User talk:Drmike001

Acupuncture Research

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." 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)

Hi there
I am a medical doctor with an interest in MSK pain & Western medical acupuncture. My brief background and publications are here. I am particularly interested in mechanisms and how they inform (or not) the design and interpretation of clinical research in acupuncture. The Vickers et al IPD meta-analysis, and the recent Saramago et al IPD network meta-analysis are the most powerful analyses of acupuncture to date. They are positive and the latter strongly suggests that the usual 'sham' procedures are very likely to be active, ie more than context alone.
I like Wikipedia, and I think it has an interesting model of publication. I have not attempted to influence the Acupuncture page because when I first looked at it years ago the dialogue on the talk page was rather disconcerting, and looking again recently things appear to have deteriorated further. I have made some comments at the request of a colleague who was banned.
I would be seen as having a POV by virtue of my position, so I cannot really get involved in editing anything concerning acupuncture. I have published summaries of evidence regularly, and they can be found here.
Best wishes Drmike001 (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)