Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RexxS (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 8 July 2014 (→Acupuncture again: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:MED

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 4 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Study on Misplaced Pages's coverage of drug-safety

I'm not a regular here, but thought I'd make note of this if it hasn't been made already. Came across a recent study by Harvard researchers on Misplaced Pages's reliability and speed at updating drug safety information:

• News coverage in the MinnPost
• Study itself in the New England Journal of Medicine. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes am in discussion with the FDA regarding possibly collaborating. They are of course a big organization and move slow. On my end I am interested. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ideally one for the Pharmacology project. Overall our response seems good, but with serious lapses at times - so just like WP in general. Isn't there an FDA online list that someone just needs to check at intervals, after we are sure we are up to date? Of course the FDA is not the whole of the story, and no doubt already far better covered than other regulators around the world. On a quick look I couldn't see anything to complain about in their method, which makes a change. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What we need is someone interested in taking this on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

One can sign up for e-mail updates to FDA "Recalls and Safety Alerts" and "MedWatch Safety Alerts" here. I have just done so. If I get a relevant alert, I will at a minimum post a message on the pharmacology project talk page and in addition, update the Misplaced Pages drug page if I have time. Boghog (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

From the 2014 Safety Alerts for Human Medical Products, here is a relatively recent example of an FDA alert. Would this edit be an appropriate response? Boghog (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bog. If the FDA is interested in a more formal relationship do you want be to involved you? They say it will be a few weeks before they decide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, I would be willing to work with them to improve Misplaced Pages drug articles. Boghog (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Butter versus margarine

Misplaced Pages can have information about the advantages of butter and the disadvantages of margarine.

• Butter Is Back: Processed Foods Are Culprits in Heart Disease—by Joseph Mercola (June 23, 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We need a proper source per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Low-fat diet could use review and expansion

The question of whether low-fat really is or is not such an important thing to focus on for weight loss does seem to be very much in the Zeitgeist at the moment -- for example The Times (London) ran a long cover-piece in its features section yesterday, "The full-fat diet — why it’s not as unhealthy as you think" (paywalled) reviewing the history of low-fat diet advice contrasted with some more recent research, and Time magazine ran a cover story ten days ago, "Ending the war on fat" (paywalled).

Our article Low-fat diet is pretty limited at the moment, and reflects none of this discussion. Considering that this is a major lifestyle issue for so many people, it could use some review and expansion by qualified folks from appropriate sources. Jheald (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is lots of great sources on low-fat diet versus other type of diet. There is no significant difference between low fat and high fat. We sum it up here Management_of_obesity#Dieting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Jay W. Friedman and wisdom teeth

Misplaced Pages can have information about Dr. Jay W. Friedman and his views on the prophylactic extraction of third molars.

• The Prophylactic Extraction of Third Molars: A Public Health Hazard
  

—Wavelength (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. This is a non-systemic review article against the removal of asymptomatic, disease free wisdom teeth. The debate has been discussed in the articles, and careful equal weighting of each side of the argument has been given in the treatment controversy section. There is a Cochrane study on the subject that is included, with wording largely crafted by Hildabast. Ian Furst (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Friedman source could be used to support the cochrane review, it seems reliable. 188.29.87.125 (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ian Furst, which Misplaced Pages articles discuss the debate?

—Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think he's talking about Impacted wisdom teeth. See also wisdom tooth and pericoronitis, articles which could potentially benefit from this source. 188.29.86.105 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I could try editing those articles, but I prefer that it be done by members of this WikiProject.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wavelength the controversy's discussed in the Impacted wisdom teeth article. I'll post the article on the talk page. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

external links at Phimosis

Hi folks, an editor at Phimosis has been repeatedly restoring external links to what the editor acknowledges are anonymous Internet chat forums and advocacy websites, as well as one AAP website that does not mention phimosis. The anonymous Internet chat forums and advocacy websites are non-peer reviewed and give medical advice. The reason this editor gives for restoring the external links is that this particular editor finds the websites "helpful" or "useful"; I have pointed out repeatedly in this discussion on the article Talk page that the links fail WP:ELNO, Doc James has also pointed to WP:ELNO. Latest restore of the links by this editor is here. More input would be appreciated. Zad68

AfC submission - 03/06

Draft:Male accessory gland infection. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 WikiProject Medicine newsletter - The Pulse WP:PULSE

Hello. Before LT910001 quit Misplaced Pages, he founded a WikiProject newsletter and was executive editor, president, and chief officer of the publication for about two weeks. At the time of LT's departure I was serving as a copyedit intern for the operation. Even though the publication is without an editor, I put together an issue with help from some others. The paper is intend to be documentation of what WikiProject Medicine members do, and it is intended to help guests of WikiProject Medicine understand what happens here.

