this point I tend to agree with WLU that since we don't list dates of secondary sources used by Cochrane reviews and the like, we shouldn't do so here, just for consistency.revise - I've wavered on this, and could go either way -- I'm now leaning toward including the dates of the "reviews" (neither appears to be peer-reviewed) because sources should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and while we don't cite the dates of everything a systematic review covers, this case is not exactly analogous because it's an out-of-date position statement that relies on weak material to begin with. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: For clarity, include both the publication date and the dates of the reviews cited in the publication. Where there's a substantial difference, it's reasonable to include the latter as well as the former. Rd232 talk 15:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Reorganize evidence-based medicine section
The EBM section is a mess, hard and long to read. What about turning it into a table? Here is what I see it looking like for low back pain. Where the evidence isn't clear, I would suggest the middle column either say "mixed", or possibly a more detailed summary. I've used rowspan to separate different ideas, I could do the same thing to ensure each idea has the specific reference attached to it. For all the Cochrane reviews, I would say "The amount and quality of the research is insufficient to draw a conclusion; further research is recommended. Other options is including the year in the final column and retitling it "year of review" or something similar. Right now it's the big set of Cochrane reviews and a whole bunch of text, hopefully this will make things neater and easier to read. Thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- That kicks ass. Let's do it. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Re wording, I think you have the right idea in sticking close to sources, e.g when Cochrane says something nuanced like "insufficient evidence for or against", etc. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tables are extremely tedious to work with and I don't plan on making time for this over the next day or so. If anyone wants to work on it on the talk page, feel free - use Help:Table for hints but basically you always start the first column with a pipe, followed by a rowspan = the number of rows that will refer to that condition (I would expect one per "idea" expressed) then another pipe, then the condition. Next a line break and another pipe, and the summary of the evidence. Next another line break, another pipe, another rowspan (should be the same as the first rowspan), another pipe, then the reference. Separate each subsequent "condition-idea" with a pipe and dash |-, linebreak, pipe and idea. The number of ideas should match the number of rowspans. Basically:
- Re wording, I think you have the right idea in sticking close to sources, e.g when Cochrane says something nuanced like "insufficient evidence for or against", etc. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
| rowspan = numberofevidencerows | [[Condition]] | discussion of evidence | rowspan = numberofevidencerows | citation |- | discussion of evidence |- | [[Condition 2]] (example for only one citation and discussion) | discussion of evidence |-
- Etc. It's the cutting, pasting and wording that's difficult, I can easily fix the formatting. Just remember that there has to be three columns per row, but rowspan fills in each column by erasing a border between cells. Easy-peasy.
- Other options could include having the year as separate to allow sorting by source date or not bothering with the author and just having a footnote. I think the latter's ugly, but so's what is up there now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Table
Condition | Overall support | Evidence |
Low back pain | Limited | Insufficient evidence to recommend for or against acupuncture or dry needling for acute pain[1][2] |
Fair evidence for use with chronic low back pain;[3] as effective as conventional and alternative treatments for pain relief and improved functioning but acupuncture plus conventional therapy slightly improves efficacy[1] | ||
In vitro fertilisation | Equivocal | Positive[4] and negative[5] reviews of the evidence |
Nausea and vomiting | Limited | Effective in reducing post-operative nausea and vomiting, with minimal adverse effects though less than or equal to preventive antiemetic medications[6][7] |
Initial review suggested greater effectiveness than antiemetic drugs, but the study was retracted when the authors concluded the results were skewed due to a publication bias in Asian countries[7] | ||
Electroacupuncture can be helpful in the treatment of vomiting after the start of chemotherapy, though the testing did not compare effectiveness versus modern antivomiting medication[8] | ||
Neck pain | Limited | Moderate evidence acupuncture is more effective than sham treatment and offers short-term improvement compared to waiting list controls[9] |
Idiopathic headaches | Inconclusive | Suggestive but requires more research[10] |
Migraine | Supported | Consistent evidence for use with treatment of acute migraine attacks and for routine care[11] |
As, or more effective than preventive drug treatment with fewer adverse effects[11] | ||
Osteoarthritis of the knee | Limited | Positive[12][13] and negative[14] results |
International consensus recommendation tentatively supported the use of acupuncture for symptomatic treatment[15] | ||
Fibromyalgia | Inconclusive | Insufficient evidence to recommend its use[16] |
Good article in a month or so?
