Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 4

Adding OARSI recommendation statement to acupuncture/osteoarthritis effectiveness area
Okay, I added the OARSI statement, which is one of the "expert consensus recommendation" statements that was released in 2008 by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, and it was of course reverted immediately by Verbal lol. "please discuss on talk". Alright. WLU summarized the OARSI statement in this way on the OA main page, so I assumed there was no problem since he was the other editor that was editing this area on OA. Any objections to including a consensus statement on acupuncture effectiveness with regards to OA?99.255.196.199 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link by the way: 99.255.196.199 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that there is actually pretty solid consensus that acupuncture is effective for osteoarthritis pain, see this diff (the intermediate revision is my own, summarizing a set of reviews and recommendations). I'd like to see the Selfe 2007 paper rather than an abstract, and generally I'd say it's more like "acupuncture is about equal to sham acupuncture in helping with short-pain", but there is a lot of reviews that interact in complicated ways and all say "not great but some evidence, need more research".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Self paper does not conclude that it's equal to sham acupuncture- it says it's an effective treatment for OA. The rheumatology paper says "Acupuncture that meets criteria for adequate treatment is significantly superior to sham acupuncture..." Significant superior- not equal. The hebrew paper (with an english abstract) also concluded similar results, but you removed that one. None of these papers I mention suggest that acupuncture is about equal to sham acupuncture in helping with short-term pain. A few other reviews do conclude that, but I definitely would not say "generally acupuncture is equal to sham acupuncture". That would be dishonest.
 * So back to the OARSI consensus statement: Is there any objection to it?142.150.212.53 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you the same account as the previous anon? If so, can you just sign up for an account so I don't have to figure out what I've already discussed on a different page?  Also, that'll let you e-mail me the paper so I can review it myself rather than working with just the abstract.  There's a lot, a lot of information about osteoarthritis; my summary was for papers overall rather than just one, but it's not going to be easy to summarize it all here, particularly when many sources are lacking full text links and there are this many reviews.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll sign up later. I posted the article link in pdf format above. There's a lot of information about OA in the pdf, but one just needs to go to the section on the consensus recommendation statements to see what the consensus recommendation statement about acupuncture is. We can quote it directly like how the NIH/AMA statement is quoted on this page, although we don't need a new section for it. I'm not asking to summarize all the reviews because my change that was reverted just added in the OARSI consensus recommendation statement. I want it as a separate statement from any summary of the reviews. I'm not sure what the confusion is here, or what the problem is that warranted the change being reverted by Verbal. The OARSI statement is important and reliable enough to be quoted on its own instead of being hidden in a summarization of a pile of reviews.99.229.146.30 (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again just in case the question was missed: What is the objection to adding the OARSI recommendation statement? What warranted removing sourced information? Particularly I am directing this question at you, Verbal, since you reverted it and asked me to take it to the discussion page.99.229.146.30 (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Signing up takes very little time. If you intend to do so, please do so now as a courtesy to other editors.  It gives assurance that you're not a sockpuppet and makes it far easier to communicate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Getting back to content instead of contributors, I see no reason not to add OARSI. We'll have to consider how to word it, since the source given is not unequivocal, but it's certainly an adequate MEDRS. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * IP guy registered here. We can word it by directly quoting the recommendation statement I suppose.JohnCBE (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. Definitely good to stick close to sources.  This edit was fine, or something along those general lines sounds fine to me.  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for registering, it will make discussions easier. I've adjusted the wording but agree that the OARSI should stay.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. Re-added the word "expert" since the OARSI report did state that they were expert consensus recommendations. There's no reason to say otherwise.JohnCBE (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need to include it either; we aren't in the habit of citing "amateur" articles. Why should this one stand out?  Should we use "expert researchers" when we cite Cochrane collaborations?  Or "expert doctor of complimentary and alternative medicine" when discussing Dr. Ernst?  Why is this citation any more, or the others any less "expert"?  They aren't.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's what they are called in the literature, you certainly may call them that. The OARSI report does call then expert consensus recommendations. It simply clarifies the information for the readers, so it does have a reason. Who made that consensus? The public? Acupuncturists? No, they were experts from conventional fields. It's important that we clarify that they were experts and not lay people. Adding one word should not be grounds for calling something unnecessary. Inadequate descriptions in other sections also shouldn't justify removing information.JohnCBE (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Expert is in the title. It doesn't "clarify", it muddies things by making it look like it is more trustworthy or "expert" than other sources. The source is the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, and it's in a peer-reviewed journal. I think our readers will realize that it's expert without having to bludgeon them with it. It very much looks to me that you're trying to make it look more "expert" because it positively recommends acupuncture. This is unnecessary and NPOV. Honestly, do you think a pubmed-indexed international journal uses laypeople? If we took this approach, well, shouldn't we point out that the Cochrane collaboration is "the most expert and reliable source available"? Because they are. I think the inclusion, for any source, is totally unnecessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh so now, it's not only unnecessary but also not NPOV? Okay, A) Um, not everyone checks the footnotes, reads through the source, or knows that it's a peer-reviewed journal. This is why we have Wikipedia. Adding expert clarifies it in 1 word. Who's consensus is it? Is this a policy of the OARSI or did they survey the public or something as part of their research? It clarifies. B) It's not adding something that wasn't stated in the report. The report itself called it expert consensus recommendations, removing one word to describe the statement is misleading and is actually POV. C) As I said, you can call Cochrane's or other researchers whatever you want as long as it's in a reputable source. Do I think a pubmed-indexed international journal uses laypeople? No, because I read the report. I know where it came from. Do readers who just read the EBM section and not the footnotes know? NO. Your comment on calling the Cochrane colaboration IS POV because you called it the "most" expert and reliable source. That is quite debatable. The fact that the OARSI consensus was made by EXPERTS is not, and it does not make it MORE expert than other sources. You're just being extremely paranoid and I would appreciate if you stopped shouting POV everytime I quoted something from an article or tried to add publication dates.JohnCBE (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions - is there any indication that the other sources are not experts? Are the consensus statements from the NIH, WHO, the NCCAM, the AMA made by amateurs?  Are the twenty-five Cochrane reviews written by laypeople?  Is there any reason to portray the ORSI as more expert than everyone else?  Do you have any reason to believe that the NIH, WHO, NCCAM, AMA or Cochrane reviews are the result of public surveys?  If I found an article called "The definitive statement on acupuncture for all time", would you describe the results as "definitive for all time"?  When you see the word "expert" in one sentence, and one sentence only in a page, does that word stand out more?  It is because "expert" makes the sentence jump out so much more that I call it POV.  Even now allowing the sentence to stand on its own after the previous sentence and references makes it quite weighty.  It's unnecessary to add "expert" as well when there is no reason to do so.
 * Also note that the Cochrane reviews are specifically pointed out in MEDRS as high-quality sources. They're virtually the best source we have for anything.  It's not POV, it's because the systematic methodology, aggregation of sources, rating of the quality of trials and use of the best international experts are all driven to produce systematic reviews of the highest quality for the purposes of evidence-based decision making.  That's why we place so much emphasis on a Cochrane review.
 * But by now I think we're both at two reverts, so I'm going to leave it be and let others give an opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, ignoring the strawman barrage, I'll address your argument. First, it is absolutely not weighty to allow the sentence to stand on its own. A consensus statement made by a large group of experts from a variety of countries in an organization that specifically researches OA issues deserves its own sentence. Second, there IS a description about how the other consensus statements came to be, as well as info on Cochrane. NIH: "The statement was not a policy statement of the NIH but is the considered assessment of a panel convened by the NIH.", along with a link for the NIH. WHO: It's noted the WHO statement was released in a report published by the WHO, how they came to make their statement, the purpose of the report (including methods of research) along with a clickable link for information the WHO. The AMA section notes that the statement was adopted as policy of the AMA and details what the AMA is, along with a clickable link, and that they used reviews as a basis for their information.. well that is until you deleted everything. In the EBM section, it states "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. Organizations such as the Cochrane Collaboration and Bandolier publish such reviews." along with a clickable link to detail what Cochrane is. In these instances, the reader can see what the particular organization is, specifics on how the statement/info (review, panel consensus, etc) was released, and the credibility of the organizations. There is currently zero detail on the OARSI, they are not a publically well-known organization in the first place, and there's no explanation on how the consensus came about. Judging from their name, I would honestly not know who was making the consensus or how they came to make it. A publically lesser known organization could indeed be thought to include research on public opinion or the opinion of acupuncturists. I looked through the report, and it consistently describes the participants on the committee as experts. Again, I am not saying that they are more expert or the most expert as you seem to be implying with your "definitive for all time" example. I am simply describing the statement as it was meant to be described straight from the report- no POV there. You can describe the importance of the other organizations however you wish as long as it is sourced properly. I also do not believe including the word "expert" diminishes the importance of the other organizations that are much more well-known to the public and are adequately described (including method description).JohnCBE (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only OK to qualify statements (or remove sources) when they are pro-acupuncture, don't you see, John? (/snark) --Middle 8 (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a strawman barrage, my questions are to highlight the implications of only having "expert" used in one place and to point out that your analysis of how and why we use sources is problematic in my mind. For one thing, if a source is reliable, we aren't allowed to qualify or discount it if we disagree with its contents or conclusions.  Placing "expert" only on one source does just that - it is a positive qualification that suggests the other sources are not experts, or not as expert.  Peer-reviewed journals are also "expert" documents, and add an extra level of vetting and criticism from international scholars (most journals do not maintain a policy of "we only accept peer reviews from nationals").  The information about how other statements came to be should also be referenced and appropriate but more importantly, they aren't accompanied by loaded adjectives that give these statements more weight.  Cochrane, Bandolier, the WHO, NIH and AMA, all these entities are notable enough to have their own pages; at no point did I argue that because of this they should have "expert" or "most respected" appended to any of their statements (even though for Cochrane at least this could certainly be true).  That the ORSI is not notable enough for a wikipedia page does not detract from the weight of it's opinion and I'd be happy to link to the wikipedia page if it existed.  The reliability of the source comes from it's publication in a peer-reviewed journal.  If it were sitting on a website, I would argue vehemently that it not be included unless it could be demonstrated that it was a respected expert body, and even then I would use references to support this, not the lone word "expert" in the middle of a sentence.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not qualifying or discounting its contents or conclusions. The reason for calling it "expert consensus recommendations" is simply because that's how they were described in the report. They are consensus recommendations made by a variety of experts. That's nothing POV. Again, you are ignoring the fact that the other sources & their general methods have adequate descriptions. You'd love to link to the OARSI, wikipage, but there isn't one, so wouldn't a good compromise be to explain how the OARSI consensus came about. I would love to give a brief description (2 sentences) of how they came to their consensus and who was involved, but you seem to think that having one sentence representing the consensus statement being weighty already. Again, we should not expect readers to go through footnotes, so please stop bringing up that it's published in a good journal. As of now, if one were to read the page (and not through the original source or footnotes), it's not clear what kind of consensus it is. Last, I still fail to see how placing the word expert to describe the consensus recommendations implies that other well-known organizations like AMA, NIH, and WHO are not run or are any less expert. Maybe that's just me.JohnCBE (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. That brought a smile to my face Middle 8.JohnCBE (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would we explain how these results came about when we don't do this for any others? We wikilink to pages on metaanalyses, systematic reviews, consensus statements and the like, but we don't explain why the Cochrane review is so highly regarded.  We accept that it is a high quality, MEDRS and cite it.  That's dangerously close to "I'll just explain the methodology used, and then I'll explain the flaws it contains" - WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and totally unnecessary.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I already gave examples of how we do adequately describe each of the statements origins (NIH, WHO, AMA +Cochrane Reviews). We do not do this for the OARSI statement. I am not asking to explain the methodology in detail or explain the flaws. I am asking to note that the consensus was from various experts from around the world as clarification, and because that's how the consensus recommendation was repeatedly described as in the report. I do not believe in removing bits of information from a whole, especially for a page like this.JohnCBE (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Undent. If it's good enough to be included in the page, there is no need for qualification. I've moved the link for consensus (medical) to be adjacent to the ORSI note as that's the first instance in the page. There is now a link to describe their methodology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

IP sock of User:CorticoSpinal
An editor has expressed concern that these IP addresses


 * 99.229.146.30


 * 99.255.196.199

have been used by User:CorticoSpinal. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As mentioned on RS, where you also posted this, my ISP uses dynamic IPs so it's very likely I have an IP that was previously used by someone else. I am not him though. I am also skeptical that I share 2 IP addresses that have been used by him. Is there an IP log on Cortico to prove he had those IPs, because I don't think it's likely that I would share 2 ip addresses with him... unless Rogers assigns IPs in the same pattern over and over, which would be extremely weird.99.229.146.30 (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you aren't a sock puppet, you don't have anything to worry about. If you are, you will almost certainly have your IP address blocked and your edits expunged.  In which case you shouldn't have broken the rules.  The fine editors of SSI will hopefully sort this out.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Article length and adding two books to "further reading"
Several edits ago, I restored a couple of standard English-language teaching and reference texts to the article, which increased the article size from 101,149 bytes to 101,405 bytes, a whopping increase of 256 btyes or 0.25%. These had been inadvertently deleted by another editor who trimmed that section with an edit summary stating "trimming to books only". A third editor reverted my edit, saying in the ES "As this article is too long, please justify these additions on talk".

I've restored them, because (a) they were mistakenly deleted per the original ES , (b) the increase in article size was trivial, and (c) a quick google shows they are excellent sources (they're recommend reading for the NCCAOM exam, i.e the national board-certification exam for acupuncturists ). The best way to reduce article length in this case is to spin something off, or not worry about it at all since 100k isn't that long for a complex topic and there are longer articles on WP. WP:SIZE says as much, and is a guideline to be treated with common sense and the occasional exception (e.g., overviews of complex topics, like this one).

I now see that five minutes after my most recent edit, User:Verbal was so quick to revert that I wasn't able to get this comment finished. I don't think that's very good wikiquette. I said "see talk", and it would have been good faith to wait a few minutes for the talk post to go up. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched the talk page before I reverted. What you should have done is post here first. I think the section could do with further trimming. We have plenty of references already, why include extra references that aren't used? Verbal chat  09:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about adding large blocks of text, just two sources, which are demonstrably good ones, and which increase article length only by a trivial amount. "Further reading" is just what it says, and including a couple of teaching/reference texts of that stature can only be a good thing:  perhaps they'll eventually be worked into the text, but the main value of Maciocia is lucid, non-Chinglish writing, and the main value of Deadman et. al. is the outstanding diagrams and detailed description of points.  Reduce in size?  The section is only five books long as it is.  --Middle 8 (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Acupuncture has lots of mainstream sources about it. We should choose the best and most comprehensive.  Further reading sections are magnets for spam and drek, much like the EL section.  Per the guide to layout, this section should also include publications that don't already appear as a reference.  Cheng, 1987 already does.  Kaptchuk, 1983 does as well.  Maciocia, 1989 doesn't, nor does Deadman 1998 or Jin, Jin & Jin, 2006.  The former two are rather old, and I don't recognize the publisher.  I'd rather trim to just Jin**3 and if another solid and more recent reference or two can be found or proposed, good.  The length doesn't bother me but the repetition and age do.  Is anyone aware of a good historical overview and/or medical book that has a good publisher, and ideally good reviews in medical press and a google books link?  Has anyone read any such books recently?
 * Incidentally, my initial removal wasn't a mistake - my error was not removing Cheng and Kaptchuk (edit summaries are useful but mine tend to lack a full list of edits). They're old and already used.  Unless they're "classic texts" (akin to using On the Origin of Species on the evolution page) I think they should be removed.  At minimum, Cheng and Kaptchuk should be removed and ideally Maciocia and Deadman et al should be replaced with a more recent and comprehensive source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated the section to remove Cheng and Kaptchuk. Jin, Manciocia and Deadman I've kept - Manciocia is published by Churchill Livingston, apparently now an imprint of Elsevier and reliable enough for me.  Deadman, according to google books, was updated in 2007 and accordingly a more reasonable inclusion.  I'd still rather replace Manciocia with something newer (and I'm not sure if all three are somewhat redundant) but I'm OK with the list now, per WP:FURTHER.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks, WLU -- you anticipated some of my responses. Yes, anything used as a source need not be in "Further reading".  Whatever happens over the next 5, 10, 20 years with research into efficacy and point specificity, this article will always include sources giving the straight TCM view, and by definition most of the "traditional" teachings don't change, so dates aren't as big a deal.  Maciocia is one of the best English-language sources for TCM-acupuncture theory, and Deadman is the best graphical manual of points; Maciocia has a go at some points but they don't really overlap much.  I've read both, but just the first editions -- but since they're just used under "Further reading" and not as a reference for a specific statement, it's good to go ahead and include the most recent versions.  (I haven't read Jin x 3; it might be great, or it might be just another attempt to put old wine in new bottles.)  Thanks for updating Maciocia and Deadman and doing the tedious work of template-izing.


 * I don't mind policing "Further reading" and "See also" sections for spam, though we could ditch the "Further" section entirely and just include the NCCAOM's recommended reading list under "See also" -- but personally I think it's more encyclopedic to have a small but really good "Further" list.


 * Regarding references:
 * Eastland Press is a high-quality publisher of TCM-related books, and several of their texts are recommended by the NCCAOM and are standard teaching texts (and are co-authored by Dan Bensky, a remarkable guy who went to TCM school alongside Ted Kaptchuk in Macau and went on to get an American D.O. degree).
 * The Acupuncture section is largely sourced to Cheng Xinnong, 1987; I can add inline cites w/ page numbers one of these days. I can't find my copy of Kaptchuk's "Web" (first edition), so I'll be of no help improving that ref until I can find a copy.  regards, Middle 8 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is noting publication dates of reviews used by the American Medical Association consensus allowed?
Is noting the publication dates of reviews used by the American Medical Association to make their consensus statement allowed?JohnCBE (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the issue:

In the subtopic "American Medical Association statement" section, it states: "Specifically regarding acupuncture, the AMA cited reviews that stated there was not enough evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease, and called for further research". I wanted to add in publication years by changing it to "Specifically regarding acupuncture, the AMA cited reviews conducted in 1992 and 1993 that stated there was not enough evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease, and called for further research". This has been reverted and re-added (by different) users several times now. I originally added the publication dates. It was reverted by Shoemaker's Holiday along with several other edits of mine. After discussion, I re-added it, as did Middle 8 and finally Shoemaker's Holiday. WLU reverted each of our re-additions.

Since our debate in the discussion topics "recent edits" is very long, I'll present my arguments and the counter-arguments (as well as my response) from WLU who does not want this change. WLU if you feel I have misrepresented your argument or have something new to add, please provide input:

My original argument:

O: Although it states that the AMA recommendation statement itself was released in 1997, it is reasonable to assume readers may be misled into thinking that the cited reviews mentioned in the separate statement are recent, and thus are the reason why the AMA has not released a new recommendation statement since 1997. The AMA in fact has not indicated any of this. The critical reviews mentioned on this page were cited in the report in the statement specifically pertaining to acupuncture effectiveness. Looking through the footnotes of the report, one can see that the critical reviews were published in 1992 and 1993 (see footnote 4 and 19 in the report).

Counter-Arguments from WLU:

I have attempted to group them appropriately.

C1: "The AMA statement is already clearly labelled as occurring in 1997." "It's unnecessary and a not-too-subtle form of criticism." "Regards publication dates mentioned in the text, we don't also include the publication dates of the studies the meta-analyses and reviews reviewed."

C2: "I stand by my earlier statement that the AMA has verifiably made a statement, it's up to other editors to indicate that they have since changed their minds." ""The AMA has neither updated, nor removed their statement, suggesting it's still their opinion (and really, since 1997 there has been no unequivocal evidence to suggest it's inaccurate)."

