Talk:German acupuncture trials/Archive 3

616:::Thanks for bringing up this interesting debate. Reading that blog post, it says that "About a year ago the editors of Anesthesia & Analgesia solicited a written debate on whether or not acupuncture is effective or simply an elaborate placebo. Four experienced acupuncture researchers agreed to write the pro-acupuncture article, Wang, Harris, Lin and Gan. They asked David Colquhoun to write the con position, and David asked me to write it with him (which, of course, I enthusiastically agreed to do). The article is fortunately published in open access, and so I can reprint it here (full article is below). What I think David and I convincingly demonstrated is that, according to the usual standards of medicine, acupuncture does not work." So, if we are going to use the Novella article from this journal, then we can also use the Wang, Harris, Lin and Gan article? 2220:

health related. And all policies and guidelines about sourcing of course apply as well (ie, sources must not fail FRIND). And any claims about any underlying theories of acupuncture within the article, of course fall within FRINGE. But descriptions of the clinical protocol, and description of results, are all standard health-related content that are not FRINGE. I think this is pretty clear -- the trial design seems to have been carefully done to make it a good placebo-controlled RCT, and the results were decidedly negative for two indications, and borderline negative for two others - this was far from a rah-rah-acupuncture outcome. I would be interested to hear thoughts on this, based of course as much as possible on policies and guidelines (no big hand-wavy claims, please!!). Thanks.

1224:& refs therein. Dependence isn't a function of a journal's topic in the real world; it actually has to do with external relationships (e.g., a reviewer being the parent of an author). No important conflicts -- according to prevailing standards in academia -- are declared by its editorial board (most/all of whom practice acu, not surprising given the subject matter, and have additional qualifications as well). The journal appears to fulfill WP's other tests for sources, such as peer review and indexing; furthermore, studies published in it have been used by Cochrane and in other accepted MEDRS's, and MD's and PhD's publish in it (e.g. Ernst). "Dependence" seems to have been misinterpreted by editors unfamiliar with what it actually means. 1641:. (see right column of page 12 to left column of page 13). He seems to think that the trial design was a dog's breakfast because "They tried to address scientific and socio-political questions at the same time" and his subsequent discussion of results and reactions, is based on his judgement of which kind of question (scientific or socio-political) was being asked, and which question those reacting to the trial cared about. In my opinion (I am owning that this is my opinion) Birch's discussion, especially on page 13, is fringe-y and ditto his restatement of it in the penultimate sentence of the article. ( to borrow from SNL: really? including a placebo/sham is not 598:"Some trials also control for the variable of needle insertion, using placebo or simulated acupuncture in which opaque sheaths are used and a dull needle is pressed against the skin when the plunger is depressed, but there is no skin penetration. Alternatively, toothpicks have been used to simulate the sensation of acupuncture without going through the skin. Again, when this variable is isolated, it turns out that simulated acupuncture works as well as verum acupuncture. This is true of the largest and best trials of acupuncture for the most common uses, such as reducing back pain (Haake et al. 2007) and treating nausea (Enblom et al. 2011). 1597:!", which I understand has been happening. I see how this is very useful. The double-irony is that Mallexikon has been the main one wanting to include this source in the article, albeit for the narrowly stated purpose of giving the acu-proponents' view on the outcome, so that we cover the whole range of reactions. The triple irony is that other acu-skeptics here have wanted to exclude the source altogether for being fringe. The quadruple irony, is that as I discuss below in b), Birch is trying to use the "socio-political" angle to argue that acu should be 324:'Patients experienced not only reduced pain intensity, but also reported improvements in the disability that often results from back pain and therefore in their quality of life.'... Although the study was not designed to determine how acupuncture works, Endres said, its findings are in line with a theory that pain messages to the brain can be blocked by competing stimuli. Positive expectations the patients held about acupuncture — or negative expectations about conventional medicine — also could have led to a placebo effect and explain the findings, he said." 425:= policies and guidelines. jps you are absolutely right that RfCs are not binding, but in the process of building consensus (which in all AGF I believe we are all doing), the results of RfCs form milestones that should not be tossed aside without consideration - that is why I asked for solid reasons why we would move away from it. I reviewed the discussion above and didn't find any. btw jps I think the work you are doing evaluating sources is great, and can proceed even if this content is reinstated... thanks for doing it! 1935:). I said " Sources independent of the proponents do not draw attention to this paper." That is my text, somehow you convert that into a strawman that I think independent sources should exactly duplicate the pseudoscience sources. Read what I write, don't fill in the gaps with things I have not said. Find those independent sources. You also cherry picked the text about bigfoot that sutied you, without reading the wider context of that section: "the quote should only be included if it can be 601:"Therefore, if we define acupuncture as using needle insertion to stimulate acupuncture points, and the best scientific evidence shows that acupuncture points do not exist (it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles) and needle insertion has no effect (it doesn’t matter whether or not you stick the needles), then does acupuncture work? I think the only reasonable answer is no; there is no reality to acupuncture or the concepts upon which it is based." 31: 956:: I also think Birch's article is tendentious, however, to his defense, I think you misunderstood him... I don't find him calling for Chinese acupuncturists. He just compares the German requirements (regarding hours of study) for acupuncture-practicing physicians with the requirements in UK, NZ, Australia etc. (who seem to have higher requirements) and the WHO guidelines (which seem to be met by German requirements). -- 407:

it stands right now includes a lot of problematic sources that I'm still working through. If you are going to go ahead and add more content and (presumably) more sources, I'd like you to explain why they are good additions on the talkpage first. Some additional content may be good, but some of it may not be warranted. The differences between the two versions is too great to be able to tell in one fell swoop. Thanks.

1617:

about why reimbursement really happened. Above Malllexikon rejected the implicitly offered deal. I am not sure Mallexikon was aware there was a deal on the table. I am also not sure that horse-trading is the best way to get the most excellent content, but sausage gets made in many ways. I also am not sure that the deal can survive other editors' scrutiny, as the source itself is being contested altogether.

2151:

the He et al source. That's enough reason to include it as an pro-acu point of view. To demand that "I get you" an independent source drawing attention to this article is Kafkaesk: why should a reliable source waste time to discuss this fringe view? And to stay with the example above: do you really think that the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association's statement was mirrored in a reliable source?

1995:: The text in question (the allegation that GERAC's verum acupuncture performed worse than usual because of lack of training of the participating acupuncturists while the sham treatment performed better than placebo because it somehow constitutes a highly effective treatment) of course should, and would, be contextualized as an acu-proponent's POV. And yes, we might even have consensus here to 1153:@2ndQ: Sure, "points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in article", but the point here is assessment/criticism of GERAC. We have several independent sources discussing this point. The Birch source would only be used to show the specific assessment of the acu-proponents. I can't see how I would be selectively reading 2851:

don't understand why you didn't present these arguments when we were actually discussing this source - you were editing this article at the time . Again please drop the stick. This source is gone. This is exactly the kind of behavior that exasperated Mallexikon and Middle8 and led to you being brought to RFCU.

1150:@Jytdog: Thanks for flattering me, but I wouldn't call myself an expert in this field. And no, I don't know if Birch's criticism is mainstream in the field. Regarding point 2.) I don't know what you mean. I try to include an acu-proponent's view on GERAC here. That would naturally come from a fringe journal, no? 1645:? really??) I think that where Birch is coming from, is that he believes that acu should be much more widely reimbursed. His purpose in writing this article is to try to argue that sham/placebo should not be included in future designs, and that it was the inclusion of this feature that led to acu being 2150:

pro-acu view (since we're not talking to a unified "scene" here; acupuncture is quite diverse). This is a view from an acupuncturist (probably one of the few who work in scientific research), it's published in a TCM journal, and one of its two main points - attacking the sham design - was repeated in

2026:

doesn't allow non-independent material to be mentioned without an independent source drawing attention to it. How can you then say its ok to put in the criticism from a pseudoscientific journal when you lack that independent source. No, clearly it's not ok. Clearly you require the independent source.

1255:

I am with Middle8 on this one (although i could do without the unproductive editorializing in the last 2 sentences - please AGF for those who see the journal as questionable). If there is really a dispute over this, I would be happy to bring this journal to the MEDRS Talk page and get more input on

439:

Except that the link you mentioned contains some of the sources that we already removed from the article. If you just revert back to that version, all those sources come back. You'll have to do it piecemeal anyway, so why not just justify the reincluded material here? I don't want to abandon previous

391:

discussion of why the level of detail was moved yet lower. I intend to restore the RfC-validated level of detail. Objections? If so, they should be based on changes to PAG or new sources that emerged subsequent to the RfC, or somebody should explicitly say "I changed my mind" and give reasons...

2634:

Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find while unreliable sources are readily available. Whenever writing about medical claims not

2453:

for relentlessly stating that acu is quack. There must be some background to that, but I don't understand it. It seems entirely possible to simply describe the experiment and the bizarre outcome and the consequences, framing before and after with simple statements that there is no reason to expect

2219:

In a few places above, the claim has been made that this article is not about a FRINGE topic, but instead, is about a mainstream scientific topic - namely, a clinical trial. My sense, is that the preceding statement is true. MEDRS applies to any health-related content, since the topic is decidedly

1665:

c) Although Birch spends most of this "socio-political" analysis on trial design he has a very brief discussion of the decision to reimburse or not, and near the end of the article he states: "Will the fact that specific German socio-political factors inﬂuenced the choice of study, their design and

684:

I included material from the Birch source to present the acu-proponents criticism of GERAC: it centers mainly around alleged inadequate training of the participating acupuncturists, and a "too powerful" placebo. In order to put this criticism into perspective, I think it is important to include some

521:

You're becoming increasingly volatile in your talkpage discussions. Can you please calm down? QG posted a very short sentence that referenced a previous discussion, and you're accusing him of "changing your mind" on that basis? Perhaps you should consider taking a break from this rather oppressively

493:

God the threading in this Talk page is horrendous. OK, this is kind of what I meant above. Please give a reason why you changed your mind, QG. You proposed the longer version! I note that in article about a clinical trial it is difficult to see how content actually describing the trial design is

263:

This has got to be one of the worst sources I've read in a long time and really should not be used in this article. The source waxes eloquent about acupuncture topics without actually dealing with the outcomes of the trials. It is a terrible article and should not be used as a source for anything as

238:

has reintroduced Howick for this content "A 2011 assessment of the trials judged that since the sham acupuncture was not a well-designed placebo, they were unlikely to have emitted clinically significant findings", without making clear that this is a pseudoscience source, and also put it in, next to

2895:

WP:FRINGE guides us to use independent sources. The Journal of traditional Chinese medicine is not independent (of TCM). Any significant claims made there which have permeated the mainstream will be easy to source independently. The claims jps mentions aren't primarily biomedical ones, so how would

2643:

can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely

1682:

d) It would be great if there was discussion of non-scientific factors related to the decision to reimburse or not, in sources acceptable to everybody. If such sources do not exist, discussion of the idea cannot rise to the lead of the article but need to remain isolated with the rest of what Birch

1616:

a) my sense is that QG is offering some horse-trading here in what I see as an effort to try to reach consensus. The deal is: QG offers support for using this source to describe acu-proponents' critique of the trials' design, execution and results, in exchange for Mallexikon accepting this content

1117:

Thanks for replying to my question above, 2Q, about whether the view in Birch is mainstream among acu-proponents. Mallexikon and Middle8, 2 questions. 1) In your opinions as experts in this field, is the view in Birch questioning the validity of the skills of the german acupuncturists mainstream

778:

come on alexbrn! the article said that the people giving the true acupuncture were not as competent as they could have been, and that the sham acupuncture equipment really had an effect - the result being that the measured efficacy was lower than it could have been, and the placebo was higher than

700:

Fringe criticisms are irrelevant and have no weight. This is for the same reason that we do not include astrologers rebuttals of tests of astrology because they have no weight (and they are also an irrational defence of their preconceived beliefs). These "rebuttals" always exist, but the due weight

406:

I object. First, I don't now what PAG is. Secondly, I don't think that the RfC is binding on content. Thirdly, in comparison, the version cited contains some sources that we've seemed to agree we should remove (He et al., for example). It would be unwise to reintroduce them. Finally, the article as

201:

It's really not just that he teaches yoga classes. You should read the entire website for the full effect. Be that as it may, I am fairly appalled at how poor his scholarship is and his work on evidence basis is pretty atrocious. I am dismayed that he is apparently ensconced in the British academic

1274:

is very specific about this: "Reliable sources on Knowledge include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications

454:

awesome. ok so you are not (in theory) opposed the previously agreed level of detail. I will get to work seeing if any the clearly good sources we have here (not marginal ones) support any of that and will propose re-introducing content and sources in a new section below so we can all be sure we

323:

hey jps, would you please sign your comment above. This seems to be cherry-picking of his full quote "'Acupuncture represents a highly promising and effective treatment option for chronic back pain,' study co-author Dr. Heinz Endres of Ruhr University Bochum in Bochum, Germany, said in an e-mail.

2867:

3. Journal of traditional Chinese medicine was being used to claim acceptance of acupuncture by the international community, that no significant differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture were found, that the reimbursement procedures were made for unstated "socio-political reasons", and

2850:

2Q also was very clear that this source is fringe. I will say to you again, QG- if you can find some other source that says this, then sure, that statement can come in. As you wrote above, you don't have one, so this statement should be considered as FRINGE as everything else in that source. I

2458:

to support that) This is such a great story about how difficult clinical research is and it is such a shame that the story cannot be told clearly. It is bizarre to me that the clinical protocol is not stated here, in an article about a clinical trial! Mallexikon I would ask you to be careful on

2295:

Don't take my word for it, read it! You'll notice wording like "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should ..." Nothing says it only applies to articles about fringe subjects, it talks about when fringe content appears. That is because

898:

this is on point. I think the perspective given in JCM is interesting but I too am curious about the weight it deserves, but from a different angle. The Birch article is remarkably tendentious (and almost offensively so! ) - the idea that only Chinese acupuncturists have the proper training and

1958:

reasons", and the source for it, a journal that I think we can claim with reasonable certainty fails FRIND, namely The Journal of Chinese Medicine. I think by now we can probably all agree on that. Correct? Now there is also a 2nd matter - namely that this article is about a clinical trial of

1747:

Thanks, 2Q. I think that naming the journal from which the content comes was a good faith effort to signal that it is from proponents, but I agree it should be more explicit (if we keep it). I agree with your 2) and 3) which is why I say "if" and why I asked Mallexikon and Middle8 if they are

913:

Determining what is the prevalent viewpoint is generally difficult amongst pseudoscientists. They tend to view their own approaches as the dominant way. A good example is in astrology where some groups declare it a religion and find claims that it acts like science to be offensive, while another

2932:

the article is FRINGE out the wazoo. Have you even read it? And the claim they make there, about reimbursement, is itself unsourced, based only on the authors own authority, which has been found invalid. It is a controversial and FRINGE statement, especially since you have not found any other

2108:

I'd like to sum up and close this section. No support from other sources has been brought for the criticism of GERAC stated by Birch, so we have no idea if that criticism is idiosyncratic or widespread among the pro-acu community, so the criticism should not come in even as a representative of

1022:

I frankly don't get it why you think that the Birch source should be used to comment on the Federal Joint Committee's decision (to reimburse acupuncture), but at the same time shouldn't be used to comment on the GERAC trials (which happen to be the nominal subject of this article). What kind of

390:

cited by QG when he set up the RfC as his preferred example of containing " fewer low-level details". However the current article lacks the detail found even there. I think the version that QG proposed is reasonable and it was supported in the summary of the RfC. And I don't see any reasoned

1887:

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association has stated, 'Scientists from various disciplines put the most compelling sasquatch evidence to the test. Collectively their conclusions are ground-breaking. There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America – a

2168:

Mallexikon, we have said several times that we need other sources that show that these views are actually representative of something wider than He's and Birch's individual perspectives - that the views they state actually represent some substantial view in the pro-acu community and are not

1953:

Hi 2Q, I value your experience very much! But I think you might be mixing apples and oranges a bit and I would appreciate if you would clarify. This section is discussing a statement in a source, the statement being: "decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for

3165:

reasons." appears only in Birch. It was discussed above and is part of a bizarre, FRINGEy argument about why the GERAC trials were invalid. Please find a different source for this. Again, this claim appears nowhere but Birch - it is like the statement from He that you want to add.

1880:(in this case, criticism about GERAC's set-up). If we would have an independent source saying the same as an unreliable one, what would be point in using the unreliable one in the first place? We use unreliable sources "to show the views of the groups represented" by these sources. 2803:

for acupuncture because of GERAC. It is just tendentious IDHT on the part of quackguru to keep pushing for this source and that content now, especially as he has another source that he can use to support it now. But really, please see the thread above02:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

1856:. It says: "In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." 357:

I hear you on that. As I read the literature, I find there are plenty of scientifically-minded people interested in testing acupuncture who, like good scientists, do not go beyond the evidence in asserting claims about efficacy, and who are frankly acknowledge that there is no

2652:

We can also include it per MEDDATE since there are not many sources on the topic. I don't see how FRINGE applies in this case when it is about a historical event. There's no theory behind the GERAC clinical trials. FRINGE can't trump MEDDATE even if this is a fringe topic.

836:

so we it's clear that it's the opinion of pseudoscientists, then we might be able to move forward. Is there any evidence that the competency level of acupuncturists affects outcomes? I haven't seen any independent evidence to that effect, just complaining that is done in

899:

approach really underlines how esoteric and almost magical acu must be to Birch et al ... But one thing i am curious about is how mainstream the view of Birch et al is, even among acu-proponents. I can't imagine it is very common among western-trained acupuncturists!

1707:

we keep the source and the language being discussed above, I think it is reasonable to include in the same block of text being discussed above, something like this "Birch found that the the design of the trial and decisions about reimbursement were shaped in part by

658:, a subject-matter expert, referenced this study in the above posts. It was not meant as an "attack on the intervention" nor is it off-target since it specifically references this specific set of clinical studies. Please be more careful before flying off the handle. 2547:

RFC sample size could be greater, but only 1 real !vote for the greater information. The lesser level of information avoids getting into WP:MEDRS violating WP:COATRACK. If the trials themselves are notable the article should be about the trials, not the acupuncture

1418:

yes 2Q, this is not on topic for the Birch source - that's been bothering me a bit but i didn't make a fuss over it. but it should be in a separate section. thanks for making this explicit - birch was published in Journal of Chinese Medicine not Acupuncture In

2444:

for pro-acu views, for sure. But what I have seen going on here is that instead of the background being simply stated (that acu itself is FRINGE), quack-fighters (generally awesome and hard working wikipedians) have been treating this article as though it is

1959:

acupuncture, not about acupuncture itself. I am sorry to belabor this and ask you to teach more, but I am going to open a separate section on this question, so that this section can remain focused on the issue of whether we keep the statement and its source.

1553:

as it will bore the pants off third parties and drive them away, and it would be useful to get independent input. Please just make your own argument on the question and let others chime in. (That's what I want, but ya'all will of course do as you will do!)

726:

around, I recommend you read it more carefully. It emphasizes that "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable,

1666:

the interpretation of results be taken into account by scientists and health care analysts in other countries?" So, importantly, there is literal support in this source, for the specific content that QB wants to include in the article. That is important.

779:

it should have been - and that is why the treatment looked no better than placebo. that could have been said in more simple english, but i reckon that the acknowledgedly highfallutin language is somewhat a product of the feeling hounded over fringeness.

1118:

in the field? (not valid for supporting content, just trying to get a sense) 2) If so, I would think there would be other sources that say the same thing -- can you bring any? I do note that the He source we already excluded, also states that. Thanks!

304:"Dr. Heinz Endres of Ruhr University Bochum in Bochum, Germany, said... ositive expectations the patients held about acupuncture — or negative expectations about conventional medicine — also could have led to a placebo effect and explain the findings." 2027:

You also say its the acupuncturists viewpoint, I don't believe you. Get me an independent source that says it is indicative of their viewpoint. It's quite simple, find the secondary source which is not a fringe one which draws attention to this paper.

2933:

source that says it. If any of alexbrn or 2Q or jps want to revert their position and support you, they can certainly do that here - they have all been pinged plenty. If they do not speak up, the consensus to not use this source stands. You are the

3134:

Again, if all the people who already agreed to keep this FRINGE article out, change their minds and agree with you, they are totally free to speak up here. Please wait til others have a chance to weigh in and agree with you or disagree with you.

2007:

doesn't want us to cover aspects of a fringe theory that are not discussed by independent sources. But I don't see how we might be in danger of doing this by adding acu-proponents' criticism of a medical trial. As Jytdog said, apples and oranges.

884:

clearly states that independent sources are required to establish weight. There is no onus on the article to provide the opinions of acupuncturists outside of reliable sources, particularly when they aren't being portrayed as such in the text.

2381:

would still apply to an article about Shawn Carlson's test of astrology). Therefore, according to your stated position, we shouldn't mention the views from unreliable sources, like the one mentioned in the topic further above, per

1871:

an article about a fringe theory, you'd still be misusing this guideline. "Points that are not discussed..." clearly refers to "different aspects of a fringe theory". That doesn't mean we have to have an independent source saying

1589:: "This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons". I can see how this language is very useful for the acu-skeptics; it says explicitly that Germany decided to reimburse acu 1728:

1. The text does not make it obvious that this is by proponents 2. Sources independent of the proponents do not draw attention to this paper. 3. There is no obvious evidence that this is a common position amongst Acupuncturists.

1157:. Your point seems to be that the views of proponents of pseudoscience (in the case of acupuncture, it's actually questionable science, to be correct) should never and under no circumstances be mentioned at WP. Am I right? -- 796:

Regarding why I think it is important to include this text: to give a balanced view of the subject. GERAC attracted a lot of commentary; both by acu-opponents and acu-proponents (and the acu-proponents' criticism IMO is BS).

177:) to dispute the relevance of GERAC's results; ironically, this probably looked to some editors like a strong EBM proponent criticizing weak acu-promoting trials -- hence a lot of the votes to delete in the last AfD.) -- 2613:

I would say that now that we have a reliable source, there is even less need and a weaker argument, for including He, than before. It is still FRINGE. It is bizarre that you keep pushing to include a FRINGE source!

1806:

acupuncture needles also derive benefit for the patient." Which in my understanding amounts to criticism on the sham concept as well (i.e., they're not too surprised by this being an active treatment. Interestingly).

1932:

on an almost daily basis for 2 years (as any editor of the fringe must). I'm fairly sure I have not consistently misunderstood this basic aspect of the guidelines for several years and without someone telling me

1825:. This is because what an acupuncturists thinks is important isn't the same as what the mainstream does, and wikipedia highlights what is in the mainstream interest. Using other dodgy websites is irrelevant. 2845:

and they convinced me; I at first too thought it was fine. Their reasoning was upheld in the discussion at Talk:MEDRS on the J Acu Med source. If jps has changed his mind he needs to come here are refute

264:

they obviously don't get the basics of the story right at all and spend most of the rest of the article shilling for acupuncture. This would be the equivalent to a public relations churn. Let's remove it.

1494:

Who publishes it hardly matters. What matters is its editorial policy and it is clear that this one does not promote independent review. Therefore, it is only reliable for the opinions of acupuncturists.

342:

The full quote is fine too. I just found it interesting that the co-author would point out that the placebo effect can explain the findings -- a perspective that seems to get short shrift in our article.

2154:

I frankly don't understand your opposition to include Birch's (and maybe also He et. al's) criticism here. What danger do you see in representing the pro-acu view on GERAC? Since it obviously exists. --

1101:. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." You need independent sources to say that this fringe opinion has weight, 1802:

is less sophisticated than Birch; it simply states that "Acupuncturists have noted that the success of sham acupuncture noted in that particular study of 1,162 patients in Germany reveals that

3277:). The content based on the source, is about the outcome of GERAC for chronic low back pain. Do folks here find the source acceptable for that content? If so, why or why not? Thanks 156:

I'm not recommending we call the book pseudoscience in the article. I'm just recommending that we treat it carefully and not use it as an objective source for this page (or any other).

2792: 2263:, so this is a distinction without a difference. The only slight difference is that the onus is greater to justify fringe views if you claim its a mainstream article due to ONEWAY. 1542: 859:. Regarding evidence that the competency level of acupuncturists affect outcomes... no, haven't seen any study about this. We couldn't discuss it in this article anyway, though. -- 1585:

reasons". Note that "this decision" refers to the decision to reimburse acu. QG has been pushing for this language for a while - however the earlier version of it stated it

2815:

coverage for acupuncture because of GERAC. I discussed the source recently with jps privately and he did not have a problem with me restoring it. Alexbrn thought the source

1784:

On 2) and 3) - not demanding anything... really 2Q is assuming, as i am, that if this view is common, it should be in other sources. not just this one. do you know of any?

1047:. Said the exact thing that Mallexikon wanted to say but tighter and cleaner. Thanks for that QG! I think we have some straight-up horse trading going on... see below. 2532:

The section on the intervention should be basically a copy/paste condensed version of the lead of the acupuncture article, already written to FRINGE and MEDRS standards.

202:

establishment as a legitimate critic of evidence basis (he seems to be a concern troll of the worst sort, actually). I'm glad we agree to remove him as a source, though.

3304: 1282:

But why are we having this discussion? Even if this source was not peer-reviewed, it still should be used in order to present the acu-proponents' point of view here. --

113:

Yep, he is at Oxford. Doesn't mean he's not a pseudoscience proponent. There are a lot of pseudoscience proponents infesting various academic institutions, believe me.

2993:

be okay for non-fringe content. But the claims about insurance seem to be exceptional (one might even say, "fringe"), so best to use a more solid, non-fringe journal.

2795:. Quackguru didn't participate in much of that. He has been working to include this source, which jps and alexbrn - also quackfighters - have said repeatedly fails 2406:

I am finding it a bit difficult to follow Mallexikon's logic, but I think he agrees to exclude Birch. But let's try to stay on the topic of this thread, if we can...

1296:

The question is whether the articles in the journal are considered reliable; if so review articles in this journal could be MEDRS-compliant and more broadly useful.

1275:

are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." Also cf.

173:) is that his indictment of sham acu is plainly contrary to the consensus of most reviewers, who say sham is a valid control. (Howick used to be used in the lede ( 1601:. So there are just layers and layers here, making this all very difficult. So here are some points. i am signing each separately to invite interposed comments. 2756: 1821:

It is specifically in the guidelines that a non-independent source should not be used when there are no independent reliable sources highlighting the same thing

1220:

really a fringe journal just because of its subject matter? The "independent sources" part of WP:FRINGE has been construed more narrowly than in academia. See

914:

group declares it to be a science and find it offensive if it's compared to a religion or divination. It's also a good part of why we look to external sources,

1914:

applies to all aspects of a fringe theory. A guideline that only applied to material in the main article would make zero sense and would be illogical. Read

3303:

Editorials are not peer reviewed as far as I know. To answer your question, if you go to MEDRS and search for "editorial" you will find it near the top of

1937:

contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point of view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement

701:

is generally not there for them to be included since they aren't discussed by non-fringe sources. If you want it included, source it to a real journal,

2440:

mmm 2Q that is a hand-wavy too. The article is about a set of clinical trials, organized by mainstream insurance companies. It shouldn't be used as a

2978:

not to use this source. As it is, nobody agrees with you. Please wait til others have a chance to weigh in and agree with you or disagree with you.

3266: 2045:

doesn't apply here. Please read my argumentation again before accusing me of mental contortions. I agree that Birch is not an independent source but

3325:

that "really great sources are actually hard to find on this". Actually, they exist. I just don't have the time to include them yet, but there is a

2869: 2788: 2718: 2691: 64: 59: 3292:

If I may ask, is there a MEDRS guideline that specifically forbids the inclusion of peer-reviewed editorials by experts in a mainstream journal? -

1762:

1.) I think Jytdog's proposal (e) is a good solution, and I agree that we could change the text to emphasize that this is an acu-proponents' view.

3321:

Thank you for the clairification. I agree that we should use better sources, such as the meta-analysis I included. However, I disagree with your

2974:

as i said, if alexbrn wants to come here and support your use of it, he is free to do that. if he and all the others who rejected it do not, we

949:. However, if you think that the acupuncturists' views are not being portrayed as such in our text, I'll be happy to change the text accordingly. 258: 1768:

3.) True, but why do you demand that? And what kind of evidence could that possibly be? The result of a world-wide poll among acupuncturists? --

640:

about acupuncture in general. Your insistence on attacking the intervention being tested, is off-target and disruptive. Please stop. Thanks.

1765:

2.) True, but why do you demand that? This is a non-independent source that would only be used to demonstrate an acu-proponents' view on GERAC.

1593:

just based on the science, and so provides a very useful block to acu-proponents who want to point to the Germany approvals and say "see? it

3195: 2281:

That is kind of hand-wavy. Is that grounded directly in policy or guideline or is that your more 10,000 foot level interpretation? Thanks.

1226:

Why should WP have different standards than academia -- are we supposed to be more prestigious or something? Sounds like pretension to me.

736: 573:

In Science Based Medicine: "Verum (or true) acupuncture and sham acupuncture treatments are no different in decreasing pain levels," says

3218: 2695: 2671:

jps, mallexikon, 2Q and I all do not find this source reliable. you are the only one who thinks it is. please drop the stick already.

2487:

forgot to add - there should be a section on the intervention being tested, and that section should be written as per FRINGE, for sure.

2255:

is a fringe topic even though its about the scientific view of astrology. The distinction you are making makes no difference in policy.

2332:'s definition, acupuncture constitutes "questionable science" (as "a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point"). 1581:

separately: "The Journal of Chinese Medicine found that this decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for

2887:

I think (3) would be okay for any non-controversial & non-fringe claims. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:31, 24 February 2014 UTC

2758:

is pubmed indexed. What is wrong with the source in question? Has anyone tried a RfC to get in more opinions and if not what not?

2343:

behind it (qi, meridians etc.), which constitutes a strong rationale to sum it up under pseudoscience. The emphasis here lies on

2737:(and how often do all of those agree on anything?) you may have something. Until then, there is consensus that is not reliable. 1799: 1634: 1068: 735:. So I've re-added the material in question. If you want to delete it again, please show that you have a real reason to violate 1039:

pls see below on the rationale.. let's discuss that separately. Please note that QG did end up proposing quite good language

2692:

Talk:German acupuncture trials/Archive 1#Insurance companies in Germany have stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment.

47: 17: 3198:. sigh. Nice move, not participating in the long discussion we had here already, then re-opening it elsewhere. Talk about 2022:

Do you not see the mental contortions you are doing? You agree the paper you want to use is not independent. You agree that

1884:

uses this example: "in the article about Bigfoot, a verifiably attributed and accurate quote might take the following form:

1637:

has to say about these "socio-political" reasons is interesting. Mostly Birch focuses the socio-political analysis on the

170:

I don't think we should discount an author just because he teaches yoga classes. The reason I've objected to Howick (e.g.

2899:

Alexbrn supports including the text and the source for non-medical claims. For non-medical claims MEDRS does not apply. I

2636: 2395: 2309: 2268: 2137: 2090: 2032: 1944: 1830: 1734: 1409: 1176: 1141: 1106: 919: 890: 713: 2771: 3274: 3043: 3097:. I didn't notice in this in the flurry of small edits until today, and just took the Birch source back out. Ugly. 1712:

reasons" But it should stay isolated to the this "acu-proponent" block of content, and should not rise to the lead.

1529: 1500: 846: 753:

stepping back for a sec; mallexikon can you please say briefly why it is important to include this content? Thanks

663: 611: 586: 556: 527: 445: 412: 348: 313: 271: 207: 161: 118: 92: 142:

jst you'll need a reliable source calling that book pseudoscience to make that claim; a review in JAMA or the like.

38: 2360: 1276: 1271: 3343:

The editorial source was not a review. Your latest edit was a only repeating the results of the original study.

2775: 2730: 2722: 2391: 2305: 2264: 2187:

Mallexikon, you are correct. The Journal of Chinese Medicine is usable for non-medical claims. Perhaps I was a

2133: 2086: 2028: 1992: 1940: 1826: 1730: 1525: 1496: 1405: 1172: 1137: 1102: 934: 915: 886: 842: 709: 659: 607: 582: 552: 523: 441: 408: 344: 309: 267: 223: 203: 157: 114: 103: 88: 3307:

where MEDRS makes it clear that editorials are not preferred sources. It is good to discuss marginal sources.

2117:"pro-acu view". The source itself has also been dismissed. So nothing from Birch should be in the article. 685:

information about participating acupuncturists' training and sham acupuncture design in our set-up section. --

2890:

Number 3 is referring to the The Journal of traditional Chinese medicine. Three is okay according to Alexbrn.

2328:

2.) Whether the therapeutic method "acupuncture" itself is pseudoscience is actually debatable; according to

941:

says "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable,

3199: 2791:), which a branch of, led to an interesting discussion on MEDRS on a different but similar source, which is 1310:

Agreed (and struck; sorry, just venting about the idea; nothing personal intended, but it sounds wrong). --

455:

are comfortable... unless somebody else objects theoretically here. i don't want to waste my time. thanks

2734: 3191: 3334: 3297: 3226: 3093:. an editor not involved with, and probably ignorant of, the discussions accepted one of those versions 2252: 1515: 1439: 1358: 1316: 1234: 977: 537:

I don't see Jytdog becoming volatile here at all... I'm actually impressed how patient he is with QG. --

183: 2368: 2364: 2240: 2236: 2159: 2155: 2054: 2050: 2013: 2009: 1982: 1978: 1896: 1892: 1812: 1808: 1773: 1769: 1339: 1335: 1287: 1283: 1162: 1158: 1028: 1024: 961: 957: 864: 860: 810: 806: 802: 798: 744: 740: 690: 686: 542: 538: 3326: 1928:

I have over 20,000 edits to fringe theories articles. I have poured over the wording of sections in

3356: 3350: 3338: 3316: 3286: 3246: 3230: 3211: 3175: 3144: 3125: 3119: 3106: 3059: 3053: 3022: 3016: 2997: 2969: 2963: 2946: 2916: 2910: 2860: 2832: 2826: 2779: 2749: 2711: 2705: 2680: 2666: 2660: 2623: 2607: 2601: 2577: 2563: 2557: 2514: 2508: 2496: 2482: 2468: 2415: 2399: 2372: 2329: 2313: 2290: 2272: 2259:

is still followed in mainstream articles and some parts are directly aimed at mainstream articles:

2244: 2229: 2204: 2198: 2182: 2163: 2141: 2126: 2094: 2058: 2036: 2017: 1986: 1968: 1948: 1900: 1834: 1816: 1793: 1777: 1757: 1738: 1721: 1696: 1675: 1658: 1626: 1610: 1563: 1533: 1519: 1504: 1470: 1452: 1428: 1413: 1371: 1343: 1329: 1305: 1291: 1265: 1247: 1221: 1180: 1166: 1145: 1127: 1110: 1084: 1078: 1056: 1032: 1017: 1011: 989: 965: 908: 868: 850: 814: 788: 771: 762: 748: 717: 694: 667: 649: 625: 590: 560: 546: 531: 503: 486: 480: 464: 449: 434: 416: 400: 371: 352: 333: 317: 290: 275: 248: 211: 196: 165: 151: 131: 122: 108: 96: 1748:

aware of any sources that also say this (any sources at all - we can then look at their quality).

127:

Especially at Oxford ;-) But he is well published. Mind you, that photo is now etched on my mind.

85: 2478: 2450: 2441: 1466: 1443: 1362: 1320: 1238: 187: 3073:

continued trying to push it into the text with his "propose and delete" edits - first adding it

1171:

No, you are completely wrong as should be self evident from what I wrote. Re-read what I wrote.

362:

mechanism by which it might even work; there are science-based hypotheses but nothing is known.

301:

Of possible use: "Fake acupuncture works nearly as well as the real thing for low back pain..."

2799:.... The content that QG wants to pull out of this source has to with some insurance companies 2787:

Hi DocJames, we had an intricate discussion of this source and others as per my comment above (

636:

Damn it I got sucked into the game. This article is about a specific set of clinical studies,

578: 2629: 2356: 1447: 1366: 1099:

Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles

3330: 3312: 3293: 3282: 3262: 3242: 3222: 3207: 3171: 3140: 3102: 2983: 2942: 2856: 2767: 2745: 2676: 2640: 2619: 2573: 2492: 2464: 2411: 2387: 2378: 2348: 2297: 2286: 2260: 2256: 2225: 2178: 2122: 1964: 1929: 1919: 1915: 1881: 1789: 1753: 1717: 1692: 1671: 1654: 1622: 1606: 1559: 1511: 1424: 1301: 1261: 1154: 1123: 1090: 1052: 985: 946: 938: 904: 838: 833: 784: 758: 732: 723: 645: 621: 499: 460: 430: 396: 367: 329: 286: 244: 147: 1404:

Why are you talking about the wrong journal? Did you even read the edits under discussion?

3162: 2842: 2796: 2042: 2023: 2004: 1955: 1939:. The consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all." (emphasis mine). 1911: 1861: 1853: 1822: 1709: 1582: 1570: 1133: 1094: 881: 706: 702: 440:

discussions and decent work of others, but neither do I want to have to redo my own work!

2455: 3344: 3113: 3090: 3070: 3047: 3039: 3010: 2957: 2904: 2820: 2699: 2654: 2595: 2551: 2502: 2386:. It's not reliable, and it's a fringe view by an acupuncturist which does not satisfy 2301: 2192: 1072: 1005: 655: 574: 474: 235: 832:

Can you workshop here what your proposed inclusion would look like? If it is properly

767:

I don't really understand the added text ("the verum acupuncture suffered"? "inert"?)

2639:, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such 2541: 2533: 2474: 1462: 1434: 1353: 1324: 1311: 1242: 1229: 1132:

Of those others if they exist, it is the non-pseudoscientific which are required for

422: 227: 191: 178: 3270: 2648:

enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentioned in other articles.

2377:

So you claim it's actually an entirely mainstream topic (I don't accept this logic,

731:" and that's the guideline we stick to. An illuminative example of this is given in 3002: 2994: 2875: 2726: 2383: 1334:

Do we have any evidence that this journal is peer-reviewed? I couldn't find any. --

1212:(refactor: journal in question unrelated to above discussion; moved to own section) 768: 307: 128: 105: 2868:

that some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimbursed acupuncture. See

3046:. It should start with /Archive 1. The bot is archiving to the wrong page again. 2568:

I am going to make a draft in my sandbox and when it is ready, will post a link.

1977:

Correct. The Journal of Chinese Medicine clearly is not an independent source. --

3308: 3278: 3238: 3203: 3167: 3136: 3098: 2979: 2938: 2852: 2759: 2741: 2672: 2645: 2615: 2569: 2488: 2460: 2407: 2282: 2221: 2174: 2118: 1974: 1960: 1785: 1749: 1713: 1688: 1667: 1650: 1618: 1602: 1555: 1420: 1297: 1257: 1119: 1048: 981: 953: 900: 780: 754: 641: 617: 595:

Novella, referencing GERAC in Skeptical Inquirer Volume 35.4, July/August 2011:

495: 456: 426: 392: 363: 325: 282: 240: 143: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3194:

started a discussion about the Birch and He sources on the FRINGE noticeboard,

2590:

Now there is is another source in the article about the insurance corporations

3069:

So although the Birch source was thoroughly discussed here and at Talk:MEDRS,

3009:. Editors can review this change without the addition of the insurance claim. 2896:

MEDRS apply in any case? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:42, 24 February 2014 UTC

2819:

I don't see consensus to delete the statement or the source from the article.

1798:

Well, the He at al. source similar focused its criticism on the sham concept.

1687:

acceptable to you for non-scientific influences on the decision to reimburse?

841:

sources and so not admissible as anything but pseudoscientific protestations.

1860:

This is not an article about a fringe theory, but about a medical trial. So

1458: 1000:

I think this is controversial text not from a mainstream journal. How about

3161:, the claim about "the decision about reimbursement were shaped in part by 1541:

Hey all quick note. I posted a question on this on the MEDRS talk page,

1569:"decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for 87:, I believe that the reliability of his book is fairly well impeached. 2355:. There's no theory behind a clinical trial like GERAC other than the 1639:

the trial design (including the selection of indications to be tested)

2880:

For statement that are not in the fringe space, it is however usable.

2817:

for statement that are not in the fringe space, it is however usable.

3112:

You don't have consensus to delete the text for non-medical claims.

943:

except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals

875:(refactor: moved discussion of another journal below to own section) 729:

except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals

3042:

noticed a problem with the archives. The archive is malformed. See

2251:

Jytdog, it clearly is a fringe topic since it's about acupuncture.

793:...or of my English sucking. Sorry. Please feel free to paraphrase. 2690:

According to the original discussion the source was reliable. See

2473:

This is well stated. I'd like to see the article as you describe.

1918:. It is not talking about the main article of a fringe theory. 494:

undue weight; that claim doesn't really hold water in any case.

1352:(assuming that they are a valid source about themselves :-) -- 239:

Novella as a source for statements about the overall outcome.

25: 2696:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine#German acupuncture trials

1888:

species fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots).'"

980:. stupid me. birch is much more even-handed than He. yes. 386:

Ya'all had an RfC above on the level detail in the article.

80:

Recommend treating Howick source as a pseudoscience proponent

2901:

cautiously used the source without making any medical claims

2449:, and basically disrupting it. It has, topsy-turvy, become 722:

Your personal likings are irrelevant here. Before you wield

281:

it is indeed fluffy. we can do much better, i would think.

2837:

Look, above in the fringe section jps and alexbrn argued

1348:

Look right under the title that's in the big blue box at

1067:

but other editors would have to agree. I was reading the

2870:

Talk:German acupuncture trials/Archive 2#Fringe journals

2789:

Talk:German_acupuncture_trials/Archive_2#Fringe_journals

2719:

Talk:German_acupuncture_trials/Archive_2#Fringe_journals

2717:

You are the only one who thinks it is reliable. really.

2501:

A section generally about acupuncture is a WP:COATRACK.

3322: 3258: 3158: 3094: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3006: 2953: 2900: 2894: 2886: 2879: 2816: 2591: 2546: 2188: 1578: 1270:

If it really is a peer-reviewed source, it's reliable.

1064: 1040: 1001: 857: 470: 387: 231: 174: 171: 1349: 1136:. Independent means independent of fringe proponents. 2698:. I think the 2013 review is reliable for the claim. 1876:

as an unreliable one. It just has to cover the same

1510:

Whoever publishes also determines editorial policy -

2635:supported by mainstream research, it is vital that 551:I'm happy to wait and see what Jytdog has in mind. 382:

Results of RfC are not reflected in current article

2937:who wants to use it. Let it go. Drop the stick. 2325:about acupuncture. It's about a scientific trial. 1524:Do you have evidence of that for this journal? 945:". An illuminative example of this is given in 2146:No, I don't agree at all. There will never be 8: 3217:The same discussion is also being raised at 2956:. You don't have consensus to leave it out. 2041:You basically don't seem to understand that 522:hot kitchen rather than setting more fires. 2536:for pete's sake.17:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2390:to be in this ostensibly mainstream topic. 1999:include it at all. I just don't understand 2778:) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 2459:your point 2. Point 3 is strong though. 2454:acu to work. (and we can cite for example 2085:I don't know what you are talking about. 3130:you didn't have consensus to use it for 2540:According to the closing of RfC done by 1277:WP:Fringe theories#Peer-reviewed sources 1089:Mallexikon, you are selectively reading 604:Note that (Haake et al. 2007) is GERAC. 84:On the basis of this credulous website: 2003:we should leave it out. Let me repeat: 1545:. If you choose to participate there, 654:Um, the reference was to the fact that 976:yep, my bad. i was thinking about the 939:Knowledge:FRINGE#Peer-reviewed sources 473:about trimming the individual trials. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2694:I posted a review for this source at 1457:I don't think a journal published by 254:Impeaching another source: Focus (de) 7: 3081:and then right away again adding it 680:Birch source and more set-up details 3237:thanks for pointing that out. ugh. 2339:acupuncture has a pseudoscientific 2169:idiosyncratic. Nobody has brought 1926:where a fringe theory is involved ( 1800:This acu-proponents' online article 1272:WP:Fringe theories#Reliable sources 3275:indexed by MEDLINE as an editorial 3085:and immediately again deleting it 24: 3065:Birch came back in, deleted again 2807:I don't have another source that 2351:deals with: fringe/pseudoscience 1683:has to say. QG are there sources 3186:Discussion on FRINGE noticeboard 3044:Talk:German acupuncture trials 1 1207:Acupunct. Med. a fringe journal? 614:) 05:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 29: 3221:, just to let everyone know. - 2644:that the subject itself is not 2215:Is this article a FRINGE topic? 2811:says some insurance companies 2363:clearly doesn't apply here. -- 2189:bit hasty in deleting the text 805:) 04:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC) -- 18:Talk:German acupuncture trials 1: 3077:and then deleting right away 2300:is primarily an extension of 1093:, as I've already mentioned, 737:WP:Revert only when necessary 695:08:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 650:10:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 626:10:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 591:05:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 504:07:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 487:04:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 465:18:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 450:18:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 435:17:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 421:sorry for being too slangy! 417:17:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 401:13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 372:13:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 353:17:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 334:13:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 318:13:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 291:13:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 276:12:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 197:23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 166:19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 152:18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 132:18:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 123:18:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 109:17:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 97:17:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1461:can be dismissed as fringe. 2456:this 2009 systematic review 1649:than it should have been. 3379: 3357:03:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 3339:21:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 3317:21:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 3287:21:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 3247:23:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 3231:22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 3212:22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 3176:17:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 3145:19:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 3126:19:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 3107:19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 3060:05:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 3023:16:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 3005:, I made this change with 2998:10:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 2970:19:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 2947:19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 2917:18:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 2861:12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 2833:04:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 2780:01:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 2750:22:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 2712:18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 2681:11:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 2667:05:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 2624:05:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 2608:01:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 2578:18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2564:18:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2515:17:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2497:11:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2483:11:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2469:10:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2416:11:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2400:11:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2373:10:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2314:10:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2291:10:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2273:08:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2245:05:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2235:I think you're dead-on. -- 2230:01:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2205:05:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 2191:. I could of reworded it. 2183:05:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 2164:02:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 2142:11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2127:10:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2095:08:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2059:02:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 2037:08:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 2018:02:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 1987:02:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 1969:01:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 1949:00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 1901:04:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 1835:08:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 1817:06:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 1794:04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 1778:01:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 922:) 16:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC 856:I tried to word it better 249:17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 1758:13:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 1739:12:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 1722:12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1697:12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1676:12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1659:12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1627:12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1611:12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1564:13:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1534:12:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1520:12:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1505:12:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1471:11:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1453:06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1429:12:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 1414:10:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 1372:07:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 1344:06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 1330:05:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 1306:05:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 1292:05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 1266:03:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 1248:02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 1181:11:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 1167:09:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 1146:21:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1128:12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1111:11:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1085:04:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1057:12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1033:04:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1018:04:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 990:12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 966:02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 909:12:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 869:01:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 851:14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 815:04:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 789:04:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 772:04:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 763:04:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 749:04:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 718:13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 668:17:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 561:18:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 547:02:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 532:17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 212:21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 2731:User:Second Quantization 2447:about acupuncture itself 2047:that just doesn't matter 1852:You are misinterpreting 3267:an editorial from Spine 2989:The source in question 2841:that this source fails 2721:But hey if you can get 2592:we can include this too 2335:3.) Be that as it may, 1218:Acupuncture In Medicine 3265:introduced a source - 2954:did support the source 2739:Please drop the stick. 1890: 1703:e) here is my take. 1599:more widely reimbursed 577:, referring to GERAC. 3253:editorial from Spine? 3157:with respect to QG's 2253:astrology and science 1885: 1864:doesn't really apply. 1023:rationale is that? -- 42:of past discussions. 3329:that we could use. - 3219:WikiProject Medicine 3089:, right after which 2347:because that's what 2321:1.) This article is 2318:Incorrect semantics. 1587:in Knowledge's voice 1547:please don't battle 947:WP:FRINGE#Quotations 733:WP:FRINGE#Quotations 2392:Second Quantization 2306:Second Quantization 2265:Second Quantization 2134:Second Quantization 2087:Second Quantization 2029:Second Quantization 1993:Second Quantization 1941:Second Quantization 1827:Second Quantization 1731:Second Quantization 1406:Second Quantization 1222:Independent sources 1173:Second Quantization 1138:Second Quantization 1103:Second Quantization 935:Second Quantization 916:Second Quantization 887:Second Quantization 710:Second Quantization 471:previous discussion 388:Here is the version 3007:non-fringe content 2878:thinks the source 2848:his own arguments. 2361:WP:Fringe theories 1227: 2801:stopping coverage 2357:scientific method 1934: 1577:Let's talk about 1451: 1370: 1328: 1246: 1225: 195: 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3370: 3353: 3347: 3200:WP:FORUMSHOPPING 3122: 3116: 3056: 3050: 3019: 3013: 2966: 2960: 2913: 2907: 2829: 2823: 2764: 2708: 2702: 2663: 2657: 2604: 2598: 2560: 2554: 2511: 2505: 2201: 2195: 1927: 1874:exactly the same 1437: 1433:Fixed, sorry. -- 1356: 1314: 1256:the question... 1232: 1081: 1075: 1014: 1008: 483: 477: 181: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3378: 3377: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3351: 3345: 3327:Cochrane review 3259:series of edits 3255: 3188: 3163:socio-political 3120: 3114: 3067: 3054: 3048: 3037: 3017: 3011: 2976:already decided 2964: 2958: 2911: 2905: 2827: 2821: 2760: 2706: 2700: 2661: 2655: 2602: 2596: 2588: 2558: 2552: 2509: 2503: 2217: 2199: 2193: 1956:socio-political 1710:socio-political 1647:less reimbursed 1583:socio-political 1575: 1571:socio-political 1209: 1079: 1073: 1065:this could work 1012: 1006: 682: 571: 481: 475: 384: 299: 256: 82: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3376: 3374: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3254: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3234: 3233: 3187: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3091:User:Simonm223 3071:User:QuackGuru 3066: 3063: 3040:User:Jinkinson 3036: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2891: 2882: 2873: 2753: 2752: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2650: 2641:marginal ideas 2587: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2333: 2326: 2319: 2276: 2275: 2248: 2247: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2185: 2152: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 1989: 1924:in any article 1904: 1903: 1865: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1766: 1763: 1742: 1741: 1725: 1724: 1700: 1699: 1679: 1678: 1662: 1661: 1630: 1629: 1574: 1567: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1440:leave me alone 1416: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1359:leave me alone 1317:leave me alone 1280: 1235:leave me alone 1208: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1151: 1087: 1061: 1060: 1059: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 950: 926: 925: 924: 923: 895: 894: 872: 871: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 794: 681: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 656:Steven Novella 575:Steven Novella 570: 569:Steven Novella 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 383: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 337: 336: 298: 295: 294: 293: 255: 252: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 184:leave me alone 139: 138: 137: 136: 135: 134: 81: 78: 75: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3375: 3358: 3354: 3348: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3301: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3271:PMID 21217438 3268: 3264: 3260: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3235: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3185: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3133: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3123: 3117: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3064: 3062: 3061: 3057: 3051: 3045: 3041: 3035:Archive error 3034: 3024: 3020: 3014: 3008: 3004: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2967: 2961: 2955: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2918: 2914: 2908: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2892: 2889: 2888: 2883: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2849: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2830: 2824: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2805: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2763: 2757: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2740: 2736: 2735:WP:Mallexikon 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2703: 2697: 2693: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2664: 2658: 2651: 2649: 2647: 2642: 2638: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2599: 2593: 2585: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2561: 2555: 2550: 2549: 2543: 2542:User:Gaijin42 2539: 2538: 2537: 2535: 2516: 2512: 2506: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2457: 2452: 2448: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2331: 2327: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2214: 2206: 2202: 2196: 2190: 2186: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2025: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1931: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1870: 1867:Even if this 1866: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1855: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1805: 1804:poorly placed 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1572: 1568: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1552: 1550: 1544: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1436: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1417: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1373: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1278: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1213: 1206: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1086: 1082: 1076: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1015: 1009: 1003: 999: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 921: 917: 912: 911: 910: 906: 902: 897: 896: 892: 888: 883: 879: 878: 877: 876: 870: 866: 862: 858: 855: 854: 853: 852: 848: 844: 840: 835: 816: 812: 808: 804: 800: 795: 792: 791: 790: 786: 782: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 770: 766: 765: 764: 760: 756: 752: 751: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 725: 721: 720: 719: 715: 711: 708: 704: 699: 698: 697: 696: 692: 688: 679: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 652: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 623: 619: 613: 609: 605: 602: 599: 596: 593: 592: 588: 584: 580: 579: 576: 568: 562: 558: 554: 550: 549: 548: 544: 540: 536: 535: 534: 533: 529: 525: 505: 501: 497: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 484: 478: 472: 468: 467: 466: 462: 458: 453: 452: 451: 447: 443: 438: 437: 436: 432: 428: 424: 420: 419: 418: 414: 410: 405: 404: 403: 402: 398: 394: 389: 381: 373: 369: 365: 361: 356: 355: 354: 350: 346: 341: 340: 339: 338: 335: 331: 327: 322: 321: 320: 319: 315: 311: 308: 305: 302: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 279: 278: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 259: 253: 251: 250: 246: 242: 237: 233: 232:his test edit 229: 228:User:Middle 8 225: 213: 209: 205: 200: 199: 198: 193: 189: 185: 180: 176: 172: 169: 168: 167: 163: 159: 155: 154: 153: 149: 145: 141: 140: 133: 130: 126: 125: 124: 120: 116: 112: 111: 110: 107: 104: 101: 100: 99: 98: 94: 90: 86: 79: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3323:edit summary 3305:this section 3256: 3192:WP:QuackGuru 3189: 3131: 3068: 3038: 3003:User:Alexbrn 2990: 2975: 2934: 2931: 2893: 2885: 2876:User:Alexbrn 2847: 2838: 2812: 2809:specifically 2808: 2800: 2761: 2754: 2738: 2727:User:Alexbrn 2689: 2633: 2589: 2545: 2531: 2446: 2352: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2330:WP:FRINGE/PS 2322: 2218: 2170: 2147: 2114: 2110: 2107: 2046: 2000: 1996: 1936: 1923: 1886: 1877: 1873: 1868: 1851: 1803: 1704: 1684: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1633:b) What the 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1576: 1548: 1546: 1540: 1493: 1217: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1098: 1044: 1043:, which was 942: 880:Mallexikon, 874: 873: 831: 728: 683: 637: 615: 606: 603: 600: 597: 594: 581: 572: 520: 469:There was a 385: 359: 306: 303: 300: 266: 262: 257: 222: 83: 70: 43: 37: 3331:A1candidate 3294:A1candidate 3263:A1candidate 3223:A1candidate 2755:The review 2637:third-party 2451:WP:COATRACK 2442:WP:COATRACK 2337:traditional 1512:A1candidate 1350:aim.bmj.com 297:News source 36:This is an 3190:Note that 2630:WP:MEDDATE 2365:Mallexikon 2237:Mallexikon 2156:Mallexikon 2051:Mallexikon 2010:Mallexikon 1979:Mallexikon 1893:Mallexikon 1809:Mallexikon 1770:Mallexikon 1643:scientific 1635:Birch text 1549:each other 1444:talk to me 1363:talk to me 1336:Mallexikon 1321:talk to me 1284:Mallexikon 1239:talk to me 1159:Mallexikon 1025:Mallexikon 978:He article 958:Mallexikon 861:Mallexikon 807:Mallexikon 799:Mallexikon 741:Mallexikon 687:Mallexikon 539:Mallexikon 234:of today, 188:talk to me 3346:QuackGuru 3159:test edit 3132:anything. 3115:QuackGuru 3049:QuackGuru 3012:QuackGuru 2959:QuackGuru 2906:QuackGuru 2839:adamantly 2822:QuackGuru 2762:Doc James 2701:QuackGuru 2656:QuackGuru 2597:QuackGuru 2553:QuackGuru 2504:QuackGuru 2388:WP:ONEWAY 2379:WP:FRINGE 2349:WP:FRINGE 2298:WP:FRINGE 2261:WP:ONEWAY 2257:WP:FRINGE 2194:QuackGuru 1930:WP:FRINGE 1920:WP:FRINGE 1916:WP:FRINGE 1882:WP:FRINGE 1459:BMJ Group 1419:Medicine. 1155:WP:FRINGE 1091:WP:FRINGE 1074:QuackGuru 1007:QuackGuru 1002:this text 839:WP:FRINGE 724:WP:FRINGE 476:QuackGuru 236:QuackGuru 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2952:Alexbrn 2935:only one 2843:WP:FRIND 2813:stopping 2797:WP:FRIND 2772:contribs 2586:Proposal 2548:results. 2475:TimidGuy 2353:theories 2171:anything 2132:Agreed, 2113:or even 2049:here. -- 2043:WP:FRIND 2024:WP:FRIND 2005:WP:FRIND 1922:applies 1912:WP:FRIND 1862:WP:FRIND 1854:WP:FRIND 1823:WP:FRIND 1573:reasons" 1463:TimidGuy 1435:Middle 8 1354:Middle 8 1312:Middle 8 1230:Middle 8 1134:WP:FRIND 1095:WP:FRIND 882:WP:FRIND 834:weighted 707:WP:MEDRS 703:WP:FRIND 179:Middle 8 175:2nd para 3261:today, 2995:Alexbrn 2646:notable 1878:aspects 1069:summary 769:Alexbrn 129:Alexbrn 106:Alexbrn 39:archive 3309:Jytdog 3279:Jytdog 3239:Jytdog 3204:Jytdog 3168:Jytdog 3137:Jytdog 3099:Jytdog 2980:Jytdog 2939:Jytdog 2853:Jytdog 2742:Jytdog 2729:, me, 2673:Jytdog 2616:Jytdog 2570:Jytdog 2534:WP:AGF 2489:Jytdog 2461:Jytdog 2408:Jytdog 2345:theory 2341:theory 2283:Jytdog 2222:Jytdog 2175:Jytdog 2119:Jytdog 1975:Jytdog 1961:Jytdog 1786:Jytdog 1750:Jytdog 1714:Jytdog 1689:Jytdog 1685:really 1668:Jytdog 1651:Jytdog 1619:Jytdog 1603:Jytdog 1556:Jytdog 1421:Jytdog 1298:Jytdog 1258:Jytdog 1120:Jytdog 1097:says " 1063:Maybe 1049:Jytdog 982:Jytdog 954:Jytdog 901:Jytdog 781:Jytdog 755:Jytdog 642:Jytdog 618:Jytdog 496:Jytdog 457:Jytdog 427:Jytdog 423:WP:PAG 393:Jytdog 364:Jytdog 326:Jytdog 283:Jytdog 241:Jytdog 230:: in 144:Jytdog 3257:In a 2991:could 2776:email 2384:WP:RS 1595:works 1551:there 1045:great 360:known 16:< 3352:talk 3335:talk 3313:talk 3298:talk 3283:talk 3273:and 3243:talk 3227:talk 3208:talk 3196:here 3172:talk 3141:talk 3121:talk 3103:talk 3095:here 3087:here 3083:here 3079:here 3075:here 3055:talk 3018:talk 2984:talk 2965:talk 2943:talk 2912:talk 2857:talk 2828:talk 2793:here 2768:talk 2746:talk 2733:AND 2707:talk 2677:talk 2662:talk 2628:See 2620:talk 2603:talk 2574:talk 2559:talk 2510:talk 2493:talk 2479:talk 2465:talk 2412:talk 2396:talk 2369:talk 2310:talk 2302:NPOV 2287:talk 2269:talk 2241:talk 2226:talk 2200:talk 2179:talk 2173:. 2160:talk 2138:talk 2123:talk 2091:talk 2055:talk 2033:talk 2014:talk 1983:talk 1965:talk 1945:talk 1897:talk 1831:talk 1813:talk 1790:talk 1774:talk 1754:talk 1735:talk 1718:talk 1693:talk 1672:talk 1655:talk 1623:talk 1607:talk 1579:this 1560:talk 1543:here 1530:talk 1516:talk 1501:talk 1467:talk 1425:talk 1410:talk 1340:talk 1302:talk 1288:talk 1262:talk 1177:talk 1163:talk 1142:talk 1124:talk 1107:talk 1080:talk 1053:talk 1041:here 1029:talk 1013:talk 986:talk 962:talk 920:talk 905:talk 891:talk 865:talk 847:talk 811:talk 803:talk 785:talk 759:talk 745:talk 739:. -- 714:talk 691:talk 664:talk 646:talk 622:talk 612:talk 587:talk 557:talk 543:talk 528:talk 500:talk 482:talk 461:talk 446:talk 431:talk 413:talk 397:talk 368:talk 349:talk 330:talk 314:talk 287:talk 272:talk 245:talk 226:and 208:talk 162:talk 148:talk 119:talk 102:OTOH 93:talk 2723:jps 2323:not 2148:the 2111:the 2001:why 1997:not 1869:was 1591:not 1526:jps 1497:jps 1448:COI 1367:COI 1325:COI 1243:COI 1216:Is 843:jps 660:jps 638:not 608:jps 583:jps 553:jps 524:jps 442:jps 409:jps 345:jps 310:jps 268:jps 224:jps 204:jps 192:COI 158:jps 115:jps 89:jps 3355:) 3337:) 3315:) 3300:) 3285:) 3245:) 3229:) 3210:) 3202:. 3174:) 3143:) 3124:) 3105:) 3058:) 3021:) 2986:) 2968:) 2945:) 2915:) 2903:. 2859:) 2831:) 2774:· 2770:· 2748:) 2725:, 2710:) 2679:) 2665:) 2632:: 2622:) 2606:) 2594:. 2576:) 2562:) 2544:: 2513:) 2495:) 2481:) 2467:) 2414:) 2398:) 2371:) 2359:. 2312:) 2304:. 2289:) 2271:) 2243:) 2228:) 2203:) 2181:) 2162:) 2140:) 2125:) 2093:) 2057:) 2035:) 2016:) 2008:-- 1985:) 1967:) 1947:) 1933:so 1899:) 1891:-- 1833:) 1815:) 1807:-- 1792:) 1776:) 1756:) 1737:) 1720:) 1705:If 1695:) 1674:) 1657:) 1625:) 1609:) 1562:) 1532:) 1518:) 1503:) 1469:) 1446:• 1442:• 1427:) 1412:) 1365:• 1361:• 1342:) 1323:• 1319:• 1304:) 1290:) 1264:) 1241:• 1237:• 1228:-- 1179:) 1165:) 1144:) 1126:) 1109:) 1083:) 1055:) 1031:) 1016:) 1004:? 988:) 964:) 937:: 907:) 867:) 849:) 813:) 797:-- 787:) 761:) 747:) 716:) 705:, 693:) 666:) 648:) 624:) 589:) 559:) 545:) 530:) 502:) 485:) 463:) 448:) 433:) 415:) 399:) 370:) 351:) 332:) 316:) 289:) 274:) 260:. 247:) 210:) 190:• 186:• 164:) 150:) 121:) 95:) 3349:( 3333:( 3311:( 3296:( 3281:( 3269:( 3241:( 3225:( 3206:( 3170:( 3139:( 3118:( 3101:( 3052:( 3015:( 2982:( 2962:( 2941:( 2909:( 2884:' 2872:. 2855:( 2825:( 2766:( 2744:( 2704:( 2675:( 2659:( 2618:( 2600:( 2572:( 2556:( 2507:( 2491:( 2477:( 2463:( 2410:( 2394:( 2367:( 2308:( 2285:( 2267:( 2239:( 2224:( 2197:( 2177:( 2158:( 2136:( 2121:( 2115:a 2089:( 2053:( 2031:( 2012:( 1991:@ 1981:( 1973:@ 1963:( 1943:( 1895:( 1829:( 1811:( 1788:( 1772:( 1752:( 1733:( 1716:( 1691:( 1670:( 1653:( 1621:( 1605:( 1558:( 1528:( 1514:( 1499:( 1465:( 1450:) 1438:( 1423:( 1408:( 1369:) 1357:( 1338:( 1327:) 1315:( 1300:( 1286:( 1279:. 1260:( 1245:) 1233:( 1175:( 1161:( 1140:( 1122:( 1105:( 1077:( 1071:. 1051:( 1027:( 1010:( 984:( 960:( 952:@ 933:@ 918:( 903:( 893:) 889:( 863:( 845:( 809:( 801:( 783:( 757:( 743:( 712:( 689:( 662:( 644:( 620:( 610:( 585:( 555:( 541:( 526:( 498:( 479:( 459:( 444:( 429:( 411:( 395:( 366:( 347:( 328:( 312:( 285:( 270:( 243:( 206:( 194:) 182:( 160:( 146:( 117:( 91:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index