Anyone who wants to read the current issue can do so at WP:PULSE. In perhaps a week, a link to it will be mass-messaged to all people who are on the WikiProject Medicine subscriber list. Your perspective would be welcome in this publication now! Please write what you like and just put it in! I hope that it can continue to be a monthly thing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

We have a new editor User:Torreano61 who has been copy and pasting up a storm. Very similar to a previous editor called User:DrMicro. Both editing extensively in the microbiology topic area. Have blocked this new editor. And dealt with most of the copy and past issues. :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Am in discussion with user in question. Trying to determine if they understand how Misplaced Pages works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Action T4

The article Action T4 recently got a section about language and the euphemisms used by the Nazis to sweeten the truth. That section gave me an uneasy feeling. Now somebody else adds a hidden comment that absolutely horrifies me.

Could somebody take a look and join the discussion at Talk:Action T4#Language? The Banner talk 19:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Calorie restriction

This article makes tons of health claims with primary sources. Please jump in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for List of the Presidents of the American Association of Immunologists

This should be an article on the organization, not just a list. Could someone who knows the medical literature add a few more 3rd party sources, so we can turn this into an article on the organization? Djembayz (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Organizations are typically of low importance to many of those within this project. Google books might be a good place for sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A statement on Alternative medicine and Misplaced Pages editing

As Project Medicine has recently lost two valuable editors from an unfortunately small pool, I am heartened to see a considerate and polite discussion occurring on the talk page of the Alternative medicine article. It has helped me develop some thoughts on WP editing and attitudes towards alternative medicine topics. Some key points are: 1) There is a strong policy position in support of evidence based medicine and mainstream medicine. 2) I feel this is echoed and reinforced by the editorial position of many members of this project. 3) This means emerging support for alternative ideas face a staunch wall of resistance. 4) This also means ideas from the alternative community are subject to a higher level of scrutiny/opposition than those from the mainstream community.

An important point to consider is the amount of accepted mainstream medical practice that is not supported by evidence. I certainly understand the arguments based on plausibility and long term unmeasured success (and common sense). Still it is of interest to think, "What if every practice of 'modern medicine' was subjected to the level of scrutiny and the bar of evidence was raised to the level required on WP to make statements about alternative medicine?" and "What if every avenue of exploration endorsed by the mainstream was subjected to the level of hostility exhibited towards ideas from those who lack that endorsement?"

At this point I will own my personal position. I consider Ernst, Barrett, Sampson and Hall heroes. I strongly object to quackery on deep ethical grounds. I have and will work hard to prevent WP from being a vehicle for the promotion for those who profit by the exploitation of those who suffer illness. That said some honesty regarding Bad Pharma and the fact that mainstream medicine is a profit driven industry that uses many unproven treatments is also in order.

While I think WP's policies and guidelines are excellent and promote encyclopedic validity in the presentation of biomedical information, I also think there is room for improvement in our community. I propose we temper our participation with consideration that some alternative medicine advocates are sincere and some honesty in recognizing the high ground we hold is not as lofty as we might think. I propose we present our positions (POV albeit with sound basis) with compassion, consideration and respect. I think we should balance our frustration (RTFM MEDRS etc) with an understanding of a potential underlying motive to benefit suffering human beings, likewise our outrage at support for "predators". I think some humility at the modesty of the measure of success (per some IOM and WHO reports) that modern western maintstream medicine has achieved is in order.

Again I own my POV that skepticism and a high bar of evidence is the way to make progress. I hope that in my drive towards that I conduct myself honestly, ethically and compassionately with respect for the dignity and worth of all who would improve the lot of humanity.

In conclusion I would like to remind everyone that editing WP should be a rewarding experience to all who seek to improve the encyclopedia. Two aspects of participation in WP I hold as ideals are fun and camaraderie. I hope the members of this project can help foster these ideals.

With a deep sense of loss for those editors driven away by feelings of alienation and a sincere hope that diversity of opinion can be encouraged and engaged, I offer the traditional closing,

Best wishes and happy editing.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

See Flexner Report#Impact on alternative medicine (version of 16:29, 14 May 2014).

