Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps) sums up the discussion nicely, his comment is worth a read. The consensus indicates that it may one day be possible to have this article, but because the claims can not (at this time) be independently verified, we have no option except to delete. The community (and even Jimbo, independently) have made it clear that any article that has the potential of harming someone or spreading misinformation simply can not exist here unless the facts can be verified by reliable sources. While there is a lot of passion and even some logic in the arguments to keep, they come up short in overcoming these fundamental problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Primo-vascular system

Primo-vascular system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please note the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Bong-han. jps (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion as "Fraud, every single source used is in blatant violation of not only WP:MEDRS but also WP:RS & WP:V" - that doesn't meet WP:CSD (arguably WP:CSD#G11 but not a blatant hoax), so it has to come here.

The problems are several. A finding that purports to support the refuted notion of "meridians" in acupuncture, with sources all tracking back to a single country, supposedly proposed in 1962 and not confirmed until half a century later, claimed to be involved in cancer metabolism and so on - if you set out to pile in as many red flags as you could, then you would probably end up with an article very much like this. It even includes excuses for the fact that nobody has ever spotted these so-called "bonghan ducts" in routine anatomical practice. This PubMed search shows that this is almost certainly pseudoscience at work. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This was created by one of our acupunture editors. There are a couple of reviews on the topic in the acupuncture literature but this thing is not recognized by main stream anatomy. We however present it as fact so yes support delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• So we stop presenting it as fact. We describe what's published, we qualify it as, "Dr Bong-Han states this". That's better than leaving it as a hole and giving our readers nothing to go on, other than a web search and dropping straight into uncritical presentations of this theory. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is not notable independent of him we can redirect it to him Kim_Bong-han#Primo-vascular_system Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is he the only one advocating this? Or are there others within the "meridian positive" community? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to lack any quality independent coverage, but appears to have some currency in fringe journals so may merit at most a brief mention in the acupuncture article. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per Alexbrn and Docjames. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 14:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons given. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• i'm not a medical expert, but it seems to me that there are better reliable sources that could be used to completely rewrite an acceptable article. springer published a whole book on this topic (doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0601-3).  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The Springer book is already used as a reference in the article. Syl 01:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC) — Sylvain.nahas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• delete - the right pubmed search for MEDRS sources is this one, which includes "reviews" as a filter. nothing. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually the right pubmed search uses the correct terminology. 7 (seven) results Syl 16:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

which finds six in the non-wonderful Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies (hint: neither exists), and one that Thinks acupuncture can cure mental disorders. Crazy stuff. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy, since you mentioned your prejudice about TCM, I can as well mention mine: for me, TCM overall has no curative efficaciousness and should not be allowed to call itself 'medicine', as overwhelmingly shown in clinical studies. But you do understand that it has no bearing on the existence or not of this PVS? Syl 14:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This field is recent. One problem that renders locating relevant publications difficult is that the terminology used is still fluctuating. You may wish to have a look at the update I have inserted below. Syl 12:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, per Alexbrn. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Rename/Rewrite These scientists have had enough to show off to gather around 100 fellow scientists in 2010 for a symposium, and publish the contributions in a Springer book. [1] . Clearly the reality of the existence of this 'system' has not reached consensus among scientists. Allegedly because of the technical difficulties of its in-vivo characterization, and this may be taken as credible based on the alleged properties of these ducts. [2]

While I agree it could be a case of fraud given so little independent validation, I do not think the behaviour shown by this team indicates it : they seem to try to get other to independently replicate their findings. [3] So please keep in mind this could be genuine, and that its acceptance by mainstream may come when they overcome their technical difficulties and get independent replications from notable laboratories.

[UPDATE] According to the literature the existence of the PVS has been verified by several geographically distributed independent teams from different institutions. I feel this fact means fraud or hoax is overall unlikely. The trick to locate these reports is that they do not all use a consistent terminology. (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.) Syl 12:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it rather a case of WP:FRINGE? Why not rename this page 'primo-vascular system theory' and rewrite it accordingly, to mirror the real scientific status of this theory as fringe science? Syl 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC) — Sylvain.nahas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have edited this article to implement what I have suggested above. Syl 11:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep If we cover Vani Hari and Piltdown Man, we can (and should) cover primo-vascular system and Bonghan ducts.

It does not matter if these things are real or not. Guy doesn't think they are, but that would be OR to say so. There are respected sources claiming they're real. So we state that and we reify just who said what. If there are reliable sources that contradict that, we report that side too. If they are overwhelming, then we report that conclusion just as we do for Lysenkoism. What we should not do is to either judge for ourselves if something is real or not, or else to delete it simply because it's wrong. That would be to fail our readers who are still looking for coverage of it and an explanation of why it's wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not that it's not real, or that the article is written as if it is when it's not, the problem is the lack of credible sources discussing it in a way that allows us to inform (rather than misinform) the reader. There is a mass of analytical commentary about Lysenko and his hubris, and the evil done by him and in his name. Coverage of this subject in reliable independent sources seems to be negligible. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with your second statement : the article was written in a way that could let believe the existence of PVS is a fact widely accepted in mainstream science. Whereas it is currently just the narrative of some specialists in some publications, some reputable. It isn't controversial, either : I could find no criticism or counter-argumentation to this research, except Chinese doctors who doubted of the interpretation of PVS as TCM meridians. Syl 12:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Would that count as reliable independent source? No, There Is No Conclusive Scientific Evidence for Visualization of Meridians at the Moment Syl 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• So why do you think it's pseudoscience? What have you read that tells you this? If that's substantial, then that's the beginnings of the analysis you're looking for.

This is not woo-woo science. It's one woo at most. It's not chemtrails or Jenny McCarthy. There is not enough reason here for you to declare a hoax as WP:OR without such sources. You might not like that, it might not even be accurate, but it's how WP is constituted. Sometimes accuracy suffers for the sake of WP:V because we can't invent beyond available sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Rather than 'woo' I would classify it as 'front-line' science. Stuff upon which scientists work, but there is yet no way to know if it will be ultimately accepted as 'the' scientific truth. It's basically in the same class as a topic like the multiverse theory, currently. Shouldn't it then be handled the same way by Wikipedia? Syl 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Front-line science is published in high impact journals such as Nature, not the junk journals specialising in CAM and obscure specialist technical journals where this appears. We are talking here about a complete new system of vessels in the human body. That's a pretty striking claim, especially as it emanates from 1960s North Korea without any independent Western replication. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Taking a look at this, this was a somewhat big deal in Korea. I think deleting it for the English encyclopedia could be systemic bias. However, at the very least it should be in the appropriate article, i.e. acupuncture, by giving it a section or a few sentences in the right section. LesVegas (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

long OFFTOPIC discussion 1. Closer can consult if they like, of course) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am afraid that the association made by some with the (in)famous TCM 'meridian' is muddling the debate. Together with the keyword 'cancer' I feel it triggers emotional reaction which disrupt the rational and balanced evaluation of the subject matter among some editors. If you look at the research, it's all about histology, cell biology and biochemistry. Mentioned possible applications are in the stem cell and nano-medicine areas. Advanced stuff, light-years from TCM. I shall add that because some researchers claims they have found 'meridians' do not make it so, independently of the existence or not of PVS. This will be in any case matter of debate in the scientific community. After all, when discovering America Columbus thought he was landing in India. He was wrong. Syl 14:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Also, this is why mentioning this only in the acupuncture article would be making a disservice to Wikipedia readers : the gist of this research has actually extremely little to do in relation with acupuncture or TCM. Syl 10:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC) It's nothing to do with that and everything to do with the fact that this is a complete purported additional circulation system that has supposedly passed unnoticed until now, and what notice it has, is almost exclusively form one group in Korea. There is no real independent coverage by anybody outside the original group, save for a few quacks who see it as a way of salvaging a refuted doctrine. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Please, open this link which is an article from the Department of Medicine of the University of Louisville, USA. This article reports an inordinate and unexpected amount of stem cells in primo-vessels. Do you see the word 'meridian' or 'acupuncture' anywhere in this article? Are these researchers 'quack,' do you think? And what do you think they studied, if not primo-vessels? You seem to find hard to believe that scientists may discover something previously unknown! Do you think we already know everything there is to know? Do you want example of recent discovery we could never have imagined before they were made? Well, epigenetics is one. meningeal lymphatic vessels another. Would you have read the literature, you would have seen PVS has indeed independent coverage outside Korea. Bona-fide researchers from bona-fide US institutions published on it, for example. I guess they would appreciate that you say they are 'quacks' just because they are exactly doing what you claim they are not: investigating these claims. Do you assert quackery just to sustain your point, in a kind of circular reasoning? The PVS theory is scientific in the epistemological sense, since it is falsifiable. So, if (1) it passes the muster for scientificity, that (2) it has reached enough notability to warrant several laboratories to work on it - including 2 or 3 fully dedicated in South-Korea - that (3) publications have been published in reputable mainstream scientific outlets, including several independent experimental confirmations and, (4) that in all appearance it is not going to go away but rather take momentum since the rate of publication increases over time, (5) that you admitted above that the alleged relationship with the meridian theory is not a good reason to ignore it, in what name can Wikipedia decide to not inform its readers about it? Given that otherwise they may very well be informed elsewhere in lot less balanced and objective manner? That would be dangerous! The very very recent discovery of the Meningeal Lymphatic Vessels (MLV) has already made it in Wikipedia, and has its own page. Based basically on only two articles from only two teams. For the PVS we speak of independent confirmations from at least 6 (six) different teams, who have published not a few number of articles now (some of them in Nature Publishing Group publications, if that's important). Tell me, on what objective criteria does the MLV deserve a page, and not the PVS? Because you just don't like it? Syl (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, and that perfectly illustrates the problem with this article. The article to which you link is in Nature, one of the highest impact scientific journals in the world. This is international headline news in the relevant scientific community. Meanwhile, the primo-vascular system, an even more far-reaching concept, is covered in a handful of half-century-old papers from North Korea, some acupuncture journals, and a couple of minor journals where it might well have slipped under the radar. As I said before, a claim this extraordinary which has been validate would make one hell of a splash. You just proved my point. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Question Is this an example of Juche? Are the comparisons with Lysenkoism even closer than I thought? Is this indigenously supported simply because it's indigenous, with a resultant lack of critical appraisal? I'd see this as even more reason to keep it, but it would change the viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Indeed (South-)Korean national pride seems to have played a role in the insistence by the original discoverers on the relationship between PVS and TCM. Not only that, but they now hope to develop innovative medical treatments based on the discovery that these ducts are rich in stem cells; also PVS reaches inside cancerous tumours, while other vascular systems do not, so they hope to develop nano-vectors that exploit this discovery to make chemotherapy more efficient. If the South-Korean government invests money in this research, it is both for national pride and in the hope of financial gains - they may be important. As stated here. Nonetheless publications record shows contributions are also coming from researchers located in the US as well. BTW you seem to accept the idea that this research is invalid. What let you think that? Syl (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Other than the fact that two centuries of study of anatomy in major medical centres and academic institutions has not shown any signs of this, and its existence is promoted almost exclusively by proponents of the refuted concept of acupuncture meridians, you mean? Guy (Help!) 08:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC) For the first " two centuries of study of anatomy" almost everything in Western medicine was still unknown or plain wrong. Western medicine has a couple of millennia of history behind it, but it's only the last 150 years when it has had much more to offer than leeches. It might be wrong to believe in meridians but it's a worse error to think that everything is known. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Guy, your first argument applies equally well to the discovery of Meningeal Lymphatic Vessels (MLV)? Guess what it is? A previously unknown vascular system in the brain. I wonder how many brains were sliced before somebody noticed this MLV, don't you? MLV has only been published. PVS is described in anatomical literature since 10 years, it's not even 'new' - except maybe for you? With at least 6 replications versus 2, the existence of the PVS is scientifically more/better established than MLV. Do you realize that? So why handle it differently? Unless you have good sources stating otherwise, it should be handled the same. Syl (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Your second argument is misled. Current PVS applied research is about stem cells and the application of nano-medicine to oncology. 'mainstream' stuff. Do you realize that? Why reject it because you don't like acupuncture, since acupuncture has nothing to do with the actual published confirmations?Syl (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Which is interesting in your reception of this research, and should warrant an analysis, is that your second argument is based on ideology : the original discoverer states he believes in TCM, so you seem to think that his work must be wrong, nonetheless the intrinsic merit of this research, or the fact that it is now branched out of anything 'traditional' to cutting-edge medical research. This reminds me of the rejection of Lysenkoism/Lamarckism in the West because it was 'Communist,' and that during the Cold War nothing good could come from 'The Evil East'. What you may not know is that this principled rejection of the possible effect of the environment on gene expression, based on ideology, probably actually delayed the discovery of epigenetics of at least 20 years. It actually hindered scientific progress. Do you realize that for no good reasons your are trying to avoid the documentation in Wikipedia of a discovery that may prove very important for the development of regenerative medicine? Syl (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC) You also stated 'what notice it has, is almost exclusively form (sic) one group in Korea' This statement is a gross misrepresentation of the reality, as I have shown all along. Only in South-Korea there are, working on this: Cancer Biology and Immunotherapy, National Cancer Center, Cancer Immunology Branch, National Cancer Center & Department of Biological Sciences University of Ulsan, and this one. You see? 3 (three). But I find it real interesting. You seem to think that because this discovery originates from East-Asia, it can not have any validity. Do you really think that South-Korean are less competent in science than the US or EU? Well, you really should think again. Just read the Wikipedia description of this country. It is stated there that 'South-Korea is ... ranked as the world's most innovative country in the Bloomberg Innovation Index, it is the world's most research and development intensive country' It's population is about the same as UK but the household income is before your country or mine. Actually seems to be a nice place to live in, don't you think? A place full of well-educated highly-competent brains... I begin to wonder if, unconsciously, behind this debate lies not so hidden the hideous specter of the end of the absolute intellectual domination of the Western world over the globe? Syl (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep, but.. On the whole I think we ought to cover this, per Andy Dingley etc, but making it far clearer that so far mainstream medicine thinks the PVS simply does not exist. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If we had sources to establish that context, I would agree, but in fact "mainstream medicine" (i.e. medicine and medical science more widely) ignores it completely because there's no evidence it exists. We do have articles on non-existent medical topics (e.g. Morgellons) but in those cases we have substantial reality-based commentary to offset the woo. PubMed comes up blank. It scores as many hits as "adrenal fatigue", but unlike adrenal fatigue we have no reality-based sources we can use for context. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep material whether it's an independent page, Kim Bong-han or acupuncture is less urgent, but the references in accepted, mainstream journals that Sylvain.nahas (talk · contribs) provided above make it clear there is work on this topic that is not regarded as pseudoscience. I also found one.[4] There is definitely work to be done on presenting the quality peer-reviewed work and diminishing the weight to claims from alternative medicine journals. Rhoark (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. A low quality primary source is not sufficient evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be a reason to describe PVS as a 'theory,' but not to not mention it. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS applies for 'medical' content, not theoretical biology/histology/cell biology/biochemistry. Publications reporting experimental works on the PVS are about fundamental research in general biology, that may have medical application in the distant future. Every publications on PVS that could be coined as 'medical' are of the hypothesis building nature. Currently PVS is a topic in biology, not medicine : it's one misunderstanding running around and muddling the debate : WP:MEDRS is simply not relevant. Syl (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense - despite removals, eg: "It has been suggested that the primo-vascular system exists not only in and around cancerous tumors, but also within these tumors, and that they may play a role in cancer metastasis. This may allow the development of a new family of nano-drug.[2][9][16]" is still there. Johnbod (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

long OFFTOPIC discussion 2. Closer can consult if they like, of course) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nonsense?? Come on! "Biology : natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms." "Medicine is the science and practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease." For example take the heart  : it exists as an organ and its description belongs to anatomy and physiology - Biology , not medicine - as the Wikipedia article makes it clear. Right? It does have medical implications, and the study of these belongs to Cardiology, a branch of medicine. Syl (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The study of the anatomy and physiological properties of the primo-vascular system, which consist the core of the peer-reviewed published literature, belongs to the field of Biology. Its possible medical implications belong to Medicine and I agree that it would fall under WP:MEDRS, but currently there is no such clinical research published besides some speculations in alt-med publications, so this is not even relevant. Possible medical applications are one motivation for this research, and the sentence you cite explains this : the South-Korean Gov. finances three labs. working on this and this is not only to trigger a debate on Wikipedia : they expect financial wins by developing stem cell applications... And stem cell medical research isn't alt-med, it belongs to cutting-edge mainstream medicine. Right? Once medical implications actually becomes of relevance and has any significance, for example when new medical treatments are announced, this should be described in its own section. Since some scientists already use the PVS to theorize alt-med practices, this should be documented in Wikipedia, I believe. In its own separate articles, or in specific entries in the relevant articles. I trust Wikipedia to report on this in a balanced and objective manner that would protect readers from possible misuse of this research. But in any case both topics : (1) the Biology of the PVS and (2) its implication for Medicine should be carefully distinguished, as for any anatomical items. I find it unbelievable that out of confusion wikipedia editors would consider censoring this bona-fide biological research. It borders on insanity, I feel. A comparison that comes to mind would be to not report the discovery of a new planet in the solar system, independently confirmed and published in peer-reviewed astronomical journals, out of fear that some may claim it is Niburu. Would that be Wikipedia? Syl (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Censoring? Now you are headed off into the long grass. This is a "scientific advance" in North Korea, effectively unreplicated elsewhere other than by True Believers looking for something to support the refuted concept of acupuncture meridians. It is not covered anywhere in the reality-based medical literature. You can scarcely be unaware of the nature of North Korea and the skepticism that has to be applied to far-reaching but unverified claims emanating from that benighted country. You constantly argue from the point of view that this is a legitimate concept, but there is no credible evidence to support that position. Choosing not to include extraordinary claims emanating from a regime ruin by a tyrannical egomaniac with a long history of nationalistic propaganda, is not censorship. It's just good judgment. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC) @Rhoark: Those sources include "Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine", an oxymoronically titled journal which fails WP:MEDRS, the "Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies", a prolific source of pseudoscience that also fails WP:MEDRS, a book by true believers promoting the existence of the concept, and two papers which are, by their own admission, speculative. There is no evidence that "bonghan ducts" exist. There is no credible evidence that the primo-vascular system exists. Crucially, the entire concept emanates form 1960s North Korea ad virtually everything published on it has a largely Korean authorship. The result is that we can't cover it neutrally because while it purports to be a science and medicine based topic, the world of science and medicine has nothing to say about it, because it fails the criteria by which they would consider it worth discussing. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC) @Guy, It's beginning to become painfully obvious you do not bother to read anything I wrote or the references I produced. First, these laboratories are not located in 'North-Corea' but in South-Corea. I do not know in which world you live, but in the real world they are two very different countries. The former is a dictatorship, the later is a democratic developed countries. Its standard of living is even higher than the UK. Check it out, you will learn something. Second, several several independent replications published in mainstream peer-reviewed publications have been already produced. 1 2 3 4 5 6- 7 8 9 9 Based on published proofs that means that the existence of this anatomical structure is more scientifically validated than the MLV, where there is no debate while acceptance is based on only two articles. You may not believe it, you may not like it, but according to mainstream science these ducts exist and you have them in your body. Syl (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Unless, of course, you have equally reputable source stating otherwise. Do you have them? Because, that is the real crucial point, isn't it? Syl (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Lastly, the core of this topic does not belong to Medicine but Biology. So it is not covered by WP:MEDRS. I have explained why at length above. Read it, please. Syl (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I have done my due diligence and have read the references, papers, and recommended attachments. My opinion on the matter is the following: there is a single "research group" in Korea which is angling for funding in a pathological science fashion, publishing in out-of-the-way, obscure, corrupted, or predatory open-access journals on the subject and having limited mainstream success. They are attempting to get mainstream recognition of the subject, but haven't achieved that. This Korean group attempting to cure cancer with this particular scheme is of dubious ethical standard, but be-that-as-it-may, there is another issue to look at and that is the great white hope of acupuncturists that this is finally evidentiary basis for meridians. Actually, it is not clear to me whether the two groups agree with each other or not, but it is clear that this is alternative medicine at least. According to WP:PROFRINGE, our goal in seeking to establish notability is to look for independent sources that would corroborate the notability of the idea. This is where the subject fails. Depsite their best efforts, the Korean group has not been successful in getting citations outside of the peculiar acupuncturist community. They may yet succeed in convincing some skeptics to look more closely at their peculiar ideas, but until such time, Wikipedia cannot have a neutral article on the subject in the proper fashion because reliable, secondary or tertiary sources simply are not extant. We have no crystal ball, so it could be that in a few years this group or the acupuncturists gets someone independent of them to notice this weird idea and take it seriously. Until such time, Wikipedia is not the place to host content about this as we are ill-equipped to do the subject justice. jps (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

long OFFTOPIC discussion 3. Closer can consult if they like, of course) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are you aware of this publication? I believe this mainstream publication falsifies your statement that none 'independent of them ... noticed this weird idea and take it seriously' It is from the Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, USA. You'll notice it is pure fundamental biological research, nothing acupuncture oriented. They studied some properties of the primo-vessels. Or so they state : if these ducts do not exist, what did they mainstream scientists actually study, in your opinion? Also, you stated 'there is a single "research group"' It is provably wrong : there are currently 3 (three) research groups in South-Korea working on this, as I have shown above. I believe you stated the only valid argument to drop off coverage of the PVS topic : Wikipedia indeed seems to be ill-equipped to do the subject justice. If I may, I commend you! You are the first to show having made any real effort to grasp the subject-matter. Syl (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I think that this paper has a number of WP:REDFLAGs that inclines me towards not believing it is anything more than a fluke. One is that the open access journal under which it was published recently underwent an editorial management change: [5]. I'm not sure whether that happened before or after 2012, but in either case, the rather low impact factor: [6] and the lack of mainstream citations to the now three-year-old paper: [7] incline me towards the opinion that this was a student-project that was poorly supervised by the hematology faculty and they shopped around the journals until they got one published by a reputable publishing company that accepted it. None of the residents who are listed as co-authors are still at U. of Louisville, and I can't figure out where they went. My hunch is that when the residents moved on, their lack of big-name faculty backing at their new institutions prevented them from publishing follow-ups (or perhaps doing any research at all). Yes, this is speculation, but the obscurity of this topic provides no secure guidance in what to do, and the lack of citation to anything but acupuncture speculation makes me very queasy about accepting this as evidence of mainstream treatment. If the group had published additional papers in better journals, I'd be more inclined towards thinking that we might be seeing an interest from the broader community, but we don't seem to have that. I'm actually surprised that this sort of one-off publication isn't happening more often with the cutthroat publish-or-perish model currently in fashion among research-based funding models. That says something about peer-review working, I guess (though this is an entirely anecdotal observation on my part). In any case, I do think you're right that this paper is the strongest case that can be made for mainstream notice, but I think the case is still pretty marginal and inclines me towards delete even still. jps (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC) You made a lot of suppositions there, but I think your argument is overall valid. Syl (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that this kind of investigation is difficult. To do it properly would require about a month of time, a lot of e-mails and calls to journals, department heads, and the like, and it would all be rejected as original research by Wikipedia anyway, which is fine. I'm giving you my best guess on the basis of past investigations I have done into matters that were somewhat similar to this one. As for the apparently three separate Korean research groups, I"m not entirely convinced that they are independent of each other. I think they are all associated with Kwang-Sup Soh who is a pretty big fish in the wider acupuncture community. I see members of each of the groups have been connected in many ways to him. jps (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The problem is : the findings described in this article have been later replicated in other studies - admittedly mostly by the Korean teams, and/or published in outlets you may consider not reputable. Their research currently is about stem cells, as you surely have seen in the papers. What do think of that? Syl (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The problem I can't get over is that this is literally a single paper and the claimed replications are really, really dubious in comparison even to this questionable paper itself. What you want to see if you are truly witnessing a paradigm shift or a sea-change is a progression to more and more mainstream sources when an idea is really gaining traction -- not falling back solely to the acupuncture circles. It's as if they had some stem cells and didn't know what to do with them. There is something to be said for the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach, but I am having a hard time seeing any stickiness here. jps (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Also that these three groups may not be independent is a personal estimate. I am personally certain that there are two other research teams in South-Korea that have jumped in the PVS bandwagon and compete against Dr Soh's team. You will notice in their publications that they even do not use the terminology set up by Dr Soh : they use terms like 'Microscopic nodes and ducts' - That's why they were hard to locate at first. You will also notice that, objectively, we can not ascribe any obvious relationship between these teams and acupuncture. They seem to be pure mainstream. No? Syl (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I think that may be right, but again, a comparison to pathological science (and its poster child cold fusion) may be in order. In the case where there is money floating around, there is an incentive to get your hands on the funding and distance yourself from other groups who share superficial similarities but may be adopting one or two lines you find distasteful. That's kinda the way most of these schemes work, but I cannot say for sure that's what's happening because the sourcing is simply so thin. What I can say is that this is definitely not "pure mainstream" in the sense that the two other groups don't seem to be able to publish in the normal high-impact journals that would be the signal of "pure mainstream". Keeping an eye on the situation would be worthwhile, but I suspect we'll need to see some major scientific journalism press and some serious papers done on the claims itself before we can be certain that this isn't anything more than really out-of-the-way proposals that may just disappear as people move on, research funding dries up, or nothing comes of the research. On the other hand, it could be an amazing new breakthrough. Too soon to tell and the start of the work is definitely less-than-auspicious. Having seen many such ideas come down the pipe, I would be willing to bet money on "no", but Wikipedia has to make the decision now whether it is article-worthy. Still can't see my way towards a keep, but I have no prejudice against recreation once (or really IF) the mainstream recognition happens. jps (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC) What I notice is that we are reduced to do guess work there. I can only concur with you on your assessment of the situation. I still think this topic is notable enough to be documented in Wikipedia, though. Somebody has rewritten it in a way that I find Okay for now. @jps I appreciated you introduced a bit of sanity in this debate. I was really beginning to despair of Wikipedia as a project. Thank you! Syl (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I never take it as a good sign when we're reduced to guesswork, but as is often the case in WP:FRINGE topics, that tends to be the devolution. Nevertheless, I look forward to any new sources that may help elucidate the situation. This is one of those situations where Wikipedia is on the bleeding edge and I don't really think it should be there. jps (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

keep new version An editor has rewritten the PVS page in such a tone that I actually worry for his hypothalamus. Nonetheless, trusting that factual information and references have been kept by said editor, if this could build consensus that this last version presents no danger to induce readers into believing in invalid medical claims while still fulfilling the mission of Wikipedia to inform readers on notable topics, I would be personally content with this page as it is now - for the time being, pending further potential developments of the publication record as per jps. Syl (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Sylvain.nakas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Duplicate !vote. Editor needs to either combine this with their previous !vote, with only one option highlighted, or strike the former entirely.

long OFFTOPIC discussion 4. Closer can consult if they like, of course) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Guilty as charged! The problem with my current version is that many of the characterizations, while correct from my research, are essentially original in the sense that sources other than Wikipedia haven't identified the obvious connections between the proposal and acupuncture, for example. WP:Plain as the nose on your face isn't quite yet an approved policy for writing and I still think that it would be better to have no article rather than one that drips with innuendo (because there is no independent work done) or cagy attribution. Still, the current version is better than the previous one which uncritically claimed that this thing existed. jps (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I agree with you that it is essentially crystal ball given the publication record. The problem with deleting this page is this topic has already begun to reach notability in the alt-med hypersphere, as you surely noticed, and this will only take momentum. People are going to google for 'primo-vascular system'. If Wikipedia removes this page, they will not be able to find a balanced treatment that set the record straight, and will be left to refer to content that will be a lot less critical. Some editors stated they worry for people taking health decision based on the PVS theory. If they do, they should admit that it is better that WP critically covers this topic than not. Syl (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I find your version does a good job at that. Syl (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC) While I appreciate the compliment, I'm less enthusiastic about my version than you, sad to say. While noble, I think your preference for keeping the page leans dangerously close to righting great wrongs. It would be fantastic if Wikipedia was empowered to carefully identify new ideas and contextualize them properly, but, alas, WP:NPOV only allows a combination with WP:RS and WP:V rather than some preferable expert-based or research-review model. Your philosophy of helping the curious find the best content about obscure topics is perhaps better embodied at Rationalwiki, and that website would probably do a better job on this subject given its wider editorial remit (I encourage a port of this article over there, in fact). The problem as I see it is that Wikipedia cannot really function as an effective one-stop-shop given its "accept all comers" approach. For example, if we get some PVS-believers coming in here, they will rightly demand that we identify sources rather than provide accurate commentary, and the problem is that the sources are all one-sided! That's basically the reason that Wikipedia's WP:PAG developed the way they did (WP:NOR, for example) — it's impossible to test for which editors are blinkered and which editors are neutral just given the ability of a person to point their browser and hit "edit this page". Certainly, I can point you to more than a dozen individuals out in cyberspace who think that I am the most skewed and horrible content guardian on this site in spite of your very kind praise for the work I've done today. jps (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The problem is that your assessment, you will no doubt admit it, is a narrative basically based on worst-case guesses. These teams in Korea might be swindlers, the team in the USA might have been badly-mentored students, and so on. Well, this might be true, but the opposite can be equally true : these professional researchers might be intellectually honest, and then these ducts exist. I lean on this later interpretation, you lean on the former - but it is really based on prejudices for us both, isn't it? At which threshold will you accept this research for genuine, since the next confirmation might be (insert suspicion here) , etc... When do you stop? Syl (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Your best-case scenario is a Nobel-prize-worthy accomplishment! Unfortunately, there are far more instances of cranks than true geniuses with stakes as high as this. For every Alfred Wegener there are hundreds if not thousands of Trisectors. Granted, most trisectors don't get published in the equivalent of Experimental and Molecular Pathology, but enough do that it makes me apply a heavy Bayesian prior probability against the extraordinary claims. The threshold I think that is appropriate is publication in the top-tier journals by multiple, unassailably independent groups (not just nominally independent as in the case of the three Korean teams). jps (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC) So please let take the example of the meningeal lymphatic vessels. A new vascular structure in the brain is a pretty extraordinary claim as well, since it seems unbelievable that nobody have noticed it before (same argument as for PVS.) Its acceptance is based on two only publications. One in top-tier (Nature), the other one in a scientific publications of the same level as the one works on PVS has been published. So if I apply your muster it does not pass and should be removed from Wikipedia, am I wrong? Especially if I feel in skeptical mood and am willing to make worst-case estimate and suspect that one of this team has... well you know what I mean. Syl (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC) A WP:TOOSOON argument should always be a consideration for something that is sourced primarily to a Nature article. However, in this case, the press that was received regarding the "discovery" I think forces the subject to pass the WP:GNG standard. Is there any comparable press about PVS? I'd be very interested to see some. jps (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Also, since you looked at the published research, you have noticed that they published not a small amount of work on experimental techniques. They seem to try hard to document their research gear so that other laboratories can reproduce their work. I find that for fraudsters this would be taking a lot of risk : the risk to be called out by a team that would try replication which would fail. For me it is a good indication that they are of good faith. Don't you think? Syl (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Indeed, but, again, this is where the comparison to cold fusion seems apt. The reason they need so much documentation of experimental technique rather than results is because the evidence is so marginal. So emphasizing proper techniques so that they can see the N-rays is going to be the dominant form of discourse. jps (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Except that comparing this research and cold fusion is risky. It does not necessarily transpose. The later is now 20 years old, the former has begun to be actively researched only from 2010. It appears to be technically very difficult to do accurate calorimetry measurement and the numbers are not easy to interpret, while with the right staining technique the PVS can even be "shown." I expect you have seen the various photos of these ducts they have published? Syl (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The first description of the primo-vascular system has been published in The Anatomical Record, which, I have checked, is a peer-reviewed journal. The good thing with anatomy is that you 'see' things, and some PVS ducts are even big enough to be seen with the naked eyes properly prepared. And I do expect the various reviewers, who certainly belonged to the best specialists of the USA and elsewhere, to have had enough professional acumen to recognize if a 'new extraordinary' structure belongs to the bestiary of known stuff, or is actually new. They were probably able to do that only by throwing an eye on the data provided to them, except that I suspect they have done more than a cursory inspection. Don't you think? Would you say that all of this is just photo-shopped and the peer-reviewers under opium? Wouldn't you say that for scientific fraudsters, repeatedly publishing photos falsely labeling an anatomical structure in peer-reviewed journals is about the dumbest thing to do? Very very dangerous? I can imagine less dangerous things to do, like making up numbers. Syl (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The "B" journal for The Anatomical Record [8] invited authors on the basis, it seems, of a another paper it accepted in 2002 that was written by Helene Langevin, an acupuncturist in the employ of U. of Vermont. How that paper got through peer-review is a mystery, except to say that there continue to be a number of acupuncturists on the Editorial Board of The Anatomical Record including Changman Zhou This does not bode well for the claim of mainstream adoption. "Peer review" in such instances generally means finding a sympathetic reviewer who won't reject your claims with a laugh. Cold fusion was debunked within months of its big splash moment. I think it is pretty difficult to say that the photos that published claiming to be PVS are unassailably examples of new anatomical features. I'm not sure whether the researchers know they've been duped or if they're trying to pull a fast one, but if you have a friend who is a doctor, try showing the pictures to them and see what they say. I imagine something similar to the eye-rolling that happens when you show most physicists a plot of the excess heat from cold fusion "power cells" will occur. Is this dangerous fraud? Absolutely. But there is something of a money-train going on here in many different countries where governments allocate funds to "study" acupuncture even though we know it doesn't work and so researchers have to come up with increasingly peculiar arguments and, yes, fraud, to justify their work (see the SBM link I gave with the pipe "a mystery"). jps (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC) But it's just an alternative narrative based on guess work and worst-case estimate, you will surely admit. You just have no proof of all that. You even begin to sound like my friend of mine that believes in a world plot led by 'Illuminatis,' only with Acupuncturists. I am surprised. Syl (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Since various of these photos were published in several peer-reviewed journals, you're narrative must not hold for one only, but for all. Do you believe that plausible? Syl (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The rabbit hole is deep, indeed, when it comes to acupuncture because CAM is big-time-bucks. We're talking billions of dollars a year. The photos you're referencing were not really published in several peer-reviewed journals. They were published in several journals that appear to me at a glance to be likely to be compromised due to a well-known issue with obscure journals: infiltration. Think about how the editorial boards would operate: the board is basically all volunteer and if you happen to get an acupuncturist, all the papers relevant to that subject would end up being passed to that one editor. The editor in turn would then assign reviewers who were sympathetic (you better believe Zhou is not asking Edzard Ernst to review any papers that pass his way). This is a known bug in the peer-review system, and it isn't only found in the context of acupuncture. Cold fusioneers have also been known to take advantage of it when they got one of their own on the editorial board of Naturwissenschaften. It's not "conspiracy" as much as it is just something that requires care. You can't just blindly accept everything that is published as being reliable. That peer review works at all is startling, as I intimated above. jps (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC) @jps This article on PVS : Adult Stem Cells from the Hyaluronic Acid-Rich Node and Duct System Differentiate into Neuronal Cells and Repair Brain Injury is cited by this one from an altogether completely different team :Molecular and phenotypic characterization of CD133 and SSEA4 enriched very small embryonic-like stem cells in human cord blood. published in 'Leukemia: official journal of the Leukemia Society of America, Leukemia Research Fund, U.K'. This team is at the National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (NIRRH) in Mumbai, India. Is stem cell research also "acupuncture", do you think? is this team also part of the scheme? Or isn't the alternative narrative, that these ducts really exist and the research on it has been fruitful since it begins to be cited in completely independent specialized literature, more plausible? Syl (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I have been looking into the stem cell angle and I think what's going on is that certain groups have no idea what to do with stem cells. My impression is that this is what's going on with the U. of Louisville group and this Mumbai group on the basis of some attachment to the Korean's claims. Note that there is no independent confirmation in high-level journals. jps (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC) @jps If I understand your narrative about PVS well, you think that all these researchers, dozens of PhD, are not actually working? That they basically make up something to receive grants from their Gov., buy expensive laboratory gears that they never fire up, and that dressed in white coat all day they play solitaire on their brand-new computer, hoping to have a go with the pretty secretary - except time to time organizing a brain-storming to try and invent something half-plausible that their accomplices in the science publishing business can let publish? Is it what you are explaining? Corrupt fields are corrupt. CAM is big time and there are hundredsthousands of peopleprofessionals working in it. Many of them are true believers. I have no way of knowing which is which. jps (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC) If I were to get a PhD, I might as well do real work after while. Especially living in 'the most innovative country in the world' that is South-Korea, were chances to get to work on something worthy of my talent and where I could bring a real contribution to the state of the world so that I might get my little share of immortal fame are very good. Wouldn't you? The idea that PhDs are all capable of changing the world is a fantasy. Take it from someone who has one. jps (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC) In these articles on PVS, when not PhD in specialized fields authors are medical doctors. Becoming a MD is not easy; to get through one need a lot of motivation. This motivation usually wake up during childhood and is called a 'vocation' - stated as 'I want to save people's life.' But according to your narrative about PVS, these doctors would basically give up their vocation and the hope to bring better conditions to the world, and get into the scheme of 'doing nothing all the day and faking work'? Syl (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC) No. I have no doubt that many doctors who go down these trails are extremely well-meaning and think they are doing right. I cannot distinguish which ones are the charlatans and which ones are the ones who are simply misguided. That's as far as my abilities go. All I can do is identify the treatment that a subject has received. If I was advising a med student, I would definitely encourage them to steer clear of this subject regardless of what they thought of it. jps (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Question Lets sum up the established facts, and then the alternative narratives on them. A. Sticking to what have been published in mainstream only, and only to that, we elucidate the following sequence of events: - 1. In 2005, a team, admittedly with beliefs in TCM, publishes experimental work stating they have discovered ducts. They dissected animals, looked hard, found a previously undocumented anatomical structure. To date this team continues to work on that. The South-Korean Gov. has enough hope of scientific and financial fallouts to finance this team. - 2. In 2010, 100 or such scientist gather from all over the world to brain-storm about these ducts. Some of them supposed they may contain interesting stem-cells. - 3. In 2012 a team in the USA discovered that these ducts are full of interesting stem-cells. They dissected animals, extracted these ducts, put them in lab. gears, and analyzed the content. - 4. Between 2012 and begin 2015, two other teams in Korea published experimental work on these ducts confirming the other findings. They dissected animals, extracted these ducts, put them in lab. gears, and analyzed the content. - 5. In 2015, a team in India published stem-cell experimental work building on the previous published works. They dissected animals, extracted things, put them in lab. gears, and analyzed the content. B. One narrative about this sequence of events is the following: - 2005: The first team lied. They did no actual work, just making up stuff. - 2010: These 100 or such scientists were all fooled. - 2012: The team from the USA was just students without supervision making-up stuff. - 2012-2014: These two other teams from Korea do not even exist. It's all made up stuff. - 2015: Logically, the team from India must be making up stuff as well. Motivation analysis: corruption or laziness for every single participants Personal risk analysis: Very high. Being called out in public (for East-Asian, it's worst than death). Losing any retirement rights. Getting in jail is not excluded. Assumptions underlying this narrative: - These ducts do not exist. - These highly-trained professional scientists do no real work. They are idle all day. - 'Hundreds of PhD' are highly corrupted. - To get able to publish, these scientists have accomplices everywhere in the science publishing industry. - All other specialists that have happened to check this work are either incompetent or corrupted. Complexity of the narrative: You'll admit it: it's a good plot. Better than a Hollywood film. It's not even a novel, it's a saga. C. Another narrative about this sequence of events runs as follow: - 2005: The first team actually found a new kind of ducts. - 2010: These 100 or such scientists were wondering about these ducts. - Some of them supposed they may contain interesting stem-cells. - 2012: The team from the USA actually found really interesting stem-cells in these ducts. - 2012-2014: Two other teams, independent from and in competition with the first one, begun to replicate previous work, confirming the presence of really interesting stem-cells in these ducts. - 2015: The team from India begun to work on these really interesting stem-cells in these ducts. Motivation analysis: passion for their work, hope to find new cure for disease, hope to win fame and maybe even Nobel Prize, possible financial fall-out. Personal risk analysis: well, just finding nothing interesting in the end. Standard research risk. Assumptions underlying this narrative: - These ducts exist. - These professionals just do their job. Complexity of the narrative: Simple. Boring, even. D. Questions - Applying Bayesian probability, which narrative is the more likely? - Applying Occam's razor principle, which narrative has the fewest assumptions? - Applying motivational analysis, which narrative has the more chance to correspond to human psychology? - Applying motivational and personal risk analysis, which narrative is the more likely to lead to personal gains for the participants? Syl (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC) In your outline, you have attributed a deceptive motive where I have attributed none. You have identified many "scientists" which are not necessarily "scientists" in the proper sense. You also seem to have a higher opinion of the abilities and motives of people who publish in low-quality journals than I do. jps (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I have removed any ad persona, unwarranted and unfair. I apologize. Why do you think that Leukemia is 'low-quality'? It is subject to the same editorial exigences than any other Nature publication, no? Syl (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I wouldn't say it's of "low quality" compared to every other journal cited, but it is not subject to the same editorial exigences as the flagship journal. Rather, it is simply published by Nature Publishing Group on behalf of two charities who name the editorial board in manners that are in line with their particular philosophies. It definitely has a higher impact factor than any of the others, but it is a second-tier journal at best, and the reference is secondary to that journal as well. The stem cells angle is a weird one, I absolutely admit. But looking in to the normal stem cell literature I see bupkis on PVS. Single-issue mentions that appear in obscure papers happens from time-to-time. It's the nature of the beast. I appreciate the effort, though, absolutely. Just don't think we've gotten to the "breakthrough" outcome which is the gold standard. jps (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I think that in this world only you and the others editors that stated their incredulity find that "extraordinary", along with the original discoverer. From a biological point of view it belongs only to the 'quite interesting' category. The discovery of MLV was a lot more "extraordinary" because it broke a long standing dogma in Biology, namely that the brain is circulatory independent of the rest of the body. But this? It breaks no dogma. It is just an ubiquitous stuff that currently has no known physiological function. No big deal, in fact, a priori. Set aside these claims from TCM people that in any case will have to stand under scientific scrutiny, that is - and your, personal, dispite of them. Syl (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Isn't it a biological system newly discovered? Are you saying that isn't an extraordinary claim? jps (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, I say that. Since the 20 years I have studied Biology in University, I have seen so much discoveries, and even several 'dogmas' broken, that this discovery is just another one. Wouldn't you say that the discovery that (some) dinosaurs had actually feathers, bird-like heart and warm blood a lot more 'extraordinary'? Short before I entered the University, they were thought to be reptilian. Cf. the velociraptor: only a few years separate this representation vs this one, both according to the scientific knowledge of the time. Now we say: 'birds are dinosaurs.' Syl (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia is a non-innovative reference work. Before the discovery of archaeopteryx, there were claims that birds were more closely related to dinosaurs than other reptiles, but this was a WP:FRINGE opinion. It turned out to be correct, but we needed strong confirmation of that before it was accepted. Had Wikipedia been around at that time, it would have been irresponsible to push this idea without the levels of sourcing that it eventually came to enjoy. Patience is my call. If these people are correct then there will surely be other independent groups confirming it, press junkets, funding, etc. It's WP:TOOSOON to say whether this is going to happen and, although I remain skeptical, I'm not closed-minded. I just require extraordinary evidence which we haven't yet gotten. We don't yet have our archaeopteryx. jps (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I do understand this policy. Thank you for explaining this with so much care.Syl (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC) You state the 'stem cells angle is a weird one.' Isn't it because you are structurally unable to accept that these guys really have discovered something, or so you sound to me? If you consider the narrative I suggested, it all makes sense, you'll admit it. Here, another independent confirmation in mainstream, BTW. This time from a team in Seoul. That makes four different teams in Korea. It adds up, isn't it? Evidence for an Additional Metastatic Route: In Vivo Imaging of Cancer Cells in the Primo-Vascular System Around Tumors and Organs You stated it is 'pathological science,' but that's even not true. Everybody seems quite able to find these ducts, once explained how to do. Syl (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC) The cancer curing claims are part of this argument. Run, don't walk, to your nearest oncologist and ask them if they believe that this literature helps them identify PVS's existence. You seem to be arguing that everyone who has looked for them has found them. Might I suggest that these Korean groups decided ahead of time that these systems exist and that's what has led them to find them? Fan death is also considered real by large groups of doctors. jps (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I also learned via an e-mail today that the lead author in the U. of Louisville study referenced above is connected with the Mumbai team, incidentally. jps (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I also found connections between all of the Korean teams. The authors on each of the papers are part of the Nano Primo Research Center. jps (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC) So what? Is it how you judge scientific claims? Did you even try to read these papers, I wonder? I think you are trying to find at all costs a narrative that could throw doubts on these research, out of dislike for the discoverer. Isn't it? Syl (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Are you okay? Your responses seem oddly defensive suddenly, and it doesn't make sense. I encourage you to do as much research as you can and if you can find something convincing let me know. So far, I've found some problems with your claims of independence. I'm not surprised that I found such things (it's typical in WP:FRINGE) cases but, believe me, this is not personal. jps (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, I reacted defensively because of course I would not like to have been fooled if it turned out to all be a prank. I admit that if your claims are true this throws doubt on this research. Care to document it? Syl (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I didn't receive permission to share the e-mail I received, but if I have some time later I'll try to see if I can identify connections between the first author on the U. of Louisville paper and the authors of the Leukemia paper via the web since I have some additional clues. As for the Korean groups, try nosing around http://aict.snu.ac.kr/eng/m02/?mode=02_01_02 and doing some cross-correlative work with the authors of the different Korean papers. It's all there. jps (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC) What would that indicate, in your opinion? The problem is that you state they are related, but not in which way. I think this could be normal that researchers interested in investigating something connect, don't you think? It would not necessarily indicates anything wrong, right? Syl (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I cannot tell in which way they are related. It is possible they are all on the up-and-up hoping to convince the rest of the world that they have made a huge discovery and are associated because birds of a feather flock together while maintaining intellectual and academic independence. This is possible, but it is very easy when researchers are associated with each other to lose the skepticism that is required for high-quality confirmations. Even if these people truly believe they are on to something (and I have no reason to believe they don't, to be sure), this can also be a case of blinkered and credulous acceptance of a red herring, made more possible because they are surrounded by like-minded and similarly inclined researchers. The whole point of independent validation is that someone else who is in no way associated should be doing the work of making sure the work is reproducible because the human elements -- connections between researchers and the like -- can easily get in the way. This is true of ALL research, not just this work. We require independence to check for the problem of confirmation bias. When I see evidence that independence isn't there, that doesn't mean they are WRONG. It just means that we have to evaluate the WP:REDFLAG as a red flag and Wikipedia tends to default to delete in those scenarios until such time as the independent research does verify and then the idea is to create the article. jps (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Well if this is indeed Wikipedia policy, I would say it is not really worth investigating further, because I am pretty certain that until now these labs operated by direct horizontal technology transfer. Think about it : evidencing these ducts needs 'new' experimental operating methods. A lab. interested in investigating these claims could learn this through published literature if it is detailed enough, but the most efficient way to master it is to send a member of the team to train in situ. On the other hand, that does not mean that the knowledge brought back by this team member is not subject to critical scrutiny by the other team members. From the course of events I have reconstituted I am quite sure that's what they all have done, so that you found connections is not surprising, actually, if by 'connection' you mean trace of the presence of a team member. IMO that's also why they are so intent in publicly documenting the operating procedures Also, there is a counter argument to this research that nobody in this discussion thought to bring up, namely that these ducts could be experimental artifacts. They actually thought about this, and investigated it : they have done 'risk analysis' and documented it. That's a sure sign that they are serious, IMHO. You may find interesting to read this My estimate is that you should be prepared to recreate this page. :-) I am really curious to see how it all unfold. Syl (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I hope you are right. It would be exciting to have an example of an acupuncturist wittingly or unwittingly coming across a system that has broader medical relevance. Maybe even Nobel Prize worthy relevance. Who wouldn't want such things? However, I'm not going to be convinced by what essentially amounts to conference proceedings that this is likely to occur. I have seen this in many other areas and the WP:REDFLAGs seem obvious to me. That manifestly does not mean that it is impossible for these people to be right. They would be the exception rather than the rule and Wikipedia is a crude tool that tends towards not being able to treat exceptions very well until well after the fact. I suspect if re-creation of this article becomes necessary, it will attract more than just you and I nattering on. We'll have many different editors curating at that point and it will be beyond our own little discussions and speculations. I hope you are right. It would be very fun to see a topic that stars out as fringe become revolutionary. We'll see! jps (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)begin as To be sure to understand your line of thought, I have three further questions. The conference proceedings you are referring to date back 2010 and outline a research program; the papers published recently that have been at the core of this discussion are reports of experimental work which have been published in peer-reviewed journals : why do you state these last papers essentially amounts to conference proceedings? The Sept 2011 work you linked is what I'm referring to. jps (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Which relevance does it have if the original discoverer is an acupuncturist? The research published in mainstream concerns essentially stem-cell related histological stuff; I have hard time to see any relationship between this and the practice to put needle under the skin? (From what I gathered from his bio., he would be more accurately described as a biophysicist, BTW.) The relevance is my prejudicial concern over confirmation bias. That's not to say that is absolutely what's going on, just that I find it more than plausible. jps (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Well, as we elucidated, this is too soon to reach any conclusion. I think that only time will tell. They are not going to stop researching, by all appearance. Syl (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) As a rule, epistemological paradigm shift do indeed begin as fringe, isn't it? (I am not asserting this research is such an instance, mind you) Syl (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Absolutely. As a rule, though, you cannot identify them properly until after the fact. jps (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I think that confirmation bias is very unlikely in the context of histology. It's not like these research works where you have to verify hypothesis by interpreting numbers. In this case, it's more like verifying that there is indeed cold beer is the fridge. Syl (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC) You should read about n-rays and polywater. jps (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Read. Interesting, thanks. Syl (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC) As I understand it, polywater was caused by a lack of risk analysis (considering alternative hypothesis). I think these teams have performed it, for example here, but it should be more internationally scrutinized. As for N-rays, it was because in these early time measurements was done by human intervention, and I do not know if the protocols these teams apply are subject to the same kind of risks. Also, you know that a 'thread-like structure floating freely in lymphatic stream' is a highly persistent thing once evidenced - SCREAMING IN THE FACE even, as you might has gathered from the photos available. Not like the N-ray. Anyway, if your point is that this research lacks independent replication, I do agree and I think they are very well aware of that. Syl (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Do you realize that if this photo actually tells what she tells, that if all other evidences actually tell what they tell, the PVS story is actually the reverse of n-rays? In the n-rays case, scientists were seeing things while they were not, in the primo-vascular system case, scientists were not seeing things while they were. That would be highly ironic, isn't it? Syl (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• quick note, I voted delete above, and the article has been worked over now to include several WP:PRIMARY sources and has all kinds of poor content. It is actually worse now than it was before, and I am just confirming my !vote to delete. This is science that has only been published and reviewed by a small circle of scientists, publishing in low quality journals. (i just re-checked the pubmed search - I was hoping to find even one independent review in a decent mainstream journal that we could hang an article on, and there are none). I would be open to this article being re-created when there are better sources but there just aren't sufficiently good ones now. This subject simply fails WP:Golden rule. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent, secondary sources to establish notability as a stand-alone article. Yobol (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.