User:Famousdog/Evidence for mediation

Quotes from Teitelbaum paper
"Disclosure: No competing financial interests exist. Some authors are NAET practitioners, and Devi Nambudripad developed the technique."

"Acknowledgements: We sincerely want to express our profound gratitude to Nambudripad’s Allergy Research Foundation (NARF) research associates and the statistical team for designing the study, Michael J. Glade, PhD, FACN, CNS (The Nutrition Doctor, Skokie, Illinois), for statistical analysis, and the NAET practitioners who conducted the study. Our sincere appreciation is also expressed to our dedicated volunteers (examiners, monitors, research assistants, volunteer-assistants, and patients) who participated in this study. The study was conducted by the NAR Foundation Research associates at the Pain Clinic Research Center, Buena Park, California. The study was funded by the Teitelbaum Family Foundation and NARF, Buena Park, California.

NAET research associates participating in this study were Adam Vigil, DC; Jing Li, MD, LAc, OMD; Iris Prince, RN; Ross Stark, BSEE, DAc, LAc; James Benjamin, MD; Joyce Benjamin, RN; Anthony De Siena, DC; Nancy B. Rosen, RN, LAc; Gary Erkfritz, DC; Sue Anderson, DC; Ray Alexander, DC; Roya Nikzad, LAc, PhD; Farangis Tavily, LAc; Michael Liang, LAc; Tom Anderson, DC; Laurie Teitelbaum, MS; Gloria Phillips, DC; Margaret Owens, ND, MEd; Kris K Nambudripad, BSEE, LAc, MS; and Mohan K Moosad, LAc, ND."

Already stated here
This should be a no-brainer. Two (three?) extremely new and, in good faith, perhaps naive WP users have been using primary sources to dismiss the conclusions of the more well regarded secondary sources, which is contrary to policy regarding medical articles especially this section. I suggested that they check out WP:MEDRS especially the section on primary sources, but the users appear not to have done so. Furthermore, at least one source that they emphasise in their edits is not independent and represents a serious conflict-of-interest (see below) as I state in my revertions here and here.

The Slomski reference, included expressly to throw doubt on pharmacological treatments is an opinion piece, albeit in a reliable source and should be assigned very little weight. It does not specifically mention NAET and therefore reflects original research or inappropriate synthesis on behalf of the editors.

This anonymous editor appears not to realise that MEDLINE is simply a searchable database of scientific reports and believes that it confers some additional validity to appear in said database. This user (who I can only assume is either SParish or Certifiedallergist) also states that the Teitelbaum study is "funded by Jacob Teitelbaum (not NARF as was attempted to be inserted into the entry maliciously)". Examination of that paper should reveal that is states quite clearly in the Acknowledgements section that "The study was funded by the Teitelbaum Family Foundation and NARF, Buena Park, California." Despite the fact that in the Disclosure section it says that "No competing financial interests exist", a study self-funded by the authors who are mostly members of the foundation formed to promote the technique under investigation - or, worse, are the founder and originator of the technique in question - should be treated with the upmost suspicion, if not ridicule. The french article referred to is an abstract. Having not seen the paper, it is not clear to me whether this is an experimental study or simply another opinion piece (the short abstract seems to suggest that it is simply an editorial or a letter - no details of methods employed, etc). The author, Savornin, appears to be an NAET practitioner. I cannot find out any information about Soins journal.

CertifiedAllergist says above that my edits "do not allow the data from the studies to even be presented." This is factually incorrect. My edits retain the Teitelbaum and Terwee references, but make clear the relevant conflicts-of-interest in each case and tag the references as potentially unreliable (which they are).

Barrett is a respected (not by Quacks) Quackbuster and there are currently reliable sources from ASCIA, Morris and Teuber stating that there is no evidence for efficacy. A single, conflicted primary source should not overturn that consensus.

Additional
Regarding the validity of Integrative medicine - A Clinician's Journal, their mission states here that they "provide practitioners with a practical and comprehensive approach to integrating alternative therapies with conventional medicine." Nothing about testing the validity or efficacy of alternative medicine. I had a look at their freely available sample issue. It has 68 pages: 22 are full-page ads for dietary supplements and the like (an additional 8 pages contain either 1/4 or 1/2 page ads), 11 pages contain opinion pieces and letters, there are 12 pages of abstracts from a conference and 4 pages that simply contain information about the journal, diary dates, etc., and 1 page that's just a big photo of a dandelion. Oh, yeah, and the cover. That leaves, what, 17-ish pages for scholarly work. Let's look at that then. There are 4 reviews that are so selective as to basically be opinion pieces including one review by the CEO of a dietary-supplement manufacturing company (ahem) ... My conclusion is that this is a trade journal that contains only ONE (yes, ONE) original research paper. I have no comment to make on that since it isn't my field.

Certifiedallergist states that I suggested a link between the journal and NARF. I did not do any such thing.