| Revision as of 05:32, 29 June 2014 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Safety and weight: Sourced text was replaced with wording not found in the source.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:16, 9 December 2024 edit undoHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,370 edits →Edit request on 3 December 2024 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|acu|brief}} | |||
| {{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=B|subpage=Biology}} | |||
| {{Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience|collapsed=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| {{WikiProject China|class=B |importance=Top }} | |||
| | type = content | |||
| {{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=mid}} | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=High|attention=yes}} | |||
| | text = | |||
| {{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}} | |||
| '''Individuals with a conflict of interest''' (COI), particularly those ] the subject of the article, are '''strongly advised''' not to edit the article. See ]. You may , or ] if the issue is urgent. See also ].}}<!-- end tmbox -->{{#ifeq:NAMESPACE|{{ns:1}}|<!--Category removed here-->}} | |||
| {{WikiProject East Asia|class=B |importance=mid }} | |||
| {{Trolling}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject China|importance=Top }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top|attention=}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} | |||
| {{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid }} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 34 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(20d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Acupuncture/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Acupuncture/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | |||
| {{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot I |age=40 |units=days| | |||
| * ] <small>(Start to May, 2006)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(May 2006 to Feb 2008)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(Feb 2008 to Oct 2009)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(Oct 2009 to Jan 2011)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(February 2011)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(February 2011)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(February 2011 – May 2011)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(June 2011 – October 2011)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(October 2011 – March 2012)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(March 2012 – June 2013)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(July 2013 - December 2013)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(December 2013 - present)</small> | |||
| * ] archive | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| |target=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive index | |
|target=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive index |mask1=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive <#> |mask2=Talk:Acupuncture/Medical acupuncture | ||
| |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= | |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= | ||
| }} | |||
| {{To do}} | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| |small = {{{small|}}} | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| |text = '''There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article.''' If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review ], as well as the ]. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by ], not by majority vote. | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| {{Clear}} | {{Clear}} | ||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024 == | |||
| ==Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers== | |||
| Example at the Efficacy section: | |||
| Although minimally invasive, the puncturing of the ] with acupuncture needles poses problems when designing trials that adequately ] for ].<ref name="pmid17265547"/><ref name="pmid16783282"/> ] is listed as a concern in the reviews of ]s of acupuncture.<ref name = Colquhoun2013/> '''SKEPTIC POV''' | |||
| Since most trials found "sham" acupuncture may be as efficacious as "real" acupuncture, the validity of traditional acupuncture theories including acupuncture point locations has been questioned.<ref name="Moffet 2009"/> Some research results are encouraging but others suggest acupuncture's effects are mainly due to ].<ref name="Ernst2006"/>'''SKEPTIC POV''' | |||
| It remains unclear whether acupuncture reduces pain independent of a psychological impact of the needling ritual.<ref name = Madsen2009/> | |||
| The results of trials researching the ] of acupuncture are variable and inconsistent for any condition.<ref name = Colquhoun2013/>'''SKEPTIC POV''' | |||
| An overview of high-quality ]s suggested that acupuncture is effective for some but not all kinds of pain.<ref name="pmid21359919"/> An overview of ]s found that numerous reviews have shown little convincing evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for reducing pain.<ref name = "Ernst 2011"/>'''SKEPTIC POV''' | |||
| Acupuncture is generally safe when administered using Clean Needle Technique (CNT) but there is a low risk of ], which can be serious<ref name="Xu S"/> including death in rare cases.<ref name="Ernst 2011"/>'''SKEPTIC POV''' | |||
| 5 instances of the skeptic POV dominating the tone, weight 3 references to Ernst, 2 to Colqhoun. These 2 represent the fringe, or outlier POV. If they represented the mainstream, medical POV, then these guys http://www.medicalacupuncture.org wouldn't be around. Where does dry needling, or medical acupuncture fit it? ] (]) 22:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah? Who cares were or not these guys are around "http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/" Whether or not evidence supports acupuncture has nothing to do with whether or not some physicians do acupuncture. Lots of MDs promote stupid stuff and have non evidence based practice. | |||
| ::We should be using the original Cochrane reviews IMO rather than this paper ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Um, no, that's "strong bias towards reality-based researchers". This is medicine and science we're talking about, any claim has to be proven by its proponents and the more extraordinary it is, the stronger the burden of proof. In medicine, appeal to tradition is tantamount to an admission that it's twaddle. Before the 20th Century we knew next to nothing about human physiology, biochemistry or the mechanism of disease. A system based on the idea that an empirically unverifiable life force flows in empirically unverifiable meridians and is subject to imbalances that can be corrected by inserting needles - oh and by the way ancient texts show this was fleams not needles - could only be anywhere close to right by the most amazing happenstance. In reality, of course, we now know that it doesn't matter where you stick the needle, or even whether you stick it in. That's what we find if instead of asking "how do we show that acupuncture works?", we ask "does acupuncture work?". | |||
| : Existence of some kind of trade body does not validate the practice. There are medical homeopaths. That does not make homeopathy any more valid. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: We're not talking about homeopathy which, according to my knowledge has no evidence of effectiveness. Also, we're skipping my main point: overuse of skeptic POV at the efficacy section. We're also dismissing an entire system of healing based on our own Western values as opposed to what the Chinese actually think and do. This is called ]. Regardless of the mechanism, why are we using 5 skeptic papers to dismiss the increasing body of literature that suggests effectiveness for specific conditions, such as this new systematic review which states "there is high-level evidence to support the use of acupuncture for treating major depressive disorder in pregnancy." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24761171. The article, like many other CAM articles over-represents Ernst et al. while watering down (or deleting) sources that suggest otherwise. ] (]) 17:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is a fringe journal written by the trade. Med Acupunct. 2013 Jun;25(3):164-172 is not an independent source on the subject matter. See ]. Cheers. ] (]) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are you asserting a fact, or your personal belief system? Providing a source would be helpful. There is another systematic review that concludes "Our results are consistent with acupuncture significantly lowers blood pressure in patients taking antihypertensive medications. We did not find that acupuncture without antihypertensive medications significantly improves blood pressure in those hypertensive patients." ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24723957). This and other CAM articles at WP, that have a growing evidence-base, seems to be whitewashing or watering down sources that suggest effectiveness or that contradict the Ernst, whom you acknowledge you're in contact with (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AChiropractic&diff=606080466&oldid=606052541). How are do you explain the fact that it appears that you're acting as a ] for EE? He's directly and personally feeding you with his critical articles offline. Something is definitely awry here. ] (]) 18:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Does Med. Acupunct. have legit peer-review? AIM, it turns out, doesn't, disappointingly: see ]. We have to use good journals, no question. If EBCAM has real peer review, great, let's use it. I'm just real cautious after the AIM experience (good on jps to catch that). --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 19:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| (e/c) Some thoughts, and forgive me for talking a bit about the subject rather than the article: | |||
| {{cot|a bit long; collapsed for readability}} | |||
| * 1 is true; study design is confounded by acu being a procedure. I thought that this was something both skeptics and proponents agreed upon (albeit with proponents saying acu is so complex that study design is highly confounded, and the plethora of (-) results are really false negatives aka Type 2 errors). (btw doesn't matter who said it if it's true) | |||
| * 2 is certainly true in the literature that MEDRS considers optimum, even though some proponents feel that the false negative caveat mentioned above has been neglected. Note: IMO, it hasn't been neglected as much as proponents say it has. Not when multiple studies show that nonpenetrating needles, or toothpicks etc., function as well as real needles at acupoints. Not when multiple studies show that penetrating needles at nonacupoints (another kind of sham acu) function as well as penetrating needles at acupoints. Granted, there is potential for Type 2 errors when such studies are carried out using naive practitioners who don't know how to needle properly (a concession has been made in order to blind the practitioner). But there have also been studies of this type (penetrating needles at both acupoints and nonacupoints) using trained practitioners (who insert & manipulate needles properly) -- and blinded evaluators -- THAT ALSO SHOW EQUIVALENCE OF THE TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS. GERAC was such a study. This is strong evidence that the verum acupoints studied are not uniquely active. Note also that in such studies, any unblinding would tend to create '''false positives''' aka Type 1 errors. And there have also been studies where ''practitioners'', remarkably, have been blinded through use of ingenious sham needles (note that this just wouldn't work with some practitioners who manipulate needles a lot in order to break up trigger points). Such studies ''also'' have shown equivalence between treatment and control groups. Note again that unblinding (of either the patient or practitioner) would tend to lead to Type 1 errors, not Type 2 errors. | |||
| * 3 is true also -- see Cochrane reviews -- and no wonder, given #2 above. It's even true for studies on pain. Now, I would like to see a treatment group comparing real trigger-point release and a control group using some sort of other technique that's equally "noxious" or intense but nonspecific -- say a nice strong "reflexology" session (a nice, twinge-y foot massage, just for good measure avoiding the regions of the foot that are supposed to be reflex areas (per both TCM and Western relexology) for whatever area is being treated with the acupuncture. And then add in *another* treatment group with *both* the acu trigger-point release AND the reflexology. That would tell me something, assuming the control group were really inert. That would help me figure out whether the efficacy for pain seen in the Vickers review is due to verum acupuncture working, or an accumulated bunch of the Type 1, unblinding errors mentioned above. It would also be nice to see a meta-analysis that separated out the results of the sham studies that are prone to the Type 2 and the Type 1 errors, respectively. Bottom line -- still a margin of plausibility for acu working for pain, but the margin has undeniably been growing slimmer over time. Note -- my bias, from my style of treatment which is similar to {{U|DVMt}}'s, is that trigger point release is real, and even some skeptic types like Brangifer have, in the past, spoken positively of trigger point release. But it ''still'' can and should be studied, and if it doesn't hold up, well, what then? | |||
| * 4 probably shows a need for the text to be rewritten, using the most up-to-date reviews, and accomodating all their conclusions. Still, both sentences are pretty much true summaries of the literature. | |||
| * 5 is true but gives too much weight to DEATH in one sentence. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| Just my thoughts FWIW. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 18:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I will tell you why the skeptical viewpoint is favored by default in science: ]. ] (]) 01:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: The skeptical viewpoint shouldn't be confused with dogmatic or cynical viewpoint. Misplaced Pages is littered with dogmatic skeptics and cynics which is why these holistic/CAM/traditional/alt-med pages never get past the fundamental issue: what SPECIFIC aspect of practice is considered FRINGE and what specific area of practice is considered MAINSTREAM? The whole thing is bogus nor pseudoscience. That term is loosely thrown and broad here and it does wikipedia a great disservice. It leaves the narrative polarized as though there is no middle ground. Dominance is given to skeptic researchers whose weight is thrown around in a false context. Physiotherapists are lobbying hard in the US to get 'dry needling' rights which is to stick needles in the human body for therapeutic benefit. We need to separate fact from fiction, Western vs. Eastern approaches and present all the reviews as they are, without attempts to delete reviews that are supportive of acupuncture for 'x' diagnosis. Perhaps we should get an ArbCom to review this and chiropractic since the same principles and players are at play. ] (]) 03:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <s>To begin to work towards neutrality on this article, the introductory paragraphs should be as neutral as possible. I have attempted to make edits in this spirit and have been reverted by multiple by tag-team editors gaming the system, attempting to have me stumble into a three reverts first. I don't see how we can have a true encyclopedia-worthy article with edits such as these. I, therefore propose the following: a completely neutral, matter of fact description of what acupuncture is in the introductory paragraph. Then, creating a criticism section down the article where those who feel passionately that acupuncture is pseudoscientific can have their voices heard. Once we create that section, then perhaps we can positively work towards neutrality in the rest of the article and hope to have the neutral POV tag removed. ] (]) 22:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sock comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :You may want to read ]: skepticism is by default ''the'' scientific position, adopted professionally by all scientists worth their salt. So, accusing us of skeptic bias means accusing us of ], which is pretty germane to a pseudoscience label applied to acupuncture. ] (]) 00:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The official Misplaced Pages stance: ]. ] (]) 00:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| A difficulty is that quality research is being pulled from the site if it is supportive of the efficacy or biomedical basis for acupuncture. I have listed numerous studies from prestigious universities and research groups pertaining to individual aspects of acupuncture and it continues to get pulled from the page. I suggest that the so-called quack watch bias is extreme and unscientific. The vast quantity of quality of research to have evolved within the last 18 months is scientific. Double blinded, randomized studies using placebo controls have demonstrated important effective aspects of acupuncture. Moreover, there have been numerous secondary studies to supplement the primary studies. I would not be surprised if this comment is pulled. I would list the research but too often I have done this only to find it has been removed. I suggest a second look at the recent science. I am concerned that the skeptic bias on the acupuncture page overlooks modern science. ] (]) 21:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You should take each source to ] and if it stands up to scrutiny there, it should be included. As per the Quackwatch quote I offered on this talk page, TCM is an accumulation of such diverse, bizarre and convoluted viewpoints that one cannot properly do scientific research with its theories. E.g. there has to be some consensus where the acupuncture points are located, otherwise one acupuncturist from town A will say they are in certain place, an acupuncturist from town B will disagree and say there are somewhere else. Till the acupuncture points are identified with certainty there will be no serious research upon acupuncture points possible, since they could be everywhere on the body and if you use a control group to stimulate a not existing acupuncture point, some acupuncturist will say that is a valid acupuncture point, too, so it voids the very definition of controlled experiment. ] (]) 23:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Sources on acupuncture with positive results == | |||
| Greetings! Here are couple of sources dealing with the positive research outcomes with acupuncture that I'd like to suggest to be taken into account in the article: | |||
| # : "''Thirty-one studies were included in this review. The majority of included trials comparing true acupuncture and sham acupuncture showed a trend in favor of acupuncture. The combined response rate in the acupuncture group was significantly higher compared with sham acupuncture either at the early follow-up period (risk ratio : 1.19, 95% confidence interval : 1.08, 1.30) or late follow-up period (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.43). Combined data also showed acupuncture was superior to medication therapy for headache intensity (weighted mean difference: -8.54 mm, 95% CI: -15.52, -1.57), headache frequency (standard mean difference: -0.70, 95% CI: -1.38, -0.02), physical function (weighted mean difference: 4.16, 95% CI: 1.33, 6.98), and response rate (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.17).'' ... ''Needling acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture and medication therapy in improving headache intensity, frequency, and response rate.''" (Sun, Y., Gan, T. J. (2008). Acupuncture for the Management of Chronic Headache: A Systematic Review. Anesth. Analg. 107: 2038-2047) | |||
| # : "'' A short course of traditional acupuncture for persistent non-specific low back pain in primary care confers a modest health benefit for minor extra cost to the NHS compared with usual care. Acupuncture care for low back pain seems to be cost effective in the longer term.''" (Ratcliffe J, Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Brazier J. A randomised controlled trial of acupuncture care for persistent low back pain: cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2006;333:626) | |||
| I suggest that these findings will be included into the article in order to have a more balanced view on the subject. | |||
| Ps. This also intersects with the ] as well, so if you haven't, please take a look at that as well! ;) ] (]) 18:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree, these are excellent MEDRS's. There's also this (h/t {{U|Puhlaa}}): , a medical guideline from the US Dept. of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 02:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] <small>(] • ] • ])</small>, that's just great! It should be definately included in the article. ] (]) 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Disagreed. We have newer sources for ]. | |||
| ::The other source is already in the article. {{cite journal| pmid=23067573 | doi=10.1186/2046-4053-1-46 | pmc=3534620| title=The effectiveness of acupuncture research across components of the trauma spectrum response (tsr): A systematic review of reviews| year=2012| last1=Lee| first1=Courtney| last2=Crawford| first2=Cindy| last3=Wallerstedt| first3=Dawn| last4=York| first4=Alexandra| last5=Duncan| first5=Alaine| last6=Smith| first6=Jennifer| last7=Sprengel| first7=Meredith| last8=Welton| first8=Richard| last9=Jonas| first9=Wayne| journal=Systematic Reviews| volume=1| pages=46|displayauthors=5}} | |||
| ::The cited reviews which we currently use in the article. If there are any missing reviews we should use the reviews directly. ] (]) 03:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree that we should cite individual reviews, but reviews of reviews -- or ], like the VA Evidence Map -- are also considered good MEDRS's. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 18:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you have misunderstood something regarding the publication date of an article. There are currently two articles listed in Acupuncture#Cost-effectiveness, one from 2011 and the other from 2013. The one that I mentioned is from 2012. All of these articles are published by a different set of authors in rather a short period of time, and you can't make a conclusion that those authors who have conducted the latest research would be somehow automatically "the most right". It's typical for human sciences to obtain a large variety of different test results, and that's the reason why a lot of repetition is needed. The latest one available, however, does not signify that it would be somehow more reliable or a better one even. Therefore, it is still very well-grounded to include those two pieces of research in the article. ] (]) 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: However, the usual problem applies: what are the chances of someone studying acupuncture in this way, who is not already convinced of its efficacy and seeking to confirm it? Where will negative results get published? How many journals are looking to carry negative results for things that have no plausible mechanism of action anyway? For subjective symptoms, placebo effects, expectation effects, regression to the mean and so on are particularly strong, so do we see much weaker results of objectively measurable outcomes (yes we do) and what does this indicate about whether the intervention actually works (it weakens the conclusions of studies on subjective outcomes). You have to be really careful with reviews like the VA one. They are very often motivated by political pressure for a treatment that has failed to gain acceptance through the orthodox route of unambiguous good quality evidence. It has taken a long time to show that meridians and acupoints are almost certainly irrelevant, and most of the studies involved in these reviews will not have been able to properly blind for whether the needle is inserted or not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@Guy - Given the numerous results showing little evidence for efficacy, ''somebody'' has to be publishing them, and it's not just Cochrane. You're certainly right about caveats such as blinding and expectation effects, but it's up to reviewers to account for these, right? On the VA source, IIRC it doesn't deviate hugely from other reviews, and one wouldn't expect unanimity. Author bias is possible, but that's speculative; I don't remember any red flags. Seems like yet another meta-analysis. I think it's reasonable to say that if we're going to exclude positively slanted things just because they're positive, then we're not fairly representing the current state of the literature (and I say this as someone who believes that ] and ] shouldn't be taken too far). For example, we saw within the last year both " (Wang et. al.) " and "" (Colquhoun and Novella) editorials in a mainstream journal. (The latter rang truer, but the former didn't really contest a lot of its conclusions.) | |||
| :::::As far as why study it at all, one answer I've seen is that it's highly safe and makes people feel better, so the large placebo effect is actually a plus when added to whatever its nonspecific effects may turn out to be. Yes, that would be really perverse logic if used when evaluating a new drug, but the double standard is apparently justified by acu's known lack of side effects and drug interactions. An example of this view is the editorial introduction to the "pro" and "con" editorials above, and I've heard some doctors, whose patients try it and like it, say similar things. Perverse but pragmatic. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 20:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Publication bias? Yes, that might be true, or then it might be not. We are not here to conduct critical evaluation on such things though in Misplaced Pages. There are analytical tools however to evaluate possible publication bias, such as the ''funnel plot'' etc. It's a very interesting issue still; in an ideal case the scientific community will try to falsify the test results. For example, if opponents of some theory would like to falsify the former results, they would naturally have the incentive to re-run the test setting and publish any negative / statistically insignificant results acquired. When it comes to meta-analyses, of course, it is good for oneself to be aware what studies have been included in the meta-analysis, what have been left out, and why possibly? Anyway, that's a whole different field of research (and a lot of work and data collection!) and we are not here to do that in Misplaced Pages. Interesting subject though. ] (]) 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Publication bias is not an issue with complementary medicine journals, this also occurs in conventional medicine. Also the suggestion that negative reviews would be buried is pure speculation but there is evidence of this with pharmaceutical companies duping the public . The reality is, acupuncture, like chiropractic, is gaining increasingly researched with better designs and there seems to be a pattern emerging and that acupuncture is useful adjunct with specific diagnoses. This does not validate TCM theory, but it does suggest that needles inserted at various points seems to have a beneficial effect. ] (]) 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Guy, not only do I agree with the previous 2 comments, I would also point out that actual scientists, people who do science and whose reputations depend on a truthful explanation of science, would never be so cavalier as to assert that ANYTHING has been absolutely firmly established, ESPECIALLY the absence of phenomena based on an absence of evidence. Even Ernst, who is truly on a mission but nevertheless is a true believer in science, does not make the kind of absolute, religious fundamentalist type conclusions you make about the current scientific lack of evidence for some of the effects of acupuncture and TCM. Your appeal to attack any positive reviews for publication bias is absurd considering there is literally no profit-motive (patents) in the acupuncture profession the way there is in the pharmaceutical industry or even in the realm of surgery. Even with the current natural medicine loving culture we have in the states right now, schools of acupuncture are under pressure to reduce tuition and program length due to debt-to-income ratios. Almost nobody gets wealthy doing acupuncture, so who is driving the publication bias you complain about? Are you at the Vioxx page decrying publication bias? How bout Chantix? Cuz those are truly dangerous areas where money talks louder than science. Acupuncture is simply not such an area. ] (]) 07:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Ah, a nice dose of common sense! Agreed with the comment above. Some editors are trying to substitute their own personal belief system and white-wash the whole profession or modality as pseudoscientific. With almost 21000 hits at Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=acupuncture) is it still really fair to say there is no scientific aspect about the study of using needles to promote positive physiological change? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Proper scientists who do real scientists certainly do say that things have been firmly established. The problem here is that there are two parallel threads of research: one conducted by believers, looking to find evidence of the conditions for which acupuncture might work, and the other conducted by non-believers, looking to test the basis of the claims made for and about acupuncture. If you are determined to seek a mechanism by which it works, then you have to allow the possibility that the mechanism is placebo effects, expectation effects and the like: most publications on the mechanisms of acupuncture quietly ignore this rather important question. When you consider that the supposed meridians and acupoints are different between Chinese and Japanese acupuncture, you can't really carry on ignoring this. To quote one source: | |||
| {{quote|Research on the nature of acupuncture points and meridians is often difficult to evaluate because of the diverse nature of the claims made, incomplete data provided in published studies and the variety of parameters involved in the assessment of these claims. Many of the studies purporting to have identified acupuncture points or meridians come from China; the role of publication bias in Chinese literature needs to be considered in light of the fact that no trial published in China from 1966 through 1995 found a test treatment to be ineffective. Obvious contradictions exist between current acupuncture practice and the historical record, as well as on the “correct” number of points and meridians reported by current practitioners of acupuncture. From an empirical standpoint—discrete structures such as acupuncture points and/or meridians would revolutionize | |||
| the study of anatomy and physiology—no such revolution has occurred. Whatever the clinical efficacy of needling, there is, as yet, no convincing evidence to show that acupuncture points or meridians exist as discrete entities.}} | |||
| That seems pretty neutral to me, albeit not to the taste of acupuncturists. It's also in line with the absence of any credible evidence of anatomy associated with the purported meridians and acupoints. | |||
| We should not feel threatened by this sort of thing. There's no reason to believe that ancient wisdom is anything other than wrong in medical matters, the cases of historical remedies, diagnoses and treatments that turn out to be both valid and only recently unambiguously shown to be so, are few and far between. We worked out salycilic acid and quinine quite early in the development of modern medicine. In practice, it does not seem to matter where you stick the needles and it does not seem to matter if you actually insert them. Neither of these is at all surprising given the source of both ideas. I think the question of the non-existence of meridians and acupoints is settled, with only the believers continuing to plough that furrow. I don't think this is a particularly controversial view, other than with believers. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Who here is discussing about meridians and acupoints? We're talking primarily about systematic reviews of effectiveness. You're conflating theory and practice. You can get good results with a wrong theory. ] (]) 19:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If there are good results regardless of where you insert the needles, then any idiot could randomly insert needles and claim to provide medical care. Wait, there actually was a MythBusters episode on acupuncture which did precisely this and obtained good results. ] (]) 11:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::<blockquote><p>If there are good results regardless of where you insert the needles, then any idiot could randomly insert needles and claim to provide medical care.</p></blockquote> | |||
| :::So this proves that you haven't read the sources I provided, really. If you'll take a look, you will see that the places where they insert the needles have been controlled already. I'd be surprised to find peer-reviewed studies where such a preliminary thing wouldn't be taken into consideration even. | |||
| :::I don't know about the university where you used to study, Theorgescu, but in mine MythBusters weren't a proper source. Your source based on MythBusters, shall I say, '''busted'''! ;) ] (]) 12:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The argument has been made that Chinese and Japanese acupuncture have vastly different acupuncture points. It could be that nowadays that Chinese acupuncture system is pretty unified, but an argument can be made that it was unified by fiat, namely that Maoist authorities were embarassed by the diversity of Chinese acupuncture systems and have politically decided to teach only one version. In fact, it is hard to see that a medical system enshrined in folksy superstition would produce a clearly identifiable system of acupuncture points, i.e. that acupuncture points could be unequivocally identified through evidence-based medical research, instead of relying upon centuries-old writings for identifying them. E.g. a surgeon knows where to find the liver and this knowledge is objective since there are clear criteria for what is a liver and where to find it inside a body. As far as I know, there are no such clear-cut criteria for establishing acupuncture points otherwise than relying upon folklore. And we know that folklore varies vastly among different regions. ] (]) 18:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Interesting. This is mostly just speculation on your part but its worth addressing. Its true that the description of acupuncture point location has evolved, but the actual location of major points probably has not. We still use the cun measurement system, which uses divisions of space between anatomical landmarks. What has changed is that the classical texts did not use modern anatomical terminology to describe the points, while modern textbooks do. This is for the sake of accurate and efficient teaching, not "political fiat". There are not really different points in Japanese acupuncture generally, which mostly is rooted in the Nan Jing, a Han dynasty text. There are, however, multiple sub-styles of acupuncture, from various countries, that use unique points chosen with unique criteria. ] (]) 22:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Cultural Bias == | |||
| <s>I propose modifying the article to rid it of cultural bias. By definitively characterizing acupuncture as pseudoscience while using only select Western studies to back up these claims, it becomes quite problematic. If modern, scientific studies are required for the article, perhaps studies mostly conducted in modern-day China, opposed to US/Europe would be a better solution. ] (]) 19:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sock comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| ::Please read ]. This is how we determine our refs. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>My point is that using only modern, western scientific journals to cite claims made in an article on an ancient Eastern healing modality is biased, both selective bias as well as cultural bias. If a credible US publication made one claim and a credible Chinese publication made another, to avoid cultural bias we would have to use the information from the Chinese publication. And, don' t forget, the WHO has considerable data on acupuncture which should be given more weight than US publications.] (]) 21:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sock comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| ::::It was previously discussed by ] and others. The lede has a "strong bias towards reality-based researchers". See ]. ] (]) 00:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<s>Reality based researchers? Can you please engage in a discussion without using weasel words? ] (]) 01:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :The OP's suggestion sounds like it would actually increase the chance of bias, not reduce it. <code>]]</code> 03:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If OP could be met with anything other than total dismissal, that would be great. ] (]) 03:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Chairman Mao had a dog in this fight: . this explains the Chinese bias. According to ], Misplaced Pages does not give on medical issues equal footage to science and ideology. ] (]) 12:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<s>And Adolf Hitler helped develop commercial sulfa antibiotics. Your point doesn't have anything to do with the OP's argument, which, as I understand it is that there are high quality studies in acupuncture performed in China and that certain claims can't be made when they're in conflict with data from Chinese studies, which should be given stronger weight. Personally, as a person of mixed Asian decent, this article struck me as xenocentric and even a tad bit racist. While I'm sure Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to coddle everyone's feelings at the expense of quality, I think what has been suggested here is quite reasonable. Studies from today's Chinese researchers would probably be set up and conducted with superior understanding. If you have ever had acupuncture done on you, you understand what I'm saying. One acupuncturist might have excellent technique in needle insertion and stimulation, whereas another is painful and gives you horrible results. Acupuncture is an art-form, and since it originates in China, it stands to reason they would recognize this better. Chinese studies would be more likely to have renowned acupuncturists doing the needling, opposed to Western studies, which might not even use trained acupuncturists at all. ] (]) 12:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :::::We base our content on high quality secondary sources published in well respected journals. If there is continued removal of the current high quality sources than a ban or block may be needed. Chinese researchers are more than welcome to publish secondary sources in respected journals. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>Woah there, put your gun back into your holster, nobody's saying we should remove high quality sources. The whole point is that certain claims might be disputed when you have two HQ reliable sources with two different conclusions. If that's the case, then can these claims even be made, when one high quality reliable source doesn't support it and happens to be more high quality (conducted in China) than the other, possibly culturally biased source?] (]) 13:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :I agree with you Ricflairsbutt and Klocek, there is currently a strong bias in the article, and I hope it can be fixed in the future. I don't see any reason why modern-day Chinese articles would be any worse than Western articles. If somebody wants to conduct statistical studies about possible publication bias (China vs. West), university is the right place that and we will be waiting enthusiastically the fruits of such researches here in Misplaced Pages. However, Misplaced Pages is not the right forum to speculate possible publication bias. So far, I think Chinese articles published in respected journals (Chinese or Western) are just equally good with all the other articles. Personally, I can't any Chinese though ;) ] (]) 17:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == A pseudo-systematic review funded by the trade? == | |||
| * {{cite journal |last1=Vickers |first1=AJ |last2=Cronin |first2=AM |last3=Maschino | |||
| |first3=AC |title=Acupuncture for chronic pain: individual patient data meta-analysis | |||
| |journal=JAMA Internal Medicine |volume= 12|issue= Suppl 1 |pages= O9 |year= 2012 |pmid= | |||
| 22965186 |pmc= 3373337 |doi= 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3654 |last4= Lewith |first4= G | |||
| |last5= MacPherson |first5= H |last6= Victor |first6= N |last7= Foster |first7= N |last8= | |||
| Sherman |first8= K |last9= Witt |first9= C|display-authors= 1}} | |||
| Read this: "Funding/Support: The Acupuncture Trialists' Collaboration is funded by | |||
| an R21 (AT004189I from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine | |||
| (NCCAM) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Dr Vickers) and by a grant from the | |||
| Samueli Institute. Dr MacPherson's work has been supported in part by the UK National | |||
| Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research | |||
| scheme (RP-PG-0707-10186). The views expressed in this publication are those of the | |||
| author(s) and not necessarily those of the NCCAM NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of | |||
| Health in England." | |||
| Is this source reliable or is this publication bias? See . ] (]) 00:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Reliable source. You seem to be attempting original research. ] (]) 05:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a secondary source published in a good journal that is pubmed indexed thus see no problems with it use.] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I agree with Doc James. -- ] (]) 17:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I agree with Herbxue, Doc James and Brangifer. ] (]) 17:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Pseudoscience == | |||
| <s>The article calls acupuncture a pseudoscience, but nowhere in wikipedia's guidelines does this seem to be allowed. ] There is no scientific consensus that acupuncture is pseudoscience, therefore, it is classified as a questionable science. ] (]) 12:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :The same way, why call astrology a pseudoscience when there are people aiming to transform astrology into hard, empirical science? ] (]) 12:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If there are high quality reliable sources that say it is a pseudoscience so should we. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>DocJames, Have you read ? It addresses your point. Just because some high quality reliable resources say it's a pseudoscience, doesn't mean the article can claim it. There is no scientific consensus. Hell, even in the article we have conflicting research and meta-analyses. Acupuncture, therefore falls into wikipedia's classification of questionable science, not pseudoscience. ] (]) 13:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| ::::If there are conflicted sources than we say "X state it is pseudoscience, Y describes it as..." ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<s>But that's not what the guidelines on Fringe Theories say to do. It says Misplaced Pages's definition of questionable science, opposed to pseudoscience, is that there are conflicted sources. Therefore, to follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines, it would need to read "Acupuncture is a questionable science, with X saying this, Y saying this".] (]) 13:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :::::: We follow the sources, and they say pseudoscience. -- ] (]) 17:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <s>I understand that one source says pseudoscience, but Misplaced Pages's guidelines state that the very definition of questionable science is that there isn't scientific consensus and therefore, we cannot broadly and definitively characterize something as pseudoscience. Further, one cannot make a broad claim of consensus with one editorial backing it up.] (]) 18:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| ::Exactly - one editorial expressing an opinion is being used to establish a statement of fact. Its bullshit. Doc James has it right, just say "sos and so says its pseudoscience" - then the notable opinion is included and we don't grossly over-simplify an issue that is obviously not cut and dry (seeing as it has been the dominant subject of debate here and at TCM for what seems like an eternity.) ] (]) 21:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{quote|TCM theory and practice are not based upon the body of knowledge related to health, disease, and health care that has been widely accepted by the scientific community. TCM practitioners disagree among themselves about how to diagnose patients and which treatments should go with which diagnoses. Even if they could agree, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care.|Stephen Barrett, M.D.|Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine" }} | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages sees Quackwatch as an authoritative source for such claims, so, again it is a fact that acupuncture and TCM are pseudoscience. ] (]) 21:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|In Taiwan to a quarter of traditional Chinese medicines there were seemingly added standard medicines (which are available on prescription). Among them there were dangerous substances, such as phenytoin (an anti-epileptic), glibenclamide (lowers blood sugar) and corticosteroids.|prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan|Wat is nu gezond? 1st ed., p. 146}} | |||
| ::::Quoted by ] (]) 02:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Yeah, we all know what quack watch says and that SOME people here consider it a reliable source. That misses the point. Your second post doesn't make a lick of fucking sense at all.] (]) 06:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You think any source you disagree with is ? ] (]) 07:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The Katan quote (which I have translated from Dutch) simply says that some TCM medicines are effective because they incorporate allopathic drugs. It says this and that such substances are dangerous when added in tea and herbs, instead of being prescribed by a MD and properly dosed. ] (]) 12:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::An alternative translation is: | |||
| {{quote|In Taiwan a quarter of traditional Chinese medicines were found to apparently incorporate (prescription) drugs. Among them there were dangerous substances, such as phenytoin (an anti-convulsive), glibenclamide (lowers blood sugar) and corticosteroids.|prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan|Wat is nu gezond? 1st ed., p. 146}} | |||
| :::::::::Quoted by ] (]) 16:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Quackwatch as a Source=== | |||
| <s>Stephen Barrett is a de-licensed MD who failed his board exam. On what planet are his words regarding anything medically related considered reliable? ] (]) 20:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sock comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :Wow, since when QuackWatch has been a peer-review journal? ] (]) 04:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Barrett de-licensed is an old canard, it has been debunked over and over. ] (]) 12:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Opening paragraph== | |||
| <s>In an effort to resolve the neutral POV tag, I had made several high quality, well-referenced changes to illustrate other POV's. These high quality edits were reverted wholesale, without any discussion by what appears to be a team of editors. I would like to open discussion to resolving this issue. ] (]) 17:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| : Thanks for not continuing an edit war. That never works. I have left some instructions about edit warring and BRD on your talk page. | |||
| : Discussion of each change is the way to go. You're editing the ], and the lead should always ''follow'' changes to the body. Changes to the body will need to be accepted first, and sometimes that will entail minor tweaks of the lead, but not always. That's why changing the lead is often very controversial, so it's really a bad place to start, especially when you're deleting long-standing content which is based on properly sourced content in the body of the article. | |||
| : Much of your editing looks like special pleading and whitewashing, so be careful. Start here by suggesting an edit, including its source. Then we can work on it. A consensus version has the advantage of being accepted by more editors, who will also protect it. -- ] (]) 17:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I couldn't find anything wrong with the sources you used and indeed, they seem to be of a high quality. I can't see any reason why the edits you made couldn't be remained at the article, but I agree with BullRangifer: maybe you could start from the body of the article first? As long as the source doesn't fail, it is more than welcome to be used in the article. ] (]) 17:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>Thanks for your suggestion and for confirming the sources I used. I'll take your advice and add to the body first. ] (]) 17:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| I agree that some of your sources ''might'' be okay, but when you make so many edits, which also include deleting properly sourced content you don't like, then it's much easier to start all over and take it a bit at a time, using discussion to guide us. -- ] (]) 17:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>The "properly sourced" content I think you're referring to is one editorial from Nature magazine which is supposed to support the claim that "acupuncture is largely considered to be pseudoscience. One editorial cannot support such a broad consensus, especially when, even in this very article, there are contradictory claims. That is why I deleted it. Furthermore, here are the ] regarding the use of the term pseudoscience:</s> | |||
| <s>Pseudoscience: Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (such as Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."</s> | |||
| <s>"Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point."</s> | |||
| <s>Given these guidelines, the term shouldn't be used. Clearly, with many high quality studies, meta analyses and scientific support of acupuncture's efficacy, it should undoubtedly be termed "questionable science" instead of pseudoscience. Anyway, that's the reason for my removing that statement and source. ] (]) 17:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| ::Issues include: 1) use of non pubmed indexed sources 2) use of the journal medical hypotheses that is not a reliable source 3) one of the publications was retracted 4) issues with caps 5) issues with the refs being poorly formatted so that other editors have trouble following them up | |||
| ::Klocek you are at 5 reverts and have a warning on your talk page. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>no, I'm at 2 reverts for the content under discussion, and so are you. ] (]) 18:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| ::::<s>And regarding the issues you cited, 1) we have a non pubmed source in the lead, nature magazine, an editorial at that, as the support for "largely considered pseudoscientific" and yet you reverted my improvement. Clearly, you could care less about pubmed sourcing and only about bullying me. 2) so medical hypothesis isn't reliable. There's plenty of additional citations provided. Perhaps you could edit it out specifically instead of making broad wholesale reverts to my work. 3) again, see 2, 4) and again 5) and again. Perhaps you need to read Misplaced Pages's guidelines on making helpful edits. ] (]) 19:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :::::Just to clarify are you stating that ] agrees with your proposed edit? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Yes, that user made the suggestion of changing the body instead of the lead, and did not object to the sources...same with ] ] (]) 19:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :<s> And I noticed you didn't reply to any of my retorts. It would be nice if you would return the kindness I presented to you and use this talk page for civil debate. ] (]) 19:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sockmaster comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| ::Okay lets wait for BullRangifer's reply. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: While I did mention the primacy of article content before the lead, I also wrote this, as well as clear advice on Klocek's talk page: | |||
| :::* "Start here by suggesting an edit, including its source. Then we can work on it. A consensus version has the advantage of being accepted by more editors, who will also protect it." | |||
| ::: There is nothing in my comments which allows for continued edit warring, so the block for edit warring is entirely proper. Lack of collaboration is part of the problem here. Trying to force one's edits through, against the objections of other editors, never works. It's a common mistake made by newbies. I hope that Klocek learns something from this. One can even be 100% correct, and even have all the RS on one's side, and still get blocked. I'm not implying that's the case here, but telling it like it is. One ''must'' collaborate or one has no success. -- ] (]) 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Brangifer your complaints about this editor's practices sound much more applicable to the editing of Quackguru ] (]) 07:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have a lot of . ] (]) 07:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Um, was my edit summary not clear?] (]) 17:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I did add in-text attribution to the lede. Stop making excuses. ] (]) 17:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Oy, mea culpa. I assumed it was the same block of text we have been arguing about, and didn't realize you had edited it. My apologies.] (]) 17:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There was already enough (characterized) in the lede before your change. The body makes it clear it was ''Nature'': "Nature found TCM to be largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." ] (]) 18:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Well, given that we don't really even have consensus to use the word in the lede at all, it is at least a minimally acceptable compromise to include it, with clarity about it originating in Nature.] (]) 00:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I tried to reorganize this section as bit as it was all over the place and jumped too quickly into criticisms - they should be noted, but not as quickly as the third sentence of a large article. The efficacy/criticisms could still be reworked a bit for flow, but i think this is step in the right direction at least! ] (]) 19:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Original research? == | |||
| This change was . CONCLUSION:There was '''little''' evidence that different characteristics of acupuncture or acupuncturists modified the effect of treatment on pain outcomes. ] (]) 19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : It's not only OR, but actually devious. We follow the sources, and this one said "little". Good catch. -- ] (]) 20:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Sourced text was replaced with ] (]) 15:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Milliongoldcoinpoint claims "" but the text was not in quotation marks.. Here is the source. I could the claim. Did I miss something? ] (]) 17:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==About nature source== | |||
| I check the source from nature which define the TCM as pseudoscience. This source is . Actually this article tries to refute another article which is also from nature . The second one describe some opinion, one of them is to use system biology as a way to assess the usefulness of tcm. I just wonder whether it is good to use one article in nature as the view of nature journal while ignore others which are also from nature. Despite article which is also from nature 448 in 2007, I see another article from journal nature which describe the usefulness (for dementia) of TCM. This article was published in 2010 and stated " Sound therapeutic effects promote more scientists, domestic and abroad, to study extracts from herbal medicines. Today, a great number of compounds from herb extracts have proven to be multi-targeted, low toxicity and potent in alleviating dementia." It seems there are many articles which present different idea in nature . I wonder whether to add all of these sources from nature to keep neutrally. I hope someone can check all of these articles from nature journal . Now I think one editorial in nature is a neutral description in this article but whatever, add the website link for the reference is a good way for reader to follow up the source. | |||
| :: Thank you, you make an important point - does one article constitute the consensus view of Nature on the subject? Does Nature's view constitute the consensus of something larger (the "scientific community", the "medical profession")? Even if it did (hint, it doesn't), would that justify stating the opinion as fact? No. This is a case of cherry picking and blowing one statement way out of proportion leading to a weight problem, and a POV problem. Just state, in the body of the text, "An editorial in Nature labeled TCM pseudoscience" - problem solved. ] (]) 17:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>I thought the sentence needed to be modified slightly because, as you pointed out, Nature magazine hasn't completely come to the conclusion that it's pseudoscience. The article cited actually was, as you said, a rebuttal to another article in Nature that was supportive of acupuncture. ] (]) 20:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)</s> <small>''Sock comments stricken. -- ] (]) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :: I am the user who start this section. My point is to neutrally indicate that“this is one editorial in Nature” because natural magazine has many articles which present different viewpoint.In the first paragraph, I added many articles from nature which have other view. For example, one of this described the effective of TCM for dementia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::I noticed your post, but unfortunately the article you cited was on herbal treatment of dementia. I added an article from Nature on acupuncture which should meet your needs. ] (]) 22:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Extremely== | |||
| Were in the text did this work come from in this edit ? Please provide a direct quote from the text as I do not see it. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Original research again == | |||
| "Thirty-eight acupuncture trials were identified. Most studies (22/38 = 58%) found no statistically significant difference in outcomes, and '''most''' of these (13/22 = 59%) found that sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as true acupuncture, especially when superficial needling was applied to non-points." The recent edit replaced source text with . The source does not claim 58% found that sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as true acupuncture. The "majority of" is the correct explanation. ] (]) 20:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :How would you suggest it read? When you made your edit, it read "The majority of studies" which could imply that the majority of all studies everywhere state that sham equals acupuncture and that's not the case at all. Reading it again, I see the outcomes state that only 13 of the 38 studies found that sham equals acupuncture, so there is no way the word most could be used as far as I can see. ] (]) 21:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we do the math, 13 out of 38 actually equals 34%. If we changed 58% to 34% would that be original research, or should we just state 13 out of 38 instead?] (]) 21:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is not our job to question reliable sources. "The majority of" is sourced per ]. It should read . It is better to summarise the source. I added the specific numbers to the body of the article. ] (]) 21:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is our job to quote sources accurately and not out of context. To say "the majority of studies" without saying that it is the majority of studies within only one review, is misleading. And as a matter of fact it's not even the majority of studies within that one review. They have two sections of statistics, one group and one group within that group. Again, how should it read? I'm more than willing to compromise here, but let's not take what a source says out of context. ] (]) 21:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"'''A systematic review''' found that the majority of "sham" acupuncture..." The text is currently not misleading. | |||
| :::::The text is sourced but you are questioning the source again. To say "the majority of" is accurate according to the source. ] (]) 21:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Well, not to quibble, but now it reads as though that one systematic review stated that the majority of all sham studies equal acupuncture. That's not the case. The majority of the studies they reviewed stated that, not the majority of all studies. Do you think it might read better if we state, "One systematic review found that the majority of the trials in the review stated sham acupuncture..." ?] (]) 22:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :A systematic review found that the majority of "sham" acupuncture may be as efficacious as "real" acupuncture, and, therefore, the validity of traditional acupuncture theories including acupuncture point locations has been questioned. The text is accurate but you are still questioning the source. There is no need to add extra words to question the source. | |||
| :Other sources are summarised the same way in this article. For example: A 2011 Cochrane review found that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether acupuncture is an effective treatment for cancer pain in adults. ] (]) 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I don't want to make a bigger issue out of it than it deserves. We can leave it as you edited for now. I still hold that it's a fairly unique source in that there are two levels of data in the conclusion, and we aren't even accurately representing what the source state but rather making broad sweeping statements about sham studies in general. But I'm curious what other editors have to say. ] (]) 23:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: We should use the actual numbers, and clearly state which review those numbers come from.] (]) 14:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to agree with QuackGuru here, it does not say that 58% of trials found that "sham" acupuncture may be as efficacious as "real" acupuncture. However, it neither says that "the majority of sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as real acupuncture". What the source says is that 58% were '''statistically insignificant'''. Therefore, such conclusion cannot be made (for the obvious lack of statistical significance). | |||
| :When studying further these statistically insignificant studies (22 studies which is the majority, while only 16 could demonstrate statistical significance), however, "sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as true acupuncture". We cannot make a conclusion though that "the majority of sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as real acupuncture". That doesn't override the statistical insignificance. ] (]) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd like to see the more detailed methodology, but in my understanding "most of these (13/22 = 59%) found that sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as true acupuncture" means that in those 13 studies out of 22, sham acupuncture was as efficacious as - or even more efficacious than - true acupunture . Therefore, I'd suggest that let's keep it '''A systematic review found no statistically significant difference between true acupuncture and sham acupuncture...''' etc. etc. ] (]) 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::What about if we quote all the relevant numbers? It could then read, "In a systemic review, 13 of 22 studies found that sham may be..."?] (]) 15:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I would prefer that - give the results clearly, thus not allowing a POV summary statement either way.] (]) 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok I changed it, and this looks perfect now. Thanks for everyone's input!] (]) 18:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I restored it to what it was before will this is discussed. This is not need "13 of 22 studies found that". Additionally we should be paraphrasing instead of using quotes as our text is supposed to be CC BY SA. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::We could shorten to "A systematic review found no difference between true acupuncture and sham acupuncture..." ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree. '''No difference''' doesn't mean that there weren't any difference in the studies at all; what it means is that even though there was difference, it wasn't statistically significant. ] (]) 20:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the lede should be a summary. I reverted the to discuss first. I'm not sure which version is better. The extreme low level details about the numbers do not belong in the lede or the body. ] (]) 20:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I reverted it back to your edit which I found was good. I have no opinion about the lede or body, though. Sometimes I'm just scared that too much information is packed up to the lede, but I don't have a comment on that on this one. ] (]) 21:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I reverted it back to your edit which I found was good. I have no opinion about the lede or body, though. Sometimes I'm just scared that too much information is packed up to the lede, but I don't have a comment on that on this one. ] (]) 21:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I would agree that it's not all that bad now, it's not completely out of context like it originally was. But the source uses the word "may" instead of just the current, definitive "no difference." I believe they might have worded it such to reflect the substantial number of studies that said otherwise. It wasn't 100-0, or even 90-10, it was 13-9. To keep all editors happy, I'm changing it to read, "A systematic review found there may be no difference between true acupuncture and sham acupuncture..."] (]) 21:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You added again. ] (]) 23:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could you please explain how it is OR when the source clearly says, "and most of these (13/22 = 59%) found that sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as true acupuncture, especially when superficial needling was applied to non-points." It says "May be" so I think not saying it is OR. I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree.] (]) 01:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The source does say "that sham acupuncture '''may be''' as efficacious as true acupuncture" but we are not discussing that . We are summarising a different point in the lede. | |||
| :::''A systematic review found that the majority of "sham" acupuncture may be as efficacious as "real" acupuncture, and, therefore, the validity of traditional acupuncture theories including acupuncture point locations has been questioned.'' | |||
| :::If you want to add "may be" to the lede this text is supported by the source. ] (]) 01:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::"''...sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as true acupuncture...'' <- and there was found no statistically significant differences in those studies (n=22). Therefore, one cannot make any conclusion from that. ] (]) 11:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure I'm following you. You said "may be" is in the source. Why do you object to using it in the lede?] (]) 03:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The part "may be" is sourced for the text the majority of "sham" acupuncture "may be" as efficacious as "real" acupuncture. The part there "" no difference between "true" acupuncture and "sham" acupuncture is not supported by the source. These are two separate points. ] (]) 03:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for clarifying. To me, saying "as efficacious" and "no difference" are the exact same thing. I'm curious what others think?] (]) 04:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Popular press peice== | |||
| This is a popular press peice Thus removed. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Does not appear to be pubmed indexed or a review. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This text was supported by a pubmed indexed source ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thought it was a secondary source since the article commented on pubmed cites, but I agree the bar must be higher for this article. There are non pubmed, non review sources everywhere. I removed one above it and think I'll get to work on some more!] (]) 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Careful fellas, there's tons of these kind of sources in here. We need to be clear about what kind of text can be supported by such sources and what cannot. I would recommend identifying the text you feel is unsupported by reliable sources and discussing here. ] (]) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Doctor James, you removed this edit was supported by these two pubmed indexed sources At the top of this page, it says I should assume good faith. I will also assume good faith for this edit I had to correct of yours here ] (]) 01:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Since I added a well sourced article from Nature which was backed up by two pubmed indexed sources, and it was removed, I propose adding it again. Are there any objections to its inclusion?] (]) 13:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why was it removed? What did the edit summary say? -] (]) 13:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello, the edit summary said "trimmed primary source". Doc James removed it, and you can read his reasoning above, and my reasoning below that.] (]) 14:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Well, the Nature article looks ok as a primary source to support clearly-attributed statements. We've been using other articles from the same source, why is it "popular press" now? ] (]) 16:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Since there was support and no objections to it, and since we all agree that Nature is a worthy source, I put it into the article. ] (]) 03:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here is the source . It is not pubmed indexed. It is a "news" article. Not a review article. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree with JMH. Its a news article written by a freelance journalist (do a search on the author's name). This is very different from a peer reviewed review article written by an expert in the field. ] (]) 04:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, it did meet Misplaced Pages's secondary source criteria for medical articles, but if the editors here feel everything needs to be peer reviewed and backed w a pmid,that's fine too, I added another nature source that has a pmid. Thanks for the input. ] (]) 05:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not sure . The source says: "The editor of Nature China reports on his first visit to a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner to find out how this ancient practice is dispensed in the twenty-first century — and to see if anything can be done to relieve his back pain." ] (]) 07:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So far the . ] (]) 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As long as we are not applying a double standard. I have been complaining about articles like the Matuk article being used to say TCM is not concerned with anatomy, or the Slate article being used to say that Mao invented TCM. Those were (wrong, and) of the same or lower level of reliability as this Nature article. Please be careful to not be cherry picking here.] (]) 16:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Mao invented TCM? LOL! What is this, somebody trying to open the gate for conspiracy theories to Misplaced Pages perhaps? =D ] (]) 16:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Original research in the article again == | |||
| Background information from recent misleading edits or replacing source text with OR: '''Milliongoldcoinpoint''' recently made some controversial edits. The . The is OR. This edit added to the lede when the lede . The part is . Sourced text was repeatedly deleted source material but there was a . There is a new account making controversial edits and there is another account that are doing very similar things to this article like adding or to the lede. '''Middle8''' also recently made some controversial edits. ]Do I hear ]? | |||
| The source says: "Serious complications after acupuncture continue to be re-ported. Many are not intrinsic to acupuncture, but caused by mal-practice of acupuncturists. This might explain why surveys of adequately trained therapists failed to yield such complications. Most of the case reports originated from Asia (Tables 2–4), possibly reflecting the fact that, in Asia, acupuncture is more widely practised than elsewhere. Alternatively, it might be due to more Asian therapists being poorly trained." | |||
| The lede says" "Serious adverse effects (including death in rare cases) are known, but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." | |||
| The body says "A 2011 overview of systematic reviews (without language restrictions) found that serious complications following acupuncture have continued to be reported, but not in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." | |||
| There are problems with the changes. For example, the part "but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." and | |||
| "but not in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." seems like original research. | |||
| Was sourced text ? We are going to have to review these recent edits. For example, see this . ] (]) 16:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Just use the actual friggin numbers from the source! Why are we still discussing this? Why are you edit warring AGAIN? Over such a minor issue. Sheesh. ] (]) 19:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : * QuackGuru, please do have the respect to explain why some specific edit(s) is/are OR in your opinion. Otherwise, we can't really be of any assistance. | |||
| : * I find Middle8's edits to improve this article. No complaints about those IMHO. ] (]) 20:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : @ QG, you said that my wording "seems like original research", and you ask if sourced text was used. Have you compared my edits with the source? I used the very same wording, with only minor changes in grammar (for the sake of good prose) that I do not believe affect the meaning. Ernst says that serious complications (serious adverse effects) have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists. That's what the article said too, both before and after my edits, which were meant to clarify and highlight this important aspect of safety. I also followed Xu's wording. No need to ask whether or not I might have, just look it up. And just what do you mean by "the duck test"? Are you accusing me of sock- or meat-puppetry with this article? --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ersnt said "Many are not intrinsic to acupuncture, but caused by mal-practice of acupuncturists. This '''might''' explain why surveys of adequately trained therapists failed to yield such complications. I think you did add OR/misleading text to the article and low level details to the lede. There has been too many recent controversial edits by more than one account on this article. I didn't notice a serious problem with the previous text. ] (]) 06:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That doesn't support your OR claim in any way (let alone your implicit sock accusation). Ernst's quote states as fact that "surveys of adequately trained therapists failed to yield such complications". Also he says that this fact may or may not explain his observation about malpractice, but whether it does or not, it's still a statement of fact in a MEDRS, and there's no OR. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 07:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Serious adverse effects (including death in rare cases) are known..." The wording can be improved. Saying Serious adverse effects are known does not tell the reader anything. Putting text in parentheses (including death in rare cases) is weird in the lede. | |||
| ::::When Ersnt said it ''might explain...'' it that does not mean it is now fact. The do not belong in the lede. Ersnt never said '''but''' the surveys...etc. ] (]) 07:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Again, "might explain" part doesn't affect the truth-value of "surveys of adequately trained therapists failed to yield such complications". The latter is a statement of fact and not misleading. Please move on. As for "Low level detail", that's something you often bring up but it isn't in WP:PAG; please support your argument with something that is. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I still can't find any OR in Middle8's edits, and I have to disagree with QuackGuru here: I think the edits helped to improve the article. ] (]) 10:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There but it was . ] (]) 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Surveys are not a great source of evidence. Thus we should separate these points into two sentence. Not notable enough for the lead. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Oops, yep I realized this after looking at the sources Ernst cites for his statement (papers by himself a/o White). When he said "surveys" he was talking about ''surveys of practitioners'' as opposed to literature surveys of case reports involving adequately-trained acu'ists. thanks for fixing. .... oops, I see there's been an edit war, anyway am going to go back to the correct version. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 04:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It looks like editors followed Middle8's change to the lede (without any rationale explanation). Middle8 previously told me to . This was deleted. The part "" makes absolutely no sense. ] (]) 04:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Time to move on QG. Your objection was vague and unclear, and you were IDHT-ing which is why I said move on. Doc James by contrast identified the problem and was clear and easy to understand. Herbxue has a right to remove his own comment, so why are you bringing it up? | |||
| :::::::::::Roxy, please ].. That said I am now going to IAR and comment on contributors: it's sad the way editors line up over perceived ideologies, especially in the "borderline" areas like acu and chiro that are mixed bags. Whether editors support or oppose an edit, it's not a good idea to take a position reflexively without reading the source. I can tell that Doc James both read and understood the source I used but it's not clear who else did, so, just some food for thought. All that was needed was for somebody to say "can someone post an excerpt of the original" and we probably would have figured it out without an edit war. /grumbling --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Supporting text== | |||
| This was added "However, another editorial in Nature found the actual practice of TCM to be modernized, well accepted, and scientific". A few issues | |||
| # Where does it state it is an editorial? | |||
| # What quotes from teh article supports the text in question? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I could not verify the . ] (]) 04:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have full text access to Nature and many other publications where I work. And I posted it after having read Misplaced Pages's policy on journal sources that require paid access; namely, that these articles are allowed, but full or partial text is preferred. I could post what the editorial says verbatim, but would I be correct in saying that would violate copyrights? | |||
| ::But for all you naysayers, I will post this critique from sciencebasedmedicine, who criticized Nature and the very editorial I cited, as I won't be back on wikipedia until the weekend, so we can hash out the details then. ] (]) 14:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I got a copy of the editorial, and it's report of a visit to a TCM clinic for back pain. It might be usable to describe what such a visit is like. I don't agree (at all) that it supports the sentence "However, another editorial in Nature found the actual practice of TCM to be modernized, well accepted, and scientific". <small>(aside: I also don't see how it rises to the level of "atrocities against skepticism and science" that Gorski calls it, but then blogs don't get as many readers without a certain level of drama.)</small> --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is everyone sure they are looking at the correct article?? Felix Cheung is the editor of Nature China, and he wrote two separate pieces on TCM, one on getting his experience back pain treated and another on TCM's modernization and scientific merits. The two different PMID's are: 22190085 and 22190091 and the names of the articles are "TCM: Made in China" and "Modern TCM: Enter the Clinic", respectively. ] (]) 15:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are not providing verification for the text. I think it should be removed now. ] (]) 15:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I will remove it, but not because it doesn't support the statement made. I do not wish to set the precedent of materials posted which require full text access to verify the claim. ] (]) 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Safety and weight== | |||
| I've tweaked the wording again re safety in the lede and omitted death from the lede since there are a couple per year worldwide ascording to our sources. Awhile back we reached a consensus that this was too little to mention and undue weight. If editors want to put it back let's figure out a way to make clear what the scale is. Also annotated a review below that found 26 cases (including 14 deaths) of cardiac tamponade: the text neglected to mention that the review was done without language or time limits and thus the sample size is all human-occupied space and time since medical reporting began. We need to be objective; whatever else is going on with acupuncture it's not that dangerous. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree with your the recent changes. You claim you have consensus for your changes where there is none. What you added to the lede is a problem. For example, "(especially in developed countries) and often are due to malpractice. is low level details again. Not sure if the text is accurate and sourced. The source says there are "'''many''' serious adverse events from developed countries, including Australia, Austria, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzer-land, the United Kingdom, and the United States." ] (]) 06:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Many yes, but not most -- well, it's closer than I thought, given the developed countries in Asia; I'm removing that part. Now it says "Serious adverse effects are rare and often are due to malpractice." Consensus -- I'm not claiming any present consensus, just saying that there was an earlier time when we decided not to have death in the lede, and it was because the rate is that low: something some of our current editors may not have realized. I know a lot of things cause more than a couple of deaths per year due to people screwing them up and we don't put that in the lede. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 11:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you don't like the way this article is presented, please do what '''LeadSongDog''' says —] (]) 13:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@Khabbos - Easier way: Edit article, discuss on talk page. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 03:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't understand the objection to "low level details" - the facts in the sources are the only thing we can agree on. At this point I would rather see a flood of raw data (sl. exaggeration) rather than the POV summaries the QG is always cooking up. Its the only way to keep NPOV in alt med subjects.] (]) 15:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The text . "Many are not intrinsic to acupuncture, but caused by malpractice of acupuncturists." does not verify the claim "often". <nowiki><ref name="Adams 2011"/><ref name="Ernst 2011"/><ref>{{cite pmid|24554789}}</ref></nowiki> All these three refs at the end of the sentence do not verify the claim. The part "due to malpractice" does not summarise the body well. ] (]) 06:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it does, when you also look at tables 2-4 in Ernst '11 (ref.5). All cases of infection are preventable with CNT, and all cases of pneumothorax and cardiac tamponade are preventable with proper needling. 34 cases of infection, 21 cases of pneumothorax and 2 cases of cardiac tamponade (without comorbid pneumothorax) = 57 cases of 95 reported. Which I think qualifies as "often". Adams (ref.1) says "Many of the serious AEs might have been caused by substandard practice" but I agree that's too weak and am removing it. I don't know why another editor added , the pregnancy review; I'm removing it also pending discussion. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I revised your most recent edits, and I have to say ''Good work Middle8''! ] (]) 10:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are drawing your own conclusions when the source does not specifically say it was "often". ] (]) 15:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::We're talking about how many SAE's are due to malpractice. Not only is 57 out of 95 "often", it's "more often than not", which is what I'm going to change the text to in a moment. Paraphrasing and using common sense are not only allowed, but encouraged. Remember that one of ] is ], which is basically another way of saying "use common sense". I'm not saying that we need to invoke IAR to justify this edit, because we don't. What I am saying is that this edit is simple common sense, and indeed a very conservative one given IAR. I encourage you to think about IAR and "writing for the enemy" (]) and take them to heart. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 05:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I could not verify the claim "and more often than not are due to malpractice, and therefore preventable with proper training." | |||
| ::::I think the text is misleading. ] (]) 09:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Explained above and in --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 11:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You added original research, plain and simple. ] (]) 11:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, I've explained above why I think it's a reasonable translation (57 out of 95). Again, I think your insistence on the article using the precise and literal wording of the source is rigid and goes against common sense. | |||
| :::::::I've explained my reasoning above, and all you've said is "I could not verify the claim" and "you added OR", which is simply a repetition of your earlier comment "you are drawing your own conclusions". You're not addressing my arguments, but just repeating your position. This is textbook IDHT, not at all helpful in ]. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 11:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| @ {{U|Jmh649}}/Doc James - Re your of a couple of edits -- I'll briefly explain them both and then let you reply. '''''' I explained , referring to the tables in . He says "many" AE's are due to malpractice, and that works out to be at least 57 of the 95 total that he found, (searching internationally) from 2000-2009, which sounds like "more often than not" to me. .... And then '''''' I explained in the ES itself; it obviously follows from the definition of malpractice, and the source specifically makes this connection too (cf. quote in ES). Thanks! Have a great weekend. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 12:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So which text from the paper supports this? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(1) "Many are not intrinsic to acupuncture, but caused by malpractice of acupuncturists" and (2) tables 2-4, from which we learn further that at least 57 of the 95 SAE's were due to malpractice (infection or pneumothorax or cardiac tamponade). Or does WP's dictum "use common sense" preclude doing arithmetic when summarizing sources? :-) --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 05:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The source does ''not'' specifically say it was "often" or say "more often than not". The source says: "Many are not intrinsic to acupuncture, but caused by malpractice of acupuncturists. I changed it from "often" to "many" according to ] policy. | |||
| :::The source does ''not'' specifically say "and therefore preventable with proper training." The source says: "In order to minimize the risk, all acupuncturists should be trained adequately." I added only sourced text to the lede rather than original research. ] (]) 03:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::5 deaths in 10 years is undue weight in the lede; see my comment above (). Additionally, Ernst '11 doesn't say "deaths continue to be reported". --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 05:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"Serious adverse events, including deaths, continue to be reported." The text is sourced and is a summary of the body. ] (]) 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| . ] (]) 05:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Duplication == | |||
| A 2012 meta-analysis conducted by the Acupuncture Trialists' Collaboration found "relatively modest" efficiency of acupuncture (in comparison to sham) for the treatment of four different types of chronic pain, and on that basis concluded it "is more than a placebo" and a reasonable referral option. | |||
| A 2012 meta-analysis for chronic pain stated that significant differences exist between true and sham acupuncture, indicating that acupuncture is "more than a placebo." | |||
| We should not repeat the , especially when it is disputed. See: "Commenting on this meta-analysis, both Edzard Ernst and David Colquhoun said the results were of negligible clinical significance." ] (]) 17:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :They are in two different sections, with different emphases. Are you saying that the article shouldn't have duplicate citations anywhere, because I see dozens we could trim if that's the case. ] (]) 17:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::A compromise was reached with the wording. IMO the disputed text should not be added to different sections. You did not include: "Both Edzard Ernst and David Colquhoun said the results were of negligible clinical significance." ] (]) 18:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Maybe I'm not just following here, but where is the duplication? ] (]) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The same source is being used twice in different sections for very similar statements. ] (]) 21:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::So...? Can you please present it now here? Just point out which sections and what parts, it'd be enough thanks. ] (]) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I already did show what was the in this thread. The text is already in the ] section but now very similar text was added to . ] (]) 21:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seems reasonable. I same thing is dealt with in more depth at ]. I removed the duplicated part from the article. ] (]) 19:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == No consensus for disputed source == | |||
| that was by ] and others. It was not a German review. It was a review by a Chinese source and the text is not neutrally written. I recommend we go back before the disputed text and original research was added to the article. ] (]) 17:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to say I agree with '''QuackGuru''' here; I'm seeing misleading wording inserted, original research, and poor sourcing. We should return to the version from a few days ago, as suggested. ] (]) 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I checked the edit history again. The only clean version I could find is . ] (]) 17:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No, don't undo the work of several editors on multiple parts of the article just to undo a couple edits you find questionable. Do them one by one. You are doing this because several of us have disagreed with your recent work and you want to sneak around us by undoing everything that has been done. That's edit warring. I have no reason to believe you are doing this in good faith. Undo one questionable edit at a time like everyone else does. ] (]) 17:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There has been numerous questionable edits. Continuing to replace sourced text with OR is a problem. I'm not making the controversial edits or adding to the . On the contrary, you continuing to . You are not helping to fix the problems. See ]. You are and you were the problems. ] (]) 18:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Your diffs don't really make your point (I'm not really sure what your point is). My point is there has been much work done to the article beyond the addition of sources you are complaining about. Going back to an earlier version is destructive and unnecessary. Just challenge the problematic sources one by one.] (]) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You think duplication is ? ] (]) 19:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::What does that diff (about POV tags) have to do with duplicating citations? Are you just randomly linking to make it look like you are making cogent points?] (]) 19:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You without removing the . Part of the problem is that you don't see there is any problem with the current version even after diffs was provided. ] (]) 19:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :QuackGuru, what is your point? I am sorry but I can't find any. Please do have the respect for other editors to explain what you are trying to say with those innumerable diffs you give. | |||
| :So far, I found no problem with the edits, and I think good job has been made. The article has improved again a bit. ] (]) 19:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::But I have with the recent edits. The , , and should be removed. ] (]) 20:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Without fixing the problems the . I did explain about the . The two sources were not MEDRS complaint. ] (]) 20:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your reply QuackGuru. So far, OR, MEDRS and duplication have been mentioned. Now, can you please explain us why do you think a specific edit is OR/MEDRS/duplication in your opinion? Please include the specific edit and your opinion why it falls under one of those categories. Thanks. ] (]) 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The edit summary claims "". But I am . ] (]) 20:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Questioning of Sources == | |||
| On the page, many sources to edits I made have been questioned. Yet these edits are cited by pubmed indexed, peer-reviewed publications, such as Medical Acupuncture. I have counted the number of times an Edzard Ernst review has been cited, which is 28 times individually with many duplications in the article. Is this a problem of weight? Ernst has many reviews on the CAM field, and not once has he had positive findings. Ernst has been criticized many times and published commentaries on his work have have listed many problems, including selection bias, negligence, inconsistencies and inclusion of unverified data. Has the time come to tag everything Ernst claims as well? ] (]) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :For controversial or strong claims the consensus was to be leave out . See comment on 19:36, 10 May 2014: "Does Med. Acupunct. have legit peer-review? AIM, it turns out, doesn't, disappointingly: see ]. We have to use good journals, no question." ] (]) 18:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::OR, FV, MEDRS... a lot of tags have been inserted again over the article. I'd suggest that QuackGuru provides each specific edit, one by one, and tells what he thinks is wrong in there. Mere statements like "FV" doesn't give us any further understanding. Please communicate, explain. ] (]) 19:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::We can start . I . "FV" stands for failed verification. I did explain the problems with the . ] (]) 20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for your answer. Now, can you please explain that why do you find that certain edit as FV? E.g. "In my opinion, it fails verification because..." ] (]) 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It did explain this before. It was not a and the source was disputed. was by ] and others. ] (]) 20:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Instead of giving those diffs (I don't really get your point), could you just please explain? Please try to paraphrase your main points what you are trying to say. I see a lot of diffs you are giving, but I don't really know what you are trying to tell with those. Thanks. ] (]) 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The diffs show there was no consensus to use the Chinese source on Misplaced Pages. There was a long discussion about this at GERAC. The result was no consensus. ] (]) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks, answered my question finally. I won't say yes or no to your earlier discussion at GERAP at this point though. ] (]) 21:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I even tried to add the source to the GERAC page but I was reverted. ] (]) 21:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| QuackGuru, I find it rather interesting you chose to disagree with , opposed to . If you have a problem with what you tagged, you can do me and everyone else the courtesy of explaining each need for a tag. You tagged each source, you should be able to explain each need for a tag. A broad generalization doesn't work when each source is unique. Nor does cherry picking one source to criticize doesn't work when you tagged many sources.] (]) 21:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I already explained about the . See ]. And I already explained about the which is not a review. ] (]) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: is a secondary, opposed to the typical systematic review. It is not a primary source, and therefore is allowed. Some other editors might feel that Medical Acupuncture isn't peer reviewed, and they are entitled to their opinion. But facts are facts, and I invite anyone to show me unequivocal proof that this is not the case. I read the archived discussion and saw no such proof. That's only two, you tagged many more. What is your argument for those, or should their tags be conceded?] (]) 21:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: is not compliant with MEDRS. You are using poor sources to argue against better sourcing. Medical Acupuncture was previously ]. | |||
| :::{{cite journal| title=Acupuncture for depression| journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews| date=17 March 2004| volume=2004| editor1-first=Caroline A|issue=3|pages=CD004046| doi= 10.1002/14651858.CD004046.pub2| url=http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004046.html| editor1-last=Smith|accessdate=2 May 2008| pmid=15846693| last1=Smith| first1=CA| last2=Hay| first2=PP| last3=Smith| first3=Caroline A | archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20080421190430/http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004046.html| archivedate= 21 April 2008}} | |||
| :::We are currently using a Cochrane review for depression. You should not continue to repeatedly add poor sources to argue against MEDRS compliant reviews. ] (]) 21:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Have trimmed this "A 2013 systematic review found high-level evidence to support the use of acupuncture for major depressive disorders in pregnant women. <ref>{{cite pmid|24761171}}</ref> | |||
| In a 2014 secondary analysis, patients with depression and comorbid pain recovered sooner with acupuncture than patients receiving either counselling or usual care. <ref>{{cite pmid|24793257}}</ref>" The ref for the first one has a very low impact factor and the second is a primary source. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The previous discussion resulted in . See ]. ] (]) 22:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::We have a much higher impact factor here ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Acupuncture|answered=yes}} | |||
| The Med. Acupture source . ] (]) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to make some suggestions to the acupuncture page. I do understand it is a contentious topic but believe some added edits and updated references would add better context as the WHO among others is expanding the use of traditonal medicine practices and has added a specific chapter in ICD11 for Traditional Medicine Acupuncture titled TM1 | |||
| {{collapse top|collapse long requested changeset}} | |||
| '''Change X''' - the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.] | |||
| '''to Y''' – . | |||
| :Hi, QuackGuru, it was not the Med Acupuncture source, it was a different source. Further, I did not give my consensus to remove Med Acupuncture as a source. It is a peer reviewed journal and it meets Misplaced Pages's standards. ] (]) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The source you added is from . See (PMID 24781054). The source is not a . ] (]) 02:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| There is a range of acupuncture technological variants that originated in different philosophies, and techniques vary depending on the country in which it is performed. However, it can be divided into two main foundational philosophical applications and approaches; the first being the modern standardized form called eight principles TCM and the second being an older system that is based on the ancient Daoist wuxing, better known as the five elements or phases in the West. Acupuncture is most often used to attempt pain relief, though acupuncturists say that it can also be used for a wide range of other conditions. Acupuncture is generally used only in combination with other forms of treatment. | |||
| == Interesting edit == | |||
| The global acupuncture market was worth US$24.55 billion in 2017. The market was led by Europe with a 32.7% share, followed by Asia-Pacific with a 29.4% share and the Americas with a 25.3% share. It was estimated in 2021 that the industry would reach a market size of US$55 billion by 2023. | |||
| '''Change X''' – ] | |||
| This edit was . I'm going to go read the again. ] (]) 22:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''to Y''' – . Acupuncture is generally safe when done by appropriately trained practitioners using clean needle technique and single-use needles. When properly delivered, it has a low rate of mostly minor adverse effects. When accidents and infections do occur, they are associated with neglect on the part of the practitioner, particularly in the application of sterile techniques. A review conducted in 2013 stated that reports of infection transmission increased significantly in the preceding decade. The most frequently reported adverse events were pneumothorax and infections. Since serious adverse events continue to be reported, it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently to reduce the risk. | |||
| '''Change X''' – and many modern practitioners no longer support the existence of life force energy (qi) or meridians, which was a major part of early belief systems.] | |||
| == Sceptic source == | |||
| '''to Y''' - However, modern research substantiates the effectiveness of Acupuncture. Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that acupuncture elicits changes in the brain that correlate with neurological effects. As confirmed by the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic, “Acupuncture affects the limbic and para-limbic networks in the brain and has a deep hemodynamic response, which is influenced by the psychophysical response. Acupuncture also stimulates the nervous system and improves conduction and communication between nerves. This improved functioning of the nervous system stimulates neurotransmitter actions and the release of the body’s natural endorphins and other opioids. For example, serotonin may be released following acupuncture, therefore helping patients feel more relaxed and sustain a sense of well-being that lasts for hours thereafter, if not longer. Research has also shown acupuncture’s ability in relieving myofascial pain by releasing muscular trigger points with ensuing concomitant anti-inflammatory effects.” | |||
| The ] resulting in . I believe the is User:Klocek was . ] (]) 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Acupuncture is believed to have originated around 100 BC in China, around the time The Inner Classic of Huang Di (Huangdi Neijing) was published, though some experts suggest it could have been practiced earlier. Over time, conflicting claims and belief systems emerged about the effect of lunar, celestial and earthly cycles, yin and yang energies, and a body's "rhythm" on the effectiveness of treatment. Acupuncture fluctuated in popularity in China due to changes in the country's political leadership and the preferential use of rationalism or scientific medicine. Acupuncture spread first to Korea in the 6th century AD, then to Japan through medical missionaries, and then to Europe, beginning with France. In the 20th century, as it spread to the United States and Western countries, spiritual elements of acupuncture that conflicted with scientific knowledge were sometimes abandoned in favor of simply tapping needles into acupuncture points. | |||
| '''Add Y''' – . | |||
| == Another source from Nature == | |||
| '''Add Y''' – | |||
| I . For such claims we would need a review. I thought this source was previously deleted. See ]. ] (]) 00:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi QuackGuru, I updated the nature source, fixing the doi and pmid. Just thought you'd like the know. ] (]) 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I fixed the ref but it was a . ] (]) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Change X:''' | |||
| == Sham acupuncture in Germany but not acupuncture in general == | |||
| [Clinical practice | |||
| Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. ] to | |||
| '''to Y:''' | |||
| The recently added text is a ] violation: However, a 2013 German review of sham controlled clinical trials found problems in their conclusions and stated not enough evidence to claim "acupuncture and sham acupuncture have no difference in treatment effect" and "acupuncture is just a placebo effect." | |||
| Clinical Practice | |||
| Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. Practitioners who practice Acupuncture are trained and take didactical coursework and clinical practice in their education; and, pass the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) board exams, or a state-specific licensing exam in California. The Acupuncture training program includes techniques such as cupping, gua sha tui na, moxibustion, herbal medicine, lifestyle and nutrition based on Traditional Medicine principles. | |||
| There is current research supporting that acupuncture has efficacy with pain management being the most well-known application. Conceptually, it is believed to stimulate the body's meridians, or energy-carrying channels, in an attempt to correct imbalances and to restore health. These benefits are thought to be derived from the proximity of acupoints with nerves through intracellular calcium ions. This lesson outlines a brief history of acupuncture and how it may be used to treat various types of physical and emotional pain and specific conditions, including overactive bladder and psoriasis. Acupuncture has been demonstrated to enhance endogenous opiates, such as dynorphin, endorphin, encephalin, and release corticosteroids, relieving pain and enhancing the healing process. Of particular note is that Acupuncture is now incorporated by highly-acclaimed Western Medicine providers as part of a treatment plan for numerous conditions. The world-renowned Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center endorses the newly updated Society of Integrative Oncology’s recommendations for acupuncture for breast cancer patients with joint pain. . Medical institutions such as the Mayo Clinic, National Cancer Institute, City of Hope, and Cleveland Clinic also integrate Acupuncture into their patients care programs. ] (]) 19:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| :This is a hodgepodge of content ] verbatim from copyrighted sources. It can't be used. ] (]) 20:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, {{tq|Historical records as old as 3,500 years demonstrate the effectiveness of Acupuncture}} is invalid reasoning - ] - not consistent with ], to give just one example. --] (]) 06:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == This article is racist == | |||
| The text claims it was a German review. It was not a German review of sham controlled clinical trials in general. It was a Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine review of sham acupuncture in Germany specifically. The text is not neutrally written and using this source is a WP:WEIGHT violation because it is only about the results from acupuncture in Germany specifically. Also the part "However" is original research. The previous sentence and this sentence are not directly related to each other, anyhow. | |||
| It must be changed. ] (]) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| was previously deleted from GERAC The diffs show there was no consensus to use the J Tradit Chin Med. source on Misplaced Pages. There was a long discussion at the GERAC talk page. The result was no consensus. There was also a previous discussion that resulted in no consensus for the J Tradit Chin Med. source. See ]. I tried to include (along with other sources) but I to use it. ] (]) 17:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Why WP:WEIGHT? Are you suggesting that it's presenting minority views? Even if it happened deal wit German results specifically, it does certainly not mean that it is presenting "minority views". ] (]) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is presenting only the minor view of sham in Germany rather than the broader topic of acupuncture in general. If you want to use the source you would move the source to the ] page rather than include it in this article. This is the wrong article for the source. This article is not about German acupuncture. ] (]) 20:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Opposing ] such as ] and ] does not make me a racist. Why? {{talk quote| If an Indian, American, British, Nigerian or Brazilian scientist makes an empirical claim about the body, they're expected to prove it, and that proof must be replicable. Why should it be different for Chinese scientists?|WLU}} Quoted by ] (]) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes == | |||
| == Edit request on 3 December 2024 == | |||
| This edit from . The outdated source from 1997 says: "<font color="Red">This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes. Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, new knowledge has inevitably accumulated in this subject area in the time since the statement was initially prepared. Thus some of the material is likely to be out of date, and at worst simply wrong. For reliable, current information on this and other health topics, we recommend consulting the National Institutes of Health's MedlinePlus"</font color="Red"> ] (]) 20:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It is not “neutral” to immediately dismiss acupuncture as “pseudoscience in the first paragraph and subheading. That is an expression of opinion that fails to take into account years of scientific research on the topic accepted by the US NIH and other major health organizations. I recommend that the current “pseudoscience” sentence be supplanted by a sentence stating “The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) states “there’s evidence that acupuncture may have effects on the nervous system, effects on other body tissues, and nonspecific (placebo) effects. (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-effectiveness-and-safety) The current “psuedoscience” sentence can be attributed to critics of the field, e.g., “Critics have dismissed the scientific research on the effects of acupuncture and characterized it as psuedoscience” <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Correct me if I'm wrong of course, but translating QG's red text above, the source itself admits it is outdated, as I stated in my edit summary, and has no place on our page. I look forward to Jaya-S reverting himself. -] (]) 22:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Have a look at ], and note that essentially nothing published by the ] - a political department set up to boost alternative medicine, which is /not/ under the supervision of the NIH - is a reliable source. ] (]) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Impact factor== | |||
| ::So cherry-picking articles that prove your point of view is a more objective approach than referring to the US NIH as a reliable source? It would be fair to say that critics of acupuncture ''view'' it as psuedoscience after noting that there is significant scientific research showing a range of benefits, accepted by NIH and the increasing number of insurance companies that provide acupuncture coverage for proven purposes, like pain relief. | |||
| I have trimmed in this edit "A 2014 review found that while acupuncture did not improve the ''in vitro'' ] (IVF) pregnancy rate when performed only at the time of embryo transfer, there was a statistically significant benefit when performed at other, specific, times.<ref>{{Cite pmid | 24854767}}</ref>" as the journal has an impact factor of 1 ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::But it is highly biased to dismiss the entire field in the first sentences rather than providing a more appropriately balanced and nuanced perspective. I thought Misplaced Pages pages were supposed to be, not for people with axes to grind, but instead for the fair presentation of information for readers to make their own judgments. ] (]) 21:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, what you just cited is not 'the US NIH', nor is Acupuncure 'accepted by NIH'. Also, if you're looking for balance, you should know that Misplaced Pages doesn't do that, see ]. ] (]) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::NCCIH is literally on the NIH website, which is literally part of the HHS website. Not a shocker that the Misplaced Pages page on NCCIH shows the same consistent bias against all alternative medicine approaches demonstrated by this site, regardless of actual research or evidence. But I don’t see how you can deny the reality of a sub-organization being part of its parent organization. | |||
| ::::It is not “false balance” to refer to actual health research that has been reviewed and validated by major research organizations like NIH, WHO and others. It is a matter of telling the story fairly and accurately. | |||
| ::::And it’s odd that you all seem to believe that health insurance companies are stupid enough to be increasingly providing coverage for practices that you blithely equate with astrology or Tarot card reading without bothering to review the evidence or let others add it. Sad to see Misplaced Pages promoting biased entries and censorship in this manner. ] (]) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The NCCIH is 'literally' a separate institute which does not answer to the NIH director. That's because it was set up as a personal project by a US Senator who wanted an outfit that would validate the scientifically invalid bee pollen treatments he believed in. You are getting basic facts incorrect here, which is not going to be a basis for changes to this article. Some health insurance companies will cover ], too. That does not mean that homeopathy isn't nonsense. ] (]) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please specify which facts I got wrong. NCCIH is indisputably one of the over two dozen centers and institutes of NIH. (https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/list-institutes-centers). Are you saying that the National Cancer Institute or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases are not part of NIH either and therefore have no validity as sources of information? | |||
| ::::::Also, to say that NCCIH is illegitimate because Sen. Tom Harkin was its original champion does not make any sense. All agencies of the U.S. Government ultimately derive from Congressional legislation and many are the result of particular politicians championing them. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s pet project. Does that make it somehow “political” and therefore illegitimate? ] (]) 02:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I've already explained what you're getting wrong, but here it is one more time: The NCCIH is illegitimate because they publish nonsense. What they accept is not 'accepted by NIH' because the rest of the NIH (especially the NIH director) gets no say in the nonsense they publish. By conflating a fringe body with mainstream medical bodies, you are undermining your argument. If you have to cite the NCCIH for legitimacy, that is a sign to everyone else that what you're doing is promoting pseudoscience. We're now just repeating ourselves, so I imagine I will not comment again unless someone new comes up. Do not interpret my silence as agreement. ] (]) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah, you refused to respond to any of my specific questions or points, so I guess we’re done. Interesting, though, to learn that the National Cancer Institute and all of NIH’s other Centers and Institutes aren’t part of NIH and therefore their work can and should be ignored by Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You don't get it. NCCIH is not unreliable because NIH has no power over it. It is unreliable for other reasons, and it '''does not get to suck reputation from the NIH because NIH has no power over it'''. You tried to copy-and-paste the reliability from NIH to NCCIH, and that was refuted. Other centers and institutes are reliable or unreliable for their own reasons. | |||
| :::::::::Possibly, the NIH itself will lose reliability from 2025 on because it will be ruled by a quackery proponent who forces it to publish dangerous nonsense. --] (]) 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. Claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is a bold non-neutral statement. Misplaced Pages is too biased in this regard and I won't donate a cent to them until they fix this. ] (]) 15:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::]. It's precisely ''for'' reasons of neutrality that Misplaced Pages is obliged to observe that acupuncture is a pseudoscience. ] (]) 16:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:16, 9 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acupuncture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 20 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent. See also community discussion on COI for alt-med practitioners. |
 | Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to make some suggestions to the acupuncture page. I do understand it is a contentious topic but believe some added edits and updated references would add better context as the WHO among others is expanding the use of traditonal medicine practices and has added a specific chapter in ICD11 for Traditional Medicine Acupuncture titled TM1
| collapse long requested changeset |
|---|
|
Change X - the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.] to Y – . There is a range of acupuncture technological variants that originated in different philosophies, and techniques vary depending on the country in which it is performed. However, it can be divided into two main foundational philosophical applications and approaches; the first being the modern standardized form called eight principles TCM and the second being an older system that is based on the ancient Daoist wuxing, better known as the five elements or phases in the West. Acupuncture is most often used to attempt pain relief, though acupuncturists say that it can also be used for a wide range of other conditions. Acupuncture is generally used only in combination with other forms of treatment. The global acupuncture market was worth US$24.55 billion in 2017. The market was led by Europe with a 32.7% share, followed by Asia-Pacific with a 29.4% share and the Americas with a 25.3% share. It was estimated in 2021 that the industry would reach a market size of US$55 billion by 2023. Change X – ] to Y – . Acupuncture is generally safe when done by appropriately trained practitioners using clean needle technique and single-use needles. When properly delivered, it has a low rate of mostly minor adverse effects. When accidents and infections do occur, they are associated with neglect on the part of the practitioner, particularly in the application of sterile techniques. A review conducted in 2013 stated that reports of infection transmission increased significantly in the preceding decade. The most frequently reported adverse events were pneumothorax and infections. Since serious adverse events continue to be reported, it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently to reduce the risk. Change X – and many modern practitioners no longer support the existence of life force energy (qi) or meridians, which was a major part of early belief systems.] to Y - However, modern research substantiates the effectiveness of Acupuncture. Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that acupuncture elicits changes in the brain that correlate with neurological effects. As confirmed by the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic, “Acupuncture affects the limbic and para-limbic networks in the brain and has a deep hemodynamic response, which is influenced by the psychophysical response. Acupuncture also stimulates the nervous system and improves conduction and communication between nerves. This improved functioning of the nervous system stimulates neurotransmitter actions and the release of the body’s natural endorphins and other opioids. For example, serotonin may be released following acupuncture, therefore helping patients feel more relaxed and sustain a sense of well-being that lasts for hours thereafter, if not longer. Research has also shown acupuncture’s ability in relieving myofascial pain by releasing muscular trigger points with ensuing concomitant anti-inflammatory effects.” Acupuncture is believed to have originated around 100 BC in China, around the time The Inner Classic of Huang Di (Huangdi Neijing) was published, though some experts suggest it could have been practiced earlier. Over time, conflicting claims and belief systems emerged about the effect of lunar, celestial and earthly cycles, yin and yang energies, and a body's "rhythm" on the effectiveness of treatment. Acupuncture fluctuated in popularity in China due to changes in the country's political leadership and the preferential use of rationalism or scientific medicine. Acupuncture spread first to Korea in the 6th century AD, then to Japan through medical missionaries, and then to Europe, beginning with France. In the 20th century, as it spread to the United States and Western countries, spiritual elements of acupuncture that conflicted with scientific knowledge were sometimes abandoned in favor of simply tapping needles into acupuncture points. Add Y – . Add Y – Change X: [Clinical practice Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. ] to to Y: Clinical Practice Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. Practitioners who practice Acupuncture are trained and take didactical coursework and clinical practice in their education; and, pass the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) board exams, or a state-specific licensing exam in California. The Acupuncture training program includes techniques such as cupping, gua sha tui na, moxibustion, herbal medicine, lifestyle and nutrition based on Traditional Medicine principles. There is current research supporting that acupuncture has efficacy with pain management being the most well-known application. Conceptually, it is believed to stimulate the body's meridians, or energy-carrying channels, in an attempt to correct imbalances and to restore health. These benefits are thought to be derived from the proximity of acupoints with nerves through intracellular calcium ions. This lesson outlines a brief history of acupuncture and how it may be used to treat various types of physical and emotional pain and specific conditions, including overactive bladder and psoriasis. Acupuncture has been demonstrated to enhance endogenous opiates, such as dynorphin, endorphin, encephalin, and release corticosteroids, relieving pain and enhancing the healing process. Of particular note is that Acupuncture is now incorporated by highly-acclaimed Western Medicine providers as part of a treatment plan for numerous conditions. The world-renowned Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center endorses the newly updated Society of Integrative Oncology’s recommendations for acupuncture for breast cancer patients with joint pain. . Medical institutions such as the Mayo Clinic, National Cancer Institute, City of Hope, and Cleveland Clinic also integrate Acupuncture into their patients care programs. Sam Collins 33 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
- This is a hodgepodge of content copied verbatim from copyrighted sources. It can't be used. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also,
Historical records as old as 3,500 years demonstrate the effectiveness of Acupuncture
is invalid reasoning - argumentum ad antiquitatem - not consistent with WP:MEDRS, to give just one example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also,
This article is racist
It must be changed. 2600:100F:A110:4802:ED55:9578:694F:5135 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Opposing quackery such as acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine does not make me a racist. Why?
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)If an Indian, American, British, Nigerian or Brazilian scientist makes an empirical claim about the body, they're expected to prove it, and that proof must be replicable. Why should it be different for Chinese scientists?
— User:WLU
Edit request on 3 December 2024
It is not “neutral” to immediately dismiss acupuncture as “pseudoscience in the first paragraph and subheading. That is an expression of opinion that fails to take into account years of scientific research on the topic accepted by the US NIH and other major health organizations. I recommend that the current “pseudoscience” sentence be supplanted by a sentence stating “The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) states “there’s evidence that acupuncture may have effects on the nervous system, effects on other body tissues, and nonspecific (placebo) effects. (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-effectiveness-and-safety) The current “psuedoscience” sentence can be attributed to critics of the field, e.g., “Critics have dismissed the scientific research on the effects of acupuncture and characterized it as psuedoscience” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindlerva (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have a look at WP:MEDRS, and note that essentially nothing published by the NCCIH - a political department set up to boost alternative medicine, which is /not/ under the supervision of the NIH - is a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- So cherry-picking articles that prove your point of view is a more objective approach than referring to the US NIH as a reliable source? It would be fair to say that critics of acupuncture view it as psuedoscience after noting that there is significant scientific research showing a range of benefits, accepted by NIH and the increasing number of insurance companies that provide acupuncture coverage for proven purposes, like pain relief.
- But it is highly biased to dismiss the entire field in the first sentences rather than providing a more appropriately balanced and nuanced perspective. I thought Misplaced Pages pages were supposed to be, not for people with axes to grind, but instead for the fair presentation of information for readers to make their own judgments. Kindlerva (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, what you just cited is not 'the US NIH', nor is Acupuncure 'accepted by NIH'. Also, if you're looking for balance, you should know that Misplaced Pages doesn't do that, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- NCCIH is literally on the NIH website, which is literally part of the HHS website. Not a shocker that the Misplaced Pages page on NCCIH shows the same consistent bias against all alternative medicine approaches demonstrated by this site, regardless of actual research or evidence. But I don’t see how you can deny the reality of a sub-organization being part of its parent organization.
- It is not “false balance” to refer to actual health research that has been reviewed and validated by major research organizations like NIH, WHO and others. It is a matter of telling the story fairly and accurately.
- And it’s odd that you all seem to believe that health insurance companies are stupid enough to be increasingly providing coverage for practices that you blithely equate with astrology or Tarot card reading without bothering to review the evidence or let others add it. Sad to see Misplaced Pages promoting biased entries and censorship in this manner. Kindlerva (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The NCCIH is 'literally' a separate institute which does not answer to the NIH director. That's because it was set up as a personal project by a US Senator who wanted an outfit that would validate the scientifically invalid bee pollen treatments he believed in. You are getting basic facts incorrect here, which is not going to be a basis for changes to this article. Some health insurance companies will cover homeopathy, too. That does not mean that homeopathy isn't nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please specify which facts I got wrong. NCCIH is indisputably one of the over two dozen centers and institutes of NIH. (https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/list-institutes-centers). Are you saying that the National Cancer Institute or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases are not part of NIH either and therefore have no validity as sources of information?
- Also, to say that NCCIH is illegitimate because Sen. Tom Harkin was its original champion does not make any sense. All agencies of the U.S. Government ultimately derive from Congressional legislation and many are the result of particular politicians championing them. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s pet project. Does that make it somehow “political” and therefore illegitimate? Kindlerva (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've already explained what you're getting wrong, but here it is one more time: The NCCIH is illegitimate because they publish nonsense. What they accept is not 'accepted by NIH' because the rest of the NIH (especially the NIH director) gets no say in the nonsense they publish. By conflating a fringe body with mainstream medical bodies, you are undermining your argument. If you have to cite the NCCIH for legitimacy, that is a sign to everyone else that what you're doing is promoting pseudoscience. We're now just repeating ourselves, so I imagine I will not comment again unless someone new comes up. Do not interpret my silence as agreement. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, you refused to respond to any of my specific questions or points, so I guess we’re done. Interesting, though, to learn that the National Cancer Institute and all of NIH’s other Centers and Institutes aren’t part of NIH and therefore their work can and should be ignored by Misplaced Pages. Kindlerva (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- You don't get it. NCCIH is not unreliable because NIH has no power over it. It is unreliable for other reasons, and it does not get to suck reputation from the NIH because NIH has no power over it. You tried to copy-and-paste the reliability from NIH to NCCIH, and that was refuted. Other centers and institutes are reliable or unreliable for their own reasons.
- Possibly, the NIH itself will lose reliability from 2025 on because it will be ruled by a quackery proponent who forces it to publish dangerous nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, you refused to respond to any of my specific questions or points, so I guess we’re done. Interesting, though, to learn that the National Cancer Institute and all of NIH’s other Centers and Institutes aren’t part of NIH and therefore their work can and should be ignored by Misplaced Pages. Kindlerva (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've already explained what you're getting wrong, but here it is one more time: The NCCIH is illegitimate because they publish nonsense. What they accept is not 'accepted by NIH' because the rest of the NIH (especially the NIH director) gets no say in the nonsense they publish. By conflating a fringe body with mainstream medical bodies, you are undermining your argument. If you have to cite the NCCIH for legitimacy, that is a sign to everyone else that what you're doing is promoting pseudoscience. We're now just repeating ourselves, so I imagine I will not comment again unless someone new comes up. Do not interpret my silence as agreement. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The NCCIH is 'literally' a separate institute which does not answer to the NIH director. That's because it was set up as a personal project by a US Senator who wanted an outfit that would validate the scientifically invalid bee pollen treatments he believed in. You are getting basic facts incorrect here, which is not going to be a basis for changes to this article. Some health insurance companies will cover homeopathy, too. That does not mean that homeopathy isn't nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, what you just cited is not 'the US NIH', nor is Acupuncure 'accepted by NIH'. Also, if you're looking for balance, you should know that Misplaced Pages doesn't do that, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is a bold non-neutral statement. Misplaced Pages is too biased in this regard and I won't donate a cent to them until they fix this. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:KEEPYOURMONEY. It's precisely for reasons of neutrality that Misplaced Pages is obliged to observe that acupuncture is a pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Top-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles