Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

Please remove the words "and acupuncture is a pseudoscience" because it's a subjective judgement. Rcsoul (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it is content that has been discussed extensively here on the Talk page over the years, and is well-sourced and compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: So you mean those who oppose to that biased statement have to find evidence to proof that acupuncture is NOT "a pseudoscience" right? Got it. There has been much misunderatanding since the Great Firewall not only harms the freedom of us Chinese's to access foreign sites but also contributes to some bigots' comprehension to(or any suitable conjunctions) Chinese traditional and classical wisdom. Thanks to that goddamned wall!!Super Wang 11:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No to oppose the statement you need to find a good source that says it is not pseudoscience. Wikipedia is built on sources, not the argumentation of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And of course even then the statement would not be deleted, because there are good sources for it. If you find equally good sources, it would be qualified: Pseudoscience experts A, B, and C say it is, but pseudoscience expert D says it isn't.

But a better resolution of your problem (with slightly higher chance of success) would be to inform yourself about the properties of pseudosciences. Then you would be able to confirm for yourself that acupuncture is indeed one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to define what a pseudoscience is, never. What I care and am concerned most is that that so-called objective and just definition hurt people. Did you mean that there must be MORE reliable sources to proove that TCM is not pseudoscience? So what does "science" mean then? Super Wang 12:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless there's some new source on the table focusing on acupuncture and pseudoscience this thread is pointless and I suggest it be closed. Alexbrn (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Acupuncture is not a typical subject of Sciences, but it is NOT pseudoscience. It contains a lot of scientific components with medical values, some have been approved others are being testing. Any ancient medical therapy may carry some unscientific contents but, it is not right to simply classify them as pseudoscience. The opinion of reference books cited under "acupuncture is pseudoscience" is not very popular among medical and scientific communities at least in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcmaa2004 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on sources, not the assertions of its editors. If you have no source, we're done. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources should be selected without bias, and more real experts should be invited to join the discussion. It's not done yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcmaa2004 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So, which source are you suggesting then, Tcmaa? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

https://health.spectator.co.uk/fakery-massive-scale-means-just-cant-trust-studies-china/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Acupuncture is not science. It is a quasi-religious set of practices, so I personally don't think it's pseudoscience either (though the study of it very often is). It is definitely pseudomedicine. The thing is, though, that what we think doesn't matter a hill of beans, it's what the reliable sources say, and no reliable source on the subject of the demarcation issue between science and pseudoscience, has come down in favour of acupuncture being science.

What science tells us about acupuncture is that it doesn't matter where you pit the needles or whether you even insert them, so acupoints are fictional, the claimed "meridians" have no associated anatomy and have never been shown to exist, and a large part of acupuncture's popularity in the West stems from a propaganda stunt by Mao in the 1970s. We know it does not work for most things, we know that the effect size in all studies is small, we know that the more scope there is for bias, the greater the chance of a positive outcome from a trial, we know that no study from China has ever found a negative result, and we know that the evidence trend is firmly against it. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Acupuncture is ancient and current medical therapy for everyone, but its efficacy beyond placebo is challenged by RCTs for sure in the last 15 years. However, RCT methodology was really developed for drugs and its direct application in a technical-device-based procedure is still very controversial. For example, many dental therapies are not RCT tested and no one call them pseudoscience. Dr Vickers report on acupuncture for pain from MSKCC is a major resource and evidence, and there are many more. What you said about acupuncture reports from China and Mao's acupuncture are INCORRECT. If you could not read Chinese or never studied Chinese medicine and Chinese history, please declare that FIRST before you make such an absolute judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcmaa2004 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not medical therapy, it's a quasi-religious set of practices that have been shown not to work for most situations and where the evidence of efficacy is restricted, weak and contradictory. The popularity of acupuncture in the West can be directly traced to the propaganda demonstration involving Reston during Nixon's visit in 1971. And as with most SCAM practices, acupuncture is immune to self-correction (and thus scientific validity) because it employs inoculating tactics to avoid facing incontrovertible evidence of error. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In can be proven with inductive reasoning that Acupuncture is not "pseudo science". "Pseudo science" is something which is pretending to be science, sort of synthetic science. Acupuncture however does not pretend to be science, rather it is pre-scientific. A subset of Traditional Chinese Medicine, which itself is subset of an ancient Taoist philosophy. I think its clear there is no consensus here that acupuncture can really be classified as "pseudo science". In fact, stating so is highly contentious, and therefore shouldn't be included in the lede of this article. In fact this entire article has no NPOV at all, which can be proven by comparing and contrasting to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism . To say "we are not going to stop calling it a pseudo-science unless someone comes up with 20 different sources saying its not" is a ridiculous position, because thinking acupuncture is only a pseudo science and not else really is a very narrow and un-holistic viewpoint, which is frankly absurd, so not that many authorities would ever even have the notion cross into their minds, apart from the very small but vocal community of fanatical sceptics which exists mainly on the internet. This article reads like it was entirely written by single-minded sceptic fanatics and not by, you know, actual acupuncture scholars and experts. The problem as I see it is this article reads so NPOV because of the xenophobia and racism of some editors who are too small minded to see that acupuncture is a cultural and philosophical subject moreso than a medical subject. Even if we wish to treat acupuncture as a science, which it doesn't claim to be, then because of the experiential nature of the practice, it should use Husserl's paradigm of phenomenology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) . Once you do that, any notion of "placebo" becomes laughable, because you're exposing your idiocy by missing the whole point. Sure, devote maybe 10% of the article to how you sceptic fanatics think that acupuncture is no better than "placebo", (but also include the evidence showing acupuncture meridians to be planes in the connective tissue of lower electrical impedence), however the bulk of the article, and especially the lede, should be devoted to the writings of actual acupuncture experts about acupuncture.Arthur Long (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC) EDIT: source for one medical authority stating acupuncture is not pseudo science http://blogs.bmj.com/aim/2016/12/30/is-acupuncture-pseudoscience/

Don't be silly. He's an acupuncturist. In a blog. He would say that, wouldn't he. This was explained this year, on this page I believe.Roxy the dog. bark 05:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"rather it is pre-scientific" You are claiming that it will be science one day. But encyclopedias do not describe what will happen in the future, because sources from the future are hard to come by. If you want the description of acupuncture as a pseudoscience changed, you need to change acupuncture into something else.

There are lots of pretend scientific publications that claim to have found evidence. Just have a look at this page.

BTW, one hallmark of pseudosciences is that their proponents, when they recognize they have no evidence, claim that the evidence is just around the corner and that what they are defending is protoscience. I suggest we just wait until acupuncture has become a science, then describe it as one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The idea that this is simultaneously thousands of years old, and at the same time protoscience, is an inherent contradiction. The problem for the trypanophiles is not that the evidence is not yet in, but that the evidence is moving solidly against them. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, what I mean was, Acupuncture was developed before the Scientific method was developed. Therefore it is "pre-scientific". Then Science came along, which is fine, science is great. I love science. But it doesn't invalidate all of the pre-existing cultural and historical and mythological value of precious ancient practices like acupuncture, which I argue should be dealt with holistically in an all-encompassing way by this encyclopedia, by noted experts in the field, rather than just examining the topic in the very narrow and binary viewpoint of sceptics who ask "Does it work or not?", and then when it doesn't jump through their little hoop (i.e. RCT's), then wholesale writing off the very deep, complex and storied topic of acupuncture as being worthless.Arthur Long (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, in the 21st century what's the point of having medical treatments which we know they don't work? Acupuncture is not practiced as a religious ritual, it is practiced by people who claim to heal a plethora of real diseases. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

E.g., for holy water is irrelevant whether it heals any disease, it still remains holy for the believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't invalidate all of the pre-existing cultural and historical and mythological value of precious ancient practices like acupuncture, No, not necessarily. But it did invalidate the theories and practices behind acupuncture. You seem to think that there is some sort of duality going on here: that science works and is true, but that there's another level of truth and reality in which science isn't valid. But that just demonstrates that you don't know science. Tim Minchin said it best: Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience seems more like an opinion than an accurate reflection of modern research. I would like to add this line: Researchers conclude that acupuncture is a nonpharmacological alternative for analgesia and the mechanism of action is due to, at least in part, by migroglial inhibition. This research was funded, in part, by the University of South Florida Neurosurgery and Brain Repair Department and the US Department of Defense. It is certainly scientific and is one of many newer investigations revealing the mechanisms of acupuncture's effective therapeutic actions. Note that the researchers do not qualify the conclusion with may or might. It definitively states that acupuncture is effective and includes a discussion of the cellular activities responsible for acupuncture's analgesic effective actions. I am interested in feedback on this topic from Wiki editors. Is this an appropriate insertion given the scientific nature of the investigation by reputable sources? Preceeding comment added by User:Acuhealth and moved by User:MPants at work

Pseudoscience seems more like an opinion than an accurate reflection of modern research. It's not. There are two characteristics of pseudoscience: 1) It purports to be science, and 2) it's not actually using the scientific medicine.

Acupuncture claims to be medicine (an applied science based on research science), so it meets the first criteria. Advocates of acupuncture have engaged in fraud and shoddy research with the aim of promoting it as science, and no well-structured studies have found it to have any better effect than placebo. Therefore, it meets the second criteria. So it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Furthermore, it is stated as a fact by a wide variety of reliable sources, including numerous MEDRS compliant sources. There is no reasonable doubt here; acupuncture is a pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I am presenting an example of a specific high quality piece of scientific research prior to inserting it into the article page. I feel that it is appropriate to get feedback first. I will leave out the pseudoscience line based on your concern. I wanted a consensus prior to making any changes. What I will insert instead is only:

Researchers conclude that acupuncture is a nonpharmacological alternative for analgesia and the mechanism of action is due to, at least in part, by migroglial inhibition.

In this way, I will conform to using only accepted scientific research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acuhealth (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:TPG and sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~).

That is not a high quality study. It admits right in the abstract that it only discusses studies that claimed a positive result, gives the usual "more well-structured studies are needed!" in the introduction despite the wealth of well-structured studies out there showing no efficacy, was co-written by someone from Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, which is a hotbed of fraudulent acupuncture studies (they've never produced a study which didn't show a positive effect and have been lambasted by the scientific community for their lax adherence to scientific principles, as have many other Chinese institutions). Finally, the whole point of the paper is to propose (yet another) mechanism by which acupuncture might work. This paper doesn't even try to demonstrate its efficacy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Researchers from the Department of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair, University of South Florida and the College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, are instrumental in this work. I understand your concern that one researcher was from the Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. I am to understand that any research involving anyone from this university is unacceptable to you and I will not include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acuhealth (talk • contribs) 20:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Right now, my biggest concern is that you read WP:TPG (that's a link, so just click on it) and start signing your comments. I already noted the other authors of the paper, but I've pointed out several other flaws in it. You should also read WP:MEDRS to understand why simply being published in a peer reviewed journal is not enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll read up on your suggestion. Let's go with researchers from the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, and the Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, U.S.A. Their findings are the following:

Stanford University researchers conclude that intraoperative acupuncture results in reduced pain levels and earlier returns to a normal diet for pediatric patients with posttonsillectomy pain. --TriumvirateProtean (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please make an effort to sign your comments and indent your posts correctly. You've been asked several times now.

Cherry picking tiny studies that give marginally positive results is not helpful. It's a very weak study for reasons that should be obvious, and I'm not going to spend any more time trying to spoon-feed you when you're not interested in listening. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) (Note that I've also corrected the indenting of comments in this part of the thread.)

The problem is much more than the involvement of a researcher from Fujian University (which is, certainly, a red flag in and of itself). MjolnirPants has already noted that the article is an advocacy piece that cherry-picks positive studies (rather than any sort of systematic review, which would use unbiased keywords and inclusion criteria; and certainly not a proper meta-analysis, which would use rigorous statistical methods to quantitatively assess data across multiple studies). As MjolnirPants notes, the article begs the question—it starts from the assumption that acupuncture works, and attempts to spin hypotheses and mechanisms which might explain it. It does not critically assess the question of efficacy in any meaningful way.

The article itself appears in a journal – Cell Transplantation – where it seems out of scope. Cell Transplantation nominally deals with cell transplantation techniques in the context of human disease. Acupuncture has nothing whatsoever to do with the journal's area of expertise; one wonders why an acupuncture paper appears within its pages, and if its editorial board and referees have access to the necessary competence to rigorously evaluate such a manuscript in the first place. Cell Transplantation itself moved to an open-access publication model (with publication and color charges) in 2009, which can introduce certain pressures to maintain publication volume at the expense of quality. In 2012, a number of the journal's editorial board members got into hot water for citation manipulation in order to boost the journal's apparent impact factor. (I'm guessing that this is why I can't find a current impact factor for the journal.)

So...a bad paper, in a dubious journal from the wrong field, with some questionable authors. Definitely not what one would call a reliable source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The article itself appears in a journal – Cell Transplantation – where it seems out of scope. I noticed that as well, though I didn't give it too much thought. But you raise a good point: Why would a reputable journal covering cell transplantation publish an article on 'non-invasive' (and I use that term very loosely, as sticking needles in patients is generally considered invasive) analgesic therapy? And even with a good reason, do they really have the expertise to properly peer-review it? Those are very good questions. And then there's the WP:MEDRS issue: Even if this paper had no obvious problems like the cherry-picking they admit to; it's nothing but the explication of a hypothesis. It doesn't actually do any meta-analysis or even perform a novel study. It just asserts things and cites those things to other papers. Given that last point, this paper doesn't just fail MEDRS, it fails WP:RS to begin with. Any such claim we cited to this paper is one that originated in another paper the authors of this one cited.

