Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 3

message: For McCready, re this string of attempts  to add undue weight, make a point and generally violate the letter and spirit of WP:LEAD... echoing Dematt above, are you trolling?  We don't need to use the lead to list all the areas where acu's efficacy is unproven, or even some of them.  We cover the topic (i.e., efficacy) more than sufficiently in the lead, and quite a bit more under Acupuncture#Scientific_research_into_efficacy, where we also offlink to Cochrane's list of acu reviews as well.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mccready and lead, part 19 in a continuing series

message: Parts of this article lack references, which is particularly troublesome when making quotes and summarising specific named studies, as the material becomes very hard to verify. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi SH -- which parts that cite quotes/studies are unsourced?  I'm not aware of any, but maybe I'm overlooking something.  I know there is some unsourced stuff in there but it's mostly about the history of acupuncture, not research or quoted opinion.  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 23:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, by all means fact tag them. I semi-regularly run through various pages searching for the text "citation needed", but am less likely to notice otherwise. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: I have fully protected this article for a three day period due to apparent edit warring and disagreement. Please sort the issue out using this forum before these three days are up. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; the principal disruptor generally eschews talk and has been blocked for 7 days, so I think this can be safely removed.  cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: This paper by Langevin and Yandow presents a fascinating (or fascia-nating) hypothesis regarding an anatomical basis for acupoints.  Probably the most plausible I've seen. --[[[User:Backin72|Backin72]] (n.b.) 00:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes

message: The Indications according to acupuncturists in the West section discusses WHO having endorsed the effectiveness of acupuncture for the asterisked conditions. Is this ultimately cited to the 1979 Viewpoint? A great deal has occurred acupuncture research since then, both in terms of elucidating the publication bias in the field and in terms of rigorous investigation. I am not finding a more recent comparable document, but regardless it seems reasonable to at the very least note the historical nature of the opinion if not striking it outright. The closest I have found to the WHO's current stance is the Traditional Medicine factsheet: 
Acupuncture has been proven effective in relieving postoperative pain, nausea during pregnancy, nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapy, and dental pain with extremely low side effects. It can also alleviate anxiety, panic disorders and insomnia.
It would be nice if the factsheet cited a full report, but sadly it is not that sort of document. Can anyone else find a better resource? - Eldereft (cont.) 04:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Eldereft - to answer your first question, yes, the WHO reference is to the 1979 statement.  Agree it's way out of date, but it's cited all over the internet.  That doesn't mean we need to, however.  Unless we can find a fuller WHO review (and preferably a much more recent statement), I'd be happy to just drop all reference to it, and keep AAMA, and then perhaps another section with additional conditions named by equally notable groups. best, Backin72 (n.b.)  04:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indications and WHO 

message: The NIH consensus statement now starts off
This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes. Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, new knowledge has inevitably accumulated in this subject area in the time since the statement was initially prepared. Thus some of the material is likely to be out of date, and at worst simply wrong. For reliable, current information on this and other health topics, we recommend consulting the National Institutes of Health's MedlinePlus 
http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997Acupuncture107html.htm
I think that this probably needs to be noted. 68.57.206.49 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is introduced as being from 1997, which should be sufficient caveat. Any specifically superseded statements could be cited and noted, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIH advises against using the consensus statement 

message: Does anyone know the dynasty of origin of acupunture??? I DO!! It originated i the Han dyansaty under the rule of Emperor Wudi. htey also created paper, the seismograph, sundial, and made many new achivements in art. this was a very sucsesful dynasty. 76.102.128.126 (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If, indeed, you have a source to support this claim, then it would be a useful inclusion to the article.  Otherwise, if you can't back up your claim, then we have no way of knowing whether your claim is correct or not.  I could step in and just as vociferously claim it originated with any other dynasty. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The Acupuncture information can be found in Wikipedia  Actually, the information also can be found in formal chinese history. Hectorso (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dynasty of Origin

message: I have placed a proposed Navigational template at Talk:Acupuncture/Navbox. I would like to move it to template-space and add it to the bottom of the articles in a week or so if there is consensus on its utility. Particularly welcome are any articles I missed, comments on the organizational scheme, and (dis)advantages compared to :Category:Acupuncture. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox 

message: I don't want to be too rigorous, but this phrase here: "There is scientific agreement that an evidence-based medicine (EBM) framework should be used to assess health outcomes and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential" is a circular argument. An "evidence-based" medicine is a scientific medicine. It is just a way of saying there is scientific agreement that medicine should be practiced scientifically. If anybody that was not convinced that science was the best way for medicine becomes convinced because of the phrase, it would be because he was tricked.
I will remove it because of that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.10.1.162 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are other ways that scientists could seek to understand this.  Evidence-based implies that we're going to do a lot of clinical trials and measure the results.  Instead, they could have said "Theory-based" - suggesting that we should seek to understand HOW it works from basic biological principles regardless of whether it seems to work or not.  This was never a "circular argument" - but (if we take your view) a "tautology".  However, I believe it to be neither of those things - so on reflection, I'm reverting your change. SteveBaker (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement definitely may look somewhat weird to us laymen. Fortunately, we have an article about it at Evidence-based medicine. --Taraborn (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular argument 

message: Wikipedia is meant to be a quick resource of information. It simply does NOT matter whether anyone's personal opinion is that acupuncturists are quacks or legit doctors. I looked up this article for some brief history on the subject and I am appalled that all I found was a completely biased article. Though the author tries to sound neutral it is painfully obvious what their point of view consists of. This entire entry should be taken to the trash and redone with educational content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.46.175 (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take the time to read the article, you'll find that already cites many review articles and other sources meeting WP:MEDRS, including ones that counted that trial you linked to. (Reviews are better on WP than individual studies.) Guess what, some good sources don't dismiss it out of hand.  On WP, policy is to cite those, along with all the rest. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is meant to be helpful 

message: It is wrong part in objective history that acupuncture was begun in the China.
There is 砭石(zhēn biān = Stone needle's of acupuncture ; Korean - Dolchim) that the Korea used from neolithic age that acupuncture is begun from neolith by inheritance.
However, Dolchim's inheritance of the China does not exist.
And acupuncture was used that entered from eastern country to China in Huangdi Neijing(Somoon part12). 
Ancient country of the Korea was called empire of east.</br>
Therefore, mistook that one’s opinion that acupuncture is to happen in the China.
(Wrong history that Acupuncture spread from China to Korea)  
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.233.99.16 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide one or more English-translation sources supporting this?  thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acupuncture history is wrong history that originated in China 

message: The cited review was not conducted systematically. Given the well-known problems with the literature in this area, I think that the authors were not nearly canny enough for the results to be trusted. They did make some attempt to be comprehensive, but included only editorial analysis - it is closer to a book report or blind summary than a proper systematic review. On the other hand, it looked a little snide to call it a non-systematic review, and we already discuss (last I checked) aforementioned problems with the literature. I do not believe that these issues are serious enough to bump the source below the WP:RS threshold, but if anyone would like to characterize this review (without casting aspersions outside of NPOV, of course) to alter its apparent weight, I would not complain. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence from neuroimaging studies 

message: I noticed this article is still under the neutral tag.  I'd like to help provide a fresh pair of eyes to any NPOV issues and I'll try my best to be as objective as possible.  To note, I am not a health care physician of any sort (to avoid possible accusations of bias) but am pursuing a graduate degree  so I know how to appraise research.  If there are no additional concerns, I'll tag down the tag. Soyuz113 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Soyuz113 has "been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry, edit warring, disruption and block evasion." I have stricken his remarks, as striking or removal is customary in such situations. See: Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of CorticoSpinal. -- Fyslee / talk 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey maybe your graduate degree is in philosophy, reasoning, and the scientific process?  The Chinese utilized inductive reasoning.  They came up with their theories based on observations around them and then applied it to the human body. At any rate, when I read this article it made me wonder if the people who said Chinese medicine is unscientific have any notion of the scientific process.  Most articles I read about Chinese medicine on Wikipedia have large sections devoted to the "effectiveness of TCM" (traditional Chinese medicine) and they go on at length about how certain people claim that TCM is unscientific.  I think this is false and misleading.  TCM is scientific.  The Chinese utilized inductive reasoning to conclude things and then debated about it extensively amongst themselves and even performed clinical trials over thousands of years.  They kept what worked clinically and elaborated or corrected it when needed.  I think it is really absurd that people claim  TCM is unscientific.  It is like they're saying science is unscientific by completely dismissing the validity of inductive reasoning and the scientific process.  And because every article (or almost every article) on Wikipedia devotes so much space to these false ideas, it reads as propaganda.  (For references to my claims one can look at the comments in the Materia Medica by Dan Bensky, Steven Clavey, and Erich Stroger.) comment added by ~Harkannin 24.69.176.48 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, CorticoSpinal is a chiropractor, so he was lying when he wrote "I am not a health care physician of any sort." Of course many would dispute that chiropractors should be allowed to call themselves "physicians", but that's another matter. -- Fyslee / talk 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Read WP:MEDRS.  Believe it or not, there are sources more reliable than CSICOP.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: DR dear sir, could you tell me if you can stimulate the pancrea to increase insulin on a diabetic person by using acupncture  therapy.....thank you Efrain  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.155.2 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  acupuncture,  

message: OK, just so no one thinks I'm trying to avoid discussion, here's why I "bulk reverted" three edits by a banned editor.  Suffice it to say (as I did in the ES) that I object to removal of material that I believe to be properly sourced and weighted.  We, as editors, are discouraged from using weasel words and equivocating; however, if RS's do that, we should leave it in:  one critic's equivocation might be another's nuance, and besides, some aspects of medicine are equivocal.
Thus, User:Scientizzle commented at AN/I that "the recent edits attributed to this user in violation of this ban seem, to me, to be generally okay (this and this look like reasonable removal of fluff and unnecessary equivocation....)".
My response:
* this edit is a mixed bag.  I looked at the TCM source at the top, and agree it's weak as cited, and have removed it again.  However, the edit in the second paragraph deleted phrases like "but is active and growing" to describe the body of evidence:  Edzard Ernst himself says this, and a reasonable thing to cite (Mccready, however, has a history of seeking to depict acu as closer to the fringe than most people (and cite-able sources) depict it).
* Which brings us to the next edit.  Starting at the bottom:  we have Mccready removing Ernst's own (!) verbatim (!!) conclusions from his review:  "It is concluded, that acupuncture research is active. The emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions."  This is absurd, removing the central conclusion of one of our best and most current sources on controlled clinical research.  Above that, he removes a source on evidence-based medicine (EBM) that (horrors) informs the reader that EBM includes individualized choices about care as well as meta-analysis of RCT's.  I believe that is properly weighted with respect to our abbreviated discussion of EBM.
Bottom line, the WHO/Jia source was weak and worth removing, but getting rid of the Ernst stuff did not improve the article at all.  Ernst is no alt-med believer, so one can't accuse the positive/equivocal stuff of bias.  The pattern of these edits is a little subtler than usual, but consistent with Mccready's longstanding mission to remove or minimize material that is remotely positive, or equivocal, about scientific research on acupuncture.
Also, let's not remove his ban because he showed up one day and violated it in a semi-reasonable way... sheesh.  Before he was banned he was the subject of several posts at AN/I, the first of which described a pattern of endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring.  Go look at that page version and all the reverts documented there.  That's a pretty intense pattern.  See why I'm not eager to have it repeated here?  -- Backin72 (n.b.) 08:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My reasoning, FWIW

message: This might still be a bit too much WP is not a crystal ball  but I think it is worth noting here now on the talk page because the military seem to have finished the initial trail phase.http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.pain11dec11,0,3574554.story?track=rss--Aspro (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  battlefield acupuncture

message: This section seems to have been sourced from a single website of Scott Suvow, who is a practitioner of acupuncture.  The section makes claims for the effectiveness of acupuncture, for example during the Long March.  Surely there must be peer-reviewed historical accounts rather than a commercial website for references.  I am deleting that section.  If someone can add scholarly references for the specific claims made, then feel free to put it back.Desoto10 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Desoto10 -- you're right that the source is bad, of course; however, most of the claims are in fact correct, and just need better sources (e.g., Unschuld).  (Think of the Suvow link as a sort of temporary convenience link for information that we'll be able to verify elsewhere.)  Additionally, some that you removed was from other, good sources (Crozier; Lewith), and you left intact the final paragraph that was from an equally dubious source (some other dude's clinic).  In light of the fact that the claims are (mostly) noncontroversial, and that I expect I can find refs for a great deal of it, I've restored the material and tagged it.  As for the long march, that's more a matter of history than medicine, and as such it can't really be considered a "claim of efficacy"; our sources will reflect that.  Nice catch on the IVF review, btw.  -- regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 03:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you; that needed fixing.  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 03:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent History

message: Ref 28, which is claimed to substantiate use of acupuncture for dysmenorrhorea actually concludes:
"Authors' conclusions
High frequency TENS was found to be effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea by a number of small trials. The minor adverse effects reported in one trial requires further investigation. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of low frequency TENS in reducing dysmenorrhoea. There is also insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of acupuncture in reducing dysmenorrhoea, however a single small but methodologically sound trial of acupuncture suggests benefit for this modality. "
Thus, all one could say from this review is that there is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture for this indication.  TENS is not acupuncture.Desoto10 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  I haven't been that comfortable with stuff being added to that list; AAMA and WHO have their own conclusions, and it strikes me as poor parallelism (and undue weight) to add other stuff, willy-nilly, based on this study or that review.  More on said list below.  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 04:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Indications acccording to...

message: "TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians."
I would say that the lack of evidence for the existance of acupuncture points is not the primary reason that the claims of efficacy for acupuncture are often rejected by modern western medical experts.  What is lacking is evidence of effectiveness as is required for other treatments.  It appears as though, when such evidence is provided, as has been done for some kinds of pain, and some kinds of postoperative nausea and vomiting, western physicians have accepted acupuncuture regardless of the lack of evidence for specific acupuncture points.Desoto10 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best thing to do is just summarize the sources quoted in the section.  The statement as written is consistent with Felix Mann's quote and maybe a couple others.  Sure, efficacy is the bottom line, but remember, this section is criticism of TCM theory, so most of the quotes aren't really getting into efficacy; that comes later in the article.  (What is interesting is that some of the best evidence for efficacy is the use of PC-6 below the wrist for nausea; say what you will about TCM's prescientific model, but at least it "predicts" that, where biomedicine can't... actually, the way I like to look at TCM's theory is as a big mnemonic device, stated using classical Chinese language.  Same idea as a primitive tribe having a calendar that predicts when the dragon in the sky swallows the sun or moon... they didn't know what an eclipse was, but they had observed the phenomenon.)  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 04:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Fyslee went ahead and stuck it in -- and looks like he got it at the right point.  Ah, that's better...  --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of TCM theory

message: I'm rv-ing these two edits because they do not appear to reflect a very careful reading of sources.  Let's look at each:
*NIH Consensus Statement:
::"the incidence of adverse effects is substantially lower than that of many drugs or other accepted medical procedures used for the same condition. For example, musculoskeletal conditions, such as fibromyalgia, myofascial pain, and tennis elbow... are conditions for which acupuncture may be beneficial. These painful conditions are often treated with, among other things, anti-inflammatory medications (aspirin, ibuprofen, etc.) or with steroid injections. Both medical interventions have a potential for deleterious side effects but are still widely used and are considered acceptable treatments."
*NCCAM FAQ:
::"Relatively few complications from the use of acupuncture have been reported to the FDA, in light of the millions of people treated each year and the number of acupuncture needles used. Still, complications have resulted from inadequate sterilization of needles and from improper delivery of treatments. Practitioners should use a new set of disposable needles taken from a sealed package for each patient and should swab treatment sites with alcohol or another disinfectant before inserting needles. When not delivered properly, acupuncture can cause serious adverse effects, including infections and punctured organs."
*Ernst safety review:
::"Acupuncture has adverse effects, like any therapeutic approach. If it is used according to established safety rules and carefully at appropriate anatomic regions, it is a safe treatment method."
Those quotes are more consistent with saying (A) than (B):
(A)"There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles, and that further research is appropriate."
(B)"There is general agreement that further research is appropriate.There is general agreement that serious adverse reactions are uncommon when acupuncture is administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles, but minor adverse reactions, poor training and non-sterile needles are concerns."
Why?  Because A caveats the issues adequately, while B gives undue weight to risks (cf. Acupuncture#Safety_and_risks), especially compared to other treatment modalities.  Under the conditions given in (A), the statement that acupuncture is safe is not only correct, but quote verbatim from the most recent review of one of the most respected scientists studying Alternative medicine according to the principles of Evidence-based medicine (and btw, Edzard Ernst is a total-ass skeptic about everything, so anything he says about acu isn't coming from a place of positive bias).  The serious issues mentioned in (B) are relevant (and are mentioned in the safety section), but fall outside the boundaries of the qualification "well-trained practitioners using sterile needles".  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added another, too."Therefore, acupuncture performed by trained practitioners using clean needle techniques is a generally safe procedure."  Is acupuncture safe? A systematic review of case reports. L. Lao et. al., Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):72-83. Abstract at Pubmed. --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe..."

message: Please comment. I will tag the article so that people know this discussion is happening. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that didn't work out too well, did it.  Probably a good idea to drop the attempts to game the system; it reflects poorly on those who do it (especially when you're under ArbCom scrutiny).  --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: Considering the limitation of the four positive noninferiority studies and the results of the meta-analysis of the three sham-controlled studies, the notion that acupuncture may lower high BP is inconclusive.
Conclusion Sham-controlled RCTs fail to show specific effects of acupuncture for control of menopausal hot flushes.
Here are newer studies to review for inclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Add this brand new Cochrane Review: We found a small analgesic effect of acupuncture that seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear.— Scientizzle 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good finds.  I will get around to adding them soon if no one else does. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 systematic reviews 

message: I moved a sentence from the lead section to the article subsection on EBM.  It's well worth keeping in the article, but doesn't seem appropriate in the lead:  too much weight to one study and one condition.  However, I agree that this sentence does point to some larger issues that are lead-worthy, e.g. attempts at blinding and findings re point specificity or lack thereof.  I will hunt down an appropriate reference (i.e. something on the order of a review article) and suggest something soon.  --Middle 8 (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit to lead re migraines

message: This and this are worth examining, but are too WP:BOLD.  So, in the spirit of WP:BRD I'm reverting; now the discussion.  (And nobody gets to revert me back and say "per BRD" in the edit summary without discussing.)  :-)  BTW, I know my revert removed a source; I will put it back later.
First, this source plainly does not go far enough to support this edit.  Quoting from the source:
:"A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear."
OM's edit summary said:  "Acupuncture does not work. So, let's stay NPOV)".  That is a good example of jumping from "absence of evidence" to "evidence of absence".  Acupuncture is an active research area and the jury is still out.  So, it may be partly true to say this....
:"There is no scientific or medical evidence that acupuncture has any efficacy beyond a placebo effect."
...but it's plainly not the whole truth, because it's equally true of virtually all surgical techniques, as well as PT, dentistry etc.  We need to be more nuanced in light of other reviews (and commentaries) that find evidence for efficacy, as well as the fact that there is no general agreement over which placebo designs are appropriate (although they're certainly further along with acu, in terms of figuring out how to control for placebo, than they are with many surgical techniques). 
Finally, it's useful to compare the acupuncture and homeopathy literature.  The Royal College of Pathologists recently denounced homeopathy homeopathy as antiscientific.  By contrast, BMA issued a qualified endorsement of acupuncture as of 2000, which is where the matter stands. 
So, the acu research is in flux, and in the medical community it stands on the cusp of acceptance.  In homeopathy, comparatively little research is going on, and it is at the cusp of rejection.  The situation with acu may change, but in the meantime, no sticking a fork in anything until it's done.  Not on WP, anyway.  We should reflect the general scientific literature, not what skeptic blogs or CSICOP articles may be saying.  Anyone seriously disagree with that?
OK, that's a good place to start.  BTW, I think it's good to give the article some working over.  Maybe what comes out of that will be a "good" or "featured" article, for whatever little that's worth in the scheme of things.  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (side note - OM, check your email) --Middle 8 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: also restored a good source and accurate description of text/sources that immediately follow -- Middle 8 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry dude, but according to WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV, there must be reliable evidence.  Acupuncture does not work.  There is NO evidence that it will, and yes, science does not prove negatives, so to be NPOV, proponents of Fringe theories must show that it's not fringe.  You can't.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to reliable sources like Ernst?  He doesn't say it's BS, he says there seems to be evidence for some conditions.  When good sources say something's equivocal, we say that; we don't imply anything like "there is NO evidence that it will" work.  You're on the wrong side of NPOV, bro, not me.  cheers - Middle 8 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: "Some evidence" by someone (and I admit, Ernst despises CAM cruft about as much as I do) is hardly "this thing works".  I'm willing for a compromise, but what you've reverted is so far from a compromise, that I will have to public disclose that you're the Fifth Beatle.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I'm sure we can figure out a compromise (and I felt that way before you thought I might be Mr. Incredible, or ScienceApologist suggested I might be the wicked Syndrome).  I find it helpful to think of how we handle other topics on WP; I think it's pretty clear acupuncture is in a sorta grey zone, somewhere between knee arthoplasty (which almost certainly works, yet we can't really prove it does because we don't have a good placebo, and the one notable attempt at placebo control showed it no better than placebo!) and homeopathy (which doesn't work).  So, we're smart puppies; I'm sure we can come up with some language -- really, there's not that much distance between your wording and what there is now; maybe just a matter of emphasis, and sticking close to sources (your 2009 source admittedly spins it with a little more cred than you do).  More later -- please excuse me while I attempt to go put out a fire I did not wish to see started. -- Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV edits

message: Regarding the fact-tag in the lead:  According to Unschuld, acupuncture's origins in China are uncertain -- which I read as meaning that where/how in China it originated is in question, but there's no real doubt (aside from Otzi the caveman, which is far from definitive) that it did originate in China (initially as a bleeding technique with sharp stones) and spread from there.  Does anyone have better information? --Middle 8 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I changed the wording of the article which blatantly stated "Acupuncture originated from China" to something along the lines of "the oldest written record is from China and that suggests it came from China". I used a bit more encyclopedic words tho :) I also thought about including this article as an additional citation but it seems a little biased. Please let me know if you disagree with my edits or if you feel the citation is insufficient. --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sampi, excellent edit , although we can probably do a little better on the source.  I agree the other one you mention probably isn't suitable.  Hope you stick around, fresh editorial input is exactly what this article needs.  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acupuncture originated in China? 

message: Some recent edits (see the cumulative results of several recent ones) have added particular studies from the literature.  Those are certainly considered good sources on WP, but neither can we cite (or properly weight) every single one, and there are a lot of them, with equivocal and sometimes contradictory results.  Per WP:MEDRS I think we should focus mainly on good review articles, practice guidelines, position statements from respected sci bodies, and other such sources.  Accordingly, I might end up outright deleting some, especially in cases where those studies have been cited in a review-type source that's already in the article. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.   Also removed extraordinary claim  and followed up on suggestions above to bring more balance to the lead re efficacy.   regards, Middle 8 (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing individual studies

message: I was adding a source from an article I've read that has several references for their sources, but another member keeps undoing my edit. Granted, the first time, I hit "save page" instead of "show preview" (I'm still learning some of the linking codes here), so the source didn't show then and he undid my edit before I could load the screen enough to edit it (and no source is a valid reason for removing it, although it was premature). When I put it on again with the correct citation, he removed it again within a few minutes because it "wasn't a reliable site".
Why remove a page with valid sources for the information just because he doesn't think it's a good enough site? It's properly cited and verified... Wouldn't that be against Wiki's guidelines to just remove content because you don't think the sources are good enough or am I missing something? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I misread, can you please place the reference here. I didn't question it as a "reliable site" but as a WP:MEDRS - a reliable source for a medicine related article. There is also the lower bar of WP:RS - a reliable source. These are wikipedia standards for references. I don't think NaturalNews.com meets these criteria. BTW: Thanks for assuming faith with my first edit, but you should have done with the second too :) WP:AGFVerbal chat 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What we should do is find the article the news story is based on, and bring that here for discussion. Thanks for understanding and not getting upset! I'll have a quick look now but it's late where I am. Verbal chat 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the study: doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.04.020. I'm not sure if it's already discussed to be honest. I'll have to check later, or maybe another editor knows? Verbal chat 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That study appears not to be used (else is cited in a pretty screwy format). NaturalNews is really not a Reliable source in the sense of that guideline, as they are not exactly noted for their objectivity. The Reliable sources noticeboard might disagree, but I highly doubt it. I need to read the full study first, but it looks like it could be cited under Neurohormonal theory. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The news release can't be used as a source per Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular press, and the article itself should be reviewed to make sure it is not undue weight to cite it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Just being from Harvard doesn't mean it's a great study. We have reviews which pool data from many studies, at it depends on size, methodology, conclusions, peer review, journal prestige... etc. etc. I'm afraid right now I don't have time to review the paper myself. We can't rely on the news report as they are not from WP:RS news outlets, and news reports fail WP:MEDRS. It's better not to rely on single studies too, especially if they go against the reviews. WP isn't for cutting edge research, generally. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the issue is undue weight.  We are expected to document the current scientific consensus from the best possible resources.  As it says here, the best sources are secondary, summarizing broad areas of research and up-to-date proof.  Single studies can be errors, outliers, have faked data, and generally don't represent scientific consensus.  It also prevents pushing from people with conflicts of interest and generally strong beliefs, who are willing to cherry-pick data and studies to support their views while ignoring dissenting and objections by other readers.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone removing edits because they don't agree? 

message: Being imbalanced and factual, you could say writing evidence based, doesn't mean being nice.
The fact that there is no scientifically plausible method for accupuncture to work is orders of magnitude more important than some 'crazy' ideas ("Many hypotheses have been proposed to address the physiological mechanisms of action of acupuncture"). 
Wikipedia is made for the lay person, is it not? And the lay person has to have it explained to them, what this scientific lingo means, otherwise one might easily be under the impression that there is a genuine scientific controversy about the hypothesis, when there isn't: accupuncture simply proved to be false by the scientific method. That should be properly emphasized. 
Let's not be so open minded that our brains fall out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.67.75 (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're right about the state of scientific consensus, I'm sure you can find a suitable source.  Otherwise we'll have to do the best we can with the sources we have.  The Cochrane Collaboration is an outstanding source for reviews; have a look at the one for nausea published in 2009, using acupoint P6.  Summary:  "P6 acupoint stimulation prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting with few side effects."  A review for chronic headache:  "CONCLUSION: Needling acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture and medication therapy in improving headache intensity, frequency, and response rate."  These are from some of the best WP:MEDRS's out there.  (I'll update the article with 'em presently).  Pubmed and Cochrane have lots more reviews of acu for different conditions, with conclusions ranging from + to -, and virtually all calling for more study (in large part because the issue of sham acu as a control isn't settled).  Oh, here's something on mechanism.  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's clear that no one should come to Wikipedia for medical information, but too many do so.  There are a few poorly designed studies that may show a placebo effect, but otherwise, there is simply no scientific controversy about this procedure.  All clinical research, save for the badly designed ones, show it does nothing.  SciMedKnowledge (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if that's true, then you should have no problem coming up with definitive references that refute the others we have and finally settle the issue.  I would discourage edits like this, i.e. changing text to meet your preference but departing from the original source cited.  If we find the best sources and stick close to them, it should be pretty easy to keep the article up to snuff.  The citations I gave above on nausea and headache refute your final assertion.  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: What a fanciful reinterpretation of the evidence. You are, I suppose, perfectly at liberty to reject the views of organizations like the WHO, and to believe whatever you like in your private life, but it has been the view of the medical establishment for many years now that acupuncture works for a number of conditions and that is really what the article must say. I know it is hard when one's beliefs clash with accepted scientific knowledge but wikipedia is not the place to take up this argument. 72.14.195.225 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the British Medical Association and several Cochrane reviews... the WHO used a coarser sieve than other reviewers, but they're obviously an "internationally reputable expert bod(y)" and a valid WP:MEDRS. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most MEDRSes have highly criticised the WHO report. We shouldn't use it, when much better, more recent sources are available. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should do right by both NPOV and VER and (a) keep it (it's not that old) and (b) work in good sources that criticize it (keeping in mind WP:PARITY: right or wrong, WHO is a heavyweight as sources go, so WP:NOTTRUTH and all that).  BTW, I checked Pubmed, and couldn't find much about the WHO and acu, so which MEDRS's do you have in mind?  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The LAncet, one of the biggest names in medicine, took it and a draft report on homeopathy apart in an editorial: . This is NOT a non-controversial report, and must not be presented as such. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree.  That's a pretty good source, and can be cited for criticism of the WHO report.  I worked it in here (keeping in mind WP:WEIGHT issues; WHO is a much bigger fish than the several critics quoted, as Ernst notes in the source). regards, Middle 8 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

text: If I might step in: The evidence for acupuncture is weak, and recent studies have made it weaker. It has been shown to be ineffective for some conditions, but may be effective for others, mainly related to pain or nausea, though the evidence has grown weaker over time. We can and should reflect this. However, without good sources, we can't just say what we want. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have "recent studies have made it weaker" according to a good source (preferably something on the order of a good review article)?  And if it is true, why did the 2009 Cochrane review for nausea get stronger for efficacy than the previously-revised version?  It's more accurate to say that recent studies have weakened the evidence base for some applications and strengthened it for others, as one of the sources in the lead does, coincidentally.  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: That well-known study is included in the corresponding reviews that are cited and discussed in the article.  WP prefers citing reviews over single studies. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: How does saying it's a pseudoscience right off the bat resolve anything? That just irritates more people more and is going to create more conflict.  Burleigh2 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: @88.130.125.232:  no, that wouldn't work.  Please see WP:PSCI which explains when and how to use the term on WP.  Then re-read the opening paragraphs at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience.  Inclusion on that list does not necessarily indicate consensus among either scientists or Wikipedians that a topic is, in fact, pseudoscientific.  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imbalanced, unfair article 

message: This article is really long, and the 102K size kind of confirms it.  Perhaps a few sections can be split out?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's long, but it's a very heavily debated an in-depth topic... it's bound to be long because of the debates on effectiveness and the points of proof for both sides of the fence so it can be as "unbiased" as possible. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Burleigh2.  WP:SIZE is not an absolute rule, and 100K-ish isn't that excessive.  I'm all for splitting stuff out where possible, but am not altogether sure how to do that without risking a WP:POVFORK.  --Middle 8 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very long 

message: Hi. 
In the section antiquity, it is claimed that acupuncture needles have been found in 3,000 BC , but the second link says 3,000 years back in inner Mongolia, that's 1,000 BC. 
It should to have better sources for this. These claims can basically not be substantiated by some random acupuncture website. 
If anyone has better informations, provide them please. 
Kosto (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think there is a mistake 

message: I think that some people are cherry-picking the references they use to determine the effectiveness of acupuncture. There is so much incorrect information here that it's beyond ridiculous! I have a subscription to Natural Standard, one of the world's best sources on alternative therapies. It is run by doctors and pharmacists and they summarize studies that are evidence-based and peer-reviewed. According to them, there is actually STRONG evidence that acupuncture works for osteoarthritis, chronic pain, and post-operative pain. This is NOT a statement that is easily handed out from them. I'm going to be doing a lot of editing of this article, and I hope you guys can check out the website. It costs money to subscribe to (like many journal websites), but you may be able to get it for free if you attend university as many do subscribe to the website.99.255.196.199 (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow Verbal reverted my deletion of that statement again! That statement still uses 2 references that are completely bogus! One doesn't support the statement, and the other quotes an opinion from a book published in 1993! For the love of god "Rvt editwarring against consensus, POV, non RS etc." - Verbal??? Where is the consensus that it is okay to use information that is referenced like that? Please tell me. Please tell me how deleting that statement is POV.99.255.196.199 (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Normally, I would agree that a newer systematic review (that takes older studies and newer studies into account mind you) is important, that particular systematic review includes a lot of smaller studies, and no other study that is half as long as the major study done in 2004. It is unfair to ignore the findings of the larger, more credible study just because the general conclusion found in the systematic review was affected by the inclusion of smaller, shorter studies. But, if I will play by that rule, ignoring the fact that there are many sources from a decade ago on this page, I will give you this link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17215263 This 2007(even newer!!) systematic review was published in Rheumatology and found that acupuncture IS effective. If there are no problems with this, then I will revise the information in the article.99.255.196.199 (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, out of 3 sources referenced for the statement "For osteoarthritis, reviews since 2006 show a trivial difference between sham and true acupuncture." on this page, only one supports it. One of the other 2 sources concludes: "Acupuncture that meets criteria for adequate treatment is significantly superior to sham acupuncture and to no additional intervention in improving pain and function in patients with chronic knee pain.", and the last source is mislinked. With the addition of the source I posted above with an even newer systematic review, I believe that warrants a change to the statement to actually reflect current research. Is this agreeable?99.255.196.199 (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, here are some more supporting, newer reviews: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17674552 (hebrew but translated english abstract)"Recently, two large phase III randomized clinical studies were published on the efficacy of acupuncture in osteoarthritis of the knee. The studies have shown that acupuncture serves as an effective complementary treatment to standard care, improves function and provides pain relief for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. These studies confirm the results of previous studies on acupuncture as effective complementary treatment to standard care."99.255.196.199 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: More http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17986496 "There is moderate-quality evidence that acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and low-level laser therapy reduce pain", more http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18552606 "These studies provide evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for pain and physical dysfunction associated with osteoarthritis of the knee."99.255.196.199 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So I take it no one has any objections to adding these newer systematic reviws that support the effectiveness of acupuncture in OA? I will be changing the statement to reflect this as well.99.255.196.199 (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone improperly summarized the reviews I posted, so I used direct quotes instead.99.255.196.199 (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of effectiveness 

message: Here's a message I got on my talk page: "Removal of sourced information, including the opinions of a notable acupuncturist like Felix Mann, is a big no no". Brangifer (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article and editing 

message: I came across this article while writing lectures for the first year class in Chinese Medicine paradigms and principles.   I'm a national board certified acupuncturist educated in the USA. The graduate program I attended was four years in length. Since graduating I've accumulated 15 years of experience. The bulk of the article is heavily biased. It is quite apparent that most of the contributors have little to no knowledge of acupuncture. Of 126 listed sources only seven (see below) were written by practitioner-scholars who read Chinese. They are standard English language textbooks in the professional curriculum in the USA. 
The other 119 sources were written by people whose knowledge of acupuncture is scanty, ethnocentric, and gleaned from other sources from far outside of the cultures that developed acupuncture. These studies focus on one particular allopathic disease entity and then simply ignore the system constructs that guide clinical practice of acupuncture. Whatever they are testing is not acupuncture in vivo. This mortally flawed research has used a caliper as a hammer and declared it useless. Daily in China alone, millions of people receive acupuncture treatment and thousands of studies are conducted with extremely robust sample sizes. Research from many perspectives has been aggressively conducted in China since the early 1950's. This body of professional literature has been almost entirely ignored in the Occident. 
This article needs to be rewritten from scratch.
  
1. ^ a b Acupuncture: A Comprehensive Text, p. 35. Shanghai College of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Translated and  edited by John O'Connor ,Dan Bensky. Eastland Press, Seattle, 1981(Fourteenth Printing, 1997).ISBN-939616-00-9. 
2. ^ Xinnong, C (1987). Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion. Foreign Language  Press. p. 53. ISBN 7-119-00378-
4. ^ "Understanding Acupuncture - Stephen Birch, Bob Felt". Redwingbooks.com. Retrieved 2009-09-02. 
5. ^ History Of Acupuncture 6. ^ Unschuld, Paul. Chinese Medicine, p. 94. 1998, Paradigm Publications
 7. ^ Kaptchuk, Ted J., The Web That Has No Weaver: Understanding Chinese Medicine, McGraw-Hill Professional,  
     2000 , 9780809228409 500 pages  
AnuthaMule (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The main editors of this article also happen to ignore any supportive studies of acupuncture even in journals here. They set high criteria for any positive results, claiming inaccessibility, unreliability, etc. while sources that are used to reject acupuncture on this page often fail that same criteria. You cannot change anything because it requires consensus, yet the cadre of editors here will refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. Good luck. I think you'll need it.99.255.196.199 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite entire article 

message: Had my fingers done what I wanted them to do, my edit summary for this edit would have said:  "rv - pls discuss signif changes to lede first. Article body covers this, but these changes to lede give too much weight to indiv trial(s) and a weak MEDRS (Sci Daily)".  That pretty much sums up my concerns.  The article body does cite Kaptchuck and notes that "sham acupuncture" (however that term is understood) is a stronger placebo than a sugar pill; see Acupuncture#Issues_in_study_design.  Later today, I will incorporate any good new sources added by the good-faith edit that that my edit reverted, so don't worry and let's not edit war.  Generally, I think most editors would agree that the lede is not a good place to start:  it's better to edit the body and then make sure the lede reflects that than to jump in and change the stable lede of an article that has been the subject of considerable debate.  Hope that clarifies. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, despite my professed love for that study. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent study.  Maybe we can highlight it a bit more in the subsection contemplated above, and if it seems appropriate, add more to the lede about study design and not all placebos being the same.  I'm a bit overloaded right now, but as I mentioned to Clovis on my user talk page, , I'll have a go at doing some of this.  Next couple days or so; I've got limited computer access owing to my body's lack of cooperation (read: low back pain).  Acupuncture's helping like a mofo, btw. :-) cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Just for fun, you may want to check out my thoughts on mechanism at my user talk page.  They're not original, so I'm hoping that we can incorporate some of these ideas to the extent that we can find them in decent sources.  cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to lede