Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Middle 8 (talk | contribs) at 03:10, 4 February 2014 (→Podiatrists: grammar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is a scientist.

This user is an acupuncturist.

This user is a humanist.

Template:Busy2
Privacy note: Do not post any personal information about me on Misplaced Pages beyond what I disclose on this and my other user pages. See User:Middle 8/Privacy and WP:OUTING, which is taken as seriously as WP:BLP, as it should be.

If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you state a different preference. It's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place.

Archives (as yet incomplete; check the history)

Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate

Review request for a review on the acupuncture page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review, I think you will find the research interesting. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've been very busy and only read it just now. I will have a look, but can't get into anything very intense for another week or so. But I will have a close look. This is an important area and we need to get it right. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The response by Vickers

Hi Middle 8. QuackGuru interpreted your remark to mean that you oppose citing Vickers's response to Ernst in the article. Is that accurate? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I do support citing Vickers' response to Ernst; sounds like QG misunderstood my comment. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Shoot me an email if there are any PDFs you'd like to have in hand. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thanks so much! --Middle 8 (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in reasoned and reasonable discussion on the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

To you the same, MB3. I think the overall trend is pretty good. We may even make a "good article" out of it one day. That would be pretty cool. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Purported MEDRS violation

A 2004 cumulative review should not be used to replace the 2011 meta-review. See WP:MEDDATE.

Current text: "The incidence of serious adverse events was 5 per one million, which included children and adults."

The numbers are now in the article using a newer source. The older source did not did not specify if the estimate included adults and children, but the newer source did. The newer source gives a better explanation about the numbers. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As I already pointed out at Talk:Acupuncture, that 5-in-one-million number comes from White 2004. The newer source simply quotes White. Standard practice is to cite the original. That's not controversial and it appears other editors are on board, so if you don't want to join consensus in this case, fine, but your objections to this source are now well past the WP:IDHT threshold. (See Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events.) --Middle 8 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was original research. I object to replacing the 2011 meta-review with dated source. I don't see a rationale explanation to replace the newer 2011 meta-review with the dated source. I don't understand how your edit improved the article. The 2011 meta-review does not cover the 5 in 1 million number yet you continue to insist to delete the newer source. I recently updated the article with the numbers using another source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding/misrepresenting multiple things, and I'm not the only editor to notice this. It's disruptive. And there's no reason to discuss this here when Talk:Acupuncture will do. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal has too many problems. For example, I explained on the talk page that your proposal is tantamount to original research. The newer source explicitly states the 5-in-1 million numbers. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to just repeat yourself and ignore what other editors say (aka WP:IDHT, why should we respond at all? You're losing the trust of other editors. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You are unable to give a reasonable explanation for using the older source when the older source does not explicitly state the 5-in-1 million numbers and it does not specify whether the estimate included adults and children. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

White 2004 indeed states 5 in one million. Well, actually 0.05 per 10,000 (treatments). Which I think we can agree is that same thing as 5 in one million. That's a fact, not a matter of opinion. Why do you dispute it? As for adults and children, it doesn't specify, so we can just report the result; there's no reason to think children were excluded. (Same logic applies to any such review.) There is no IDHT on my part here -- but as before on Talk:Acu, you're repeating simple misunderstandings of fact. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And you'd actually have us believe that converting from 0.05/10,000 to 5/1,000,000 is too confusing. Right. We're done here. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Purported violation of Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims

You restored the disputed primary sources against WP:SECONDARY and you restored excessive details against WP:WEIGHT. Your edit violated the WP:RS guideline. Editors at the talk page disagree with you. See WP:CON.

Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is "vital" that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims. Please be more careful next time. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

First: Under MEDRS, as you well know, primary sourcs are acceptable in some situations. My edit was per the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GERAC, where multiple editors agreed that the sourcing was fine. The article is not intended to be about current medical consensus, but rather a notable experiment; to whatever degree it's been superseded, the article can and should say so.

Second, your comments could as easily have been at Talk:German Acupuncture Trials. I watch article pages regularly and don't need to be reminded. I'm going to copy and paste your remarks there. In general, I prefer to discuss articles at their talkpages. Your comments are not particularly welcome on my talk page given your poor reciprocal communication: you IDHT at article talk and above, and you simply delete comments at your own talk page. Therefore, I'm going to copy and paste your comments and my reply to Talk:GERAC.

QG, please do not use this page in the future, except to tell me about discussions elsewhere that involve me, e.g. at noticeboards. Thanks, --Middle 8 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

User conduct: QuackGuru

Moving this to User:Middle_8/sandbox/conduct and hopefully not having to revisit it. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Sorry, Middle 8, there is a talk page you recently created that you miscategorized with {{R to talk page}}. That Rcat should only be used on redirects that are not talk pages and that link to (target) talk pages. Please see Category:Redirects to talk pages for more information. Also, it would help a great deal if you would not create talk pages when there are no discussions and therefore no need for the talk page. Thank you very much! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth  05:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your correction -- I missed the part about Rcat being for cross-namespace redirects, and will make a note of the correct template you used. But I don't get your comment about there being "no discussion" .... there is indeed an active page at Talk:German Acupuncture Trials, and I created Talk:GERAC to redirect to that, because GERAC already redirects to German Acupuncture Trials. How is that bad form? I can't find anything at WP:TPG or WP:REDIRECT suggesting that we shouldn't create redirects in talk space to other talk space articles, and this instance seemed quite logical. Thanks again for helping to clue me in! regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Middle 8! Fact is, there is no policy nor guideline against creating any redirects you think are needed. Redirects are not actual "pages" and are very "cheap", as they say, which just means that they take up only minuscule server space. It was not the redirect that concerned me so much as the possibility that you might be creating discussion "pages" (not just redirected talk pages) where none were needed. I am happy to be wrong in that respect. Best to you! – Paine Ellsworth  17:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:German acupuncture trials

I have changed several section headers on this talk page to focus on editing as opposed to editors. Appropriate processes have been implemented and can and should be used as needed. I am not contending that individual editors don't make working on an article difficult. I think comments directed to such editors on the talk pages of the articles being worked on is appropriate. I just thought section headers consisting of a UserName are not consistent with WP policy and may escalate contention rather than help build consensus. Hopefully the mediation taking place can help editing move forward constructively. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's cool, no problemo -- I certainly appreciate your endeavoring to keep the temperature from flaring up. It is grating when editors engage in extreme IDHT and apparent obtuseness and so on, and those are the times when it's especially important to stay cool. Thanks! best regards Middle 8 (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your mail

Hey,... Yes, I wasn't prepared to meet so little response at AN/I - I should have presented a much stronger case. But it's water under the bridge now...
TCM/acupuncture is not very mainstream here in Shanghai (anymore?). I guess the efficiency is just not good enough to make it very popular... although defending TCM seems to be kind of a national pride. They'll all tell you how great TCM is, but most people will still go to a Western clinic if they have a problem... Even regarding Western medicine, though, superstition is going strong. A lot of people swear on getting i.v. antibiotics when they have a simple cold (and the health care system is rotten up enough for the doctors actually prescribing it)... This country is a mess. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Lord... i.v. antibiotics for a cold.... now there's a genuine public health need for docs to start prescribing placebos! For colds and sinusitis I actually use Chinese herbs; they help a lot. Shanghai sounds crazy, interesting as well. Happy (Gregorian) New Year, --Middle 8 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you certify this RfC/U?

Hey. I need a 2nd certifier for this. And if you want to add anything, be my guest. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll join it. See also here. (GMTA?) cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I filed the RfC/U; it's at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2. You'd need to certify within 48 hours from now. Thanks! --Mallexikon (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Using Category:Pseudoscience

(refactoring) The below is in response to this section of my user page:

That acupuncture bit is a load of bollocks. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"That's apparent when peer-reviewed meta-analyses and mainstream bodies find ..." ← not apparent at all: we call this "original research". We need to know what experts on pseudoscience think, not editors of Misplaced Pages. Alexbrn 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@RtD, the depth of your critical analysis never ceases to amaze. @Alexbrn: we need to know what the scientific community thinks. (...) anyway, I'm obviously happy to consider the issue along the RS lines you'd prefer... --Middle 8 (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Podiatrists

Podiatrists focus on a particular part of the body, and will select their treatment option and sell it depending on what they judge will work best (if they are behaving correctly). Acupuncturists have pre-decided their treatment option. That's a big distinction. If however a podiatrist was on commission from (say) Wongo Nail Juice and used that as a treatment, and decided to edit the Misplaced Pages article on Wongo Nail Juice, then that would be comparable to an acupuncturist editing the acupuncture article. Alexbrn 16:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you raise two distinct issues (in the context of an acu'ist purportedly having a COI): profiting from the treatment one prescribes, and (pre-)selection of treatment option. The former is simple: we get paid for doing procedures, just as dentists, podiatrists, etc., do. There's nothing "generally considered" ethically wrong with that (although sometimes the consultation and treatment are done by separate parties, as with Rx drugs). Your example is more like (e.g.) docs getting junkets from pharmaceutical companies.

The latter boils down to ethics: i.e. ensuring that there's alignment among one's scope of practice, what one claims to treat, and the evidence base. That confluence is obviously limited for acupuncturists, but it's limited to two of the most common afflictions: pain and stress. These fit the evidence, and are what I focused on before going on leave, and those things certainly fit acupuncturists' scope of practice well, since the main things we do are acupuncture per se and electrical muscle stimulation, along with some Asian bodywork techniques. Obviously, if I were overpromoting acupuncture, I'd be violating generally-accepted ethical guidelines, and if I were pushing that same overpromotion on WP I'd be in violation of several policies. And I know many acupuncturists do overpromote, and that this is common in alt-med, though neither the rule in alt-med nor a terribly rare exception in medical and allied health professions.

I still don't see COI emanating from any of this, nor do I see its adumbrations being unique in kind to acupuncture, though obviously greater in degree if scope of practice is a factor. Are you arguing that anybody who gets paid for performing a given procedure shouldn't be editing that topic? Or only if they only perform a small number of such procedures? Or if a lot of their colleagues are known to be bad actors?

Over to you, then... time for a nightcap of some juju juice. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 12:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Humanist Wikipedians