Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Plos One

I thought there was consensus that Plos One is not per se a reliable source, is never a WP:MEDRS, and should only be used if all the authors are experts in appropriate fields. I could be wrong, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the reference in the section above, I don't think it has negative reliability, just little positive reliability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember any specific discussion whether Plos One is reliable. This source (PMID 24349293) was recently added. QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Think the OP would be better off asking this on the Talk:PLOS ONE. I can't recall any mention on WP or anywhere else, that questions PLOS's reliability. The section about is titled low Low Impact factor but this has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS. PLOS is peer reviewed. However, it does publish a great amount stuff (compared to other journals) that is very little studied. So it is expected that it will have a low impact factor when compared to journals that cherry pick the flavor of the month academic papers. So one must not judge by that metric - alone.--Aspro (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Whether PLOS ONE is a reliable source is completely irrelevant to the article PLOS ONE, so there should be no discussion at Talk:PLOS ONE. WP:RSN may be the appropriate board for discussion, unless there is a specific board for WP:MEDRS questions. In addition, absent evidence to the contrary, the "peer review" in WP:MEDRS should be "traditional" (pre-publication, and probably anonymous) peer review, not the post-publication peer review described for this journal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no specific discussion of PLOS ONE at WP:RSN; there is a clear consensus that at least two publishers of open-access journals do not have adequate review to be considered reliable, but that is specific to those publishers. PLOS ONE has a different "peer review" model, and, if WP:MEDRS is changed to include non-traditional peer review, it might qualify. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
PLoS Medicine is specifically listed as a "high-quality journal" in WP:MEDRS (although, oddly enough, not specifically stated to be "reliable"); if that represents consensus, I'm tempted to withdraw this comment, until consensus can be confirmed at WT:MEDRS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The point about first questioning this at Talk:PLOS ONE is that along the same lines as "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". It is the first logical step before escalating. Second: PLOS (as far as I can see) does employ "traditional peer review". So, therefore, et cetera, et cetera, WP:MEDRS does not need updating. The difference to other journals perhaps, is that PLOS rely on post publication discussions to decide the importance, rather than leaving it to the foibles of their own editorial team. Did you base your question on the ramblings of a malfarius yellow journalist critic or internet blogger? Guard against letting the tail wag the dog.--Aspro (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Plos One favors quantity (and free access) over quality. It is how itself defines its business model. That should be a red flag. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Your quote:Plos One favors quantity (and free access) over quality. By what evidence do you suggest this? This is like a logical fallacy. A supermarket may have thousands on lines on their shelves but does this mean quantity of their fair are of a lesser quality from the corner shop that 'specializes' on just a few basic items? So much for you red flag!--Aspro (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
From the horse's mouth: http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2012/12/13/plos-one-launches-a-new-peer-review-form/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious, if Plos One is unreliable as some suggest, what about Plos Medicine? Same open access, same registration fees, peer review, etc. Is Plos anything unreliable? LesVegas (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about that, but Plos One stated that its own peer review process is shallow. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I read your link and didn't see Plos One directly state what you claimed, but rather describe the fact that their review process doesn't include the step where literature that does not make a significant advance is editorially rejected. To me, this doesn't create shallow content, and in fact, is a solid check on the centralization of scientific research. Excellent research comes out of this publication. In fact, several nobel laureates have research published in it. But listen, I get it. I understand the need for quality publications in the article here. If I had it my way, we would get rid of any research that does not meet STRICTA/CONSORT reporting standards. But MEDRS says nothing about reporting quality, so I can't justifiably hold that rubric to this article. Likewise, Plos One meets all the requirements Medrs suggests. It's peer reviewed and while their process is different than some other journals, they do have a process. I don't see any reason this journal should be excluded. And earlier, you said there was consensus about it. But clearly, since I'm protesting along with a few others, there isn't consensus. LesVegas (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It's highly respected in many fields and has a solid impact factor of around 3.1, which I think would easily put it in the top 25% of journals. TimidGuy (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note. MEDRS requires using independent sources. Cheong KB, Zhang JP, Huang Y, and Zhang ZJ are alternative medicine advocates (PMID 24349293). See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They may be advocates, I don't know for certain, you would probably be more of an expert there than I would. But if independence is of strict concern, then you would have to remove anything by Ernst since he's an avowed opponent of alternative medicine. When it comes to something like acupuncture, there's always going to be parties that aren't completely neutral or may have stated their opinion at one time or another. My philosophy is pretty libertarian and I'd like the article to encompass everything, not in favor of one side or the other, and have as much rich data as possible. Placement and weight can be debated, but inclusion/exclusion not so much, at least not if we are to follow policies here. LesVegas (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
"Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents." Statements made by proponents are not independent. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, we could argue about that forever. Fact is researchers always have opinions, deep down, whether they admit to these or not. What matters is, are they following the scientific method? Are the sources reputable, peer-reviewed, secondary, etc? Yes, yes, and yes. But at the end of the day, we have to remember MEDRS is not the law of the land but is just a guideline. NPOV is law of the land, and here is what it has to say:
"Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." LesVegas (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with anyone else here.
Discussion of whether PLOS ONE is reliable should not be at Talk:PLOS ONE, per WP:TPG. Discussion or whether PLOS ONE is really peer-reviewed might be there, but it would not necessarily relate to our use of "peer-reviewed".
I agree that, even in WP:MEDRS, we may use clearly biased articles if published in (traditional) peer-reviewed journals, as the review is supposed to remove bias affecting the meaning of the article. However, PLOS ONE is not "peer-reviewed" in the that sense, for two reasons: the the "peers" are self-selected, and the reviewers are not supposed to judge whether the result is "interesting", which is how extreme bias is removed in traditional review. The review occurring after publication is irrelevant.
On the other hand, QG is wrong as to the meaning of "independent". If the journal were peer-reviewed, then the articles would be considered "independent" even if written by proponents, because the editors or reviewers would be independent. On the other hand, if not, then QG would be correct in regard WP:MEDRS guidelines. (I thought that WP:SPS had restrictions on using experts' self-published comments on their own work. Apparently, I was mistaken.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, thank you for your interesting points. I do agree that self-selection of peers might be problematic, but since I'm not an expert on scientific journals (and probably most of us here are not) I do think this topic would probably be better discussed somewhere else. I also agree with you that Plos:One talk is not the place to do this, though. But since Plos One articles are cited widely across Wikipedia, perhaps a policy or guideline talk page would be better? MEDRS talk maybe? It would be nice if MEDRS was more specific about peer-review. As it stands, there is no truly clear criteria for what is acceptable peer review and what is not. If you take this up there, please let me know, as I would love to be part of that discussion. I have particularly strong opinions on editors squashing research because the results aren't "interesting," and would love to be part of any discussion that brings this up specifically. LesVegas (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if that's the basis. I've rarely seen papers which are so biased as to be misleading actually published, and I assume that the reason a reviewer would state for rejection is that the authors' statements of their own views is not "interesting", as the claim that they are "inaccurate" would be false. I know that, in the few instances that I was selected as a peer-reviewer, I would have rejected such a paper, even if it was not in the publication guidelines. Other more current peer-reviewers would have to comment as to the reason the reviewer would give, but "so biased as to be misleading" is not commented on by any of the published Plos One reviewing guidelines. Probably WP:RSN would be the appropriate place for initial discussion, as there doesn't seem to be a WP:MEDRSN; although WT:MEDRS might also be appropriate for the general question of the definition of "peer-review" for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. My wife's injury last Saturday is more severe than I had previously thought, so I may not have time to bring this up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
As someone who has a passing familiarity with PLOS - PLOS One is peer-reviewed only for "technical" issues, so they ensure that e.g. the reported results support the conclusion, but they do not evaluate e.g. whether the conclusions are scientifically important. (The post-publication discussion isn't a peer review.) It has some good papers, especially because a few well-known scientists publish exclusively in PLOS One based on principle, but overall article quality can vary a lot. The other PLOS journals, like PLOS Medicine, employ traditional peer review. Sunrise (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
All of which sounds reasonable enough for a WP:RS. All across the project we use sources that fall well short of that bar or employ no use of peer-review (nor are expected to by our policies). Even bearing in mind the specific concerns of WP:MEDRS, it's not specifically required (though, don't get me wrong, I still found those details very informative with regard to PLOS One). So long as we are ascribing proper weight to any content derived from any PLOS One references, relative to how those perspectives fit in the overall scientific consensus, I think our readers should be allowed to determine themselves from context (and their own opinions on the sources, if they have any) just how they view each individual claim; we're meant to stay away from judging claims in that sense per WP:NPOV, a principle we are tacitly violating if we omit references from a notable journal based on our own assessments of the strength of that evidence. MEDRS is meant to inform upon a nuanced interpretation of WP:V and WP:RS to keep out fringe material that truly warps the presentation of the field of mainstream scientific perspectives on the subject -- not references from a major journal that just happens to have a slightly less rigorous peer-review policy than some other sources that appear in a given article. Likewise, addressing an issue raised farther above, impact factors are not in and of themselves an argument, in terms of policy, for the inadmissibility of a given source; though a high impact factor argues well for a source, the inverse is not necessarily true. Snow talk 02:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Global Journal of Health Science

I don't think we should be citing papers in the Global Journal of Health Science because the journal's publisher, the Canadian Center of Science and Education, is on Beall's list of predatory publishers. [1] The paper I am referring to is "How Effective Are Spiritual Care and Body Manipulation Therapies in Pediatric Oncology? A Systematic Review of the Literature". If no objections are raised I will remove the paper. Everymorning talk 21:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Weight violation

I deleted the WP:MEDRS violations. They are not reviews. I also fixed the wording for the 2011 review and added safety information from a review. I also fixed the formatting for refs in the other conditions section. QuackGuru (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I previously explained the text that was recently added was about the images. The misleading text was asserted in Wikipedia's voice and was not the conclusion the source made. I also explained the problem with the wording for another sentence. I explained this in my edit summary the wording for the 2011 review but no specific objection was made by other editors. The MEDRS violations were restored along with other non-neutral text. The formatting for the sources in the other conditions sections were fixed but it was reverted without explanation and sourced text to a review in the safety section was also deleted without explanation. This shows an editor blindly reverted because the editor deleted information from the safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The contents I careless deleted during I revert the deletion from you had been re-added. Now the problem got solution. Miracle dream (talk)
There are still other problems with your edits such the MEDRS violations. I went ahead and restored the other sentence you deleted to the correct section and fixed the refs again. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"A 2012 analysis of data on individual participants in acupuncture studies looked at migraine and tension headaches. The analysis showed that actual acupuncture was more effective than either no acupuncture or simulated acupuncture in reducing headache frequency or severity."[29][2] This was a cut and past. See Acupuncture#Headaches and migraines.

"A 2014 Australian clinical study involving 282 men and women showed that needle and laser acupuncture were modestly better at relieving knee pain from osteoarthritis than no treatment, but not better than simulated (sham) laser acupuncture."[30][3] This was a cut and past. See Acupuncture#Extremity conditions.

"According to NCCAM, results of a systematic review that combined data from 11 clinical trials with more than 1,200 participants suggested that acupuncture (and acupuncture point stimulation) may help with certain symptoms associated with cancer treatments.[85]"[4] This was a cut and past. See Acupuncture#Cancer-related conditions.

