User talk:Herbxue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

TestingHerbxue (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox for Acu Mechanisms Section[edit]

Moved to User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms

new sandbox[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herbxue/SandboxLiuBin#New_Article:_Liu_Bin


Sandbox[edit]

Klon Centaur

Gloves[edit]

Nobody disputes that acupuncturists don't understand sterile technique. That's the point. Not understanding it doesn't make it any less the point... Guy (Help!) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You are really editing aggressively lately, what's the beef? L.Ac's practice clean needle technique, not sterile technique, with very few adverse reactions (not counting PT's or others doing "dry needling") You are pointing out a non-issue just to pile on negatives. Did an acupuncturist do something mean to you or something? Herbxue (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that it's inadequate. When penetrating the skin, sterile technique is the standard of care. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Not for acupuncture, which has its own laws and regulations that work just fine to protect people. Most adverse reactions have been from unlicensed people performing needling. If you want to convince the states that license acupuncture that they should adopt sterile technique as standard of care, go ahead. Until then, recognize what standard of care actually is.Herbxue (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I am fully aware that acupuncture thinks it is different. In fact, a fair number of acupuncturists don't believe in the germ theory of disease at all. Acupuncturists' views on what is appropriate sterile technique are as irrelevant as Bernard Madoff's ideas on financial regulation. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm talking about actual laws and the accepted standards of a well-established profession with an enviable safety record. You are talking about your own opinions.Herbxue (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Ever heard of "legislative alchemy"? The legal system has nothing to do with science. In some US states, there are laws preventing medical associations from disciplining doctors form using dangeorus treatments for a fake diasease. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but doctors and legislators and acupuncturists all recognize the difference in risk between surgery or venipuncture and acupuncture - the vector of the acupuncture needle is so much smaller than that of a hollow needle that even with gross negligence the risk of infection is still low. There's a reason we don't need to prep with iodine or wear gloves. Simple hand washing and cleaning of the site, and use of a single-use pre-sterilized needle are enough to keep infection incidence almost non-existent in the states. In the case of poorly vascularized tissues or lymphedema we avoid needling. Its not rocket science, its just simple universal precautions, and its effective at controlling risk.Herbxue (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
See special pleading. Bored now. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You are the one engaging in special pleading by ignoring the facts and applying your own desire to "right great wrongs" based on an irrational dislike of a subject you are not familiar enough with to edit with competence.Herbxue (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is rather obvious that I am familiar with the subject, so your assertion is a bit silly. I know it is fashionable among SCAM believers to think that understanding and belief are synonymous, but they are not. It is perfectly possible to understand bullshit without believing it at all. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok clear-eyed one, where is the evidence of the massive infection rates you seem to think will occur due to CNT not meeting your exalted standards?Herbxue (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Acupuncture Research[edit]

I hope that your are a good resource to discuss omissions and changes to article pages. If this seems inappropriate, please delete. I believe I addressed concerns of two individuals on the validity of modern research (2017) on acupuncture; however, they don't believe in it and simply refuted the research with logical fallacies. After trying the talk page for acupuncture, I added it to the article page. Do you have an opinion on this issue? I am concerned that bias against acupuncture is precluding accurate information regarding its mechanisms of action and efficaciousness from being posted. I am not sure how to reference the reverting that was done on: 04:38, 9 February 2017‎ on the acupuncture article page. The research was presented in the talk page as: Feedback on this meta-analysis is appreciated. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics) and University of York researchers conclude, “We have provided the most robust evidence from high-quality trials on acupuncture for chronic pain. The synthesis of high-quality IPD found that acupuncture was more effective than both usual care and sham acupuncture. Acupuncture is one of the more clinically effective physical therapies for osteoarthritis and is also cost-effective if only high-quality trials are analysed."[1] Next, I rebutted complaints about the section (each logical fallacy, one by one). Next, i added it to the article page but it was reverted. I inserted it as:

"Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics) and University of York researchers conclude that acupuncture is an effective therapy for the treatment of osteoarthritis and is cost-effective." (I included the citation)

Any advice or help to get impartiality added to the page? I am concerned there is extreme bias and potential ethnocentric concerns blocking accurate medical data from the page. --TriumvirateProtean (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ MacPherson, H; Vickers, A; Bland, M; Torgerson, D; Corbett, M; Spackman, E; Saramago, P; Woods, B; Weatherly, H; Sculpher, M; Manca, A; Richmond, S; Hopton, A; Eldred, J; Watt, I (January 2017). "Acupuncture for chronic pain and depression in primary care: a programme of research". PMID 28121095.