—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

See The Flexner Report ― 100 Years Later (September 2011). Under the heading "THE FLEXNER REPORT ― THE PATH NOT TAKEN", paragraph 2 contains this statement: "Patients were primarily viewed as serving the academic purposes of the professor."

—Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Per "higher level of scrutiny/opposition than those from the mainstream community". I give all an equal level of scrutiny. Agree we are not about opposition just about writing an encyclopedia using the best available sources. Just because vertebroplasty is performed by interventional radiologists does not mean that when they compare their treatment against sham control and find it to not better we at Misplaced Pages will give them a free pass. Or that we will allow them to highlight the comparison against a wait list control. Some for acupuncture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Mr Bill. I'm often frustrated by the effort that some people make to exclude acceptable sources because the primary author is a chiropractor or the journal is dedicated to evidence-based reviews of altmed—even when the source is saying that there's no evidence for the altmed treatment! It's especially bad to tell new people that they need to find a review article, and then when they do, tell them that their review article doesn't "count". If we could get some of that scrutiny turned towards common conventional practices (which are far more widely used), that would be helpful. It would also be helpful for people to remember that WP:There is no deadline for getting WP:The Truth about quackery in the encyclopedia, and that those "POV pushing quacks" are good-faith humans who are usually trying their best, just like the "POV pushing anti-altmed" editors are also good-faith humans who are usually trying their best. Even simple steps like being "too busy" with Real Editing™ to reply instantly can help calm down difficult discussions.

Also, I've been meaning to post one of my occasional reminders about wikilife, and this is probably as good (or bad) as time as any other: Everyone gets frustrated on occasion. Everyone, unfortunately, feels disrespected on occasion. Ask for help here. If that's not helpful (because sometimes we drop the ball), then take a break. Work on something else—on your real life, on completely unrelated articles, on another project. (Wikivoyage: probably needs help with information about your hometown, and Category:Unassessed medicine articles always needs attention.) But if you're tempted to post a resignation manifesto (which is pretty rare in our group), please read meatball:GoodBye first, and sleep on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture and pseudoscience

At Talk:Acupuncture #Arbitrary break, I'm engaged in a debate with another editor over the sentence "TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." and whether it needs to be attributed (TCM=traditional Chinese medicine). We seem to have no likelihood of consensus, so I'd be grateful if any other editors would be willing to contribute their opinions on the issue. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

For context, there was previous consensus to include the text in question, but only with in-text attribution. Multiple editors rejected presenting the text as fact (without attribution) because 1. It came from an editorial, and was an off-hand dismissive remark in that editorial rather than the thesis statement of a paper focused on answering a question like "what is TCM?" and 2. TCM does not present itself as a science, but rather a 2000 year old traditional medicine, rendering the pejorative label "pseudoscience" inaccurate. Now, recognizing that the opinion that TCM is a pseudoscience is a notable and popular one, I and others agreed to compromise and include the text as long as there is in-text attribution ("An editorial in Nature characterized TCM as pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism…" I support sticking with the previously agreed upon consensus version.Herbxue (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

When I make a neutral request for other editors to look at a debate, I don't expect to have you arrive to deliver a mendacious one-sided presentation of your biased view of the discussion. But if you insist on re-opening the debate here, I'll oblige. The fact is that there was no previous consensus to attribute the text. That is simply untrue.

Editors don't get to change policy at a whim, and WP:NPOV is clear about attribution:

• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

But you think it shouldn't apply to articles where you edit - which is effectively two as over 100 of your 138 edits to articles are on acupuncture or TCM. You simply want to attribute any statement you disagree with in an attempt to weaken its conclusion and cast acupuncture/TCM in a more favourable light. We don't make amateur analysis of reliable sources - that's the job of secondary sources, not Misplaced Pages editors. The rest is just your opinion with its obvious bias and carries no weight at all.

This is the sort of problem we find ourselves dealing with every day from SPAs on alt med topics, so if any WPMED editors can find a few minutes to make an neutral judgement on the issue at Talk:Acupuncture #Arbitrary break, we could at least lay this one to rest. --RexxS (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, the statement that traditional medicine is "pseudoscience" (rather than, e.g., not modern science at all) is neither uncontested nor uncontroversial, so your quotation from the policy doesn't apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the "Uncontested and uncontroversial" actually means uncontested and uncontroversial in reliable sources, not uncontested and uncontroversial by Misplaced Pages editors, so I think it might be reasonable to expect to see these dissenting reliable sources, don't you? If they exist, let's summarise and attribute the opinions as we always do; but in their absence, surely we should be asserting the sourced statement as simple fact. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Apology

Having had some time to consider the events of the last week, I'd like to offer an apology to Doc James in the same forum in which I took something of a public shot at him. I believe I raised my concerns in an overly emotional and confrontational way, and did a lousy job of enunciating the real basis for my concerns regarding the "P" journal. I'm going to take some time off to reconsider whether and how I can be more effective here.

This note is not intended as a fishing expedition for expressions of any sort from the community, but simply as an acknowledgement that I mishandled my conflict with Doc, who has for the most part been very accomodating of my POV, which on some issues is very different from his own. I'd also like to apologize to the community for the histrionics. (Maybe an SSRI would help.....) Formerly 98 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 I view your work here as positive. Yes we have a slightly different position on the "P" source but generally I think we are in agreement around most things. Look forwards to seeing you back and working together in the future. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone (briefly) catch me up here? What is it that happened? I'm not asking to open wounds here, I'm just wondering if I can help in any way and I'm wondering what is being debated with such intensity. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The two expert editors, signing at the top of this section, were briefly characterizing some aspects of Pharma and Medicine, namely the possibility of others gaming the processes of the encyclopedia, versus potential clinical value of some contribution, in only a few sentences. But they were thinking several steps ahead of what they actually wrote, and their ideals entangled. (My personal reading: it's all good.) OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we were commenting on gaming the processes of Misplaced Pages. We were discussing the different ways in which systematic reviews are produced and the issues with the various methods. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My concern, which I completely failed to enunciate in a way that anyone could understand and respond to, is that Prescrire very clearly makes claims to be more reliable than other sources based on its policy of excluding from its processes not just those with conflicts of interest with respect to a specific topic, but anyone with any relationship with the pharmaceutical industry at all. It was my impression that Jmh49 was specifically endorsing this viewpoint, which was of considerable concern to me given his obvious and well-earned position of influence. As a member of this (pharma associated) group (and one who is somewhat proud of his career and personal accomplishments) I'd find it very helpful to have some clarification on this and whether this is Misplaced Pages Medicine's position going forward. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Beware of more quackery

In the past few months, supporters of quackery and mind-body therapies have succeeded in publishing a number of woo articles in various medical journals. Here are some brilliant examples:

1. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Transcendental experiences during meditation practice (December 2013)

2. Nature Reviews Neurology: Effects of meditation in patients with chronic pain (January 2014)

3. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Advances in Meditation Research: Neuroscience and Clinical Applications (January 2014)

4. JAMA: Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being (March 2014)

5. Frontiers in Psychology: Meditation as a Therapeutic Intervention for Adults at Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease (April 2014)

6. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience: Mindfulness and the aging brain: a proposed paradigm shift (June 2014)

7. British Journal of General Practice: Practical tips for using mindfulness in general practice (July 2014)

8. PLOS ONE - The Effects of Mind-Body Therapies on the Immune System: Meta-Analysis (July 2014)

It appears that every 2-3 weeks, another one of such articles are repeatedly thrown into medical literature, for whatever reason I do not know. Does any of them satisfy WP:MEDRS criteria? If not, more eyes may be needed at articles related to meditation or mind-body therapies. Also, now may be a good time to enforce broader and stricter pseudoscience sanctions on Misplaced Pages to prevent fringe POV editors from promoting fringe quackery. -A1candidate (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no good reason to label any of that as pseudoscience. There is of course a lot of pseudoscience associated with meditation, but there is nothing unscientific about the idea that behaviors such as focusing attention on one thing for a period of time can produce alterations in brain state that are worth studying and potentially beneficial. I'm not even stating a minority opinion here -- I believe the majority of neuroscientists view this the same way I do. Looie496 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:DNFT applies here. Alexbrn 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I gotta go with Looie496 on this. Without going into a deep critique or analysis of the papers listed by A1candidate, we know that patients who are generally relaxed and happy tend to do better than patients who are anxious and depressed, especially with regard to things like pain management. This is pretty basic Psych 101 stuff. Obviously anyone who offers a mechanistic explanation involving the movement of qi from the spleen to the colon is spouting mystical bullshit, but encouraging an internal locus of control can have tangible benefits. (Whether this makes meditation a particularly potent placebo or a genuine intervention is arguably a matter of semantics.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The paper in JAMA (the only one I checked) is a systematic review. A systematic review is not generally considered a "woo article", regardless of its subject, and quackery is when you reject the data, not when the data shows that something that you dislike works despite your dislike (or that something you do like doesn't work). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with WAID. A few of these are primary sources. The JAMA meta-analysis concludes "small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress.", "Stronger study designs are needed to determine the effects of meditation programs in improving the positive dimensions of mental health and stress-related behavior" and "We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies)." so not exactly an endorsement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

These are the first two sentences in their conclusion:

"Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have in addressing psychological stress." (emphasis mine)

The words highlighted in italics certainly sound like an endorsement or even a guideline ("be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have"), although it's good to know that they have acknowledged some limitations in their study. What is more worrying is how JAMA has turned into a sellout advertising board for quackery as demonstrated by a recent commentary (2013):

"For some mind-body approaches, however, there is mounting evidence of usefulness and safety, particularly in relieving chronic pain. A few examples include acupuncture for osteoarthritis pain; tai chi for fibromyalgia pain; and massage, spinal manipulation, and yoga for chronic back pain.

Increasing comfort with this emerging evidence is reflected in practice guidelines from the American College of Physicians, the American Pain Society, and the Department of Defense."

And just a few months ago in March 2014, they endorsed "Acupuncture for Chronic Pain" with a highly dubious claim that "Acupuncture is associated with improved pain outcomes compared with sham-acupuncture", although every skeptic knows that there is ultimately no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture.

As User:QuackGuru recently observed, many of these articles, such as this fake meta-analysis pointed out by him, are in fact pseudo-systematic reviews funded by the quackery trade. In contrast to some forms of meditation, there is clear consensus that acupuncture is by every measure pseudoscientific. Why did you, Doc James, tell QuackGuru that you see "no problems with (using) it"?

Remember, we're only talking about JAMA so far. I think the problem is far worse at some other reputable journals -A1candidate (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:A1candidate maybe you should quote what QG actually state which was "A pseudo-systematic review funded by the trade?" And yes I do not see a problem with using it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:A1candidate - I'm more skeptical to overbearing claims such as yours: although every skeptic knows that there is ultimately no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture., than something from a systematic review. To me this sounds far more like you are disregarding evidence against your viewpoint. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm with CFCF here: woo is when you say that anything that you've decided is "alternative" can't work because you magically know that it doesn't work. Science is when you say that the evidence suggests that (in this case) meditation might have some value for some situations, so therefore you agree that it might not be completely worthless.

In this case, the possibility for benefit seems so highly plausible to me that it's odd there was ever any truly serious question about it: Meditation practices a core mental skill, described in our article on the subject as "training attention and awareness in order to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control", that a person with anxiety often needs to improve, namely being able to focus on whatever task is at hand instead of letting the mind wander off into whatever is worrying you. Acquiring the basic mental skills to focus on whatever you choose, rather than being incapacitated by uncontrolled worrying, does not sound like "woo" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP was being sarcastic. Alexbrn 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that a putative review which includes in its abstract the phrases "... the integration of transcendental experiences and the unfolding of higher states of consciousness ... This integrated state, called Cosmic Consciousness in the Vedic tradition ... Transcendental experiences may be the engine that fosters higher human development." is a woo paper, despite being published by NY Academy of Sciences. I accept that your mileage may vary, of course. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the OP who started this section. Alexbrn 16:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP presented a mixed bag of sources in a way that is difficult to discuss, imo, in a forum thread of this type. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We can discuss these one by one but agree this list of some good and not so good sources is difficult to approach. It also depends on what text they are being used to support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

When a prestigious journal publishes a pseudoscientific article/review

I feel that what User:RexxS pointed out is a very important point: This paper deals with topics that appear to be pseudoscientific ("cosmic consciousness"), yet it is published by a well-established academic journal - The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences - which has a considerable impact factor. The question I want to ask is this:

Where do we draw the line to separate science from pseudoscience?

The same journal, in the same issue, also published a systematic review claiming to have found preliminary evidence that "meditation can offset age-related cognitive decline". Are we supposed to accept or reject this claim? How can we be sure that the editors of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences aren't deliberately publishing pseudoscientific reviews? -A1candidate (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This review states " Growing evidence suggests that cognitive training programs may have the potential to counteract this decline. On the basis of a growing body of research that shows that meditation has positive effects on cognition in younger and middle-aged adults, meditation may be able to offset normal age-related cognitive decline or even enhance cognitive function in older adults." followed by "Studies involved a wide variety of meditation techniques and reported preliminary positive effects on attention, memory, executive function, processing speed, and general cognition. However, most studies had a high risk of bias and small sample sizes."

This could be summarized as "Low quality evidence suggests a possible benefit from meditation with respect to age-related cognitive decline". This is hardly revolutionary. We know that learning a second language can be beneficial as may mind games. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no bright line that separates science from pseudoscience. We are here to accurate report the positions of reliable sources not to determine "truth" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

...So unlike with homeopathy in the case of (various types of) meditation active therapeutic effects are biologically plausible. (At the same time, I do agree with RexxS that parts at least of that conference supplement are really rather wooey.) 109.156.204.159 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with A1candidate that this is a real matter for concern. How do we "know"?

If the answer is that we must re-examine the credibility of a journal (that was previously considered well-established and reliable) whenever it publishes something that seems woo to some editors, I think this sets us up to do a lot of original research, and makes the acceptability of a particular journal subject to the views/prejudices/interests of the currently active editors. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I am not seeing the issue. We just summarize high quality sources. If the are high quality sources that disagree with each other than we state that. No OR needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If a high quality source publishes something that "some" editors see as "woo", is it still a high quality source? Wanderer57 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If a high-quality source publishes something that knee surgeons disagree with, is it still a high-quality source? I think so—and whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides. If a journal is still, overall, a good source despite publishing something controversial about conventional medicine, then it's still a good source despite publishing something controversial about alternative medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if we generally accept the journal, what about the controversial article itself? I'm referring to this one on transcendental experiences during meditation, in particular. It may not be a systematic review, but it's still a secondary source published in a reputable scientific journal. -A1candidate (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Muffinator

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is changing text from

• "200 children without autism." to "200 allistic children"
• "normal individuals" to "neurotypical individuals"
• "matched controls" to "matched neurotypicals"
• They are also changing ASD to autism.

We have unfortunately lost the person who has written much of our autism content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you know a more appropriate alternative to "allistic", please add it, because "without autism" doesn't make any sense and we have already determined consensus on person-first language.

"Normal" is not a diagnosis and is frankly presumptuous. There is no reliable source to say those individuals were normal. Neurotypical is an accurate medical term whose inclusion makes the article more informative. Replacing "controls" with "neurotypicals" similarly clarifies who we are talking about. If there's a strong reason to keep the word control, call them neurotypical controls to differentiate from a possible control group of more autistic people.

A person on the autism spectrum is autistic. That's why it's called the autism spectrum. "Person with ASD" should be replaced with "autistic person", as per the consensus determined on Talk:Autism. Muffinator (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Lets gets other opinions on these word changes.

ASD includes both autism and Aspergers syndrome thus changing it to just autism is not exactly correct. Yes the DSM 5 have merged these diagnosis into autism spectrum disorder but that is still not simply autism.

There was weak support for changing "person with autism" to "autistic person" and I am fine with that. However that was not the only thing you have been changing in your edits thus the reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In this context, by "autism" you mean "classic autism". ASD, classic autism, and Asperger Syndrome are all forms of autism. The fact that old references use outdated terminology is not a good reason to prevent Misplaced Pages from updating. Misplaced Pages has its own style guide and does not latch onto references like a chameleon. If I see something wrong while working on a different issue, I'm inclined to correct both of them. If you have a problem with only one part of an edit, you can change that part, or revert and reintroduce the "good" changes. Just reverting is disruptive. At the very least you could provide an explanation of which parts were problematic, I'll check my notifications and put the "good" parts back.Muffinator (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the Misplaced Pages guideline page that mentions "private language"? Given that articles on Deaf culture use "hearing person", "allistic" is not unprecedented. Muffinator (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Have changed the article on Deaf culture. Hearing person is poor English but at least a person can figure it out. Allistic gah.

If you are planning on more controversial changes best to get consensus before hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That response did not answer the question. Is there a guideline page explaining "private language" or did you just make the controversial change from "hearing person" to "person with normal hearing" without getting consensus first? Muffinator (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term 'neurotypicals' without wikilinking it is very hard to justify as it's against Misplaced Pages:Use plain English and in the context of an experimental design 'control' is a much better description of their role. The Andrew_Wakefield example should use the same terminology as Wakefield does, because it's talking about a person's beliefs and the further we take it from their terminology the more OR it is. The Autism changes just look wrong --- I still have no idea what the "ability to demonstrate" change is about. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to an example in which the word neurotypical was wikilinked earlier in the article. I figured there was no need to link it twice. "Ability to demonstrate comprehension" is a more accurate description as comprehension itself is immeasurable except through self-reporting; this applies in more contexts than just autism. Do we really need to have disputes and consensus over every minute change in wording? If that's the case, we should set up a lock an all articles so that all edits need administrator approval. Muffinator (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Added RFC tag because an interest in "other opinions" was expressed. Muffinator (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Talk:Autism dicussion, which didn't mention other pages and was closed with a "a relatively weak consensus" is no basis to change a the language in a large number of articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Muffinator has also brought this to ANI Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Autism is at the very least the most popular article about autism. More importantly, consensus is consensus. If you have an issue with the discussion being deemed a consensus, take it up with the user who closed the discussion. Muffinator (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Re: RFC: Could it be clarified what exactly opinions are being sought for? The four items at the top of the discussion, or more/other than that? In terms of "allism/allistic", that is clearly inappropriate -- it's a confusing, very obscure neologism with no widespread official acceptance at all; it wasn't even "added" to WP or Wiktionary till a few days ago, and even then without a single source. The neurotypical vs. normal debate has more basis in definitive usage, but even then, Stuartyeates' recommendation that WP use the terminology of the cited articles makes a good degree of sense; I don't personally see any real basis for confusion what "normal" or "control" means here. "Autism" is not the same as ASD, that much should be clear to anybody -- one is a spectrum, the other is a specific (autism is always classic autism unless otherwise noted). Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That was what I was wishing people to weight in on. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Softlavender, and even if it wasn't for those strong arguments there is no consensus for such a broad change. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Allistic" is clearly a neologism without clear definition or wide linguistic acceptance in the English language. It would be inappropriate to insert the word into wide use on Misplaced Pages without significant discussion and broad community consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Having written extensively on ASD:

1. "allistic" is an inappropriate term and should not be used
2. "neurotypical" is the most correct term in lieu of "normal" (because normal cannot be defined)
3. "ASD" is more correct than "autism", unless you're talking the rare cases of full-bore, far end of the spectrum Autistic
4. "matched controls" is a scientific term, and must be kept for scientific consistency

So in short, the changes are mostly wrong, but one might just be right the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Or simply "matched controls" (the matching is an aspect of the study design). 109.156.204.159 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Allistic is POV jargon. Neurotypical is unhelpful to people who are unfamiliar with the subject. Non-autistic or people without an autism diagnosis (because not all allegedly neurotypical people actually are neurotypical) is a better choice.

One other reason for avoiding neurotypical is that it's based on a false dichotomy: a person can have neurological problems that are not ASD-related. A person with schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis is, as a matter of physical facts, neurologically atypical, even if that person has no significant ASD-related symptoms at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support for 'non-autistic'. --Hordaland (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, 'non-autistic' seems like the correct phrasing, which neither places value judgments nor assumes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to use a word like "neurotypical" on wikipedia, you will need to define it at the first instance in the article using brackets. Since that definition will probably use the word "normal" it seems a bit pedantic to me, but I am unfamiliar with the topic. If hte literature uses the term then support. 92.40.94.138 (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We should be using plain English as much as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James on this one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Writing as a layman, ie., an editor without any medical credentials, the first three of the four changes mentioned above (from "children without autism." to "allistic children", from "normal individuals" to "neurotypical individuals", and from "matched controls" to "matched neurotypicals") confuse the sentences they appear in. If it is important for precision of language to distinguish (eg) between "normal" and "neurotypical", an extra sentence or two should be added to make the distinction. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Has any organization which advocates for the autism community every published a manual of style for journalists? Has any such manual of style been identified or sought? Muffinator, do you know anything about this? Can you recommend any organization which might have published guidance on this that we could copy instead of developing it ourselves? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• The Autistic Self Advocacy Network and the Autism Women's Network are prominent advocacy groups which advocate for Autistic-first language. Muffinator (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

X with autism or autistic X?

There's a discussion at Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism about whether to use "child with autism", "autistic child" or both. The former appears in PubMed about 25 times as often as the latter. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the Medical Translation Newsletter

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

Hey, this is the new Medical Translation Newsletter, a part of an IEG supporting our Translation Taskforce.
   Pop over and give it a read, or drop some comments.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Template:The WikiProject Medicine Barnstar

I have just discovered that the WikiProject Medicine barnstar has been changed from the Rod of Asclepius to the caduceus. Can we have the Rod of Asclepius back please? Axl ¤ 11:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

By pure coincidence I was the one who changed it, and I've reverted it. Looking for a Rod of Asclepius svg alternative, the old image is a bit fuzzy. P.S. Thanks for the barnstart :) -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I also do realize it is incorrect, even though it is widely used in association with medicine. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Lol, adopting the Caduceus as a symbol of medicine might act as a calling card to critics here ;) 109.156.204.159 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

CFCF, thank you for changing the image back. Axl ¤ 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Help reviewing “Editing psychology articles” handout for student editors?

(Apologies for the cross-post.) Introducing myself for those of you I haven’t interacted with before — I’m LiAnna Davis, and I’m in charge of communications for the Wiki Education Foundation, the nonprofit that runs the Misplaced Pages Education Program in the United States and Canada. One of my goals this year is to create a series of discipline-specific support materials for students and instructors participating in our program. Given the challenges some psychology students have had in the past, I’m starting with psychology, and I need some help. I’ve created a page in my userspace explaining more about what I’m trying to do, and then added an outline of the preliminary content I’d like to include.

Since psychology is not my specialty, I would really like to get feedback from experienced content contributors in psychology to make sure I’m providing accurate advice to students. I’m looking for several people who’ve contributed content to psychology articles to review the advice and offer feedback — please help if you can! I need all comments by Monday, July 14. Please leave comments on the talk page rather than here so they’re all in the same place. Thanks! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Crick after DNA

After Crick's success in understanding the secret of life (see his autobiography What Mad Pursuit), he naturally turned to the next open problem: consciousness, which he worked on for the rest of his life. His collaborator, Christof Koch, completed their last paper together Crick, Francis; Koch, Christof (2005). "What is the Function of the Claustrum?". doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1661. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) Now, 10 years later, Mohamad Z. Koubeissi MD, et al. (2014), Journal of Epilepsy and Behavior, while seeking to cure a woman's epilepsy, have learned that electrical stimulation of the claustrum reversibly turns off her consciousness, while leaving her wakefulness intact. Turning off the electrical stimulation returned her consciousness. Crick and Koch point out that the claustrum enjoys reciprocal connections to the rest of the brain, including V1, in the visual system.

From the viewpoint of scientific method, the Crick & Koch 2005 paper contains a cautiously worded hypothesis, while Koubeissi, et al. 2014 constitute a crucial experiment, because the Koubeissi experiment describes a reversible method, while Crick & Koch describe a theory which will likely prove fertile for decades, just as the DNA story has proven. The length of the fertile period exemplifies the Lakatos criterion for the 'strength of a scientific programme'.

My question for the MED project is: although Crick & Koch 2005 is labelled a 'review', and therefore a secondary source, does it qualify as MEDRS? What is needed for the concepts which are implicit in Koubeissi , et al. 2014 to qualify? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Crick's hypothesis seems to be noteworthy enough to be covered, though the hypothesis itself is primary material so is best approached through secondary sources. The current claustrum article is not in the best shape. Alexbrn 10:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The cautious observation I refer to (p.6 of the 10 page pdf) is "There are remarkably few microelectrode investigations of claustral receptive-field properties and almost none in awake animals." -- Crick and Koch 2005, which Koubeissi 2014 has kindly supplied. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• In my view, the Crick & Koch paper meets MEDRS, but the views in it are admittedly speculative, so if they are referred to in Misplaced Pages, it should always be with wording such as "Francis Crick and Christof Koch proposed that ...". In other words, it should be made clear that these are the views of specific people rather than mainstream ideas. As a source of background information about the claustrum the paper can definitely be used, although in a few respects it is already out of date. A better source for background info is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3983483/. The Koubeissi paper is absolutely a primary source. My personal opinion is that their findings are not nearly as important as some people make them out to be, and in any case they were obtained from a single human subject and certainly need to be replicated. Looie496 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've commented more extensively on this on my personal web site, see Comments on Koubessi et al.: Have we learned anything new about the role of the claustrum in consciousness? if you are interested. Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture again

I apologise for bringing this before you again, but I'm being tag-team reverted by two SPAs on Acupuncture.

In this edit, Middle 8 (an acupuncturist) removed the text:

• "Example text"

with an edit summary claiming that the source doesn't support the statement. The source, Acupuncture: Does it alleviate pain and are there serious risks? A review of reviews, states:

• "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham."

I restored the text, but have been reverted by Herbxue.

Debate continues on Talk:Acupuncture #Another convenience break, but there's no common ground. I'd appreciate more eyes on this, please, as the local editors seem intent on diluting any content that doesn't present acupuncture in a positive light, even impeccably sourced text. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment