Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Middle 8 (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 3 March 2009 (→NPOV edits: good). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Archives

December 2002 - February 2006 February 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 - June 2008

UNDUE Weight

Backin72 wants to cherry pick the slight amount of dodgy evidence that may exist for efficacy of acu and put it at the top. This is unacceptable. We all know that acupuncture has no demonstrated effect for the huge range of conditions for which it is used. Shouldn't we put that at the top if this is the route you want to travel? Mccready (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cochrane Collaboration is dodgy, eh? Sounds like an opinion straight out of the fringes of anti-science. It looks like more editors agree the lead is well-weighted in the version you dislike. The sources are impeccable, like Ernst, and the wording is clear about where there is and isn't efficacy per EBM. --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's not about Cochrane, which has its share of altmed nuts infiltrated anyway. You, Backin72, gather every bit of evidence in support and want it in the top but have none which says for heaps of conditions it's crap. POV or not? For chrissakes why do you insist on filiform???Mccready (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what happened; a sentence I'd thought was there dropped out along the way. Restored. Better approach than just deleting good V RS's, I think. Filiform? Of course, to distinguish them from other needles the reader might know of in a medical context, like hypodermic needles. I think that's called accuracy, not undue weight. --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Accepted. Now we have to address undue weight. The top needs to ack that science shows the bulk of conditions acu purports to treat are not amenable to acu. Mccready (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, hey I just had this same statement made on the Talk:Chiropractic page. Mccready, are you trolling? I agree the article is long, especially the lead, but any shortening needs to be NPOV. More likely, the article could be split up, but don't delete hard work from other editors, make a new page and move it. Also, you can't just cut out one POV and expect it to stick. See if you can shorten it and still be saying the same thing... and it needs to be reliably sourced. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed the unsourced POV statement that remained. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dematt; agree entirely that what you removed was OR. I went even further and reverted, since the earlier wording remains the most accurate depiction of the sources cited (Ernst 2007, and the rest of the EBM reviews). As Ernst explains, the body of evidence is growing, and that evidence is showing efficacy for some conditions and a lack of efficacy for others. For many more conditions, there is not enough evidence to determine efficacy. That's what the sources say. A good example is their review of acupuncture for depression. cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys deliberately ignoring the topic. The topic is UNDUE weight. It's a wiki policy. Pls address the issue.Mccready (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Undue weight", "article length" -- anything to justify your pruning particular views from the lead. It's called "wikilawyering". Your edits speak louder than your talk-page rationalizations. Happy editing and hope you have a great day, but don't think others haven't seen through your approach. I agree there is some accumulated cruft in the article, but I don't think you possess the objectivity to identify it. --Backin72 (n.b.) 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There seemed to be two major infractions in the first few paragraphs. First being Undue weight to a single study, and second being to a NPOV issue wherein the editor asserted that 'further research was warranted" which is not the purview of the article, nor the conclusion of the majority of sources. It would probably be a good idea to dig around a source pile, since I am pretty sure that acupuncture is no longer controversial. It has passed into the realm of 'just doesn't work'. Until that time though, removing the unjustifiable weighting and PoV bits will have to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.216.159 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

After a bit more reading of the various sources (50 through 54 for instance) It seems a good overhaul of this page may be needed. We have at least one instance of One source being included in the meta study that is a different source. Also, we get paragraphs about each time lower back pain gets 5% better via acupuncture, but the data showing all of the various things acupuncture claims to do but fails gets an entry in a table. I'm not sure why this entire section is so upside down, but it looks like it needs a good bit of fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.216.159 (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Temper, tempers please :-) I've not delved into the recent edit history, but this is generally a well written and informative article. I would though tend to feel that description of what acupuncture claims to be should come before critisms etc. Hence should last paragraph of leadin ("Traditional Chinese medicine's acupuncture theory predates... ") come as the second paragraph of the leader? David Ruben 03:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi David - we could, although that paragraph (fourth one in the lead, this version) actually contains criticism, unlike the neutral evidence in the second. Maybe can rearrange somehow. I think it does have good article potential. (Mea culpa on temper, but do check the edit history for certain editors' deletionism.  :-) cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Backin72, Your abuse doesn't hide the fact the you refuse to engage in sensible discussion. We both know that for a huge range of conditions that acus treat there is no evidence of effectiveness. Does this or not need to be referenced in the top. Mccready (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for my revert is that we already talk about evidence in the lead, and specifically say "For most other conditions reviewers have found either a lack of efficacy (e.g., help in quitting smoking) or have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine if acupuncture is effective (e.g., treating shoulder pain)." It's redundant then to list a bunch of conditions where evidence for efficacy is lacking or uncertain.

