→Nordic Countries: cmt |
→Full protection: huh? |
||
Line 211: | Line 211: | ||
::Yes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=877109331&oldid=877104663 this version] was an obviously untenable deviation from the emerging sci consensus on efficacy.<sup>[sarcasm]</sup> --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] | [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|acupuncture COI?]])</small> 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC) |
::Yes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=877109331&oldid=877104663 this version] was an obviously untenable deviation from the emerging sci consensus on efficacy.<sup>[sarcasm]</sup> --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] | [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|acupuncture COI?]])</small> 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
::: The emerging scientific consensus is that acupuncture is bullshit, as you see by the ever lengthening list of conditions for which it is definitively established to be ineffective. Needless to say the cult responds with more pseudoscience. The experience of homeopathy indicates this will work for maybe a decade. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
::: The emerging scientific consensus is that acupuncture is bullshit, as you see by the ever lengthening list of conditions for which it is definitively established to be ineffective. Needless to say the cult responds with more pseudoscience. The experience of homeopathy indicates this will work for maybe a decade. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::: (<span style="font-size:0.8em"> '''READ THE DIFF PLEASE !'''</span> <span style="font-size:0.9em"><== stage whisper </span>) Which is why I'm gobsmacked you'd support removal of a source saying exactly that. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] | [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|acupuncture COI?]])</small> 20:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Needle play]] == |
== [[Needle play]] == |
Revision as of 20:27, 9 January 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removal of a 2017 review
I recently added this 2017 review article to the section on Effectiveness (specifically the subsection thereof "Pain"). But this edit was soon reverted by MPants at work, apparently because it is too recent to have made a significant impact, and is "a little fishy, to boot". MPants further cited WP:DUE to justify his removal of this article. [1] However, there appears to be no reason to believe that the conclusions of this review article, positive though they may be regarding acupuncture, are "fringe" views that thus need to be minimized. It appears that this source, far from being the sort of fringe publication that should be excluded by WP:DUE, is the sort of recently-published review article in a reputable peer-reviewed journal (Current Opinion in Anesthesiology) that we should be trying to include per WP:MEDRS. But if MPants or anyone else wishes to explain why this sources is "fishy" or should be excluded for another reason I'm all ears. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 00:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just as a point of fact, by definition, sources that support the efficacy of acupuncture have fringe conclusions. That doesn't make them invalid, but the mainstream view is that acupuncture is not effective, hence the conclusions of this study are fringe. However, that's not so much the problem in this case, per se. The WP:DUE reason here is that there's nothing about this study that makes it at all clear why it was picked. It's just one, random study by a couple of unremarkable researchers claiming to show that acupuncture is effective, tacked on to the end of a paragraph about the effectiveness of accupuncture that, for the most part, clearly disagrees with the results of this study. (That's leaving out the use of language like "growing evidence".) As for the date: It's a 2017 review. It hasn't had a chance to establish an impact in the field. It's just one of the things that make this study unremarkable. We generally prefer studies and surveys that have been around a few years and gathered up a bunch of citations; preferably those which have had their results duplicated.
- Finally the fishiness: the review starts by exclaiming that acupuncture is effective. It then "finds" that acupuncture is effective. <sound of crickets chirping> That's not just a red flag, that's a guy in a red suit with a red face from drinking frantically waving a red flag soaked in his own urine while blathering about aliens and anal probes. Good science never sets out to answer a question by stating that one answer is true in unambiguous terms. Of course, this is actually par for the course with acupuncture research.
- Then there's the usual "Multiple Asian authors and one Westerner", with the Asian contributors clearly the actual authors (Author information says: Acupuncture Meridian Science Research Center, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, yet Buchheit is with The Pain Society of the Carolinas) used to make acupuncture research look more legitimate by making it look less Asian. Then, it's published in a relatively low-impact journal (there's another journal by the same publisher, covering the same field with twice the impact factor). Like I said, it's just fishy. It might turn out to be okay, but I highly doubt that any credible researchers would give this study the time of day. Of course, in a few years, we might see that I was wrong, when this article has hundreds of cites and is referenced as establishing the scientific consen- Oh, wait. I just saw how it concludes. Further studies on its use as an adjunct or alternative to opioids, and in perioperative settings are needed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source to support your clearly extraordinary claim that "the mainstream view is that acupuncture is not effective"? Without such a source any claim that "by definition, sources that support the efficacy of acupuncture have fringe conclusions" is clearly untenable. Dismissing the article as being by "unremarkable researchers" is of course an ad hominem that has no bearing on whether or to what extent the conclusions of the article are valid. Notably, you failed to address the point I made regarding the fact that WP:MEDRS (specifically the section WP:MEDDATE) recommends that recent literature reviews be included, meaning the complaint about this article not having had enough time to get a lot of citations is invalid: that it was published recently is a strength, not a weakness. In addition, their statement that more research is needed appears to be with reference not to acupuncture's effectiveness in general, or with respect to chronic pain, but rather with respect to its use "an adjunct or alternative to opioids, and in perioperative settings" (as shown in the quote you yourself cited above). That two of the three authors are of Asian descent seems of little to no relevance to the credibility of the article's conclusions--I am aware of the issue of almost all Chinese studies producing positive results, but none of the authors have any affiliations in China. So I am, in general, skeptical of the argument that this should be excluded. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- The new review discusses five new human trials (most of the papers reviewed are animal trials, or publications that are not clinical trials). And one of those trials only had 8 people and no control group. And the only of the five with more than 100 subjects wasn't even designed to test efficacy. It contributes literally nothing to the body of knowledge on acupuncture effectiveness, except to point out that people continue to publish studies from which no conclusions can be drawn. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source to support your clearly extraordinary claim that "the mainstream view is that acupuncture is not effective"?
Ahh, so you were POV pushing with that addition. That explains it. But to answer your question:- Myint Swe Khine (2011) Advances in Nature of Science Research: Concepts and Methodologies Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY
- Baran G.R., Kiani M.F., Samuel S.P. (2014) Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?. In: Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century. Springer, New York, NY
- Barrett, Stephen M.D. Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine" http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html (this one has it's own list of references worth checking out)
- Brian M. Berman, M.D., Helene M. Langevin, M.D., Claudia M. Witt, M.D., M.B.A., and Ronald Dubner, D.D.S., Ph.D. (2010) Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain New England Journal of Medicine 2010; Volume 363, pages 454-461
- Andrew C. Ahn, Agatha P. Colbert, Belinda J. Anderson, Ørjan G. Martinsen, Richard Hammerschlag, Steve Cina, Peter M. Wayne, Helene M. Langevin (2008) Electrical properties of acupuncture points and meridians: A systematic review Bioelectromagnetics Volume 29, Issue 4
- Christopher J. Standaert; Janna Friedly; Mark W. Erwin; Michael J. Lee; Glenn Rechtine; Nora B. Henrikson; Daniel C. Norvell (2011) Comparative Effectiveness of Exercise, Acupuncture, and Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain Spine, Volume 36, Pages 120-130
- E. Ernst (2005) Acupuncture – a critical analysis Journal of Internal Medicine Volume 259, Pages 125-137
- Shu-Ming Wang, Zeev N. Kain, Paul F. White (2008) Acupuncture Analgesia: II. Clinical Considerations Anesthesia & Analgesia, Volume 106(2) Pages 611-621
- Ernst, E.; Lee, Myeong Sooa; Choi, Tae-Youngb (2011) Acupuncture: Does it alleviate pain and are there serious risks? A review of reviews Pain, Volume 152(4), Pages 755-764
- Ernst, Edzard (2009) Acupuncture: What Does the Most Reliable Evidence Tell Us? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Volume 37(4), Pages 709-714
- There's plenty more where that came from.
Dismissing the article as being by "unremarkable researchers" is of course an ad hominem that has no bearing on whether or to what extent the conclusions of the article are valid.
Cherry picking, are we now? Don't pretend to call out "fallacies" in another editors argument if you can't be bothered to maintain a higher level of integrity, yourself. Either quote me in context or don't quote me at all, thanks.Notably, you failed to address the point I made regarding the fact that WP:MEDRS (specifically the section WP:MEDDATE) recommends that recent literature reviews be included
I thought you had already read WP:RECENTISM, which is explicitly warned against in WP:MEDRS. If I was mistaken in that assumption, I apologize. So let me address your concern now: WP:RECENTISM.In addition, their statement that more research is needed
Using a higher level of specificity only transforms a vague and meaningless statement into a less vague but still meaningless statement.I am aware of the issue of almost all Chinese studies producing positive results, but none of the authors have any affiliations in China.
Then you should be aware that this tends to apply to Korean studies to a somewhat lesser extent, and to studies from institutes dedicated to promoting acupuncture to a much higher extent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)- MPants at work, I'm curious to know where you heard this about Korean studies. Do you have a link to this information? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TylerDurden8823: I've seen comparisons between Chinese and Korean science wrt acupuncture in numerous places. Off the top of my head, this is one example that actually goes into some detail about what the specific problems with Korean studies are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @MPants at work:, I don't see anything about the state of the medical literature from Korea in the cited article. Are you sure you cited the correct study? It looks like it's an older article examining the state of Korean literature specifically about acupuncture. Granted, it looks like it's mainly lower level evidence (e.g., case reports, series, uncontrolled/suboptimally controlled studies, etc, which still have some value (case reports can be a helpful type of evidence)) but it doesn't necessarily speak to the original question of whether medical literature from Korea suffers from similar questions about its overall integrity when compared to that of China. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's a paper that weighs the results and analyses the methodology of literally every acupuncture study published in all Korean journals, and found the facts that they almost always show a positive result and they are virtually always of low methodological quality notable enough to mention in the abstract (not even saving it for the results). I don't see how that's at all ambiguous. Sure, an analysis of the overall state of Korean literature might not have been the stated goal of the authors, but that doesn't really matter when such an analysis was a part of their methodology, now does it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I think it matters. I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate the poor quality of the Korean literature in the field of acupuncture to Korean literature in all other medical subjects. The article you provided certainly speaks volumes about the quality of the Korean literature on acupuncture. I'm not suggesting it's ambiguous about that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was only referring to the qualities of Korean medical science wrt acupuncture. I have no particular problem with, for example, a Korean new drug study. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I think it matters. I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate the poor quality of the Korean literature in the field of acupuncture to Korean literature in all other medical subjects. The article you provided certainly speaks volumes about the quality of the Korean literature on acupuncture. I'm not suggesting it's ambiguous about that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's a paper that weighs the results and analyses the methodology of literally every acupuncture study published in all Korean journals, and found the facts that they almost always show a positive result and they are virtually always of low methodological quality notable enough to mention in the abstract (not even saving it for the results). I don't see how that's at all ambiguous. Sure, an analysis of the overall state of Korean literature might not have been the stated goal of the authors, but that doesn't really matter when such an analysis was a part of their methodology, now does it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- @MPants at work:, I don't see anything about the state of the medical literature from Korea in the cited article. Are you sure you cited the correct study? It looks like it's an older article examining the state of Korean literature specifically about acupuncture. Granted, it looks like it's mainly lower level evidence (e.g., case reports, series, uncontrolled/suboptimally controlled studies, etc, which still have some value (case reports can be a helpful type of evidence)) but it doesn't necessarily speak to the original question of whether medical literature from Korea suffers from similar questions about its overall integrity when compared to that of China. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TylerDurden8823: I've seen comparisons between Chinese and Korean science wrt acupuncture in numerous places. Off the top of my head, this is one example that actually goes into some detail about what the specific problems with Korean studies are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- (belated, but FWIW) MPants' comment above that WP:RECENTISM precludes the use of recent literature reviews is fundamentally wrong. WP:MEDRS applies, not RECENTISM: the latter says not to give undue weight to breaking news. It doesn't say "don't use up-to-date science". Just saying. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 09:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- New scientific publications that have not had a chance to be commented on or replicated by other scientists are not "up-to-date science". You seem to have no idea how science achieves its results and how it avoids coming to wrong conclusions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Hob Gadling: The pertinent phrase = "recent literature reviews." Sec sources not primary ones. (see WP:MEDDATE) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 11:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Secondary sources are not magically immune to mistakes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Come on Hob, you cannot expect a True Believer to understand Science. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Hob Gadling: MEDDATE >> RECENTISM for sci reviews (in fact, applying RECENTISM is so far afield it's "not even wrong"). Ask at WT:MED if in doubt about this. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 12:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop pinging me. I have a watchlist.
- It is not my job to do and ask people. I do not want to put stuff in the article. And there are enough medicine experts here already. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Secondary sources are not magically immune to mistakes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Hob Gadling: The pertinent phrase = "recent literature reviews." Sec sources not primary ones. (see WP:MEDDATE) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 11:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- New scientific publications that have not had a chance to be commented on or replicated by other scientists are not "up-to-date science". You seem to have no idea how science achieves its results and how it avoids coming to wrong conclusions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- MPants at work, I'm curious to know where you heard this about Korean studies. Do you have a link to this information? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source to support your clearly extraordinary claim that "the mainstream view is that acupuncture is not effective"? Without such a source any claim that "by definition, sources that support the efficacy of acupuncture have fringe conclusions" is clearly untenable. Dismissing the article as being by "unremarkable researchers" is of course an ad hominem that has no bearing on whether or to what extent the conclusions of the article are valid. Notably, you failed to address the point I made regarding the fact that WP:MEDRS (specifically the section WP:MEDDATE) recommends that recent literature reviews be included, meaning the complaint about this article not having had enough time to get a lot of citations is invalid: that it was published recently is a strength, not a weakness. In addition, their statement that more research is needed appears to be with reference not to acupuncture's effectiveness in general, or with respect to chronic pain, but rather with respect to its use "an adjunct or alternative to opioids, and in perioperative settings" (as shown in the quote you yourself cited above). That two of the three authors are of Asian descent seems of little to no relevance to the credibility of the article's conclusions--I am aware of the issue of almost all Chinese studies producing positive results, but none of the authors have any affiliations in China. So I am, in general, skeptical of the argument that this should be excluded. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
We should evaluate sources based on their quality not their conclusions. Re mainstream: NICE guidelines recommend acupuncture for chronic tension-type headaches and migraines [2]. Harrison's (2015 pdf) recommends it for several conditions including dysmennorhea, knee OA and chronic flank, back, or abdominal pain due to renal enlargement in ADPKD. NICE and Harrison's are as mainstream as it gets last I checked. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 09:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear i do get that for most other conditions there's "evidence of no efficacy" or "no evidence of efficacy", and caveats re possible false positives, etc etc. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC) (revised 11:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC))
- And if you look at the history of NICE guidance on acupuncture, the recommendations are being crossed off one by one. Example: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-publishes-updated-advice-on-treating-low-back-pain Guy (Help!) 13:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. Unlike the acupuncturists themselves, at least NICE is slowly recognizing and resolving its green-jelly-bean problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG: Yes, that is the overall trend for the evidence base. Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, how would you handle what NICE and Harrison's say now, as opposed to what they'll probably say in the future? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- We ignore it, because there is good reason to think that sources like this are merely behind the trajectory. They are the equivalent of the few sources that continued to publish Heartland-funded industry driven climate change denialism after the publication of Merchants of Doubt. Quackademic medicine is a large and well funded enterprise, but the ability of acupuncture to manipulate nonexistent qi along nonexistent meridians, cherished though it is by the integrative medicine cargo cult, is no longer a matter of serious scientific inquiry, only of marketing studies by true believers. All these continued studies do is prove how hard it is to properly double blind an invasive procedure. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG: Harrison's and NICE are the equivalent of climate change deniers?!? Now there's a fringe view! Acu, like anything else on WP, is to be depicted according to what properly weighted (MED)RS say. Not according to the pejoratives other (lesser!) sources (let alone editors!) fling at such MEDRS. Or what other sources/editors predict they'll say. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, they are the equivalent of the reviews of climate science that noted the positions of climate change deniers before the whole fossil fuel lobby funded fraud was exposed. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Right. An unproven conspiracy to hijack the best MEDRS. Definitely the stuff of mainspace. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 11:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Scarcely unproven. The problems with quackademic medicine are well documented. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- So there is a source weighty enough to balance (let alone justify excluding) NICE? Let's see it. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Have you noticed how NICE recommendations for acupuncture are dropping one by one? Guy (Help!) 00:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, Guy's comment on the trend, an excellent MEDRS (/sarcasm). FWIW & IIRC, they had a couple a decade-ish ago, then they added a couple (I think following Vickers), then they removed one (the most recent one, for low back pain). Even if/though you're right about the overall trend and its implications, "citation needed". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Have you noticed how NICE recommendations for acupuncture are dropping one by one? Guy (Help!) 00:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- So there is a source weighty enough to balance (let alone justify excluding) NICE? Let's see it. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Scarcely unproven. The problems with quackademic medicine are well documented. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Right. An unproven conspiracy to hijack the best MEDRS. Definitely the stuff of mainspace. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 11:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, they are the equivalent of the reviews of climate science that noted the positions of climate change deniers before the whole fossil fuel lobby funded fraud was exposed. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG: Harrison's and NICE are the equivalent of climate change deniers?!? Now there's a fringe view! Acu, like anything else on WP, is to be depicted according to what properly weighted (MED)RS say. Not according to the pejoratives other (lesser!) sources (let alone editors!) fling at such MEDRS. Or what other sources/editors predict they'll say. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- We ignore it, because there is good reason to think that sources like this are merely behind the trajectory. They are the equivalent of the few sources that continued to publish Heartland-funded industry driven climate change denialism after the publication of Merchants of Doubt. Quackademic medicine is a large and well funded enterprise, but the ability of acupuncture to manipulate nonexistent qi along nonexistent meridians, cherished though it is by the integrative medicine cargo cult, is no longer a matter of serious scientific inquiry, only of marketing studies by true believers. All these continued studies do is prove how hard it is to properly double blind an invasive procedure. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- And if you look at the history of NICE guidance on acupuncture, the recommendations are being crossed off one by one. Example: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-publishes-updated-advice-on-treating-low-back-pain Guy (Help!) 13:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Author affiliation: "Acupuncture Meridian Science Research Center, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul". That ends the conversation. Korean acupuncture studies are as biased as Chinese ones. Everyone is familiar with the acupuncture anaesthesia hoax, I hope? Guy (Help!) 13:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ends which conversation exactly? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- An unfounded derogatory assertion aimed at the author of a paper is not a valid critique of a source. I agree with Middle 8. Both NICE and Harrisons currently recommend acupuncture. They are reliable sources. Let's avoid crystal ball gazing and cite what they say now instead of wondering what they might say in the future. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nope. "Acupuncture meridian science" is an oxymoron. Acupuncture meridians don't exist, so any centre set up to study them is, by definition, actually part of the pseudoscience industry of SCAM promotion. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- @ Guy Another red herring. The point is what the NICE guidelines say, and they're cited on NHS website on multiple pages. Here's another (scroll to section Uses of acupuncture). WP:MEDSCI mentions NICE specifically as MEDRS. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 08:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not quite. We know that NICE lags behind the science, and always has. It took NICE a long time to finally remove all support for homeopathy. But we can see that the NICE recommendations for acupuncture are being removed one by one. The trajectory is firmly towards the reality-based view that acupuncture is nonsense and against the usually crappy industry-funded, practitioner-run studies which support its use. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe they will go that way in the future, but we have to go with what they say now. Otherwise we are crystal ball gazing and that's magic not science. You don't want to advocate for magic do you?Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG|Guy No, the way to handle NICE is to cite it along with whatever MEDRS make the point about the trend. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 14:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Which is what we do. NICE is in conflict with the determination in MEDRS complaint scientific sources that acupuncture is bollocks, so we don't confuse the reader by giving undue weight to the ever-reducing set of NICE guidelines that conflict with reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Actually what we do when there are contradictory sources is cite both of them and say what each one says. They are both based in reality, you just don't want to cite the bits you have decided are bogus. Your opinion is not more important than sources. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Guy wrote above:
Which is what we do.
-- Um no, citing NICE is not the same as not citing NICE.[3] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Which is what we do. NICE is in conflict with the determination in MEDRS complaint scientific sources that acupuncture is bollocks, so we don't confuse the reader by giving undue weight to the ever-reducing set of NICE guidelines that conflict with reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not quite. We know that NICE lags behind the science, and always has. It took NICE a long time to finally remove all support for homeopathy. But we can see that the NICE recommendations for acupuncture are being removed one by one. The trajectory is firmly towards the reality-based view that acupuncture is nonsense and against the usually crappy industry-funded, practitioner-run studies which support its use. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @ Guy Another red herring. The point is what the NICE guidelines say, and they're cited on NHS website on multiple pages. Here's another (scroll to section Uses of acupuncture). WP:MEDSCI mentions NICE specifically as MEDRS. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 08:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nope. "Acupuncture meridian science" is an oxymoron. Acupuncture meridians don't exist, so any centre set up to study them is, by definition, actually part of the pseudoscience industry of SCAM promotion. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
List Article
There is a pretty ugly area in the middle of the article that seems is ripe to be made into a list. Is there any reason a list article couldn't be made for other condition without strong evidence and then linked here. Or even better just remove the list of uselessness. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- From the context, I guess you mean Acupuncture#Other conditions. What is ugly about it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe ugly was the wrong word. It seems odd to take up so much screen space saying that there is no evidence for effectiveness for this long list of randomness. It seems that this could be handled either with a sentence saying many conditions show no effectiveness or if necessary a list article of what has not been effective. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- However, the information is of encyclopedic value. For one thing, it is possible to search the article for an item of interest and it may be found in this list, along with a reliable source. That is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- It also gives the reader a good picture of how well-researched this field is, how devastating the results are, and how many false-positive statistically significant results are to be expected (one for every nineteen insignificant ones). --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- However, the information is of encyclopedic value. For one thing, it is possible to search the article for an item of interest and it may be found in this list, along with a reliable source. That is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe ugly was the wrong word. It seems odd to take up so much screen space saying that there is no evidence for effectiveness for this long list of randomness. It seems that this could be handled either with a sentence saying many conditions show no effectiveness or if necessary a list article of what has not been effective. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that a list of things a given treatment is not useful for is a waste of space. If you want to keep this list, I ask you if you would support the inclusion of a huge list of the conditions that aspirin is not good for on the aspirin page? Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Regardless of that, if aspririn had as many attempts by its proponents to prove it could do stuff beyond its actual usefulness as acupuncture had, I for one would be interested in such a section.
- Journals have often refused unsuccessful studies because they regarded them as a "waste of space", leading to distortion of scientific literature (file drawer effect). You are probably not aware that this is a problem and that, in order to improve the quality of research, there are attempts to prevent that by pre-registration of studies. We should not counteract such attempts by falling back into habits now known to be error-prone and thoughtlessly and naively omitting to report those few negative results here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Cochrane Collaboration Studies - sources feature prominently in Independent article questioning practices
Stumbled upon this article about Cochrane Collaboration studies (the sources cited in this article that suggest acupuncture is a psuedoscience). This Independent article from Sept. 2018 centers on the institute and it's practices, specifically a co-founder who's been expelled from the board by his colleagues. The questionable practices that led to his expulsion seem to have some bearing on the way said studies were conducted. From the article "Greenhalgh, a leading research methodologist, has criticised the Cochrane 'hierarchy of evidence', which places experimental trials above any other study design, and affords limited value to qualitative research. She urges a more inclusive approach to evidence-based practice: 'Facts are not self-interpreting; they are theory and value-laden.' " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgnora (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is just a weak attempt at Poisoning the well. Internal differences of opinion do not invalidate the status of the Cochrane Collaboration as a reliable source. To do that, much worse things are needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Omgnora and Hob Gadling: Apart from Hob's unwarranted casting of aspersions on your intentions in mentioning this entirely pertinent information, I do agree with them that the present perturbations internal to the Cochrane review process are not sufficient for us to cast aside all Cochrane reviews. You might consider adding this information to the Cochrane (organisation) page as it would be entirely relevant there. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Removal of cited information
@AlmostFrancis and Johnuniq: Your removal of this cited information is erroneous. The Joint Commission page says:
"Additionally, it is important to have non-pharmacologic pain treatment modalities available for patients that refuse opioids or for whom physicians believe may benefit from complementary therapies. Non-pharmacologic strategies include, but are not limited to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, physical modalities (i.e.: acupuncture therapy, chiropractic therapy, osteopathic manipulative treatment, massage therapy, and physical therapy) relaxation therapy, music therapy, aromatherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, etc. The level of evidence for these therapies is highly variable, and it is evolving. Therefore, our standards do not mandate that any specific complementary options are provided, but allow organizations to determine what modality(s) to offer.
Please explain how "it is important to have" is not a recommendation of these treatments. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- The edit in question is diff which added (refs converted to links):
- The Joint Commission recommends acupuncture for pain management.[4] The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine recommends acupuncture[5]
- The text quoted above from the first ref does not verify "recommends acupuncture for pain management". They clearly say there is no evidence to justify a recommendation but nevertheless they list ten strategies for patients who refuse opioids or who may benefit from complementary therapies. Try WP:RSN and ask if that source verifies that statement if wanted, but the answer will be no.
- The second statement with its ref is even wilder. The ACOEM pdf is advice for how to use their guidelines which are somewhere else. There are no treatment recommendations in the pdf. Acupuncture is mentioned in the context of informing readers that treatment recommendations are made in various categories one of which is "Allied Health Interventions (e.g., acupuncture, manipulation)".
- Did you read the sources before adding the text? Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agree we can't use the second (ACOEM) without the actual MDGuideline, but we can certainly use the first (Joint Commission) as long we stick close to its language. Bold(ish)ly restoring it with revised wording. (Diff) Edit: it might not be specific enough to acu to warrant inclusion however.--Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC) | added diff 10:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC) | added cmt 10:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq:You are misrepresenting the source. The joint commission source absolutely does not say that there is no evidence, it says the evidence is "variable and evolving", which is an entirely different thing. If a patient can't tolerate one treatment another is offered. A strategy of a different treatment option is still a recommendation, especially when it says "it is important to have". Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- What I actually said is "no evidence to justify a recommendation". Reading the Joint Commission's brief statement shows that is obviously correct. The unstated background is that some patients should not rely on a pharmacologic pain treatment because of various potential problems, and doing anything the patient hopes might alleviate their condition could be better. Using their statement to write "recommends acupuncture for pain management" is completely wrong and failing to acknowledge that is perplexing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you did actually say that they say there is no evidence to justify a recommendation. However that is not what they say. They say the evidence is "variable and evolving". And they say "it is important to have" i.e. a recommendation.Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- What I actually said is "no evidence to justify a recommendation". Reading the Joint Commission's brief statement shows that is obviously correct. The unstated background is that some patients should not rely on a pharmacologic pain treatment because of various potential problems, and doing anything the patient hopes might alleviate their condition could be better. Using their statement to write "recommends acupuncture for pain management" is completely wrong and failing to acknowledge that is perplexing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oooooh, the Joint Commission thinks acupuncture is on a par with aromatherapy. That's... something of a non-endorsement. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Removal of cited information, allegation of COI?
The Joint Commission requires the organizations it accredits to provide complementary, non-pharmacologic pain treatments (e.g. acupuncture) for patients who may benefit from them, such use potentially reducing the need for opioids. The Joint Commission allows organizations to choose which type(s) of complementary treatment to provide — it mandates none in particular because the evidence base for these treatments varies widely and is incomplete. Cited to https://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/jcfaqdetails.aspx?StandardsFaqId=1813&ProgramId=46
@Roxy the dog: why have you removed the abovementioned cited information without a valid reason? You originally justified your reversion by claiming the editor had a COI and suggested a non COI editor should make the edit. I made that edit and you have reverted it with the edit summary "As before". Are you claiming I have a COI? Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- See Johnuniq's reply to you in the section above. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- That reply is not pertinent as it refers to different text. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Neither is a self-sourced statement on the website of a trade body that has clearly been the subject of industry lobbying. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- No true MEDRS says acupuncture is good for anything. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG: You appear to be asserting that this is not a reliable source for this information. Is this the case? Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am asserting that it is a non-neutral interpretation of a primary source. And in related news, I am now willing to bet you will be topic banned in the near future. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can you please be more specific? Which part is not a neutral representation of what the source says? Are you seriously asserting that a source cannot be cited for information about it's own policies? WP:PRIMARYCARE says "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." This source is being used in exactly this way. It is supporting a straightforward statement about the organisation's policy.
- In related news, you have been making false assertions about Middle 8 and I at the COI noticeboard. Fortunately others are on to you and have rectified your false claims. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- The text quoted in the OP has no place in this article because it says nothing about the topic other than that an organization mentioned acupuncture in a list of ten strategies for patients who refuse opioids or who may benefit from complementary therapies. Consider adding the text at an article about the organization or about pain treatment but adding it here would be wildly inappropriate. That is because it is cherry-picked boosterism which conveys a suggestion [that there is a reason to think acupuncture is an effective pain-relief treatment] that is not present in the source. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am asserting that it is a non-neutral interpretation of a primary source. And in related news, I am now willing to bet you will be topic banned in the near future. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Neither is a self-sourced statement on the website of a trade body that has clearly been the subject of industry lobbying. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- That reply is not pertinent as it refers to different text. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. It is a primary source and therefore difficult to tell if the information is due. Acupuncture is only mentioned in an i.e. and not directly addressed. It states the modalities would be complementary not that they are by definition complementary medicine. Switching i.e. to e.g. is source misrepresentation. "Such as" implies that it is an example and not the only benefit mentioned... Basically it is a bad source that is barely about acupuncture that was aggressively misrepresented. AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I aggressively agree with leaving this out; it's not specific enough to acu (note, Morgan Leigh). No, the pipelink to CAM doesn't belong there; my error (added at last minute). If this source is added to some other article, it needs to be clear these are not all CAM's. (Quibbles: It's an expert body's practice recommendation -- isn't it? -- and MEDRS doesn't deem these primary. Re i.e. vs. e.g.: pls see #2 in my reply under subsection "Harrison's".) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC); minor addition 14:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC), revise for clarity 03:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- No the source is an accreditation organization's FAQ on how to meet certain necessary standards for accreditation. Perhaps the reason you are misrepresenting sources is that you are not taking the time to familiarize yourself with what you are using as a source.AlmostFrancis (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, accreditation, no kind of job for experts. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you do not understand the difference between the CDC and the Joint Commission then you are going to have a hard time editing in medical topics. If you do not understand the difference between a standard and a recommendation you are going to have issues editing at all.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, accreditation, no kind of job for experts. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- No the source is an accreditation organization's FAQ on how to meet certain necessary standards for accreditation. Perhaps the reason you are misrepresenting sources is that you are not taking the time to familiarize yourself with what you are using as a source.AlmostFrancis (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I aggressively agree with leaving this out; it's not specific enough to acu (note, Morgan Leigh). No, the pipelink to CAM doesn't belong there; my error (added at last minute). If this source is added to some other article, it needs to be clear these are not all CAM's. (Quibbles: It's an expert body's practice recommendation -- isn't it? -- and MEDRS doesn't deem these primary. Re i.e. vs. e.g.: pls see #2 in my reply under subsection "Harrison's".) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC); minor addition 14:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC), revise for clarity 03:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC - Again
There is an RfC relevant to this topic at - the COI noticeboard Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Harrison's
While no doubt a valued source Harrison's does not need its own section with a specific call out. The information should either be added to the earlier prose when showing value or added to the list when not. Also if you need two or three caveats for a recommendation better to leave it out. AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- "According to Harrison's, acupuncture can be considered a useful adjunctive treatment in PTSD and comorbid depression in war veterans if, despite the lack of evidence, patients find it calming and relaxing". I love how this is taken ad endorsement rather than what it is, a plain statement that it doesn't work. Harrison's can be summarised thus: there's no good evidence of effectiveness. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I see this a lot among homeopathic medicine sellers: The medicine works exactly as well as a placebo but, as is often the case, both the the placebo and the snake oil give better results than no treatment -- so the homeopathic pill pusher makes a big deal about it being more effective than no treatment. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, Harrison's seems to be making the exact same type of argument, doesn't it? Here is the exact wording:
- A number of complementary alternative medicine approaches including acupuncture, mindfulness meditation, yoga, and massage are also being used in PTSD. Although not evidence-based treatments per se, if they facilitate a relaxation response and alleviation of hyperarousal or sleep symptoms, they can be considered useful adjunctive modalities.p.471-e5
- That is obviously not an endorsement of efficacy (which requires evidence from RCT's). What is it then? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC); added page # 17:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's a statement of what people "can" consider. People "can" consider all kinds of things, so I guess it's like a shrug of the shoulders - kind of a nothing burger. I have some additional problems with the addition, as well as the undue aspect noted above. First, Harrison's should not be personified into some kind of speaking entity: it is a collection of monographs that each have authors and these should be cited properly. Harrison's now has a 20th edition so the 2015 is superseded (I don't have access to the newer one yet). Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- "consider" at Wiktionary
- Here it's used in the sense of #3 (as a ditransitive verb), yes? For example "Acupuncture can be considered a pseudoscience" would probably be taken as the source deeming acu a pseudoscience (which is how I would take it). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The context is clear: acu is not evidence based "per se", but "can be considered useful". Donald Trump can consider he pulled off a diplomatic triumph in North Korea. People are irrational. Or it might mean something else. But I think if we're getting to the point where sources need to be tortured for meaning, it's time to move on. (Our pseudoscience sources are very direct about that classification, so I'm not sure if it's helpful to invoke them as though they aren't). Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Who said our PS sources were unclear?
- The point is this is a sig view about using acu clinically. Irrational it may be, but it exists -- one cannot deny acu's clinical scope, e.g. in US academic medical centers, no matter how much one wants to just focus on RCT's -- and Wikipedia is not the place to right that great wrong. Or to dispute the reliability of good sources (see also below, re the revert of good material on tension headache).
- Also, would you mind answering my good-faith question about the grammar, please?--Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The context is clear: acu is not evidence based "per se", but "can be considered useful". Donald Trump can consider he pulled off a diplomatic triumph in North Korea. People are irrational. Or it might mean something else. But I think if we're getting to the point where sources need to be tortured for meaning, it's time to move on. (Our pseudoscience sources are very direct about that classification, so I'm not sure if it's helpful to invoke them as though they aren't). Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- My thought on that quote are three fold. First, once again you are misrepresenting sources. Somehow you translated "alleviation of hyperarousal or sleep symptoms" into calming. Their are a myriad ways in which those concepts do not mesh including their immediacy, amplitude, and scope. Second, once again you took something that was part of a list and only added it to one subject. This is an encyclopedia, if a concept does not even deserve its own structure in a source then probably it does not deserve one here. My third thought is granted a personal one. Please do not use the rather obvious pain of soldiers to further an agenda, it is unseemly.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- (1) Your point is overdone. If you have a better way of paraphrasing the idea for a lay audience, please just suggest it. (2) If Jones says "a number of fruits, including oranges, grapefruits, lemons, and limes, are high in Vitamin C", then in the article on limes we can say that Jones says limes are high in vitamin C. From context, one understands that the source is ascribing the given quality to each item in the list, not (only) to the set of all items taken together. (True both here and above.) (3) Please AGF. I believe the proper target for your concern is the source (which was not cherry-picked; all mentions of acu from Harrison's are cited in the diff). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC); punct. fix 10:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's a statement of what people "can" consider. People "can" consider all kinds of things, so I guess it's like a shrug of the shoulders - kind of a nothing burger. I have some additional problems with the addition, as well as the undue aspect noted above. First, Harrison's should not be personified into some kind of speaking entity: it is a collection of monographs that each have authors and these should be cited properly. Harrison's now has a 20th edition so the 2015 is superseded (I don't have access to the newer one yet). Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, Harrison's seems to be making the exact same type of argument, doesn't it? Here is the exact wording:
- I see this a lot among homeopathic medicine sellers: The medicine works exactly as well as a placebo but, as is often the case, both the the placebo and the snake oil give better results than no treatment -- so the homeopathic pill pusher makes a big deal about it being more effective than no treatment. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Headache
This (ES: Why add older material than what we already cite; also see Talk comments raising conncers about citing an old edition of "Harrison's" like this) was a poor revert. We do not delete the previous edition of a MEDRS while waiting to get hold of the freshest one (2015 vs. 2018 for Harrison's). More importantly, Harrison's conclusion was unique (flat-out no efficacy) relative the Cochrane reviews (2016 and 2012[sic]) (as well as the NICE guidelines, which I'd added earlier, but were also reverted), and is thus valuable. One would almost think I'm not allowed to add MEDRS here. Can't imagine why. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why would we add old material when we cite newer? Especially in a fast-changing field it's important to reflect up-to-date knowledge. This article is already over-stuffed with redundant sourcing, the last thing we need is yet more of that - especially if it seems to be part of some WP:POINTy stunt, as your parting words just above seem to suggest. I don't think we should be citing old editions either - it's possible (probably even) the new edition says the same, but it's best to check: there is no WP:DEADLINE. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, it's not redundant. Read it, compare to Cochrane. And 2015 ≠ "old". Exactly, no deadline, leave MEDRS in till we get the newer one. Would you remove a 2015 Harrison's cite from chiropractic saying it didn't work because the new one might say differently? This isn't how we do things. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it pretty much is. Harrison's says it does not work, in weak language. We have better and more recent sources saying the same thing. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Exact quote -
"There is no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture." p.2594
Weak? Read the Cochrane, it says moderate evidence that acu does work. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Exact quote -
- The chapter Harrison's is out of date since it says wrt headache "There is no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture" - but the later Cochrane review(s) discuss evidence. And for the last time, can we stop citing it as "Harrison's" as though The Book speaks. This is a collection of chapters written by named people and must be cited properly, if we're to cite it at all. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Different sources reach different conclusions all the time -- Harrison's may well have thought weak(ish) evidence to be essentially none. "If we're to cite it at all"? So we add the chapter authors, no reason to remove the cite. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've asked about this at WT:MED --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- "May well have thought" is not really a great basis for proceeding. Once again, let's not go torturing texts to produce readings. To reflect the current state of human knowledge, a systematic review of 2016 which explicitly considers the matter is much better than an older textbook which does not. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Removing a good source with a different conclusion (however they reached it) is also a poor way to go. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, you keep saying that. I disagree: I don't think your edit improved the article, and you haven't convinced me otherwise. It's vital our health content is up-to-date. Anyway, I (at least) should have access to the latest edition before this page gets unlocked so we'll be in a better position then to think about recent sourcing, what it says, and what the current state of human knowledge on this topic is! Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- From WT:MED discussion:
The 20th edition says in chapter 422 under TREATMENT Tension-Type Headache: "For chronic TTH, amitriptyline is the only proven treatment; other tricyclics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and the benzodiazepines have not been shown to be effective. There is no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture." That's the only mention of acupuncture with regard to headache.
— User:Natureium 19:56, 6 January 2019- Unsurprisingly it didn't change (it's not like RCT's aren't converging). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cool - I approve of the newer source. The way to deal with this is to stick chronic tension-type headaches in the big list of things acupuncture is useless for, and leave Cochrane for other types of headache. Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with this is, as noted above, P=0.05. If a hundred conditions exist, a fake treatment will have a positive evidence base for five of them. Given the extensive and growing list of things for which acupuncture definitively doesn't work, and the ever-weakening support for it in the literature for those that remain, it would be a lot simpler to simply note that if has been disproven for most conditions and the remaining evidence is weak, getting weaker, and probably due to bias (see e.g. [6]). Guy (Help!) 23:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @ Guy That being the case, why have you expressed support for the revert in question (read it carefully)? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 04:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)clarify, 04:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with this is, as noted above, P=0.05. If a hundred conditions exist, a fake treatment will have a positive evidence base for five of them. Given the extensive and growing list of things for which acupuncture definitively doesn't work, and the ever-weakening support for it in the literature for those that remain, it would be a lot simpler to simply note that if has been disproven for most conditions and the remaining evidence is weak, getting weaker, and probably due to bias (see e.g. [6]). Guy (Help!) 23:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cool - I approve of the newer source. The way to deal with this is to stick chronic tension-type headaches in the big list of things acupuncture is useless for, and leave Cochrane for other types of headache. Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, you keep saying that. I disagree: I don't think your edit improved the article, and you haven't convinced me otherwise. It's vital our health content is up-to-date. Anyway, I (at least) should have access to the latest edition before this page gets unlocked so we'll be in a better position then to think about recent sourcing, what it says, and what the current state of human knowledge on this topic is! Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Removing a good source with a different conclusion (however they reached it) is also a poor way to go. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- "May well have thought" is not really a great basis for proceeding. Once again, let's not go torturing texts to produce readings. To reflect the current state of human knowledge, a systematic review of 2016 which explicitly considers the matter is much better than an older textbook which does not. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it pretty much is. Harrison's says it does not work, in weak language. We have better and more recent sources saying the same thing. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, it's not redundant. Read it, compare to Cochrane. And 2015 ≠ "old". Exactly, no deadline, leave MEDRS in till we get the newer one. Would you remove a 2015 Harrison's cite from chiropractic saying it didn't work because the new one might say differently? This isn't how we do things. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Full protection
I have fully protected the article for two weeks to prevent any further problematic editing. This will allow discussion to take place without a background of edit-warring on the page itself. Any uncontroversial changes to the article (spelling, grammar etc.) may be requested here by using the template {{Edit fully-protected}}. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good call. The current protected version is the same as the last version before the edit war (21:42, 4 January 2019), so we even avoided m:The Wrong Version... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this version was an obviously untenable deviation from the emerging sci consensus on efficacy.[sarcasm] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- The emerging scientific consensus is that acupuncture is bullshit, as you see by the ever lengthening list of conditions for which it is definitively established to be ineffective. Needless to say the cult responds with more pseudoscience. The experience of homeopathy indicates this will work for maybe a decade. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- ( READ THE DIFF PLEASE ! <== stage whisper ) Which is why I'm gobsmacked you'd support removal of a source saying exactly that. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- The emerging scientific consensus is that acupuncture is bullshit, as you see by the ever lengthening list of conditions for which it is definitively established to be ineffective. Needless to say the cult responds with more pseudoscience. The experience of homeopathy indicates this will work for maybe a decade. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this version was an obviously untenable deviation from the emerging sci consensus on efficacy.[sarcasm] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
We should probably have a see-also link to needle play, which (in its milder forms) is a recreational parallel to acupuncture. -- The Anome (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. I don't think the needle players are making any pseudoscientific or medical claims, or claiming to be a system of medicine that works !! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have a source making the comparison? Otherwise if we are just voting I would go with No. "Needle Play" would be an excellent name for a band though. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Nordic Countries
This content (including all five Nordic countries, though less so in Finland.) from the adoption section does not seem to follow from this source [1] and should probably be removed. The source discussing all types of CAM and only looked at patient with Multiple Sclerosis.
- I'd exclude this - the fact of being used for a thing where it does not work only adds confusion. And an internet survey is scarcely a robust mechanism. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- By that logic we can't use a source about practically any condition. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 12:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes we can if it is a reality-based assessment of efficacy. Remember, we are talking here about something that has no plausible mechanism and which doesn't actually work for the cited condition (or indeed any other). Guy (Help!) 13:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not in the vast majority of CAM we can't. Yet adoption exists and must be studied according to some metric or other. Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 13:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes we can if it is a reality-based assessment of efficacy. Remember, we are talking here about something that has no plausible mechanism and which doesn't actually work for the cited condition (or indeed any other). Guy (Help!) 13:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- As long as we specify it's just MS (and otherwise represent the source properly) I don't believe there's a problem. It's still relevant to CAM adoption even if we don't yet know the fuller picture, condition-wise. (Also, controlling for condition treated can afford more rigorous comparisons across countries. Which is not our goal -- just saying it appears to be a solid piece of research.)
- Discussing multiple CAM's is OK as long as the source breaks down each CAM specifically, as this source does (see e.g. the first sentence in the abstract, and Table 2). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 12:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a problem, because it's the argumentum ad populum. The fact that people use SCAM doesn't make the SCAM legitimate, but is often interpreted as doing so by the lay public, with the eager prompting of SCAM vendors. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC) more, 13:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- The point here is adoption, not legitimacy. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 13:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been adopted by quacks. We have no inkling that it would be legitimate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- The point is that quacks use the circular and fallacious argument that X is popular therefore X must work, therefore we should promote it so it remains popular, and we can continue to claim it works, even though there is no reason to suppose it should work, no plausible mechanism by which it should work, and no good evidence it does work. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't censored. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- The point here is adoption, not legitimacy. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 13:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a problem, because it's the argumentum ad populum. The fact that people use SCAM doesn't make the SCAM legitimate, but is often interpreted as doing so by the lay public, with the eager prompting of SCAM vendors. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC) more, 13:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- ^ Skovgaard L, Nicolajsen PH, Pedersen E, Kant M, Fredrikson S, Verhoef M, Meyrowitsch DW (2012). "Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine among People with Multiple Sclerosis in the Nordic Countries". Autoimmune Diseases. 2012: 841085. doi:10.1155/2012/841085. PMC 3529905. PMID 23304461.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)