Talk:Acupuncture

Mangled tense?

According to User:Famousdog the part "has been" is a mangled tense. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that "is has been" is a mangled tense. --Amble (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm irritated that I didn't notice "is has been" despite reading that text several times. Thanks to Famousdog for fixing it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The wording was changed again. Both versions are better than the OR "described by some[not in citation given]". QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with either "is" (present tense) or "has been" (present perfect tense). The present perfect tense implies that it was labeled pseudoscience in the past and still is considered pseudoscience. The past tense "was" implies that it used to be considered pseudoscience but isn't any more. I suspect that most will agree with me that the latter suggestion is unacceptable! Famous_dog (c) 11:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mild and controlled Wallerian degeneration

add that text after the paragraph Purported scientific basis

Acupuncture causes balanced symmetrically throughout the body, mild and controlled Wallerian degeneration. It (acupuncture) causes nerves to thicken a little bit, to become more myelinated, and to seek variant pathways and thus to initiate some maintaining. Also during the Wallerian degeneration process more neurotransmitters are forced to be secreted.

Patients that have axonal inabilities or degenerate axon growth may be harmed by acupuncture. We have to be precise though. Not all neuronal or axonal degenerate conditions render acupuncture a prohibited method. Only the degenerate conditions of which their corrupt Wallerian degeneration causes permanent and uncorrectable damage (regeneration not initiated) and also if the disoriented Wallerian stage had become either the final stage, or never stops until the patient paralyses or dies (very rare but substantial).

Wallerian degeneration is the only statistically significant acupuncture consequence, long enough in duration enough to cause an affect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.218.210 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks like original research. Famous_dog (c) 11:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting new editorial in the journal of family practice

A new editorial in The Journal of Family Practice: "The mainstreaming of alternative therapies" http://www.jfponline.com/specialty-focus/neurologic/article/the-mainstreaming-of-alternative-therapies/6dc51562474ba0332e6045351dbb876d.html 75.152.109.249 (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

An opinion piece, the author of which seems to be conflating 'popular' with 'valid'. he also seems to be under the impression that rebranding 'alternative medicine' as 'integrative medicine' somehow makes it 'real'. Famous_dog (c) 11:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth, the more developed professions labeled CAM or "integrative" (acupuncture, chiropractic) are trying to mainstream themselves by weaving more inclusive evidence -informed practice concepts throughout their schools' curricula. Understanding research design and statistics have been included for a long time, but ACAOM (accreditor for acu schools) has increased the expectations in recent years. These free EIP modules offered by the U of Minnesota can give you a sense of one model of clinical decision making in these professions, if you are interested. The thing I think the non-clinician skeptic crowd is missing is that good MD's know that many medical conditions are humbling - with all our scientific advances there are patients suffering right now for whom there are no "proven" therapies. Those are situations where they (good MD's) are willing to try experimental therapies or refer to alternative therapies in the hope that they can relieve some suffering. The editorial you posted is by a doc that treats a particular stubborn condition, so that explains why he is relatively more open to unproven therapies. Herbxue (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ernst '11, real and sham ... redux redux

See archived talk: my opening comment, & scroll to "Everymorning" for their suggestion which was implemented with consensus at the time. As noted, Kww and LesVegas and Alexbrn and J-S and 2/0 and Herbxue and most other editors who have carefully read the paper have all agreed that the old wording is a misreading. restoring Everymorning's suggestion: [1] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The old wording was:

A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain, real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture and concluded that there is little evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for reducing pain.

The edit changed that to:

A systematic review of systematic reviews found numerous contradictions in the evidence regarding acupuncture's effectiveness for treating pain.

That's a big change, and the new wording is so waffly that it has almost no meaning. I have only browsed the earlier discussion and would have to study it all to form a firm opinion, but while it may be true that the systematic review (that is, the Ernst reference) did not "find" that conclusion about sham acupuncture, a significant portion of the ref's discussion section was dedicated to outlining the "recent results" in a way that suggests Ernst believed that his outline of those results was consistent with the review. It looks as if the Ernst ref supports a stronger statement than the above edit. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)