Talk:Scientific theories regarding acupuncture

message: This is an entry for the scientific description of the theories and models underlying the mechanisms of action in acupuncture therapy.  It provides objective, neutral and scientific information on the research studies of acupuncture. Please go to other wikipedia entry of acupuncture for discussion of any controversies or politiccally biased views of eastern vs. western medicine. Coladie 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The section on meridians needs a major clean up as it makes no distinction between anatomical meridians and acupuncture meridians. As it stands now, it merits deletion. BatteryIncluded 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is an "anatomical meridian"? I've never heard the term used except in TCM, as a translation for (pinyin) jing-luo.  Jim Butler(talk) 06:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meridians

message: The quote "Similar results were also obtained in experiments with animals showing that the analgesic effect is not due to subjective psychological placebo effect, but real physiological phenomenon". I have two problems with this interpretation and the supporting article. Firstly I doubt the very existance of the supporting article, "Mechanism of individual variation in effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia based on animal experiment." I can't actually find this paper. I searched google scholar, medline, web of science, embase and various other directories for the title and I can not find it. Furthermore, the reference cites European Journal of Pain, volume 11, year 1990, which is highly suspicious because I looked up the European Journal of Pain in science direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10903801) and volume 1 started in 1997. Secondly, I highly doubt that interpretation was present in the original study, if it exists, making that claim original research. For these reasons, I am removing the citation and interpretation.JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a better man than I if you are willing to wade through all this stuff.  I had various objections to most of this material when the creator of the article attempted to add it to acupuncture.  Then that editor just created this article as a sort of POV-fork.  IMO, it's all pretty dubious-looking.  Thanks for your efforts toward improving it, if such is indeed possible. :-)  Jim Butler(talk) 17:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed non existantant or improperly referenced article

message: The only way this article will be cleaned up is if unreferenced doubtful points are removed. I've already made some changes and as I wish to make much more substantial changes I thought I should give people notice of my plans so that they may voice objections. I know some of it is accurate from various biology and psychology courses I have taken that some of this information particularly the "Neurohormonal theory" is at least, plausible, even if these sections do contain some factual errors. I also know from these same courses much of this article is innnaccurate. This impression seems to be shared by many and many seem to be unwilling to touch this article because so much of it is misleading that they have deemed it not worth the effort. I can see their point. As little of the article is properly referenced and supported, you really need to have done some sort of biology/pain perception course to be able to seperate baby from bathwater. This makes a satisfactory peer review very difficult. So my aim is to remove unreferenced dubious claims and add references for plausible claims and get this article down to a point where others (particularly those who contribute to the main accupuncture article) are willing to edit it. Any help here, particularly from those with biology/medical knowledge would be much appreciated.
Here is my analysis for each section:
#Nerve-reflex theory - Warrants keeping if references can be found. Much of the information in this section is bs and it is all unrefferenced but the idea that sticking needles in someone creates stress (the HPA axis relates very closely to the stress response) is plausible at least. Of coruse the section should probably point out that there are a million ways to invoke the stress response and the section should speak in more plain english in general (all the jargon is not necessary and only confuses the reader). The section should prorbably also note that this theory is probably more of a scientific hypothesis that is yet to receive sufficient empirical support (if I'm wrong, prove it with a reference). The thoery should probably also get a better name - HPA axis involvement?
#Gate control theory - Keep but with modifications. Quick searches reveal little on gate control theory that is not 30 years old. There are, howeve, pain control mechanisms on a spinal level. I could probably find a neurobiology book to support this. Whether accupuncture actually activates these mechanisms, however, is another question altogether and the link is highly speculative. 
#Neurohormonal theory - Keep. This theory features on the main accupuncture article and is probably the most plausible. However, it misses key points like placebos producting similar effects. I will amend this shortly.
#Electric conductance - Remove. The link back to accupuncture has already been cut as it was spurious and the whole section is now irrelveant.
#Role of electric field in directing growth and morphogenesis. Remove. Same deal as above.
#Morphogenetic singularity theory - Remove. I do not believe this idea meets the criteria for a scientific hypothesis, let alone theory. I will reverse this decision if someone can point out the testable predictions this theory makes and the independent research to support them (Reference is in Am J Chin Medicine). Also this section is largely incoherent and after reading it several times I can't work out what the theory actually states beyond electricity is unstable
#Electrical singular point and acupuncture points - Remove. The section has nothing to do with accupuncture. It only states that you can detect the magnetic field put out by neural outside the skull. I fail to see how this is a theory of accupuncture.
#Morphogenetic singularity theory and the meridian system - Undecided. Again the citation is Am J Chin Medicine and again it fails to clearly state its predictions. I will have to read the reference though before I can decide
#Mechanisms of action and subsections - Remove and place any reliable references in other sections. This section goes back on to talking about embryology. The problems are the same as in the morphogenetic singularity theory. The embryology may be accurate but even if it is, none of the links back to accupuncture are referenced and the relevance to accupuncture is never really established. The "Long-term biological effects of acupuncture" section may have some retainable references but these would be better placed with nerve-reflex theory or neurohormonal theory.
#Diagnostic vs. treatment models and subsections - Remove and place anything reliable in main accupuncture article. Nothing in this section remotely resembles a scientific theory. 
#Recent advances - Remove. Section was originally written like it is just a matter of time till we find out accupuncture is effective and how it works. As it stands it is clearly not a scientific theory of accupuncture.
I realise if all my recommendations are followed we would be removing half the article but I see no problem with this. Wikipedia policy clearly states that unreferenced material can be removed. I know that I am suggesting the removal of a lot of referenced material, but what is referenced is not relevant to accupuncture. It does not make sense to leave a whole heap of irrelvenat embryology in an accupuncture article if the link to accupuncture is not properly referenced. The totally disputed tag has been long standing so something needs to be done. If anyone disagrees with my suggesting that a section should be removed I would like them to also show me a reliable source that details evidence for the theory AND its relevance to accupuncture. Sources from mainstream medical journals will of course be given higher consideration than, for example, Am J Chin Medicine. If enough verifiable information can be found on any section, it will then warrant inclusion.
In light of the scientific status of many of these "theories", I would also like to see the article title changed to "Scientific hypotheses regarding accupuncture". Many of these hypotheses are not complete or internally consistent enough to be considered scientific theories. Also any hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered for inclusion on this page. Note that the criteria for inclusion on this page is not scientific truth, but simply a complete hypothesis that has had some research conducted on it and been published. I also see no reason that falsified theories cannot be included, if some note is made that they have been falsified, provided reliable sources are included. Given the extent of these proposed changes, I would like input from as many people as possible before I make these changes. I will be seeking consensus before making any changes to avoid the possibility of anyone reverting it after. I am also placing an note on the main accupuncture change to attract attention.JamesStewart7 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections I would like to see removed as part of article cleanup - place objections/thoughts here