Talk:Acupuncture - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Middle 8 (talk | contribs) at 04:12, 10 August 2010 (→Fixing attribution of WHO report: because... of the facts and logic I wrote?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:12, 10 August 2010 by Middle 8 (talk | contribs) (→Fixing attribution of WHO report: because... of the facts and logic I wrote?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acupuncture article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Archives

Archive 1 (Start to May, 2006)
Archive 2 (May 2006 to February, 2008)
Archive 3 (February, 2008 to October, 2009)
Archive 4 (October, 2009 to present)
Archive 5 (empty)
Medical acupuncture archive

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Pseudoscience

Per the ArbCom case, this should not be categorized or infobox-ed as pseudoscience, because there's a significant body of thought that supports its efficacy, e.g. "Acupuncture may ease pain by triggering release of natural painkiller", The Guardian, May 30, 2010. SlimVirgin 00:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For those more familiar with the scientific literature (no offence, realizing that statement will pretty much inevitably invite offence...) there is a lot of body of thought that finds acupuncture is simple placebo; the guardian is a good paper, but not as good as peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates considerable doubt when proper placebos are involved. That particular study, hasn't been replicated (yet), wasn't on humans, and illustrates more that local irritation may temporarily overcome competing stimulation.

Also, a large part of the pseudoscience around acupuncture is in the "system" used to deliver it - sham does as well as "real" acupuncture; nonpenetrating needles do as well as penetrating needles; no real evidence of meridians, qi, acupuncture points or Blood (that's Blood as detailed by the TCM theory, not blood); toothpicks working as well as needles; TCM diagnosis with six different pulses, tongue colour and ear wax; moxibustion; laserpuncture; and so on. Dry needling, which is pretty much "acupuncture without the magic", might be a better name and direction to take acupuncture if there is ever unequivocal evidence for it but we're not there yet.

All that to say - there is certainly evidence supporting acupuncture may be useful, or something. There is certainly evidence against that statement. It is absolutely certain that the jury is out. But it is also certain that there are many who consider acupuncture, or at least the traditional Chinese medicine parts of it, pseudoscientific in much the same way that alchemy is pseudoscience. The body of thought that states acupuncture is pseudoscience at least in part certainly passes the threshold at WP:UNDUE.

But here is where my ignorance comes in - if a part of something is pseudoscientific, can the whole page get a category? I can't even think of an example where this would apply. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom case concluded that: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." And "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." See here. Acupuncture falls under one or both of the above, so the category should be removed. SlimVirgin 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Twenty hacks saying that the CIA killed JFK doesn't make those ideas anything but conspiracy theories. Likewise, twenty quacks pushing bad science doesn't magically turn acupuncture into anything beyond placebo, as documented in several peer-reviewed papers published in accredited sources. I'm not quite sure, but I don't think the ArbCom was elected to decree what is and isn't science - I'll have to double-check the election documentation. Regardless, by their statement Creationism wouldn't be considered pseudoscience, so it's obviously far too broad to be useable. Badger Drink (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Badger Drink: Then what does ArbCom's statement mean? The criteria we have used until now is that tiny, fringe topics that are obviously pseudoscience can be categorized as pseudoscience without a source. When is comes to larger, better-known ideas, we look for a source from a mainstream scientific body per WP:RS#Academic_consensus to see whether a topic is "generally considered pseudoscience" by the scientific community. No problem with creationism; plenty of scientific academies weighed in on that non-controversy. For homeopathy, a British source, I think the Royal Society, was reported by a mainstream news service to have called homeopathy either pseudoscience or something synonymous. That allowed us to use the pseudoscience category. For acupuncture, no one has found such a source yet, perhaps reflecting the fact that it's actively researched and taken seriously by a lot more of the scientific/medical community than homeopathy (or medical astrology, etc.). These criteria is solidly based on WP policy, reason and evidence, which is why it's been stable, and why I continue to suggest its use. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, you write, "there's a significant body of thought that supports its efficacy, e.g. ..." I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. I also believe that paying attention to that one study is OR in the health/bio-medical area because it's a primary source. As it happens, that study, and especially the mainstream news reporting, have serious methodological and logical problems. But I don't think I should go into it, because it's OR. As an admin, I'm glad you're here. You'll see that the article itself uses high quality secondary sources — academic journals publishing literature reviews and meta-studies — and these conclude that there is no efficacy. In honesty, I happen to believe that this is the scientific consensus. Dogweather (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Dogweather: Cochrane is high-quality, is included in the article and does find some evidence of efficacy for certain conditions. Same with an Ernst review cited in the lead at the moment. You're not saying we should just ignore that stuff, are you? I doubt that there is sci consensus that only the studies interpreted as showing no efficacy are the ones we should pay attention to. "Sham acupuncture as a control is not well settled because the sham may be too close to the verum, giving false negatives in studies. Also compare the state of placebo-controlled evidence for most surgical techniques: nonexistent, yet there is far less debate over efficacy. Granted, the mechanism for most surgeries is anatomical understandable, but the fact that we don't understand acu's mechanism is all the more reason to be skeptical of the notion that "sham" acu is truly inactive. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To be explicit, the money quote form the article is, "An analysis of 13 studies of pain treatment with acupuncture, published in January 2009 in the journal BMJ, concluded there was little difference in the effect of real, sham and no acupuncture." That really says it all. This is at the end of the Efficacy section. We should probably move it to the start of it, because it's high quality, secondary source, and a definitive statement about current research results. The rest of the section quotes many other high quality secondary sources which support the statement. Now, we can argue over whether or not this qualifies acupuncture to be labelled pseudoscience, but not to seriously discuss significant support for its efficacy. Dogweather (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Dogweather: A single study in an area with mixed results "says it all"? The lead section also says "Two Cochrane Reviews have found acupuncture to reduce the risk of post-operative nausea and provide better relief for chronic low back pain than no treatment or sham treatment. In 2007, Edzard Ernst reported that since 2000 the evidence base for acupuncture had improved, favouring acupuncture, for seven conditions, while for six other conditions the evidence base had moved in the opposite direction." Why do you ignore that and insist that another review "says it all"? I don't get it. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Middle 8; Thanks for the pointers---I read through the sources. I came away with a mixed impression: First, the bad news: I believe that our text misrepresents the conclusions of the P6 Cochrane article; They did not find that acupuncture was effective. They found no difference between invasive vs. noninvasive "stimulation". Notice that the entire article focuses on "P6 stimulation"; not "acupuncture". We need to modify the text. The second Cochrane article is pretty conservative in its findings as well; and although it uses the term, "acupuncture", it's not clear what they mean by that. But our article's text can probably stand. And the good news: The Ernst article looks like a decent secondary source which does ascribe some efficacy to acupuncture for certain conditions. So in summary, I think we can conclude that there are some small hints of possible efficacy. Dogweather (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Dogweather: Yes, the nausea/P6 stuff should be correctly described in the next. IIRC, the control there was stimulation (whether via massage or needling) of a different point than P6, I think on the shoulder. Which is still an interesting result, predicted by TCM but not biomedicine, AFAIK. Or I may be thinking of a different P6 study. Sorry, not much time right now; I trust you all to work it out and I'll stop by later. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a review of the 13 most rigorous studies. Anthony (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the best review so far, and deserves more prominence here. It is not an imprimatur for an anonymous Misplaced Pages article to declare the practice pseudoscience. Qi, meridians and the like are ~~4,000-~~ 3,000-year-old folk concepts, not the product of pseudoscience. They, as a construct, are biologically implausible. Science contradicts them. The notion that needling may relieve distressing homeostatic emotions, and that some spots might be more efficacious than others is entirely plausible. In fact, more likely than not. Investigation into that is ongoing. Anthony (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of TCM and acupuncture theory and practice was developed since the second world war. Verbal chat 12:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We can't be interpreting what reviews say - it says no difference between the versions, but it doesn't seem to say it's pseudoscience. It's part of the ongoing dialogue that needs to be summarized and attributed. But there are also Cochrane Reviews that find acupuncture is better than, at the least, no treatment. More studies, with better, high-quality controls, will help answer these questions but right now there is verifiable evidence that the best quality sources we have (Cochrane) have concluded there is use. Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. The scientific consensus is still that more research is needed - this is verifiable, and it's not until basically all organizations, and all studies, and all reviews in high-quality journals are stating it's nonsense that we can close the discussion down and state acupuncture is nonsense. Obviously not quite all, but still - we need near-universal condemntaion (and the Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, NEJM etc are publishing only negative findings) before we can say that the scientific consensus is acupuncture is nonsense. Acupuncture is not pseudoscience - not yet, perhaps not ever. We need to explore what can be verified about the state of acupuncture and pseudoscience. We don't need people claiming discussion is over.

SlimVirgin, thanks for your clarification. I would argue that the first point applies, but not the second. There is no "alternative theoretical formulation" (though perhaps a gradual evidence base is being assembled that "dry needling" - henceforth my term for acupuncture without qi or TCM - has a physiological basis) but there is a substantial following and critics are alleging pseudoscience. Our job is to now document those criticisms but I believe the use of Category:Pseudoscience is out. The infobox however, could still have use (in my opinion) for the TCM section. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Verbal: "Actually, most of TCM and acupuncture theory and practice was developed since the second world war." Were you thinking of this? Anthony (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Parsing

Parsing is what is important here. Acupuncture is an alternative health system that has many different aspects. There are a group of "medical acupuncturists" who have abandoned meridian and qi theorizing. Then there are those who have not.

What is clear is that meridians and qi as a physical ideation are considered pseudoscience by the vast majority of sources who deal with the subject. That's the sense in which we need to describe the pseudoscientific aspects. Sticking needles in various locations for palliative effects has been shown in some limited studies to be effective, though double-blind placebo-controlled studies are virtually impossible at this time and so there simply does not exist the impeccable studies required to evaluation.

This is the sense in which I argue that the infobox should be used. Not in any other sense. The pseudoscientific concepts here are the TCM theorizing. They are not based in anything but superstition and pre-scientific notions. Dry needling, sham acupuncture, etc. are proposals for dealing with the unknown question whether sticking needles in a person could have palliative effects. There's nothing pseudoscientific about that question.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem with describing what sources say. Go for it. But we need to get over this obsession with pseudoscience infoboxes and categories when we simply haven't met the criteria for them; I'd like to focus on just telling it like it is, with proper weight, and let readers surmise for themselves (per basic NPOV). (Of course, if we do have scientific bodies calling any aspect of TCM pseudoscience, then sure, categorize these per WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC -- and infobox if you must, but realise WP considers these even more POV-ish than categories {item #3}). With regard to meridians and points, these are aspects of TCM theory that scientists are clearly not ready to throw away; if TCM contains useful clinical pearls, then these should be studied. What in biology predicts that massaging or needling a point on one's wrist reduces nausea? If that's real, then it's pretty interesting -- which nerves (presumable it's nerves) mediate this effect? There are other "distal points" like this and imo this is where the most interesting research is to be done. Regarding meridians, this is the most plausible-looking thing I've seen, but I'm not an anatomist and can't say how plausible it actually is. Is there a doctor in the house? I haven't put it in the article yet because I can't remember if it's been cited adequately. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. These things are orders of magnitude more interesting then arguing over a label, aren't they? --Middle 8 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I really wish you would move away from your positing of dichotomies here. It's okay to dislike the infobox, but to declare unilaterally that it "categorizes" the entire article is really not listening to the points of others who are editing here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Can you be clearer about what you mean in yout first sentence? Do you mean that I seem to be saying that having any pseudoscience infobox unequivocally labels the entire topic of acupuncture as pseudoscience? I think it need not, if it is specifically identified with (e.g.) qi, and we put it in the "criticisms" section (which is already the case, reflecting the caveat about placement here). I've been thinking about some sort of compromise that is sound scientifically and sound in WP terms (WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC; full explanation here.) Perhaps we could agree to use a pseudoscience infobox on qi since it's a subset of vitalism. To my amazement, vitalism (unlike homeopathy or astrology) lacks what WP says is a proper source, i.e. a statement from a scientific body, to be "generally considered pseudoscience" and thus be so categorized. But common sense says that vitalism per se is completely deprecated today, so it seems to me to be gratuitous to remove vitalism from category:pseudoscience just because of the lack of source -- we can IAR in this case.

So, I suggest this compromise: even though lots of people use qi as a metaphor, and qi means many things (such as the nature of a specific thing), it still has heavy vitalistic connotations, so we use a pseudoscience infobox on qi (and category:pseudoscience as well). We would do that with the understanding that we are grandfathering qi in because (or to the significant extant that) it is a form of vitalism. We can also do the same with any articles specifically about qi, like qigong. The other part of the compromise? For this article, we remove category:pseudoscience (and refrain from any pseudoscience infoboxes not explicitly related to qi). That's because acupuncture is a complex topic, and if it works for some stuff, it doesn't seem right to call it pseudoscience -- not to mention, I don't want to IAR any further with the WP guidelines relating to categorization, WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC). Likewise, we would hold off from using any pseudoscience category or infobox on any other TCM topic, such as meridians and so on, because (a) their scientific basis isn't yet clear, and (b) again, enough IAR-ing with WP guidelines that are clear and have served us well, e.g. with homeopathy. Qi can be labeled unambiguously as pseudoscientific -- but with research going on actively with points, meridians, herbs and so on, it's premature to label any other TCM categories as pseudo.

Advantages of this compromise: It breaks a deadlock, forges some consensus among diverse parties, and would therefore make for a common-sense, durable solution. It lets us move on. And from an educational standpoint, it allows readers to learn about how complex topics like traditional medicine are mixed bags, with some aspects that are decidedly pseudoscientific and some that aren't. (For an amusing take on this topic, see the fable of The Physician and the Priest. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Even better than a pseudoscience infobox would be one for vitalism, with annotation that vitalism is considered pseudoscientific. Many CAM's involve vitalism, and an infobox for that could be very useful, both on this page and on qi and related topics. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) removed pseudoscience category -- it's been almost a week since above proposal so per WP:SILENCE I'm assuming no strong objections. That, or it takes a mainspace edit to get attention, cf. WP:BRD, in which case let's discuss. As I said, pseudoscience doesn't fit a topic as broad and widely-researched as acupuncture, but I have no desire at all to whitewash criticism of this topic or aspects of it, and I'm fine with labelling qi as vitalism and therefore pseudoscience. (Arguably much of TCM is more prescience than pseudo, but that's not as important as explaining issues to readers, which on-or-off labels, categories, etc. don't do well.) Again, a vitalism infobox listing qi, prana, orgone and so on could be very cool, and in fact I would not be surprised if it doesn't exist already. onward.... --Middle 8 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

In the first item listed in the "Further reading" section, please disambiguate Lulu to Lulu (company).--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as a self-published source that should simply be removed. There's a lot of sources linked as inline citations, there's no need to include a general book on hormone balancing when it's unlikely to be effective. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 10:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To do?

Version

Remove reference 29, spacing between period and 30/31, add TorT as a reference, expand with information from #Pseudoscience.
Remove An example of acupuncture treatment per WP:SYNTH, UNDUE, and overall just unnecessary.

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by WLU (talk • contribs) 18:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Note: There is no consensus on the above, so I'm changing the header to "To do?" to reflect that.) I see no reason to do either, and good reasons not to. Reference 29 in version above, here, is a V RS and good intro for the layperson. It's also, along with at least one other book I can dig up, a good reference for "An example of acupuncture treatment". The description is accurate and citeable, so not WP:SYNTH. It's a description of the clinical side of the topic area from a patient's perspective, so hardly WP:UNDUE; a good encyclopedia will give the reader get an idea of what a treatment is like. Whether it's "just unnecessary" is subjective. But I think that in general, I agree with WP:UNDUE that saying what a topic is is best done in the article on that topic (irrespective of the majority or minority status of the topic). Acupuncture isn't just a list of Cochrane reviews; it's a clinical, anthropological phenomenon involving patient care. Therefore, saying what a treatment is like is encyclopedic, as is describing delivery of care in any medical article. (The last time I checked, homeopathy was way more fringe than acupuncture, but the article still covers what a treatment is.) --Middle 8 (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Error in link

I am not sure how to fix the problem, but in the section '5.4 Statements by medical organizations' there is a formatting error.

The revision happened on 18th July 18:33 by Anthonyhcole, line 579. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmonybunny114 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure exactly what happened, but yesterday I did a cut and paste from an earlier version that didn't appear to change the content. That seemed easiest. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus re AAMA list

Re this edit, with ES "Laundry list deleted for a reason and with consensus. Take it to talk." -- Could the reverting editor or anyone else point me toward the thread(s) where consensus emerged? I searched talk archives with no luck. I managed to find the edit itself, here, from QuackGuru on 7 June 2010 (a bit sloppy, leaving in reference to a "list below" while deleting the list). He left no comment on talk, as far as I can tell. Seubsequently, one editor, WLU, expressed agreement with QuackGuru's edit (scroll to end of his comment). I wouldn't call that consensus.

It always seemed to me that a fair article on acupuncture would include what its Western proponents say it's good for, even if said proponents' claims are premature or wrong: see WP:WEIGHT, second paragraph. It's still possible that I'm wrong and the list doesn't belong in the article -- feel free to explain it to me. Thanks! --Middle 8 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's call that three editors including myself. The reason a laundry list doesn't seem appropriate to me is because the listing of each of these conditions doesn't seem to address which ones have more evidence and which ones have less. And there exist plenty of reliable sources (Ernst being the most obvious) who would dispute a great many of the conditions in the list as having any evidence whatsoever. We deal already with the specific conditions which are most often discussed in regards to acupuncture. Listing all the others is misleading since there really is a wide range of levels of evidence for various conditions. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't advocate use of the AAMA's list (or any like it) to assert what acupuncture is effective for. I just want the article to say more about what it's been used for historically, including in modern times. What we need is to do that in a way that doesn't suggest proven efficacy. I think we can manage that. Per WP:WEIGHT: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." --Middle 8 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're not advocating for the list to be included, why are we talking? Best would probably be to note that it has been suggested for many conditions, but the evidence base is weak for all but pain and nausea. Listing every single condition someone suggests acupuncture is good for would seem like a weight issue - we're better off sticking with Cochrane reviews and similar rather than a partisan list. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify again, maybe the AAMA list isn't the best way to go, but the article as it stands lacks mention of what acupuncture has been used for from ancient through modern times. That's a different issue from research and debate about efficacy. It's a historical and sociological issue. For example, acupuncture reached its apex of popularity in China around the 16th century, and we should note the relevant works from that period (I have them). Now, as part of modern TCM, it's used in China mostly per (e.g.) the WHO list, and is actually less important to TCM than herbs. We need to work that in too. It's not the same as efficacy. I hope that's clearer. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, I don't think it's worth noting what it was used for, I think it's worth noting that it was used as a medical intervention for nearly everything, but then go with the best evidence. I don't think we'd add, in the article on bloodletting, a list of every condition bloodletting was used for (because, like acupuncture, that'd be a link to every symptom and disorder on wikipedia). WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... the history of acupuncture in China isn't at all like the history of bloodletting in European "heroic medicine", but that will be clear enough from the sources, which you can evaluate when I post them. Cheers - Middle 8 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

On a purely practical basis, acupuncture has been hypothesized to be a form of bloodletting in its most ancient form. The comparison to bloodletting is because both are prescientific. Modern bloodletting has a specific, limited purpose, and in that page I wouldn't list all conditions it was proposed for - I would simply state it was a former technique predating modern medicine. Acupuncture, being considered a form of medicine now, I would crank up to eleven for any "quality of evidence" claims since it's got a huge reputation with minimal results (mostly placebo effect, possibly some analgesia and antinausea when the best studies are taken into account). WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Points for face-saving effort (yes, originally acu may have been at least partly bloodletting, but lots happened since then, and it's way more complicated than bloodletting), but we both know your knowledge of TCM goes about as far as the last Ernst criticism you read. Sorry. -- Middle 8 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixing attribution of WHO report

It's always worrysome when Misplaced Pages is the only source that Google shows for a particular fact. It strongly suggests that there has been original research, or just plain old making stuff up or other ways of getting facts wrong. That's what has happened with the attribution of the WHO report on acupuncture. In this version of the article, we read:

"In 2003 the World Health Organization's Department of Essential Drugs and Medicine Policy produced a report that contained, based on research results available in early 1999, a list of diseases, symptoms or conditions for which the author, Zhu-Fan Xie, believed acupuncture had been demonstrated as an effective treatment...."

and in that same version, the WHO report is attributed to:

" Zhu-Fan, X (2003). "Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials". in Zhang X. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4926e/#Js4926e.5."

Dr. Zhu-Fan Xie (note that Xie is the actual surname, not Zhu-Fan) is an individual thanked in the WHo report's acknowledgements. What is the specific wording used?

"The World Health Organization acknowledges its indebtedness to the experts who participated in the WHO Consultation on Acupuncture held in Cervia, Italy in 1996, at which the selection criteria for the data included in this publication were set."

Note "who" is doing the acknowledging (hint: it's generally the author). Continuing:

"Special thanks are due to Dr Zhu-Fan Xie, Honorary Director of the Institute of Integrated Medicines, First Hospital of Beijing Medical University, China, who drafted, revised and updated this report."

Dr. Xie's work is a significant contribution, but the fact is, and always will be, that the proper attribution for the report is the World Health Organization itself. There are plenty of other sources that (like the Acupuncture report) are not only published by the WHO, but also attributed to the WHO: see a large list by category here. From that page, clicking on the link "Medicine -- General" takes us to a page devoted to aforementioned WHO report. On that page, we can see the WHO listed both in authorship and publication fields. The same is the case in the National Library of Australia, as well as Amazon (can't link to it, but click through from here, lower left-hand side), and every other reliable bibliographic source I've seen.

This is a slam-dunk. It's obvious that the proper attribution for the report is simply the WHO. That's why some scientists got so worked up about it: if it had just been some dude from China as the author, who would have cared?

Enough wikiality with this. Yes, the WHO published a flawed report, and it was self-attributed, i.e. "by the WHO". So what? We have more than enough sources in the article explaining why the report was flawed. There's no need to deprecate the report further by pretending that it shouldn't be attributed to the WHO. It is what it is. There are no bibliographic sources in Google (other than Misplaced Pages) attributing the work to Dr. Xie. The WHO wrote it. That's the reality-based conclusion. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would your opinion now suddenly overturn the discussion held previously at Talk:Acupuncture/Archive_4#Who_Wrote_That.3F_.28or.2C_Proper_Attribution_of_WHO_Review.29? The WHO didn't, and can't author a work - it publishes it. The WHO is an organization - it's like having a building author a paper, and it's the rare building that can type. The attribution goes to Xie, editor is Zhang, publisher is WHO. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 04:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Because what I wrote makes sense, and you're not addressing it? All that went on in the previous section you cite is a bunch of people who hate the WHO paper and want it to go away chattering "I don't believe it" and "3:1 = consensus, ha ha dood"! God, WP is pathetic. And so is this bullshit trend where people who don't know jack-squat about articles edit. Hey, mark it up all you want....there's a reason WP self-selects for people who are less than great writers. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Acupuncture points and meridians

I don't see how PMID 18803495 (Napadow et al 2008) can be used to justify a massive wall of text. The entire article consists of "yeah, there's nothing consistent, there's nothing solid, there's nothing but hypotheses". At best, the most relevant, highest-quality evidence should be used - that'd be the nuclear imaging, trigger points, and electrical impedance. I would consider the intramuscular/intermuscular/connective tissue point, but that is based on a series of studies by a single researcher nearly 10 years ago, and even that concludes with "The biomechanical implications of this association are evolving, although the physiologic and clinical significance are yet unclear". Plus, nearly everywhere you can stick a needle is either in, or between muscles - I'm not really impressed by that "finding". There is essentially nothing associated with acupuncture points, it's all calls for more research. Does anyone else think it is appropriate to include heavy, heavy detail (essentially a copy-paste-reword of most of page two of Napadow) on a series of ideas all of which end with "but we're not really sure"? That looks like undue weight to me, akin to speculating on how cold fusion could happen, if we just got it right. I really don't think the article is adequate to justify the lead mentioning specifics as if they were promising - at best they are preliminary as in not yet adequately investigated. And on a research note, given how many systems of acupuncture there are, it's nearly meaningless to try to find any association because any point you jab into will be close enough to either a Chinese, Korean or Japanese acupuncture point. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 03:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"The entire article consists of "yeah, there's nothing consistent, there's nothing solid, there's nothing but hypotheses". -- no, that's what acupuncture consists of after you get done editing it, and why I reverted. Step back for a second -- what you're doing is making for a really boring article that sucks any nuance out of research (let alone TCM). --Middle 8 (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the "weight" ratio of NIH to Quackwatch?

This is classic undue weight, from this version of the article. I've bolded the text given to the views of the one critical Quackwatch guy, and left un-bolded the text allotted to the views of the NIH consensus panel:

Also in 1997, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a consensus statement on acupuncture that concluded that despite research on acupuncture being difficult to conduct, there was sufficient evidence to encourage further study and expand its use. The consensus statement and conference that produced it were criticized by Wallace Sampson, writing for an affiliated publication of Quackwatch who stated the meeting was chaired by a strong proponent of acupuncture and failed to include speakers who had obtained negative results on studies of acupuncture. Sampson also stated he believed the report showed evidence of pseudoscientific reasoning.' In 2006 the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine stated that it continued to abide by the recommendations of the NIH consensus statement, even if research is still unable to explain its mechanism.

The graphic effect above speaks for itself. How much weight does a single scientist writing for the self-published, non-peer-reviewed organization have compared to the NIH's consensus panel? Here's how the panel worked, btw:

A non-Federal, nonadvocate, 12-member panel representing the fields of acupuncture, pain, psychology, psychiatry, physical medicine and rehabilitation, drug abuse, family practice, internal medicine, health policy, epidemiology, statistics, physiology, biophysics, and the public. In addition, 25 experts from these same fields presented data to the panel and a conference audience of 1,200.

Yeah -- as if Sampson is anywhere near a couple orders of magnitude of that. Articles like this are what happens when editors at the most skeptical end of the range of mainstream views of a topic (and who know very little about that topic) make edits without a broader spectrum of editors to balance them out. Not complaining -- laughing really. But the article does need more editorial eyes.

Seriously, Quackwatch is fine for balancing out tiny fringe views of proponents of various things, but in this context I question whether it's an RS at all. Why would it be? Sampson's views belong on his own page (if anywhere), but not here, where they are ridiculously undue weight. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories: