Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation

(Following copied from user talk pages; NPOV issues should be discussed here.)

Unexplained Removal of sourced

Alexbrn

You removed sourced content from the Food and Drug Administration that speaks to safety and effectiveness of CES devices in multiple indications for no justified reason. The Cochrane review only reviewed literature specific to acute depression, and no other indication, making it limited in its scope and making the FDA citation a novel addition. I am restoring the content. Please discuss with me on talk page before making unjustified edits.

WikiGuy1980 (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh don't edit-war: that way blocking lies. I think we have a WP:V issue here, since this (primary) source is talking about how "controls" will provide assurance, not the safety/effectiveness of CES itself. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn The FDA citaiton is a secondary source. It is a position statement by a major health organization. General and special controls themselves can not be determined safe or effective; they help ensure both for the devices themselves. The FDA specifically indicates that the CES devices are considered safe and effective, with general and special controls. That is the exact language, and you are misinterpreting this for unclear reasons. You also falsely claimed that the source is a primary source when it is clearly a secondary source. WikiGuy1980 (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGuy1980 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, as I did not sign my last additionWikiGuy1980 (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a primary source for what the FDA does (obviously), which is how it was cast in your edit. As I say, it's a bit of a stretch from a statement about the effect of controls in the future, to the safety and effectiveness of CES now. We've a very strong source (Cochrane) for that detail without having to perform such contortions. (Hmm, I have a strange sense of déjà vu here). Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

The single citation you reference does not refute the evidence; it performed no research itself, nor nor did it review current research. All this one source did in its single-page article 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 WP 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.