Moving some comments from above: lately we've had a nice influx of editorial skill and enthusiasm, and with a little bit of cooperation and AGF-ing, we just might be able to get this to good article status fairly soon, with featured not too far off. My motivation for this had waned, but I think we've now got a good group and can make it happen, if we want, and that would be a lot more rewarding than turning this into a battleground -- which I think the large majority of editors here are smart enough not to want to do. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah it only appears so from the outside. I don't think the article has gotten any better in the past while. Some useful information has been added, but a lot has also been removed or misparaphrased to oblivion. Now we have ToRT in several sections of the article criticizing anything pro-acupuncture- a book that doesn't contain footnotes (which was a reason cited for rejecting the use of Natural Standard), a book that I've read and noted that it selects the studies it talks about to prove its point. I've seen editors paraphrase 4 positive results from studies as "acupuncture being no better than sham acupuncture". I've seen editors slyly misparaphrase study results after deleting my direct quotations from the conclusions, calling direct quotations misleading. I've seen editors arguing against setting a standalone statement for a consensus statement just because it gives some credibility to acupuncture. I've seen editors calling the noting of publication dates for reviews as criticism (if noting publication dates itself is criticism, then why are those reviews sourced here in the first place?). I've seen outdated, negative studies remain on this page for seemingly years, and when I add new positive studies, there is suddenly a frenzy from a certain editor to find negative studies. I've seen editors remove 3 pro-acupuncture reviews because "only 1 is needed", and then proceed to post a negative study result and conclude that the results are mixed. I've had edits reverted and then been met with silence on the discussion page as well as their user talk pages. I've had an edit reverted with discuss on talk as the change summary only to have the editor not respond at all. I've had editors tell me it's "a big no no" to remove sourced information and then proceed to remove my sourced information from systematic reviews or consensus statements a few days later. I've had editors tell me that only the very newest reviews should be posted, and when I try to reinforce the same rule, I am told to stop. I've seen editors randomly bring up conspiracy theories about CAM saying doctors and the AMA looking out for their own income by protecting their profession from CAM (or oversupply even). Conspiracy theories promoted by Milton Friedman and other economists. I've posted on the RSN page to get someone to comment on another issue only to have an editor accuse me of being an IP sock instead of actually helping with the issue. I've used editor's assistance and then have them agree with me only to be subsequently told by an involved editor that editor's assistance is informal and useless (despite it being described as being useful for dispute resolution), whereas request for comment (a service with long response times apparently and ALSO described as informal) as being more useful. Now that I think about this, these past few weeks have been a gigantic waste of time trying to move mountains. A group of 3 editors seem to linger around here with their finger on the revert button with much higher restrictions on the posting of anything pro-acupuncture even if it's from systematic reviews or expert consensus statements (or weight less or misparaphrased), whereas anything anti-acupuncture, no matter how unreliable the source is kept and weighted more heavily. We have one editor here who actively does his best to misparaphrase anything pro-acupuncture to make it seem less important, while deleting direct quotations from review conclusions. Worst of all, I've been told these editors are extremely experienced and have made thousands of edits. That truly shakes my faith in Wikipedia. Anyway, tl;dr, I've lost the ability to AGF from wiki editors controlling this article. I will take my leave from contributing to Wikipedia now since my enthusiasm for this article and anything wiki-related to be dead. Feel free to gradually push this article into POV territory WLU, you won't be stopped by me and you certainly won't be stopped by the likes of Verbal, SH and Brangifer who are no doubt too busy and can only step in when someone adds anything sound pro-acupuncture. Good day. /rantJohnCBE (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand why you feel that way. This page has several excellent examples of how NOT to treat newcomers -- instead of being treated in a welcoming and patient manner, you were berated and baited. Not real great. There are things you need to learn too, like picking your battles and being briefer in your comments, but those who violated WP:BITE and WP:TPG with you should have known better. But there is a subculture within WP that takes things like Quackwatch and ToT as gospel that doesn't require attribution, and believes that WP:CIVIL is less important than keeping away editors they believe are pushing "pseudoscience". WP really is a joke in many ways, and I sometimes wonder if it's worth the effort. At the very least, you should take a nice break and clear your head. Maybe I should walk away too, and let people who don't understand TCM fuck the article up into a total joke. But if you return, I'll work with you and other reasonable editors, because the page needs editors who understand TCM from the inside. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. - I agree with you about the paraphrasing. It's a problem. I don't see what's wrong with quoting (e.g.) NIH's own words rather than rephrasing it; it's too easy for bias to creep in that way, intentionally or not. I also agree that there was no good reason to remove the systematic reviews you added. "Undue weight" is a bullshit excuse -- we should just list the best ones we have, not delete a couple positive ones because there's one that's negative. They all looked fine to me as MEDRS's. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- And, with some editors just doing fly-by reverts of anything other than the straight, boring skeptical take, it becomes pointless and frustrating to edit. I get your frustration and am not inclined to go it alone. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did not read this blame piece. I prefer short, concise suggestions justified by references. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. True, I could've been briefer. Still, I think it's important to set up a strong argument, especially against editors who try to find any reason possible to revert your edit. No, I will not be returning, especially not to this article. It takes far too much time to get any change for this article... unless it denounces acupuncture. I mean, I had to use 2 methods of dispute resolution just to note the review dates of the AMA statement. It took almost a week for something that shouldn't really be controversial. I can't even imagine making more significant changes to this article. It would be nice to work with you and other reasonable editors, but the truth is there are no other reasonable editors working on this article. I honestly have not interacted with anyone else that had a speck of NPOV aside from the people who commented through dispute resolution and coincidentally agreed with my changes.
- I did not read this blame piece. I prefer short, concise suggestions justified by references. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- And, with some editors just doing fly-by reverts of anything other than the straight, boring skeptical take, it becomes pointless and frustrating to edit. I get your frustration and am not inclined to go it alone. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. - I agree with you about the paraphrasing. It's a problem. I don't see what's wrong with quoting (e.g.) NIH's own words rather than rephrasing it; it's too easy for bias to creep in that way, intentionally or not. I also agree that there was no good reason to remove the systematic reviews you added. "Undue weight" is a bullshit excuse -- we should just list the best ones we have, not delete a couple positive ones because there's one that's negative. They all looked fine to me as MEDRS's. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand why you feel that way. This page has several excellent examples of how NOT to treat newcomers -- instead of being treated in a welcoming and patient manner, you were berated and baited. Not real great. There are things you need to learn too, like picking your battles and being briefer in your comments, but those who violated WP:BITE and WP:TPG with you should have known better. But there is a subculture within WP that takes things like Quackwatch and ToT as gospel that doesn't require attribution, and believes that WP:CIVIL is less important than keeping away editors they believe are pushing "pseudoscience". WP really is a joke in many ways, and I sometimes wonder if it's worth the effort. At the very least, you should take a nice break and clear your head. Maybe I should walk away too, and let people who don't understand TCM fuck the article up into a total joke. But if you return, I'll work with you and other reasonable editors, because the page needs editors who understand TCM from the inside. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
TCM stuff in article
