Talk:German acupuncture trials

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Recommend treating Howick source as a pseudoscience proponent[edit]

On the basis of this credulous website: [1], I believe that the reliability of his book is fairly well impeached. jps (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OTOH[2] Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep, he is at Oxford. Doesn't mean he's not a pseudoscience proponent. There are a lot of pseudoscience proponents infesting various academic institutions, believe me. jps (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Especially at Oxford ;-) But he is well published. Mind you, that photo is now etched on my mind. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
jst you'll need a reliable source calling that book pseudoscience to make that claim; a review in JAMA or the like.Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not recommending we call the book pseudoscience in the article. I'm just recommending that we treat it carefully and not use it as an objective source for this page (or any other). jps (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should discount an author just because he teaches yoga classes. The reason I've objected to Howick (e.g. [3]) is that his indictment of sham acu is plainly contrary to the consensus of most reviewers, who say sham is a valid control. (Howick used to be used in the lede (2nd para) to dispute the relevance of GERAC's results; ironically, this probably looked to some editors like a strong EBM proponent criticizing weak acu-promoting trials -- hence a lot of the votes to delete in the last AfD.) --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to meCOI) 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It's really not just that he teaches yoga classes. You should read the entire website for the full effect. Be that as it may, I am fairly appalled at how poor his scholarship is and his work on evidence basis is pretty atrocious. I am dismayed that he is apparently ensconced in the British academic establishment as a legitimate critic of evidence basis (he seems to be a concern troll of the worst sort, actually). I'm glad we agree to remove him as a source, though. jps (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── jps and User:Middle 8: in his test edit of today, QuackGuru has reintroduced Howick for this content "A 2011 assessment of the trials judged that since the sham acupuncture was not a well-designed placebo, they were unlikely to have emitted clinically significant findings", without making clear that this is a pseudoscience source, and also put it in, next to Novella as a source for statements about the overall outcome. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons"[edit]

Let's talk about this separately: "The Journal of Chinese Medicine found that this decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons". Note that "this decision" refers to the decision to reimburse acu. QG has been pushing for this language for a while - however the earlier version of it stated it in Wikipedia's voice: "This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons". I can see how this language is very useful for the acu-skeptics; it says explicitly that Germany decided to reimburse acu not just based on the science, and so provides a very useful block to acu-proponents who want to point to the Germany approvals and say "see? it works!", which I understand has been happening. I see how this is very useful. The double-irony is that Mallexikon has been the main one wanting to include this source in the article, albeit for the narrowly stated purpose of giving the acu-proponents' view on the outcome, so that we cover the whole range of reactions. The triple irony is that other acu-skeptics here have wanted to exclude the source altogether for being fringe. The quadruple irony, is that as I discuss below in b), Birch is trying to use the "socio-political" angle to argue that acu should be more widely reimbursed. So there are just layers and layers here, making this all very difficult. So here are some points. i am signing each separately to invite interposed comments. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  • a) my sense is that QG is offering some horse-trading here in what I see as an effort to try to reach consensus. The deal is: QG offers support for using this source to describe acu-proponents' critique of the trials' design, execution and results, in exchange for Mallexikon accepting this content about why reimbursement really happened. Above Malllexikon rejected the implicitly offered deal. I am not sure Mallexikon was aware there was a deal on the table. I am also not sure that horse-trading is the best way to get the most excellent content, but sausage gets made in many ways. I also am not sure that the deal can survive other editors' scrutiny, as the source itself is being contested altogether. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • b) What the Birch text has to say about these "socio-political" reasons is interesting. Mostly Birch focuses the socio-political analysis on the the trial design (including the selection of indications to be tested). (see right column of page 12 to left column of page 13). He seems to think that the trial design was a dog's breakfast because "They tried to address scientific and socio-political questions at the same time" and his subsequent discussion of results and reactions, is based on his judgement of which kind of question (scientific or socio-political) was being asked, and which question those reacting to the trial cared about. In my opinion (I am owning that this is my opinion) Birch's discussion, especially on page 13, is fringe-y and ditto his restatement of it in the penultimate sentence of the article. ( to borrow from SNL: really? including a placebo/sham is not scientific? really??) I think that where Birch is coming from, is that he believes that acu should be much more widely reimbursed. His purpose in writing this article is to try to argue that sham/placebo should not be included in future designs, and that it was the inclusion of this feature that led to acu being less reimbursed than it should have been. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • c) Although Birch spends most of this "socio-political" analysis on trial design he has a very brief discussion of the decision to reimburse or not, and near the end of the article he states: "Will the fact that specific German socio-political factors influenced the choice of study, their design and the interpretation of results be taken into account by scientists and health care analysts in other countries?" So, importantly, there is literal support in this source, for the specific content that QB wants to include in the article. That is important.Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • d) It would be great if there was discussion of non-scientific factors related to the decision to reimburse or not, in sources acceptable to everybody. If such sources do not exist, discussion of the idea cannot rise to the lead of the article but need to remain isolated with the rest of what Birch has to say. QG are there sources really acceptable to you for non-scientific influences on the decision to reimburse? Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • e) here is my take. If we keep the source and the language being discussed above, I think it is reasonable to include in the same block of text being discussed above, something like this "Birch found that the the design of the trial and decisions about reimbursement were shaped in part by socio-political reasons" But it should stay isolated to the this "acu-proponent" block of content, and should not rise to the lead.Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 1. The text does not make it obvious that this is by proponents 2. Sources independent of the proponents do not draw attention to this paper. 3. There is no obvious evidence that this is a common position amongst Acupuncturists. Second Quantization (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, 2Q. I think that naming the journal from which the content comes was a good faith effort to signal that it is from proponents, but I agree it should be more explicit (if we keep it). I agree with your 2) and 3) which is why I say "if" and why I asked Mallexikon and Middle8 if they are aware of any sources that also say this (any sources at all - we can then look at their quality). Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
1.) I think Jytdog's proposal (e) is a good solution, and I agree that we could change the text to emphasize that this is an acu-proponents' view.
2.) True, but why do you demand that? This is a non-independent source that would only be used to demonstrate an acu-proponents' view on GERAC.
3.) True, but why do you demand that? And what kind of evidence could that possibly be? The result of a world-wide poll among acupuncturists? --Mallexikon (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
On 2) and 3) - not demanding anything... really 2Q is assuming, as i am, that if this view is common, it should be in other sources. not just this one. do you know of any? Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, the He at al. source similar focused its criticism on the sham concept. This acu-proponents' online article is less sophisticated than Birch; it simply states that "Acupuncturists have noted that the success of sham acupuncture noted in that particular study of 1,162 patients in Germany reveals that poorly placed acupuncture needles also derive benefit for the patient." Which in my understanding amounts to criticism on the sham concept as well (i.e., they're not too surprised by this being an active treatment. Interestingly). --Mallexikon (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It is specifically in the guidelines that a non-independent source should not be used when there are no independent reliable sources highlighting the same thing WP:FRIND. This is because what an acupuncturists thinks is important isn't the same as what the mainstream does, and wikipedia highlights what is in the mainstream interest. Using other dodgy websites is irrelevant. Second Quantization (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are misinterpreting WP:FRIND. It says: "In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."

  1. This is not an article about a fringe theory, but about a medical trial. So WP:FRIND doesn't really apply.
  2. Even if this was an article about a fringe theory, you'd still be misusing this guideline. "Points that are not discussed..." clearly refers to "different aspects of a fringe theory". That doesn't mean we have to have an independent source saying exactly the same as an unreliable one. It just has to cover the same aspects (in this case, criticism about GERAC's set-up). If we would have an independent source saying the same as an unreliable one, what would be point in using the unreliable one in the first place? We use unreliable sources "to show the views of the groups represented" by these sources. WP:FRINGE uses this example: "in the article about Bigfoot, a verifiably attributed and accurate quote might take the following form:

    The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association has stated, 'Scientists from various disciplines put the most compelling sasquatch evidence to the test. Collectively their conclusions are ground-breaking. There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America – a species fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots).'"

    --Mallexikon (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:FRIND applies to all aspects of a fringe theory. A guideline that only applied to material in the main article would make zero sense and would be illogical. Read WP:FRINGE. It is not talking about the main article of a fringe theory. WP:FRINGE applies in any article where a fringe theory is involved (I have over 20,000 edits to fringe theories articles. I have poured over the wording of sections in WP:FRINGE on an almost daily basis for 2 years (as any editor of the fringe must). I'm fairly sure I have not consistently misunderstood this basic aspect of the guidelines for several years and without someone telling me so). I said " Sources independent of the proponents do not draw attention to this paper." That is my text, somehow you convert that into a strawman that I think independent sources should exactly duplicate the pseudoscience sources. Read what I write, don't fill in the gaps with things I have not said. Find those independent sources. You also cherry picked the text about bigfoot that sutied you, without reading the wider context of that section: "the quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point of view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement. The consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all." (emphasis mine). Second Quantization (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi 2Q, I value your experience very much! But I think you might be mixing apples and oranges a bit and I would appreciate if you would clarify. This section is discussing a statement in a source, the statement being: "decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons", and the source for it, a journal that I think we can claim with reasonable certainty fails FRIND, namely The Journal of Chinese Medicine. I think by now we can probably all agree on that. Correct? Now there is also a 2nd matter - namely that this article is about a clinical trial of acupuncture, not about acupuncture itself. I am sorry to belabor this and ask you to teach more, but I am going to open a separate section on this question, so that this section can remain focused on the issue of whether we keep the statement and its source. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@Jytdog Correct. The Journal of Chinese Medicine clearly is not an independent source. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@Second Quantization: The text in question (the allegation that GERAC's verum acupuncture performed worse than usual because of lack of training of the participating acupuncturists while the sham treatment performed better than placebo because it somehow constitutes a highly effective treatment) of course should, and would, be contextualized as an acu-proponent's POV. And yes, we might even have consensus here to not include it at all. I just don't understand why we should leave it out. Let me repeat: WP:FRIND doesn't want us to cover aspects of a fringe theory that are not discussed by independent sources. But I don't see how we might be in danger of doing this by adding acu-proponents' criticism of a medical trial. As Jytdog said, apples and oranges. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you not see the mental contortions you are doing? You agree the paper you want to use is not independent. You agree that WP:FRIND doesn't allow non-independent material to be mentioned without an independent source drawing attention to it. How can you then say its ok to put in the criticism from a pseudoscientific journal when you lack that independent source. No, clearly it's not ok. Clearly you require the independent source. You also say its the acupuncturists viewpoint, I don't believe you. Get me an independent source that says it is indicative of their viewpoint. It's quite simple, find the secondary source which is not a fringe one which draws attention to this paper. Second Quantization (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You basically don't seem to understand that WP:FRIND doesn't apply here. Please read my argumentation again before accusing me of mental contortions. I agree that Birch is not an independent source but that just doesn't matter here. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. Second Quantization (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to sum up and close this section. No support from other sources has been brought for the criticism of GERAC stated by Birch, so we have no idea if that criticism is idiosyncratic or widespread among the pro-acu community, so the criticism should not come in even as a representative of the or even a "pro-acu view". The source itself has also been dismissed. So nothing from Birch should be in the article. Jytdog (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Second Quantization (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't agree at all. There will never be the pro-acu view (since we're not talking to a unified "scene" here; acupuncture is quite diverse). This is a view from an acupuncturist (probably one of the few who work in scientific research), it's published in a TCM journal, and one of its two main points - attacking the sham design - was repeated in the He et al source. That's enough reason to include it as an pro-acu point of view. To demand that "I get you" an independent source drawing attention to this article is Kafkaesk: why should a reliable source waste time to discuss this fringe view? And to stay with the example above: do you really think that the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association's statement was mirrored in a reliable source?
I frankly don't understand your opposition to include Birch's (and maybe also He et. al's) criticism here. What danger do you see in representing the pro-acu view on GERAC? Since it obviously exists. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Mallexikon, we have said several times that we need other sources that show that these views are actually representative of something wider than He's and Birch's individual perspectives - that the views they state actually represent some substantial view in the pro-acu community and are not idiosyncratic. Nobody has brought anything. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Mallexikon, you are correct. The Journal of Chinese Medicine is usable for non-medical claims. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in deleting the text. I could of reworded it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Now there is is another source in the article about the insurance corporations we can include this too. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say that now that we have a reliable source, there is even less need and a weaker argument, for including He, than before. It is still FRINGE. It is bizarre that you keep pushing to include a FRINGE source! Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
See WP:MEDDATE: Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find while unreliable sources are readily available. Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentioned in other articles.
We can also include it per MEDDATE since there are not many sources on the topic. I don't see how FRINGE applies in this case when it is about a historical event. There's no theory behind the GERAC clinical trials. FRINGE can't trump MEDDATE even if this is a fringe topic. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
jps, mallexikon, 2Q and I all do not find this source reliable. you are the only one who thinks it is. please drop the stick already. Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── According to the original discussion the source was reliable. See Talk:German_acupuncture trials/Archive 1#Insurance companies in Germany have stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment. I posted a review for this source at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#German acupuncture trials. I think the 2013 review is reliable for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You are the only one who thinks it is reliable. really. Talk:German_acupuncture_trials#Fringe_journals But hey if you can get jps, User:Alexbrn, me, User:Second Quantization AND WP:Mallexikon (and how often do all of those agree on anything?) you may have something. Until then, there is consensus that is not reliable. Please drop the stick.Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The review [4] is pubmed indexed. What is wrong with the source in question? Has anyone tried a RfC to get in more opinions and if not what not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi DocJames, we had an intricate discussion of this source and others as per my comment above (Talk:German_acupuncture_trials#Fringe_journals), which a branch of, led to an interesting discussion on MEDRS on a different but similar source, which is here. Quackguru didn't participate in much of that. He has been working to include this source, which jps and alexbrn - also quackfighters - have said repeatedly fails WP:FRIND.... The content that QG wants to pull out of this source has to with some insurance companies stopping coverage for acupuncture because of GERAC. It is just tendentious IDHT on the part of quackguru to keep pushing for this source and that content now, especially as he has another source that he can use to support it now. But really, please see the thread above02:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have another source that specifically says some insurance companies stopping coverage for acupuncture because of GERAC. I discussed the source recently with jps privately and he did not have a problem with me restoring it. Alexbrn thought the source for statement that are not in the fringe space, it is however usable. I don't see consensus to delete the statement or the source from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Look, above in the fringe section jps and alexbrn argued adamantly that this source fails WP:FRIND and they convinced me; I at first too thought it was fine. Their reasoning was upheld in the discussion at Talk:MEDRS on the J Acu Med source. If jps has changed his mind he needs to come here are refute his own arguments. 2Q also was very clear that this source is fringe. I will say to you again, QG- if you can find some other source that says this, then sure, that statement can come in. As you wrote above, you don't have one, so this statement should be considered as FRINGE as everything else in that source. I don't understand why you didn't present these arguments when we were actually discussing this source - you were editing this article at the time . Again please drop the stick. This source is gone. This is exactly the kind of behavior that exasperated Mallexikon and Middle8 and led to you being brought to RFCU. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Journal of traditional Chinese medicine was being used to claim acceptance of acupuncture by the international community, that no significant differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture were found, that the reimbursement procedures were made for unstated "socio-political reasons", and that some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimbursed acupuncture. See Talk:German acupuncture trials#Fringe journals.
User:Alexbrn thinks the source For statement that are not in the fringe space, it is however usable.
'I think (3) would be okay for any non-controversial & non-fringe claims. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Number 3 is referring to the The Journal of traditional Chinese medicine. Three is okay according to Alexbrn.
WP:FRINGE guides us to use independent sources. The Journal of traditional Chinese medicine is not independent (of TCM). Any significant claims made there which have permeated the mainstream will be easy to source independently. The claims jps mentions aren't primarily biomedical ones, so how would MEDRS apply in any case? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Alexbrn supports including the text and the source for non-medical claims. For non-medical claims MEDRS does not apply. I cautiously used the source without making any medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── the article is FRINGE out the wazoo. Have you even read it? And the claim they make there, about reimbursement, is itself unsourced, based only on the authors own authority, which has been found invalid. It is a controversial and FRINGE statement, especially since you have not found any other source that says it. If any of alexbrn or 2Q or jps want to revert their position and support you, they can certainly do that here - they have all been pinged plenty. If they do not speak up, the consensus to not use this source stands. You are the only one who wants to use it. Let it go. Drop the stick. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn did support the source. You don't have consensus to leave it out. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
as i said, if alexbrn wants to come here and support your use of it, he is free to do that. if he and all the others who rejected it do not, we already decided not to use this source. As it is, nobody agrees with you. Please wait til others have a chance to weigh in and agree with you or disagree with you. Jytdog (talk)
The source in question could be okay for non-fringe content. But the claims about insurance seem to be exceptional (one might even say, "fringe"), so best to use a more solid, non-fringe journal. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Alexbrn, I made this change with non-fringe content. Editors can review this change without the addition of the insurance claim. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive error[edit]

User:Jinkinson noticed a problem with the archives. The archive is malformed. See Talk:German acupuncture trials 1#. It should start with /Archive 1. The bot is archiving to the wrong page again. QuackGuru (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Birch came back in, deleted again[edit]

So although the Birch source was thoroughly discussed here and at Talk:MEDRS, User:QuackGuru continued trying to push it into the text with his "propose and delete" edits - first adding it here and then deleting right away here and then right away again adding it here and immediately again deleting it here, right after which User:Simonm223. an editor not involved with, and probably ignorant of, the discussions accepted one of those versions here. I didn't notice in this in the flurry of small edits until today, and just took the Birch source back out. Ugly. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to delete the text for non-medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
you didn't have consensus to use it for anything. Again, if all the people who already agreed to keep this FRINGE article out, change their minds and agree with you, they are totally free to speak up here. Please wait til others have a chance to weigh in and agree with you or disagree with you. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
with respect to QG's test edit, the claim about "the decision about reimbursement were shaped in part by socio-political reasons." appears only in Birch. It was discussed above and is part of a bizarre, FRINGEy argument about why the GERAC trials were invalid. Please find a different source for this. Again, this claim appears nowhere but Birch - it is like the statement from He that you want to add. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on FRINGE noticeboard[edit]

Note that WP:QuackGuru started a discussion about the Birch and He sources on the FRINGE noticeboard, here. sigh. Nice move, not participating in the long discussion we had here already, then re-opening it elsewhere. Talk about WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

editorial from Spine?[edit]

In a series of edits today, A1candidate introduced a source - an editorial from Spine (PMID 21217438 and indexed by MEDLINE as an editorial). The content based on the source, is about the outcome of GERAC for chronic low back pain. Do folks here find the source acceptable for that content? If so, why or why not? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If I may ask, is there a MEDRS guideline that specifically forbids the inclusion of peer-reviewed editorials by experts in a mainstream journal? -A1candidate (talk)
Editorials are not peer reviewed as far as I know. To answer your question, if you go to MEDRS and search for "editorial" you will find it near the top of this section where MEDRS makes it clear that editorials are not preferred sources. It is good to discuss marginal sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clairification. I agree that we should use better sources, such as the meta-analysis I included. However, I disagree with your edit summary that "really great sources are actually hard to find on this". Actually, they exist. I just don't have the time to include them yet, but there is a Cochrane review that we could use. -A1candidate (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The editorial source was not a review. Your latest edit was a only repeating the results of the original study. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)