Jump to content

Talk:Acupuncture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herbxue (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 12 June 2017 (→references to effectiveness for chemo induced nausea and vomiting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations-BRD

source has been discussed and included above. No discussion about changing the article is happening in this thread. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I added this article [1] (you have to click the "download" button to get the PDF), and it was removed by Jytdog [2] as "obviously low quality blog/commentary."

Now, in my opinion, it´s obviously partisan, but not obviously low quality such: [3], and it fits the "press-box" fairly well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only two rules must be followed to the letter at Wikipedia: no blatant BLP violations and no copyvios. Everything else is a matter of judgment, and there is no requirement that every mention is promoted via {{press}} at the top of this page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to the earlier items in that press box, the one that Jytdog removed contains a list of what proponents consider the strongest evidence for effectiveness of acupuncture, a combination of medical studies and recommendations from more-or-less mainstream organizations. There's also a lot of misunderstanding about Wikipedia, but if we set that aside, the challenge it represents is a serious one. It's not a simple challenge: while the current stance of the article is that acupuncture's apparent effectiveness is due to placebo effects, if you do enough studies, a few will show greater-than-placebo results. We try to explain that. The ethical issues of offering patients placebo treatments – when such treatments are accepted, or even preferred, by many patients over other available treatment modes – are not easily resolved. Some organizations have taken the stance that it's acceptable, and it's not necessarily easy to expose the reasoning process that led up to their recommendation. Somehow, not necessarily in the article itself, we need a sort of fact bank that addresses each of Koopelman's references as to whether it is good or bad evidence and why. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What article? That link just redirects me to the main JCM page. Ah, you have to actually go into their sample articles to find it. Strange. Also, here is the related blog. --tronvillain (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, a blog post and an article by a disruptive banned editor who wasn't "here to build an encyclopedia." This one doesn't understand our rules of reliable sourcing. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Classy that it names specific editors. And I looked up a few of their "references", and it's an amazing example of cherry picking - the first thing (American Heart Association) on their list of why "acupuncture should not be classified as fringe science" actually concludes "Because of the overall mixed study and meta-analyses results coupled with the negative findings from recent large, randomized trials, the writing group ascribed to acupuncture a Class III, no benefit, Level of Evidence B recommendation for BP-lowering efficacy. Acupuncture is not recommended in clinical practice to reduce BP at this time."--tronvillain (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I´m not arguing for it to be used as a source (I thought that was obvious), I´m arguing that it´s not unreasonable to have it in the media-box. The box offers (sometimes) an interesting look at what we do from the outside, and this was an interesting perspective. Consensus (this far) seems to be that it´s a bad idea. For disclosure, I added it to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017 as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. That the URL doesn't actually take you to the relevant page is disappointing though. --tronvillain (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does for me, a page with a summary of the article, and a download-button for the PDF. A browser-thing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. It might be a location thing, since it just takes me to the home page on both desktop IE and Chrome, as well as on Chrome on mobile (using mobile data rather than wifi from the same network). Strange. --tronvillain (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening the discussion, GGS. There are legit news reports reporting controversy over this article. The article you posted "documents" the experience of someone who was indefinitely blocked for disrupting this article. The fact that the Journal of Chinese Medicine published this blog, which just continues the advocacy that this person demonstrated here by other means (including yet another change.org petition), just shows the low quality of things that the journal will publish. I would find the person's actual blog post somewhat more appropriate. At least it is honest about what it is.. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The blog might be more honest etc, but I don´t think of blogs as "media organization" in this particular context. The Journal of Chinese Medicine seems closer to "media organization" to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I remain opposed to listing this here. It is just too crappy overall... :) trying to be concrete, it is a rant by a disgruntled editor who was indeffed for advocacy, continuing their advocacy by other means, published in a low quality source. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also a valid point. And my view remains that it`s not low-quality enough to disqualify from this august exposure. I mean, they actually print the thing, if not very often ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For those couldn't get to the article, this link works correctly. I also posted this over at the fringe theories noticeboard for discussion there. --Krelnik (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I think someone is needling us (see what I did there?). My link at the start of this thread works as intended for me, your link sends me to the JCM startpage. Also, your FTN post is where I learned of this article, so this discussion is your fault. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While for me, Krelnik's link actually takes me to the correct page. --tronvillain (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The links are different, but why that should matter this way is beyond me.
Perhaps the website has some kind of location settings, and the UK link only works from within the UK? --tronvillain (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a UK that includes Sweden, but perhaps something in that direction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were chucking Sweden out of the UK when Brexit happens. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Won´t happen, you can´t do without the pickled herring. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really love pickled herring. However, Harriet Hall has some opinions on this subject. (Acupuncture, not pickled herring, though she's always responded when I've emailed her, so I'll ask her about herring. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, add that one to the box as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "press"; too bad it's just a blog post. A blog I respect, but for WP:RS purposes it is arguably not considered as reliable as Journal of Chinese Medicine. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, my mistake: Science-Based Medicine. That blog could very well be a WP:RS in some situations, it seems to be at least partly written by actual doctors. But for the purpose of this thread, like you say, not "press". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, just for the hell of it: Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can all of the "skeptic" dogmatists please go and focus on "debunking" Dry needling, and leave the actual experts on acupuncture to edit this page? Its utterly appalling that skeptics who are totally ignorant of the clinical practice of acupuncture not only ignore acupuncturists input, they actually actively discourage such Subject Matter Experts from participating here. There's a big sign in red up the top saying that Subject Matter Experts in acupuncture are "strongly advised not to edit". The rationale is that "They are practitioners, not professionals. Their area of practice has no grounds in evidence-based practice, and they have no ethical guidelines based upon evidence-based practice. Likewise, they are practitioners, not experts. They've no expertise in the scientific basis for their practice"... etc. However this is provably untrue. In Australia, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority, a government agency, specifically legitimises acupuncture as a recognised health profession, and its practitioners as recognised health professionals. This is fact, the assertion that acupuncturists are not professionals is instantly and completely false. The hostile culture of militant skepticism here is despicable. Bunch of Bill Nye's the lot of you. Arthur Long (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When true believers react in this way, to me it is an indication that we are doing it right. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replace "acupuncturist" by "faith healer", "dowser", "dry needler", "psychic surgeon", or any other similar term, and it will not make a difference (until the Australia stuff - and that is an argumentum ad verecundiam and equally invalid).
Arthur, if your reasoning were valid, skeptics would have to shut up about everything. All pseudoscientists consider themselves "experts" on their subject and keep their noses high in the air, but they do not know the first thing about how to test claims. The studies, if taken as a whole and not cherry-picked for the results one wants, say it does not matter where you put your needles. Everything you people learn about acupuncture points and meridians is worthless crap. As long as acupuncturists do not drop those, they will remain pseudoscientists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acupuncture Restores Lower Body Functionality To A Paralyzed Cat

In May 2017, kitten rescuer Hannah Shaw posted to Instagram (@kittenxlady) videos of a paralyzed cat recovering lower body functionality after receiving acupuncture.

Here is the cat prior to acupuncture, demonstrating total paralysis in the lower body: https://www.instagram.com/p/BUa5dV7gdwY/

Here is the cat post acupuncture, demonstrating recovered functionality: https://www.instagram.com/p/BUieTPeg-Fu/

This wikipedia article as currently written exhibits strong bias towards insisting acupuncture works via placebo; however, these videos indicate otherwise and the article should be revised to omit such bias based upon this direct evidence.

Jthill4 (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source would be needed to add information to the article, particularly for a claim regarding healing the lame (see WP:REDFLAG). Lots of things could cause temporary partial paralysis in a cat, and lots of things (chiefly time) might be responsible for recovery. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for sharing this powerful video evidence. I agree that it should be included in the article. Arthur Long (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First prove that the cat actually had acupuncture (and no other treatment) instead of someone just claiming that it did, and that the acupuncture was responsible for the recover (instead of the cat's natural healing). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly -- that is my point as well. The trouble with anecdotes such as this is that they are not evidence, nor can they be used to draw conclusions. There is no way to know if the cat would have recovered anyway, regardless of what was (or wasn't) done. The article does not have a "strong bias" toward anything; it correctly reflects its reliable sources - properly conducted scientific studies - none of which have produced evidence that acupuncture induces any consistent therapeutic effect, other than placebo effect. Adding this sort of anecdata to the article would violate WP:UNDUE, among other guidelines. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not have a "strong bias" toward anything; it correctly reflects its reliable sources - properly conducted scientific studies The two are not mutually exclusive. The word "bias" doesn't really imply that the position the bias favors is wrong or even subjective. I would say our article is extremely biased towards accurate, well-documented science, and strongly biased against bullshit woo claims. But then, I wrote this whole comment with a shit-eating-grin on my face, so maybe my trolling instincts have biased me in favor of 'admitting' things that piss off the alt-med clique. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wp:medrs does not include instagram posts. Edaham (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a hoax, or it could be some other explanation. Rules of evidence exist for a reason. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe or not for WHO?

Descended into quotes of Chinese proverbs. If there is a concrete proposal to change content based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines, please make it in a new section Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence Based Acupuncture | WHO Official position

https://www.evidencebasedacupuncture.org/who-official-position/

Guidelines on Basic Training and Safety in Acupuncture

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Jwhozip56e/

Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Acupuncture-related adverse events: a systematic review of the Chinese literature

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/10-076737/en/

Acupuncture and moxibustion of traditional Chinese medicine - intangible heritage - Culture Sector - UNESCO. unesco.org. [2017-01-17].

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/acupuncture-and-moxibustion-of-traditional-chinese-medicine-00425

Is that true or meaningful for "acupuncture is a pseudoscience"?

I think patients want health no matter what method!

For people who think "acupuncture is a pseudoscience", is any reason form science or medical? Or because their Business losing or will get harm?

At last, I think this page is talk about acupuncture information and a part of arguement. There is a warning on the top of page. Arguement and information shouldn't mix together. 妘星 (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topmost link is not WHO but some guy in Poland. The evidencebasedacupuncture.org website is not secure so I recommend that people do not click on it. The next 2 are not relevant to efficacy or pseudoscience. About the UNESCO link, as we have discussed here many times, no one debates that traditional medicine of every culture is a heritage and respected as such -- that is different than science. Jytdog (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I just see them today. About the UNESCO link, I want to say it wasn't in Wikipedia, Not for science. In my opinion, no matter what method, solving problem is good method. So I suggest there is a part which talk about argument and a warning.妘星 (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

acupuncture is a pseudoscience because of Blinded experiment and double-blind experiment.

I talk about WHO because there is no any References with it. And others GOV References aren't exist.妘星 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Usr:妘星: Excuse me, but what is that last comment? Also, the warning is to prevent recruiting and informing people of policy, thanks to the arguments that have gone on here. Clubjustin Talkosphere 12:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Clubjustin: I mean add a warning and argument in the Wikipedia page, like (= =argument= =). We can't do double-blind experiment with acupuncture, so it is not science. Just said pseudoscience without reason is the problem.妘星 (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Usr:妘星: your last comment, and the preceding contributions you made to this thread are written in terrible english, such that I don't think you have competence in English to contribute to the project in English. (WP:CIR). -Roxy the dog. bark 15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog:So 1 just give a suggestion. I knew my english for basic talk only. I knew I am not good at edit in english, so I post in here, talk only. I edit in chinese. But I give a angle or suggestion for you to edit it to be neutral. this page References not include offical data, link. For a medical page, without them, may be it is common. If it is right, the story in january will not happen. Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because of double-blind experiment. That's why Acupuncture is a pseudoscience. Without reason, there is argument. for example, I say you are bad without reason. You will be angry. but I say you are bad because you say my english is terrible. You will get my point. Complete sentence is needed in wikipedia. Forgive my terrible english, I had a long time without english in my life.妘星 (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Electrical Characterization of Acupuncture Points,French acupuncturist Niboyet, Skin resistance

The meridian has a low resistance, high potential electrical characteristics.

Here some words for you to google, just like WHO. Do You Best!妘星 (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO study does not evaluate acupuncture as somehow an effective remedy. It's about studying the adverse effects of acupuncture documented in the Chinese literature. Very different. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In mainly, I want to say that more point of view, more angle and completely describe. Everything have at least two side, good or bad. For example fly, we have airplane. For bad side, we create parachute. Our words are Powerless, incapable, incompetent! we need more words to describe what we talk about!妘星 (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. “A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.” Arthur Long (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Article is Racist

Not a forum: any further discussion should restart with specific, well sourced, proposals for article improvement. . . Edaham (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article is racist because it asserts that acupuncture is alternative medicine. Although some sources may erroneously describe it as such, there are at least 10x more sources that accurately describe acupuncture as being Chinese medicine. Any attempt to otherise and stigmatise and de-legitimise something on the basis of its cultural and ethnic origins is the definition of racism. Acupuncture is Chinese medicine, i.e. a valid medical practice albeit originating from outside of the white European sphere of thought. Therefore it is not alternative medicine and attempts by skeptics to smear it and debunk it are racist. They should be banned from editing this topic so that the reputation of Wikipedia for fairness and tolerance is not besmirched by them. Arthur Long (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SNOW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You´re in doubt and wish to allow the discussion to take place? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a fact, science and scholarship-based encyclopedia. So it obviously sides with science, or "white European science" as he POV-pushingly put it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful theory killed by ugly empirical evidence would be proof that science is racist. Banning science-based editors under the pretense "science is racist" does not have the chance of a snowball in hell. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me after the first sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you dispute that Acupuncture is Chinese Medicine? Arthur Long (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can be both Chinese origin and alternative medicine. As the article says "many Eastern medical practices were consolidated under the name Traditional Chinese Medicine" GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional Chinese medicine, yes. I also believe Medicine is practised in China. Actually, I can´t think of a country that doesn´t have both Medicine and Traditional medicine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TCM is a propaganda stunt played by Mao upon his own people and upon the USA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AhHa! So you admit acupuncture is Traditional Medicine. That being the case, compare how white European traditional medicine gets treated on this site Folk healer and Acupuncture. One has about 300 nice calm gentle kind words about it about vague references to "white witches". The other has a wall of thousands of words, vehemently hostile against it. Guess what the only difference is? One is white and European, and thus gets the kiddy glove treatment, and the other one is Chinese, and thus gets hammered. Racist. Arthur Long (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Folk healers haven't produced reams of pseudoscience. If they were to do so, that article might look very different. Are you suggesting that the pseudoscience should be removed from this article, to leave a few nice calm gentle words? It might be an idea worth exploring, though the pseudoscience is notable by its sheer volume. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article folk healer, and I don't see it making any claims regarding the efficacy of what they do, or even specifically describing particular techniques which may be involved. (Folk healers also don't generally try to give the impression that they're medical professionals; they're not a billion-dollar business; they don't try to claim reimbursements from public and private health insurers.) While Tgeorgescu correctly points out that WP:OSE arguments are intrinsically weak anyway, would you actually be happy with an article in that style, with just 300 words and no mention of what acupuncture is or claims about what its proponents believe it does? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

references to effectiveness for chemo induced nausea and vomiting

Can this article not be full of (three) references to the above? I think the inclusion of even one reference to its effectiveness is not required since the only reliable cited studies are not conclusive as to whether or not it may/might/could be effective. The text of the papers seems too muddy on the subject. The fact that such a murky conclusion has been included three times in the article makes it look like a proponent of this treatment has gone to town to make the only bit of good information about this sham treatment seem more pronounced. Support removing all references to effectiveness for chemo induced vomiting, but will settle for removal of two of them if a consensus for this cannot be reached. Edaham (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely believe that ANY positive results reported for acupuncture are an example of green jelly beans causing cancer and would therefore support the reduction of multiple mentions of this purported effect to a single instance. If anything remotely contradicting this "finding" is found then it's outta here completely. Science, bitches! Famousdog (c) 10:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps take the sources 1 by 1 and see if they are reliable or not. If they are reliable sources, they should stay. If you want to remove them because they don't fit your predetermined conclusion, then that would be not be a good example of "Science, bitches!" Herbxue (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&oldid=785289808"