Too bold, WLU -- not to diminish your other efforts, but since you apparently haven't read any TCM texts, you're over your head. Why not bring it up here and ask for others' input? I have Cheng (1987) from which most (not all) of the section is sourced. (Some material did need pruning but your edits went too far.) If this is going to turn into homeopathy where skeptics plunge on too boldly and editors who know the traditional aspects of the topic per se are treated poorly (e.g. Verbal's niggling revert of two sources), I don't see much reason to spend my time here. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- On reflection, I'm not going to revert and fix this. I'm going to leave it in its messed-up state so that it will be obvious to anyone with a shred of knowledge of TCM that it's been butchered. Have fun. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:PROVEIT I could have removed nearly the whole thing. Rather than blaming my good-faith efforts to make a wandering section short and concise, if you have the sources and knowledge to improve it, please do so. It cuts both ways, and that section has been tagged as unclear for almost a year. As far as I can tell, the "butchered" version is just fine. Please feel free to do so with reliable sources but I would suggest caution to not phrase it as "acupuncture/zang-fu/Blood/qi are..." These are unproven concepts believed by practitioners and should be clearly described as such. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you think your edit to the TCM section is fine -- by your own acknowledgement, you (a) haven't read any books on TCM & acupuncture [1], and (b) you've already made up your mind about it anyway: it's pseudoscience [2]! Simple -- you're an instant expert now. I think this page needs as few editors as possible who are really TCM-literate, and as many as possible who not only don't know about, but actively deride the topic. And to keep it that way, a few drive by reverter's. That will bring the article more into line with Wikipedia's universally-recognized and respected high standards. I trust you to lead the way in this regard. Have fun educating the masses -- anyone can do it! --Middle 8 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you can improve the page by providing sources that correct any errors in the current version, that's great. All the time spent on this talk page could easily have gone into finding references, integrating them into the page and making it more reliable and NPOV for our readers. The fighting over single words and lengthy talk page postings aren't helping - I can't argue with a reference but I'm not going to take anyone's word. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you think your edit to the TCM section is fine -- by your own acknowledgement, you (a) haven't read any books on TCM & acupuncture [1], and (b) you've already made up your mind about it anyway: it's pseudoscience [2]! Simple -- you're an instant expert now. I think this page needs as few editors as possible who are really TCM-literate, and as many as possible who not only don't know about, but actively deride the topic. And to keep it that way, a few drive by reverter's. That will bring the article more into line with Wikipedia's universally-recognized and respected high standards. I trust you to lead the way in this regard. Have fun educating the masses -- anyone can do it! --Middle 8 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:PROVEIT I could have removed nearly the whole thing. Rather than blaming my good-faith efforts to make a wandering section short and concise, if you have the sources and knowledge to improve it, please do so. It cuts both ways, and that section has been tagged as unclear for almost a year. As far as I can tell, the "butchered" version is just fine. Please feel free to do so with reliable sources but I would suggest caution to not phrase it as "acupuncture/zang-fu/Blood/qi are..." These are unproven concepts believed by practitioners and should be clearly described as such. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Introduction in the United States?
Presumably, Chinese immigrants brought a knowledge of acupuncture with them to the United States along with other aspects of Chinese medicine. If that introduction is documented, it would be interesting to record it here.
What's more likely to be documented, and what I'm personally more interested in, is the introduction of acupuncture to the Western medical profession in the United States. A tradition in my family says that Dr. M. E. Carrère of Charleston, South Carolina (1813-1879, M.D., U. Penn., 1837) was the first American physician to use acupuncture. I doubt that he was the first, but he definitely used it. See Atkinson, William Biddle, ed., The Physicians and Surgeons of the United States (Philadelphia 1878), p. 620, available on Google Books. Can anybody contribute a section on acupuncture's history in the US?
--Jdcrutch (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Sometime in the last few months, an editor added category:pseudoscience to the article; I removed it for reasons that I hope were clear in my edit summary: per WP:PSCI and WP:RS#Academic_consensus, we need a proper source showing acupuncture is "generally considered pseudoscience" by the scientific community. Such a source would be on the order of a mainstream scientific academy, such as those found in List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design and Scientific opinion on climate change. Lacking such a source, per WP:PSCI, acupuncture is an "alternative theoretical formulation" and/or "questionable science", and as such "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point" (emphasis mine). That means we shouldn't use the category, since inclusion in the category is a binary condition, ergo unambiguous. However, it's fine to cite reliable sources within the article who do consider it pseudoscience, just as it's fine to cite reliable sources who don't. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not quite there, though doubtless many would agree that it is. I support the removal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- @ Verbal: that reasoning is weak at best, and at worst wrong or simply absent. (1) Which previous discussion? Link to it so we all can see it. (2) Scientific view isn't clear at all: read the lead re "active research", "controversial" and lack of settled agreement over proper design of sham controls, as well as meta-analyses showing positive results for efficacy (I like how an earlier editor weasel-ishly changed negative results to "many", with two cites, and positive to "some", also with two equally good cites). (3) You haven't refuted or even addressed my reasoning above re NPOV (see: WP:PSCI) and VER (see: WP:RS#Academic_consensus). You've also got two editors disagreeing with your position. I'm reverting (and fixing the "many/some" silliness). Please take the time and effort to address 1-2-3 above specifically if you disagree. Also, your edit sloppily removed a good reference fix by WLU. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is needed is a high-quality reference that clearly labels it as pseudoscience. I don't think we're quite there yet. Acupuncture appears to be nonsense based on a flawed, medieval, probably alchemical understanding of the body, but it's not quite considered pseudoscience - even Edzard Ernst has stated that it's got merit with nausea and some types of pain. It obviously lacks any merit for treatment of conditions (rather than symptoms) but it's not quite pseudoscience. If an explicit reference can be found that's not one of the obvious skeptic sources (like the ones a google books search turns up at the top), maybe. I think it's arguable that it could be said "some have called it pseudoscience", I think it's theory is utter, utter nonsense, but I think this falls into the "questionable science" category at WP:PSCI. There is a reason to believe that jamming needles into the body does help with some symptoms (pain and nausea, and of course there's also dry needling), even if the reason why is not what is usually voiced, or not completely understood. It's pseudoscientific to claim that it treats any actual condition, but unlike homeopathy or astrology, it's still considered as to have some merit in a limited number of cases. Certainly there is merit to exploring claims of it being pseudoscientific, but ultimately it is now being investigated scientifically and there are secondary reviews indicating limited effectiveness for (again) pain and nausea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- We need to distinguish between calling acupuncture as a whole pseudoscience (while still documenting that some do say that), and calling most of its (1) claims and its foundational ideas ((2) acupuncture points and (3) meridians) pseudoscientific. Those three can clearly be labelled and categorized as pseudoscience. The question of whether acupuncture works for some things is actually irrelevant. A parallel situation exists for chiropractic. We can't categorize chiropractic as a whole as pseudoscience, but we can categorize many of its (1) claims and its two foundational ideas ((2) vertebral subluxations and (3) Innate Intelligence), as well as its (4) Applied kinesiology diagnostic method, as pseudoscientific. These are all falsifiable beliefs being presented by professions as biological facts, and thus they are pseudoscientific. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree to that, but would we then use the category "pseudoscience" or restrict it to the subpages that are clearly pseudoscientific? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- It would have to be the subpages, but the proper sci-consensus sources (cf. above) would still be needed. And remember, the map (TCM theory) isn't the territory (clinical efficacy), but it's still found useful in practice (e.g., distal points like P6 for nausea and LI4 for dental pain aren't predicted by biomedical knowledge, so the ancient Chinese apparently spotted something and explained it in their own terms, much as an ancient culture might predict eclipses correctly but explain them mythologically.) I don't get why more of the writers for scientific-skeptical publications don't grok this simple distinction. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree to that, but would we then use the category "pseudoscience" or restrict it to the subpages that are clearly pseudoscientific? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- We need to distinguish between calling acupuncture as a whole pseudoscience (while still documenting that some do say that), and calling most of its (1) claims and its foundational ideas ((2) acupuncture points and (3) meridians) pseudoscientific. Those three can clearly be labelled and categorized as pseudoscience. The question of whether acupuncture works for some things is actually irrelevant. A parallel situation exists for chiropractic. We can't categorize chiropractic as a whole as pseudoscience, but we can categorize many of its (1) claims and its two foundational ideas ((2) vertebral subluxations and (3) Innate Intelligence), as well as its (4) Applied kinesiology diagnostic method, as pseudoscientific. These are all falsifiable beliefs being presented by professions as biological facts, and thus they are pseudoscientific. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(de-indent) I reverted Verbal's revert, which he attempted to justify solely by a bogus COI accusation in the edit summary. AS WP:COI says, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." Verbal didn't discuss his revert on the talk page or address any of the issues I raised just above. Verbal, please re-read WP:COI and WP:DR, and please stop engaging in the kind of careless behavior that has gotten certain other editors put on restricted editing. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- ^ a b Furlan AD, van Tulder MW, Cherkin DC; et al. (2005). "Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD001351. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001351.pub2. PMID 15674876.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Manheimer E, White A, Berman B, Forys K, Ernst E (2005). "Meta-analysis: acupuncture for low back pain" (PDF). Ann. Intern. Med. 142 (8): 651–63. PMID 15838072.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Chou R, Huffman LH (2007). "Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline". Ann Intern Med. 147 (7): 492–504. doi:10.1001/archinte.147.3.492. PMID 17909210.
- ^ Manheimer E, Zhang G, Udoff L, Haramati A, Langenberg P, Berman BM, Bouter LM (2008). "Effects of acupuncture on rates of pregnancy and live birth among women undergoing in vitro fertilisation: systematic review and meta-analysis". BMJ. 336 (7643): 545–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.39471.430451.BE. PMID 18258932.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ El-Toukhy, T (2008). "A systematic review and meta-analysis of acupuncture in in vitro fertilisation". BMJ. 115 (10): 1203–13. PMID 18652588.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Lee A, Done ML (2004). "Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (3): CD003281. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub2. PMID 15266478.
- ^ a b Lee A, Copas JB, Henmi M, Gin T, Chung RC (2006). "Publication bias affected the estimate of postoperative nausea in an acupoint stimulation systematic review". J Clin Epidemiol. 59 (9): 980–3. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.003. PMID 16895822.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Acupuncture-point stimulation for chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (2): CD002285. 2006. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002285.pub2. PMID 16625560.
- ^ Trinh K, Graham N, Gross A, Goldsmith C, Wang E, Cameron I, Kay T (2007). "Acupuncture for neck disorders". Spine. 32 (2): 236–43. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000252100.61002.d4. PMID 17224820.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link); Trinh K, Graham N, Gross A, Goldsmith C, Wang E, Cameron I, Kay T (2006). "Acupuncture for neck disorders". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 3. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004870.pub3.{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Melchart, D (2001). "Acupuncture for idiopathic headache". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1: CD001218. PMID 11279710.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b Linde, K (2009). "Acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1: CD001218. PMID 19160193.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ White A, Foster NE, Cummings M, Barlas P (2007). "Acupuncture treatment for chronic knee pain: a systematic review". Rheumatology. 46 (3): 384–90. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel413. PMID 17215263.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Selfe TK, Taylor AG (2008 Jul-Sep). "Acupuncture and osteoarthritis of the knee: a review of randomized, controlled trials". Fam Community Health. 31 (3): 247–54. doi:10.1097/01.FCH.0000324482.78577.0f. PMID 18552606.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|year=
(help) - ^ Manheimer E, Linde K, Lao L, Bouter LM, Berman BM (2007). "Meta-analysis: acupuncture for osteoarthritis of the knee". Ann. Intern. Med. 146 (12): 868–77. doi:10.1001/archinte.146.5.868. PMID 17577006.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Zhang, W (2008). "OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines" (pdf). Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 16: 137–162. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.013.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Mayhew E; Ernst E (2007). "Acupuncture for fibromyalgia—a systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 46 (5): 801–4. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel406. PMID 17189243.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)