Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation

Why did you change article again?

Why do you keep changing it? Looks like you are imposing your own opinion. What is the problem with US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health as a source? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanmb1 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Doc James: I don't see value added by your edits as you keep reverting to your version without compromise nor good explanation. You also ignore highly cited references that were added, enriching the content. I am reverting back to my version and expect and explanation for changes. You mentioned having a problem with primary sources, when there is no such requirement in Wikipedia. Jeanmb1 (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jeanmb; folks will be happy to discuss content with you but there are matters that should be addressed first. Would you please respond at your talk page? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you but I don't see any active discussion on my talk page. Jeanmb1 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Click here to see what Jytdog is talking about, on your talk page, from yesterday. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Dude: I overwrote your one-citation declaration that CES doesn't work with references to 10+ academic studies that say it does--a conclusion backed by the FDA in 1979.

You reverted that change.

The single study you reference does not refute any of the evidence; it performed no research itself, nor nor did it review current research. In fact, it is not really a study at all. All this one source did in its single-page literature review was to declare that ALL of the many research studies on CES "do not meet the inclusion criteria for this review. Therefore we conclude that insufficient evidence exists to..."

It actually said nothing at all, other than that it refused to look at the research published in the academic journals this Wikipedia article references:

• Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
• Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
• Annals of the New York Academy of Science
• Journal of Neurotherapy
• Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science
• Neuropsychopharmacology
• Brain and Behavior
• Neuroscientist
• Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Teratology
• Journal of the Psychiatric Clinics of North America
• American Journal of Electromedicine
• Current Opinion in Psychiatry
• Publications of the University of Tulsa, Oklahoma
• Annals of Internal Medicine

The above research—and much more—convinced the FDA to declare in 1979, that:

Controlled studies demonstrate that CES is effective in treating anxiety, headaches, fibromyalgia, smoking cessation, and drug withdrawal symptoms.

Yet you replaced all of that here because ONE outfit published an article saying that none of these studies meets its high review standards, even though they met the standards of the FDA.

Finally, your single citation was from Cochraine Reviews, an outfit that seems to exist to prove that accepted medical treatments don't work. They were recently busted for scientific fraud when they published a paper declaring that Ritalin doesn't help ADHD. The outfit smells like scientology.

This is outrageous.

If you want to pursue this, take it to arbcom. Don't revert it again. The only way you could win there is if you have an admin friend who will rubber stamp anything you write. That may very well happen, as I've seen it happen before in years past. I have heretofore remained silent at these travesties because until now, I was, per WP rules, too young to be editing here. Verdana♥Bold 10:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please focus on content. See WP:FOC.

Your edits were not OK because the sourcing was not OK. Please see WP:MEDRS - I left a note on your talk page providing guidance on editing about health and medicine. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Why were they "not okay"?

The guidelines say we take FDA and other established sources seriously. My sourcing was the FDA and a dozen serious academic journals. Yours was a single literature review that said nothing except to reject ALL published evidence in the last 40 years as not meeting their standards for a literature review. They then conclude that the topic is unsubstantiated because there is no literature about it. This is beyond ridiculous. We're obviously going to arbcom, but first, I'd like to hear your answer.