There is no need to use a poor source when we are citing systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews. This is a WP:weight violation (and possible MEDRS violation) IMO. Rather than cite NCCM we should cite the systematic review itself and high-quality reliable sources. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In the context of an article already bloated with weak positive studies, seemingly included in order to cast doubt on the consensus view that the weak positive results are fully consistent with the null hypothesis, I agree that Cochrane review is all we should need here. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@ JzG: Where is the proof that this is the consensus view let alone a majority one? Source(s) meeting WP:RS/AC? On the contrary, the best MEDRS we have (Vickers, an IPD meta-analysis) finds for efficacy for several kinds of pain; the sources criticizing it don't even come close to being at the same level as MEDRS's; and contrary to the assertions of acu-critics, there are other mainstream sources that accepted it (Medscape outweighs Novella and Gorski). See my comment at recent ArbCom request [5], and feel free to provide rebuttal. Based on your respective comments, you or Kww apparently fail to understand the literature or WP:MEDRS. For example, it appears (from what you consider to be sci consensus) that you seem to think that a bunch of blogs by alt-med critics, which are barely MEDRS's, outweigh sources like Medscape and a peer-reviwed IPD meta-analysis. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (edited to add diff 13:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC))
No, Middle 8, I don't think blogs "outweigh" MEDRS sources. What I do think is that if you study a placebo often enough, you will wind up with a group of MEDRS sources that are false positives: slightly flawed studies that hint at some kind of effectiveness. Combine that with politically-motivated organisations like NCCAM, and it's easy to construct an article that either falsely gives the impression that acupuncture has medical validity, or, at the very least, an article that is so bloated with cherry-picked references that the reader has a hard time picking up on the fact that it has no medical validity. I think the whole "evidence" novella we have here should be replaced with a short summary, something close to "the benefits of acupuncture are likely nonexistent, or at best are too small and too transient to be of any clinical significance"[6]. Our current style of "this study found inconclusive ..." followed by "this study found inconclusive ..." followed by "this study found inconclusive ..." serves to do nothing but highlight false positives and obscure the central point: repeated studies of acupuncture have not found any substantial and repeatable effect relative to placebos.—Kww(talk) 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Kww - I partially agree with you re waffling about inconsistent results: we should be concise and explicit where uncontradicted sources themselves report inconsistent results (i.e. some trials being positive, some not, as is so with Cochrane reviews do for most conditions). In those cases, we should simply list those conditions in a single paragraph or sentence and be done with it. We do so in the section Acupuncture#Other_conditions and perhaps could put other conditions there, or create another section if needed. (Note that some of the wordiness in the efficacy section and elsewhere is due to one editor, an very active acu-critic, who is very dug in with their stance that virtually any paraphrasing is OR.) That said, when multiple sources (MEDRS's i.e. reviews) contradict one another, we must so indicate, even if you and/or Novella disagree. That's because not all MEDRS agree with Novella; he could be wrong about the few conditions where there is debate. Again, a number MEDRS that disagree with him are as strong or stronger MEDRS than his editorial or his blog posts, so we can't frame the former the way the latter would. That's the state of the literature, which we are obliged to depict per NPOV. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 14:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Sticking to notable medical publications should take care of that. It is not our job to speculate whether the peer review procedure of some respected journals are wrong, or if someone thinks that a mistake must have happened. No twisting the sources in either way, I'd say. When it comes to blogs, wasn't it concluded that blogs could be used on a case-by-case basis if the blog complements claims that have been backed up by sound MEDRS?
The paraphrasing issue has been noticed by several editors already, and we can start working on that one too. Important is that we avoid plagiarism by not including pieces of text too close to the source. "Be bold", of course, but I'd like to encourage editors to also include such problematic passages here on the Talk Page for public view so that a larger audience could easily work on them. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Previously, I don't know much about the rule for MEDRS. Hence, I don't know what is the difference between the reliable source required in this article and in others. For other articles, it must be an undoubtedly reliable source which is from official organization from U.S. government. However, I don't know the rule in this article. Hence, I wait others comments.
Now user User:BullRangifer opened a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#NCCAM as a MEDRS?.I knew User:BullRangifer thought NCCAM was unbelievable. User:QuackGuru, you also joined in that discussion [7], I don't know why you opened a new discussion. From I read by now,it seems it hard to say source from NCCAM is MEDRS violation. The comment made me believe this is someone wrote like this"[MEDRS] says: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include....U.S. National Institutes of Health"
Based on this comment, I read the [MEDRS]. It clearly said "include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health" It means the rule of MEDRS thought the source from U.S. National Institutes of Health is MEDRS compliant. As we know, NCCAM is a part of U.S. National Institutes of Health. It made me very confused every source from NIS is MEDRS compliant why NCCAM is MEDRS violation. Then for the ongoing debate in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#NCCAM as a MEDRS?. It seems someone really agreed that NCCAM is MEDRS compliant, such as User WhatamIdoing. By now, the discussion is ongoing. It means consensus hasn't been reached.
For the contents I cited, I use the comments from User WhatamIdoing
    • In the instant case, the statement says, "A 2012 analysis of data on individual participants in acupuncture studies looked at migraine and tension headaches. The analysis showed that actual acupuncture was more effective than either no acupuncture or simulated acupuncture in reducing headache frequency or severity."
    • The source cited was What the Science Says About the Effectiveness of Acupuncture-For Heaache from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
    • The relevant contents of the NCCAM website are, "A 2012 analysis of data on individual participants in acupuncture studies looked at migraine and tension headaches. The analysis showed that actual acupuncture was more effective than either no acupuncture or simulated acupuncture in reducing headache frequency or severity"—word-for-word what the NCCAM webpage says. (There's no copyvio here, because there's no copyright in US government works.)
    • Is this webpage reliable for these contents (i.e., for describing the contents of some other source)? Yes.
    • Would the underlying "analysis of data in...[multiple] acupuncture studies" be exactly the sort of meta-analysis that MEDRS promotes? Yes. Or, at least, it is presumably the sort of source that MEDRS holds in highest esteem, although it's possible that there would be some serious failing (e.g., not ever having been published).
    • In particular, it would be really silly to say that it's excellent for a Wikipedia editor to read that meta-analysis and write his own description of it, but that it's impossibly bad to have actual professionals read that study and write a description of it. Amateurs are not always better than professionals, especially when it comes to evaluating something technical. Also, if your information comes from NCCAM, then WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies, and you aren't permitted to cite the original meta-analysis (unless and until you obtain the paper and read it).
I don't know whether it's Ok to use other Users' comment. If it is some rule violation, please notice me and I will delete these comments from User WhatamIdoing. However her comments is some kind of what I agree with.
I made a conclusion here. The rule at least what I read in [MEDRS] clearly said source from U.S. National Institutes of Health is MEDRS compliant. Then NCCAM is part of U.S. National Institutes of Health. It should be compliant based on this rule. Then there is an ongoing discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#NCCAM as a MEDRS?. The consensus hasn't been reached. Hence,you cannot get the violation from this discussion. I think users can join the discussion in that page instead of this one. Then some reason why NCCAM is MEDRS violation like "NCCAM is populated and operated mostly by pro-AM people" " Even Cochrane reviews are becoming dubious sources, so even with reviews we must be wary" "Our MEDRS guideline is much better than the standards of NCCAM and most peer reviewed medical journals. We should be proud of that and not lower our standards." from User:BullRangifer made me feel like a wiki academic research result by wiki Users which I thought it's totally an original research. 17 December 2014‎ Miracle dream (talk)
NCCAM was set up by believers in woo, is designed to produce evidence supportive of woo, and has a history of publishing credulous articles about woo. That said, for the expenditure of something like one and a half billion dollars, it has yet to validate a single alternative treatment. And its latest rebranding suggests it's not even going to try any more. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... Moving from the level opinions to the level of evidence-backed claims, NCCAM is set up by the U.S. Federal Government. As far as I understand, its focus is on objective investigation on the usefulness of CAM; trying to present only positive results is not part of their agenda. Small quotes from their website[8]:

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is the Federal Government's lead agency for scientific research on complementary and alternative medicine. We are 1 of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

On their mission and objectives (emphasis added):

The mission of NCCAM is to define, through rigorous scientific investigation, the usefulness and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions and their roles in improving health and health care. [...] Develop and disseminate objective, evidence-based information on complementary and alternative medicine interventions.

"Woo studies" will most likely have "woo results", or even employ "woo methods". If there is some publication bias in favour of pro-CAM research results, though, I am quite sure there are studies about that available. There are different statistical methods, such as funnel plot, that scholars employ in order to study the presumed publication bias. If a national body like NCCAM would blatantly exhibit such bias, it'd surely have been studied and reported. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


"A 2012 analysis of data on individual participants in acupuncture studies looked at migraine and tension headaches. The analysis showed that actual acupuncture was more effective than either no acupuncture or simulated acupuncture in reducing headache frequency or severity."[29] There is a lack of consensus for this text. See Acupuncture#Headaches and migraines. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.

"A 2014 Australian clinical study involving 282 men and women showed that needle and laser acupuncture were modestly better at relieving knee pain from osteoarthritis than no treatment, but not better than simulated (sham) laser acupuncture."[30] There is a lack of consensus for this text. See Acupuncture#Extremity conditions. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.

"According to NCCAM, results of a systematic review that combined data from 11 clinical trials with more than 1,200 participants suggested that acupuncture (and acupuncture point stimulation) may help with certain symptoms associated with cancer treatments.[85]" There is a lack of consensus for this text. See Acupuncture#Cancer-related conditions. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."

I think the key word is reputable, according to the wording of MEDRS. For example, the reputations of NIMH and NCI are significantly different than that of NCCAM. Therefore, the question is clearly due weight. Since it is not clear that NCCAM (see National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health#Criticism) is a reputable organisation we should leave the text out of the Acupuncture#Effectiveness section, especially when effectiveness is bloated with a number of better sources. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice the very comment above?[9] Cheers and Happy New Year! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh... the problem here is that both proponents and opponents of acupuncture are trying to use this article to "prove" that their view point is correct. The solution is to avoid doing so... and that goes for both sides of the debate. It is fact that proponents make all sorts of claims about the benefits of acupuncture... it is fact that many if not most of those claims are refuted by the medical community. That is really all the article needs to say. There is no need to go into details and site studies to "prove" and "disprove" that acupuncture works.
The debates that keep cropping up at this article would be resolved if Wikipedia treated alternative medicine topics the way we treat religious topics. We should discuss the topic in terms of belief... state who believes what (cited by sources supporting the fact that they believe it), but stop there. Have some respect for the fact that different people believe different things... and don't try to "prove" that those beliefs are true or correct. In terms of belief... a statement like "Acupuncture cures cancer" is really not all that different than a statement like "Jesus died for our sins." Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears editors who have concerns with the source at project medicine are User:BullRangifer, User:Stuartyeates, and User:Tgeorgescu. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_57#NCCAM_as_a_MEDRS.3F. The tags were removed right after I made this comment. This was not a response to my previous comment. We should remove the poor evidence because we are using much better sources. We should not use poor evidence to argue against higher-quality evidence. We should strive to use the best evidence rather than continue to bloat the sections with bad sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a need for "evidence" at all... we don't bother to provide "evidence" in religion articles... we present the fact of belief, and leave it at that. The same can be done here. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
"Jesus died for our sins" isn't falsifiable. "Acupuncture heals many diseases" is falsifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, the issue of NCCAM sources has been resolved on the wikiproject medicine talk page where it received broad support amongst uninvolved editors because it is part of the NIH. The NIH is explicitly mentioned in MEDRS as a reliable source. I hope this resolves any misunderstanding and keeps these sources from being tagged in the future. LesVegas (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Les, I disagree with you on a lot of things, but this is the first time I have caught you blatantly lying. There's nothing in the linke you have cited that could even be misunderstood as "broad support amongst uninvolved editors". Nothing at all.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Kww, it appears MiracleDream, Tgeorgescu, MrBill3 and Brangifer are involved editors who posted their opinions about it. That leaves Whatamidoing and Mast Cell as the ones I meant who were uninvolved as I don't believe they have edited here before. Am I wrong here? Anyway, I would appreciate if we could all keep from calling each other liars before hearing the other party out. No big deal, I forgive you, I just don't want the talk page to turn into more of a battleground environment than it already is. For the record, here are a couple of comments from these uninvolved editors:
I personally have a pretty dim view of NCCAM (although it has improved somewhat over time from its especially inauspicious beginnings). That said, NCCAM clearly meets our sourcing bar as described in WP:MEDRS; it's part of the NIH and thus falls under "reputable major medical and scientific bodies". MastCell Talk 21:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. In the end, we have to choose between publishing what established (perhaps "entrenched" would be a better word) editors believe is The Truth™, or publishing what the sources say, giving the various viewpoints in due proportion to their prominence. If you're doing the latter, then you have to take NCCAM on the same footing as NIMH or NCI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I hope that clears things up, KWW. Peace!LesVegas (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
In what universe does two editors constitute "broad support" in a discussion where you had to discard twice as many opinions? I stand by my characterization: you are intentionally misrepresenting the contents of the discussion.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
His statement says broad support amongst uninvolved editors. You are taking it out of context -A1candidate (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
2 for 2 is not "broad support" under any definition of the term.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Taking a quick glance at the discussion, I don't see any uninvolved editor opposing NCCAM per se. In any case, it's the strength of the arguments that counts, not the number of votes. -A1candidate (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Kww, there was a third editor, an anonymous one who also supported it. But that's beside the point. It appears an involved editor, Brangifer, took the question to the WikiProject Medicine page as a sign of good editing, since said user was involved in the removal of the NCCAM sourcing. Brangifer asked, Miracle Dream also involved, also chimed in, and uninvolved and respectable editors replied that NCCAM is the NIH and therefore MEDRS. As is usually characteristic of this article, a number of involved editors also made their way to the argument but I'm not counting those names. The whole purpose of posting on a page like ProjectMedicine talk is to get an outside POV and that outside POV was unanimously in favor of the sources. I'm glad Brangifer took the issue to this page instead of edit warring. I'm also glad uninvolved editors chimed in. And, anywho, I stand by what I said. These editors (except the anonymous one) repeatedly and passionately argued their points as well. No other uninvolved dissenting opinions weighed in on the meat of the issue, so that's why I said what I said. You said there's nothing that could even be "misunderstood" as broad consensus, do you still stick by that? Kew, listen, I should probably address an issue with you: on John's talk page you said that you wanted me and other editors banned even though we use good behavior. You think my POV is dangerous, and I suppose this could be seen as an issue where you're trying to smear me in hopes of achieving your goal. Call me whatever you want, it's fine, but this is the last response you will hear from me on this issue. Ultimately, talk pages are for discussing the article and this is already enough of a battleground zone. I'm only going to respond to the actual point at hand here on out. LesVegas (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I think your fervent defense of your misrepresentation of facts speaks pretty much for itself, and any reader that comes across your statement will quickly recognize that you were misrepresenting the discussion. Yes, I do consider editors that misrepresent sources and discussions to be a danger to the encyclopedia, and find it a shame that other admins are deceived by the polite facade. It really does come down to petty things like this: describing statements by two editors as "broad support" isn't a difference of opinion, it's a lie. That you would repeat it magnifies the sin, and that A1candidate defends it makes him an accomplice.—Kww(talk) 00:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow wow wow... let's keep the cool, shall we?

Les, I disagree with you on a lot of things, but this is the first time I have caught you blatantly lying. Kww(talk) 21:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is something we all absolutely have to follow, isn't it?
As far as I am concerned, I clarified in this edit[10] that NCCAM is an organization set up by the U.S. Federal Goverment, and that "its focus is on objective investigation on the usefulness of CAM; trying to present only positive results is not part of their agenda.".
If one seriously wants to question a governmental organization and their objectivity, please do present some sources. If there is some criticism/bias, it sure has been investigated by statistic methods in academic literature. If it has not been studied, well there is an obvious reason why it has not been studied. Of course, there still exists the "conspiracy section", but Wikipedia isn't a place for that kind of nonsense. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I would have opposed that as well had I seen it. The basic idea is that NCCAM is not accepted as an authority by the scientific community to the same degree as other branches of the NIH (which should indeed be treated as reputable authorities). In response to the request for sources, I searched the Nature and Science archives (search terms: NCCAM criticism, NCCAM reputation, etc) and found:

  • Nature Reviews Cancer: "the subject of rancorous scientific and political debate over its mission and even continued existence"
  • Clinical Rheumatology: "The criticism repeatedly aimed at NCCAM seems justified, as far as their RCTs of chiropractic is concerned. It seems questionable whether such research is worthwhile."
  • Nature News: "still draws fire from traditional scientists", "Many US researchers still say such funding is a waste of time and money."
  • Science News: "[NCCAM] is a political creation"; "This kind of science isn't worth any time or money" (quoting Wallace Sampson)
  • Science Policy Forum: "[NCCAM] was created by pressure from a few advocates in Congress"; "NCCAM funds proposals of dubious merit; its research agenda is shaped more by politics than by science; and it is structured by its charter in a manner that precludes an independent review of its performance"; "NCCAM is unable to implement a research agenda that addresses legitimate scientific opportunities or health-care needs"

Of course some of these also say some good things about NCCAM, e.g. saying that they've gotten better in recent years, and I also found a couple of articles that are generally positive (while acknowledging the criticism). Likewise I found other critical sources that are weaker or make mainly indirect statements. This set of links is just to demonstrate the point. :-) Sunrise (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sunrise! That's exactly what I mean, sources to back up claims :-) Anyway, I took a quick look over the sources, and it seems that only one of them is publicly available. Besides the exact quotes, of course, the reader needs to know the exact material, many times the whole text too. Anyway, the Nature News[11] source that I was able to access though, says the following things (boldings mine):
Extended content

But, many of the centre's clinical trials have ended up disproving alternative therapies rather than endorsing them. One study published in July 2005 (R. B. Turner et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 341–348; 2005) showed that the herb echinacea neither prevented nor relieved the symptoms of rhino­virus infections, the most common cause of the 'common cold'; sales of echinacea fell markedly thereafter (see graphic). "We are in fact unbiased," says Josephine Briggs, who took over as centre director early last year, having overseen the NIH's kidney research for almost a decade until 2006. "We are directing research that will be rigorous."

[...]

Briggs and others say that the goal is to provide hard data on alternative therapies, regardless of whether that data debunks or affirms any given treatment. "One of [NCCAM's] critical roles is to actually weed out the snake oil, which I am sure there is quite a bit of," says Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist and NCCAM grantee at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. His work on the effects of meditation on the brain and peripheral biology has been published in mainstream journals such as The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PLoS Biology and The Journal of Neuroscience.

[...]

In its first decade, along with the echinacea work, the institute funded costly clinical trials studying whether St John's wort could relieve depression and, with the National Cancer Institute, whether vitamin E and selenium could prevent prostate cancer, among other studies. The results were resoundingly negative.

[...]

The centre "is increasingly defining a mission for itself that makes sense scientifically", says Bruce Rosen, an NCCAM grantee at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, who studies acupuncture's effect on brain function.

[...]

Briggs's approach has earned the respect of even the institute's fiercest critics.

Well, for better or worse, the Nature News source isn't exactly MEDRS compliant, and has been refused here even earlier. I'll see if I can access the rest of the sources through my University network at better time though, this weekend at the latest. Or if you don't mind, would you care sending me those studies? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I hatted the quotes to make the page easier to read (I hope you don't mind!) I'm happy to send you the articles/post more context/post links if you can't access them yourself.
I completely agree that the sources contain both positive and negative statements. Like I said, my comment was only intended to illustrate that plenty of negative statements exist. This is sufficient to prove the point: NCCAM is frequently criticised in high-quality publications in a way that the other NIH branches are not.
Also, the question of the reliability of NCCAM is AFAIK not itself subject to MEDRS; i.e. we can use high-quality non-MEDRS sources (such as Nature News) to help determine whether a source is MEDRS. Regardless, there are MEDRS sources in the list. :-) Sunrise (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Sunrise! Could you do that? I would truly appreciate it! I'll email you here through Wikipedia so you'll get my email address!
With that Nature News source, it reresented just individual opinion by this guy named Steven Novella. :P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a note -- I agree that Sunrise's quotes demonstrate a significant view among scientists that NCCAM is of dubious reliability. But they don't necessarily indicate a general level of skepticism across the scientific community as a whole. Sunrise's quote "The basic idea is that NCCAM is not accepted as an authority by the scientific community to the same degree as other branches of the NIH" could be taken as saying the former and/or the latter, and I don't agree that the quotes support the latter. Regards to all. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So you are inclined to reject an accurate statement because you believe it may imply another statement? Can you provide a wording to say that "The basic idea is that NCCAM is not accepted as an authority by the scientific community to the same degree as other branches of the NIH" that you wouldn't reject with such an argument?—Kww(talk) 21:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Kww -- No, the burden is on those who want to assert anything more than the significant view supported by Sunrise's quotes. Same idea with regard to pain and nausea: given sources indicating a significant view (and equally-good sources that disagree), editors are tending to make the unjustified leap that those same sources prove consensus. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: I haven't received your e-mail. On the Nature News source, it's a regular article (not opinion or newsblog), so it's subject to editorial review. This makes it no less reliable (quite a bit more actually, in this context) than a regular article in the New York Times or Washington Post.
@Middle 8: Yeah, saying it's a significant view is all I was trying to establish (well, that and the corollary on source reliability). No ambiguity intended! I hoped my last few sentences would make that clear, but perhaps not. @Kww: From the first sentence of Middle 8's comment, I'm pretty sure they're agreeing. :-) Sunrise (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, agreeing up to the point of it actually making a difference in article content. Then there seems to be a certain reticence to actually treat NCCAM as a less reliable source of information or describe it as such.—Kww(talk) 01:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Sunrise! Did you receive my email already? :P Anyway, if I remember right about using "Nature News", it was here at acupuncture or traditional Chinese medicine where it got discarded as a source? Well, I believe that other editors are wiser with this one, so I leave it up to them :-) I'll try to have a look at a better time. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In March 2009 a Washington Post staff writer reported that the impending national discussion about broadening access to health care, improving medical practice and saving money was giving a group of scientists an opening to propose shutting down the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, quoting one of them, Steven Salzberg, a genome researcher and computational biologist at the University of Maryland, saying "One of our concerns is that NIH is funding pseudoscience." They argued that the vast majority of studies were based on fundamental misunderstandings of physiology and disease, and have shown little or no effect.[173][12] See Alternative_medicine#cite_ref-Brown2009_185-1. QuackGuru (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Salzberg doesn't like the NCCAM? Well, it must not be a MEDRS, then, that surely settles it. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 14:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
A 2006 policy forum in Science concluded, "We believe that NCCAM funds proposals of dubious merit; its research agenda is shaped more by politics than by science; and it is structured by its charter in a manner that precludes an independent review of its performance."
Marcus, D. M.; Grollman, AP (2006). "Science and Government: Enhanced: Review for NCCAM is Overdue". Science. 313 (5785): 301–2. doi:10.1126/science.1126978. PMID 16857923.
I think this matter is settled. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it was settled long ago when all the uninvolved editors at Wikiproject Medicine page said NCCAM was valid because it's the NIH. This has been brought up again on this page, essentially because the NCCAM has received criticism. But so has National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIDA. The fact remains that the very definition of the NIH is the 27 bodies which compose it. Like it or not, one of those bodies is the NCCAM. And MEDRS is very clear that the NIH is a MEDRS source. The NCCAM is valid as far as I'm concerned and there's plenty of other editors who will back me up on that. But I understand that we also should scrutinize where necessary. As I see it, if editors want to pursue their objections further, perhaps a better place might be on the MEDRS talk page? If the NCCAM is so objectionable to some here, why don't you propose that MEDRS be amended to say "The NIH is valid, but one body which composes it, the NCCAM, is not." LesVegas (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Depending on your accounting, either one or two "uninvolved editors" commented in that discussion. I really wish you would stop distorting facts and misrepresenting discussions.—Kww(talk) 01:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Kww, I told you before it was three editors. You never contested that. Why are you saying it's one maybe two? LesVegas (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Because I was too busy being dismayed by your brazenness to focus on petty details? You described "... Whatamidoing and Mast Cell as the ones I meant who were uninvolved", and I didn't notice your attempt to describe an IP as uninvolved (lacking psychic powers, I have no idea how you would decide that). Describing WhatAmIDoing as "uninvolved" in altmed articles is questionable, but doesn't rise to the level of intentional falsehood. Your efforts to paint statement by one to two editors as a conclusive decision when they represented a minority view does rise to the level of intentional falsehood.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Kww, first, I said "when all the uninvolved editors at Wikiproject Medicine" and that's correct. There were three and they concluded the NCCAM is a valid source. More could have joined in but didn't. A lack of contrarianism and debate on highly visited talk pages is indicative of consensus as well. I'm sorry I can't see, from any angle, how you could possibly claim I'm intentionally promoting a falsehood. But let's get real for a moment. QuackGuru often claims consensus where there is none. Yet I have never seen you call him a liar, and you even unabashedly defend his bad behavior because you share his strong POV. Could I please ask that you put your POV aside and stop being uncivil towards me on these talk pages? I know you are a much more experienced editor than myself, so I feel rather uncomfortable to have to keep reminding you that talk pages are for content discussion and not personal attacks. Please don't keep putting me in that position. Back to the topic, I noticed a lack of response on your part to any of my points. Do you have anything you would like to say about them? LesVegas (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The best way out of your position is to simply retract your false claim of broad consensus and apologize for having made it. Moving forward from that would be fairly simple.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow wow wow, I think the best way is to calm down and keep one's cool, don't you agree? Kww, I have advised you multiple times already to rely on sources. If there is some sort of bias concerning a Federal Government's agency, there sure are studies to show this bias. So far, user Sunrise has been the only one who has participated the discussion by providing sources. So far, I have only been able to go through the Nature News source. I just received yesterday the other sources from Sunrise (thanks for that Sunrise, I appreciate that!), and I'll let you all know my position after I've gone through those as well.
Should there be any publication bias with NCCAM, sure we can drop out the source. Therefore, let's stick to the sources and drop out personal opinions, right? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a question of whether or not NCCAM is actually a good source, it's a question of why anyone would misrepresent either one or two editors taking the minority position in a discussion as representing a broad consensus. Whether or not NCCAM is actually a good source is a separate discussion.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive_19&oldid=1136288580"