By the way: Thank you for refactoring the discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Working on the ident and signing issues, please bear with me and I appreciate the help. Please clarify why the Stanford University study in unacceptable. The quality of the study is high and the research team consists of peer respected doctors. I am trying to build consensus and conform to wiki guidelines, so unbiased feedback is appreciated.--TriumvirateProtean (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

TriumvirateProtean, while it's sometimes considered acceptable to place replies higher up (a section can sometimes expand into multiple threads), until you get more used to it, it would be best to place your responses at the very bottom. I've moved them for now. I'll take a look at the Stanford study in just a moment, but I'm fairly certain it's been brought up here, before. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The quality of the study is not high, and the fact you think it is, Acuhealth, suggests to me you don't understand how to evaluate clinical research. First and foremost, the sample size for the study is tiny, a whole 59 patients. The study was nominally blinded, but there were no attempts made by researchers to prove the blinding was successful (this would typically be accomplished by having parents and patients fill out a questionnaire asking if they believed they had received the real treatment or a sham). The study measured both pain and oral intake, showing a brief reduction in pain that quickly regressed to the mean, and a slight improvement in oral intake that began at a higher baseline and followed the same trend as control. Predictably, the researchers focus only on the positive correlations, and not on the neutral ones. Even in the supplementary data, the raw patient data is never provided, making it impossible to do a power analysis or stability test, and gauge whether their statistical tests were even appropriate. And finally, the authors of this paper appear to buy into the myth of acupoints, suggesting they are quite deep in wooville, though thankfully they do not actually mention meridians or qi. In summary, not a high quality study. Rather, it's small, sloppy and biased. No number of small crappy studies will change the content that appears on this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, it's not the one I thought. But it's a primary study with a small sample size (n=59), and it used "sham acupuncture" as a control method. The problem with stuff like this is: how do you convincingly fake sticking a needle in someone in a clinical setting? I can see how you could fool someone once if you catch them by surprise (I recall doing exactly that to my oldest son when he was about 6: he thought I really stabbed him with a needle, but of course I didn't), but in a clinical environment? No. The difficulties in establishing a control group for acupuncture studies is well documented and not a trivial thing. Also, they studied children, who tend to be more susceptible to the placebo effect. Finally, the actual difference wasn't that much compared to the sample size, and was based on surveys. I will tell you this much: I bet good money those three year olds weren't filling out the surveys themselves. Instead, their parents -who are the sorts of parents to sign their kids up for an acupuncture study- were filling it out.

And in the end, primary studies like this don't meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, even when they agree with the larger meta-studies we prefer. When they disagree... Well, you can see where I'm going with this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@MP, yes, the child surveys were suspicious in this study. They did two surveys: One asking children how they felt, and one asking parents how they think their children felt. You'll notice the two sets of survey results are damn near identical. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So you're not going to take my bet, then? Damn, I could use an extra twenty... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a high quality study. It is a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted by researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine (Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery and the Department of Anesthesia). The researchers conclude, “This study demonstrates that intraoperative acupuncture is feasible, well tolerated, and results in improved pain and earlier return of diet postoperatively.”--TriumvirateProtean (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeating that all day long won't make it true. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. We've explained to you exactly what's wrong with the study. Responding with "But it comes from Stanford!" doesn't make anything we said wrong. And even if it was of the utmost quality: It's one primary study. We're not going to abandon our own policies and the established scientific consensus in order to be in agreement with a single primary study. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it really isn't a "high quality" study. And the fact that you keep insisting that it is reinforces my previous conclusion that you aren't good at evaluating clinical studies or scientific literature (nothing to be ashamed of, it's hard to do well) and persistently unwilling to either accept that or learn from it (which is very problematic).

1. Having Stanford-associated authors doesn't mean it's high-quality work; association with a reputable institution at best increases the prior probability that it may be a good paper. Lots of crap comes from Stanford. And Harvard. And Oxford. And Cambridge. The proportion of good stuff is often higher at the big-name institutions, but their people are far from infallible. Perversely, one sometimes sees terrible papers get into print because they bear a big-name imprimatur.
2. The sample size in the study was rather small, as noted: n=30 in the acupuncture group, n=29 in the control.
3. For some reason, they chose to enrol patients with a very wide range of ages (from 3 to 12 years), which seems like a great way to needlessly introduce massive heterogeneity into their self-reported (and parent-reported) pain reports. Both groups had similar mean ages, but there is no information about the distribution of ages, which could well be clumpy.
4. The gender breakdown between the two groups was different. The acupuncture group was 70% male (21/30) and the control group was 45% male (13/29). The difference didn't rise to statistical significance in Table 1, but it's a pretty hefty skew. Note that both age and gender definitely have an impact on subjective reporting of pain.
5. All that said, for the data collected by the only observers who were likely to be both a) experienced medical professionals and b) genuinely and meaningfully blinded – that is, the PACU nurses – no significant differences were observed between treatment and sham. (Er, sham and control? Sham and sham-sham? Anyway.)
6. Roughly 30% of the enrolled patients were somehow lost to follow up (in a four-day study!): 7/30 from the acupuncture group, 9/29 from the control. This takes us back to Table 1 and points 2, 3, and 4 above. No analysis is reported to show whether or not the dropouts introduced statistically-significant (rather than just conspicuous) differences between the two groups. Did the dropouts represent an important subgroup? Did the dropouts receive similar levels of painkillers in-hospital (for example) as the patients who completed the study? Remember, the only "positive" results in the paper come from this not-fully-described cohort of just 43 patients, not even the original 59.

And I'm not even going to start on the question of how difficult blinding is in the field of acupuncture. Even assuming everything else was done right and the blinding was perfect, the data and analysis shown have too many important holes that would have been properly addressed by a "high quality" publication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on this meta-analysis is appreciated. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics) and University of York researchers conclude, “We have provided the most robust evidence from high-quality trials on acupuncture for chronic pain. The synthesis of high-quality IPD found that acupuncture was more effective than both usual care and sham acupuncture. Acupuncture is one of the more clinically effective physical therapies for osteoarthritis and is also cost-effective if only high-quality trials are analysed."--TriumvirateProtean (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a very new meta-analysis, which I'm not sure was even ever reviewed, and it has not yet been looked at by people who haven't made a career out of promoting acupuncture. But that said, I have several deep misgivings about this work. First, it's not published like a normal meta-analysis. Second, it relies on more small studies than large ones. Third, Vickers is an author, a man whose previous work is of low quality. Fourth, if you specifically look at the largest studies that form the evidence base for this meta-analysis, the effect size of acupuncture over sham control actually closely matches the rate of unblinding. If you look a the raw data for these large studies, you'll find that the apparent benefit of acupuncture is essentially produced by a small number of outliers, that is itself much smaller than the number of unblinded patients. It's great evidence that the placebo effect will cause patients to rate their pain lower in a survey, but how this ever gets interpreted as a positive result, I don't know. Motivated reasoning I guess. And here we end up at a point I made earlier. High quality sources have repeatedly called out pro-acupuncture sources on everything that is wrong with the field. And here we get a new meta-analysis that suffers from many of the same problems as the previous ones (not all of them, MacPherson appears to have avoided the temptation to cite a buttload of unblinded Chinese studies). The fact that is is newer than the rest, and newer than the most recent published criticism of acupuncture, does not suddenly absolve the field of these issues. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is new (2017). It is current research reflecting up-to-date scientific analyses. You have four other concerns. First, you are not comfortable with how this is published, which is ultimately a personal preference or even a straw man logical fallacy. Second, you mention that both small and large scale study sample sizes are of concern. Regardless of the use of small high quality studies, large studies are also used. Therefore, although there is no perfect research design in any field, this study focuses on quality studies both large and small. Keep in mind that acupuncture research inherently is on smaller group sizes due to the nature of the profession and that opining on large and small sizes rely on false equivalencies. Third, ad hominem attacks on Vickers (who is only one of the researchers anyway) is inappropriate, goes to bias, is a straightforward logical fallacy. By that logic, the research is also valid because of the stature and peer accepted nature of the others on the research team. Ultimately, just because we don’t like one player on the team does not mean that they are not balanced and fair. Fourth, you mentioned concerns over sham control blinding. Regardless of sham outcomes, the research explicitly states that acupuncture is more effective for the treatment of osteoarthritis than usual care and sham acupuncture. This does not negate the conclusion that acupuncture is more effective for the treatment of chronic pain than usual care. As for your concerns on consensus, that is opinion. There is significant data demonstrating the efficacy of acupuncture and this is but one of those pieces. Again, this is a straw man argument to some fictitious set of perfect research that has determined that acupuncture is not effective. Please avoid bias. There is no perfect research, but this is a high quality study meeting the standards appropriate for this page. If people want to assert that acupuncture is a pseudoscience, then the scientific data must be considered. This is a clear refutation of that opinion. --TriumvirateProtean (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the issue with publication. Let me put it simply: Was this paper ever reviewed by an independent group? I can't even tell. I don't think you understand the issue with Vickers. We are talking about a guy who has published meta-analyses where he has A) Eliminated the 75% of the papers that disagreed with his hypothesis, and then cherrypicked one outcome that the other 25% agreed on, and wrote a whole paper about it; and B) Touted his paper as one of the largest meta-analyses ever done on double-blind RCTs of acupuncture, when the studies in question where not actually blind. I feel the same about a paper with him as an author the way I'd feel about a conviction based on the testimony of a serial perjurer - it's bias, but quite justified and in line with NPOV. In other words, ad hominem is only a logical fallacy if the truthfulness of the target has no bearing on the validity of his position, which is not the case here. I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is. I don't think you understand what a skeptic means when he says, "acupuncture doesn't work". No skeptic is arguing that acupuncture patients don't report feeling better after treatment. They are arguing the fact that because gently poking a patient with a toothpick has the same outcome, acupuncture doesn't work the way supporters claim it does. Their alternative hypothesis is that the whole thing is a theatrical placebo, not that it has no effect of any kind. There is no strawman here because the studies are being attacked for their actual failings, not hypothetical ones, so I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is. And there is no demand that studies be perfect, but only that conclusions actually match the data. As so many prominent researchers have pointed out, this is simply not the case with virtually all positive studies of acupuncture. As much as this has been an entertaining exercise in locating the flaws in various publications, I tire of this, and will not comment further in this thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Nonetheless, for reasons that I have already clearly outlined in detail, the research is valid and your concerns have already been addressed (issues such as placebo controls and the like included). This is valid science, a reputable source, and does call into question many biases presented on the article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acuhealth (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

As others have already noted, simply repeating that you think our concerns have been addressed doesn't make it so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That was not an opinion. You are randomly using the names of fallacies and ascribing them to others without checking what those fallacies do and whether they fit. Someguy refuted your reasoning. Earlier, other users refuted it.

Several weaknesses of the study have been pointed out by several users and you seem to think that the status of the people who did the study overrides them all. Putting status ahead of reason is an attitude Galileo Galilei complained about in he writings, and at least since then, science has been the very antithesis of that way of thinking. But even if the high status of those guys made their results right, why don't you accept the opinion of all those other experts with high status who say the opposite?

Even if you were right and this study were as wonderful as you say it is, we still could not use it until it has been confirmed by peers to be an important one that ranks among the top acupuncture studies. After all, we have to pick the most important sources according to the science community - we cannot just say: "oh, look at this text from this obscure journal, let's mention it in the article!" If we did that, the article would be extremely long and boring. So let's wait until the scientific community changed its mind, then change the article accordingly.

You see? Your reasoning is weak, your evidence is weak, your study is weak. The article says what it says because that's how it is: Pricking sick people in magic places does not help, whatever you superstitious folk think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Specific conditions

Should we sort the conditions within this section alphabetically to make a condition easier to find? Rklawton (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: truce conditions

Pulling this old thing out of the archives from August 2015 (if you like, see prior post and responses here)

Here is a proposed way out of the morass:

• a) agree to limit discussion in the article to a "zone" that anybody sane should be able to agree to:
  • a1) uses of acu that are accepted in the mainstream (adjuvant care for pain/nausea relief in cancer and adjuvant use in a few chronic pain conditions). These are uses taught in medical textbooks and practiced at major medical centers
  • a2) a minimal and reasonable discussion of the underlying theory of qi and meridians and "points" as being based on pre-scientific traditional medicine and having no basis in science (not belabored, just simple) This is the part that is pseudoscience, and we will have to say that.
  • a3) a minimal and reasonable discussion of the difficulties of obtaining good evidence (problems with placebo arm; lack of funding for big trials) (not belabored, just simple)
• b) Self-police - if an acu-proponent shows up and adds some woo content positive about acu outside of that, pro-acu editors here would agree to remove that themselves (and not contest it if an acu-skeptic gets there first) and if some acu-skeptic shows up and adds skeptical/negative content, acu-skeptics would themselves would remove it (and not argue if an acu-proponent beats them to it). This is really essential to building up trust that the zone will be honored. A lot of the arguments on this page are about taking long-term stances against relentless pushing from the other side.
• c) Not unilaterally enlarge or shrink the zone -- in other words - nobody adds new content or removes existing content, positive or negative, unless there is significant consensus

It is .. silly and somewhat embarrassing, that the article actually talks about things like using acu to improve sperm motility. All that kind of garbage should be taken out of the article. I understand why it is here - everybody here is following source/evidence-based editing and there is indeed a systematic review on that. But the junk-pile of an article that we currently have is the result of that process. A higher-agreement could produce a more useful article.

What do you all say? Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC) (redact a bit Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

I've been watching all this for quite some time and reading carefully. Surprisingly, it looks like I've never edited this page, so maybe my two cents are worth less. What you propose does indeed look like a way forward and one that I could support. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the proposal, I do not think it is achievable. Standard procedures will always apply, and if someone adds a pro or con factoid that is outside an agreement, it will not be possible to argue that the factoid must be reverted because of [link to agreement]. Instead, the usual arguments about WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:CCC will be needed. Regarding the clumsiness of much of the article, I commented elsewhere with something that is relevant here: "the clumsy wording is the result of following a good source, and attempting variations of the wording wanders into original research by unduly promoting or opposing acupuncture". In a contentious topic, it is not possible to put blanket text in the article unless it closely follows a suitable source, and that means achieving the proposal would be too difficult. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Everything in the zone (a1, a2, a3) is supportable with very high quality sources. Policy-wise, this working will rely on what editors working here decide is in the scope of the article. To make a decent article out of this battleground topic an agreement on a limited scope is feasible and defensible. It might take an RfC to nail it down; that is what would be linked to. Jytdog (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• I support vigorous pruning. An enormous amoutn of stuff here is the result of trypanophiles adding sources claiming effect for $RANDOMCONDITION followed by reality-based editors adding the evidence showing that's bullshit. We have high level sources now which can be used to say that it is ineffective for virtually all conditions, so the article can certainly forget about those and focus on the few where the jury is not yet in. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oh man, remember how this article used to look? I think there were 60 sections that went, "acupuncture has shown promising results for <condition>, but the studies are crap so who really knows." Orac and SBM are still playing whack-a-mole with the acupuncture's "condition of the month" style of promotion. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It has benefited greatly from the reduced involvement of True Believers, but unfortunately the recent propaganda campaign has ramped that back up a bit. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq's assessment above. I like the spirit of jytdog's proposal but I just don't see us agreeing on the inclusion/exclusion criteria.Herbxue (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Herbxue the inclusion criteria are defined in a1 - what do you find ambiguous about that? (the exclusion criterion is "everything that is not included") If you see the inclusion criteria as ambiguous, how would you improve them? Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that the proposal is nothing but the application of WP policy and a keen eye towards keeping the statements made in the article well organized, in their own sections. As such, I'm all for it. There might be some difficulty figuring out how exactly to structure and name the sections, and we might have to allow a bit of crossover (claims like "Some studies show that it's good for X, but others show that it's not." aren't necessarily going to fit perfectly), but I'm okay with this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In my view the current page falls afoul of our WP:V policy, specifically WP:EXCEPTIONAL which states "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (emphasis in original). Because we know (from our RS) that acupuncture is implausible, any claim of efficacy is ipso facto exceptional, and so this higher bar for sourcing must be appplied. As WP:EXCEPTIONAL says, it particularly applies to "claims that [...] would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people". The current article really needs significant filleting. Any claim that acupuncture works in any way needs several high-quality MEDRS in agreement on that point. Alexbrn (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

mmm that doesn't deal with things like the unexceptional claim that acu doesn't help with sperm motility. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

General discussion, not forum, blah blah blah
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attempting to poke me with a needle will increase my own motility. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Does anybody know where they insert the needles for this motility improvement? Roxy the dog. bark 08:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC) I think the real question is: does anybody want to know? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC) I think we should be silent on that topic unless some source has bothered to call it out for the nonsense it obviously is. The world is full of routine woo that doesn't deserve encyclopedic treatment. Any claim of cause and effect here would require multiple high-quality sources per WP:V. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC) @Alexbrn: I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Because we know (from our RS) that acupuncture is implausible, any claim of efficacy is ipso facto exceptional... Given the amount of knowledge that we have yet to discover with respect to neurology, cellular biology and a number of other related disciplines, I'm not so sure I can endorse the logic of this. Simply because there is no known mechanism by which it works doesn't mean it's unlikely to work. Coming back to the light side, I have two things to say. I think the real problem is the quality of the claims of efficacy, not the quantity. I don't think a higher bar needs to be applied to demonstrate that these claims are unfounded. If a handful of wikipedia editors can read a new paper which claims to demonstrate acupuncture's efficacy and immediately spot major flaws in the methodology of that paper, then I think it's quite clear that the quality of those papers is far below our usual standards, let alone the higher standards we apply to truly exceptional claims. You guys should try the dark side from time to time. They have (gluten free, non-GMO, organic, holistic, acai-berry-infused) cookies! But don't stick around too long. They also have kale. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Simply because there is no known mechanism by which it works doesn't mean it's unlikely to work ← that is the nub of the tension between science-based medicine and evidence-based medicine. If something has no plausible mechanism (or, as in acupuncture, has a proposed mechanism that is magicke) then we are surely into the realm of the WP:EXCEPTIONAL if it does in fact work. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC) This is the only part I actually disagree with (I'm 100% on board with your conclusions, just not this postulate). As an example, let me offer this. It's a well-documented (read: supported by high quality evidence, as well as a lot of it) phenomenon which is fairly well-understood, but which has no known mechanism. In fact, one could say the same thing about a large number of illnesses and a smaller number of treatments (indeed, one could make very similar claims about a large number of physical phenomenon). Just because we don't know how something works doesn't mean we can't measure whether or how well it works. But again, I just want to reiterate that I think the evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture fails rather spectacularly by our usual medical standards. I'm not suggesting this changes how we treat the page, just enjoying the opportunity to argue with someone who isn't likely to tell me to "wake up, sheeple!" or suggest I "really listen to what David Wolfe says." In fact, we probably shouldn't be discussing this here, but on our talk pages, if you're interested in continuing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC) I don't think we are disagreeing. "Overtraining" is a rather squishy concept so it's not surprising there's isn't a neatly definable mechanism. I'm not arguing that lack of a mechanism disqualifies a treatment, just that it pushes us into the realm where claims of efficacy - particularly for something concrete like sperm motility - are WP:EXCEPTIONAL. For sticking needles in people to affect that as claimed would require some surprising new strands to scientific thought. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Just curious where you've seen this distinction about having a known mechanism as a requisite to an intervention being considered "effective"? Modern biomedicine does plenty of things that are nebulously evidence-based. Just asking for a source (other than Novella, Barret or Ernst if possible). And ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, according to your criteria acupuncture does not fail spectacularly - in fact in many cases it outperforms standard of care. Herbxue (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC) And ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, according to your criteria acupuncture does not fail spectacularly - in fact in many cases it outperforms standard of care. That's just blatantly untrue and circular reasoning. You're assuming the sources claiming efficacy are correct in order to argue that sources claiming efficacy are correct. Shenanigans. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC) We're not talking about what biomedicine "does" (?) but about claims of effectiveness. For us to include claims of therapeutic benefit for a known pseudoscience like acupuncture, we need WP:EXCEPTIONALly strong sourcing. A single meta-analysis or systematic review (say) is not enough. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Then, what is? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• hello!!!!!!! Is this a lead ballloon or are folks willing to work with this? Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• i did some of the condensing mentioning above. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Your conditions at the top expect skeptical (and indeed trypanophile) material to be removed, but make no mention of the validity of the content. What you're effectively asking for there is indefinite full protection with all edits by {{editprotected}}. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. "valid" is an interesting word and not really part of PAG. What I am talking about is scope, and whether something is WP:OFFTOPIC or not. Content that is NPOV and based on reliable sources and in-scope, would not be removed. Something that is NPOV and well sourced but WP:OFFTOPIC would be removed. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

American College of Physicians

It appears that inaccurate reasoning caused the revision of the acupuncture page, the following was deleted:

For chronic low back pain patients, the American College of Physicians recommends acupuncture.

The reason given was “Misleading: the source describes acupuncture as a method with "low-quality evidence”” However, we find that this is in fact, not the case. Nor have I referenced an quality standard, although it was rated as moderate, not low. It is simply the formal recommendation of the American College of Physicians.

In the clinical guidelines Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians, the American College of Physicians explicitly states the following that is quoted: “For patients with chronic low back pain, clinicians and patients should initially select nonpharmacologic treatment with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction (moderate-quality evidence), tai chi, yoga, motor control exercise, progressive relaxation, electromyography biofeedback, low-level laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation)”

Acupuncture is given moderate quality evidence, not low quality evidence, for the treatment of chronic lower back pain. This needs to be included for balance, it is 100% accurate that this is the official recommendation of the American College of Physicians. The current acupuncture page is prejudicial based on cherry picked anti-acupuncture misinformation including the following: “a systematic review found insufficient evidence for the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic low back pain.” In fact, this is not the case for the American College of Physicians. Further, I am not asking to remove that cherry picked anti-acupuncture attack piece, rather, to show the reality and truth of the official recommendation of the American College of Physicians. My aim is to present accurate health information. The omission of the American College of Physicians information lacks balance in the page.

References

--TriumvirateProtean (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Busted here (with quotes from the horse's mouth). Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That is an opinion hit piece, not an accepted peer-reviewed piece. Blog opinion pieces: completely inadmissible and against wiki guidelines. Trash evidence. Again, the American College of Physicians formally recommends acupuncture. Are you asserting they do not? Are you asserting it is not valuable and accurate information?TriumvirateProtean (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The quotes provided therein aren't "opinion hit piece", but WP:MEDRS compliant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

On what peer reviewed basis is the censorship of the official recommendation of the American College of Physicians done? Omission of the formal recommendation of the American College of Physicians is slanting the accuracy of the article away from fact. It is current, accurate information, from an accepted body of doctors. This appears to be outright censorship in an attempt to squelch the recommendation.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, as showed by a table quoted from the ACP source, recommendations could be strong even if the evidence quality is low. But examining the evidence actually cited by the ACP source, it is laughable evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So you find the formal recommendation of the American College of Physicians "laughable". That is your personal response and you may try add it wherever you like. However, the American College of Physicians (and the NIH: "Acupuncture is moderately effective for chronic low back pain.") are specific. You can call it laughable it you like, but it is still censorship of the formal recommendation of the American College of Physicians and is completely inappropriate to omit based on your personal issues with how they determine results.

References

TriumvirateProtean (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

All this was discussed at #Proposal: truce conditions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• The actual edit was unambiguously a violation of NPOV and misrepresented the source Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• The source itself explicitly uses the phrase "low quality evidence" to describe acupuncture, contrary to the OP's assertion otherwise. Hence my use of quotation marks in the edit summary. So either the OP didn't read the source or is willfully misrepresenting it. Either way, the specific claims this source was used to support are highly misleading, as the recommendation was specifically for acute pain (as opposed to chronic pain), and was explicitly presented as a recommendations intended to avoid the prescribing of drugs. Any treatment producing a placebo effect would work well within the context established by the source. The fact that the source listed the three most common treatments with effects indistinguishable from placebo does not represent an endorsement of any of those as being better than placebo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing some original research here. The doc's still recommend acupuncture. It is a significant source from an actual authority. The doc's are addressing a clinical issue (drugs have higher risk, acupuncture can help people with lower risk), while you are writing about a scientific question (does it work via placebo or not). Those are separate issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.168.84 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations, pointing to underlying literature (i.e. evidence). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting putting my analysis into the article. I'm suggesting not putting another editor's analysis into the article. WP:OR only applies to contents we put in the article. If it applied to things we say on talk pages, we might as well just get rid of those pesky human editors and write a script to create articles. Find a wording that accurately represents what is said and I'm all for it. But just stating "They recommend it" is highly misleading. Try "They recommend it, among other treatments with low-quality evidence of their efficacy as a possible treatment when pharmacological treatment is not indicated." I'd be fine with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Mjolnirpants. This strikes me as analogous to the NICE situation, but reacting somewhat more slowly to the trajectory of evidence. The evidence for use of acupuncture in back pain is weak. Combined with the near-impossibility of proper blinding, the fact that back pain will generate weak evidence for virtually anything just because of what it is, and the wider context of no remotely plausible mechanism, I think we have to treat this with a degree of caution not far short of the proverbial ten foot pole. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, since when was sticking needles into people "noninvasive"? Guy (Help!) 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Heh. GMTA. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we aren't confusing recommendations of the American College of Physicians with the quantified results of relevant meta-analyses, are we? The ACP, like NICE and pretty much every practicing physician, is well aware of the placebo effect and is happy enough to recommend it. Also, quite happy to divert patients to whom we can offer rather little on a solid scientific basis. If the ACP says there's solid evidence for something, there probably is, and they are probably able to give references for it. But if they merely say that they recommend a course of action, that doesn't imply any scientific evidence for benefit from that course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That has pretty much been the crux of my argument: Just because the recommend it when no proven efficacious treatment is available doesn't amount to them endorsing it in general. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• this thread is very much related to the "truce" proposal above. Acu has become part of medicine for a narrow range of hard-to-manage things, like chronic pain. It is what it is and it is unlikely to ever go away. The sooner everybody gets their feet down on that (both the acceptedness, and the narrow range of what is accepted) the more settled this article will be and the more time everybody will have to do other stuff here. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hordeolum

In evidence-based medicine, the question is: is it better than placebo? The quoted Cochrane review posits no answer to this question. It makes no claim that acupuncture would be better than placebo for treating hordeolum. So, I see why Wikipedians do not like sources which cannot answer such question. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single well conducted study where the outcomes of acupuncture are clearly indistinguishable from bias. But Prof. Ernst, I think, has recently pointed out a key source of confusion, in that toa true believer an inconclusive result is positive because it does not disprove the hypothesis, whereas in science it's negative. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. Apologies in advanced for the detailed technical jargon, but in science, wrt a proposed medical treatment, a negative result means "This shit don't work!" while an inconclusive result means "This shit don't work, and you need to fix the way you study this shit!" Meanwhile, in large meta-studies, a high number of inconclusive results means "This shit don't work, and you can't still ain't fixed the way you study this shit! BWAHAHAHA!!!" It's an important distinction, even if it's a very technical one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction tot he correction: a large number of inconclusive results means it doesn't work and you haven't fixed the way you study it. After a while it becomes reasonable to infer that they haven't fixed it because they can't. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction noted and applied. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd further like to add to the last sentence: they haven't fixed it because they can't — or won't because doing so would prove that their hocus-pocus doesn't work. You could go even further adding and they know it. to that, but I'm not entirely convinced that is true. Self-deceit can be very powerful, and invalidating one's life-work is definitely strong enough an incentive to bring about bias in the best of researchers. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, hence the "BWAHAHAHA!!!" of the embodiment of science laughing at their feeble attempts to push pseudoscience into it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is the kind of silly thing that we should not be wasting time on here and should consider OFFTOPIC. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone capable of reading through humor (which only really appears in two of my three comments) could look at this section to see a very detailed argument of why a single inconclusive study doesn't prove the entire tone of the article wrong. Considering the frequency with which that very assertion is made here, I hardly think this is as far off topic as you seem to think it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just meant the use of acu to treat styes. not even worth talking about. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't argue with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My argument right above got me thinking... What do you (or anyone else reading this) think about maybe putting up an FAQ at the top of this talk page, similar to the one at the top of Talk:Evolution? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants — I think it might be good to actually create a talk-page template for all the alt-med articles in that theme. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But brace yourself for the storm of true believers screaming "censorship!!" even though we're adding information. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The one at Talk:Homeopathy might serve as a basis. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We've been through shit-storms before, and through each one we come out stronger. We stick to the evidence and the science and ignore the rest. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience: yes or no?

I have been looking for RSs addressing the issue of whether acupuncture is (as our article currently claims) pseudoscience. I would like to share what these sources say about this issue here, so we can discuss whether the article should continue flatly describing it as a pseudoscience without any caveats (full disclosure--I don't think it should).

• Psychology, Science, and Astrology in the Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition): "In contrast, other efforts to characterize human behavior fall short with respect to a critical, reflective usage of their own tenets and findings and can in the extreme case be considered pseudoscience. Many of these approaches vary in their testability and plausibility. Some of these problematic approaches are acupuncture, faith healing, healing touch, tai chi (and similar ‘energy treatments’), and much of the field of alternative and complementary medicine."
• [https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/196_04_050312/mcl101128_fm.pdf Tertiary education institutions should not

offer pseudoscientific medical courses], Medical Journal of Australia editorial: "The levels of evidence supporting these alternative beliefs are weak at best, and such randomised controlled trials of these therapies as exist mostly do not support their efficacy (with the exception of acupuncture for some types of pain)". And later on: "Academics at these institutions need to stand up for science. Anatomists cannot be asked to support the validity of the meridian channels of acupuncture..."

• [https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGPIT.pdf Prove it! The Burden of Proof Game in Science

vs. Pseudoscience Disputes], Philosophia (journal) "A skeptic can (reasonably) argue that, even though acupuncture has a long-established tradition in Chinese medicine, modern science has not discovered anything that fits into the concepts of qi and meridians, to which the believer could reply with a charge of ad ignorantiam. But the skeptic’s argument is reasonable: while one cannot categorically exclude the existence of qi and meridians, modern science is advanced enough that the BoP is on the believer to explain why this new form of energy has not yet been discovered, as well as how it would fit into the tightly knit logic of contemporary fundamental physics." "...while acupuncture is still criticized in terms of both the underlying theory and the exaggerated claims of its supporters, there may now be sufficient evidence of its limited efficacy that a skeptic needs to reconsider outright rejection." Based on these sources, I think that saying that "whether acupuncture is pseudoscientific is controversial among medical researchers" would be better than what the article currently says. Everymorning (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Just...no. How many times per year do we need to rehash this discussion? We already did it once in January. We did it in December (though that one bled into January). Actually, twice. Actually, three times—though that discussion started in late October. You've cherry-picked a few lines from a few articles, the strongest assertion in your favor coming from the weakest source: a low-impact philosophy journal. Please, just don't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What TOAT said. Asked and answered many times, though the question could be better phrased. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Our survey says: pseudoscience. I disagree, for reasons noted above, but WP:PERSONALPREFERENCE can't win out over WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Its a pseudoscience. Next. Famous_dog (c) 12:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• So let's see... The OP quotes three sources that describe acupuncture in terms of a pseudoscience in order to argue that sources don't call it a pseudoscience. Welcome to a typical WP:FRINGE talk page, dear casual reader. Enjoy your stay, and don't forget to tip your waiter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The practice of acupuncture is quackery. And the "scientific" work done to support it is, in fact, pseudoscience; it looks as if it is testing hypotheses, but it is not. I'd like to suggest that we should make the semantic distinction clear even when our sources are sometimes vague. I would use the word "pseudoscience" in this article only in specific relation to the ostensible attempts to test hypotheses. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and would happily make that change if sources also made the distinction. Acupuncture is pseudomedicine, studies of acupuncture are pseudoscience. It is very clear to me, at least. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I just did a PubMed search for "Acupuncture Meta-Analysis" and got 685 results. "Acupuncture Efficacy" produced 2717 results. Does PubMed include non-scientific, non-peer reviewed articles?Kuwona (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yupp. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Does PubMed include non-scientific, non-peer reviewed articles? Oh, yeah! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The bias against acupuncture here is beyond belief. Have anyone watched the BBC documentary The Science of Acupuncture? Here is a female scientist trying to debunk the "myth" of Acupuncture but ended up finding evidence to support its efficacy. It's available on YouTube, just google BBC and its title. No medical practice is a panacea for every single ailment. That acupuncture doesn't cure everything is no reason to label it pseudoscience. 2401:7400:6000:3284:1:1:19D9:5E2B (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But that it is pseudoscience (as RS tells us) is. Alexbrn (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You people seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to declare anything is pseudoscience, since a lot of subjective judgment comes into that. That's POV. Explain the position of Chinese practitioners and that from Western science and leave it at that. Even Brittanica does not outright debunk the practice, but states "Some Western observers studying the method have suggested that acupuncture analgesia is plainly a placebo analgesia—which does not, however, detract from its effectiveness. Chinese assertions that acupuncture can actually cure disease defy rational clinical practice and have yet to be substantiated by Western medical researchers." Surely Wikipedia can do as well? 2401:7400:6000:3284:1:1:19D9:5E2B (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You people seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to declare anything is pseudoscience. Then you might like to delete this article. Moriori (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You people seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to declare anything is pseudoscience, since a lot of subjective judgment comes into that. This. This right here is what bugs me. Not that the true believers keep saying it, but that skeptics keep letting them say it and respond as if it's true but irrelevant.

Shenanigans, muddafugga!

There are two defining characteristics of pseudoscience. 1) It purports to be science. 2) It's not. Anything that meets those two criteria is pseudoscience.

Acupuncture purports to be medicine (which is a type of science). It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be no more effective than placebo. Which makes it ineffective except as a placebo. But you pokey-fans (trypanohphiles is too nice a word, IMHO) keep insisting that it's real. And over in China, they regularly fake studies to make it look like it was subjected to real scientific scrutiny and passed. That's both criteria met; no opinions, no judgement.

Thi8s is 100% pure, UDSA Choice Prime Objective Truth. It is not subjective. It does not depend on editorial judgement. It's not demeaning or degrading or biased to say it. It's just plain true. So stop arguing that the label of pseudoscience is subjective, because all you're accomplishing is convincing the rest of us that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. On second thought, keep arguing, because now at least we know who's anonymous edits to these articles are most likely to require a quick revert. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You people seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to declare anything is pseudoscience. Wikipedia does not do this, reliable independent sources do. After homeopathy, acupuncture is probably the second most widely analysed example of pseudoscience in medicine in specialist literature on pseudoscience and the demarcation issue. It's not out problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Be civil, people. Fine, we'll leave out the studies from PR China, since communist Chinese aren't going to produce anything scientific (a bias in itself). But there is no consensus that acupuncture does not work in the Western world. A cursory google search produces these: [1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.149.91 (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Herbxue (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I feel compelled to note that I was not cherry-picking "a few lines from a few articles", as TOAT claimed above. Rather, I was looking for as many peer-reviewed articles as I could find which touched on this subject, and those that I could find, which I quoted above, did not discuss acupuncture's scientific status (or lack thereof) in much detail. The quotes I added above from these sources represented either the first thing or the only thing in them that touched on acupuncture's status, and I did not choose any just because they conformed to my preexisting "bias". Everymorning (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You quoted articles that call acupuncture a pseudoscience to 'prove' that articles don't always call acupuncture a pseudoscience. I don't care what your methodology was, you just defined irony. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This article Acupuncture Can Ease Wrist Pain of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome discusses a paper which shows that acupuncture has measurable effect on carpal tunnel syndrome. It seems enough evidence to me that acupuncture can have some real medicinal affect to at least allow for the possibility it isn't alternative medicine. I have looked at the actual study and it doesn't have any obvious flaws that I could see, but it's pretty dense so I just linked the nytimes article 203.217.61.231 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither the New York Times piece nor the article itself are relevant. Plenty of secondary sources, written by people far more qualified to assess the evidence than your or I, have examined the primary literature and found it wanting. One more small study doesn't change that. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah ok, valid point. I'm still not 100% convinced that it has no merit but I see why that doesn't count towards changing the article (I made an account between these two comments)Nesciusromanus (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see a new editor joining the fold! Especially an editor willing to concede a point. We have precious few of those, most laudable types. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

I have added a new paragraph which shows new evidence that acupuntcure has an effect over and above sham treatment. The new paragraph is the 3rd paragraph below the subheading 'sham acupuncture and research' starting with the phrase "A 2016 Cochrane meta analysis..". I have not made any other changes to the article. My apologies in advance if I did not add the comments in the right place, it was not very clear how to add comments and I suggest the instructions be changed to explain this more clearly.

Sham acupuncture and research

It is difficult but not impossible to design rigorous research trials for acupuncture. Due to acupuncture's invasive nature, one of the major challenges in efficacy research is in the design of an appropriate placebo control group. For efficacy studies to determine whether acupuncture has specific effects, "sham" forms of acupuncture where the patient, practitioner, and analyst are blinded seem the most acceptable approach. Sham acupuncture uses non-penetrating needles or needling at non-acupuncture points, e.g. inserting needles on meridians not related to the specific condition being studied, or in places not associated with meridians. The under-performance of acupuncture in such trials may indicate that therapeutic effects are due entirely to non-specific effects, or that the sham treatments are not inert, or that systematic protocols yield less than optimal treatment.

A 2014 Nature Reviews Cancer review article found that "contrary to the claimed mechanism of redirecting the flow of qi through meridians, researchers usually find that it generally does not matter where the needles are inserted, how often (that is, no dose-response effect is observed), or even if needles are actually inserted. In other words, 'sham' or 'placebo' acupuncture generally produces the same effects as 'real' acupuncture and, in some cases, does better." A 2013 meta-analysis found little evidence that the effectiveness of acupuncture on pain (compared to sham) was modified by the location of the needles, the number of needles used, the experience or technique of the practitioner, or by the circumstances of the sessions. The same analysis also suggested that the number of needles and sessions is important, as greater numbers improved the outcomes of acupuncture compared to non-acupuncture controls. There has been little systematic investigation of which components of an acupuncture session may be important for any therapeutic effect, including needle placement and depth, type and intensity of stimulation, and number of needles used. The research seems to suggest that needles do not need to stimulate the traditionally specified acupuncture points or penetrate the skin to attain an anticipated effect (e.g. psychosocial factors).

A 2016 Cochrane meta analysis reported that "adding acupuncture to symptomatic treatment of attacks reduces the frequency of headaches. Contrary to the previous findings, the updated evidence also suggests that there is an effect over sham, but this effect is small. The available trials also suggest that acupuncture may be at least similarly effective as treatment with prophylactic drugs.eatment with prophylactic drugs".

A response to "sham" acupuncture in osteoarthritis may be used in the elderly, but placebos have usually been regarded as deception and thus unethical. However, some physicians and ethicists have suggested circumstances for applicable uses for placebos such as it might present a theoretical advantage of an inexpensive treatment without adverse reactions or interactions with drugs or other medications. As the evidence for most types of alternative medicine such as acupuncture is far from strong, the use of alternative medicine in regular healthcare can present an ethical question.

Using the principles of evidence-based medicine to research acupuncture is controversial, and has produced different results. Some research suggests acupuncture can alleviate pain but the majority of research suggests that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo. Evidence suggests that any benefits of acupuncture are short-lasting. There is insufficient evidence to support use of acupuncture compared to mainstream medical treatments. Acupuncture is not better than mainstream treatment in the long term. Decon$ume (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

That is a very impressive post for someone's third edit at Wikipedia, however I have had to close the edit request because the change is far too large to be implemented merely on the basis of a request. There will need to be a pause of a few days to allow anyone interested to comment on the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be better to highlight the proposal which, as described above, is to insert a new paragraph into the Acupuncture#Sham acupuncture and research section. The rest of the section would be unchanged. The new proposed third paragraph is:

A 2016 Cochrane meta analysis reported that "adding acupuncture to symptomatic treatment of attacks reduces the frequency of headaches. Contrary to the previous findings, the updated evidence also suggests that there is an effect over sham, but this effect is small. The available trials also suggest that acupuncture may be at least similarly effective as treatment with prophylactic drugs.".

References

I'm not ready to think about it in detail, but at first glance the text seems undue. It concerns one problem (headaches) which is already discussed several times in the article. Further, the study seems to duplicate the reference titled "Acupuncture for the prevention of episodic migraine". Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this edit seems undue. The problems with sham acupuncture are well-documented, and this study represents one of a small handful of credible outlier studies that found a small, though non-zero effect. Going into detail on specific studies which (vaguely) support acupuncture's efficacy while we gloss over so many studies which do not (the latter being in the clear majority explains why we go into detail on a few negative-result studies) is a well-recognized non-neutral POV shift tactic. Not that I'm saying this is the purpose to the proposal, but that this would clearly be the effect of this proposal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Believe or not for WHO?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Evidence Based Acupuncture | WHO Official position

https://www.evidencebasedacupuncture.org/who-official-position/

Guidelines on Basic Training and Safety in Acupuncture

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Jwhozip56e/

Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Acupuncture-related adverse events: a systematic review of the Chinese literature

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/10-076737/en/

Acupuncture and moxibustion of traditional Chinese medicine - intangible heritage - Culture Sector - UNESCO. unesco.org. [2017-01-17].

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/acupuncture-and-moxibustion-of-traditional-chinese-medicine-00425

Is that true or meaningful for "acupuncture is a pseudoscience"?

I think patients want health no matter what method!

For people who think "acupuncture is a pseudoscience", is any reason form science or medical? Or because their Business losing or will get harm?

At last, I think this page is talk about acupuncture information and a part of arguement. There is a warning on the top of page. Arguement and information shouldn't mix together. 妘星 (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The topmost link is not WHO but some guy in Poland. The evidencebasedacupuncture.org website is not secure so I recommend that people do not click on it. The next 2 are not relevant to efficacy or pseudoscience. About the UNESCO link, as we have discussed here many times, no one debates that traditional medicine of every culture is a heritage and respected as such -- that is different than science. Jytdog (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just see them today. About the UNESCO link, I want to say it wasn't in Wikipedia, Not for science. In my opinion, no matter what method, solving problem is good method. So I suggest there is a part which talk about argument and a warning.妘星 (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

acupuncture is a pseudoscience because of Blinded experiment and double-blind experiment.

I talk about WHO because there is no any References with it. And others GOV References aren't exist.妘星 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usr:妘星: Excuse me, but what is that last comment? Also, the warning is to prevent recruiting and informing people of policy, thanks to the arguments that have gone on here. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 12:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Clubjustin: I mean add a warning and argument in the Wikipedia page, like (= =argument= =). We can't do double-blind experiment with acupuncture, so it is not science. Just said pseudoscience without reason is the problem.妘星 (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usr:妘星: your last comment, and the preceding contributions you made to this thread are written in terrible english, such that I don't think you have competence in English to contribute to the project in English. (WP:CIR). -Roxy the dog. bark 15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:So 1 just give a suggestion. I knew my english for basic talk only. I knew I am not good at edit in english, so I post in here, talk only. I edit in chinese. But I give a angle or suggestion for you to edit it to be neutral. this page References not include offical data, link. For a medical page, without them, may be it is common. If it is right, the story in january will not happen. Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because of double-blind experiment. That's why Acupuncture is a pseudoscience. Without reason, there is argument. for example, I say you are bad without reason. You will be angry. but I say you are bad because you say my english is terrible. You will get my point. Complete sentence is needed in wikipedia. Forgive my terrible english, I had a long time without english in my life.妘星 (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Electrical Characterization of Acupuncture Points,French acupuncturist Niboyet, Skin resistance

The meridian has a low resistance, high potential electrical characteristics.

Here some words for you to google, just like WHO. Do You Best!妘星 (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The WHO study does not evaluate acupuncture as somehow an effective remedy. It's about studying the adverse effects of acupuncture documented in the Chinese literature. Very different. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

In mainly, I want to say that more point of view, more angle and completely describe. Everything have at least two side, good or bad. For example fly, we have airplane. For bad side, we create parachute. Our words are Powerless, incapable, incompetent! we need more words to describe what we talk about!妘星 (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. “A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.” Arthur Long (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations-BRD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I added this article [4] (you have to click the "download" button to get the PDF), and it was removed by Jytdog [5] as "obviously low quality blog/commentary."

Now, in my opinion, it´s obviously partisan, but not obviously low quality such: [6], and it fits the "press-box" fairly well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Only two rules must be followed to the letter at Wikipedia: no blatant BLP violations and no copyvios. Everything else is a matter of judgment, and there is no requirement that every mention is promoted via {{press}} at the top of this page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Compared to the earlier items in that press box, the one that Jytdog removed contains a list of what proponents consider the strongest evidence for effectiveness of acupuncture, a combination of medical studies and recommendations from more-or-less mainstream organizations. There's also a lot of misunderstanding about Wikipedia, but if we set that aside, the challenge it represents is a serious one. It's not a simple challenge: while the current stance of the article is that acupuncture's apparent effectiveness is due to placebo effects, if you do enough studies, a few will show greater-than-placebo results. We try to explain that. The ethical issues of offering patients placebo treatments – when such treatments are accepted, or even preferred, by many patients over other available treatment modes – are not easily resolved. Some organizations have taken the stance that it's acceptable, and it's not necessarily easy to expose the reasoning process that led up to their recommendation. Somehow, not necessarily in the article itself, we need a sort of fact bank that addresses each of Koopelman's references as to whether it is good or bad evidence and why. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What article? That link just redirects me to the main JCM page. Ah, you have to actually go into their sample articles to find it. Strange. Also, here is the related blog. --tronvillain (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, a blog post and an article by a disruptive banned editor who wasn't "here to build an encyclopedia." This one doesn't understand our rules of reliable sourcing. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Classy that it names specific editors. And I looked up a few of their "references", and it's an amazing example of cherry picking - the first thing (American Heart Association) on their list of why "acupuncture should not be classified as fringe science" actually concludes "Because of the overall mixed study and meta-analyses results coupled with the negative findings from recent large, randomized trials, the writing group ascribed to acupuncture a Class III, no benefit, Level of Evidence B recommendation for BP-lowering efficacy. Acupuncture is not recommended in clinical practice to reduce BP at this time."--tronvillain (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I´m not arguing for it to be used as a source (I thought that was obvious), I´m arguing that it´s not unreasonable to have it in the media-box. The box offers (sometimes) an interesting look at what we do from the outside, and this was an interesting perspective. Consensus (this far) seems to be that it´s a bad idea. For disclosure, I added it to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017 as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. That the URL doesn't actually take you to the relevant page is disappointing though. --tronvillain (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It does for me, a page with a summary of the article, and a download-button for the PDF. A browser-thing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh. It might be a location thing, since it just takes me to the home page on both desktop IE and Chrome, as well as on Chrome on mobile (using mobile data rather than wifi from the same network). Strange. --tronvillain (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion, GGS. There are legit news reports reporting controversy over this article. The article you posted "documents" the experience of someone who was indefinitely blocked for disrupting this article. The fact that the Journal of Chinese Medicine published this blog, which just continues the advocacy that this person demonstrated here by other means (including yet another change.org petition), just shows the low quality of things that the journal will publish. I would find the person's actual blog post somewhat more appropriate. At least it is honest about what it is.. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The blog might be more honest etc, but I don´t think of blogs as "media organization" in this particular context. The Journal of Chinese Medicine seems closer to "media organization" to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I remain opposed to listing this here. It is just too crappy overall... :) trying to be concrete, it is a rant by a disgruntled editor who was indeffed for advocacy, continuing their advocacy by other means, published in a low quality source. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Also a valid point. And my view remains that it`s not low-quality enough to disqualify from this august exposure. I mean, they actually print the thing, if not very often ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

For those couldn't get to the article, this link works correctly. I also posted this over at the fringe theories noticeboard for discussion there. --Krelnik (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, now I think someone is needling us (see what I did there?). My link at the start of this thread works as intended for me, your link sends me to the JCM startpage. Also, your FTN post is where I learned of this article, so this discussion is your fault. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

While for me, Krelnik's link actually takes me to the correct page. --tronvillain (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The links are different, but why that should matter this way is beyond me.

• https://www.jcm.co.uk/wikitweaks-the-encyclopaedia-that-anyone-who-is-a-skeptic-can-edit.html
• https://www.journalofchinesemedicine.com/wikitweaks-the-encyclopaedia-that-anyone-who-is-a-skeptic-can-edit.html Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the website has some kind of location settings, and the UK link only works from within the UK? --tronvillain (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be a UK that includes Sweden, but perhaps something in that direction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought we were chucking Sweden out of the UK when Brexit happens. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Won´t happen, you can´t do without the pickled herring. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I really love pickled herring. However, Harriet Hall has some opinions on this subject. (Acupuncture, not pickled herring, though she's always responded when I've emailed her, so I'll ask her about herring. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool, add that one to the box as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not "press"; too bad it's just a blog post. A blog I respect, but for WP:RS purposes it is arguably not considered as reliable as Journal of Chinese Medicine. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see, my mistake: Science-Based Medicine. That blog could very well be a WP:RS in some situations, it seems to be at least partly written by actual doctors. But for the purpose of this thread, like you say, not "press". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Eh, just for the hell of it: Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Can all of the "skeptic" dogmatists please go and focus on "debunking" Dry needling, and leave the actual experts on acupuncture to edit this page? Its utterly appalling that skeptics who are totally ignorant of the clinical practice of acupuncture not only ignore acupuncturists input, they actually actively discourage such Subject Matter Experts from participating here. There's a big sign in red up the top saying that Subject Matter Experts in acupuncture are "strongly advised not to edit". The rationale is that "They are practitioners, not professionals. Their area of practice has no grounds in evidence-based practice, and they have no ethical guidelines based upon evidence-based practice. Likewise, they are practitioners, not experts. They've no expertise in the scientific basis for their practice"... etc. However this is provably untrue. In Australia, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority, a government agency, specifically legitimises acupuncture as a recognised health profession, and its practitioners as recognised health professionals. This is fact, the assertion that acupuncturists are not professionals is instantly and completely false. The hostile culture of militant skepticism here is despicable. Bunch of Bill Nye's the lot of you. Arthur Long (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

When true believers react in this way, to me it is an indication that we are doing it right. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Replace "acupuncturist" by "faith healer", "dowser", "dry needler", "psychic surgeon", or any other similar term, and it will not make a difference (until the Australia stuff - and that is an argumentum ad verecundiam and equally invalid).

Arthur, if your reasoning were valid, skeptics would have to shut up about everything. All pseudoscientists consider themselves "experts" on their subject and keep their noses high in the air, but they do not know the first thing about how to test claims. The studies, if taken as a whole and not cherry-picked for the results one wants, say it does not matter where you put your needles. Everything you people learn about acupuncture points and meridians is worthless crap. As long as acupuncturists do not drop those, they will remain pseudoscientists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Article is Racist

Not a forum: any further discussion should restart with specific, well sourced, proposals for article improvement. . . Edaham (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is racist because it asserts that acupuncture is alternative medicine. Although some sources may erroneously describe it as such, there are at least 10x more sources that accurately describe acupuncture as being Chinese medicine. Any attempt to otherise and stigmatise and de-legitimise something on the basis of its cultural and ethnic origins is the definition of racism. Acupuncture is Chinese medicine, i.e. a valid medical practice albeit originating from outside of the white European sphere of thought. Therefore it is not alternative medicine and attempts by skeptics to smear it and debunk it are racist. They should be banned from editing this topic so that the reputation of Wikipedia for fairness and tolerance is not besmirched by them. Arthur Long (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC) See WP:SNOW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC) You´re in doubt and wish to allow the discussion to take place? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia is a fact, science and scholarship-based encyclopedia. So it obviously sides with science, or "white European science" as he POV-pushingly put it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC) No objection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Beautiful theory killed by ugly empirical evidence would be proof that science is racist. Banning science-based editors under the pretense "science is racist" does not have the chance of a snowball in hell. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC) You lost me after the first sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Do you dispute that Acupuncture is Chinese Medicine? Arthur Long (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC) It can be both Chinese origin and alternative medicine. As the article says "many Eastern medical practices were consolidated under the name Traditional Chinese Medicine" GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Traditional Chinese medicine, yes. I also believe Medicine is practised in China. Actually, I can´t think of a country that doesn´t have both Medicine and Traditional medicine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC) TCM is a propaganda stunt played by Mao upon his own people and upon the USA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC) AhHa! So you admit acupuncture is Traditional Medicine. That being the case, compare how white European traditional medicine gets treated on this site Folk healer and Acupuncture. One has about 300 nice calm gentle kind words about it about vague references to "white witches". The other has a wall of thousands of words, vehemently hostile against it. Guess what the only difference is? One is white and European, and thus gets the kiddy glove treatment, and the other one is Chinese, and thus gets hammered. Racist. Arthur Long (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC) WP:OSE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Folk healers haven't produced reams of pseudoscience. If they were to do so, that article might look very different. Are you suggesting that the pseudoscience should be removed from this article, to leave a few nice calm gentle words? It might be an idea worth exploring, though the pseudoscience is notable by its sheer volume. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC) I looked at the article folk healer, and I don't see it making any claims regarding the efficacy of what they do, or even specifically describing particular techniques which may be involved. (Folk healers also don't generally try to give the impression that they're medical professionals; they're not a billion-dollar business; they don't try to claim reimbursements from public and private health insurers.) While Tgeorgescu correctly points out that WP:OSE arguments are intrinsically weak anyway, would you actually be happy with an article in that style, with just 300 words and no mention of what acupuncture is or claims about what its proponents believe it does? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Acupuncture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004020227/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/china_conference_1/ to http://www.csicop.org/si/show/china_conference_1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120727004846/http://www.jcimjournal.com/en/index.aspx to http://www.jcimjournal.com/en/index.aspx/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Acupuncture Restores Lower Body Functionality To A Paralyzed Cat

In May 2017, kitten rescuer Hannah Shaw posted to Instagram (@kittenxlady) videos of a paralyzed cat recovering lower body functionality after receiving acupuncture.

Here is the cat prior to acupuncture, demonstrating total paralysis in the lower body: https://www.instagram.com/p/BUa5dV7gdwY/

Here is the cat post acupuncture, demonstrating recovered functionality: https://www.instagram.com/p/BUieTPeg-Fu/

This wikipedia article as currently written exhibits strong bias towards insisting acupuncture works via placebo; however, these videos indicate otherwise and the article should be revised to omit such bias based upon this direct evidence.

Jthill4 (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A reliable source would be needed to add information to the article, particularly for a claim regarding healing the lame (see WP:REDFLAG). Lots of things could cause temporary partial paralysis in a cat, and lots of things (chiefly time) might be responsible for recovery. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What he said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for sharing this powerful video evidence. I agree that it should be included in the article. Arthur Long (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• First prove that the cat actually had acupuncture (and no other treatment) instead of someone just claiming that it did, and that the acupuncture was responsible for the recover (instead of the cat's natural healing). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly -- that is my point as well. The trouble with anecdotes such as this is that they are not evidence, nor can they be used to draw conclusions. There is no way to know if the cat would have recovered anyway, regardless of what was (or wasn't) done. The article does not have a "strong bias" toward anything; it correctly reflects its reliable sources - properly conducted scientific studies - none of which have produced evidence that acupuncture induces any consistent therapeutic effect, other than placebo effect. Adding this sort of anecdata to the article would violate WP:UNDUE, among other guidelines. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The article does not have a "strong bias" toward anything; it correctly reflects its reliable sources - properly conducted scientific studies The two are not mutually exclusive. The word "bias" doesn't really imply that the position the bias favors is wrong or even subjective. I would say our article is extremely biased towards accurate, well-documented science, and strongly biased against bullshit woo claims. But then, I wrote this whole comment with a shit-eating-grin on my face, so maybe my trolling instincts have biased me in favor of 'admitting' things that piss off the alt-med clique. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

wp:medrs does not include instagram posts. Edaham (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This could be a hoax, or it could be some other explanation. Rules of evidence exist for a reason. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

references to effectiveness for chemo induced nausea and vomiting

thread now primarily being used as forum - reopening Edaham (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can this article not be full of (three) references to the above? I think the inclusion of even one reference to its effectiveness is not required since the only reliable cited studies are not conclusive as to whether or not it may/might/could be effective. The text of the papers seems too muddy on the subject. The fact that such a murky conclusion has been included three times in the article makes it look like a proponent of this treatment has gone to town to make the only bit of good information about this sham treatment seem more pronounced. Support removing all references to effectiveness for chemo induced vomiting, but will settle for removal of two of them if a consensus for this cannot be reached. Edaham (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC) I absolutely believe that ANY positive results reported for acupuncture are an example of green jelly beans causing cancer and would therefore support the reduction of multiple mentions of this purported effect to a single instance. If anything remotely contradicting this "finding" is found then it's outta here completely. Science, bitches! Famousdog (c) 10:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Perhaps take the sources 1 by 1 and see if they are reliable or not. If they are reliable sources, they should stay. If you want to remove them because they don't fit your predetermined conclusion, then that would be not be a good example of "Science, bitches!" Herbxue (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC) the policy under which they should be considered for deletion is not wp:rs (or wp:medrs in this case), but wp:weight. There's a large number of references in this article drawn from a preponderance of studies, which claim to show efficacy for pain relief. Reliable or not, focusing unduely on these studies detracts from other scientific studies testing claims made beyond the scope of pain management, in which acupuncture has been robustly debunked, erroneously making it look as if there is balance between scientific studies showing the validity of this sham treatment and others showing its uselessness. If acupuncturists were only claiming to be able to achieve mild pain relief, then the number of references included in this article (across several sections) would be proper. However since acupuncturists make a huge number of claims about the potential areas of application of their treatments, the number of positive references to this single area (RS citations notwithstanding) should be reduced accordingly. Edaham (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC) 1) agree we should limit to one reference that combines the various claims, 2) we don't need to use terms like 'sham treatment' etc. which some may take offence to. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Sham treatment means you pretend to needle the acupoints but don't (either you needle other points or you use trick needles). It's a useful term for a useful idea, and I never heard of anyone being offended by it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC) That was my first thought too, but Edaham referred to acupuncture itself as "this sham treatment" in their OP. --tronvillain (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC) sham treatment in this case (my original post) means that acupuncture as a whole is a made up thing based on an ancient but flawed premise and doesn't work, but I agree that it shouldn't be written like that in the article, nor was I proposing that such terminology should be used. The use of that term on this talk page was designed to give disclosure as to my position on the subject so as not to hide any bias toward the subject on my part. Should I happen to entertain this medical "belief" however, I would still argue that so many references and citations to the area of mild pain reduction are unnecessary for exactly the same reason that it detracts from the other areas of medical science that my belief claims to be able to address.Edaham (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC) I agree that the article should not document every blip of the random noise that is acupucture study results. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Right, sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC) In general, I do agree in principle with reducing the amount of references on this page to studies conducted through the paradigm of the Randomised Controlled Trial, which is really only useful for evaluating pharmaceutical interventions in my opinion; however in the specific case of chemo-induced nausea and vomiting, the references should remain because chemo induced nausea is one of the "Big 8" conditions for which acupuncture has been completely validated scientifically and proven to be effective for in the latest comparative literature review (2017), along with allergic rhinitis, chronic low back pain, tension-type and chronic headache, knee osteoarthritis, migraine prophylaxis, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative pain. http://www.acupuncture.org.au/Portals/0/Evidence%20study/Acupuncture%20Evidence_plain%20English%20Web%20version_17_Feb.pdf?ver=2017-02-22-171448-550 Arthur Long (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC) "completely validated" my arse. Roxy the dog. bark 08:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Putting it little strongly there, but yes, that looks like a pretty useless source. Edaham (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC) At the very least I've removed it from the lead. The cited review in no way supports the level of efficicy suggested by the way it was written in the wikipedia article! Edaham (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Can you please restore it to the lede, because it reads even more biasedly now than it did before, which is saying something! The fact is, the anti-acupuncture sentiment prevailing amongst editors here is an unrecognised form of religious zealotry. Scientism is largely replacing Christianity as the main religion in the modern West, and the most zealous followers of the religion of Scientism wish to vigourously stamp out heresy, such as the assertion that acupuncture, which was discovered as a valid form of medicine BEFORE the religion of Scientism was founded, could be effective. Thus, they automatically dismiss any evidence that contradicts their pre-conceived position. For example, how do you Scientism zealots feel about this study: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2633916?amp%3Butm_source=JAMALatestIssue&utm_campaign=27-06-2017 ? It is discussed here: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2633891 . I put forward the case that this article I linked to secondly is an appropriate source to be included in this article. Arthur Long (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC) to answer your first question, no. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I tentatively removed that lede reference first. Seeing as there has been no consensus conflict I have reread the sources and support removing the rest of these claims of efficiency. In short the cited papers (the ones from MEDRS, at least) simply don't support the claims. At best they say they cannot rule out possibilities and in most cases they are murky as to what they are even testing for and plainly self-depreciatory. The sources which unashamedly support these claims for chemo troubles all seem to be supposed "meta studies" which cherry pick bits of the aforementioned uncertain results. I hate to say it but this is not great sourcing. We should remove these quickly and try to work out how to prevent similar inclusions. It's a sanctioned article, however so there should be some noises of agreement here before editing. Edaham (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC) You requested an answer from a group that exists only in your brain, called "Scientism zealots", but I will answer anyway. That study is a primary source, and we want secondary sources here. One of the reasons is that primary sources are prone to the Texas sharpshooter effect. You see, the reason your opinion and ours differ is that we actually know how to judge studies. Talking about things that exist only in your brain, you can just cut the boring polemics. We heard it all before, and none of it is connected to reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Yes to the analogy about the Texan. No to the adhom' references to an editor's brain. At this juncture, rather than focusing on deriding the talk page contributions of editors who support fringe theories, it would be good to get consensus on what to do with the remainder of the references in this article which seem to support complimentary use of A. in conjunction with chemotherapy. Edaham (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC) No need for ad-homenim attacks against me. I was referring to the second link I posted here, which IS a secondary source.Arthur Long (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC) What are you saying here Arthur, that it is OK for you to make personal attacks on everybody editing Acu like you have here, but we can't point out how much of a dick you are being? It doesn't work like that. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Arthur explicitly talked to a group he calls "scientism zealots". Pointing out that that group does not exist here, but is only a figment of Arthur's imagination, a straw man, is not "ad hominem". Edaham and Arthur, please look up argumentum ad hominem to confirm this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I think you are confused about who I was referring to. Another user called Hob was the person who was making comments on the person rather than commenting on the arguments (ill conceived though they were). Not to worry; this thread has taken a tangent far away from the topic it set out to deal with and your commentary on people's use of terminology falls under the heading of wp:notforum. I will close this thread and reopen it under a more objective heading, following which, we can hopefully keep the subject related to specific article improvements. Edaham (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Effectiveness

Based on the above ongoing discussion, it seems that it would be easier to edit the effectiveness section and a more accurate description of the sections contents if it were split into two sections 1) Effectiveness 2)areas of application. This would remove the burden of having to re-cite papers on effectiveness when listing areas in which AC is applied. It would also increase brevity, by establishing a simple and general picture of the efficacy of AC across a broad spectrum of areas of application, while cutting down the amount of repetitious statements in the subsection "specific conditions" Edaham (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove claims in this article that acupuncture is useful for chemo-induced nausea and vomiting

I support doing this, based on the fact that the sources offered to support it only vaguely suggest that they haven't ruled out total inefficiency and do much to discredit other areas in which acupuncture claims to be useful. Please read the cited sources briefly before adding to this thread. Edaham (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per [7] as well as comments by Edaham and others. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

OPPOSE on the grounds that the latest comparative literature review found the following: "2.6 Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) [Positive effect] For chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, acupuncture was rated as ‘effective’ in the Australian DVA review (2010) and was not reviewed separately to ‘cancer adverse effects’ in the USVA Evidence map of acupuncture (2014) (5, 6). In 2013, a systematic review of seven acupuncture and six acupressure RCTs found that acupuncture reduced the frequency of acute vomiting and the dose of rescue medication but did not reduce acute nausea severity or frequency compared to control. Acupressure showed a decrease in frequency of nausea but not acute vomiting or delayed symptoms. All studies used state-of-the-art combination anti-emetics in addition to acupuncture/acupressure. The reviewers rated the quality of evidence in the acupuncture studies as low to moderate while the acupressure studies were moderate to high quality. There was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions due to underpowered studies (21). However, an updated systematic review by Garcia et al in 2014 (using 18 new RCTs) found that acupuncture is an appropriate referral option for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting"(55). On this basis, CINV has been rated as positive rather than potential positive in this review." http://www.acupuncture.org.au/Portals/0/The%20Acupuncture%20Evidence%20Project_Mcdonald%20and%20Janz_Feb_2017_Reissued_April_2017.pdf?ver=2017-04-21-150632-950 Arthur Long (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You've been on Wikipedia long enough now to know that a site which promotes Chinese medicine (in this case the Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association Ltd -AACMA) is not going to be accepted as MEDRS. If you don't know that at this juncture, do please read the related policies so as not to unwittingly introduce poorly sourced, dubious or commercially oriented information into the encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The comparative literature review I referred to, painstakingly compiled by two bonafide PHD accredited researchers, is indeed most definitely MEDRS. In fact it is the most recent relevant MEDRS source and therefore takes precedent over the older ones. You've been on Wikipedia long enough now to know that using a Genetic fallacy is not a valid argument around here. If you don't know that at this juncture, do please read the related policies so as not to unwittingly introduce blatant one-eyed bias into the encyclopedia.Arthur Long (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Long: You've brought up, and highlighted a very interesting idiosyncratic aspect of sources in Wikipedia; an understanding of which will help you when digging for sources in future. Terms like "fallacy of origins" have a place in discussions in which debators wish to point out that detracting from their source does not weaken their argument. You aren't in an argument on Wikipedia though, you are writing an encyclopedia, so the so-called genetic fallacy isn't a fallacy at all, it's a policy. You can't put info into a MEDRS based article which is taken from a promotional site supporting a fringe theory. I'm not saying that because I'm trying to weaken your argument. I'm saying it because myself and the other editors on this page will prevent you from doing so based on policy. You'll have to reference the same information taken from a different source, which is as good or better than the existing sources we have here already, and then have those sources met with approval by consensus. Edaham (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Arthur's claim that the acupuncturists review is MEDRS is, of course, nonsense. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal — The source is fringe and does not comply with sourcing standards for medical articles. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Well hm. I think tweaking this from "is useful" to "is used" would be OK, as my sense is that acu is widely offered for this. People undergoing chemo have terrible nausea - this is one of the worst things about chemo. Drug treatment to prevent and treat the chemo-induced nausea (see current ESMO guidelines and current ASCO guideline, updated here) is good and getting better but, chemo-induced nausea it is still so awful that as people go through rounds of chemo, anxiety over what is coming is one of the hardest things to face.
  • This is one of the uses of acupuncture that has become mainstream in medical centers. Memorial Sloan-Kettering for example offers it, as does MD Anderson (see here). See also Goldman, Lee; Schafer, Andrew, eds. (2012). Goldman's Cecil Medicine (24th ed. ed.). Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders. ISBN 978-1-4377-2788-3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) which says: To date, only a few complementary approaches have achieved widespread use in medical centers. Among commonly used complementary and alternative medical therapies, acupuncture is beneficial for tension-type headache ; can improve nausea, vomiting, and other symptoms in cancer patients ; can lower blood pressure by about 5.4/2.0 mm Hg during treatment but not after it is stopped; has some benefit for chronic lower back pain, but has small and probably not clinically relevant benefits for peripheral joint osteoarthritis. from
  • Harrison's does not mention acupuncture for this use. It does say the following: The most common side effect of chemotherapy administration is nausea, with or without vomiting.....Of great importance are the prophylactic administration of agents, and such psychological techniques as the maintenance of a supportive milieu, counseling, and relaxation to augment the action of antiemetic agents. (from Longo, Dan L., ed. (2012). Harrison's principles of internal medicine (18th ed. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-174889-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) ) One reckons that this is part of the "relaxing" thing, at least.
  • The National Comprehensive Cancer Network outreach to patients about chemo nausea notes acu as CAM option to help deal with it, and it just says "is used", not "useful for".

This use is, like a few other uses, something where the evidence is not great but neither is the science-based treatment we can offer people to actually help them - and a place where there is ~enough~ evidence and ~enough~ unmet need and ~enough~ demand where it has become pretty widely used. This should be in my view one of the "core" acu things that we talk about, as I have mentioned before.

Please do keep in mind that our articles about health are driven by evidence and mainstream clinical practice. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

So the key point you are making is that it is used by doctors who are willing to prescribe it in mainstream medical centers and that that should be mentioned in the article, right? In that case, rather than citing numerous peer reviewed scientific papers, which frequently give uncertain and conflicting results as to its efficacy, would it be prudent to include a greater volume of sourced material from links such as this one, which at least give concrete facts about its use in mainstream health care, irrespective of its scientific credibility? Edaham (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

well no, b/c that site makes some irresponsible claims (we avoid hospital websites pretty rigorously as they often do this - they are not MEDRS). the NCCN guide and the Cecil's textbook would be fine. This is the fine line we need to walk in my view, and that I wish the pro- and anti- groups would agree to mind, together. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood. I think there's two types of information we have to deal with here, one (A) is the info regarding the workings and efficacy of acupuncture (requiring high-quality MEDRS), the second is (B) its usage, which if verifiable and factual can come from RS. I looked at that site you referenced. I would say from looking at it that it can (B) factually be said that this establishment administers acupuncture as a treatment for x,y and z - but it cannot be said that any of the (A) claims it makes about efficacy are true. The fact that its a hospital website however makes it a bit of a dodgy RS. I agree with you that the encyclopedia should use the terminology "is used for" and/or "is used by" as that information is important to the subject. What appropriate resources have that info?Edaham (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The Goldman Cecil's textbook quoted above is dead on. The NCI PDQ says that Acupuncture is used to treat a wide range of illnesses and ailments. Cancer patients use it for pain management, control of nausea and vomiting (N/V), fatigue, hot flashes, xerostomia, neuropathy, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance.. Am looking for a good source that has actual data on medical centers that offer acu. Google searching for "cancer center" acupuncture shows it is a shitload but that is of course not useful. This US News&World report from 2008 (!) says Elite centers like the Mayo Clinic, Duke University Medical Center, and the University of California-San Francisco now offer acupuncture, massage, and other CAM services. All 18 hospitals on U.S. News's most recent "America's Best Hospitals" superselective Honor Roll provide CAM of some type. Fifteen of the 18 also belong to the three-year-old Consortium of Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine, 36 U.S. teaching hospitals pushing to blend CAM with traditional care. Science-Based Medicine regularly bemoans quackademic medicine as it does here, where it also explains the economic motivations (which are real) but I didn't find data on offerings there either. Will keep looking. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

here is a bit of data from STAT in March 2017 and a non-quantitative PBS News follow-up piece on just quacky things are getting. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As of 2011, per NPR, 42% of US medical centers offered some CAM thing, with acu most common.Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Something we often turn to on dicey medical things, is whether insurance companies pay for it. (They will not pay for quackery and have to say so !) and we sometimes use their evaluations as MEDRS for fringey stuff)

• aetna pays for acu for chemo-induced nausea. (the list of acu uses they pay for, is pretty much what I wish we could call a "truce" around btw.)
• anthem blue cross does too
• medicare doesn't pay for any acupuncture

hm. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just getting round to editing, having read your sources - The Dana Farber Piece you referenced is current enough to use and references a mainstream provider which uses AC for palliative care, but I'm reluctant to cite it, because throwing another science based medicine link into the article as a reference - especially one which links to an opinion piece does seem obliquely POV - as in saying, "acupuncture is administered here... and it's awful". I'd rather have a source which dryly states the location of places where its used without any of the soap box stuff. With such a source I would remove the sentence - "A 2013 systematic review found that acupuncture is an acceptable adjunctive treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, but that further research with a low risk of bias is needed.", and add a sentence at the end of the same paragraph, mentioning healthcare centers where AC is used. Edaham (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: we already have this in the article. It mentions J Hopkins, a host of other names. It mentions chemo indirectly and explicitly mentions that there is an active grant for practicing AC for cancer care in JH. Edaham (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

fine by me. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Wikipedia does it again! Tries to take off all efficacy on acupuncture. Wikipedia should be ashamed after the media expose you but you do not care. Acupuncture helps nausea from chemo, this is proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playalake (talk • contribs) 09:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, look. @Playalake: is back again. Let's address your points: 1) "Wikipedia" is not a individual or a monolithic entity capable of doing anything by itself. Wikipedia CONTRIBUTORS however, being conscious individuals capable of independent thought, are. 2) What in the name of Pete do you mean by "take off all efficacy on acupuncture"? 3) Wikipedia cannot be "ashamed" (see point 1). Wikipedia CONTRIBUTORS can be. But we aren't, because we're actually doing quite a good job of keeping codswallop off Wikipedia. 4) What "media exposé"? You mean all the recent rants about Wikipedia in the Chinese blogosphere? Yeah, they're probably pissed off with us a bit but I hardly call that an "exposé" 5) Wikipedia cannot "care" (see points 1 and 3). Wikipedia CONTRIBUTORS can, and we do. We care very much about things like keeping codswallop off Wikipedia. 6) The evidence for acupuncture's efficacy in this one specific condition is far from "proven". That's why we're discussing it. Hope that clears things up. Famous_dog (c) 13:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

|}

• Support removal of anything that can be read as a claim of efficacy for CINV (has this been done yet?). With regards to the argument over useful/used, if we listed every condition that acupuncture is used in connection with, then this article would be very long indeed. Famous_dog (c) 07:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

According to official MEDRS Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), "Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews' or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies. The comparative literature review I linked to earlier in this thread could not more perfectly satisfy this criteria if it were pissed on with holy urine from Edzard Ernst's own bladder itself. It is a systematic literature review (check) published by and outlining the position (check) of the Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association i.e. the peak national expert body of acupuncturists in Australia (check. mate.) It is clear that the source stands, and I note that no one here in support of eliminating factual claims in this article offer any third-party source of their own: they are just relying on their own personal interpretations of individual studies and trying to bully through a prejudiced position. To any neutral-minded folks reading this talk page, you might wonder why there is such hostility here against a fairly widespread, common and accepted practice as acupuncture. I did too for many years. Now I realise that it is a form of religious zealotry. These people are rigourous adherents to the faith of 'Scientism', and they treat Wikipedia here as their holy scripture in which no heresy or paganism is allowed. Now, don't get me wrong, they are entitled to their own personal faith. And indeed, acupuncture is a matter of religion to me as well. As a Taoist, to which I converted at the age of 19, I view acupuncture as the pragmatic application of the fundamental principles of my religion in a medical/healthcare context. However, I refute the notion that Wikipedia ought to be treated as the holy scripture of the sceptics and scientism adherents. When I was young my house had a set of Colliers' encyclopedia, and when I would come home from school in the afternoons I would plant myself down in front of the bookcase and just read these volumes for hours and hours on end. I loved the concept of encyclopedic knowledge, and I still do. Thus I demand this publication be inclusive of ALL faiths and races and religions in the world, not just the narrow eurocentric sceptic scientism viewpoint of the world.Arthur Long (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. Black everywhere. When is a "national or international expert body" not reliable as a source for unbiased information regarding a medical treatment? When it is an organisation that advocates for, and represents the interests of practitioners of the very treatment in which it claims expertise. Famous_dog (c) 09:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I tried to hide Arthur's off-topic bollocks by increasing the size of Fdogs hat. didn't work. Instead I'd like to say to Arthur, you could easily improve the article yourself. All you need is reliable MEDRS sources. Easy. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia rubber-stamps mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. It does this by design. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of results that are typical of the combination of a nonexistant effect and repeated attempts to prove the existence of the effect: 5% of those attempts result in mostly non-replicable significant correlations due to the definition of significance. 5% of those, in turn, will be replicated at least once, for the same reason. This situation is called "insufficient evidence" by people who understand statistics and is called "might be efficient", "contradictory", or "inconclusive" by people who don't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal per extensive discussion above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made an edit based on what I think is a consensus here. I've also added line breaks to the paragraphs, which seemed to deal with separate things. While doing this I noticed that there are two, almost identical studies concerning fatigue scattered on either side of the chemo paragraph. I removed one of these. If editors feel strongly that it should be restored, please reintroduce it along with the other related study. Experienced editors may wish to check the ref links to make sure I haven't introduced any non-standard or unconventional code in the references Edaham (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Too much contortion of logic to justify removing reliable sources. What you can do instead is keep the sources, but don't present them in WP's voice (this is what we should do in general for claims that are questioned by some editors but supported by others and have RS). Acupuncture performs pretty consistently in trials for nausea, and the sources are good. The article presents sources, not your opinions. Herbxue (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

right, but can you please manually redo the paragraph tidy up and deletion of redundancies and flip-flopping of various subjects in that section. Hopefully other editors will chime in on this because that was quite a lot of effort for a small but necessary edit. Please also see below. Edaham (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops, apologies if I messed up a bunch of reorganization. Will take a look in an hour or so.Herbxue (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks, additionally your sudden appearance and reversion at this juncture deserves some scrutiny. Having spent so long establishing a consensus prior to editing, a further edit or counter proposal might have been more appropriate. Edaham (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

additional content and ref about cancer pain

In the section Acupuncture#Pain_and_nausea_associated_with_cancer_and_cancer_treatment, the first paragraph talks about cancer pain and the 2nd, about chemo-associated nausea and other cancer things. At some point, someone had stuck content and a ref about cancer pain at the end of the 2nd paragraph, out of place. The topic was already well covered in the first paragraph and this stuff brings nothing new. In addition the authors are from Taiwan and include a bunch of China-done acu trials in their analysis, and as we have discussed here endlessly that is not reliable science. So i removed it in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

grrrr I actually had that pretty well tidied up and a user named herbxue reverted me Edaham (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies again - I tried to undo my undo, but the page is now protected and I cannot change it. Herbxue (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: This is an edit summary of the following excerpt from the article, which I recently edited.

It has proved hard to remove murky claims of efficacy from the article. See above discussion which continued for a long time. If they cannot be removed, I have an issue with the fact that the first cited review with reference to efficacy for cancer pain is mentioned as being a Cochrane review, while others are unnamed. I feel this gives undue homogeneity to the ensuing references, which a reader could assume to be from the same source. To reflect the wide range of areas from which the cited material is drawn I have added the names of the journals or media in which the studies were published. Hopefully this neutrally reflects the fact that 1)lots of different people who study this produce RTCs and 2)they don't all agree on what the results imply. Edaham (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I am OK with that. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt response. I directed the summary/reply to you as you made the initial edit to that paragraph, but I also hope that other involved editors find this approach to be satisfactory. Edaham (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

get rid of "TCM"

At a quick scan, the term TCM is floated 21 times in this article. In four instances, it's as traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).

Unless some crediblesource can be offered to establish this as somehow a standard term, then it should go. In this article, its repeated reintroduction comes across as a series of needlessly pompous brainfarts, and certainly not more tolerable upon reexposure.
Weeb Dingle (talk)

The term TCM means something, even if the practice itself is hogwash. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Weeb's first point is that the phrase "traditional Chinese medicine", in varying capitalization styles, and the abbreviation TCM are being used in the article in an inconsistent way. If the point of introducing an abbreviation is to shorten the overall article and to make it less verbose, you would think that it would be used consistently and the full phrase would occur just once, when its abbreviation is introduced.

Weeb's second point is raising the question of whether TCM is an acceptable enough abbreviation to be used here in this way. For contrast, we often see editors abbreviating acupuncture as "acu" in edit summaries and talk page discussions – but I don't think we would advocate this usage formally in the article.

I glanced and couldn't find varying capitalization styles. Could you please go ahead and make the required edits where necessary and I'll check what changed when it appears on my watch list. Thanks for taking the time to review the article Edaham (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I fixed two of them, but the others are less easy. The title of the Wikipedia article has a capital T and I was not ready to go through the refs and sentence-case all of the article titles. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

My view is that the inconsistency would best be removed or at least reduced and that TCM is an acceptable abbreviation. I'll note that the Traditional Chinese medicine article shares this inconsistent usage. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to a definition from an online source (as it seems like you don't have access to an uptodate physical medial dictionary. Here is a link to an internal page, which will help you formulate requests from other editors in the future. Do you have a suggestion for the inclusion of this source in the article? Here are some other examples of its use by or in:

• another dictionary
• the World Health Organization
• the FDA
• the United Nations

Edaham (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"Acupuncture is a pseudoscience"

Acupuncture is but an age-old medical practice from ancient China. It was never "science" or ever intended to be "science" in the first place. Vc06697 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Shocking, isn't it. These people are all over the place trying to suggest that Acu is a valid way to treat illness. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

To some people, it may be. The biggest problem is (not just to the Chinese people but to people around the world), acupuncture seems to be seen as something that can treat every illness. Vc06697 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2017

The source in the pediatrics section (218) links to an acupuncture and Chinese medicine website. This should be removed as a source and the sentence rewritten as it is clearly biased in favor of acupuncturists etc. Thanks!

Max Needham MS2 University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine Max Needham (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The text in question is:

Acupuncture can potentially improve a number of common pediatric issues, including gastrointestinal issues, reflux, colic, asthma, allergies, ADHD, and headaches

The source is Can acupuncture help your kid at the Fairfield Family Acupuncture and Chinese Herbal Medicine website. It was added on 5 February 2016. As you say, the source is unsuitable as a reliable source (WP:RS and WP:MEDRS).

Thanks for raising the issue but I will leave taking action at the moment in the expectation that it would be better for others to give an opinion on what should be done. Mainly, should any of the current wording be retained? Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The full sentence is ... Acupuncture can potentially improve a number of common pediatric issues, including gastrointestinal issues, reflux, colic, asthma, allergies, ADHD, and headaches,[218] however, its safety has been debated. The whole sentence can be removed, with the added benefit of improving the article! -Roxy the dog. bark 09:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Acupuncture#other conditions

Hello, Is there any way that we can clean up this paragraph? Table format, a list in three columns, or alphabetical? I would be happy to do it! Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The section is Acupuncture#Other conditions. It is a bit ugly, but I'm not sure about a fix. People use WP:PROSE to justify converting lists into text like that which is currently in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph? the whole section is about conditions that Acu cannot treat, and is, yes, as ugly as hell. I would like to propose a whole section on things that Acu is useful for instead. I would promise to sweep up the cobwebs on a weekly basis. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I adjusted my link to the #other conditions section. Thank you @Johnuniq:. I was thinking something like a long sequence "list" Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Long_sequences in WP:PROSE, with the conditions in alphabetical order. My suggestion is not to add content at this time, just make it so the conditions+citations are easier to read. @Roxy the dog:, if I understand you correctly, you want to make a similar list of conditions for which acupuncture is useful for that are backed by WP:MEDRS sources? JenOttawa (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it would look. I suspect it would consist of many short items and others might not be happy about that. I agree the current text is a problem, but it is encyclopedic information in that it collates what is known with sources. Try it and see I guess. I just had a quick trial (with a preview) and it has benefits but may alarm some. Each item is a single physical line in the wikitext except for ankle sprain, and that makes it easier. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of trying 3 or 4 columns to condense the table. I won't have time to fiddle with this until next week, and I am still learning about making tables, so it will take me a little bit of time. I will let you know when I am ready to go! Thanks for your feedback, JenOttawa (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The article history shows that the other conditions were originally listed in columns. An edit on 15 March 2014 changed it to a paragraph (presumably per WP:PROSE). The section before the change is displayed at permalink. I edited the section to put the items in what I hope is a reasonable alphabetical order, and to put each item on one line of wikitext to make future editing easier. I do not think that converting it to a list would be desirable—for one thing, it is certain that someone would come along in due course and cite WP:PROSE to put it back to a paragraph. In case "tables" refers to Help:Table, I definitely do not think a table would be desirable because it would make the section very hard to edit in the future, and would occupy too much space for the topic. The section is encyclopedically valuable because it gathers a lot of reliable evidence into one place, and readers can search the article for a term of interest. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I think that the edits you performed make the section easier to read. Thank you for your advice and assistance!JenOttawa (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Request edit on 27 November 2017

replace "The conclusions of many trials and numerous systematic reviews of acupuncture are largely inconsistent" with "The conclusions of many trials and numerous systematic reviews of acupuncture are largely consistent in concluding ineffectiveness of acupuncture"

the two sources that are currently cited after this sentence state:

[9] "In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain. Serious adverse effects continue to be reported."

[12] "It is concluded that Cochrane reviews of acupuncture do not suggest that this treatment is effective for a wide range of conditions."

The sentence should reflect what the cited sources state, and currently it is stating the opposite. Furthermore, all the following paragraph is consistent in showing that current scientific literature largely agrees on the ineffectiveness of acupuncture. Balerion87 (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems a sensible amendment to me, so I've made the change. Stylistically, I dislike "the conclusions ... are largely consistent in concluding ...", so I've substituted "largely consistent in reporting" as conveying almost the same meaning. I hope that is acceptable. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing editor opinion

..."which suggests" in editor opinion. We don't have to include editor opinion and especially since the article cites the sources later on. We are an encyclopedia; we don't offer opinion on the research we cite it and the article does this in the following sentences in the paragraph. This isn't a critical change so will not revert again.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)) edit conflict

Please note the comment above. I won't revert you, but suggest that you do not threaten editors who revert and take a discussion to talk per WP:BOLD while you did not.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC))

No, it's not. It's well-known in science that results that go all over the place demonstrate a lack of correlation. Since correlation is a necessary (but not sufficient) component of causation, the language you removed is not, in any way an editor opinion, or even subjective. It's just how science (and more generally statistical analysis) works. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, upon reading one of the cited sources, I can see that the language is supported by the source. So not only is this WP:SKYBLUE territory, it's also WP:V territory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Note the article sites the sources and conclusions in following sentences so the words added are redundant. I would argue the wording itself is opinion not the information. This is not a research paper or review it is citing the reviews, and we do that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC))

I would argue the wording itself is opinion not the information. That's nonsensical. It must contain information to be an opinion. For example: "X is important." and "X is unimportant." are different opinions, but "X is meaninful" is just a different way of expressing the former opinion, not a third opinion. It's not redundant, either except in an overly literal sense. It's an introduction to the paragraph is all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

This is a basic encyclopedic concept. We don't have to suggest anything which is an opinion. We have to cite the sources which we do. Further I never said the opinion was not accurate or that it does not contain accurate information. I am saying that the information is worded as an opinion. You seem to think I am disputing the content. I am not. I am simply saying that information was added as an opinion while the article actually cites the sources and says the same thing in words which actually cites sources. This is a small issue and I respect the editor who made the initial addition. I see no reason to argue this further and have no desire to revert this; if this means so much to you, no worries.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC))

This is a basic encyclopedic concept. We don't have to suggest anything which is an opinion. Have you ever heard of Begging the question?

I am saying that the information is worded as an opinion. I don't see how that makes any more sense than your assertion that the wording is an opinion. In order for something to be worded as an opinion, it has to indicate subjectivity in some way. Subjectivity being something very different from probability. Words like "suggests" do not indicate subjectivity; they indicate probability. For example: We don't know for a fact that a black hole won't consume the sun tomorrow. But that doesn't make "the ubiquity of astronomers searching the heavens and our knowledge of the sun's mass and volume and our knowledge of the effects of black holes suggests that a black hole will not consume the sun tomorrow." an opinion.

And for the second time; that wording is supported by the cited source. Even if you were correct about it being an opinion, it's not an editor's opinion, but that of Earnst, Lee and Choi. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Request Edit to Sham Acupuncture and Research

The article states that "A 2013 meta-analysis found little evidence that the effectiveness of acupuncture on pain (compared to sham) was modified by the location of the needles, the number of needles used, the experience or technique of the practitioner, or by the circumstances of the sessions." This is false. The citation clearly states under the "results" section that better pain outcomes were observed when more needles were used, and that this finding was statistically significant. As an aside, This was the first primary source article I followed up with when reading this article, so I am concerned that more mistakes may exist in this article if we start looking through the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.41.174.77 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is correct. The cited meta-analysis conducted separate analyses for sham controls and non-acupuncture controls. The "better pain outcomes" part was in the context of the latter while this article is referring to the former (note the "compared to sham" parenthetical). The "results" section of the cited article states:

When comparing acupuncture to sham controls, there was little evidence that the effects of acupuncture on pain were modified by any of the acupuncture characteristics evaluated, including style of acupuncture, the number or placement of needles, the number, frequency or duration of sessions, patient-practitioner interactions and the experience of the acupuncturist. When comparing acupuncture to non-acupuncture controls, there was little evidence that these characteristics modified the effect of acupuncture, except better pain outcomes were observed when more needles were used …

Wikishelt (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews just over 10 years old

Have restored them. They are a little old yes but not that old.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

In general, I prefer older reviews, because if they go a long time without being challenged by new reviews coming to opposing conclusions, then that's generally because the experts can't come up with any reason to doubt the older review. And of course the older review has it's own methodology to stand on. An old, unchallenged systemic review is far more likely to be accurate, IMHO.

That being said, I'm not convinced this one hasn't been challenged. In fact, I'm pretty sure it has. But the methodology in this one was sound, and the newer reviews that challenge it aren't notably better. And last I checked, it had a cite that was only a year old or so. So I'm okay with using it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As it says in WP:MEDDATE: "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window." --tronvillain (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not an academic journal. Each paragraph is too long for an online encyclopedia and we still increase the contents every year with new review. I guess editors will add the review of 2018 soon and make it longer for each paragraph. It is really hard to read and makes me very confuse. After reading this, I did not get anything. The paragraph are simply too long and too complicated. We need to shorten each paragraph. I can accept 5-year-old research but I suggest to delete all research which is more than 10 years ago. --Miracle dream (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As above, see WP:MEDDATE:"Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window." --tronvillain (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. These studies are WP:DUE, and perfectly acceptable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That means we will make these paragraph longer and longer, and harder to read. Editors will add the review of 2018 soon, then I guess 2019,2020 and so on. We will have 20 years or even 50 years review in each paragraph. Probably each paragraph has more than thousand words? Don't you think it is really hard to read? --Miracle dream (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

When Cochrane updates the review, we will adjust the citation (and conclusions as appropriate) to reflect the most recent version of the review. We have a bot that tracks these and will flag citations (monthly) when Cochrane releases a newer version. (note my COI with Cochrane on my user page).Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

Incorrectly labeled a pseudoscience in the opening section. Citations do not back up that statement and just mention acupuncture (and the more extreme claims) in passing.

Should be changed to something along the lines of "the merits of acupuncture are debated among the scientific community" as that is more accurate to its current state. 24.141.130.136 (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

None of this is true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

“Acupuncture is a pseudoscience”

This sentence needs clarification. As it stands, it does not make much sense, it is like saying that bloodletting is a pseudoscience. Acupuncture, in the common sense of the word, cannot be “science” or “pseudoscience”, since it does not purport to be a body of knowledge. It is a technique, a treatment, ineffective or effective.

So there are at least two meanings of “acupuncture”: the practice consisting in inserting needles into the patient’s skin; and all the theories behind it: qi, ying yang, release of endorphines, etc.

Josebarbosa (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We follow the sources. Please review them. I don't understand the basis for your assertion that its practioners do not say there is a body of knowledge around it (where the meridians are and how they are said to function and dysfunction or reflect dysfunction, where to needle someone and with what intensity for what conditions a specific person might have) but whatever. This is not a forum in any case. I am closing this. If you want to re-open please first review the many, many, many discussions about "pseudoscience" in the archives of this page, and please bring a clear, well-sourced proposal to make a change. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Josebarbosa (talk · contribs) I see that you are a new user. You are so right. Acupuncture cannot be a pseudoscience; it is a modality for healing whether successful or not. The research on acupuncture may be pseudoscience though. We do go with sources but there is a difference between using sources to reflect the content we add and writing an article based on the weight of the sources in the mainstream. Although, I did some work on this article in the past, I'm not sure what the preponderance of sources say in regards to the word pseudoscience. The consensus in the article's past has been to use the word pseudoscience so right or wrong that is the way the article will be written. I hope you'll stay around and keep editing. We need good editors.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC))

A blog should never be used to source content no matter who writes it because there is no oversight but I see Quack Watch has been included in several places for content that borders on MEDRS rather than is specifically related to health treatments so I won't contest it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

The article states that there is no standard for acupuncture points. There is the "International Standard" (IS) which clearly specifies the locations and is based upon a numbering system which has been in regular use for at least the past three decades probably more. 2001:8003:A0A5:2100:2D78:C469:6EB8:CEF3 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ToThAc (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There are very many proposed standards for acupuncture points, which is part of the problem - the body of acupuncture literature does not aggregate around any one of them, or even a small number, and that is the point the article is making. The fact that some have been around for a while doesn't matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Presenting the evidence on acupuncture for arthritis relief

Hello, I wanted to see how the community feels about the order of evidence presented in this section on arthritis (under specific conditions/arthritis): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture#Sham_acupuncture_and_research

It looks like it is presently organized chronologically. Should this be re-organized based on strength of evidence? If so, what opinion/review should be presented first? It goes from stating that acupuncture is a suggested treatment (complementary med journal systematic review), to indicate that the there is probably no difference between sham and real (other reviews). I feel that it is misleading when a sentence says that acupuncture works and then indicates that it is no different from sham (2014 meta-analysis, 2nd sentence).

Finally, I have a new 2018 Cochrane review on osteoarthritis in the hip and acupuncture that can be added. Conclusions:"Acupuncture probably has little or no effect in reducing pain or improving function relative to sham acupuncture in people with hip osteoarthritis. Due to the small sample size in the studies, the confidence intervals include both the possibility of moderate benefits and the possibility of no effect of acupuncture". PMID 29729027 Of note, the review mentions that there are not new registered RCTs on this topic, so we should not expect changes to the evidence base in the near future.

Present Paragraph (pasted from the article):

"A 2014 review concluded that "current evidence supports the use of acupuncture as an alternative to traditional analgesics in osteoarthritis patients."[109] As of 2014, a meta-analysis showed that acupuncture may help osteoarthritis pain but it was noted that the effects were insignificant in comparison to sham needles.[110] A 2013 systematic review and network meta-analysis found that the evidence suggests that acupuncture may be considered one of the more effective physical treatments for alleviating pain due to knee osteoarthritis in the short-term compared to other relevant physical treatments, though much of the evidence in the topic is of poor quality and there is uncertainty about the efficacy of many of the treatments.[111] A 2012 review found "the potential beneficial action of acupuncture on osteoarthritis pain does not appear to be clinically relevant."[76] A 2010 Cochrane review found that acupuncture shows statistically significant benefit over sham acupuncture in the treatment of peripheral joint osteoarthritis; however, these benefits were found to be so small that their clinical significance was doubtful, and "probably due at least partially to placebo effects from incomplete blinding".[112]

A 2013 Cochrane review found low to moderate evidence that acupuncture improves pain and stiffness in treating people with fibromyalgia compared with no treatment and standard care.[113] A 2012 review found "there is insufficient evidence to recommend acupuncture for the treatment of fibromyalgia."[76] A 2010 systematic review found a small pain relief effect that was not apparently discernible from bias; acupuncture is not a recommendable treatment for the management of fibromyalgia on the basis of this review.[114]

A 2012 review found that the effectiveness of acupuncture to treat rheumatoid arthritis is "sparse and inconclusive."[76] A 2005 Cochrane review concluded that acupuncture use to treat rheumatoid arthritis "has no effect on ESR, CRP, pain, patient's global assessment, number of swollen joints, number of tender joints, general health, disease activity and reduction of analgesics."[115] A 2010 overview of systematic reviews found insufficient evidence to recommend acupuncture in the treatment of most rheumatic conditions, with the exceptions of osteoarthritis, low back pain, and lateral elbow pain.[116]"

Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of a re-write is due, in light of the new Cochrane review. Girth Summit (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Annals of Internal Medicine

In looking up present guidelines for low back pain, I found recommendations relevant to accupuncture. Clinical guidelines in the Annals of Internal Medicine are the most widely recognized guidelines for internists. The April 4, 2017 guideline for low back pain recommendation has two recommendations for accupuncture. This is particularly relevant as narcotic medications are to be avoided. "Recommendation 1: Given that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment, clinicians and patients should select nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat (moderate-quality evidence), massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). If pharmacologic treatment is desired, clinicians and patients should select nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or skeletal muscle relaxants (moderate-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation)" and "Recommendation 2: For patients with chronic low back pain, clinicians and patients should initially select nonpharmacologic treatment with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction (moderate-quality evidence), tai chi, yoga, motor control exercise, progressive relaxation, electromyography biofeedback, low-level laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation)". It seems like these recommendations warrant mention?Gren0ui11e (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2018

Under "adoption" where adoption in the UK is mentioned add the following: "Acupuncture is sometimes available under the National Health Service (NHS) but the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) currently only recommends its use for migraines and chronic tension-type headaches. Most UK Acupuncture patients pay for private treatments costing between £25 to 70£ per treatment."

Reference: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/acupuncture/ Laura30081984 (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, the source does not say that NICE recommends its use for migraines or chronic tension-type headaches: it says that NICE recommends that acupuncture only be considered as a treatment option for those conditions; there's a significant difference. I don't think this information is significant enough for inclusion - we don't provide pricing information for any other countries that we discuss, I'm not sure why we would do this for the UK.Girth Summit (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional removals

As two more recent literature reviews I added to the article have now both been removed, I feel that it is necessary to start a new section on this talk page to discuss these removals. Naturally, WP:RECENTISM has been cited by the editor (MPants at work) who removed these sources, apparently indicating that these sources are supposed to be too recent to include. Interestingly, while one of the reviews that was removed did have favorable conclusions to acupuncture [9], the other did not [10], suggesting that WP:FRINGE is no longer being used to dismiss any pro-acupuncture conclusions. Anyway, the argument being made to justify the removal of these sources appears to be that they were published too recently. Let us look at the two places in which the page WP:MEDRS uses the word "recentism" to see how applicable, if at all, it is to this situation. First:

1. "Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted (see recentism)." This does not apply here as both sources I am including were secondary review articles in reputable journals (or in one case a Cochrane review, an exceptionally high-quality source).
2. "Assessing reviews may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism)." This is certainly a valid point that, it could be argued, may be relevant here. It may also be relevant to cite the quote from MEDRS that "A newer source which is of lower quality does not supersede an older source of higher quality."

The real question is whether there is any reason that these more recent review articles should not be trusted enough to be included at all. That is, are they in fact "lower quality" than the reviews that are still in the article? The two articles that were removed were a clinical practice guideline endorsed by the ASCO and a Cochrane review, both of which are clearly very high-quality sources that comply with MEDRS. Certainly it doesn't really make sense to remove all the older reviews, which is why I did not do so, instead choosing to add 2 new review articles alongside them. However, I am eager to hear what justifications other users doubtless have for excluding both the sources I added. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether any of the three very recent sources you have added are WP:DUE or not represents three different questions. We have begun to address the first, but I would strongly prefer to take a look at these one at a time. Reminder: the WP:ONUS is on you, the editor supporting inclusion, to make the case. It is not on me or anyone else objecting to prove that the material doesn't belong. If you do not care to continue discussing the first, we can presume that you accept the objections raised by two editors and move on to discuss the second. I think you might be surprised at how little it often takes to make me change my mind on content issues, so please try. Just post a defense of your second addition on grounds of WP:DUE and I'll be happy to consider if my first reaction was wrong. Then we can do the same with the third.

But continuing to make edits that look very WP:POINTY to this article, after admitting to believing that a statement of the scientific consensus (which could have been readily verified yourself by simply checking the sources used in the article) is a "clearly extraordinary claim" done right after inserting a review that functions as little more than a "whataboutism" in support of a fringe theory is just asking for trouble. I'm more than happy to work together to improve this article, but please slow down a bit . ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I try to stay abreast of proper med references. I was unaware that a review can be too recent, for example a Cochrane review. Has WP now extended its RECENTISM guidelines to include reviews? Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, go look through the history and read the section above this one. One of the (several) issues I took with a review recently added was that it was very recent and had a very small number of citations. ThinAir seemed to seize on this point as one of the weakest I'd offered (which I'm happy to admit it was) and instead of addressing the other points raised by me and one other editor, added two more, even more recent sources to the article. So my concern isn't really the recentism of the sources, but the pointy nature of those edits. As a rule, I will usually reject POINTy contributions from editors who express extreme doubt at the scientific consensus (see the section above, again), and just above, you can see where I asked ThinAir to justify the inclusion on WP:DUE grounds. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

OK but to stick to the point, the most recent reviews, especially highly respected reviews such as Cochrane, should be added to articles and never deleted with an edit summary that states they are too recent, is that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If you ask a man if he has stopped beating his wife, and he replied "I do not beat my wife", is it logical to then ask "so you've agreed to stop beating her?" ? This is a serious question. I would like to hear your answer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a disgusting and highly offensive attempt to introduce a misdirection by the disingenuous Mr. Pants. The latest Cochrane review should clearly be included, as soon as possible. What a joke WP has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.109.17 (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You have the right to be offended. You also have the right to be disgusted. You do not have the right to demand anything from the hardworking volunteers that make WP the excellent resource that it is. How about being constructive? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 08:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's get back to the content. Thin, are you able to address MPants at Work's concerns regarding WP:DUE or not so we can bring this matter to a close and move on? You're certainly right that Cochrane reviews are generally considered to be very high quality. Obviously, MPants has some concerns. I think the best way to resolve this is to simply address their inquiry. MPants did say they would be reasonable about reconsidering whether this material should be included if you address their concern(s). With that said, a brief glance at the edit summary and the actual Cochrane review seems to indicate that the results were appropriately summarized and the findings were uncontroversial (probably no to little effect beyond sham). Furthermore, the review was conducted by an American group with ties to DynaMed (a trusted source). MPants, do you actually object to inclusion of the Cochrane review based on its findings or concerns about its methodological rigor? I see from earlier conversations you've raised concerns about pointy edits but I'm curious to know if you truly object to the addition of this specific content based on its merits rather than who is attempting to add it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@1.152.109.17 Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. These rules are listed at the top of the talk page. Wyrm127 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I would heartily support inclusion of the Cochrane review since they are generally rigorous and methodologically sound and the conclusions (probably no effect) is about as uncontroversial as the earth being round. I need to review the ASO guideline. I am generally more sceptical of these type of policy documents. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 11:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of cited information

@SkepticalRaptor: Please explain why you have removed cited information from the page. How can a direct quote from a cited source constitute a POV comment? Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh: You've been told before of WP:STICK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Um no. Not OK to remove a properly-weighted Vickers. It should be among the very first mentioned because it's about the highest-quality meta-analysis there is -- AFAIK the only IPD one, which Cochrane calls the "gold standard" of systematic review. (pings @SkepticalRaptor: @Tgeorgescu: @Morgan Leigh:) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 08:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at the Reliable sources noticeboard here. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)