My responses:

R1: First, my original argument is basically my response to the necessity counter-argument. In addition, we are only adding a few words. Second, I do not think adding publication dates of reviews is criticism. It is done all over Wikipedia and this page itself. I am only interested in adding publication dates, something factual- not subjective criticism. He responded by saying that they don't mention publication dates of studies used in reviews. My response is that context matters in this case, as it's not clear whether the cited reviews mentioned are recent when the AMA statement itself was released a while ago (see original argument). The other reviews on this page are recent and follow strict guidelines on which studies to use that are available at the time they are conducted- old or new. The main difference here is that the AMA statement was released a long time ago. Thus, it is not known whether the reviews they used are old or new (if they used newer reviews and decided not to release a new statement) unless it is clarified by noting the publication dates of the reviews.

R2: My response is that this isn't relevant. We are not saying that the AMA has changed its mind, nor are we trying to prove they have done so. That's why the AMA statement remains in the first place. We are arguing that publication dates of the reviews they used should be noted. That has nothing to do with whether the AMA has changed their minds.

Hope that helps. Others, please feel free to jump in!JohnCBE (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A quicker way of resolving this may be the WP:NPOVN. My thought is essentially that with the 1997 date of initial publication clear in the first words of the sentence, there's no need for further dating of their evidence.  Trying to read in to what the reader might be "misled" to think is both unnecessary and pretty close to an editorial judgment that the evidence is too old and the reader must be informed of this, an NPOV concern.  Also, debating whether a 1992 or 1993 review is "recent enough" on a 12 year old publication seems rather absurd.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess this is R3: I'm not making an editorial judgment that the evidence is too old or debating whether a 1992 or 1993 review is recent enough. That's for the reader to decide. I am asking for the addition of publication dates to reviews.JohnCBE (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - At this point I tend to agree with WLU that since we don't list dates of secondary sources used by Cochrane reviews and the like, we shouldn't do so here, just for consistency. revise - I've wavered on this, and could go either way -- I'm now leaning toward including the dates of the "reviews" (neither appears to be peer-reviewed) because sources should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and while we don't cite the dates of everything a systematic review covers, this case is not exactly analogous because it's an out-of-date position statement that relies on weak material to begin with. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: For clarity, include both the publication date and the dates of the reviews cited in the publication. Where there's a substantial difference, it's reasonable to include the latter as well as the former. Rd232 talk 15:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reorganize evidence-based medicine section
The EBM section is a mess, hard and long to read. What about turning it into a table? Here is what I see it looking like for low back pain. Where the evidence isn't clear, I would suggest the middle column either say "mixed", or possibly a more detailed summary. I've used rowspan to separate different ideas, I could do the same thing to ensure each idea has the specific reference attached to it. For all the Cochrane reviews, I would say "The amount and quality of the research is insufficient to draw a conclusion; further research is recommended. Other options is including the year in the final column and retitling it "year of review" or something similar.  Right now it's the big set of Cochrane reviews and a whole bunch of text, hopefully this will make things neater and easier to read.  Thoughts?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That kicks ass. Let's do it. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re wording, I think you have the right idea in sticking close to sources, e.g when Cochrane says something nuanced like "insufficient evidence for or against", etc. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tables are extremely tedious to work with and I don't plan on making time for this over the next day or so. If anyone wants to work on it on the talk page, feel free - use Help:Table for hints but basically you always start the first column with a pipe, followed by a rowspan = the number of rows that will refer to that condition (I would expect one per "idea" expressed) then another pipe, then the condition.  Next a line break and another pipe, and the summary of the evidence.  Next another line break, another pipe, another rowspan (should be the same as the first rowspan), another pipe, then the reference.  Separate each subsequent "condition-idea" with a pipe and dash |-, linebreak, pipe and idea.  The number of ideas should match the number of rowspans.  Basically:

| rowspan = numberofevidencerows | Condition | discussion of evidence | rowspan = numberofevidencerows | citation |- | discussion of evidence |- | Condition 2 (example for only one citation and discussion) | discussion of evidence |-


 * Etc. It's the cutting, pasting and wording that's difficult, I can easily fix the formatting.  Just remember that there has to be three columns per row, but rowspan fills in each column by erasing a border between cells.  Easy-peasy.
 * Other options could include having the year as separate to allow sorting by source date or not bothering with the author and just having a footnote. I think the latter's ugly, but so's what is up there now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining, much appreciated. I get it; it's just tedious, as you say, and I find it much easier to do when I put returns in the raw text before each field demarcator.  I wouldn't expect any one editor to have to do all that. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good article in a month or so?
Moving some comments from above: lately we've had a nice influx of editorial skill and enthusiasm, and with a little bit of cooperation and AGF-ing, we just might be able to get this to good article status fairly soon, with featured not too far off. My motivation for this had waned, but I think we've now got a good group and can make it happen, if we want, and that would be a lot more rewarding than turning this into a battleground -- which I think the large majority of editors here are smart enough not to want to do. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah it only appears so from the outside. I don't think the article has gotten any better in the past while. Some useful information has been added, but a lot has also been removed or misparaphrased to oblivion. Now we have ToRT in several sections of the article criticizing anything pro-acupuncture- a book that doesn't contain footnotes (which was a reason cited for rejecting the use of Natural Standard), a book that I've read and noted that it selects the studies it talks about to prove its point. I've seen editors paraphrase 4 positive results from studies as "acupuncture being no better than sham acupuncture". I've seen editors slyly misparaphrase study results after deleting my direct quotations from the conclusions, calling direct quotations misleading. I've seen editors arguing against setting a standalone statement for a consensus statement just because it gives some credibility to acupuncture. I've seen editors calling the noting of publication dates for reviews as criticism (if noting publication dates itself is criticism, then why are those reviews sourced here in the first place?). I've seen outdated, negative studies remain on this page for seemingly years, and when I add new positive studies, there is suddenly a frenzy from a certain editor to find negative studies. I've seen editors remove 3 pro-acupuncture reviews because "only 1 is needed", and then proceed to post a negative study result and conclude that the results are mixed. I've had edits reverted and then been met with silence on the discussion page as well as their user talk pages. I've had an edit reverted with discuss on talk as the change summary only to have the editor not respond at all. I've had editors tell me it's "a big no no" to remove sourced information and then proceed to remove my sourced information from systematic reviews or consensus statements a few days later. I've had editors tell me that only the very newest reviews should be posted, and when I try to reinforce the same rule, I am told to stop. I've seen editors randomly bring up conspiracy theories about CAM saying doctors and the AMA looking out for their own income by protecting their profession from CAM (or oversupply even). Conspiracy theories promoted by Milton Friedman and other economists. I've posted on the RSN page to get someone to comment on another issue only to have an editor accuse me of being an IP sock instead of actually helping with the issue. I've used editor's assistance and then have them agree with me only to be subsequently told by an involved editor that editor's assistance is informal and useless (despite it being described as being useful for dispute resolution), whereas request for comment (a service with long response times apparently and ALSO described as informal) as being more useful. Now that I think about this, these past few weeks have been a gigantic waste of time trying to move mountains. A group of 3 editors seem to linger around here with their finger on the revert button with much higher restrictions on the posting of anything pro-acupuncture even if it's from systematic reviews or expert consensus statements (or weight less or misparaphrased), whereas anything anti-acupuncture, no matter how unreliable the source is kept and weighted more heavily. We have one editor here who actively does his best to misparaphrase anything pro-acupuncture to make it seem less important, while deleting direct quotations from review conclusions. Worst of all, I've been told these editors are extremely experienced and have made thousands of edits. That truly shakes my faith in Wikipedia. Anyway, tl;dr, I've lost the ability to AGF from wiki editors controlling this article. I will take my leave from contributing to Wikipedia now since my enthusiasm for this article and anything wiki-related to be dead. Feel free to gradually push this article into POV territory WLU, you won't be stopped by me and you certainly won't be stopped by the likes of Verbal, SH and Brangifer who are no doubt too busy and can only step in when someone adds anything sound pro-acupuncture. Good day. /rantJohnCBE (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand why you feel that way. This page has several excellent examples of how NOT to treat newcomers -- instead of being treated in a welcoming and patient manner, you were berated and baited.  Not real great.  There are things you need to learn too, like picking your battles and being briefer in your comments, but those who violated WP:BITE and WP:TPG with you should have known better.  But there is a subculture within WP that takes things like Quackwatch and ToT as gospel that doesn't require attribution, and believes that WP:CIVIL is less important than keeping away editors they believe are pushing "pseudoscience".  WP really is a joke in many ways, and I sometimes wonder if it's worth the effort.  At the very least, you should take a nice break and clear your head.  Maybe I should walk away too, and let people who don't understand TCM fuck the article up into a total joke.  But if you return, I'll work with you and other reasonable editors, because the page needs editors who understand TCM from the inside.  --Middle 8 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. - I agree with you about the paraphrasing. It's a problem.  I don't see what's wrong with quoting (e.g.) NIH's own words rather than rephrasing it; it's too easy for bias to creep in that way, intentionally or not.  I also agree that there was no good reason to remove the systematic reviews you added.  "Undue weight" is a bullshit excuse -- we should just list the best ones we have, not delete a couple positive ones because there's one that's negative.  They all looked fine to me as MEDRS's.  --Middle 8 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And, with some editors just doing fly-by reverts of anything other than the straight, boring skeptical take, it becomes pointless and frustrating to edit. I get your frustration and am not inclined to go it alone. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not read this blame piece. I prefer short, concise suggestions justified by references.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. True, I could've been briefer. Still, I think it's important to set up a strong argument, especially against editors who try to find any reason possible to revert your edit. No, I will not be returning, especially not to this article. It takes far too much time to get any change for this article... unless it denounces acupuncture. I mean, I had to use 2 methods of dispute resolution just to note the review dates of the AMA statement. It took almost a week for something that shouldn't really be controversial. I can't even imagine making more significant changes to this article. It would be nice to work with you and other reasonable editors, but the truth is there are no other reasonable editors working on this article. I honestly have not interacted with anyone else that had a speck of NPOV aside from the people who commented through dispute resolution and coincidentally agreed with my changes.


 * To WLU: Of course you read it. You just can't reply to it, because it simply highlights all the BS edits and reverts you made over the course of a few weeks. How the hell could anyone justify that kind of crap?JohnCBE (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

TCM stuff in article
Too bold, WLU -- not to diminish your other efforts, but since you apparently haven't read any TCM texts, you're over your head. Why not bring it up here and ask for others' input? I have Cheng (1987) from which most (not all) of the section is sourced. (Some material did need pruning but your edits went too far.) If this is going to turn into homeopathy where skeptics plunge on too boldly and editors who know the traditional aspects of the topic per se are treated poorly (e.g. Verbal's niggling revert of two sources), I don't see much reason to spend my time here. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I'm not going to revert and fix this. I'm going to leave it in its messed-up state so that it will be obvious to anyone with a shred of knowledge of TCM that it's been butchered.  Have fun.  --Middle 8 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PROVEIT I could have removed nearly the whole thing. Rather than blaming my good-faith efforts to make a wandering section short and concise, if you have the sources and knowledge to improve it, please do so.  It cuts both ways, and that section has been tagged as unclear for almost a year.  As far as I can tell, the "butchered" version is just fine.  Please feel free to do so with reliable sources but I would suggest caution to not phrase it as "acupuncture/zang-fu/Blood/qi are..."  These are unproven concepts believed by practitioners and should be clearly described as such.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you think your edit to the TCM section is fine -- by your own acknowledgement, you (a) haven't read any books on TCM & acupuncture, and (b) you've already made up your mind about it anyway: it's pseudoscience !  Simple -- you're an instant expert now.  I think this page needs as few editors as possible who are really TCM-literate, and as many as possible who not only don't know about, but actively deride the topic.  And to keep it that way, a few drive by reverter's.  That will bring the article more into line with Wikipedia's universally-recognized and respected high standards.  I trust you to lead the way in this regard.  Have fun educating the masses -- anyone can do it! --Middle 8 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can improve the page by providing sources that correct any errors in the current version, that's great. All the time spent on this talk page could easily have gone into finding references, integrating them into the page and making it more reliable and NPOV for our readers.  The fighting over single words and lengthy talk page postings aren't helping - I can't argue with a reference but I'm not going to take anyone's word.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction in the United States?
Presumably, Chinese immigrants brought a knowledge of acupuncture with them to the United States along with other aspects of Chinese medicine. If that introduction is documented, it would be interesting to record it here.

What's more likely to be documented, and what I'm personally more interested in, is the introduction of acupuncture to the Western medical profession in the United States. A tradition in my family says that Dr. M. E. Carrère of Charleston, South Carolina (1813-1879, M.D., U. Penn., 1837) was the first American physician to use acupuncture. I doubt that he was the first, but he definitely used it. See Atkinson, William Biddle, ed., The Physicians and Surgeons of the United States (Philadelphia 1878), p. 620, available on Google Books. Can anybody contribute a section on acupuncture's history in the US?

--Jdcrutch (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

urethral stricture
hi sir/ madam i am the patient of this disease urethral stricture from about one year. i had operated last year in july but after 3 months of operation this problem is reoccured in me. and because of that now i'm unable to urinate easily. i go for a checkup n had everytime ultrasound n uroflow test n all that which is now a hectic for me. some one says me that in accupuntre there is a full chance of recovery of my problem is that true??? i don't want to operate once again because if i do this time they give me one rubber tube n after operating they teach me how to use that rubber tube in my penis and this i hve to do for may b whole life, me just 28yrs old and dont want this thing happen to me. i assure that i didn't hve any kind of sex with anyone but i do a lot masterbate earlier. i just want to know is my problem can solve by this treatment completely so i can live my future life fearlesslly. please do reply to me i'm waiting. please i don't want to operate agin in my life.


 * I am sorry, but Wikipedia does not offer medical advice. Please consult your physician, as he or she is likely to be much more qualified to answer this question than we random strangers on the internet.
 * The article currently contains no information regarding this condition. A quick scan of Google Scholar does not indicate that we necessarily should include anything, but if anyone turns up a solid reference, please include it or start a new section below. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Manipulative therapy
I'm removing Category:Manipulative therapy because acupuncture does not involve any manipulation of the joints or other structures. Withing TCM, tui na (a TCM massage technique) however can involve manipulation and does belong in this category. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the reasoning behind that categoriztion was that acupuncture claims to manipulate Qi, which is a bit different than what one traditionally thinks of with manipulative therapy! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sham vs. Real section removed
I removed this section for WP:PRIMARY. I'm looking for a secondary source on the results of the trials using sham acupuncture as placebo, but haven't found one yet. When I find one, I'll restore this section. Dogweather (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, beautiful; it's already covered in the article with a proper secondary source: 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. Dogweather (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sham vs. Real section redux
@BadgerDrink, I do believe there is OR going on in the section as you reverted it. I made an edit, and I think it's a good compromise: what do you think? I made the edit to make it clearer exactly what this article is reporting: that the two studies found similar results for the two types of treatment. I still think this is dangerously close to original research: we should *not* be analyzing or summarizing primary biomedical sources. We should instead use secondaries, such as literature reviews. Dogweather (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dry needling
Dry needling looks very much like acupuncture sans magic. Right now it appears twice - once in the body and once in the acupuncture template. Anyone know anything about dry needling? Has this been developed at all since 1979? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The term does come up in the literature, and while I think you're right, we would need an RS making clear the distinction. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted last bit of Gate control section
...because it erroneously leaves the spinal cord out of central control, and adds nothing to the article but a vague veneer of scientific respectability.
 * Calvino B, Grilo RM. Central pain control. Joint Bone Spine. 2006 Jan;73(1):10-6. Review. PubMed PMID: 15922645.

Can anyone access the ref for this section (Melzack R. Acupuncture and pain mechanisms Anaesthesist. 1976;25:204-7)? Anthony (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think a 34-year-old paper is useful for much. The statement it's used to verify is actually a description of how that paper was used, not a summary of the paper itself (in other words, it's a primary source used to justify a secondary claim).  We should choose better sources, such as this one, or for that matter, Trick or Treatment has two paragraphs on gate theory and opiods.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Google won't let me read that in Australia. Speculation has moved on a bit. I read this commentary earlier today and it points to the endogenous opioid system and the HPA axis as 2 systems associated with acupuncture relief of pain. And this looks promising, though I've barely glanced at it yet. It shouldn't be too hard to bring the mechanism up to date. Shall I give it a shot? Anthony (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Brown CA, Jones AK. Physiological mechanisms of acupuncture: beyond placebo? Pain. 2009 Dec 15;147(1-3):11-2. Epub 2009 Sep 30..
 * Napadow V, Ahn A, Longhurst J, Lao L, Stener-Victorin E, Harris R, Langevin HM. The status and future of acupuncture mechanism research. J Altern Complement Med. 2008 Sep;14(7):861-9..

Bonghan System
I realize that my recent addition of a link to Bonghan System is likely to be controversial but this new research has plenty of published science behind it and has been confirmed in different labs in a number of countries. With these new discoveries a statement which claims that scientists have been unable to find evidence that supports the existence of meridians misrepresents a truth that has now become more controversial and less absolute.DavidWis (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Pubmed has 7 hits for "Bonghan". Looks like a fringe theory.  This one in 2005 starts with the very promising "Threadlike structures on the surfaces of internal organs, which are thought to be part of the Bonghan duct system, were first reported about 40 years ago, but have been largely ignored since then."  Emphasis mine.  Even less support than acupuncture, it may merit its own page but I don't know if it's appropriate here.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Trick or Treatment does not mention Bonghan, and the "Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies" isn't pubmed indexed. I've removed the statements.  Bonghan appears, even within acupuncture, to be a fringe claim.  I've seen it mentioned as a "radical challenge to modern anatomy" and a justification of meridians.  This shouldn't be mentioned on this page, and the Bonghan system itself should be purged of unreliable sources, primary sources, and include critical commentary.  Frankly, if there isn't even critical commentary in skeptical sources, and if this has been ignored since the 60s and 70s (at a time where the evolution of medicine has been so incredibly rapid no-one can even keep track of it), I don't know if there's enough merit to include it at all.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Need to Globalize
I added Template:Globalize. Edit Summary: Scientific views are mostly western while much of research is from Chinese and not translated to English. *under-represented* There is no prohibition on using Chinese language sourced refs, yet are not included.

I noticed that there was no mention of the Shanghai Research Center of Acupuncture and Meridian, which seems to be the main research institute for acupuncture in China. An English translated link is |en&u=http://www.srcam.org.cn/english/index.htm&prev=/translate_s%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dacupunture%2Bresearch%2Bmeridian%26sl%3Den%26tl%3Dzh-CN&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhgVcj9BSsgti1V6WkDUBjR6whFVUA here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is, and is not, an issue with using these sources. For one thing, being able to read and verify the text is important.  For another, one of the criticisms made against research in China is significant publication bias; zero negative trials.  In comparison, Western trials with solid placebo controls return very mixed results, many positive and negative trials.  Chinese sources can be used, provided they are secondary sources, in high-quality journals.  Which presents issues - how do we know what the high-quality Chinese sources are?  And are any of them more respected than BMJ, Science, Nature, NEJM, JAMA, etc. who publish good science irrespective of where it comes from?  Is there any merit to insisting on using Chinese sources?
 * Plus, globalize means representing a global perspective, not using global sources. The language doesn't matter, it's the perspectives.  Science is universal, based on method, peer review, honesty and criticism.  Though China did originate acupuncture, it's now researched and used throughout the world, so "representing China's perspective" isn't necessarily warranted, and may in fact result in the use of poorer quality sources with considerable publication bias to produce a less accurate page.  As a medical and scientific topic, rather than a political issue, I don't know if using Chinese sources will necessarily and automatically improve the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks WLU, I removed the tag and left a much shorter justification than yours - however it seems not to have saved. Thanks for giving the reasoning and making up for my error. Verbal chat  14:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons why Acupuncture should be marked Category:Pseudoscience
Hi everyone. I'm re-starting the conversation, because I think we were a little off track the last time.

Reason #1: Category:Pseudoscience's first sentence defines a pseudoscience as "a broad system of theories or assertions about the natural world that [1] claim or appear to be scientific, but that [2] are not considered being so by the scientific community." [Numbering added.] The plain text of this policy gives us a simple test for inclusion:  that  (1) proponents make scientific-appearing claims which (2) are not considered so by the scientific community. There are ample RS's that support these two requirements for Acupuncture and therefore it should be tagged pseudoscience.

Reason #2: Acupuncture is Category:Energy therapies. And Category:Energy therapies is Category:Pseudoscience (See its "main article" Energy_medicine). Therefore, Acupuncture is Category:Pseudoscience.

Dogweather (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing we've never decided is which umbrella categories are adequate for declaring pseudoscience. For example, a wide-range of articles in Category:Paranormal are clearly pseudoscience, but the argument was made that since they are in the paranormal category they don't also need to be placed in the pseudoscience category. I would, however, like to see a pseudoscience infobox placed here (in the relevant section). ScienceApologist (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I guess I disagree with that argument, not to apply both categories. That would have made sense, if our category system was hierarchical; a taxonomy.  But it's not; it's like a flat set of tags.  So to be a service to the reader, it seems like articles ought to be tagged with all applicable categories. Dogweather (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason #1 for not labeling it "pseudoscience". It will alienate many open-minded readers who see the term as the judgment of a few pompous, up-themselves Wikilosers and (rightly) purely derogatory. I think acupuncture is dangerous (in that it distracts people from effective treatment) hokum. Your hamfisted and unconvincing rhetoric, ScienceWatcher and Dogweather, is harming this article. Anthony (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on, let's keep this friendly. I see your point, but I think you might be raising a bigger issue than simply Acupuncture:  i.e., perhaps pseudoscience isn't a good category to have.  This might be a good policy discussion in the forum/portal.


 * And about my points; I avoided being verbose, but I'm pretty serious about it: Take my reason #2:  Acupuncture really is an "energy medicine", which really is pseudoscience.  There's no way around it, that Acu. is pseudoscience too.  Dogweather (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. My original wording was both offensive and not what I think, so I've reordered it. (If you'd prefer a strike I'll do that.) It is reasonable to discuss here whether categorizing acupuncture as pseudoscience (which it is) will strengthen or weaken the article's rhetorical power. I assert that it will weaken it, as does your ham fisted treatment of the WHO report. The article should approximate a cool, pithy, persuasive explanation, not a derogatory polemic. A simple, neutral statement of facts is all that is required. I mean to be blunt, not unfriendly. Anthony (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the suggestion by SA in the section below is actually a good one - acupuncture might work for symptoms, but its theoretical conception of the manipulation of qi is pseudoscientific. But the most important thing is a set of reputable sources for this - can we find sources that?  I think so:, and there's more .  Better, of course, is a discussion of why acupuncture is (and is not) pseudoscience.  The TCM "theory" is nonsense - the placement of needles doesn't make a difference  and this is where the pseudoscience comes in - but there is research showing acupuncture can reduce pain and nausea compared to nonpenetrating needles - and this is where the science is.  Far, far better than a priori assumptions about acupuncture being pseudoscience or not is a source-based discussion of if and why.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Dogweather and all - I hate repeating myself, so would you mind addressing my explanation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines just above, under Talk:Acupuncture? Please see especially WP:PSCI and RS.  NPOV policy is quite clear about what we can and can't label unambiguously (e.g., with a category or infobox) as pseudoscience.  Our own opinions on demarcation are OR and therefore not relevant; for well-known topics like psychoanalysis, acupuncture and astrology, Wikipedia says we leave that to high-quality MEDRS's that are reliable indicators of scientific consensus.  In the case of astrology, sources meeting that level have said it's PS, so we use the category.  Not so for acupuncture or psychanalysis.  That doesn't mean we cant cite sources like the ones WLU provided just above; it just means that those sources aren't enough to unambiguously characterize acupuncture as pseudoscience.  The same goes for TCM theory, qi and so on.  TCM is probably the best-known and most-used indigenous medicine in the world, so no mainstream body will have missed a chance to comment on it.  cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're making things up. There is no statement about unambiguous labels anywhere. We have plenty of reliable medical sources which say that meridian manipulation and poking is rank pseudoscience. We reference them in these articles and they are good enough for us to explain this to our reader as plainly as possible. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm citing policy that you need to re-read: WP:PSCI says that well-known topics like psychanalysis "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific" -- e.g. categorization or infoboxes.  We can still cite scientists' opinions, but without a concensus-level source, we can't use things like the category or the infobox.  That's been well-established on WP for awhile now. But I guess you didn't hear it, did you? --Middle 8 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not psychoanalysis. This is vitalistic qi superstitions. Every source listed in the article and above identify it as pseudoscience and the consensus is clear. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist's suggestion of placing the pseudoscience infobox in the TCM section seems like the best approach. That is clearly the most appropriate place to put it, since it is the "theory" that is problematic.  No-one has ever confirmed the existence of qi or meridians, but jamming needles into people still appears to work.  The fact that it still works irrespective of where you jam the needles, whether you use needles or toothpicks, whether you actually penetrate the skin or not, that's what demonstrates the pseudoscientific aspect.   But again, we need sources for this.  But we should be documenting what parts of acupuncture are considered pseudoscientific, and what parts are actually supported by research.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, WLU. We have many sources at all levels of discussion about this issue: for example, this piece from Discover Magazine. I haven't seen a single peer-reviewed article that even attempts to vaguely hint that qi meridians are plausible. The closest we can come to is that they happen to be near nerve endings through a trail-and-error adjustment of the maps, but the nonsense about qi is simply that: nonsense. Acupuncture theorizing is well-sourced as pseudoscience. I think I count half-a-dozen sources we've mentioned explicitly here. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the Pseudoscience infobox. Let's go for it.  Middle 8, you write some text in a quote, then I go to your source (PSCI), and can't find the quote.  The policy doc there supports our position, IMO.  I believe that the main argument of people saying "no", not pseudoscience is that they want to find a RS making this exact statement.  This, however, is an unrealistic criterium, because this is not what scientists write about or do.  They typically just ignore pseudoscience.  This is why I believe the best test for inclusion in the category is to simply apply the definition that WP:PSCI gives us:  "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods."  Note that us applying a category label is different than us placing content in an article's text.  The category label system is how we organize wikipedia.  For these reasons, I believe pseudoscience category applies. Dogweather (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a policy discussion about just when to apply Category:Pseudoscience: Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 77Dogweather (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's supported by RS and should be in the appropriate categories. Verbal chat  09:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And I just realized that it has been in Category:Pseudoscience for a very long time: Because Acupuncture is in at least two of its subcategories.  So, explicitly marking this Pseudoscience isn't radical. Dogweather (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Adenosine
So the adenosine paper is, from what I can tell, a mouse model. For one thing, those results are suggestive, but not revolutionary, for humans. If we were treating mice, and adenosine was a known marker for something, we might have a finding. But this article is primarily about humans. Second, that is a primary source article, making it inappropriate for this page per WP:MEDRS.

I also note that the study is being pimped by the media as "amazing" and "conclusively proving acupuncture works". Not even close, and even if valid in humans, only "works" if you define acupuncture very differently from what TCM does - making it closer to dry needling. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Primary source, animal model, nothing to do with TCM, wildly overhyped be the lay press ... yeah, that sounds about right. We might could add this to the gate control section or something like that, but even then MEDRS stipulates that we should be very cautious. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good analysis. I agree.  Dogweather (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Adenosine can be presented as a THEORY based on animal study. We are talking about theories in this section. And adenosine is a very plausible theory can should be included. All possible scientific theories should be included. At the end of the day, only one or none is true. 220.255.112.34 (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Who Wrote That? (or, Proper Attribution of WHO Review)
Several months ago there were some edits concerning Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials (2003, WHO). The edits were apparently based on a couple of faulty assumptions:
 * (1) that the review was authored by one individual: false; it is attributed to the WHO itself according to ISBN data, and the WHO itself is speaking in the Acknowledgements. The confusion may have arisen because the introduction is signed by one Dr. Xiaorui Zhang;
 * and (2), that the review was not vetted by the WHO or somehow did not represent the WHO's considered views. This misunderstanding may have arisen from this disclaimer:  "The World Health Organization does not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use."  In fact, those words (or an approximation of them) are used on virtually every one of the WHO's publications on that website!  This disclaimer appears to be of the standard, legal variety, and given its ubiquity it cannot reasonably be taken as any sort of disavowal of content by the WHO (beyond the simple fact that scientific knowledge changes over time).

Once we acknowledge and fix the attribution of the WHO review, the balance of WP:WEIGHT shifts considerably, since the WHO carries a great deal more weight than the individual scientists who are critical of it. Those objections should certainly be mentioned, but as the article stands it gives the impression that the objections carry more weight than the review itself, which would be OK if we were talking about "Acupuncturist claims in a report published by the World Health Organization" (LOL! - that subheader is classic Wikipedia), but not when we're talking about "World Health Organization Review" (as it was originally & correctly cited). Even if the critics' opinions are closer to the truth than the WHO's, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTTRUTH prevail. I'll be fixing the factual content and the weight issues soon. Please let me know your thoughts and particularly whether I've made any factual errors here. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point (1) is demonstrably false. The report itself states who wrote it: "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. Further, Dr Xie made numerous Chinese language documents available in English. We also thank Dr Hongguang Dong, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland for providing additional information." These are both acupuncurists. There was no input from recognized authorities who were not acupuncturists. Every single neutral and independent source has criticized WHO for putting out this report without consulting the vast literature disputing it. We have the sources here and they are WP:FRINGE. The disclaimer you cite in point (2) means we absolutely CANNOT attribute this draft of acupuncturist lunacy to anyone but the acupuncturists who drafted it. The WHO explicitly denies that the information is correct! That's different from every other medical source (see WP:MEDRS). Do not change it. You have a conflict of interest in the matter. Changing it will result in a filing of a direct complaint per the arbitration case that this case is under and may result in your censure. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Science Apologist: (1) Proper attribution is to the WHO, as I demonstrated above, not someone you picked out of the paper's acknowledgements section (which you should re-read; there are lots of other possibl "authors").  If you doubt that grabbing a name from a document's "acknowledgements" section is not the proper way to determine authorship, you might ask at RS/N, or just any freshman English teacher.  Your WP:IDHT doesn't change that.  Yes, there have been critics of the source, but how many of them are RS's remotely comparably in parity?  To counter something of the WHO's stature ("big", as WLU aptly put it) we need to be using something on the order of the Lancet editorial or Ernst's popular book (which, if it really doesn't use footnotes, is not as good a source as it could have been).  The WHO are big indeed, and in this case probably wrong to some extent -- but cf your comments about Galileo at the top of your talk page, which dovetail with WP:NOTTRUTH.  You also say "There was no input from recognized authorities who were not acupuncturists." -- got proof?
 * (2) The disclaimer, again despite your WP:IDHT, is a standard one and appears, with minor variations, in a number of other WHO publications. A search of their site for the phrase "does not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct" turned up 54 hits; there are probably others using slightly different wording.  Here are the first few; scroll to bottom of page to see disclaimer in its entirety:   Nothing about this strikes me as odd given that fact that the WHO are a UN organization and need to be diplomatic, as well as cover legal liability.  In any case, we've established that it's not specific to their review on acupuncture.
 * Finally, (3) about your obsession with my non-existent COI: You keep bringing this up, so it merits a few choice words.  Once again, you need to go back and read the page, WP:COI, which says:  "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest."  Most editors who know me on WP know that I have "professional or academic expertise" in acupuncture and Chinese medicine, among other things.  That alone does not mean I have a COI; to rise to that level, I'd have to be promoting my own practice or book or gizmo or whatever, which of course is not the case.  This has been pointed out to you before, but I see you are still playing the WP:IDHT game with it.  So, go ahead and make whatever frivolous complaints against me that you want -- all that will happen is that you'll add to the pile of examples of your own misconduct that have gotten you blocked/banned/censured over and over again, with excellent reason.  Somehow, I've managed to figure out what the boundaries are around here, so forgive me when I completely ignore any lectures you have for me about getting censured.  Mind your own WP:KETTLE and all that.  --Middle 8 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is duly impeached and WLU's version below does a good job explaining how that works. You and other acupuncturists have leaned heavily on this report to self-promotional ends. This is beginning to be transparently clear that you are here for one reason: to promote acupuncture. Finally, the fact that you refuse to admit that you are here to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't point out the obvious pseudoscience that is part-and-parcel to the majority of acupuncture practices is really problematic. Thus, the COI report. I will take this as high as it needs to go in order to get you to stop this advocacy. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's highly amusing logic -- You say my motivations are to promote acupuncture, and the fact that I don't admit that is "problematic". How very Soviet! --Middle 8 (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with ScienceApologist and the article text is fine (with a little cleanup). However, the heading for that section is absolute tofu. Can we change it to something snappier, like World Health Organisation review 2003? Famousdog (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also fully agree with SA. Verbal chat  11:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what? I agree with Middle 8.  I think the lead's use of that study and the frontloading with "an acupuncturist" is both unnecessary and prejudicial.  In fact, I'm actually inclined to simply remove it from the lead totally and fold in whatever information that's actually carried in that back-and-forth of "WHO acupuncturist produced, everyone else hated on" into one of the generic "it's controversial" statements.  In that badly-titled section, however, I think there's much that could be done.  First, it is a WHO report, even if written by an acupuncturist.  You wouldn't frontload a review article with "An allopathic/western/white/pharma shill doctor wrote the WHO report on vaccination", and I don't think it's important here.  I think it is however, important to state "The WHO produced a report.  It was criticized by many people.  Edzard Ernst [or whoever] stated that the report was substantially written by a single acupuncturist..."  In other words, flatly state that it's a WHO report and carries their imprimatur.  Immediately follow that up with all the criticisms of the report, in reasonable detail - summarize why the researchers didn't like it.  That's far more valuable to the reader than simply throwing in a weaselly "An acupuncturist wrote it (and therefore you can't trust it)".  This is the WHO.  They are big.  But since the WHO report was not a slam dunk, and was in fact heavily criticized, I don't think it deserves a place in the lead.  I also think it should be dealt with body better.  You can see where I did this last September  with the WHO study via Trick or Treatment.  This actually helps the reader by providing the scholarly criticisms for why the report is not trusted rather than simply stapling an implied ad hominem to a poor choice of sentence.  We're much better off using the secondary sources available to expand the article than we are trying to point out the flaws in the WHO document, essentialy using it as a primary source for its own shortcomings.
 * Oh, and Quackguru's collapse of that lengthy bulleted list into a paragraph was a good start, but I think we'd be better off simply stating which conditions it was best proven useful with, and leaving a vague "as well as other conditions" for everything else. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim of WHO-imprimatur strike me as inappropriate because the WHO has this bizarre disclaimer prominently on the site that links to the report. This standard boilerplate is far different from those contained in, say, Lancet, BMJ, NEJM, JAMA, etc. Claiming that it is WHO-supported strikes me as problematic since the WHO washed its hands from assuming any factual basis for the report. I'm not aware of any other medical source going to such lengths to specifically deny that what they published was factual or not. In fact, it makes a very good case that the report should be carefully vetted and claims from it probably shouldn't be included here because they fail the test of verifiability which is the Wikipedia-standard-bearer. It is important to mention that the report was written by acupuncturists without any input from skeptics. That is acknowledged by independent sources and the WHO report itself and shouldn't be hidden behind some massive organizational authorship (which is incorrect in any case). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Undent. I wouldn't necessarily say "supported", but "published" is certainly accurate. It is certainly verifiable that the WHO published the report, and it's hosted on its website. Also verifiable - that many had issue with the report. Think of how much more powerful an explicit discussion of this would be for all these points, versus an interpreted insinuation that skirts the line of appropriateness for wikipedia. Since we have a source for these points, why bother with the leading "acupuncturist" at all, when Ernst and others clearly state not only that this is problematic, but why. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That the WHO published it is certainly correct. However, I think that the fact that they published it with the boilerplate makes it very questionable from the perspective of WP:V. What does it say, exactly? Are there many acupuncturists who are using it? Granted that Ernst's critique of the report is valuable, but his impeachment of it seems to indicate, to me at least, that the report isn't really all that useful for us as a reliable source. I guess what I'm saying is, I think a good case can be made for removing the report in almost its entirety and certainly at least from the lead. Does it deserve its own section as we currently have it? I'd wager to say, "no." ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The present wording is puerile. Ad hominem, yes, but more importantly, unconvincing. I completely endorse WLU's points. The WHO report needs to be addressed by this article, but addressed effectively. I would very much like to see a proposed rewording from WLU. Anthony (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From me? Crap.  That sounds like work.  I've removed it from the lead, does anyone have, or is aware of, any other criticisms of the WHO report?  Right now we've got Ernst & Singh, and McCarthy.  I like Edzard Ernst, his credentials and arguments are impressive and the Lancet gives a lot of credibility to the McCarthy article (which is primarily about homeopathy by the way, but does explicitly discuss acupuncture).  But to do that section justice, we really need more explicit sources about the 2003 WHO report.
 * Sources - can someone get me ? And can we use this document?
 * Here would be my draft of the section. I compressed it to a single section and tried to shorten all the points.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another possible source: who criticizes the validity of the list included in the report. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to study your draft, WLU, but shall as soon as I can. I have emailed that Pain editorial you asked for. Anthony (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks, and I hadn't thought of Quackwatch. Some more sources -  - a good general source too.  And can anyone get Sampson, W. (1998)  On the National Institute of Drug Abuse Consensus Conference on Acupuncture.  Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine?  I probably won't have time this weekend, but I'll try to get to it early next week.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The WHO is big, yes. How big is Quackwatch?  Let's stick to peer-reviewed sources. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Quackwatch is, and has always been viewed as an adequate depiction of the skeptical mainstream scientific opinion, just like CSICOP. It's adequate to make comments on the less well-supported, more questionable claims, but if its points can be supplemented or replaced with peer-reviewed sources, that's an improvement. The whole point of criticizing the WHO report is that, despite it being a big organization, it fucked up. It ended up introducing a large report supported by shaky science that claimed a whole bunch of poor-quality trials, from a country that never produced any negative evidence, written by a practitioner with reason to be biased, that is now waved about as proof that acupuncture can cure cancer and shit. The WHO is big, so they get substantial mention. But knowledgeable critics get to make their fair comments as well - and many think the report was highly biased and inaccurate. Quackwatch is one such critic, and it gets to make its points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Two points -- (1) sure, critics get to make their points, but since we're talking WP:WEIGHT I'd say QW's cite would be minimal at most. A gauge of weightiness for MEDRS's is a source's reliability as a journal citation.  WHO would qualify, just as Cochrane and other position statements and meta-analyses would.  Quackwatch, well, when was the last time you saw them cited in a peer-reviewed journal?  They're pathetic in terms of WP:WEIGHT, as is the idea that there's some separate "skeptical POV" that needs to be covered that is somehow not the same as scientific POV(s).  "Skeptics" have their own journals, and seminars, bypassing peer-review, as well as their own mini-gurus --- gosh, sounds like CAM or something.  Just pathetic.  (sidebar -- we talk about the NIH Consensus Statement -- same deal here, just call it "WHO Review On Efficacy; no need to squirm around and try to minimize the source by desperately trying to find an individual author where there is none).  (2) "written by a practitioner with reason to be biased" -- where is the source for that?  Who says and how do they know?  That claim needs attribution, and if it's just from a popular book with no footnotes -- I don't care who wrote it -- then I don't see why it's reliable.  Claims of an individual author's bias get into WP:BLP territory and need to be documented adequately -- but probably the best resolution is to drop the invented author idea entirely and cite it just as we do the NIH, AMA, NCCAM, and other group statements. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weight is addressed by attribution - "Quackwatch says..." Quackwatch is recognized, internationally and by many respected organizations, as doing a great job of giving a mainstream, skeptical position on dubious treatments including acupuncture.  It's not like acupuncture is revolutionizing medicine - each time the research base improves (bigger studies, better placebos, improved blinding, higher-impact journal) it tends to notch down a little bit more.  Since the 90s when the research base was mostly anecdotal and pilot studies, it's lost out on a fair number of conditions and probably isn't good for much beyond certain types of pain and nausea.  Also, I wouldn't plan on using it for citing actual studies and results - I'd use the pubmed-indexed, peer-reviewed journal article for that.  Quackwatch is, however, great for pointing out that meridians are nonsense, acupuncture points don't really exist, and that the "theory" is nothing of the sort.  That is what I would use it for.  While acupuncture's use as a pain/nausea/other treatment is a MEDRS issue, the existence of qi, meridians, acupuncture points, and the TCM system/"theory" is a WP:FRINGE issue, therefore quackwatch is an appropriate secondary source.
 * Skeptics tend to have the conventional research base on their sides. Adopting the mainstream position that qi doesn't exist and therefore you can't manipulate it with needles, doesn't require a revolution in physics, biology, chemistry and medicine.  That's why the mainstream position doesn't have a WP:FRINGE equivalent, why they get to include WP:PARITY sources, and why WP:UNDUE is a policy while REDFLAG is a warning.
 * Providing an author is just good practice, it's not pathetic, and the WHO is still included as a linked publisher. As for the author being biased, I can't recall seeing that exact issue, and my draft doesn't include it.
 * Trick or Treatment is reliable. Two authors noted for their criticism of alternative medicine, Random House is a mainstream publishing house.  The opinions expressed in TorT are also clearly attributed to it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Health organizations draft

 * ===Statements by medical organizations===

Citing research that had accumulated since 1993, in 1997 the American Medical Association (AMA) produced a report that stated there was insufficient evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease, and highlighted the need for further research. The report also included a policy statement that cited the lack of evidence, and sometimes evidence against, the safety and efficacy of alternative medicne interventions, including acupuncture and called for "Well-designed, stringently controlled research...to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies."

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.

In 2003 the World Health Organization's Department of Essential Drugs and Medicine Policy that, based on research results available in early 1999, listed a series of diseases, symptoms or conditions for which the author, Zhu-Fan Xie, believed acupuncture had been demonstrated as an effective treatment, as well as a second list of conditions Xie believed could be treated with acupuncture. Noting the difficulties of conducting controlled research and the debate on how to best conduct research on acupuncture, the report was described as "...intended to facilitate research on and the evaluation and application of acupuncture. It is hoped that it will provide a useful resource for researchers, health care providers, national health authorities and the general public." The coordinator for the team that produced the report, Xiaorui Zhang, stated that the report was designed to facilitate research on acupuncture, not recommend treatment for specific diseases. The report was controversial; critics assailed it as being problematic since, in spite of the disclaimer, supporters used it to claim that the WHO endorsed acupuncture and other alternative medicine practices that were either pseudoscientific or lacking sufficient evidence-basis. Medical scientists expressed concern that the evidence supporting acupuncture outlined in the report was weak, and that the WHO had been biased by allowing the involvement of practitioners of alternative medicine. The report was criticized in the 2008 book Trick or Treatment for, in addition to being produced by a panel that included no critics of of acupuncture at all, containing two major errors - including too many results from low-quality clinical trials, and including a large number of trials originating in China where, probably due to publication bias, no negative trials have ever been produced. In contrast, studies originating in the West include a mixture of positive, negative and neutral results. Ernst and Singh, the authors of the book, described the report as "highly misleading", a "shoddy piece of work that was never rigorously scrutinized" and stated that the results of high-quality clinical trials do not support the use of acupuncture to treat anything but pain and nausea.


 * The proper attribution is WHO. We don't get to guess the author by looking through the acknowledgements.  That's not how tertiary sources like WP are written. Here's what the acknowledgements say:
 * "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. 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. Further, Dr Xie made numerous Chinese language documents available in English. We also thank Dr Hongguang Dong, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland for providing additional information."
 * Using the logic that we can pick an author from the acknowledgement, we could just as well attribute the authorship to "the experts who participated in the WHO Consultation on Acupuncture". Or, more simply, we could simply use the attribution that I already cited in the ISBN info, and which is obvious from the document itself: the WHO. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "...drafted, revised and updated this report" is authorship as far as I'm concerned, but if you look at my citation template, I have him as an author while Zhang is an editor. WHO is the publisher, not the author.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned in the acknowledgments for part of a group effort isn't how authorship is designated. Obvious, right?  Have you ever fished thru an acknowledgments section to determine authorship in the past?  It makes no sense.  It was a group effort that the WHO evidently wants attributed to the WHO per se.  Hey, don't believe me -- believe the ISBN. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's deeper than that. The standard boilerplates from WHO reports indicate that the agency does not take responsibility for them other than to be their publisher. This is very much like other respectable publishing houses who publish questionable material but do not take a stand on whether the material is correct. WHO's report publication system is simply different from what we normally expect of peer review. Nothing wrong with that, only that quackwatch is just as reasonable a balance in this case. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You said WHO is "big". How big by comparison are the Lancet editorial, Ernst & Singh, and Quackwatch, respectively?  Just a ballpark guess.  This isn't a gotcha; we're going to have to answer it satisfactorily in order to rewrite the section.  We need to be careful about this, because even though the WHO fucked up, they're major, and carry the weight of, I'd say, hundreds of scientists.  ScienceApologist is, as usual, disingenuously making way too big a deal out of the disclaimer, which could simply be legalistic (cf. the other comments to the effect of "not endorsing any country's borders").  Also cf. my comments on the disclaimer above, in the section beginning "@Science Apologist: (1) Proper attribution is to the WHO... ". --Middle 8 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the Sampson piece you were after? Anthony (talk)
 * I endorse your draft, above, and recommend inserting it. If it is to be one section, perhaps the AMA bit could be folded into it. Anthony (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is, I'm going to try to track down a better version but that seems a suitable convenience link if we can't find it.
 * Middle 8 - the WHO is a health organization, not a scientific one. It doesn't represent hundreds of scientists, and the report has been criticized for using poorly-controlled studies.  Verifiable, to respectable and reliable sources.
 * Pasted in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience infobox
For your consideration. Consider inserting it in this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't fly for the exact same reasons category:pseudoscience doesn't fly here; cf various reasons above including WP:PSCI and WP:RS. We don't categorically label anything as pseudoscience without the proper source. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you're going to make substantive edits, especially controversial ones, please use an informative edit summary and not the kind you used here. Please re-read WP:ES if you aren't familiar with it. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We're only discussing the meridian aspects of acupuncture here. Academic consensus clearly is that qi meridians do not exist. Consensus of the editors including those arguing against categorizing this page as pseudoscience seem to be that this approach is okay (e.g. WLU's opinion above). We have plenty of sources which indicate that this concept is pseudoscientific and zero reliabls sources which dispute it. Also, stop being condescending. You very well know I'm familiar with wikipedia policies and guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed two of the practitioners from the list because they explicitly reject qi and meridians. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Show me a sci-consensus level source saying meridians are pseudoscience. Like the kind we waited for, and finally, found, for homeopathy -- something from a scientific body.  If they haven't commented, we don't use a category or label.  Simple.  Why wouldn't they have commented?  Speculate all you like.  Just find a proper source, please.  It should be easy, right? -- Middle 8 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Trick or Treatment would probably work, but a) there's no proof meridians exist b) TCM is based on the geography of China, not the anatomy of the body and c) I think category:pseudoscience would apply if any of the major parts of acupuncture could be labelled pseudoscience. All the mainstream sources (particularly governing bodies that talk about acupuncture are explicit in saying "we don't know how it works, the theory doesn't make any sense in modern terms, but there is evidence it appears to work".  Meanwhile as better placebos appear, it becomes more and more apparent that a large part of the effect is placebo based, and certainly not based on actual manipulation of an invisible energy.  All things to be expanded, but clearly, there are many authors who believe acupuncture is outright pseudoscience.  Stating "X person has called it pseudoscience" is adequate attribution I think.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WP has a specific threshold that is based on sound encyclomedic parameters. If we can't meet it, there's no point trying to rationalize away the need for that threshold.  The placebos are dicey, as well; we don't know the mechanism, so how can we be sure that "sham" isn't a mild "verum" that is bound to generate falsely negative results? Don't you think there's a reason why scientists don't use the term much in the literature?  Sure, some topics are too obscure to mert a mention, but that's not the case for homeopathy or acupuncture & TCM theory.  It was only recently that a scientific body got around to affixing the label to homeopathy.  If they haven't done so with TCM theory, it may be because TCM is more pre-science than pseudo-, but it still contains interesting stuff worth looking at, particularly activity of distal points like LI-4, UB-67 and P-6.  Just as an ancient culture might describe eclipses as battles among the Sun and Moon gods, but correctly predict eclipses' timing, there is much in TCM theory that academics find interesting enough to research.  Don't be so eager to follow the skeptical popularizers like Shermer who are overeager to use the term and stick a fork in too many topics prematurely.  Ask yourself why academics are more reticent about using the term.  Using sources like Quackwatch, instead of good ones like an Academy of Sciences, only weakens the skeptical argument.  We should be using the best sources we can, not dicey material that's self-published and/or not peer-reviewed.  Don't you see the contradiction between advocating for science on the one hand, while on the other using sources that no scientist would use in a respectable publication?  It's a double-standard, and not very encyclopedic. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I vote yes, apply the infobox and the category. Dogweather (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a policy discussion about just when to apply Category:Pseudoscience: Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 77 Dogweather (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good --Middle 8 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does acupuncture claim to be derived from scientific method? Anthony (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so. On this talk page alone, you'll see references to acupuncture described with scientific-sounding terms, and references to academic articles attempting to square it with science. Dogweather (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. 2000 years ago the ancient Chinese said "there will be a thing called science arising in 1400 years or so, and at that time we will claim that our medicine, based on Taoist philosophy, is scientific."  No question about it.  ;-) --Middle 8 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I support a Pseudoscience section as long as it is written from a NPOV using reliable sources. Adding this infobox (or cat) without consensus or sources is inappropriate. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that both the infobox and the source have to pass WP:PSCI (and RS). Only recently did homeopathy pass that threshold, with a sci-consensus type source from a scientific body.  I've seen no such source yet for any aspect of acupuncture or Chinese medicine, just the usual teh awesome articles by Shermer et. al. -- not really indicative of scientific consensus. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously this isn't settled yet. We should be supplying the sources and edits to the pseudoscience question before putting in the infobox and category.  I think that there are sources to be applied before a category or infobox can be added, but I think the infobox is inevitable.  Source first, then edit, then infobox people, that's how it works.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, WLU. I'll follow your lead. Can I help at all? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could get everyone to shut the hell up and stop reverting. And assemble sources.  I'll try to get to this, but frankly the stupid and unnecessary reverting is making me want to walk away in disgust.  We aren't at the point where the infobox should be added yet, we're at the point where we should be trying to find sources that label acupuncture or parts of it as pseudoscience, then integrating those sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, on it, WLU. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

COI issue
Please note this is relevant to this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Meritless allegations, but you screwed up by posting what you thought was my personal information. Outing is a no-no with severe consequences.  You crossed a line. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The COI arises because you are clearly here to promote acupuncture rather than dispassionately write encyclopedia articles. You also have an interest in the normal sense. Verbal chat  09:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ok to be passionate as long as you remain civil and neutral. Revealing a personal webpage that the user does not include on their wikipedia userpage is outing and should disiplined. SA's userpage indicates a strong POV and COI with the interest in this article (which means no more AGF).  I can't believe that there's so much controversy. I'm one of the primary authors of Commons:Sexual content and things are, at least recently, much more harmonious that here. I'm going to keep monitoring this. Anybody who crosses boundries will be dealt with appropiately. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No more AGF?? Middle8 linked himself to these things. It is clearly not outing. If Middle8 wants a fresh start he is free to do that, but would have to avoid acupuncture. Verbal chat  11:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I said promote which is different to passion. With the COI and history of changing accounts, it shows a problem. Verbal chat  11:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What's that about changing accounts? Anthony (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Middle8 has previous edited under a different name in the same topic area causing similar problems. Verbal chat  11:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Socking? Anthony (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having been active at this page for a few years now, to the best of my knowledge Middle 8 has never engaged in any sock puppetry, and I would be surprised if they did. Can we please close this thread and continue any necessary discussion at a more appropriate venue? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Middle8's new account is a legitimate one, a fact known to many editors who have edited alongside him, but he has previously used another account where his profession was clearly identified. There were also questions about a COI then, and I don't think his profession has changed, so he should be very careful when editing in this area as a COI that leads to promotion and defense of acupuncture and related topics is potentially problematic. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was socking but after the account was caught the editor claimed it was an alternative account. The account was being used in the same alternative medicine topic area. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, QG, there wasn't socking, which you know perfectly well -- but thanks for the troll. I had two accounts at first to avoid wikistalking by some of the same drama-addicts who are hassling me now.  Simply having two accounts doth not a sock make, as you know (but pretend not to, which is just adorable).  Full explanation here -- enjoy poring over every lurid detail. --Middle 8 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At first you did not declare it was an alternative account and you were editing in the same topic. You were pretending to be a new account and editors were concerned the account was a sock. After you got caught you dumped the account. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Brangifer: you seem to imply that the statement "there were also questions about a COI" means anything -- anyone can question anything whether the question has merit or not, and the correct statement is there have never been findings of COI on this or any account, and when the accusation based on profession was made, it was immediately dismissed as meritless (read WP:COI and you'll see why).  As a matter of fact, I've never been sanctioned, blocked or banned for anything on Wikipedia.  (The secret: I'm too patient with assholes.)  Read my userpage and you'll see that I identify my profession with this account too.  The idea that I (or anyone in my position, editing in my professional area) somehow would make money from editing WP is absurd, and drastically overestimates the influence Wikipedia has -- it's widely seen as a pathetic joke for anything substantive, and this thread is a good example of why.


 * By the way, using this "COI is everywhere" logic, shouldn't ALL healthcare practitioners editing this article declare a potential COI, since casting acupuncture in a poor light might indirectly financially benefit them? Yes, that's certainly true.  Anyone declaring?


 * (crickets)


 * But wait: the same goes for any scientist supported by grants, since grant money is scarce and skewing the article for/against acupuncture might influence some grant evaluator, somewhere, maybe. And librarians, too, since including references to texts you carry will help keep your employer open.  Yes, there's no doubt: practically anyone editing this article should tread very carefully around bullshit COI issues, and spend as little time as possible substantively on the article so that a few hypermotivated wannabe-Wikistuds can have their way with it.  Yes, this is all potentially problematic -- wait, I meant to write patently absurd.  Or simply, "welcome to Wikipedia".  --Middle 8 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not appropriate for an article talk page. It belongs here. What is covered needs to be aired there. Anthony (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note. I agree the conversation should continue there, but a cut and paste does not help the situation. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? ad hom? PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly? Anthony (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest may not be a concern (I don't think so) but civil pov-pushing may be. That's a separate conversation, whether a topic ban is warranted.  I don't know if that's the case at this point, but the damned edit warring isn't helping.
 * Middle8 - you must accept that it is verifiable many people don't believe acupuncture is proven, it's certainly debated and far from settled, and most don't believe the traditional Chinese beliefs of qi and meridians have any merit. Advocacy for acupuncture is inappropriate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi WLU (et. al.) -- You don't know me very well on WP. Besides the acupuncture, I have an advanced degree in a physical science from a university with an outstanding department, and the better part of a decade in pharmaceutical R&D (my first career). So I'm reasonably science-literate in addition to understanding TCM.  (Obviously, I'm no match for bright-eyed college kids quoting Ernst, but that's natural, since WP has always denigrated editorial expertise.)
 * Of course I understand that what you say is correct about the scientific landscape, but I'm sure that you also know that there are doctors who believe there's something to some CAM's, particularly acupuncture. Before saying that I "advocate for acupuncture", you might try to understand my history here.  Several years ago I wrote the "criticism of TCM section", large parts of which remain.  I update Cochrane reviews and the like irrespective of their findings.  I have added, or don't object to others adding, properly-sourced and -weighted cites critical of acupuncture.  I'm fine with acu and TCM being included in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience since we agreed on and found the proper sources.  And of course we need to make sure that the TCM side is covered adequately, which is an area where TCM-style and other acupuncturists can come in handy.


 * The only thing I've ever objected to, without adequate sourcing, is the unambiguous characterization of acupuncture as pseudoscience (via the category, infobox or anything else that is a binary condition). There is a reasonable debate to be had about demarcation and what kind of sources suffice, but not when certain hyper-aggressive editors and their acolytes find me taking a stance opposite to theirs, and resort to ad hominem and wikidrama ("COI!" "POV-Pusher!") instead of discussing.  Indeed, the goal is to drive the opposition away, not engage any sort of WP:DR.  This is a global problem on WP, well-summarized by User:Gleng, a professor who used to edit here, on his user page.


 * More later on the demarcation argument; I just noticed that WP:PSCI now directs to a different place. What I've been meaning to point to is at Fringe_theories.  That clearly says that well-known topics that have following and have attracted commentary must verifiably be shown to be considered pseudo by the scientific community.  That's where WP:RS comes in.  The rest seems fairly obvious.  --Middle 8 (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is fallacious to conclude that Category:Pseudoscience or a pseudoscience infobox are unambiguously characterizing an entire article as such. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies or guidelines which indicate this. It is, in fact, a rule you made up out of thin-air. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken about the "unambiguous" characterization; it is mentioned in WP specifically with respect to categorization and other yes/no type labels. Being in a category, or having an infobox, is a binary condition and therefore unambiguous.  Thus, with respect to well-known topics, Fringe_theories distinguished between topics that are "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community .... and may be categorized as pseudoscience" and topics that are "questionable science" that "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific" (emphasis mine).  The razor here is WP:RS, which is how we determine whether consensus exists.  Obviously, tiny fringe topics don't require a source (read the guideline), but well-known ones do.  Homeopathy, for example, was categorized on WP as pseudo after a British medical body (the Royal Society, or something) called it pseudo (or something close).  Global consensus on WP has been to follow this approach for some time, and it's worked well:  it's unambiguous (there's that word again), conforms to NPOV and VER, and there are no glaring omissions or bad inclusions in the category.  --07:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle 8 (talk • contribs)
 * Please show me the policy where WP specifically mentions "unambiguous characterization" associated with infoboxes or categories since you claimed it existed but couldn't seem to be bothered to actually show it. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read Fringe_theories in its entirety keeping context in mind. There is a difference between saying "Joe Blow saidacu is pseudoscience" and saying "acu is pseudoscientific", whether in so many words or by having a binary descriptor like a category or infobox. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That guideline says nothing about categories and infoboxes indicating unambiguous characterizations. Try again. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable relying on the common sense of most editors here, who I imagine can see that having an all-or-nothing category (or infobox) is synonymous with "binary" and "unambigous". I fully expect you and a couple of other editors to continue being disingenuous (see WP:SPADE) and pretending you don't get it. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think it is common sense that this arbcom ruling you are quoting is referring to infoboxes and categories as being unambiguous/binary characterizations. Go ahead and start a request-for-comment on that one. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can this off-article discussion go somewhere else please? For COI go here, for outing go here, to discuss anything else, other than article content, take it to a user talk page. Anthony (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently added "Clarification needed" tags
I'm sleepy, so probably just missing it, but QuackGuru, don't the 5 references here explain the "some" and "others"? Sorry if I'm being stupid. Anthony (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Many of us have seen this from QG before: game-playing; trolling.  (As is said in multiple contexts in WP, "assume good faith is not a suicide pact".)  --Middle 8 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Several[not in citation given] review articles have been published on the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment with several concluding it is an effective treatment modality,[neutrality is disputed][3][8][9] while others[clarification needed] attribute it to the placebo effect.[10][11]" This sentence is poorly written and needs a lot of work. According to Anthony and Middle 8 the source verified "some" not "several". However, putting different sources together to come to a new conclusion is SYN ans OR. According to Anthony you need the 5 references here to explain the "some" and "others" Using 5 references to come to a new conclusion is going beyond the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had another crack at it, the lead has to be somewhat vaguer than the body since it is meant to be a summary. Hopefully the current version, which is way too specific in my opinion, is adequate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Anthony? Huh? Don't twist my words. Anthony (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience?
Sometime in the last few months, an editor added category:pseudoscience to the article; I removed it for reasons that I hope were clear in my edit summary: per WP:PSCI Fringe theories and WP:RS, we need a proper source showing acupuncture is "generally considered pseudoscience" by the scientific community. Such a source would be on the order of a mainstream scientific academy, such as those found in List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design and Scientific opinion on climate change. Lacking such a source, per WP:PSCI, acupuncture is an "alternative theoretical formulation" and/or "questionable science", and as such "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point" (emphasis mine). That means we shouldn't use the category, since inclusion in the category is a binary condition, ergo unambiguous. However, it's fine to cite reliable sources within the article who do consider it pseudoscience, just as it's fine to cite reliable sources who don't. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not quite there, though doubtless many would agree that it is. I support the removal.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per previous discussion, and scientific view of meridians and acupuncture is clear. Sham is as good as "real" (see refs in article). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Verbal: that reasoning is weak at best, and at worst wrong or simply absent. (1) Which previous discussion? Link to it so we all can see it. (2) Scientific view isn't clear at all: read the lead re "active research", "controversial" and lack of settled agreement over proper design of sham controls, as well as meta-analyses showing positive results for efficacy (I like how an earlier editor weasel-ishly changed negative results to "many", with two cites, and positive to "some", also with two equally good cites).  (3) You haven't refuted or even addressed my reasoning above re NPOV (see: WP:PSCI) and VER (see: WP:RS).  You've also got two editors disagreeing with your position.  I'm reverting (and fixing the "many/some" silliness).  Please take the time and effort to address 1-2-3 above specifically if you disagree.  Also, your edit sloppily removed a good reference fix by WLU.  --Middle 8 (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is needed is a high-quality reference that clearly labels it as pseudoscience. I don't think we're quite there yet.  Acupuncture appears to be nonsense based on a flawed, medieval, probably alchemical understanding of the body, but it's not quite considered pseudoscience - even Edzard Ernst has stated that it's got merit with nausea and some types of pain.  It obviously lacks any merit for treatment of conditions (rather than symptoms) but it's not quite pseudoscience.  If an explicit reference can be found that's not one of the obvious skeptic sources (like the ones a google books search turns up at the top), maybe.  I think it's arguable that it could be said "some have called it pseudoscience", I think it's theory is utter, utter nonsense, but I think this falls into the "questionable science" category at WP:PSCI.  There is a reason to believe that jamming needles into the body does help with some symptoms (pain and nausea, and of course there's also dry needling), even if the reason why is not what is usually voiced, or not completely understood.  It's pseudoscientific to claim that it treats any actual condition, but unlike homeopathy or astrology, it's still considered as to have some merit in a limited number of cases.  Certainly there is merit to exploring claims of it being pseudoscientific, but ultimately it is now being investigated scientifically and there are secondary reviews indicating limited effectiveness for (again) pain and nausea.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to distinguish between calling acupuncture as a whole pseudoscience (while still documenting that some do say that), and calling most of its (1) claims and its foundational ideas ((2) acupuncture points and (3) meridians) pseudoscientific. Those three can clearly be labelled and categorized as pseudoscience. The question of whether acupuncture works for some things is actually irrelevant. A parallel situation exists for chiropractic. We can't categorize chiropractic as a whole as pseudoscience, but we can categorize many of its (1) claims and its two foundational ideas ((2) vertebral subluxations and (3) Innate Intelligence), as well as its (4) Applied kinesiology diagnostic method, as pseudoscientific. These are all falsifiable beliefs being presented by professions as biological facts, and thus they are pseudoscientific. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that, but would we then use the category "pseudoscience" or restrict it to the subpages that are clearly pseudoscientific? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have to be the subpages, but the proper sci-consensus sources (cf. above) would still be needed. And remember, the map (TCM theory) isn't the territory (clinical efficacy), but it's still found useful in practice (e.g., distal points like P6 for nausea and LI4 for dental pain aren't predicted by biomedical knowledge, so the ancient Chinese apparently spotted something and explained it in their own terms, much as an ancient culture might predict eclipses correctly but explain them mythologically.)  I don't get why more of the writers for scientific-skeptical publications don't grok this simple distinction. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) I reverted Verbal's revert, which he attempted to justify solely by a bogus COI accusation in the edit summary. AS WP:COI says, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." Verbal didn't discuss his revert on the talk page or address any of the issues I raised just above. Verbal, please re-read WP:COI and WP:DR, and please stop engaging in the kind of careless behavior that has gotten certain other editors put on restricted editing. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All those "theoretical" aspects of acupuncture are pretty obvious pseudoscience. They wildly contradict medical and anatomical knowledge.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think we'll be able to get aspects of TCM theory into Category:Pseudoscience under the "obvious pseudoscience" rubric. TCM is far too well-known and has far too many followers, or people who at least use its ideas to guide their treatments (even if they don't take it literally), to be put in the same basket as "Time Cube" and the like.  Even notable skeptics Beyerstein and Sampson note that some Chinese scientists see the concepts as clinically interesting or useful metaphors (scroll to "CSICOP on pseudoscience  in China).  "Obvious Pseudoscience" is a category for things that are in some way notable, but that scientists haven't bothered to comment on; see WP:Pseudoscience and other findings in the ArbCom case on which parts of NPOV ((i.e., WP:PSCI) are based.  TCM is almost certainly the best-known, most widely-practiced and widely-researched traditional indigenous medicine on the planet, and mainstream scientific bodies will not have missed a chance to weigh in on it.  So, if we can't find the sources, it's because mainstream scientific bodies are not as eager as writers for scientific-skepticial publications and their audiences to dismiss aspects of TCM theory.  The amount of research going on and the reticence of high-quality, sci-consensus-type sources to call qi, meridians, and the like "pseudoscience" shows that the scientific consensus simply isn't there yet. --Middle 8 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Any proof for the existence of meridians, qi, acupuncture points? There's a lot of evidence that it doesn't matter where you jam the needles (or even if you use them) - sham acupuncture in the best designed trials works as well as "real".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfectly good question (although I disagree that the issue of sham controls is settled), but not germaine to whether or not to use category:pseudoscience on these topics. If I were wanting to insert text in an article stating that there exists unambiguous proof for the physical existence of meridians and that each acupoint had specific activity, then your question would be relevant, and under WP:BURDEN I'd have to provide a good source supporting an affirmative answer.  But that's not at issue.  If you and/or Brangifer want to use category:pseudoscience on qi, meridians, etc., then you have the burden of proof, and need to show that these well-known topics are "generally considered pseudoscience" with a proper source per WP:PSCI and WP:RS.  I'm not aware of any such source, and have yet to see anyone produce one.  So, as things stand, these topics remain in the "grey area" of "questionable science". regards, Middle 8 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the book The Body Electric, Dr. Robert O. Becker found evidence of meridians using a cookie cutter electrode. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, until the scientific community proves that this is actual science (which it has not), it should be considered psuedoscience, because it is based on ancient ideas more closely tied to philosophy than science, much like chiropracty. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The first search result of my first search on Google term ("scientific evidence" acupuncture meridians) came up with this paper which negates this whole argument and demonstrates that this article is POV. I wish I had more time to work on this article because I have personally experienced over a hundred treatments through acupuncture from over 20 providers (mostly students), and while the results do vary depending on condition, diagnosis, skill, and technique, overall it has been quite effective. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I don't see how one primary source paper contradicts the argument. Dogweather (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience is a broad system of theories or assertions about the natural world that [1] claim or appear to be scientific, but that [2] are not considered being so by the scientific community" (Category:Pseudoscience) It's pretty clear that (2) is the consensus view, but what about (1)? Do proponents of acupuncture assert that it's scientific? If so, then the category tag is justified. Dogweather (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The source I gave is most certainly a secondary source (summary of primary/secondary sources). Look up WP:SECONDARY. Next, who/where/when claimed that accupunture is science? Acupuncture is a healing art that came from observation, trial and error, and intuition. Western medicine is no different. Both have been challenged, refuted, and improved by using the scientific method, however neither TCM nor western medicine can be considered scientific theories.  When I think of psuedoscience, I think of phrenology, or melanin theory - not acupuncture. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your source is excellent support for tagging this article Category:Pseudoscience: It's evidence that acupuncture is accompanied by claims that appear to be scientific (satisfying element 1), against the consensus view of the scientific community (element 2). I'd like to find another similar sources: More articles written by proponents attempting to cast a scientific light.  Then we'd have great support for the Category:Pseudoscience category.  Maybe the recent Adenosine study is RS for this.  Dogweather (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way who is claiming that meridians and qi are "science"? If there is no claim, then there is no pseudo-science. Over to Acupuncture. Acupunture is should be treated as a field FOR serious scientific research, and a field that is not well understood, where evidence are raised and refuted, tested and confirmed or falsified. If falsibility is the criterion as per philosopher of Science Popper, then acupuncture is science. 220.255.115.188 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reset archives to 250K, Miszabot
In case anyone's interested I standardized the archives to 250K, adjusted the dates at the archive box and started Miszabot. They were all over the place with different sizes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anthony (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Issues in Study Design"
This section is way too long, and needs to be sourced. There are some great sources for the advent of and use of sham acupuncture. This section should skip right to "sham" after noting that there have been problems designing studies. The whole block quote from Inst. of Med. is unnecessary fluff. Dogweather (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I guess "fluff" is in the eye of the beholder; the IOM is arguably the best MEDRS on English Wikipedia, and their point about controls is directly germaine to study design here. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The primary problem with the design of acupuncture studies is that the Acupuncture is a modality or therapy and should be tested as such. Double blind placebo studies are best for drugs and other medications. Techniques such as a surgery or physical therapy are compared to other treatment methods. Then comparisons are made as to which has the better clinical outcome. These types of studies are the most relevant and should be the standard for examining the effectiveness and validity of acupuncture. The effectiveness and validity of acupuncture should not be established by how well we do or do not understand or agree with 1,000 year old texts on the subject.67.77.164.64 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protected
Thanks for that. Now can we actually work on the citations? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Maybe the best thing to do is to write the text here that we need citations for and to start looking. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Below is a shoddy, shoddy draft with no sources. A lot of the information might better fit into multiple sections.  And frankly, it's mostly my opinion right now.  But it's a start. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
In Europe acupuncture experienced a brief period of popularity before fading from use in the mid-19th century, in part due to the deterioration between Britain and China due to the Opium Wars. Its use in China declined at the same time, when the Daoguang Emperor forbade it in the belief it would stall progress in medicine in the country. Following the 1949 Chinese Revolution however, Mao Zedong, motivated partly by ideology and partly out of pragmatism in response to a lack of Western-trained doctors, revived the practice of acupuncture along with other aspects of TCM as part of the training program for barefoot doctors bringing basic medical care to rural villages in China. Mao himself avoided TCM for his own medical treatment. The revival of acupuncture went unnoticed in the West until the visit of Richard Nixon to China in 1972. His visit was preceded by, among others, reporter James Reston who was struck with appendicitis and was, after conventional surgery, treated with acupuncture for post-operative pain. Reston was impressed by the treatment and wrote an article for The New York Times regarding the experience. This, accompanied by related publicity about patients able to undergo major surgery without anaesthetic, sparked an enormous amount of interest regarding the practice. The tools and teaching of acupuncture was soon legalized (initially for the purposes of experimentation research rather than widespread practice), with tremendous interest from physicians and medical schools.

Later reviews suggested that deception and political propaganda played a large part in the dramatic demonstrations in China, as well as subsequent claims for its efficacy and in the 1970s researchers began skeptical and critical investigations into the practice using randomized clinical trials and other hallmarks of scientific medicine. A 1979 review of the research to date by the WHO concluding it was effective in the treatment of numerous conditions lent tremendous credibility to acupuncture with dramatic increases in the number of practitioners and a steady integration into mainstream medical practice.

Though acupuncture had achieved significant mainstream acceptance, there was still no convincing explanation of how it worked. The traditional Chinese medicine explanations of meridians and the manipulation of immaterial qi, based on a pre-scientific understanding of the body with no understanding of anatomy (dissection was forbidden in pre-modern Chinese society) were met with skepticism by the medical and scientific community. The meridians alleged to flow through the body do not correspond to any anatomical structures such as the nervous or circulatory system. Further, the qi that is alleged to flow through meridians has never been measured, and much of the evidence that convinces practitioners of the merit of their work consists of anecdotes about their patients, or poorly-controlled studies. Scientific explanations included the gate control theory of pain, the release of opioids, and the placebo effect. However, a lack of an adequate blinding and sham procedures meant most of the initial research on acupuncture was unable to answer questions about the actual effectiveness of the treatment rather than the effectiveness of the placebo. In addition, there tended to be a lack of high-quality research on acupuncture, which affected the conclusions drawn; a 1990 meta-analysis of acupuncture and addiction found that studies of higher methodological rigor, better able to test the effectiveness of a procedure, found that lower-quality studies reported positive outcomes. It was not until the the 1990s, that a series of placebos were derived that were deemed adequate to test the true effectiveness of acupuncture. Called sham needling, it involved the insertion of needles into areas of the body not considered true acupuncture points within TCM, and/or the insertion of needles too shallowly to reach the depth where TCM practitioners believed the meridians lay (later, a newer type of placebo was developed in the form of an acupuncture needle that retracts into its handle to give the appearance of penetrating the skin, without actually doing so). The result was a demand by skeptics to reassess the evidence base for acupuncture against new, sham-controlled trials. The results of much higher-quality trials were used to draft a WHO report in 2003; incorporating the results of nearly 300 research trials, the report essentially repeated the conclusions of the 1979 version. However, the report did not account or control for the quality of the trials, including a large number that were of substantially lower quality. The report also included many trials from China, where severe publication bias meant that all findings published by researchers in China were positive rather than the mixed results found in the West. Next section needs attribution as it's far more clearly the opinion of the authors In addition, as a medical but also political organization, the WHO may have been reluctant to publish a critical report since criticisms of acupuncture may be considered criticisms of China, or the Orient in general. See what I mean? WLU In addition, the expert panel reviewing the report did not include any critics of acupuncture but was comprised wholly of believers and the report itself was drafted by Zhu-Fan Xie, the Honorary Director of the Beijing Institute of Integrated Medicines - which unreservedly endorses the view that acupuncture is effective in the treatment of a range of conditions. A 1997 panel regarding acupuncture convened by the National Institutes of Health was similarly criticized for being filled with proponents of acupuncture rather than being made up of critical scientists.

In contrast to the WHO reports the Cochrane Collaboration, which was established in 1988 to produce reports on various subjects, has been more critical. Choosing the highest quality of evidence available with emphasis on placebo-controlled trials, has released many reviews that found little evidence to support the effectiveness of acupuncture beyond placebo. The only conditions for which the Cochrane reviews find positive evidence are those involving certain types of pain and nausea.

Comment and discussion
The above is, as mentioned, a start at a history of scientific research into TCM, with various twists and turns. Two thoughts: (1) Some of the order of points is dicey, e.g. the criticism of the NIH panel:  while there were acupuncturists and acu researchers on the panel (imagine that, experts in the field!), there were also scientists and doctors with no affiliation with Chinese medicine or CAM. The implication that the "advocates" therefore must have carried the day, because they were going to just roll over the others, and that only one of the vocal Quackwatch type critics could have saved the day, is not reasonable. (Anecdote: I know one of the scientists who sat on the panel, and he described the debate as rigorous.) We do get to use common sense with RS's, and doing stuff like presenting the source mentioning criticism as the last word is inappropriate under NPOV. I'll suggest minor rewrites to fix. (2) With all that's in the section, I hope the contemplated title isn't "pseudoscience". That would hardly be an adequate summary of the research outlined. It's something that Stephen Barrett (not to mention scads of politicians running for office) typically do: using pejorative headers over mixed material. Any professor of English would immediately identify such writing as overtly biased. Thanks for considering these issues. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The criticism is verifiable from a reliable source, and provides the context to some criticisms. Do you have a comparable source for a criticism of the criticism, or other rebuttal?  With such a contentious field, with two very obvious comparable sides, failing to include one of the sides certainly seems like a pretty solid point to make.  We don't get to use "common sense" - reliable sources must be fairly represented.  Using "common sense" is exactly why an edit war ensued and the disagreements go in circles - one man's common sense is another man's intolerable nonsense.  We represent what is verifiable, not true.  Also, a "rigorous debate" from someone who doesn't understand the importance of rigorous methodology or publication bias, isn't necessarily the same thing as a truly substantive debate.  I'm sure there was rigorous debate over Jesus' status as a deity or man, or just how much blood should be drained from George Washington to save his life, or whether to allow women are worth one half, or one quarter the value of a man.  Being an "expert" in a field doesn't mean one is an expert in research methodology.  We discuss if the reference is reliable; if it's given appropriate weight; if it's fairly and accurately summarized.  TorT is reliable, significantly and prominently represents one the appropriate sides of the discussion on acupuncture, is used extensively for historical information and its criticisms are attributed where appropriate (and for the scientific points, it can't be emphasized just how much an appropriate control group and procedure - which didn't exist or was used until the late 90s - was needed).  Certainly, if the same points can be made with peer-reviewed sources, that's great.  I'm guessing digging into Ernst's publications would turn them up, and they should be added if found.  Criticisms appropriately come last, simply because you need to present the context in order to present what's wrong.  However, the criticisms are generally shorter than the main commentary which is one way weight is dealt with.
 * Pseudosicence isn't a good title, I agree. I'm not even sure where it should be located.  Unfortunately it covers much material that's already scattered throughout the text so if this is implemented in whole or in part, it will necessitate some adjustment throughout the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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 talk  contribs 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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  talk  contribs 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 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.[77]" 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[8]  and provide better relief for chronic low back pain than no treatment or sham treatment.[9]  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.[3]"  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 Wikipedia 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. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> 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.  Wikipedia 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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).-- Shelf Skewed  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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To do?
Version

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLU (talk • contribs) 18:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove reference 29, spacing between period and 30/31, add TorT as a reference, expand with information from.
 * Remove An example of acupuncture treatment per WP:SYNTH, UNDUE, and overall just unnecessary.
 * (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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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)
 * Lots has happened, but the evidence base has only been seriously tested in the last decade when actually worthwhile placebos were invented. As well, as even the acupuncturists admit, the evidence for acupuncture points and meridians, the ostensible "system" behind acupuncture, is essentially nil.  It doesn't matter where you put the needles.  It doesn't matter if you break the skin.  It doesn't matter if you use toothpicks or needles.  So what does that say about TCM?  I would argue that it says it's a prescientific approach to treatment that is based on astrology and geography more than anatomy, and was almost dead within China before being revived for political reasons.  Evidence matters, not history, not longevity, not artifacts, and the evidence for TCM is little more than tradition.  I don't know much about angels, but I do know that how many can dance on the head of a pin is less important for my health than my doctor, vegetables and exercise regimen.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixing attribution of WHO report
It's always worrysome when Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia) 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? 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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)
 * Really, WLU, your and others' treatment of this simple issue is the most remarkable violation of WP:DENSE I've ever seen. Especially because at least a couple of you are scientists and are supposed to know how to write and cite 'n stuff.  But in a way I'm grateful, because it's a nice, concise example I can point to when I'm showing someone how absurdly unreliable WP is.  WP's self-selection process at work ... -Middle 8 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Acupuncture points and meridians
I don't see how (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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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)
 * Is there any research supporting TCM? Not according to Napadow et al 2008.  An article, published in JACM, summarizing the best research available for the existence of meridians and acupuncture points, can't come up with anything besides "oh, yeah, there's nothing conclusive".  We aren't here to write an "entertaining" article.  We're here to write an encyclopedia.  I am not here to entertain people, I am here to give the best evidence available - and the best evidence available is that they can't prove that acupuncture points exist.  Decades of research and this is the best we've got - a series of discarded hypotheses and a bunch of suggestive findings.  Research isn't preliminary, it's inconclusive.  If anyone is really interested in the details, they can go to the full text article I found and incorporated in the citation template to review every gory, evidence-lacking, inconclusive, hand-waving, straw-grasping, unreplicated study.  Seriously, that section was nothing more than a paraphrased section-by-section repeat of a set of "but we're not sure" paragraphs.  We are supposed to use summary style, not recreate the sources detail by detail.  Knowing nothing of the topic, what would you think of reading about the thiomersal controversy with zero mention of the critical scientific findings, then getting to the line of the final paragraph of the final page to read "But it turns out they were wrong"?  It's a total waste of time.  It is noted which research approaches are considered the most promising, it's noted that they are only equivocally supported.  That's as far as WP:WEIGHT should take us, particularly considering the discoveries would force a substantial revision of what is known of the body and how its organs and tissues interact.  The existence of a hitherto-unknown set of anatomical structures and connections, centuries after the invention of the microscope, and decades after the invention of the electron microscope, would be big news and require a substantial revision of biology and anatomy.  We're not there yet, and we shouldn't sell it as if we were.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's so, so informative to the reader to say only that "everything is inconclusive". Not to say that it could be A or B or Z or nothing -- don't mislead the reader by letting them know which issues are actually under consideration.  Just bore them to tears with no information at all.  And lord forbid we should cover the history of the topic, for some of that might be contrary to EBM (the only important thing ever), and our readers might be really fucking stupid and make the grave error of conflating the two.  Encyclopedic = boring, I guess.  Yawn.  Remember this?  I should have learned.  God, this "any fool one can edit" business is tedious.  Oh, re this "bullshit" (your term) -- you say "if anything Ernst & Singh would fare better than Ernst alone, being published a year later".  Dude, Ernst and Singh (2008) is a popular book, not peer-reviewed, and lacks footnotes.  Ernst (2007), a systematic review of RCT's, is a better MEDRS, no question.  You're like a scientist or something -- how could you not know that?!  Oh, but let's settle this by wikiality consensus, that'll work.... the story of the Blind men and an elephant comes to mind.  --Middle 8 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What no information? There's a listing of all the suggestive but inconclusive interventions.
 * The history of the topic is a different issue, that I haven't touched.
 * Encyclopedias should be informative and reliable, for entertainment I suggest a blog. Others may find it an interesting discussion, I see it as a lengthy, tedious, ultimately pointless sidebar in an already lengthy article.  The section took what looks like nearly 4,000 characters to say "we don't know, and we don't really have promising evidence either".  Each paragraph consisted of "here are the findings!  As reported in primary sources.  And here are all the limitations that prevent us from actually knowing whether we're on to something, or it's a blind alley."  Note the extensive use of "for example", "in one study", "significance is unclear", "this is controversial", "this study was on dogs".  My paragraph, using a single paper, documents both that these avenues are being pursued, and that they aren't conclusive.  In my mind, far better, and more in keeping with UNDUE, SS, V, CRYSTAL and COATRACK.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 05:07, 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.[6]  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.[122]' 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.[17]

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)
 * Yes, and the whole point of the Quackwatch statement is that those nonadvocate panel members were actually advocates - 12 members of a panel who were all pro acupuncture, with the lone skeptic actually sick that day. Part of the reason for the length of that sentence is to attribute the comment.  If you'd like, we could leave out the attribution and simply say the panel lacked critics and was full of pseudoscientific reasoning, but I would say that text is necessary in order to make it clear who is saying what.  Quackwatch is well-known for being a critic of nonscientific approaches to medicine, particularly CAM, and being an excellent anodyne to the unverified, wildly exaggerated claims made for CAM - including acupuncture.  Quackwatch isn't a tiny fringe, it's an award winning site that demands high-quality evidence for the claims made by people like acupuncturists, and insists on a scientific basis for said claims.  It is nigh-unique on the 'net for providing this information.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some were pro, the rest were neutral! READ THE SOURCE!  --Middle 8 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and none were critical, that's kinda Sampson's point. "The first question that arose after viewing the speaker program was why there was an absence of speakers known to have done acupuncture research but who had obtained negative results."  Quackwatch would be considered a reliable, third-party source that could adequately comment on the committee and its findings.  The committee itself however, would be considered a primary source for its own motivations.  Much like I wouldn't believe anything William A. Dembski says about the scientific status of intelligent design, I would be reluctant to wholeheartedly trust their opinion on their own expertise.  It's not quite Dembski/ID bad, but it's not great.  Even the Vatican had Christopher Hitchens as a Devil's advocate when looking into canonizing Sister Theresa.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 05:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sampson imagines none were critical. I was told first-hand by one of the panel members that the debate was quite spirited.  Why would they want a Barrett clone in there to oppose everything, and question water-is-wet type assertions, and kill the whole process (kind of like you're doing now, sad to say, with equally lethal results)?  Sampson believes that scientists who aren't strident critics of acupuncture, like himself, are unable to hold their own against scientists who have a relatively favorable opinion about it.  That's pure fantasy and projection on his part.  Your notion that the NIH panel is "12 primary sources" is typical of the IMO misguided and incorrect positions you've been taking, that I think are harming the wiki, but that I don't have the time and energy to deal with.  You also drove away User:LittleHow; congratulations would be in order, I suppose, if I were one of the hyperskeptic types.  All it takes is persistence and you can get your way here.  That's the wikiality way.  --Middle 8 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article would be very well assisted if there were high-quality sources that substantiated acupuncture being more than elaborate placebo. However, as placebo studies got better (in particular placebos got better) the "realness" of acupuncture got worse.  Acupuncture may help with pain, possibly nausea, but certainly not because of qi or meridians.  So...it's dry needling then, whose effectiveness rivals that of the best placebos.  I'll take wikiality over "it's really old so it must work" any day - wikiality can change, while "it's old so it must be right" apparently refuses to die.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ernst believes that as placebos have improved, evidence for efficacy has diminished, but that issue of one of many controversies in acupuncture research. If placebos are too close to verum acupuncture then studies will show false negatives.  Since we're not sure of the mechanism, we can't be sure that the various kinds of "sham acupuncture" lack specific activity.  Nor has blinding the practitioner been satisfactorily addressed.  So the evidence base remains incomplete and inconclusive.  Why/how/when acupuncture works remains to be seen, and it probably will involve the physically and clinically verifiable correlates of qi and meridians.  "It's old so it must be right" is a straw man given the history of the article, but wikiality remains a major problem, especially when a few users can concoct a brand new attribution for the WHO report on acupuncture (permalink).  The article would benefit from a greater number of editorial eyes, which would hopefully put a stop to such errors. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sham acupuncture that does not use a needle has been seen as suspect, because although there is no needle, the fact that the placebo is used on the acupuncture point can have a similar effect to needling though not as effective . The latest trials use dynamic MRI to watch cause and effect. If you google dynamic MRI acupuncture you will find a lot of papers on the subject from mainstream bodies. For example Investigating Acupuncture Using Brain Imaging Techniques: The Current State of Play George T. Lewith et al Primary Medical Care, School of Medicine, University of Southampton UK or another study of interest from NIH . The MRI looks at the the brain to detect changes when acupuncture occurs. Volunteers who have no experience in acupuncture, have genuine acupuncture needles placed in recognised acupuncture points and also needles are put in non acupuncture points (sham points) as a control, the resulting changes on the brain are compared.


 * One of the mainstream organisations that accept that acupuncture works is NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) . Acupuncture is no longer regarded as a pseudoscience (for pain relief) by a lot of the mainstream now, I am not sure that  this article is up to date with current thinking. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

lede
All my efforts to improve this article and especially the lede have apparently been completely removed, and without even any effort to understand what the purpose of my edits were. Very depressing; seems this is another article owned by a clique that wants to maintain the status quo. Since you felt the source of the excellent summary i quoted was too old, it would have been better to summarise the current sources instead of only deleting the "outdated" summary.

Please realise that the current lede is too long and badly written from the point of view of normal readers and MOS. For example, details like talk of acupuncture points and meridians and original names of Chinese texts do not belong in the lede since they confuse most readers and make the topic seem unnecessarily complicated. All of the lede's current three paragraphs should be reduced to about half of their current lengths.

As bad or worse than scaring off most readers with an abstruse and wordy lede is the fact that important information such as that about opioid peptides was removed. Please be less heavy-handed and try to welcome additions and improvements by others. --Espoo (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

USA-centric
Too much USA-centricity, not enough mention of other countries' health institutions and governmental reports.

The USA's point of view shouldn't be dominating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.65.40 (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I do think that the tone of the article errs on the side of acupuncture being a load of quackery! This is an out of date point of view. The use of acupuncture for certain types of pain relief, particularly lower back pain, is now generally accepted. Acupuncture for a whole lot of other conditions is still not proven mainly because of the inability to provide an effective double blind study, although there is progress on this too. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Veterinary acupuncture and efficacy in children
Hi Wilfrid. After "One study found that acupuncture 'seems to alleviate pain just barely better than sticking needles into nonspecified parts of the body' and concluded that some of acupuncture's effects may be due to the placebo effect."you added"However, there are several problems with this idea. It is difficult to explain the use of Acupuncture Analgesia (AA) in veterinary medicine over the past 1000 years in China and 100 years in Europe as well as an increasing use, on animals, in the USA. Similarly, small children respond to AA. Animals and to a lesser extent young children are not succeptable to suggestibilty, and in fact, several studies in which patients were given psychological tests did not show a good correlation between AA and suggestibility. Pomeranz B & Berman B (2003). 'Scientific basis of acupuncture' in Stux G, Berman B & Pomeranz B. Basics of acupuncture. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3-540-44273-1."Which I reverted and you (effectively) restored.

Anthony (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I haven't been following this page closely, so don't know why this health-related article, guided by WP:MEDRS, has that statement beginning "One study found..." It is a single study; and so what (?) if some researcher thinks "maybe it's partly placebo." On the face of it, that statement doesn't belong here. But that's for later.
 * 2) Your response to the assertion that some of acupuncture's effects may be due to placebo, did not counter that assertion, because the assertion was only that some of the effect is placebo. Proving that there is a therapeutic effect in some cases where placebo can be ruled out (horses and newborns?) proves there is an effect other than placebo, but the assertion you argue against allows that by the use of "some."
 * 3) But my main problem with your proposed edit is that surgeons were blood-letting for millennia and priests were exorcising for longer, animals, infants and adults, and were convinced they were doing good. Saying people do it is no support whatever for the efficacy of the practice. That people do it may and does prompt scientific research, but itself adds not a gram to the weight of proof. What I would love to see is an authoritative independent literature or systematic review of the rigorous scientific trials of veterinary and pediatric acupuncture supporting the "more than placebo" argument. Tradition and anecdote don't belong in that argument.


 * Hi Anthony


 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.


 * Orthodox medicine tests new therapies by double blind studies (forgive me if you know this already) where neither the patient or the physician know whether the patient is getting the treatment under test or a placebo. However, in most trials some patients receiving the sham treatment show some improvement, the placebo effect.


 * The problem for acupuncture is that by its very nature is invasive so everyone knows whether it's real or sham. So the hunt has been on for an effective way to get around this. One way has been to use dynamic MRI, thus you stick a needle in somewhere and look at what happens in the brain, a useful article on this technique is probably. "Investigating Acupuncture Using Brain Imaging Techniques: The Current State of Play "  George T. Lewith et al
 * Other techniques involve the use of lasers instead of needling. You have two lasers a real one and a sham one, the real one uses a beam that can not be seen by the naked eye. Thus you can have an effective double blind.
 * There are other studies that look at serotonin and endorphin levels in the body after needling.
 * As far as animal studies are concerned Black's Veterinary Dictionary quotes research by Martin, B.B. et al JAVMA 190 1177, on a case where "Chronic back pain which did not respond to conventional treatments improved in from 2 to 8 weeks in 13 out of 15 racehorses. An injection of sterile saline at nine acupuncture points once a week enabled training and racing to be resumed." There is another paper on the subject here


 * Point is, that acupuncture for pain relief, particularly for treatment of lower back pain has been accepted.
 * The wiki article is patently out of date it says for example that “The National Health Service of the United Kingdom states that there is "reasonably good evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment" for nausea, vomiting, osteoarthritis of the knee and several types of pain but "because of disagreements over the way acupuncture trials should be carried out and over what their results mean, this evidence does not allow us to draw definite conclusions". The NHS states there are evidence against acupuncture being useful for rheumatoid arthritis, smoking cessation and weight loss, and inadequate evidence for most other conditions that acupuncture is used for.” This leaves out the fact that the NHS actually recommend a course of 10 sessions of acupuncture as PART of the treatment for chronic lower back pain. See their press release at
 * I think that you will find that pain clinics in major hospitals are increasingly using acupuncture as part of the treatment.


 * See my addition explaining that vet. acupuncture has been successful on animals where there is no placebo effect as an attempt to start redressing the balance of the article. I think that it is a relevant to the section so I would prefer it was not deleted. Perhaps see what other editors think??


 * Note that I am only referring to acupuncture in the relief of pain, I think that there is still a way to go on other issues.


 * Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dogs and children can respond to the mood and demeanor of their parents/owners. We base our articles on medically reliable sources, primarily secondary sources like this one that concludes "There was weak or no evidence in support of the use of...electrostimulated acupuncture [or] gold wire acupuncture".  If an owner is calm because they believe the treatment will work, chances are the animal will be calm as well - and expectation effects can have a huge impact on subjective tests.  No to mention things like "well, Rex got a treatment so now he can run and play again!" leading the dog to react strongly to those expectaitons.  Your comments also ignore the recent developments with acupuncture placebos (see Trick or Treatment for instance) - now that effective placebos exist (head-retracting needles for instance) and better quality research is being done, there is a trend in the research data that there's little-to-no difference between "real" (needle on a documented acupuncture point or penetrating the skin) versus "fake" (random needle placement, retracting needle) acupuncture.  Now that research with credible placebos is being conducted, the difference between "real" and sham is shrinking.  Treatment for lower back pain is notoriously poor - that acupuncture is found to be as good as "usual treatment" ignores the fact that "usual treatment" is actually pretty bad.
 * Acupuncture's ability to treat anything but pain and nausea is less "has a way to go" (which assumes it will be demonstrated effective) and more "has been tested and unsurprisingly isn't really effective". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi WLU!


 * Thanks Wilfrid. I am completely open minded about acupuncture's effect on pain. I know a little about pain (I basically authored Pain - except for "Society and culture" and "In other animals"), and occasionally encounter discussions about acupuncture in my reading. There is an important pain theoretical construct that, if it doesn't predict, at least allows dry needling to be efficacious: Diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC).


 * But, getting back to this article, it is a health-related article, and such articles are guided by Wikipedia medical sourcing policy. Please familiarise yourself with that document. It, justifiably in my opinion, tightly restricts what can be said with regard to therapeutic efficacy. Many practitioners are frustrated when they see results (for various treatments) in the clinic but have to wait until they are replicated and reviewed before we can mention them. Let me know what you think. Anthony (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Anthony. I really crapped out on that pain article, didn't I?  Sigh...
 * Really what we need are more articles like this one and this one. With the notoriously oversold acupuncture, it's always difficult to demonstrate where the due weight should go.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WLU - the paper you cite is for arthritis which is not what I'm on about, this is a narrow discussion  about acupuncture and pain relief. Animals and young children not being susceptible to the placebo effect is a general principle, not just with acupuncture. The articles I cited were from the American Vet. Association check it again here.  the other article was from Southampton Medical School  if you check that and scroll down you will see a lot of other learned papers.


 * Anthony - I think that a tipping point has been reached with acupuncture and pain relief with the advent of functional MRI, and organisations such as NIH and the NHS do now accept that acupuncture is useful as part of treatment for lower backpain. The problem has been getting to grips with the science, but there are several models emerging now. I was not seeking to recommend acupuncture as a therapy, but I do believe the article is loaded too much the other way. I think that in the context of placebo effect vet. acupuncture was worth mentioning. Anyway, acupuncture is certainly offered in my local hospitals pain clinic and their physio dept. and they tell me that is not unsual now, so whatever we say here it is already out there in the real world Wilfridselsey (UTC)
 * What you've got is a low-n study of 15 horses, which we can't use because it is not a review article, and a study showing that if you jam needles into specific parts of people, rather unsurprisingly there is a replicable change in their cerebral blood flow. The article acknowledges that pain, along with nausea, are modulated by acupuncture (note that pain and nausea are both strongly susceptible to the placebo effect).   As for children and animals and the placebo effect, may I direct you to Trick or Treatment, page 128.  The section is about homeopathy, but is general principles apply to any treatment with a strong placebo component.  I certainly don't think it's right to say "acupuncture isn't just the placebo effect because it works on children and dogs".  It's an inappropriate stretch that leaves "acupuncture works" undefined.  What works?  Manipulation of qi?  Expectation effects?  You may be interested to read some postings at ScienceBlogs, , .  Note how "acupuncture works" is stretched by many to ignore the fact that it usually is indistinguishable from a decent placebo.  TENS and acupuncture are often conflated.  It's rarely noted that low back pain is notoriously diffcult to treat and "usual care" is actually a pretty crappy intervention.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to swap papers then check this one out, as I said the Genies out of the bottle, NICE have published their guidelines on acupuncture and they recommend it as part of treatment for lower back pain. Which effectively means that every NHS Back Pain clinic in the UK will offer acupunture as part of the therapy therefore someone must be convinced by the evidence. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wilfridselsey, the problem is that "placebo effects" are observable both in children (even the young ones) and animals. It is true that animals don't know if they're being treated, but it's also true that they aren't the ones being asked how (or if) their symptoms improve. Whether those "placebo effects" are due to conditioning (see p. 140ff of this book for example), observer bias, a combination of both or other factors, the equation animal = no placebo effect is a fallacy. --Six words (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible to construct rigorous studies on pain in animals, and newborns. It seems this hasn't yet been done for acupuncture. I have to confess, Wilfrid, I haven't read it for a couple of months, but back then the article's tone was a bit derisory. But one corrects that by applying the 5 or 6 essential Wikipedia editing guidelines, not by relaxing them. The UK government did decide to fund acupuncture and chiropractic, but Wikipedia health-related articles are built around authoritative, independent reviews of rigorous scientific studies. This review that WLU pointed to fits the guideline. A government decision doesn't. It could be mentioned in the article (is it?) but not in any way as some kind of proof of acupuncture's efficacy. Anthony (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To link to a specific page on google books, add "&pg=PA###" after the ID # - http://books.google.de/books?id=WXGIzbSSddIC&pg=PA140#v=onepage&q&f=false. Just an FYI.
 * Why the reference to a genie and a bottle? It's not like it's a big secret, it's a scientific investigation.  Yes, acupuncture can relieve pain, but so can saline injections, sugar pills, imaginary treatments, waving your hands, etc.  There are lots of ways to deliver a placebo, acupuncture happens to look like a very convincing one.  Offerring something for treatment isn't the same as saying it's not a placebo effect.  The NHS' stance is noted in the section on Acupuncture.  Far from being the person trying to "keep the genie in the bottle", I believe I'm the one who added the current wording .  The debate isn't really over whether it's effective for the treatment of pain - the debate is if it's more effective than another equally convincing placebo, whether there's such thing as qi, meridians, acupuncture points and other "theory" inherited from TCM, whether there needs to be an elaborate ritual, whether it's anything more than an elaborate placebo.  Nearly any treatment can cause a placebo effect - ethical medicine is about trying to provide something beyond placebo.  Add to that the generally negative view of and disparaging comments made about modern medicine by many CAM practitioners, diversions from actual medical treatment, the necessity of expensive and time-consuming "training" in what is essentially magic, lack of focus on things like sanitation, risks, etc. and you've got a very messy bundle that's treated with a lot of rhetoric and assumptions.  Such as, that it's automatically not a placebo effect.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The genie is out of the bottle because a mainstream health authority is supporting acupuncture for backpain. This means that every back pain clinic in the country will offer acupuncture. They must be fairly confident on it's efficacy. Wilfridselsey

WLU's contribution about the NHS statement looks pretty good to me. When the scientific reviews say something different, then I'm sure the article will alter accordingly. At present, the scientific support for acupuncture is extremely dubious, largely because of poor study design. Anthony (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, WLU. Anthony (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an incredibly counter-intuitive way of linking to a page number, but it works and fits into the | page = parameter of the cite book template. The only time you really have to be careful is when you're in the preface, then the "PA" changes to something else, possibly "PF".
 * Let's try to move forward. Wilfrid, based on the discussion, what do you think the page should say, what are your sources to verify and where do you think it should go?  I believe the original statement of "Placebo effects do not apply to animals and children" is an inappropriate over-reach.  The source is relatively old (particularly given the effect of "true" placebo needles driving up the quality of research since that time) but could still be used if a suitable counter-source could be found that verifies a suitable qualifier.  That's the job of other skeptics to find.  In addition, if speaking directly about animals then Habacher, 2006 should be cited (really, it should already be cited, I'll add it).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think that the Pomereranz statement should be quoted, it is relevant to the discussion, and Pomeranz is well qualified both in zoology and acupuncture.


 * The quote from the NHS statement on acupuncture is selective the section which says:


 * "There is reasonably good evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for:


 * chronic back pain
 * dental pain
 * pain and discomfort during gastrointestinal endoscopy
 * headache
 * nausea and vomiting after an operation
 * pain and discomfort during oocyte retrieval (a procedure used during IVF)
 * osteoarthritis of the knee "


 * was left out, and now the NHS will be providing acupuncture for back pain, which means that probably 1000s of people will experience acupuncture, will Wikipedia reflect their experience?
 * I think that we can say that there is some evidence that acupuncture is beneficial for the treatment of chronic lower back pain, there are a few papers here . The full NICE guideline here . The wiki article is biased and it needs to have a more neutal POV. I think that the jury is out on most claims for acupuncture but not so on pain relief, the article does not reflect that. This discussion has illustrated why I think? Wilfridselsey (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The NHS are not the only health organisation that offers acupuncture for chronic lower back pain, look at what the Mayo Clinic has to say, it also talks about the problems wih placebo. How about Kaiser Permanente here.


 * As far as serious trials go how about 'Acupuncture in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial Brinkhouse, available here or how about this one . Or for an intervention review, check here .  To sum up the consensus, acupuncture plus conventional treatment works better than conventional treatment alone. There is no appreciable difference between needling and using a placebo, and acupuncture is better than no treament. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pomeranz will have to be associated with the more recent and more scientific review of the clinical basis for acupuncture treatment (there is none) and I would suggest with Trick or Treatment or an equivalent source that states, in fact, animals are susceptible to the placebo effect as are the owners who are responsible for evaluating its effectiveness. Essentially something like "Pomeranz states that acupuncture is effective in animals based on his belief that they are not susceptible to the placebo effect.  However, clinical trials of animal acupuncture have not found it to be effective, and Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh point out in their book Trick or Treatment that the mood and demeanour of owners can influence the behaviour of their pets.  In addition the owners, who are aware of the treatment their pets are undergoing, are responsible for interpreting their pets behavior and may see improvements that objective tests can not detect."
 * Please keep in mind that per WP:MEDRS the best evidence is not single studies but rather meta-analyses and systematic reviews; it is inappropriate to cite primary sources (for the purposes of medical pages, that means the individual results of single trials). In the section on evidence based medicine acupuncture's effectiveness versus back pain is already discussed.  Furlan is already cited twice in the page, once for low back pain ("For acute low back pain there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against either acupuncture or dry needling, though for chronic low back pain acupuncture is more effective than sham treatment but no more effective than conventional and alternative treatments for short-term pain relief and improving function. However, when combined with other conventional therapies, the combination is slightly better than conventional therapy alone.").  You may read the page as non-neutral, but if you look at the best evidence  the results are much more equivocal than cherry-picking individual studies.  We could cite things like the Mayo Clinic if we didn't have better evidence (Cochrane Reviews and other meta-analyses and systematic reviews) but Mayo is eclipsed by the superior papers.  Kaiser Permanente is a health insurance company, and again doesn't trump superior peer-reviewed secondary sources.  Ee 2008 could be integrated.
 * I don't believe you are summing up consensus with your last two sentences and the final one is curious considering the Cochrane review you linked to states "There is insufficient evidence to make any recommendations about acupuncture or dry-needling for acute low-back pain. For chronic low-back pain, results show that acupuncture is more effective for pain relief than no treatment or sham treatment, in measurements taken up to three months. The results also show that for chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for improving function than no treatment, in the short-term. Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and "alternative" treatments. When acupuncture is added to other conventional therapies, it relieves pain and improves function better than the conventional therapies alone. However, effects are only small." That's an incredibly weak and equivocal statement that is, as I said above, already noted.  Claiming based on that source that "acupuncture is effective" completely ignores the many qualifiers the authors actually included about chronic versus acute, duration of effectiveness, effectiveness versus conventional treatment, and the effect size.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Conventional treatment plus acupuncture is better than conventional treatment alone for CHRONIC back pain, I am not discussing acute pain. Its a amazing how you just write off Kaiser Permanente one of the biggest healthcare organisations in the USA! And the Mayo Clinic has a worldwide reputation. I am afraid this discussion is becoming somewhat Pythonesque. You asked for some meaningful research, I gave you the NHS Evidence based link there are 1900 or so articles on acupuncture. The database uses standardised criteria and assessment processes, based on the recognised quality standard Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation (AGREE) for its articles. The database is  for healthcare professionals. I agree that not all the papers are favourable to acupuncture, but that is the case with any new therapy. Again, however the latest research shows that acupuncture is effective for treatment of chronic lower back pain when used in conjunction with conventional therapies. Like any therapy or medicine it is not 100%. However major health organisations accept this even if you don't, they do not make these decisions lightly as it can cost them a lot of money if they are wrong. I repeat the genie is out of the bottle, this treatment is being rolled out whether you agree or like it. The article does not reflect this and is out of date. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The full author's conclusion is "The data do not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low-back pain. For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only. Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and "alternative" treatments. The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. Because most of the studies were of lower methodological quality, there certainly is a further need for higher quality trials in this area." I've highlighted some relevant sections.  Since this article is already embedded in the page, the real question is whether it is adequately summarized.  Considering the final sentence, I'm reluctant to portray the Cochrane Review as a slam-dunk for acupuncture.  As I've said repeatedly, without an adequate placebo (and one wasn't available until relatively recently) you can't say anything about acupuncture because you can't distinguish acupuncture from nonspecific effects (i.e. placebo based on the interactions with the practitioner).  Plus, this is a single study, there's lots more and there's lots of statements about the body of literature in general.
 * I'm not writing off Kaiser and Mayo, I'm saying we have better quality evidence to draw upon and should therefore do so - Cochrane Reviews for specific conditions, systematic reviews, literature reviews, meta-analyses, etc. that review treatments on the basis of quality of evidence. If you would read Trick or Treatment (or even the entire article), you would note that the number of studies is a poor measure of acupuncture's efficacy because of confounds like a lack of placebo, the publication bias of Chinese trials, the declining results as sham interventions became more convincing, and so on.  So saying a paper cited 1900 research studies is not particularly helpful unless they also accounted for these factors (quality of research, publication bias, proper sham and blinding) because the "true" results are overwhelmed by the statistical noise of poorly-controlled trials.  There's a reason good-quality controls are a must for proper research, without them the possibility of confirmation bias is hugely inflated as is the placebo effect (which is itself over-represented with acupuncture trials because it is dramatic, exotic, uses multiple needles, has a lengthy consultation with practitioners with lots of attention paid to symptoms and involves needles rather than pills - all of which enhance the placebo effect).
 * In summary - I don't think we should use the Kaiser doc or Mayo clinic page as references when we have higher quality evidence to draw upon (much like why would you use a news report about a study rather than the study itself - go right to the source). I don't oppose a properly qualified note about vetrinary acupuncture.  We already have a discussion of the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of back pain.  I think it is adequate, but am willing to listen to suggestions to modify it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and I started this whole discussion off by saying the problem with acupuncture is the fact that it has been difficult to do effective double blind studies. I agree that the science has been pretty flaky on a lot of studies, if you look at the NHS Evidence database that comes out time and time again. I am not disagreeing with you on that. The whole crux of this discussion is the fact that a significant amount of studies now say that acupuncture is effective when used with conventional therapy. The article you quote above states that quite clearly, even though it says that it is slight! We need to reflect this in the article. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What change(s) do you suggest to the main page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - I think that in the in the statement by the National Health service, we should say: " The National Health Service of the United Kingdom states that there is "reasonably good evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment" for chronic back pain, nausea, vomiting, osteoarthritis etc..
 * My other suggestion is that we have a section on it's own about the treatment of chronic lower back pain. eg: There has been some evidence to suggest that acupuncture maybe effective in the treatment of chronic lower back pain when used with a regime of conventional therapy, including exercise and manipulation. Several major health organisations now offer this as part of their treatment for chronic lower back pain.
 * You have attempted to engage me about "trick or treat" which despite what you think I believe to be valid! My main concern is to improve this article. I can understand the hypotheses about the relief of pain, ie: the release of endorphins and saratonin caused by needling could give a person a feeling of euphoria, and the needle in an acupoint may well disrupt the pain pathways to the brain, but I am not sure about other conditions. So maybe a new section(within Study Design?) on discussing the problems and pitfalls with trialing acupuncture would be good. There is some interesting new stuff out there attempting to provide the tools for double blind etc. You could quote from "trick or treat". I do not think that this is a major change to the article, but it does acknowledge some of the more recent developments. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first point I don't see as substantially different from what is already there. You single out back pain, but "several types of pain" is already there and I see no reason to include specifics.

Similarly, there is also a discussion of acute and chronic low back pain here. I again don't see your suggestion as substantially different from what is already there. The insistence that we note several organizations offer coverage isn't necessary since we have the source of their recommendations - the Cochrane Review, generally seen as the best source on wikipedia for any medical claims. Certainly superior to noting that insurance payers will cover it, since they are not primarily scientific review bodies and Cochrane is.

"Improving the article" is normally a judgement call, particularly given the contentious nature of the topic. You may think "your version" is improved, I may see it as overselling the research and thus we defer to policies and guidelines to inform decisions about the page. Particularly, WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. Your comments about "new information" is problematic per MEDRS emphasis on secondary sources like review articles as well as WP:NOT, particularly WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM.

I haven't been trying to engage you with trick or treat, I've been pointing to a reliable source by a recognized expert - that is, Trick or Treatment by noted critic of complimentary and alternative medicine, Edzard Ernst. It's a good book, recent and eminently readable, with a chapter dedicated to acupuncture that is extremely interesting and informative. You can also review parts of it for free at Google books. I would also suggest reviewing the many times it is referenced in the article (five times) since there are links to specific pages that often touch on the points we have been discussing. You could also review the entry on acupuncture at Skeptic's Dictionary, updated yesterday, which covers much of the same material. Normally I would suggest using it in the page, but there are better quality sources available that make it redundant.

I have repeatedly pointed out that several of your comments are already addressed and incorporated in the page, so please review my comments and the acupuncture page itself to save time for future discussions. I've about said my peace, and would like to see what other editors have to say. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As the NHS are now providing acupuncture for chronic lower back pain, it would seem logical to include it as part of their statement as that is what they say. Although there is comment on the efficacy of use on chronic LBP on the main page we do not say that it has been adopted by health providers. This review of 23 RCTs was included in Spine Volume 33 Number 23  2008  and recommends that acupuncture treatment of chronic LBP be included in the European Guidelines for this condition. We can swap papers but the fact is that the treatment is now offered by major health providers, as they are convinced. My comments have only been about chronic lower back pain as there is good science now about it. I have not discussed any of the other conditions that it is claimed that acupuncture can help with because I do not believe that most of it is proven.Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said - this is covered by the generic statement about pain. Lower back pain is a type of pain.  We don't list all types of pain and I see no reason why lower back pain needs extra emphasis when it's quite clear that acupuncture is supported to generally treat pain.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is simple LBP is the only form of pain, that mainstream medicine agrees that can be helped with acupuncture based on the science. This is why it should be singled out, for most of the other conditions the science is a lot more blurred! Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a gross misreading of the literature in my mind. For instance, Madsen 2009 is a review of acupuncture for pain and is negative despite incorporating back pain.  Cochrane is very far from a slam dunk, and Manheimer, 2005 is also problematic since it's no better than standard care.  Look at the results for neck pain, headache (a type of pain), osteoarthritis (which is really joint pain), shoulder pain, and again the already-incorporated NHS article which doesn't single out any type of pain in the article (the original citation does, but lists several types of pain and doesn't single out LBP for special treatment.  You're trying to turn a lot of equivocal statements and tentative endorsements into an unequivocal, blanket bit of praise.  I think that's inappropriate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was refering to medicine in the general term, currently the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends acupuncture as a treatment option only for LBP,, it may well be that they will adopt if for other problems as well in the future. NICE by the way are the organisation that tell the NHS what treatments they can provide. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The NICE recommendation regarding low back pain is based on the 2005 Cochrane review and 4 non-blinded studies with no strategy at all to counter the placebo effect, one of which it describes as having a high risk of bias. Since then
 * concluded "Acupuncture versus no treatment, and as an adjunct to conventional care, should be advocated in the European Guidelines for the treatment of chronic LBP." There were two responses published in the same journal (Spine); one of which is entitled "Acupuncture for low back pain: interpretive leaps of faith," which sounds critical, but I can't access Spine at the moment.
 * In 2009 concluded "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." But, as Wilfrid said, they address several pain conditions, and acupuncture may be effective for some pain but not others.
 * And last January concluded "Although newer studies seem to show promise, effectiveness [in low back pain] has not been clearly demonstrated."
 * NICE's decision was based on the best evidence at the time, but the evidence is evolving. It appears to be becoming more doubtful for LBP. Anthony (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't access the Spine response either, but I did find a paper from the same respondent O'Connell, which I guess is probably a fuller version of his submission to Spine. Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I'm going off line now. Anthony (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Korean origins
I've reverted the changes to suggest acupuncture originated in Korea. None of the sources used were reliable enough to make such a dramatic claim - if this is generally accepted, then scholarly publications should be readily available. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re-reverted the changes again - these sorts of claims should be made with sources more reliable than a news story; the editor in question appears to be placing the same dubious, pro-Korea information on a variety of pages.  put basically the same flawed information in traditional medicine .  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI
A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI 10.3233/JRS-2010-0503 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, not sure what's going on there. The DOI works for me when I click on it even here, but the article doesn't seem to be pubmed indexed so perhaps it's not in CrossRef.  I've adjusted the revert made by Gnome de plume to remove the news story again and minor-tweak the citation (and adjusted the wording, which might be more problematic); I suspect I could re-use the cite doi template if I populated it by hand, but won't bother.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience (still) doesn't belong here? Let's try to finally reach consensus on this.
User:Yworo was correct to undo User:Badger Drink's revert that restored category:pseudoscience. The relevant policies are WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC. To meet the threshold in the former, we need a source of the caliber described in the latter. No one has presented such a source, and until someone does, the category should not be used here. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I've followed this content dispute for several years and have never seen anything like consensus emerge on it. Please point me to the specific, archived discussion if I may have missed it.  thx, Middle 8 (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument mostly went that the traditional chinese medicine approach/explanation was pseudoscientific, the fact that acupuncture relieves pain possibly through the placebo effect is not. I don't feel that strongly either way and haven't seen a sufficiently reliable source to definitively label all or part of it as pseudoscience and the scientific consensus isn't clear yet.  There are several sources that use the word, but I don't think it's there yet.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/<span style='color:#008$080'>complex 01:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors should be able to be reach consensus by applying these fundamental criteria of what constitutes a pseudoscience, since these are factual criteria, not matters of editors' opinions.69.199.196.246 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If acupunture claims to be a "science", but uses only tradition and authority to make just SOME of its claims (possible e.g., the number "365" based on the "number" of days in a year, or "12" based on the "number" of "major" rivers in China), then it is a pseudoscience, even if attempts to apply other sciences or scientific methodology in other areas. The basic idea of pseudoscience is that some science is used in some parts, but non-science is used in others, or in combination with science.


 * Here is an easy read for editors who are still making up their mind on this, a publication from Northwestern, containing, e.g., “…mystical numerical associations, called the Da shu, or “great numbers”… 12 vessels circulating blood and air corresponding to the 12 rivers flowing toward the Central Kindgom; and 365 parts of the body, one for each day of the year (Lingshu 13/311 )”. The abosolutely highest caliber source on this is the Ling Shu, considered to be the "Canon of acupuncture", which has also stuff like this, which smacks of numerology.  This might even put acupuncture in the “occultism” category, but at a minimum, when combined with any claims of scientific evidence, argues for categorization as “pseudoscience".  Since this satisfies the high caliber source requested by Middle 8 above, and so satisfies the relevant policies WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC, I will restore User:Badger Drink's revert that restored category:pseudoscience, but I am still open to other perspectives.69.199.196.246 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The category does not get placed on article based on original research. It gets placed only when a majority of scientific sources agree on the designation. There's been an WP:ARBCOM decision about this, and acupuncture has not been shown to meet the criteria required by ArbCom for the application of this category. In particular, you are using your own judgment about the contents of primary sources. That's right out as a method for determining whether the label is applicable. Yworo (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration ruling may be found here. According to the guidelines there, acupuncture would be classified under the heading "Questionable science" because it has a large following and because there is not a broad and general agreement that it is pseudoscience (i.e. research continues to be done on it by qualified medical researchers). According to the ArbCom decision, the category does not get placed on articles about questionable science, only on for subjects for which there is a broad and citable opinion that most or all of the scientific community considers it such. You may also want to note that not following the outlines of this arbitration decision can lead to sanctions. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo, thank you for alerting to the ArbCom decision, and coming back to provide a link.
 * The arguments given in the previous paragraph (e.g., "research continues to be done on it by qualified medical researchers") would also apply to the pseudoscience of homeopathy, which has the category "pseudoscience", following arbitration. I only found out about acupuncture points being based on "the 12 rivers flowing toward the Central Kindgom [at some arbitrary time in the past]; and 365 [365 and about 1/4?] parts of the body, one for each day of the year" after reading this Wiki article, which entirely changed my POV as to the "pseudoscience" issue.
 * It would be good to put a permanent warning at the top of the talk page about ALL ArbCom rulings on this article, so editors do not waste time responding to what appears to be an ongoing attempt at reaching consensus by editors. I do not know how to do this, or I would put one there.69.199.196.246 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The "ArbCom ruling" just cited by Yworo is NOT about acupuncture. Acupunture IS called a "pseudoscience" by the scientific community, e.g., on the Science-Based Medicine website here. It does not work any more than a placebo, as per the multiply referenced year 2010 meta analyses here and here. Take a theoretical foundation based on locating points using the "number" of rivers in the Chinese empire and the "number" of days a year (it would have been more accurate to find 365 1/4 accupuncture points to "scientifically" test), add a "force" that has been overlooked by physics, and add scientific studies on top, and you have the paradigm of pseudoscience. This is using the definition that is the true outcome of the above cited ArbCom ruling. I will put the category header back in. Please do not remove it without citing a reliable source that contradicts the Science-Based Medicine article calling it "pseudoscience" here. Middle 8said "we need a source of the caliber described in the latter, explaining his revert. This is such a cite.  Please do not delete the category without a RS that contradicts this, explicitly stating that it is not a pseudoscience.69.199.196.246 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like acupuncture. I think it's stupid, pseudoscientific nonsense fetishized in the West into something it never was.  But I don't think we've met the threshold for it to be called pseudoscience just yet.  TCM maybe (probably) but not acupuncture, which consistently has found effects for pain and nausea (probably due to placebo rather than penetration, but still).  SBM, a site which I love, is unfortunately not a reliable source and is at an extreme of the continuum (this is tacitly acknowledged on the site itself by its many posts decrying new and credulous studies - those studies are still being published, therefore the medical community still has a large number of people who don't think acupuncture is pseudoscience).   What we need is a large number of peer-reviewed secondary sources from mainstream medical journals that indicates acupuncture has lost its shine and is considered pseudoscience.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WLU, how can you say "TCM maybe (probably) but not acupuncture"? Acupuncture is part of TCM, so "TCM maybe (probably)" implies "acupuncture maybe (probably)". PPdd (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you define acupuncture. If you define it as "the use of fine needles to penetrate the skin to alleviate symptoms", acupuncture has some merit based on the best studies.  If you say "the use of fine needles to modulate the yin and yang of qi based on time of day and colour of the tongue in order to treat disease", acupuncture is pseudoscientific nonsense based on prescientific reasoning (mostly bloodletting and astrology).  Acupuncture (needles through the skin without attention to anatomical structure or location beyond safety) has some evidence base supporting its use in the treatment of pain and nausea.  The use of TCM methodologies and diagnostic tools (observing the tongue, measuring multiple pulses, selecting specific acupuncture points on specific meridians, choosing the points based on the time of day, the use of moxibustion) is pretty obvious pseudoscience.  There is reasonable evidence for poking needles into the skin to alleviate pain and nausea.  There's none to support the crap and ritual surrounding it.  That's the distinction I'm trying to make.  Eventually we may call one dry needling and the other acupuncture, and draw a distinct line between the two, but I don't think we're there yet.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a problem with pseudoscience is shifting the definition around. Randomly sticking needles should not be called acupunture, since it does not rely on the meridians based on the twelve rivers of a Chinese empire, and does not locate points based on the number of days in a year.  But if it is found to be effective it will be called acupuncture, and acupuncturists will all say they are confirmed.  I recently read an article whereby some neurotransmitter associated with pain relief was measured as being increased by sticking needles, but I can't find it.  Can you direct me to it?  PPdd (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the most recent one I can think of that might come close, with this analysis by Orac. You might be thinking of a different one, but I can't think of any that involve neurotransmitters (adenosine in this study was measured outside of the central nervous system.  In mice).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A comment on one of the SBM articles: It seems pretty clear from the substance of the author's comments and his aggrieved tone that he feels his "side", i.e. the extremely dismissive view toward acupuncture, is losing.  He says "One of the things that disturbs me the most about where medicine is going is the infiltration of quackery into academic medicine. ... Probably the most common form of pseudoscience to wend its way into what should be bastions of scientific medicine is acupuncture. Harvard, Stanford, Yale, M. D. Anderson, and many others ... I never expected it to show itself in one of the Nature journals, as it did in the study I just mentioned. I also never expected it to show up in that flagship of clinical journals, ...(NEJM)...".  These are comments from a guy pissed at the widespread acceptance of acupuncture.  Perhaps this source can serve as guidance with respect to "undue weight":  excessive deference to the SMB guy's view should be avoided if it's dwarfed by mainstream acceptance.  Ernst expressed a similar view with respect to the WHO:  paraphrasing, "they're the great big WHO; critics like me are isolated individuals; how can we get our views heard?"  Don't worry, Eddzie Baby -- Wikiality can help ya toot your horn! LOL --Middle 8 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dr. Gorski is annoyed that the NEJM is buying into the magic that practitioners and believers use to explain acupuncture. We can detect the action of a single atom, even a single photon, yet somehow acupuncture manipulates an "energy" that behaves nothing like any other energy we've ever found, that can't be measured, and most strangely, can't be reliably agreed-upon even by its advocates.  Science produces a convergence of opinion based on evidence and investigation regarding real phenomenon.  This is worse than pathological science because even believers can't reproduce results.  We know a lot about the body, yet we've never managed to detect a meridian, acupuncture point or qi (and why would you considering the former two are based on astrology rather than biology).  That is SBM's overall critique of alternative medicine including acupuncture - it ignores all the knowledge we have in order to arrive at a pre-concieved conclusion.  I'm sure Dr. Gorski would be one of the first to say that his side is not "losing" but is upset the way the pendulum is swinging away from evidence and towards politics and opinion.  The mainstream opinion has actually shifted substantially away from acupuncture in the past couple years.  It has discarded the belief that it's useful for nearly anything except pain and nausea; now the focus is on these two symptoms, which are extremely vulnerable to expectation and placebo.  Excessive deference to beliefs should be avoided until it is clear that those beliefs have some sort of root in reality.
 * However, since SBM is not being considered as a source for the page, this is all so much chatter. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gorsi is annoyed at a lot more than NEJM, as he makes plain in the excerpt I quoted.
 * WLU wrote: "The mainstream opinion has actually shifted substantially away from acupuncture in the past couple years" -- according to which sources? Designing studies properly remains a challenging problem, and care should be taken that "sham" controls do not introduce falsely negative results (see this commentary).  It shouldn't be surprising that docs and scientists who recognize this caveat, and understand that the map (e.g. TCM theory) is not the territory (e.g. what happens to patients when they are needled in a certain way), would not dismiss acupuncture.  --Middle 8 (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to meta-analyses using adequate placebos, thanks. Which have consistently found that acupuncture is only effective for placebo-susceptible pain and nausea.  That commentary makes the false assumption that all placebos are equal.  They are not.  Two pills are more effective than one, pill colour affects its "effectiveness" for different conditions, injections are more effective than pills, elaborate placebos are more effective than simple ones, exotic, foreign, novel and "sciencey" placebos are more effective than plain ones, high practitioner confidence and faith in the placebo (in both verbal and nonverbal forms) increases effectiveness, and those with rituals involved are more effective than those without.  Acupuncture is an injection preceded by an elaborate, lengthy, nonsense-babble-filled "diagnosis" that comes from exotic China.  It's hardly surprising that it's more effective than a simple "take this pill".  Not all placebos are equal and simply assuming they are, as that commentary appears to, does not make it so.  If a sham control introduces "negative" results, that suggests that either the sham isn't a sham, or the treatment isn't a treatment.  Every placebo control used with acupuncture - varying the point stabbed, using sham needles, not using needles at all, they've come out equal to real acupuncture in properly designed trials.  And invariably the result has been "sham acupuncture is as good as real" rather than "real acupuncture isn't real".  These trials are useful in demonstrating how worthless TCM "diagnosis" and treatment is for everything except enhancing the placebo effect.  You should read the full set of articles on acupuncture at SBM, you'd find most of these ideas explored at length and it would inform you on just how difficult it can be to design a good acupuncture trial - and that most trials simply aren't that good.  I also find it anecdotally interesting that the two scientists I am aware of who attempted to apply stringent scientific controls to CAM research (Ernst and R. Barker Bausell) both came away unconvinced.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been in email correspondence with the editor of NEJM about this. There seems to be a misunderstanding by some Wiki editors above of the basis of the uproar that the article caused.  The problem was that acupuncture was found to be equivalent to a sham, then the author recommended it as a complimentary treatment.  In effect, NEJM editors let slip a recommendation of lying to patients and then administering placebos.  The fact that acupuncture was the particular placebo was incidental to the editorial (and peer reviewers') error of letting this clause slip into the conclusion.PPdd (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The irony is this: Wikipedia is a "pseudo-encyclopedia", a crap source according even to its own standards. It doesn't really matter what is written at Wikipedia except to those who make a hobby of writing here. 173.73.6.136 (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia DOES matter. It is usually the first article listed in a Google search, indicating that a huge number of people read it.  That said, I loved your "pseudo-encyclopedia" coinage.PPdd (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked the "pseudo-encyclopedia" coinage. :-) Yes, Wikipedia is important in the sense that it's popular. Lots of things are popular, but that doesn't mean they're useful or worth improving.  Fundamentalist religion is popular and (therefore) important too, but that doesn't mean one should look to it for truth or devote a bunch of time to "improving the project".  I suppose that non-fundamentalists—humanists for example—could improve the world by joining fundamentalist churches and trying to steer them toward a less crazy course.  But there are other ways of improving the world without having to play within such crazy, dysfunctional systems.  I trust that the analogy is taken. :-)  --173.73.6.136 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, Wikipedia is defining what counts as knowledge in the 21st Century. I refrained from editing for years becuase of defects with it.  But people read it more and more, an even seasoned academisians and skeptics are known to read it in their closet. It matters what is in it, and reading it gives the reader a kind of knowlege.   It has problems, but so does the peer review process and statistics-ignorant scientics do a terrible job at experimental design and data analysis, but the results get published anyway, and publication bias and the file drawer effect worsen what is already bad statistics work. Its what we have, and improvements should be made at Wikipedia.  So, 173.73.6.136... get a name. PPdd (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And we acknowledge this by categorizing wikipedia as a non-reliable source and can not be used as a reference on wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That comment entirely misses the import of my first sentence above. It doesn't matter whether or not Wikipedia somehow acknowledges that it's a crap source; the point is that it quite simply is one.  173.73.6.136 (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't let this stand. It's a crap source because it is often written by amateurs who sometimes misunderstand the subject, is occasionally vandalised, and is sometimes written by people with no understanding of the scientific method or the peer-review process. If you read it with this in mind, it is an excellent source because you can follow up its assertions in the sources it cites and see if the article reflects current mainstream scholarship. Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia is good because, while articles may suck, readers can use the sources cited by those articles (which may suck at any level, including poorly-chosen sources) to verify whether they suck or not? :-) This exercise is circular reasoning, and sounds like no advantage over using Google and more specific indices like PubMed, Readers' Guide, etc.  Of course, people are lazy and gullible and will accept all kinds of nonsense: superstition, pseudoscience, and now pseudo-encyclopedias... --173.73.6.136 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Of course. I see. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that "people accept... pseudo-encyclopeidias" is a reason to do work to make Wikipedia better. Early on, I never really used it because of its "pseudo" problems.  Now, after much work by many have improved it, it is usually the first thing I use.  And if I come across an article I think has problems, I try to spend time to fix them.  User:173.73.6.136, you should get a name and help out, too. Your contributions would be helpful and welcome. And you never get to experience the emotions of an edit-war until you do.  Nor the even better feeling you get as you gradually begin to WP:assume good faith, which carries over nicely into real world encounters with people.  PPdd (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience - Acupuncture is based, in part, on occult ideas like a correspondence between the number of rivers in a particular Chinese empire, the number of days in the year, and various astrological ideas. Layered on top of these occult foundations are pretended scientific ideas and scientific claims.  That is archetypical of a pseudoscience.PPdd (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The map is not the territory.  Just because a prescientific culture explains an observation in terms peculiar to their culture does not moot the observation itself.  For example, Western herbs whose activity was once explained using humoral theory are found to have some active ingredient.  Another example is eclipses:  some ancient culture might have explained these in mythological terms while creating a calendar that predicts eclipses (perhaps not perfectly, but better than chance).  Similar questions should be kept in mind when evaluating TCM:  one should not discard a traditional framework if valid observations are entrained in it along with nonscientific or antiscientific ideas. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because a prescientific culture made an observation, doesn't mean it's real. And many of those beliefs about herbs were wrong.  Echinacea consistently fails adequately controlled tests.  It's the reality that determines whether a treatment works, not its age, and holding on to the ancient technique when there is a scientific alternative is simply stupid.  If acupuncture actually has specific effects, TCM should be discarded in favour of scientific investigation that validates its use in multiple groups, in appropriate circumstances.  Traditional frameworks should be discarded once a scientific explanation is validated.  The whole point of scientific investigation is to determine what aspects of the traditional approach have objective value, and discard the rest.  To think otherwise means a presumably emotional attachment to the worthless, possibly harmful prescientific aspects.  If you don't need to penetrate the skin to get the effects of acupuncture, it's unethical and just stupid to keep jamming needles into the skin when it can cause, say, death.  If acupuncture does help with pain and nausea but the TCM "diagnosis" is worthless because the location of the needle is irrelevant, you are wasting time and money by putting clients through that diagnostic procedure.  If acupuncture works and can be delivered quickly and safely without a lot of voodoo nonsense, it will be adopted by medicine.  If it's benefits are dubious and placebo-based, it should justifiably be discarded.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Just because a prescientific culture made an observation, doesn't mean it's real." - as the saying goes, "duh"; most of what you say goes without saying. My point is just that a lot of sources say or imply that because yin and yang and qi don't exist, acupuncture can't be real.  (You appear to make this straw man argument above when you say "We can detect the action of a single atom, even a single photon, yet somehow acupuncture manipulates an "energy" that behaves nothing like any other energy we've ever found, that can't be measured, and most strangely, can't be reliably agreed-upon even by its advocates.")  There are aspects of TCM, like tongue diagnosis and other signs, that are externally verifiable.  A patient with "Spleen qi deficiency" will have certain signs and symptoms, even though one will never find "spleen qi" (although one may eventually settle on biomedical correlates, such as Langevin's hypothesis that fascial tissue planes correspond to meridians).  To the extent TCM makes useful predictions that aren't explainable biomedically, it's useful -- also a "duh" statement.  If and when they figure what is going on beyond placebo, sure, no need for the archaic framework. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The guts of research is teasing out the placebo from the real. The "magic" parts of acupuncture, the lengthy diagnosis and fake, complicated-sounding babble probably serve to enhance the placebo effect and that's it.  There's no reason to give the TCM practitioners any extra weight just because their prescientific nonsense is old, or comes from far away.  If there's a real relationship between tongue diagnosis and disease, it should be easy to demonstrate when broken down into its basic components.  That's science. It certainly shouldn't be taken as a give.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As you pointed out below, the jury remains out on whether TCM is mere pseudoscience. That's partly because scientists have yet to rule out the possibility that there are clinically useful aspects of TCM, cf. Langevin & meridians.  The question is not whether to be scientific about acupuncture; the question is how to do it properly, and that question is not settled in the literature. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience - There are no anatomical structures corresponding to meridians and points, based on the 12 rivers of the Chinese empire, or 365 days of the year. These bases of acupuncture directly contradict developmental biology.  Piling a bunch of scientific rituals on top of these nonexistent "structures" is archetypical pseudoscience.PPdd (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. But your statement is original research that states the painfully obvious.  Until a sizable minority of the scientific community agree that it is pseudoscience, we can not place the category on the page.  Given an ostensibly medical topic like acupuncture, we need several high-quality journals proclaiming it to be nonsense.  And given the journals publishing shoddy, poorly-interpreted research as if it justified acupuncture, we may be waiting a while for that.  I understand your frustration, I see how ridiculous the claims are, and if this were my encyclopedia it would clearly state that acupuncture is nonsense and pseudoscience.  But because we must give due weight to the scholarly opinion, we can't put it up yet.  I'm sure it will come, but it will take time.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WLU, thank you for explaining how Wikipedia works. Mission accomplished. I have provided the scholarly opinion you said is needed, with direct statements like "acupuncture is a pseudoscience", below.  You said "it will take time".  You were right, it took time... my time, and a waste of it.  But that's the way the Wiki works.PPdd (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "ACUPUNCTURE IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE." - John P. Jackson, the physicist who led the team to debunk the Shroud of Turin myth.


 * "Let’s be clear: acupuncture is pseudoscience"- Steven Salzberg, Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology and professor at the University of Maryland -


 * “Acupuncture research… characteristic of pseudoscience” - Wallace I. Sampson, MD, FACP, clinical professor emeritus of medicine at Stanford University and editor-in-chief at the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.


 * “Acupuncture: Nonsense with Needles” - Arthur Taub, M.D., Ph.D., Yale University professor of Neurology, American Board of Neurology and Psychiatry


 * Acupuncture’s “theory and practice are based on primitive and fanciful concepts of health and disease that bear no relationship to present scientific knowledge.” – National Council Against Health Fraud


 * The Science-Based Medicine executive editor specifically refers to acupuncture as a "pseudoscience"'', in an article titled "Acupuncture Pseudoscience in the New England Journal of Medicine" - Steven Novella, MD, Yale University professor of neurology, and Founder and Executive Editor of Science Based Medicine website. Other editors are here.  135 supporting comments on this article by science based medicine community, and not one single objection to calling it "pseudoscience" in all of the comments . That should be pretty conclusive and resolve this once and for all.PPdd (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No one has commented since I quoted the editor of Science-Based Medicine yesterday. The above quotes by the most senior and leading scientists who have examined acupuncture, from Stanford to Yale to the German are dispositive. I will add the category "pseudoscience", and add a paragraph to the lead summarizing them, and a paragraph to the body quoting each of them, unless some no-nonsense argument is presented by tomorrow.PPdd (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the profession claim its practice is derived from or based on science? If so, it is, by my understanding of the term, pseudoscience. But I haven't seen evidence of that. Is there a consensus statement from the International Association for the Study of Pain or similar professional body declaring it to be pseudoscience? I haven't seen evidence of that. All you have provided above is a smattering of individuals using the term. The last example, an essay published on a website controlled by its author, is in fact accusing the authors of a 2010 review of acupuncture studies, of pseudoscience. That is, he is slamming the quality of their work, not saying acupuncture is pseudoscience.


 * Be patient. It is not yet appropriate for Wikipedia to be pronouncing on this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Compare those sources to the sources used on the page.  The majority of the sources are peer-reviewed journals, scholarly books, and statements from prominent medical organizations.  The parity of the sources is not equal.  Some of these sources could be included, perhaps acuwatch and the UK skeptics links, but none are peer reviewed journals and thus can't be taken as evidence of the opinion of the scientific community as a whole (in the form of the article's peer reviewers and the editors of the journals).  Every single one of these sources would need to be attributed to the author, and the author's qualifications must also be spelled out (X person, a Y from Z institution, has stated that...)  Some could be integrated, probably not all, and they can't be taken as high-impact, mainstream opinion.  I would not recommend putting them in the lead.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Anthony and WLU have got this exactly right, IMO; kudos to you both for the cogent explanations. The policies WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC are the foundation for these conclusions.  I wrote up my rationale on the subject here and may move it outside userspace since the issue seems to come up from time to time.  Other editors' thoughts, if any?--Middle 8 (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, American Board of Neurology and Psychiatry, Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, National Council Against Health Fraud, and Science-Based Medicine are certainly prominent medical organizations. It appears that some editors are not acting in good faith, but have a POV to mislead readers of Wikipedia as to what acupuncture is, and “balance” true facts with false pseudoscientific statements.PPdd (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't the American Medical Association, the WHO, the FDA or the like. SBM in particular is a blog, NCAHF is a skeptical organization, not a mainstream medical one.  Dr. Salzburg is speaking as a skeptic, not as a representative of his lab.  They may be legitimate organizations, but they are not large mainstream players.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They are RS by Wiki standards. They are not contradicted by any other mainstream science based medicine organization.  There is no basis for excluding them by any Wiki standard.PPdd (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not going to slap a label like "pseudoscience" on this before a review in a peer-reviewed medical journal, or an authoritative umbrella body does. Saying it is pseudoscience in the encyclopedia's voice (by adding it to category:pseudoscience) based on some magazine article, YouTube comment, blog or anti-CAM site, will be opening the gates for no end of assertions citing similar quality sources from both sides of the debate.
 * But why don't you follow WLU's suggestion and say "Dr X of 123 and Prof. Y of 456 have described the theory and practice of acupuncture as pseudoscience" and see if that floats? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable; will do.PPdd (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)