Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 2

message: This journal is cited as an example of debate over P6's efficacy for nausea and vomiting.  I think it's highly likely that this journal is biased against acupuncture.  Its full title is:  "The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine And Aberrant Medical Practices".  Its editor is Wallace Sampson, co-founder of Quackwatch and NCAHF, with Stephen Barrett.  Here is what a court found in a lawsuit that the NCAHF brought and lost against a manufacturer of homeopathic remedies (emphasis added):
Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event.  Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.  
The review in question uses dubious criteria to contest some of the RCT's, such as the fact that one was done in Taiwan, irrespective of its methodology.  -Backin72 (n.b.) 08:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 

message: Kevin, your latest addition to the AMA section was without reference, therefore I removed it. Until you can provide a source for your statement, and explain why you added that statement and not another statement of theirs in favor of acupuncture, then I see no reason to put it back in. There are plenty of examples of the AMA saying all kinds of stuff about acupuncture (some discussed in previous AMA section), but they have not issued a policy or report that is specific to acupuncture as far as my searches have concluded. Please enlighten the rest of us if you have found such a source before putting such derogatory statements on the page. Please remember NPOV. AMA have not ONLY published unsupportive material about acupuncture, so reporting only negative comments does not accurately represent their opinion, nor is it representative of NPOV to only publish one sided arguments. Thanks. Piekarnia 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this is at best very peripheral to acu, deleted. Backin72 (n.b.) 06:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool; thanks for fleshing out the Tonelli too. Backin72 (n.b.) 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to provide some light entertainment for you, Kevin :) Piekarnia 06:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further notes on AMA

message: This user's only two contributions to Wikipedia consist in placing this link California State Oriental Medical Association to a website in progress on the TCM page and acupuncture page. I'd rather see it removed at this stage, at least until their website is fixed.Mccready 06:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam? 

message: Recent edits to the "Safety and risks" section by Mccready are (as is often the case) misleading; these refer to malpractice by unregulated pracitioners and that needs to be clear.  Article should accurately convey the degree of safety when regulated and risks of lack of regulation.
NIH cites surveys showing safety, which accord with restored sentence in first para.  Need to cite reliable and unbiased source for assertion otherwise. thx, Backin72 (n.b.) 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're way out of line here Backin72. Whether an acupunturist is regulated or not is not the point. These people are practising acupuncture. In fact they are regulated by health and saftey provisions of local councils and by other ordinances, a fact you would have gathered if you had read the report properly. This is a government report about a serious health and safety issue. It contains concerns of "legitmate" practioners. It was povish of you to delete it, ESPECIALLY as we had already discussed it and you had already welcomed its inclusion. If you are reluctant to see your industry cleaned up, please don't bring that reluctance to your editorial attempts on this article. Mccready 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me where I agreed on including those things out of context.  What I did agree to is given above.  This is an encyclopedia -- would an encyclopedic article on hand surgery include horror stories about hand surgeries gone wrong and omit the notable fact that the practitioners were unlicensed?  Doubt it.  And again you're engaging in careless editing:  The second quote, from Li, is from Chapter 3, subsection entitled "The Case For Regulation", and is explicitly about unregistered practitioners.  The first quote is from the same section, which outlines the harms of having inadequate regulation.  Nowhere do you make this clear.  If you want to include the issues raised in that article, do so less POVishly.  I don't think other editors should have to keep cleaning up after your careless edits.  I'm not the one whose user discussion page is covered with these complaints; you are.  Fixing this is incumbent on you, not me.  thx,Backin72 (n.b.) 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the time you wrote this you could have made your little edits. It is against WP policy to delete material as you have done. There are NO LICENSED acupuncturists in NSW. They ARE regulated.  I have edited again to try to meet YOUR needs. Please edit the material to suit yourself rather than deleting again. Your attitude is tiresome. Mccready 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, you should know better than to accuse me of violating WP policy for deleting POVish stuff.  These issues are handled by consensus.  Safety section needs some work and I'll do so soon. thx, Backin72 (n.b.) 09:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Piekarnia, good to see you back.  I did think that those quotes were a bit undue-weight-ish as well, but since they are referring to things being done today by unlicensed/ill-regulated practitioners, they should go in -- same as if unlicensed midwives were failing to wash their hands, etc.  As long as the section tells it like it is across the board, giving due weight to settings where acu'ists have to meet licensing standards and use standard precuations, I think it's fine.  I've been meaning to get around to reorganizing that section.  cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions May 26 2006 

message: I am concerned about the links under Advocacy and discussion.  They seem to be doing little more than funneling people to non informative sites primarily selling herbs, books, and other such garbage.  The one I am most concerned about is http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/.  All sides of the page are lined with ad's.  The "research" they have is scanty at best and only qualifys as research under the most broad of definitions.  I am removing it and it is my opinion that many others should be removed.  Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Foolishben 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly commercial links 

message: No vote on merge; it's much more far-out than plain-vanilla acupuncture, plus the article is already too long and is ripe to have stuff spun off (some candidates that come to mind are meridian theory, TCM diagnostics and aspects of scientific studies).  Electroacupuncture according to Voll would probably be better merged with bioresonance therapy or some related thing. thanks, --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed - most of the articles on wikipedia would be better if there were less redirections and more sub-articles for topics. I also agree with the suggestion that acupuncturist have its own entry. --Travisthurston 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[Electroacupuncture according to Voll]]

message: I saw a while back now that you were asking for a neutrality check, and so I did some source checking on this; hope you find it useful. I think that this would be a better article if it were more concise and better referenced. Length without close referencing offers many opportunities for unconscious POV. The following are specific examples of problems I came across 
1. Claim in WP.
"However, there is no evidence that those tattoos were used as acupuncture points or if they were just decorative in nature".
Comment: This statement is referenced to a Lancet article, and seems to be wrong. The Lancet says:
"A treatment modality similar to acupuncture thus appears to have been in use long before its previously known period of use in the medical tradition of ancient China. This raises the possibility of acupuncture having originated in the Eurasian continent at least 2000 years earlier than previously recognised."
2. Claim in WP
"Acupuncture has been used to treat a number of conditions ...Classically, "in clinical practice, acupuncture treatment is typically highly-individualized and based on philosophical constructs, and subjective and intuitive impressions" and not on controlled scientific research." 
Comment The quote is given correctly, but is not really representative of the conclusions of the paper, which state "Despite their different foundations and weighing of information, TCM and EBM are not mutually exclusive. Both share a commitment to providing the best possible treatment for patients based on individual experience and the best available external evidence. Single-case experimental design studies, expanded into large-scale RCTs if they merit allocation of substantial resources, may be a valuable tool for clinical investigation as well as a source of credible evidence supporting the practice of conscientious acupuncture practitioners."
3. WP In the section on critics:
"Philosopher Robert Todd Carroll deemed acupuncture a pseudoscience because it "confuse(s) metaphysical claims with empirical claims".[7]...
Comment Carroll teaches at a community college, and the source is not peer reviewed, so the threshold for notability as a critic seems low.
The Sampson/Bayerstein quote.
This simply recounts the opinions of a few unnamed Chinese scientists. It would be better to recount the opinions/conclusions of the authors themselves. e.g. 
"It seems that the practice of TCM and the concepts of internal and external Qi place China in a dilemma. Advancement of these ideas, especially overseas, increases China's prestige and is a matter of cultural pride. Yet the inherent mysticism and magical thinking in these notions are an embarrassment to the Marxist rationalism of the government and to the scientific community as a whole."
Neither Barrett’s comments nor Kaptchuk’s either seem particularly critical or informative. Are there really no more notable critics who say more pithy things? I suspect that there are. (see Domar AD. Acupuncture and infertility: we need to stick to good science. Fertil Steril. 2006 May;85(5):1359-61)
: I added a priceless quote from 1694 to the Meridian (Chinese Medicine) page on this topic.  Check it out - perhaps it would fit better on this page.  Kaptchuk has some much better quotes I think, and no doubt anyone with a copy of Needham's Science and Civilisation in China volumes would be able to fish out some more pearls.  -- Mugwumpjism 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gleng, I'm glad you posted this.  I've now looked them over and generally agree.  Will have a go at implementing them soon. --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue #1 (Otzi in Lancet) fixed.--Backin72 (n.b.) 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality review?

message: Hi 206.57.90.87.  I see some NPOV and VER problems with your recent addition and breaking off of a new section called "Efficacy of acupuncture".  You include unsourced generalizations ("To date there is no conclusive scientific evidence indicating that the procedure has any effectiveness beyond that of a placebo") and assert sig POV's about efficacy instead of presenting them.  Please note also that there already exists a section entitled Acupuncture#Scientific_research_into_efficacy and material on efficacy should go there alongside the other sig POV's presented.  Material already in that section, and stuff cited just above in talk from Gleng, clearly show that there is debate about efficacy among scientists.
I also see you deleted quite a bit of material, and I'm not sure why, though it may not be notable or sufficiently V RS.
What I've done is move your additions pending further discussion.  Thanks and best regards, --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. ChrisDas (are you 206.57.90.87 creating a screen name?  thanks if so) -- let's try and keep close to V Rs's and avoid OR, and per Wikiquette discuss here on talk, not in the article's body.  We need to hammer out consensus here and I agree with Pursey's reverting.  Cochrane is above reproach and clearly shows legit sci POV that acu is efficacious.  So let's do the NPOV thing and cover all views, not assert a single one. best,  --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS - ChrisDas, also please read Help:Edit summary and WP:DR and try to leave helpful, substantive edit summaries, thanks, it really helps. cheers, --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by User 206.57.90.87

message: Hi Chris.  WP encourages bold edits, so no worries, and welcome aboard.  It's great to have more editors who have scientific backgrounds (I happen to as well).  However, it's possible to be "too bold", and WP also asks that we collaborate.  While your recent edit addresses my and Pursey's concerns in part, it is largely a revert of a previous edit with a minor reorg, and I still see POV and VER problems in how it is presented.  In general, I prefer to err on the side of inclusion, and once we agree on the basic interpretation of WP's content-guiding policies (as Pursey cited on your user talk page), I'm sure we can hammer out something mutually agreeable and appropriately encyclopedic.  It comes down to "saying who says what, and why", and sourcing same.
BTW, if I lapse into WP jargon below, it's not meant to obfuscate; it's just that the shorthand becomes a habit.  By "V RS" I mean "verifiable, reliable source" (cf. WP:V and WP:RS).
First, I don't think your reorg of the section on efficacy was a net improvement, for a couple of reasons: (1)  Moving the rest of the material from that section to another is unwarranted.  All of it presents sig sci POV's on efficacy.  I've moved them back together.  (2)  The lead section ought to include discussion of efficacy and research; see WP:LEAD.  (3)  On placing the section first, I don't have a strong opinion, but I think a comprehensive lead section followed by history, classical theory, and then the rest flows well.
Second, on material you removed:
I agree that much of the section comprising what was in the section entitled "Scientific theories and mechanisms of action" may be dubious, as you as you stated in your most recent edit summary.  Another editor (Coladie) recently added most of it, and I simply haven't set aside the time to look at it closely till now, so it's good you brought it up.  In all honesty, I'm not sure what should be done with it.  It appears to be quite a baby-bathwater mix of potentially interesting material, possible OR, and fringe, outdated, and plausible material.  I certainly agree with your NPOV rewording regarding endorphins.  Deleting the rest outright goes too far, but as it stands, there are significant problems with NPOV, VER and OR.  For now I think the section should be tagged, and the rest moved to a subsection of talk for further editorial attention.  (I've done the same, for similar reasons, with some comments that followed GERAC under "Examples of controlled studies".)
Removal of the sectons entitled "TCM perspective on treatment of disease" and "Indications according to acupuncturists in the West" appears unwarranted.  Maybe you did so in haste, given your (imho more justifiable) objection to the material mentioned above.  How are these not sig POV's, and what's the matter with the sourcing?  Please explain your objections.
You removed the sentence "In practice, EBM does not demand that doctors ignore research outside its "top-tier" criteria ."  Was that unintentional?
You also removed both an image and POV-check tag, which I assume was unintentional.
Third, on material you added or changed (which I moved to the section entitled "A note on scientific methodology and acupuncture", assuming it represents sig POV's not cited above in that section):
You apparently added NCAHF to the lead section.  They're not nearly as notable as the other groups cited.  Fine to cite them in body of article, but undue weight (in the sense of poor parallelism) to put them in lead.
In an earlier edit, you added a reference from Linde et. al. to the last sentence in the lead re efficacy.  Can you elaborate on what that ref says?
You made the following change:
:"Scientists ... for most conditions have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not acupuncture is effective."
changed to 
:"Scientists ... for most conditions have concluded that acupuncture is no more effective than a placebo."
As you know, these statements are not identical.  The latter statement (a) requires a higher burden of evidence than the former, and -- probably for that reason -- (b) is not demonstrably a majority scientific POV, per EBM reviews. 
You wrote:  
There is no evidence that acupuncture has any affect on the pathogenesis of viruses and microorganisms, or on human physiology, with the exception of the neurological pathways associated with the nerve cells that were stimulated by them.
I assume you can provide a V RS that says this, so I fact-tagged it.  However, asserting this as fact is going too far, given what Cochrane et al say about efficacy (i.e., there is evidence for efficacy, but the mechanism isn't clear).  Please use "X says.. " language, per NPOV's framing of "facts about opinions".
Thus, the most promising clinical application of acupuncture is in the area of pain control. - this is OR unless you can cite a V RS.  Fact-tagged.
Empirical data on acupuncture, gathered through scientific experiment and analysis, focuses on biochemical and psychological mechanisms because the existence of "qi "and the balance of "yin" and "yang" are by definition undetectable. - Actually, empirical data focuses also on clinically observable outcomes, irrespective of mechanism.  The sentence also manages to be both POV and tautological, cf Talk:Vitalism.
To date there is no conclusive scientific evidence indicating that the procedure has any effectiveness beyond that of a placebo. - According to whom?  Evidently not the EBM reviewers cited earlier.  What is the threshold for conclusive evidence?  Needs NPOV wording and V RS, as does the material that follows (I've seen the "noxious stimulus" argument made elsewhere, I believe on the blog "Confessions of a Quackbuster", whose author I respect; still, I'd like to see a V RS for it.)
Acupuncture in patients with tension-type headache: randomized controlled trial, Copyright © 2005, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd - please expand this source, i.e. which publication?
The vast majority of research on acupuncture is conducted by researchers in China, and extensive reviews of this research by scientists in other countries consistently find major flaws in the design of the experiments, as well as selective reporting of results and conclude that no conclusions can be drawn from them - "extensive reviews ... consistently find" is a broad claim, and I've changed the wording to accord with your citation of a single source pending further clarification of what Ernst says and to whom he attributes it.  Does your Ernst source really make the criticism about Chinese studies that you are claiming?  I'd be surprised if he wholly dismisses them, and categorically, because I recall that some Chinese studies are included in EBM reviews, including the one Ernst coauthored on low back pain (which he mentions here, which your source predates by six years, which suggests it may be outdated for this citation).
Finally, while an article in the American Journal of Acupuncture in 1999 admits that "Thirty years of active acupuncture research have failed to unequivocally demonstrate its clinical efficacy", some supporters of acupuncture contend that since it is based on a philosophical model, its effectiveness cannot be proven or disproved with scientific tests.  The latter assertion needs a source, and framing it in terms of the former citation is POV and (if itself an unsourced formulation) OR.
OK -- I hope you take all of my work here in good faith, Chris, and I certainly extend the same.
best regards, --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Chris

message: I've moved parts of this section to a subpage /scimech for further discussion. (Please note that this is the first time I've used this template on WP, and I apologize if I've used it improperly.  I also don't mean to devalue the work of the editors who added the material I've moved, but rather to attract further editorial input that may improve it.)
thanks, --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:ActiveDiscuss at Scientific theories and mechanisms of action

message: Likewise, I've moved parts of this section to a subpage /dblblind for further discussion.  Please note the disclaimer above.
--Backin72 (n.b.) 07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how long it's appropriate to leave these templates on the page, given the apparent lack of editorial interest... thx, --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:ActiveDiscuss at Examples of controlled studies

message: Wikipedia:Dead_external_links/404/a lists these documents as lost and still needed for the Acupuncture article:
# http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/iceman/evidence/tattoos.html 
# Acupuncture: Review And Analysis Of Reports On Controlled Clinical Trials, World Health Organization, 2002 
However, I can not find any references to either in the article. Can these two links just be stricken out of the link rot list?
Just happened to pass by on link patrol... --Ronja Addams-Moring 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these links still needed? 

message: Thanks for your efforts to bring neutrality to this article. The opening leaves me with a perception the article is somewhat biased against acupuncture. In the intro the article states "There is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians." If you mean, existance like the skeletal system or circulatory, I understand, however I am able to locate some points associated with bone and tissue indentations (e.g. middle of eye brow).
I suggest including a statement of how it IS verifiable. This info comes later, but should be reflected in the intro for neutrality.  Such as "...but can be measured electrically, thermally and as a physical sensation." (e.g. http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol16_2/article_5.html
I'm not an expert, so will leave the wording to those who can be technically accurate.
Keep up the good work!
D1doherty 13:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the statement in question is OK but should be balanced with a statement that the validity of acupoints depends on their clinical efficacy in practice, and that this is a matter scientists are studying (see acupuncture point and EBM section).  Will add. Backin72 (n.b.) 06:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a fine idea to me; weight should go to good research and this appears to be a review of very good quality.  I very much appreciate your finding it, Pierre-Alain, and putting it in.  I didn't want to bury it, just move it to the section w/ the rest of the research, so, let's go for it.  I also added mention of this research to the lead section, and we should add it to the acupuncture point article as well.  Regarding distal points, I've heard of some research (I think from China) that St36 increases B cells; will try and find that.  Thank you again!  best regards, [[[User:Backin72|Backin72]] (n.b.) 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I did not notice this crucial addition in the lead section. I have quite a bit to learn about WP editing! Sorry if I appeared a little upset: I hope that it will be possible to deal with  other parts of the article which state an "absence of evidence". I'll be back soon. Thanks for the good work. Regards, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see how it might have appeared that I was burying the neuroimaging stuff; I had not made the change to the lead at that point.  Your comment above was entirely civil and well-reasoned.  On the "absence of evidence" issues, getting the wording right and consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT presents a challenge in a great many articles  where various scientific views (including significant "agnostic" views) exist.  I'm delighted that you're editing this article, and hope you stick around.  best regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 01:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I added it to the acupuncture point article. I also created articles for the two distal acupoints that have been studied (and quoted here: Nei guan & Zhi yin); please see the talk page of acupuncture point for more details. It is my fondest hope that each progress in the scientific validation of acupoints be registered and that, in parallel, each validated point receives its own article. Those acupoint pages should get their own anatomic pictures; any ideas how to do this in conformity with copyright regulations? Does WHO allow it? When you find the reference for St36, I invite you to create a page! I'll have a look on this point myself. Let me tell you that picturing that WP could have most of the relevant acupoints explained and demonstrated (as much as possible) in dedicated articles is very motivating. After 3-4 millenia, it should be in the public domain!... ;-) I also think that those pages should have their chinese WP mirrors (and generous chinese translators to contribute to English WP (and French WP; I'm an EN-to-FR translator)).  Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  I'll keep an eye out for open-source anatomical diagrams we can use (or modify, then upload).  Bravo on your vision for WP and acupuncture!  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just created the page for the Shenmen point. I quote an animal study (thereby preventing placebo effects) which shows clear effects on dopamine and hyperactivity in the context of drug addiction. Certainly a point with important public health significance. I also created the acupoints category. Regards, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physically verifiable points 

message: Sorry, another incomplete edit summary (accidentally hit return button while composing).  Revision should read: rm sentence I added awhile back -- seems redundant, and pipelink to "protoscience" is probably misleading.  What remains in the lead is, I hope, a fair and concise summary of sourced debate.  thx, Backin72 (n.b.) 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: There is a reason this site has been nominated to checked for its neutrality. First it starts with the words needle and prick, not health, relief or medicine...  It goes on to talk about placebo, insufficient evidence and safety. A picture shows a dumpy man in a diaper with Chinese writing.  Then it talks about no known...basis, etc. (Getting the impression yet?) 
Next we have loose associations, the triple heater and the jargon section which I edited to include many omitted diagnostics. 
We finally arrive at the actual mechanism by which acupuncture works QI, and it's not even explained tha its electrical current, natural to living entities. 
The point catagories fail to represent the most important ones- the ashi points (explained in a different area).I'm just saying...  How about this line "acupuncture has been used to treat a number of conditions" Really, over thousands of years, millions of practioners- a number?
History... I learned in school that needles were discovered from the bronze age 3-4,000 y.a.
I also learned the Yellow Emperor destroyed artifacts of prior dynasties, including those relating to acup. whatev- 2,500 or 5,000 years...
Next up... Critisism.  First we start with some out of context quotes by an insightful medical doctor and some from a college professor and the quackwatch founder.
Treatment #121 billion by acupuncturist 999,000, the medical doctors' list of uses. And more sophisticated jargon...  Then more criticism and a few statements from organizations in competition with acupuncturists and a list of bad things that can happen from acupuncture.  Oddly the 66,000 and 55,000 individual patient studies appear at the very end... 
Not included are some of the most important studies, like GERAC.de of some 40 thousand patients and 7,000 practitioners, where  reported significant relief was like 89.9%.   Acupuncturist 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Additional informal comments by User: acupuncturist

message: ...but I still need to format them.  thx, Backin72 (n.b.) 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs added to lead

message: Under legal (blah blah)...what is Y DC? They do not mention. Gargoyle123 01:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Y DC

message: I put an Unreferencedsection-template on the Scientific theories and mechanisms of action, because it seems to exaggerate the effects of acupuncture. I'm really curious to know from where that information is taken, but no sources are available. The directions to that there might be something in the National Library of Medicine isn't enough. Mikael Häggström 10:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be no other references than that one critizising the whole section. Therefore, I removed that section from the artice, because it's unreferenced. Furthermore, I think it's bullshit. However, it can still be found in the page history, for those who are really admirers of acupuncture. Mikael Häggström 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Scientific theories and mechanisms of action''' is Unreferencedsection 

message: Does the following passage make sense to people? Either 68 BC is before 305-204 BC or the Yellow Emperor's Classic of Internal Medicine does not qualify as a Chinese medical text.
The earliest Chinese medical texts (Ma-wang-tui graves, 68 BC) do not mention acupuncture. The Chinese medical text that first describes acupuncture is the Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Internal Medicine (History of Acupuncture), which was compiled around 305–204 B.C.
:Good catch.  Changed it:
:*Acupuncture's origins in China are uncertain. The earliest Chinese medical text that first describes acupuncture is the Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Internal Medicine (History of Acupuncture) Huangdi Neijing, which was compiled around 305–204 B.C. However, the Chinese medical texts (Ma-wang-tui graves, 68 BC) do not mention acupuncture. 
:-- Dēmatt (chat) 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''History of Acupuncture''' 

message: I'm suspicious of the Bibliography section - references are poorly cited, often with 1st and 2nd authors switched over (see these edits) and there are loads of non-specific links to "Academic Search", "EBSCO" and "<http://search.epnet.com>".
The enties and issues about them are identical to the list at http://www.ibiblio.org/chineseculture/contents/heal/p-heal-c02s01.html Now that may just be a copy of a previous version of wikipedia's own artcle, in which case it is failing to acknowledge wikipedia, otherwise this article has had a list of sources copied and pasted into it with the sources not having been used as references whilst the article was written (if so, then they should be removed).
The "EBSCO" and "<http://search.epnet.com>" series of links - can they be cited better and are they useful at all given they required a subscription to access ? David Ruben  Talk  02:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography - relevant ?

message: Hi, 
for those who are interested by the pages made about acupuncture points, after neiguan, shenmen and a few others (see those that are in blue in "list of acupuncture points" or those that appear under the "acupuncture points" category), I created zusanli, which is a very much studied point. I invite you to visit the page and provide feedback. 
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 05:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New page for an important acupoint

message: See the header of this entry for why I posted it. Mikael Häggström 08:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See article history for explanation of my edits 

message: For the following text:
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 phenomena.Takeshige C, Tanaka M, Sato T, Hishida F. Mechanism of individual variation in effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia based on animal experiment. Eur J Pain 1990;11:109-13.
, I couldn't find the PubMed article. It describes a scientific phenomenon, so there must be a presentation of methods and results somewhere. Please provide that before reinsertion into the article. Mikael Häggström 10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Takeshige experiment

message: Hello all!  When I saw the tag for neutrality, I was expecting to see a specific discussion section for it on the talk page, but didn't really, so here we go.
While my belief "system" is at it's most basic based on real science and skepticism, I have come to believe in a number of possibilities, mysticisms and spiritual views that most would consider well outside the realm of science.  I see no inherent contradiction between these two worlds, while remaining skeptical of anything that I have not investigated for myself.
This is my first investigation into acupuncture, and I found this article quite informative and compelling.  While overall it does seem a touch pro-acupuncture, the evidence for it is really pretty good, and there is plenty of opposing POV included as well, so I think that is pretty okay.  Some of the later sections are a bit more messy, and particularly I think the "Other Injury" section is pretty ridiculously biased against; It's obviously infinitely easier to accidentally kill someone with a scalpel or drugs than with a tiny needle.  I'd be tempted to remove that kind of reactionary propaganda unless there were any kind of significant statistics to back it up.  I mean, how many people (especially per procedure) have DIED as a direct result of acupuncture?  While not receiving necessary conventional treatment is a concern, there is a section on that as well right there, and this article is great at not in any way endorsing such ideas.
I definitely think that keeping the scientific and practical info SEPARATE from the metaphysical stuff is absolutely KEY to anyone with an understanding of science reading this article with an open mind, and you have done an EXCELLENT job there!  I also must say that you have the most civil, understanding, constructive talk page of any article that I've ever checked out, and you get mad props for that, especially considering how contentious the issue is.  There are obviously some great, level-headed people working on this article, and I thank you.
One concern I do have is the random (or worse, not) mixing of research claims from very different eras.  Acupuncture research has obviously come a long way, and I would expect some research from earlier times to be biased and poorly executed.  I therefore find it quite misleading and confusing to follow a claim by one study immediately with a contradiction from another significantly older one, as here:
<BLOCKQUOTE>For headache, Cochrane concluded (2006) that "(o)verall, the existing evidence supports the value of acupuncture for the treatment of idiopathic headaches. However, the quality and amount of evidence are not fully convincing. There is an urgent need for well-planned, large-scale studies to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture under real-life conditions." [6]. Bandolier (1999) states: "There is no evidence from high quality trials that acupuncture is effective for the treatment of migraine and other forms of headache. The trials showing a significant benefit of acupuncture were of dubious methodological quality. Overall, the trials were of poor methodological quality."</BLOCKQUOTE>
This leads me to believe that the second statement is an amendment to the first, when in fact it took place 7 YEARS earlier, which seems like a long time to me in this context.
Otherwise, keep up the great work.  And to those who are new here, PLEASE respect the people, customs, and rules of Wikipedia; these are GREAT people here and they deserve it.  Please remember, while acupuncture may be the whole world to you, it is just one tiny part of the vast world of Wikipedia, and everyone, including you, needs to work together along with everyone else and according to the rules and customs of this world to produce a resource of consistent reliability for everyone.  Elgaroo 13:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the folks who has actively edited and discussed here, let me thank you very much, both for your perceptive comments and well as the nice compliments!  I agree with pretty much everything you say about the article.  Will have a go when I have time.  best regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 21:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One caveat there is that sometimes the "sham" or "control" conditions may be closer to an "active" treatment condition than one realizes, giving a false negative result.  See this comment (which was cited in an earlier version of this article).  Since there are thousands of studies, editors have lately agreed to keep discussions of evidence focused on reviews rather than risk WP:WEIGHT issues by focusing on one or two studies.  I agree the results of the studies you cite are interesting and provocative, but I would strongly caution against framing the whole article in terms of their results.  Better to go with high-quality reviews.  I don't have a problem citing individual studies, in theory, but in practice tt gets very tendentious with each editor wanting to put in their favorite study, which balloons to dozens of studies... isn't this why graduate texts and review articles are preferred by WP (cf. WP:MEDRS)?  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Discussion

message: The following link, , provides an excellent collection of frequently asked questions related to acupuncture. It also includes some historical evidence of acupuncture's potential origins outside of China, but does not discredit China's significant role in the advancement of acupuncture. Curioustrip 00:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link providing collection of FAQs pertaining to acupuncture 

message: Evidence that it works: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/116838594/HTMLSTART  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.116.89 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence that it works

message: Recent news reports have surfaced that in the USA, some animals have responded positively to acupuncture. Once sufficient sources can be found, this information should be included. This is the newslink I came across. Well to be sure I'm not suggesting this is a new phenomenon, but what are people's thoughts on this? Manderiko (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing that up.  Agreed.  Will try and find some sources (the article above is ok but not that informative).  Backin72 (n.b.) 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals 

message: I feel that this section in its current state is somewhat misleading because it fails to state other instances in which endogenous opiates are released. Specifically, research has demonstrated that placebo's may create pain reduction through endogenous opiates: Amanzio, M., Pollo, A., Maggi, G., Benedetti, F. (2001). Response Variability to Analgesics: a Role for Non-specific Activation of Endogenous Opioids. Pain, 90(3), 205-215. There is also overlap in the neural areas activated: Wagner, T.D., Rilling, J.K., Smith, E.E., Sokolik, A., Casey, K.L. et al. (2007). Placebo-Induced Changes in fMRI in the Anticipation and Experience of Pain. Science, 303(5661), 1162-1167. This research is also not mentioned on the Scientific theories regarding acupuncture page. I believe this research bears mention on both pages as these observed effects following accupuncture treatment could easily be attributed to placebo effects. In fact until 5 minutes ago that article stated "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 doubt the very existance of the supporting article (see talk on that page) and the interpretation so it cannot be used as evidence against my suggestions, at least until the article is found. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James, I have no objection to reworking the section discussing the above research.  It seems that most of the research into mechanisms is pretty vague.  The strongest seems to be the neuroimaging stuff and the EBM reviews.  As for the other article, Scientific theories regarding acupuncture, it's just a mess, too much "baby and bathwater" mixed together, and I've decided I just don't have the time to edit that one.  The editor who started it has WP:OWN issues, so be warned it may not be fun.  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 16:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok I will make the edits to this page as soon as I have timeJamesStewart7 (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neurohormonal theory: effects not unique to acupuncture

message: I am placing a note here to inform people that I have proposed some very substantial changes to the Scientific theories regarding acupuncture page, including the deletion of large parts of the article. I have made these propositions in response to the long standing totally disputed and cleanup tags. If we can get that page cleaned up to a suitable standard we may be able to include more information about hypothesized mechanisms of accupuncture into the main article, and imporove what is already in the present article. Please see Talk:Scientific theories regarding acupuncture for more details (place comments on that page).JamesStewart7 (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantial changes proposed to mechanisms page

message: Here's a link detailing some interesting research from the University of Manchester concerning acupuncture and reducing the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/acupuncture-relieves-side-effects-of-cancer-chemotherapy.html
Danny85.210.174.17 (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no sham acupuncture group (only sham accupressure) so it can only provide weak evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture at best.  JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is yet scientific consensus over whether sham is the best control for acupuncture, or if it is, where to put the (quasi-)needles.  (See here.)  Per my comments elsewhere on this talk page, that judgment is best left to reviewers, on whom we should rely more than individual studies.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest university research on acupuncture Dec 2007 

message: The large font size used looked wrong and is not used by other infobox templates. Is it already used on other alternative medicine articles and would we wish it to be used ? If people agree worthwhile, then I can help out at the infobox proposal page (WP:IB/Proposed) - effectively a sandbox to collaboratively work up a template before going live with multiple articles which then would be using a fixed set of named parameters. :-) David Ruben  Talk  14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew it looked awful.  Thanks so much for fixing that.  Happy New Year, David -- Backin72 (n.b.) 22:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: For McCready: the ArbCom addressed this issue, and their ruling is now part of official WP policy.  WP:NPOV is now clear about when to use :Category:Pseudoscience.  Per WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, attributable evidence of scientific consensus is necessary to use :Category:Pseudoscience, while evidence of a sig POV that the topic is pseudoscientific is necessary to mention PS in the article.   For many articles such as acupuncture, we do have sig POV's saying pseudoscience.  However, to use the category, we need to show evidence of a scientific majority.  (See WP:RS:  "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.")  An example of such consensus would be a statement by a group such as an Academy of Science.  Please stay in line with what is now official WP policy and provide such a source if you wish to place the pseudoscience category on any article.  Thanks.  Backin72 (n.b.) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Pseudoscience]] (again)

message: 1.  Agree with this edit.  Undue weight to cite a source a flawed as Quackwatch in lead, and indeed to use it at all in an article on a notable topic, per reasons already discussed at Talk:CAM.  Quackwatch is a questionable source per WP:SOURCES, and the Arbcom referred to it as an unreliable and partisan source.  No reason whatsoever to use it when better sources expressing the same POV exist.
2.  Am reverting this change to the lead because it is sloppy and misleading, per WP:LEAD as well as WP:WEIGHT.  (a) for back pain, saying "so and so has reported" without discussing the contents of the report is not informative.  (b) omitting nausea is not appropriate given that good sources say there is moderate efficacy.  (c) for neck pain, saying "there is a report of moderate evidence" suggests a single study rather than a meta-analysis from an excellent V RS.  Cochrane Collaboration is vastly more a V RS than the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, which is sort of the flip side of, e.g., a Journal of Scientific Exploration:   peer-reviewed, but virtually self-published by a self-selected group and no small whiff of publication bias.  That is my opinion, but it is backed up by Pubmeds's declining on at least three occasions to index SRAM.  (Boo-hoo - what a conspiracy.  Seems like those darned extremists are everywhere these days.  Almost makes those Real Skeptical Knowers Of The Truth seem like a shrill minority or something. See last comment here.)  SRAM is at the lowest tier of peer-reviewed reliability.
If "skeptics" really want to have their voices taken seriously, they should be grownups and get their stuff through peer-review just like everyone else.  When they do that, as here (pdf) or here, their stuff is considered a good V RS and given appropriate weight on WP.  When they don't, as with self-published stuff like Quackwatch, it's not.  Backin72 (n.b.) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More on lead section

message: I think both the "Views of proponents" and the "Views of critics" subsections (ie the whole section) should be removed. The sections are almost entirely unreferenced and perhpas unreferenceable and there are major POV concerns as a lot of opinion is being presented as fact eg "Clinical trials are still a valuable exercise, but they are not sufficient to determine conclusively whether either the individual constituents of the medical theory (e.g. acupuncture points), or the medical theory as a whole, are valid" is just an opinion that has not been attributed to anyone. Also some strange things have been done with these sections. This is in the criticism of acupuncture section "Tonelli, a prominent critic of EBM, argues that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) cannot be EBM-based unless the definition of evidence is changed". That reads more like a criticism of EBM to me. What is referenced in this section is either not directly relevant to accupuncture eg the information about CAM in general or is repeated below in the "Scientific research into efficacy" section. This reference "acupuncture is usually more effective than no treatment or a placebo in pill form, and that there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of acupuncture and “sham” acupuncture, which is often used as a control.[47]  is also problematic as we have admitted a primary source where all the other scientific evaluations are meta-analyses (secondary sources). This is the only referenced statement that warrants keeping "The vast majority of research on acupuncture is conducted by researchers in China, and Ernst et al. argue that there exist major flaws in the design of the experiments, as well as selective reporting of results, and conclude that no conclusions can be drawn from them" and it may be moved elsewhere. This whole section is a violation of WP:RS which is inexcusable due to the sheer number of RS available on this topic. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific Method and the Assessment of Chinese Medical Theory and Techniques sections

message: I think there is some selective quoting going on with the reference here. The reference does state this
We have systematically researched and reviewed the literature looking at the effect of acupuncture on brain activation as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography. These studies show that specific and largely predictable areas of brain activation and deactivation occur when considering the traditional Chinese functions attributable to certain specific acupuncture points. For example, points associated with hearing and vision stimulates the visual and auditory cerebral areas respectively
However it also states this
However, Gareus et al. (10) throws some doubt on Cho's findings. Therefore, while it appears that it is probable that acupuncture-like stimulation of UB67 triggers specific activation of the occipital cortex, it is by no means a uniform and consistent finding.
...
However, activation was not seen in the left inferior frontal gyrus and it is also clear that not all acupuncturists would agree that these points are related to language
...
They suggest that these different patterns may be related to specific therapeutic effects, although it is difficult to justify this based on data obtained from healthy volunteers receiving one acupuncture treatment.
...
It appears that there are substantial overlaps between the pain matrix that have already been identified within the brain and its response to placebo acupuncture and pain
I don't think the results are nearly as clear cut as that one included quote would make it seem. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the reference does suggest that our knowledge in this area is still very much evolving, and caveats pain, but also points to much clearer-cut findings such as PC6 for nausea.  I've revised the quote striving to more accurately reflect the source.  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence from neuroimaging studies

message: This is just not a fair comparison
This is in comparison to 2,216,000 serious adverse drug reactions that occurred in hospitals 1994. (Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN., JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5.) So to compare indirectly, Acupuncture has a 0.2% chance of causing a minor adverse effect compared to prescription medications having a 6.7% chance of causing a serious adverse event in a hospital setting.
Firstly, that is only drug reactions that occur in hospitals. There are many, many drugs taken outside of hospitals and I would argue that over-the-counter medications are much safer than prescription drugs so by restricting the sample to hospital patients, the data is already really skewed, especially when you consider that the bulk of accupuncture treatments are probably not performed in hospitals. Secondly, drugs are prescribed for a lot of conditions. You cannot compare say an accupuncture treatment for lower back pain to the use of immunosuppressants as part of a heart transplant. Furthermore, I believe these sort of indirect comparisons where an editor takes two seperate studies and compares the results qualifies as OR which is grounds for removal on its own. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I'd noticed that too and thought it was OR.  Just removed it.  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons

message: This is interesting, re mechanism.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And here is a link that (currently) provides free full access to the text and PDF version: Acupuncture Anesthesia and Analgesia for Clinical Acute Pain in Japan. MeekMark (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hardly consider that journal to be reliable.  And basically, they're saying that acupuncture treats every pain ever known.  I would be opposed to using it.  I'm not at all a supporter of junk science, so I've added some very reliable references to this article.  I intend to be as neutral as I can to balance both sides of this story.  But this article doesn't even entice me to look beyond it.  Unsupported claims always makes me yawn.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it is fairly underwhelming as a review, but as for the journal itself, Ernst and Kaptchuk are pretty studly and are on the review board.  Not sure though about the general quality of articles or publication bias.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Added. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I saw that reported too, yes, agree.  cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 06:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff to add

message: This research was published yesterday in the British Medical Journal. It includes meta analysis, which is something that never gives me any feeling of confidence. However, the paper  suggests a NNT of 17:1  so it is note worthy from that point of view.
Manheimer, Eric; et al. (7 February 2008 ).Effects of acupuncture on rates of pregnancy and live birth among women undergoing in vitro fertilisation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ.  doi:10.1136/bmj.39471.430451.BE.--Aspro (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that reported too, yes, agree.  cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 06:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe more stuff

message: Good; undue weight to cite that guy in lead anyway.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Williams

message: If all goes well, I'm hoping to clean up the article and prune/merge some stuff into Traditional Chinese medicine, Meridian (Chinese medicine), Zang Fu, etc. --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may take awhile, since edits like this are nontrivial and I haven't edited a couple of the above articles before.  But the result will be a shorter, tighter article.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I have copied this from my talkpage to here. Mccready (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to my Acupuncture revert, it was done to restore the introduction. The article simply didn't make sense starting out with a criticism of acupuncture without first defining the term.Asher196 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Asher, the fact it that the material you removed was factual. Whether you personally regard it as critical is not the point. Even if I concede your point, please show me the wikipedia policy which says we cannot have such material in the lead. Mccready (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to Wikipedia to be encyclopedic, and your version of the lead-in is confusing.  Simple as that.Asher196 (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have now changed your story. Now you need to explain why you are confused. Otherwise will you please replace my version? Thanks. Mccready (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.Yes I concede your point. But as it now stands it conveys the idea that there is controversy. This a classic altmed tactic. In fact the overwhelming bulk of evidence is that it has no effect. I'm happy to edit to take out the possibly confusing reference to Cochrane in the lead. Mccready (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact or Crit