Of cource acu is used clinically for conditions where EBM support is lacking, but that is also true for some biomedical modalities, including most surgical techniques. The Institute of Medicine, one of the four Academies of Sciences in the US, also makes this point (see last paragraph here). If you edited the lead sections of arthroplasty, etc., to add a list like you want to here, how far would you get? Be realistic. If your edits aren't judicious and supported by other editors (it's not just me objecting), they aren't going to stick. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If we aren't going to mention specific conditions in the lead where acu is ineffective, then pls explain, Backin72, why we should mention specific conditions were it is claimed to be effective. If you want to edit an article on surgical techniques go right ahead. Your point is irrelevant here. Mccready (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The list of conditions that a particular compound or technique cannot treat is endless. I don't believe we apply your logic to other articles on WP, and surgical techniques are a good comparison because similar blinding issues apply to RCT's. Use common sense, please. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We're getting closer now. Of course the list is endless, but as you have it now you present one person's view that acu relevance is expanding. What are we to do about this UNDUE weight? I reiterate, your comments on other articles are irrelevant. We are talking here about the acu article. Mccready (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Read more carefully, please. Ernst doesn't say acu relevance is expanding; he says the evidence base is, which is a simple statement of fact: more RCT's are being done every year. Your attempt to add a list to the lead is tendentious, redundant and stylistically inappropriate. It's good in the article but ridiculous in the lead. The lead is a summary; we already say that evidence is equivocal or lacking for "most other conditions" in the lead, and I hold firm to my view that enumerating them in the lead is plain silly. And comparisons to other articles are entirely relevant: your edits would never stick in any other article either. How many things does aspirin not treat? Please, common sense applies. You've been blocked before for disruptive editing and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it happen again. --Backin72 (n.b.) 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles on Acupuncture should be about acupuncture not anyones belief or idea or arguments about acupuncture. I put in a revision clarifying the yin yang theory as a cyclical system and not a lineal thinking frame. Someone took it out. Why? Did you decide it was too complicated for other people or was it too complicated for you.(editor) The western thinking method is reducing language to 2 levels of thinking and not three as it should be. wakey wakey u guys. From a western point of view thoughts on the function of acupuncture move into the realm of chaos theory. In Chinese Medical thought there is no choas theory because discussion can be using both the inttelectual and the poetic mind. huh?Higher realms of mathematics or philosophy of Chinese Medicine. If someone wants to discuss Acupuncture under the filter of the western medical paradigm do not discuss with them. the conclusions can only be false. Science, western science is based on a concept of contradiction. Acupuncture science is based on concepts of harmony. Harmony can accept contradiction but contradiction cannot accept harmony. just some thoughts and rambling from the mountains. thanks usertalk: michael connelly,1654 august 21,2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.106.179 (talk)

Dynasty of Origin

Does anyone know the dynasty of origin of acupunture??? I DO!! It originated i the Han dyansaty under the rule of Emperor Wudi. htey also created paper, the seismograph, sundial, and made many new achivements in art. this was a very sucsesful dynasty. 76.102.128.126 (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)--

If, indeed, you have a source to support this claim, then it would be a useful inclusion to the article. Otherwise, if you can't back up your claim, then we have no way of knowing whether your claim is correct or not. I could step in and just as vociferously claim it originated with any other dynasty. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on Effectiveness

There may be a place somewhere in this article for this info. Yes or no? QuackGuru (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes equivocally. That place, however, is under Section 5: Scientific research into efficacy, ideally as a properly formatted wikitable. The article is already 81 kb long, so it might be preferable to summarize the information and provide a link to a separate Efficacy of acupuncture article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the section Scientific research into efficacy is the place to add this info. A brief summary is preferable. QuackGuru (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I actually agree with QuackGuru -- now that's a promising omen. I will consult the I Ching and we can take it from there, assuming the goat entrails don't suggest otherwise. ;-)

Actually, what Quackguru says is a pretty good description of how the efficacy section reads now, give or take a condition. That's why the ugly list in the lead is superfluous.

I've expressed concerns in the past that an Efficacy of acupuncture-type article could become a POV fork, but perhaps we could overcome that by keeping this article and an efficacy article adequately harmonized with each other. Certainly there is a lot of material here on efficacy, so it's a logical candidate for splitting, as I did with Regulation of acupuncture, which turned out OK. There is another article, Scientific theories regarding acupuncture, that is basically a lot of WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT "bathwater" with just enough "baby" to retain, perhaps, some value. That's the kind of article I would not want an efficacy article to become. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is a lot more peaceful to discuss things unlike the chiropractic article. There is an Effectiveness section that has been repeatedly deleted from the chiropractic article. I have learned from that content dispute. It is better to discuss on the talk page and then edit the article. I hope this article will improve from this discussion and information. QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point, the we cannot call the section effectiveness of chiropractic because we cannot study the effectiveness of a profession. Rather, it should state acupuncture vs. SMT which is more factual and appropriate. CorticoSpinal (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is acu vs chiro discussed? Not in this article, right? --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added the additional conditions to the efficacy section. I trust that suffices. --Backin72 (n.b.) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is so silly. The question of efficacy is not if acupuncture can treat certain ailments conclusively but rather if it can have an effect on conditions like "Spleen qi deficiency", or "Xiao Ke". For now I will laugh at the silliness of people, and continue to think that the western "scientific model" has a few thousand years to go to catch up to the Chinese philosophies. --(unsigned comment from sometime in 2008)

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you. There is a lot of uncertainty as to whether acupuncture is effective in treating ailments. Just because a procedure is old doesn't mean it's superior. After all, trepanation is old, too...

It's for this reason that research continues to be done on acupuncture. If it's effective and safe, then we should definitely use it. And if it isn't effective, then we should not. But your blase dismissal of legitimate scientific inquiry does nothing to address the important issues. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The unsigned editor above does make a good point, though, about testing modalities as they are traditionally delivered (e.g., allocating patients according to TCM diagnosis, or use of proper needling technique). The Institute of Medicine makes that point too; see the source cited in the first few paragraphs of alternative medicine. Taking this stuff into account makes for better science, and to the extent there is debate over these issues in the literature, the article will be greatly improved if we report it. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why on Earth is it so difficult to write Acupunture is a bluff! A pseudoscientific theory made popular by Maos promise to give "medicin" to the people. There are enough scientific studies to put it in the same leage as homeopathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.152.56 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Got some, then? --Middle 8 (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They were removed with the argument they were included already. Seems the charlatans win the war. Well, here we have the drawback with Wiki. GF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.152.56 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Navbox

I have placed a proposed Navigational template at Talk:Acupuncture/Navbox. I would like to move it to template-space and add it to the bottom of the articles in a week or so if there is consensus on its utility. Particularly welcome are any articles I missed, comments on the organizational scheme, and (dis)advantages compared to Category:Acupuncture. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Circular argument

I don't want to be too rigorous, but this phrase here: "There is scientific agreement that an evidence-based medicine (EBM) framework should be used to assess health outcomes and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential" is a circular argument. An "evidence-based" medicine is a scientific medicine. It is just a way of saying there is scientific agreement that medicine should be practiced scientifically. If anybody that was not convinced that science was the best way for medicine becomes convinced because of the phrase, it would be because he was tricked. I will remove it because of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.10.1.162 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are other ways that scientists could seek to understand this. Evidence-based implies that we're going to do a lot of clinical trials and measure the results. Instead, they could have said "Theory-based" - suggesting that we should seek to understand HOW it works from basic biological principles regardless of whether it seems to work or not. This was never a "circular argument" - but (if we take your view) a "tautology". However, I believe it to be neither of those things - so on reflection, I'm reverting your change. SteveBaker (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That statement definitely may look somewhat weird to us laymen. Fortunately, we have an article about it at Evidence-based medicine. --Taraborn (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is meant to be helpful

Misplaced Pages is meant to be a quick resource of information. It simply does NOT matter whether anyone's personal opinion is that acupuncturists are quacks or legit doctors. I looked up this article for some brief history on the subject and I am appalled that all I found was a completely biased article. Though the author tries to sound neutral it is painfully obvious what their point of view consists of. This entire entry should be taken to the trash and redone with educational content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.46.175 (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to a large extent. There are enormous cultural assumptions throughout this article which, alas, remain prevalent across the West ie that the Westen paradigm is correct and everything outside it is suspect. We talk about 'prescientific ages' in regard to Acupuncture. Well, if one says that the 'scientific age' started at roughly the time of Newton, then maybe. But acupuncture is based on empirical evidence too - ie trail and error, experimentation etc. Not only that but even by this article it relies on 5000 + years of experimentation. Would the Chinese be so stupid as to rely on a medical system which was bogus?

I speak as someone who has been an acupuncture patient on and off for about two years. I can only vouch for its efficacy where a lot of Western Medicine has not worked, something I have seen all around me. Empirically speaking acupuncture is proven for me. I don't give a hoot if the idea of Meridians is not verifiable 'physically' - that is the whole point of the Meridian Theory - that they are energy flows. All that we are encountering is a different paradigm for how the body works to the Western mechanistic ones. The Chinese believe in Subtle Energies, we don't. That's all there is to it. And yet the West knows about Electromagnetic fields and the fact that everything gives off radiation, we just don't apply to physiology.

Underlying these assumptions are cultural ideas. We are talking different paradigms, that's all. This article should be honest about that. I find it interesting that we judge by 'evidence' and not 'results' in scientific tests - in other words, the theory of meridians doesn't register on how we in the West evaluate anatomy so they can't possibly be true.

Also, its interesting that 'alternative therapies' like Acupuncture, Homeopathy, Reiki etc NEVER say to patients 'Don't use Western Medicine'. There are no Acupunture tests disproving Western Medicine. Alternative therapies are not hostile to Western Techniques at all. But to this day Western Medicine remains like a bunch of colonists hiding in their stockade watching the rest of the world with suspicion and hostility. ThePeg (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

-- It does not really matter that it worked on you, its placebo effect is well documented in contrary to its clinical effects. And for your other arguments, well, it is proven clinically ordinary medicin works (which by the way is the case by definition) and that acupunkture, homeopathy do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.152.56 (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

--It does not matter if there is a clinical proof as well. The only issue is that there are suffering patient deciding that this is helpful for him. Disease being defined as an unpleasant state of suffering of a patient the patient is the ultimate criterion, not the clinical statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.241.74 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Acupuncture history is wrong history that originated in China

It is wrong part in objective history that acupuncture was begun in the China.
There is 砭石(zhēn biān = Stone needle's of acupuncture ; Korean - Dolchim) that the Korea used from neolithic age that acupuncture is begun from neolith by inheritance.
However, Dolchim's inheritance of the China does not exist.
And acupuncture was used that entered from eastern country to China in Huangdi Neijing(Somoon part12).
Ancient country of the Korea was called empire of east.
Therefore, mistook that one’s opinion that acupuncture is to happen in the China. (Wrong history that Acupuncture spread from China to Korea)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.233.99.16 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide one or more English-translation sources supporting this? thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence from neuroimaging studies

The cited review was not conducted systematically. Given the well-known problems with the literature in this area, I think that the authors were not nearly canny enough for the results to be trusted. They did make some attempt to be comprehensive, but included only editorial analysis - it is closer to a book report or blind summary than a proper systematic review. On the other hand, it looked a little snide to call it a non-systematic review, and we already discuss (last I checked) aforementioned problems with the literature. I do not believe that these issues are serious enough to bump the source below the WP:RS threshold, but if anyone would like to characterize this review (without casting aspersions outside of NPOV, of course) to alter its apparent weight, I would not complain. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Since Acupuncture is also found among native american tribes, see "song of the little knives" and in africa, australia, lapland, s. america, it is wastefull to discuss origins, as no verifiable beginning to the history of natural medicine is verifiable. usertalk m.connelly,21 august 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.106.179 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I noticed this article is still under the neutral tag. I'd like to help provide a fresh pair of eyes to any NPOV issues and I'll try my best to be as objective as possible. To note, I am not a health care physician of any sort (to avoid possible accusations of bias) but am pursuing a graduate degree so I know how to appraise research. If there are no additional concerns, I'll tag down the tag. Soyuz113 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Soyuz113 has "been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for sockpuppetry, edit warring, disruption and block evasion." I have stricken his remarks, as striking or removal is customary in such situations. See: Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of CorticoSpinal. -- Fyslee / talk 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey maybe your graduate degree is in philosophy, reasoning, and the scientific process? The Chinese utilized inductive reasoning. They came up with their theories based on observations around them and then applied it to the human body. At any rate, when I read this article it made me wonder if the people who said Chinese medicine is unscientific have any notion of the scientific process. Most articles I read about Chinese medicine on Misplaced Pages have large sections devoted to the "effectiveness of TCM" (traditional Chinese medicine) and they go on at length about how certain people claim that TCM is unscientific. I think this is false and misleading. TCM is scientific. The Chinese utilized inductive reasoning to conclude things and then debated about it extensively amongst themselves and even performed clinical trials over thousands of years. They kept what worked clinically and elaborated or corrected it when needed. I think it is really absurd that people claim TCM is unscientific. It is like they're saying science is unscientific by completely dismissing the validity of inductive reasoning and the scientific process. And because every article (or almost every article) on Misplaced Pages devotes so much space to these false ideas, it reads as propaganda. (For references to my claims one can look at the comments in the Materia Medica by Dan Bensky, Steven Clavey, and Erich Stroger.) comment added by ~Harkannin 24.69.176.48 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, CorticoSpinal is a chiropractor, so he was lying when he wrote "I am not a health care physician of any sort." Of course many would dispute that chiropractors should be allowed to call themselves "physicians", but that's another matter. -- Fyslee / talk 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractors and acupuncturists are all deluded quacks or liars, no wonder they converge on the same pages. Alternative medicine and "TCM" are nonsense. You know what you call an alternative medicine that actually works? You call it "medicine". This article is misleading from the very first paragraph. The opinion of an alternative medicine physician is in plain sight, but the scientific criticisms of CSI(a group who investigates all baloney claims of magical powers) are tucked down in the middle of an article. This makes wikipedia look like a place where gypsies and psychics can peddle their wares.97.100.15.16 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS. Believe it or not, there are sources more reliable than CSICOP. --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

acupuncture,

DR dear sir, could you tell me if you can stimulate the pancrea to increase insulin on a diabetic person by using acupncture therapy.....thank you Efrain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.155.2 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Backin72 Bulk Revert

I have asked Backin72 now three times to explain this bulk revert. He has not done so. So I ask here now a fourth time. I think the community would be grateful for your detailed response. (I will take up the issue of my topic ban at AN/I so please do not discuss that issue here.) Mccready (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss any of your edits to this page with you, Mccready, because you are indefinitely banned from editing acupuncture or chirporactic (scroll down a little to see the relevant quotes in the diffs):

• "the topic ban is now indefinite"
• "Topic ban is extended to an indefinite ban."

As you can see from reading the page versions associated with those diffs, you were banned because you had exhausted the community's patience with your persistent disregard for basic wikiquette. Your posting here continues that trend. I will not feed it, but I will do what I need to to put a stop to it by notifying admins of your breach of the ban. I will be happy to discuss edits with other editors in good standing, but that doesn't include you, dude -- you can't even post on talk pages. Let me put it plainly to you, paraphrasing the community: please go away. --Backin72 (n.b.) 16:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've posted regarding this at AN/I (section); (diff). --Backin72 (n.b.) 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning, FWIW

OK, just so no one thinks I'm trying to avoid discussion, here's why I "bulk reverted" three edits by a banned editor. Suffice it to say (as I did in the ES) that I object to removal of material that I believe to be properly sourced and weighted. We, as editors, are discouraged from using weasel words and equivocating; however, if RS's do that, we should leave it in: one critic's equivocation might be another's nuance, and besides, some aspects of medicine are equivocal.

Thus, User:Scientizzle commented at AN/I that "the recent edits attributed to this user in violation of this ban seem, to me, to be generally okay (this and this look like reasonable removal of fluff and unnecessary equivocation....)".

My response:

• this edit is a mixed bag. I looked at the TCM source at the top, and agree it's weak as cited, and have removed it again. However, the edit in the second paragraph deleted phrases like "but is active and growing" to describe the body of evidence: Edzard Ernst himself says this, and a reasonable thing to cite (Mccready, however, has a history of seeking to depict acu as closer to the fringe than most people (and cite-able sources) depict it).
• Which brings us to the next edit. Starting at the bottom: we have Mccready removing Ernst's own (!) verbatim (!!) conclusions from his review: "It is concluded, that acupuncture research is active. The emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions." This is absurd, removing the central conclusion of one of our best and most current sources on controlled clinical research. Above that, he removes a source on evidence-based medicine (EBM) that (horrors) informs the reader that EBM includes individualized choices about care as well as meta-analysis of RCT's. I believe that is properly weighted with respect to our abbreviated discussion of EBM.

Bottom line, the WHO/Jia source was weak and worth removing, but getting rid of the Ernst stuff did not improve the article at all. Ernst is no alt-med believer, so one can't accuse the positive/equivocal stuff of bias. The pattern of these edits is a little subtler than usual, but consistent with Mccready's longstanding mission to remove or minimize material that is remotely positive, or equivocal, about scientific research on acupuncture.

Also, let's not remove his ban because he showed up one day and violated it in a semi-reasonable way... sheesh. Before he was banned he was the subject of several posts at AN/I, the first of which described a pattern of endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring. Go look at that page version and all the reverts documented there. That's a pretty intense pattern. See why I'm not eager to have it repeated here? -- Backin72 (n.b.) 08:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

battlefield acupuncture

This might still be a bit too much WP is not a crystal ball but I think it is worth noting here now on the talk page because the military seem to have finished the initial trail phase.http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.pain11dec11,0,3574554.story?track=rss--Aspro (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent History

This section seems to have been sourced from a single website of Scott Suvow, who is a practitioner of acupuncture. The section makes claims for the effectiveness of acupuncture, for example during the Long March. Surely there must be peer-reviewed historical accounts rather than a commercial website for references. I am deleting that section. If someone can add scholarly references for the specific claims made, then feel free to put it back.Desoto10 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Desoto10 -- you're right that the source is bad, of course; however, most of the claims are in fact correct, and just need better sources (e.g., Unschuld). (Think of the Suvow link as a sort of temporary convenience link for information that we'll be able to verify elsewhere.) Additionally, some that you removed was from other, good sources (Crozier; Lewith), and you left intact the final paragraph that was from an equally dubious source (some other dude's clinic). In light of the fact that the claims are (mostly) noncontroversial, and that I expect I can find refs for a great deal of it, I've restored the material and tagged it. As for the long march, that's more a matter of history than medicine, and as such it can't really be considered a "claim of efficacy"; our sources will reflect that. Nice catch on the IVF review, btw. -- regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 03:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about those in-line refs, they didn't register when I was reading. I am not sure about the veracity of the information and so I hope somebody can provide some properly sourced information. Now I am looking at this claim:

"In the 1970s, acupuncture became popular in America after American visitors to China brought back firsthand reports of patients undergoing major surgery using acupuncture as their sole form of anesthesia"

I suspect that this is referring, at least in part, to the saga of James Reston, who wrote an article for the New York Times, Monday July 26, 1971 where he describes his emergency appendectomy in China. It seems as though acupuncture was used only during is recovery to relieve post-operative discomfort. During his actual surgery, standard anesthesia was used, not acupuncture. If the editor has sources for other "firsthand reports" where major surgery was reported using only acupuncture, then these should be added. As it stands, there is no reference at all, so I am going to edit out the general claim and substitute the specific case.Desoto10 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; that needed fixing. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 03:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Indications acccording to...

Ref 28, which is claimed to substantiate use of acupuncture for dysmenorrhorea actually concludes:

"Authors' conclusions High frequency TENS was found to be effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea by a number of small trials. The minor adverse effects reported in one trial requires further investigation. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of low frequency TENS in reducing dysmenorrhoea. There is also insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of acupuncture in reducing dysmenorrhoea, however a single small but methodologically sound trial of acupuncture suggests benefit for this modality. "

Thus, all one could say from this review is that there is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture for this indication. TENS is not acupuncture.Desoto10 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. I haven't been that comfortable with stuff being added to that list; AAMA and WHO have their own conclusions, and it strikes me as poor parallelism (and undue weight) to add other stuff, willy-nilly, based on this study or that review. More on said list below. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 04:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Indications according to acupuncturists in the West

This large table is highly inappropriate as it implies that there has been a demonstration of efficacy of acupuncture for all of these indications, when, according to the source, the criterion for inclusion was "at least one research article" for each. I would like to condense this information down to a sentence or two that says something to the effect that it is claimed by this specific group that a variety of diseases are amenable to acupuncture treatment and that WHO also lists a variety of potential indications. As it is now, one gets the impression that there is substantial research to back up this list, when, in fact, there is very little.Desoto10 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotta disagree, at least to some extent. Western acupuncturists, like the AAMA, are what WP would call a "significant minority view". Per WP:WEIGHT, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". It's OK to say, in this article, that the AAMA says acu may be useful as a complementary therapy for conditions X, Y, and Z as long as we properly attribute the statement. However, it would be entirely appropriate to include a note about their inclusion criteria. I also agree that excerpting the sentence about how its main indications are for pain would be appropriate; that need to be emphasized.

Also, I just came across this source from the WHO ... they obviously go considerably further than Cochrane in terms of efficacy, based on their review of controlled trials. I'm not sure what their methodology was, but they're clearly quite a notable source, so we should put this in someplace. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 04:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Both done. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked into the WHO stuff. Virtually 100% of the referenced articles would not be considered to describe "controlled clinical trials" by any definition. They are what are usually described as "case reports". And they are mostly (naturally) in Chinese journals written in Chinese and so it is difficult to do any QC. This is a difficult position as it seems that the pro-acupuncture groups seem to be willing to promote the concept that acupuncture works for virutally every medical condition known to mankind and so we end up with a lengthly laundry list of indications with precious little to back it up. I would be more comfortable just saying that these lists exist but that there is concern about the studies that underly them (assuming that there is a scholarly reference for that). However, I am new to this article so I won't push it at this point. Thanks for listening.Desoto10 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much my reading of WHO's methods as well; obviously their criteria are not at all the same as Cochrane's. I understand your concern, but I don't believe there's a problem with enumerating the WHO's list as long as methodology (when stated) and caveats (when made by RS's) are also cited. The viewpoint of a group of clinicians using acupuncture, many of them MD's and PhD's, is a significant one, although according to NPOV, not the dominant one (which, as I understand it, would be a straight biomedical reading along EBM lines). So it's a question of framing and weighting properly.

The final point is that the WHO remain a highly notable and reliable source, even if there is disagreement between them and other groups, so according to the principle of "verifiability not truth" we are obliged to give adequate weight to WHO even if they're "wrong" on certain things. I'd assume there's been some exchange about this stuff in the literature. BTW, Desoto, hope you stick around; your edits are good and you seem like a fair-minded and well-informed editor. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 02:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have had a peripheral interest in acupuncture from back in the day when I was studying pharmacology. One of my teachers was developing a little electronic gizmo to detect acupuncture points. I think all it did was measure local changes in skin resistance. Anyway, I am squarely in the "scientific evidence-based" camp and so I will argue strongly for things that can be demonstrated to be true (and referenced) based on the scientific method. I am far less interested in sources such as case studies and poorly designed clinical testing. We will likely disagree on many things, but I promise that I approach all topics with an open (although biased) mind.Desoto10 (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there isn't too much evidence for the electrical conductance hypothesis, although there's something suggestive there. (From one of the same authors, though, this is an interesting hypothesis about the physical basis of acupoints and meridians.)

We're probably not going to disagree a whole lot over whether EBM-type stuff should be included. We may disagree if you come out strongly for deletion of anything that's not up to EBM gold standards, particularly because WP's mission is broader than Cochrane's: what acupuncture is is more than what EBM reviews say; it's a subset of an entire traditional medicine that is still used by a substantial number of people today. So while we don't mention acupuncture (much) on pages devoted to biomedical theory and practice, we do get into acupuncture theory and practice in fair detail here, per the WP:WEIGHT quote I cited just below your thread-starter above. But we can talk about that more later. Happy holidays, Backin72 (n.b.) 23:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of TCM theory

"TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians."

I would say that the lack of evidence for the existance of acupuncture points is not the primary reason that the claims of efficacy for acupuncture are often rejected by modern western medical experts. What is lacking is evidence of effectiveness as is required for other treatments. It appears as though, when such evidence is provided, as has been done for some kinds of pain, and some kinds of postoperative nausea and vomiting, western physicians have accepted acupuncuture regardless of the lack of evidence for specific acupuncture points.Desoto10 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is just summarize the sources quoted in the section. The statement as written is consistent with Felix Mann's quote and maybe a couple others. Sure, efficacy is the bottom line, but remember, this section is criticism of TCM theory, so most of the quotes aren't really getting into efficacy; that comes later in the article. (What is interesting is that some of the best evidence for efficacy is the use of PC-6 below the wrist for nausea; say what you will about TCM's prescientific model, but at least it "predicts" that, where biomedicine can't... actually, the way I like to look at TCM's theory is as a big mnemonic device, stated using classical Chinese language. Same idea as a primitive tribe having a calendar that predicts when the dragon in the sky swallows the sun or moon... they didn't know what an eclipse was, but they had observed the phenomenon.) regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 04:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, Fyslee went ahead and stuck it in -- and looks like he got it at the right point. Ah, that's better... --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe..."

I'm rv-ing these two edits because they do not appear to reflect a very careful reading of sources. Let's look at each:

• NIH Consensus Statement:

"the incidence of adverse effects is substantially lower than that of many drugs or other accepted medical procedures used for the same condition. For example, musculoskeletal conditions, such as fibromyalgia, myofascial pain, and tennis elbow... are conditions for which acupuncture may be beneficial. These painful conditions are often treated with, among other things, anti-inflammatory medications (aspirin, ibuprofen, etc.) or with steroid injections. Both medical interventions have a potential for deleterious side effects but are still widely used and are considered acceptable treatments."

• NCCAM FAQ:

"Relatively few complications from the use of acupuncture have been reported to the FDA, in light of the millions of people treated each year and the number of acupuncture needles used. Still, complications have resulted from inadequate sterilization of needles and from improper delivery of treatments. Practitioners should use a new set of disposable needles taken from a sealed package for each patient and should swab treatment sites with alcohol or another disinfectant before inserting needles. When not delivered properly, acupuncture can cause serious adverse effects, including infections and punctured organs."

• Ernst safety review:

"Acupuncture has adverse effects, like any therapeutic approach. If it is used according to established safety rules and carefully at appropriate anatomic regions, it is a safe treatment method."

Those quotes are more consistent with saying (A) than (B):

(A)"There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles, and that further research is appropriate."

(B)"There is general agreement that further research is appropriate.There is general agreement that serious adverse reactions are uncommon when acupuncture is administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles, but minor adverse reactions, poor training and non-sterile needles are concerns."

Why? Because A caveats the issues adequately, while B gives undue weight to risks (cf. Acupuncture#Safety_and_risks), especially compared to other treatment modalities. Under the conditions given in (A), the statement that acupuncture is safe is not only correct, but quote verbatim from the most recent review of one of the most respected scientists studying Alternative medicine according to the principles of Evidence-based medicine (and btw, Edzard Ernst is a total-ass skeptic about everything, so anything he says about acu isn't coming from a place of positive bias). The serious issues mentioned in (B) are relevant (and are mentioned in the safety section), but fall outside the boundaries of the qualification "well-trained practitioners using sterile needles". regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Added another, too. --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Please comment. I will tag the article so that people know this discussion is happening. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work out too well, did it. Probably a good idea to drop the attempts to game the system; it reflects poorly on those who do it (especially when you're under ArbCom scrutiny). --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 systematic reviews

Considering the limitation of the four positive noninferiority studies and the results of the meta-analysis of the three sham-controlled studies, the notion that acupuncture may lower high BP is inconclusive.

Conclusion Sham-controlled RCTs fail to show specific effects of acupuncture for control of menopausal hot flushes.

Here are newer studies to review for inclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Add this brand new Cochrane Review: Madsen MV, Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A (2009). "Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups". BMJ. 338: a3115. doi:10.1136/bmj.a3115. PMID 19174438.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

We found a small analgesic effect of acupuncture that seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear.

— Scientizzle 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good finds. I will get around to adding them soon if no one else does. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit to lead re migraines

I moved a sentence from the lead section to the article subsection on EBM. It's well worth keeping in the article, but doesn't seem appropriate in the lead: too much weight to one study and one condition. However, I agree that this sentence does point to some larger issues that are lead-worthy, e.g. attempts at blinding and findings re point specificity or lack thereof. I will hunt down an appropriate reference (i.e. something on the order of a review article) and suggest something soon. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV edits

This and this are worth examining, but are too WP:BOLD. So, in the spirit of WP:BRD I'm reverting; now the discussion. (And nobody gets to revert me back and say "per BRD" in the edit summary without discussing.)  :-) BTW, I know my revert removed a source; I will put it back later.

First, this source plainly does not go far enough to support this edit. Quoting from the source:

"A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear."

OM's edit summary said: "Acupuncture does not work. So, let's stay NPOV)". That is a good example of jumping from "absence of evidence" to "evidence of absence". Acupuncture is an active research area and the jury is still out. So, it may be partly true to say this....

"There is no scientific or medical evidence that acupuncture has any efficacy beyond a placebo effect."

...but it's plainly not the whole truth, because it's equally true of virtually all surgical techniques, as well as PT, dentistry etc. We need to be more nuanced in light of other reviews (and commentaries) that find evidence for efficacy, as well as the fact that there is no general agreement over which placebo designs are appropriate (although they're certainly further along with acu, in terms of figuring out how to control for placebo, than they are with many surgical techniques).

Finally, it's useful to compare the acupuncture and homeopathy literature. The Royal College of Pathologists recently denounced homeopathy homeopathy as antiscientific. By contrast, BMA issued a qualified endorsement of acupuncture as of 2000, which is where the matter stands.

So, the acu research is in flux, and in the medical community it stands on the cusp of acceptance. In homeopathy, comparatively little research is going on, and it is at the cusp of rejection. The situation with acu may change, but in the meantime, no sticking a fork in anything until it's done. Not on WP, anyway. We should reflect the general scientific literature, not what skeptic blogs or CSICOP articles may be saying. Anyone seriously disagree with that?

OK, that's a good place to start. BTW, I think it's good to give the article some working over. Maybe what comes out of that will be a "good" or "featured" article, for whatever little that's worth in the scheme of things. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(side note - OM, check your email) --Middle 8 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

also restored a good source and accurate description of text/sources that immediately follow -- Middle 8 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but according to WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV, there must be reliable evidence. Acupuncture does not work. There is NO evidence that it will, and yes, science does not prove negatives, so to be NPOV, proponents of Fringe theories must show that it's not fringe. You can't. OrangeMarlin 19:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to reliable sources like Ernst? He doesn't say it's BS, he says there seems to be evidence for some conditions. When good sources say something's equivocal, we say that; we don't imply anything like "there is NO evidence that it will" work. You're on the wrong side of NPOV, bro, not me. cheers - Middle 8 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Some evidence" by someone (and I admit, Ernst despises CAM cruft about as much as I do) is hardly "this thing works". I'm willing for a compromise, but what you've reverted is so far from a compromise, that I will have to public disclose that you're the Fifth Beatle. OrangeMarlin 20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'm sure we can figure out a compromise (and I felt that way before you thought I might be Mr. Incredible, or ScienceApologist suggested I might be the wicked Syndrome). I find it helpful to think of how we handle other topics on WP; I think it's pretty clear acupuncture is in a sorta grey zone, somewhere between knee arthoplasty (which almost certainly works, yet we can't really prove it does because we don't have a good placebo, and the one notable attempt at placebo control showed it no better than placebo!) and homeopathy (which doesn't work). So, we're smart puppies; I'm sure we can come up with some language -- really, there's not that much distance between your wording and what there is now; maybe just a matter of emphasis, and sticking close to sources (your 2009 source admittedly spins it with a little more cred than you do). More later -- please excuse me while I attempt to go put out a fire I did not wish to see started. -- Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Please put new sections above this one.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles