Knowledge talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 13

3603:

reference unreliable sources such as the CDC (reliable for data in numbers, to some degree, but not, of course, reliable for information on what is or isn't harmful). In addition, such blogs NEVER make reference to the arguments that proponents actually do put forth, such as, in this example, the fact that Polio was in decline before vaccines were invented and that Polio declined faster in countries that do not use vaccines. QuackWatch, in addition to being demeaning and therefore obviously untrustworthy, is also one of the blogs which falls in the category of those that I am describing. For health issues which I wish to research into further-then-normal detail, and sometimes even when not, the University of Maryland is a frequent link which comes up. They seem to do many actual studies on the effects of various alternative treatments and other healthy living styles (for example, they have a very detailed result posted of vinegar vs. bleach for killing germs). If you are looking for a specifically "debunking" website, please find one that is not arrogant, that uses sourced information or has done the studies themselves, and that does not "refute" arguments which are not actually being made. Another option would be to find articles about a specific type of treatment or doctrine, which is done by proponents of alternative health in general, who are demonstrating why this particular alternative health method is not useful. For essential oils, you can find a licensed aromatherapist, who, if they are not a trained re-seller by Young Living or that other one, will usually do research regarding indications and contraindications, provide serious warnings against using full-strength oils, and often have documentation on the blogs and articles. whfoods.com also sometimes has detailed explanations of why some elements will be said to show different things in different places; for example, they explain in great detail regarding the different types of cartenoids.

3598:

etc. An article with a tone like that, if used to refute claims, is automatically not to be trusted. QuackWatch also, like the vast majority of "anti-alternative health" websites/blogs/writings/etc. which exists SOLELY to discredit what is frequently referred to as "alternative health" (rather then the ones which instead seek out the truth for individual treatments and individual lines of medicine), tend to simply "refute" arguments that the proponents of the treatment or line or claim are not even making. For example, blogs against vaccine activism like to state that "vaccines do not cause autism," instead of making the more correct statement that "vaccines have not been conclusively proven to be the only cause of autism", and they make this argument regardless of the fact that vaccine activism websites already address this in noting that it is brain damage in general, and not necessarily autism, that both vaccine-related autism claimants as well as other autism claimants are most often experiencing. Even more egregiously, they like to cite that a book was written by Jenny McCarthy, that the mere fact that she is an actor somehow automatically discredits anything she says regarding subjects which books can be based upon, and that if her book is wrong (which only reason for it being wrong according to such blogs is the fact that she is an actress) then the idea that vaccines cause any kind of harm whatsoever must also be wrong, or that if vaccines do not cause autism then they must also not cause any other kind of health issue and problem. But the most egregious part of such claims is the fact that vaccine activists, usually,

1791:: "If this is the case"??? But it's not the case. That's an editorial opinion based on a failure to understand the purpose of Knowledge. Our articles aren't like those in other encyclopedias, which stick strictly to the facts about the subject. We go much further. We must document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes news, opinions, and controversies about the subject. That's where the publicity, comments, and opinions found in the news, magazines, websites (like QW), etc., come into the picture. A medical article will contain some very specific information, and the factual medical claims must use MEDRS type sources, but the subject itself will have been the subject of discussion and mention in many other situations. Even the medical claims which use MEDRS will have been commented on in other sources, and we can quote them. If those sources are fringe (IOW, not in harmony with mainstream science), we don't give them a platform to sound like truth, but just document their existence as inaccurate dissenting voices. We will usually make it plain (using RS) that they are fringe sources. Sources which are in harmony with mainstream science will stand on their own merits (and not be deprecated), which will often be on a par (as far as truth goes) with the MEDRS sources they have used to come to their conclusions. (QW always backs up mainstream sources.) The article will also include such information, and "when in doubt, attribute" (BR). -- 1314:

are required to cover the subject from all the angles found in RS, and we have many types of RS available to us. Only certain types of content is covered by MEDRS, and other types of content (in medical articles!) is covered by our normal RS policy. Controversies are often not covered in peer reviewed literature, and yet we must document them. Context, context, context! That's what determines whether we should use a source or not. Even if we don't use the source in a given situation, that doesn't mean it's "unreliable", and QW is reliable, get that straight. Reliable doesn't mean perfect, but unless you have proof positive it's unreliable in a given situation, you have no right to even assume it's unreliable, but that's obviously your basic assumption, and that calls into question the accuracy of your moral/scientific/medical compass. No one has ever placed QW on a par with

905:

cut yet obscure quack remedies where it's the only reliable source. Perhaps the best way to end this perpetual standoff with diehard proponents of Quackwatch would be an RfC where we ask if the source is appropriate to use in condition x, condition y, and so on. Then proponents will have to live with the outcome across Knowledge's articles instead of engaging in a constant knee-jerk revert of its removal. Would it be best to do the RfC here, since it's used on medical articles or would it be better elsewhere? And what would the reliability circumstances be? I'm thinking along the lines of "Is Qw reliable as a MEDRS?" "Is it reliable for claims of scientific consensus?", "is it reliable if it contradicts a statement by a government health body?", "is it weighty enough for parity if it is up against a peer reviewed medical journal?", and so on.

1318:. That's a truly absurd straw man. It's a website, and not a "blog" type website. NEVER call it a "blog" again, got that?! Learn what that term means, and even then, many blogs aren't what they used to be. Blogs by experts are allowed here, (but remember, it's not a blog). Most of its content is a team effort involving medical professionals. Websites aren't peer reviewed (only one has that status, that I know of), so that is not a legitimate objection. Please stop contributing to this absurd questioning of the robustness of QW, because all you're trying to do is poison the well. You have a severe case of IDHTitis. We will continue to use QW on a case by case basis, which means that sometimes there is nothing worth using, and at other times there is. -- 1960:

plaintiffs accepted the offer of a California lawyer they had never used before. It turned out he had a practice of filing multiple identical cases. It was quite a few. He was the equivalent of an ambulance chaser. There was no proper preparation, and it was rather embarrassing that quackbusters got caught up in such a scheme. It wasn't illegal, but still poor practice. It's been a long time since I've looked at that situation, but it wasn't good. Poor preparation is a huge error. They made the mistake of assuming that scientific arguments would make sense in court. Few judges have a clue about such matters, and they ruled to protect the ability of the homeopathic company to sell its worthless products. --

3194:"Itself" refers to the website, in contrast to the article here. I have obviously contributed to it. Nothing wrong with that. You are commenting so fast that I fear you are not reading carefully what I've written. I have informed you that I have no COI, and didn't even at the time of the Arbcom. I have never worked for or written for the QW website. I haven't participated in their discussion list for many years. I have no connection with the webrings (which were never connected to QW. I dropped that many years ago.) I haven't added any QW references to any articles for a very long time, and would only do so very carefully. It's been ages, possibly years, since I've done so. -- 1111:

says. Many articles and much content are not written by Barrett. QW amounts to a huge database. I have always been amaze at what one can find there. There are many government documents and research unavailable elsewhere. There are some areas where Barrett has sided with some forms of herbal therapy as being potentially useful, but the evidence base might not be enough for us to make such a case using MEDRS compliant sources. That would just be his opinion, and we can't use that for such content. If there is ever any serious disagreement with MEDRS sources, we would use them. If the QW opinion was still significant, it would be attributed as such.

660:

alt med articles for a very long time, and I'm afraid this gives me a bad case of déjà-moo. I freely acknowledge deep cynicism here. Barrett is a source cited by major national institutions, and is a perfectly valid source where used int hat article - you will not find papers in the learned journals saying that acupuncture is implausible nonsense and why, because it's obvious and doesn't need to be stated, scientifically, but this is an encyclopaedia article so it does need sources written for the general reader discussing the many and varied problems with alternatives to medicine.

3274:

the website and contributor to the content, neither of which are even slightly true. That's a fabrication of the banned author of the blacklisted sources of misinformation, who has a way of creating some fantastic lies about me, Barrett, and anyone else remotely connected to skeptical POV, often without a shred of evidence. Pure conspiracy theorizing, regardless of well known facts to the contrary. That's why his writings are blacklisted. That he promotes some of the worst quacks and scams around seems not to bother those who oppose QW and Barrett here. He worked for

1922:. The assertion that an appellate decision is a single "idiot" judge is clearly incorrect. Most appellate decisions are decided by a 3-judge panel. The trial court judge Haley J. Fromholz first found against Plaintiff in Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. BC245271. Plaintiff appealed that decision to a panel of three judges (Grignon, J., with Turner, P. J., and Armstrong, J.), who voted unanimously to affirm the decision of the lower court. Further a non-party requested that the California Supreme Court depublish the appellate case and lost that request 2111:, but it could be used on very few occasions. In other words, that doesn't value QuackWatch very high as a source (as does not the ArbCom case of 2007) and it may only be used when we are dealing with a topic marginal enough that it has not been covered by the scientific literature. Even then, it should not be used as MEDRS, but RS at tops. However, if plenty of other sources are available, we won't include statements by QuackWatch that are not already present in more reliable sources. And if such sources are available, we use those instead of QuackWatch. 3248:

they could help, and I was one of those volunteers. The only thing I did was to keep an eye on discussions and step in if trolls spammed the group, or if severe incivility occurred. I would then warn the person. I think I might have blocked about two people. That's all. There were a few times I wrote emails to Barrett asking for advice. He didn't always reply, and when he did he was usually VERY short and not very helpful or nice. We never had anything like a good working relationship. I was just an internet name of someone who watched the list.

3501:...he beginning of the video “Susan Gerbic Guerrilla Skepticism on Knowledge JREF Workshop”... I watched the first 8 minutes. The purpose of the workshop and recruitment is not to create NPOV articles or improve them. Gerbic indicates that people she urged to edit grew tired of annoying things like having to do research for an article, so instead she gives her team of 90 editors in 17 languages a resource such as any article from Skeptic Magazine, and she asks editors to find a place to add the material. Both she and 1739:

there are controversies which must be documented, and that content is not usually covered by MEDRS. Peer reviewed research articles don't deal with controversies very often, but skeptics certainly do, and that's where websites like QW, Science Based Medicine, the New York Times, etc. come into play. They are not being used as MEDRS sources, but to document the controversies. When they back up the scientific consensus or make judgments on what they consider it to be, their opinions can be cited, often with attribution. --

604:

deserve? It seems to me like that would be a reasonable instance where we would use it; other instances not so much. And as for the backlinks, you're right, Knowledge links are no follow. That doesn't mean they don't generate web-traffic from articles as you said. I mean, really, it makes me wonder when we're defining acupressure with a QuackWatch source. Then again, maybe that's the only source some editors around here read so they wouldn't know better sources actually do exist in this universe for claims like that.

2974:, that's totally at odds with our content policies and the main goal for Knowledge, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge. If we eliminated the use of "non-peer reviewed, opinion pieces," we'd have about 10% (or less) of our content left, our articles would be blah, super boring, and would not even begin to fully cover EVERYTHING about the topic. Knowledge is more than a dictionary, and more than any other encyclopedia. Articles should contain all types of angles covered in all types of sources. -- 3355:, thank you so much for those diffs. I have corrected the date above. Otherwise nothing in my statement above has changed. I have never had any kind of involvement with the QW website. My hobby for many years has been dealing with dubious and false claims in the health care field, so my interests are aligned with other scientific skeptics, including Barrett. There is nothing wrong with that. A shared POV is not a COI. I totally agree with Jimbo's assessment of the issues as discussed in 2859:, but it depends on the context. QuackWatch also should no be used when there are better sources available on the subject. When it comes to JAMA, for claims on medical efficiency we need peer-reviewed MEDRS compliant sources, no matter whom JAMA cites. If the topic is well covered by scientific research, then we don't need QuackWatch. There are subjects though, that have been left in the shadows of mainstream science, and therefore QuackWatch is a decent source until better ones pop up. 31: 1137:, Quackwatch isn't really a "highly respected" source. It's a popular source, particularly among people who hold a particular POV about altmed (just like Fox News is particularly popular among people who hold a particular POV about American politics). There's a difference. Quackwatch is like Snopes.com: it's fine as far as it goes, but it has nowhere near the level of respect that a good peer-reviewed paper or a book published by a university press deserves. 3017:), then such claim does not present scientific consensus (obviously) and we should avoid including such statements. As it's been voiced out by many editors, QuackWatch is an excellent source to fill in the gaps caused by the lack of scientific research, and this most likely the case with very marginal topics. Just come to think of it, how many scientists do you actually think to waste their time on debunking some hogus bogus theories like "reiki healing"? 1270:. But what if a source is so totally rubbish that it should not be used in any context? Please realise that you are arguing Knowledge should include in its top medical articles, sources that are not peer-reviewed and perhaps a single-author opinion piece. I for one would not be prepared to put my editorial name to inclusion of such low grade information. Use it at your peril - the standards of Knowledge medical articles continue to plummet... 1092:

scientific consensus, or at least what broad scientific opinion is on a subject? Or has it ever been discussed as to whether or not it should be used for parity purposes against claims made by MEDRS sources? Or even, do you know if there been any discussion on whether or not the stronger claims made by Quackwatch should be attributed? I'm mostly curious if the discussion has delved this deeply, or if it's been more binary in nature.

2682:. Just because a few contributers may mention QW doesn't mean that JAMA (et al) considers it to be a reliable source. So if WP continues to use QW, better references will not be searched for and WP articles will be the poorer for it. Steve said some years ago that his aim was to create a site that generated loads of traffic to the adverts -anything goes, as long as there is loads and loads of articles -to generate traffic ( 2945:

subject, but they ignore the controversies. The amount of attention and amount of mainstream research which exists (or doesn't exist) is therefore irrelevant to whether or not we use QW and other non-peer reviewed sources. If they provide a different POV, deal with the subject from a different angle, or comment on and explain controversies, they may well be good to use. Again, on a case by case basis. --

1300:

medical articles will raise the same issues again in the future. I think the major point which we seem to agree on is that the average (non-medical/non-scientific) reader will not understand QW is widely acknowledged as a sub-standard source and one that is only wheeled-in when there is no robust science to refute claims. But it is being wheeled-in under the guise of being as reliable as e.g.

2883:, and mainstream sources consider that to be so. Only you, and those who support most of alternative medicine, disagree. You're on the wrong side in this matter. Those are fringe opinions not based on good research. We don't accord such opinions much weight at all here. We merely document them, even when they come from blacklisted sources, and your opinion does originate there. 2902:, etc.. Each presents different types of information in often very different manners. We start by assuming they are right, unless we have incontrovertible evidence they are wrong. We have had cases where otherwise reliable sources have contained clearly factual errors, typos, used the wrong statistics, etc.. Shit happens, even to the best. That doesn't change our default 1900:.) The California court case was a travesty of justice with an idiot judge and poorly prepared people, and courts don't determine scientific fact or credibility. BTW, Barrett is indeed "biased" in the proper manner. He sides with science, and science agrees that homeopathy is bunk, yet that judge sided with a producer of homeopathic products. -- 1599:@Zad68 I thought you as an administrator would be more aware than most users of which are reliable sources and which are not. I was therefore seeking this "higher level" of judgement and comment. As a user, please would you give me a direct answer as to whether they would be suitable sources for a vet article or an animal behaviour article. 1981:

and efficacy. (fn 2. Conflicting evidence was introduced as to whether the standards used by the Convention for acceptable proof of safety and efficacy would be accepted by the scientific community.)... All of the homeopathic remedies marketed by King Bio are listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and comply with FDA guidelines.

244:

parity, fringe content can sneak it's way in through a deluge of books, blogs, etc. when they are considered semi-reliable sources, while scientific literature ignores what happens in that realm. It can be easy to create undue weight for re fringe theory without this in mind, so that's what parity is really trying to get at.

2505:(I was Fyslee at the time). I was vindicated and so was QW. The ArbCom decision resulted in the indefinite banning of my opponent. The original author of the libelous statement (that Barrett was "delicensed") which was quoted by Moxy above also is indefinitely banned from Knowledge, and their websites are blacklisted. m-- 347:, because links in Knowledge have the "nofollow" attribute set. Search engines ignore them, so they do not help with SEO efforts. (Plain old spam still works, though: if you post your link to a high-traffic article, people might still click on it.) People who cite it are either looking for something easy and 3674:

Since quackery is not a form of medicine but more a form of charlatanism, it is the subject of study of social scientists and historians rather than medical researchers. Say for example a quack makes a fortune by selling a tonic that medical doctors have either ignored or dismissed as valueless. We

3602:

until they saw her mentioned on a "debunking" website of why she is considered by the author to be unreliable. I have read QuackWatch's article on vaccines and it does devote large amounts of text to Jenny McCarthy - who generally has nothing to do with vaccine activists or their beliefs. They also

2613:

The real merit of an academic source can be told by it's ability to pass through the peer-review process of a notable journal. That's not enough though, and after we pass that criterion, we start to look other criteria as well. Any scientist (and many of them do) is able to publish a blog of his own,

1283:

about focusing on content rather than contributors. Quackwatch should be used sparingly, with proper in-text attribution, only where better sources are not available, and with a proper appreciation of its limitations, but it is not a categorically unreliable source. I agree with you that it shouldn't

1067:

titled "veterinary acupuncture". This has now been labelled in an edit summary as "See WP:COATRACK. There should be only one sentence at the end of Acupuncture#Related practices. Some of the text is misleading and poorly sourced. See WP:MEDRS." There are editors out there who are so insistent on POV

982:

It is hated by pushers of pseudoscience, and thus any editor who opposes its proper use reveals their intentions, and those intentions are contrary to Knowledge's aspirations to be a mainstream, scientifically reliable, encyclopedia. I suggest you read the many discussions about its use here. Several

798:

I agree, which is a large reason why I wrote the essay on identifying primary and secondary sources; an individual source may contain both primary and secondary content. However, Quackwatch articles are not (may not be) peer-reviewed. To my mind, this puts them way at the bottom of reliable sources

462:

I agree very much with excluding sources attributable to Quackwatch, however, I disagree with "It's better to cite Quackwatch for its views than to cite nothing for views held by Quackwatch (and others)" If we use that argument, we should be allowing sources by PETA or the Animal Liberation Front to

367:

I wonder if it is worth pointing out at this juncture that it would be equally correct to say that acupressure is often characterized as delusional nonsense? There being no such things as meridians, qi and such. It has even less prior plausibility than acupuncture, but at least you probably won't end

305:

could conceivably be sourced by Quackwatch if nothing else is available, but it would best be sourced by textbooks or other high quality sources, and there are plenty of sources other than Quackwatch that define acupressure. Why don't we use those instead? Quackwatch is clearly not a MEDRS source, so

133:

It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail. Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts. News articles are not

3247:

At some point in time, the moderator and list owner asked Barrett to take over as moderator (but not listowner). He did, but being a very busy man who traveled a lot, he discovered he needed help when he was traveling and not able to monitor the list. He rarely commented. He asked several members if

2906:

attitude toward them. We just keep in mind that if another RS, or many other RS, are clearly at odds with them, then there is a difference. That "difference" may or may not be problematic. If it's a difference of opinion, big deal. Both get their say. If there is a clearly factual error (100% wrong,

2079:

Where is this "consensus" you speak of? Not just you and DrChrissy (who tried to disrupt the article earlier this week) agreeing with each other. As I noted on the talk page, the quote is attributed and has been in the article for some time. The source has been there since at least 2012. If you want

1980:

Recognized homeopathic remedies are listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, which is updated by the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention, a group of homeopathic practitioners. The Convention will not accept a new remedy for inclusion in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia without evidence of its safety

1754:

That's unnecessary speculation, I am afraid. QuackWatch is a source where the authors can publish their mere opinions without going through any sort of peer-review process, and therefore it avoids all scientific scrutinizing. Although QuackWatch can be used on a very few occasions, it can be used in

1680:

Nope, not what I said. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding that it's not black-and-white. Please reread all the responses you've gotten here and in the sections above, nobody is saying that there's a binary answer applicable in all situations. But at this point I've given

1515:

manner and one which is very open to interpretation. This is confusing for editors, especially non-medical editors. For example, if I was editing a veterinary article, would I be able to cite a single-author web-site which published articles that were not peer-reviewed? If I was editing an article

1347:

I am not offering these as indicators of the quality of QW because it will simply turn into "My M.D. is bigger than your M.D." Rather, I do believe that Knowledge has its own internal standards regarding the reliability of sources, particularly medical, and we should be big enough to question these

1151:

I would agree that they serve very different functions, and thus enjoy different types of respect. QW is a specialty site which has won many awards, and your comparison to SNOPES is quite appropriate. It's highly respected as a consumer protection, false health claims debunking, site, and is usually

1106:

It's been some time since I did any research about QW. I once contributed quite a bit to the article and learned a lot in the process. I don't know of any cases where QW has been proven unreliable, at least not in any serious manner. That's just a claim we often hear, and the claimants never back up

649:

I presume this question is directed at me. As I have made clear above, the reason I started this thread is because I believe (and continue to believe) that non-peer reviewed, single-author, opinion articles do not belong in medical articles. It would be the height of futility to try to sanitise an

308:

TCM theory and practice are not based upon the body of knowledge related to health, disease, and health care that has been widely accepted by the scientific community. TCM practitioners disagree among themselves about how to diagnose patients and which treatments should go with which diagnoses. Even

3273:

My only alliance with QW and other skeptics is a shared POV. That is specifically NOT considered a COI here. It just gives more insight and expertise on those subjects. At ArbCom, my POV and the fact that I had once been on the same list with Barrett, was blown up to become me an actual operator of

3212:

That is, how could you be the assistant listmaster for a Quackwatch discussion list, and not have a COI in this discussion? If you are saying that is related to you having dropped that activity years ago, it's not clear to me nonetheless that you should be continuing to advocate so strongly for QW

2374:

for the final version which does not mention whether or not Quackwatch is reliable. As has been stated over and over before, reliability contextual. No source is always reliable and no source is always unreliable. Quackwatch is generally accepted as a source on topics related to quackery and health

1738:

QW should be judged like any other source, using our RS policy. Content in articles, including medical (and veterinary) articles, is not judged by a binary rule. Our articles contain all kinds of content, some of which (in any article) might be covered by MEDRS. In articles on alternative medicine,

1313:

DrChrissy, I'm seeing massive failure to understand previous comments, similar failure to understand our sourcing policies, and some pretty blatant straw man statements, so basically you are deluding yourself (and others, if they aren't paying attention). Medical articles, just like other articles,

1189:

I agree, the reliability depends on the context. When it comes ot claims on medical efficiency, QuackWatch doesn't really meet the requirements. After all, it's a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog. Acupuncture, however, is a largely studied subject, and there sure are better sources available.

919:

Of course, if there is a more direct option I'm all for that as well. If our policies are already clear enough I'm all for removing Quackwatch where it's a violation and reporting those that edit war it back in, but my experience thus far has been that they're let off with light warnings only to do

757:

I have always argued that it would make much more sense to create a separate list of reliable medical sources based on several pre-defined criteria, rather than arbitrarily listing a source as reliable (or unreliable) based on whether it serves the needs of those fighting quackery. QW definitely is

603:

that directly contradicts Quackwatch. So in that case, you think it's best if we use the much more reliable source and delete Quackwatch as a source in that particular instance? What about using Quackwatch as a source for what skeptics say, provided that we don't give skeptics more weight than they

328:

As a side note, I wonder if any editors happen to be connected to Quackwatch in some way? To use Quackwatch as a source to define acupressure is a little strange, and almost seems like some editors are trying to get a backlink for Quackwatch to help in SEO. I would hate to think that is the case. I

233:

WOW! I have not come across that one before. It states "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." So, if someone

3597:

There is no way I could figure out where in the hell to put my reply in all this formatting, so I will put it like this so it can be seen. Quackwatch can not be considered a reliable website and this can be easily seen by reading any article, in which the author is extremely arrogant, derogatory,

2760:

The Wikimedia software is available free of charge to download and create their own wiki and then they can own their own articles there and do what they like – but not here thank you. They can even place adverts then, so as not to have to ask for donations. These arguments have fallen upon stony

2598:

a biased source. It is just as obviously as reliable source. It clearly evinces a strong point of view, which is in essence the sort of strong skepticism usually seen among secular humanists. It is also clearly regarded as a reliable source by reputable bodies and figures within the relevant field

2413:

Quackwatch is generally accepted as a source on topics related to quackery and health fraud when the topic is marginal enough not to have attracted scientific attention, or isn't otherwise covered by better sources." QuackWatch may be used on case-by-case basis, but it's no diamond standard and we

904:

I'm afraid A1Candidate is right that proponents of Quackwatch will keep pushing for spamming or shoehorning it everywhere unless there's hard rules. But WhatamIdoing is right in that there are cases, albeit rare ones, where Quackwatch is a reasonable source. Or, as MastCell said, in cases of clear

659:

And I question why you have suddenly pitched up at a mature article and set about removing sources that you denigrate as not meeting our standards, all of which, purely coincidentally, appear to cast doubt on the elaborate charade that is Maoist acupuncture. Some of us have been aorund Knowledge's

429:

In an ideal world, we would cite Quackwatch (and all similar websites, regardless of POV) approximately never. If a source can be found that either is more academic in nature (any journal, even a minor one) or has better editorial control (any newspaper or magazine), then we should use that other

1974:

Thanks for the acknowledgement. It is unfortunate if Plaintiff had inadequate counsel and was unable to sue for malpractice if that was indeed the case. The claim that the various courts "ruled to protect the ability of the homeopathic company to sell its worthless products" differs from what I

1063:. I introduced a tertiary source summarising multiple Cochrane reports on human studies of acupuncture. The source has been thrown out...because the summary was published in a veterinary handbook! Furthermore, I have researched acupuncture in (non-human) animals and written a brief section into 709:

concept. It seems absolutely ridiculous that intelligent people should argue "let's fight rubbish with rubbish"...surely if the evidence is that convincing, replace the very low quality primary source of Quackwatch with a decent secondary source and we can all go our separate ways satisfied. Is

311:

I'm not sure Quackwatch is reliable enough to state what the scientific community does and does not believe, as a whole, or what TCM believes, as a whole, since Quackwatch is clearly a partisan source. If the FDA or the NIH or TCM bodies made claims like this, that would be reliable. But not only

115:

article. This has citations to pages posted on the Quackwatch web-site. e.g. I have concerns about whether these pages are a suitable source for a medicine article on Knowledge. I have raised this issue here because in the past I have been told to seek questions about reliability here, rather

2944:

QW provides a different type of information and angle on subjects than does peer reviewed research. It applies the findings of research to that gray zone of controversy between science and pseudoscience, that area which research scientists tend to ignore. They may produce lots of research on the

2775:

No Aspro. You're wrong. There was no ownership behavior by anyone here until you came along. Your comment is uncalled for. A group of fringe editors are seeking to change longstanding practice here. They'd like to remove sources which back up mainstream science and thus remove criticism of their

1299:

Oh - where does the essay offer conflicting advice? Here is obviously not the place to raise it so I will look forward to seeing your comments on the essay's Talk page. I guess we are done with QW here. It is still unresolved, so I am sure another editor wanting fairness and clarity in editing

1110:

The discussions aren't fresh in my mind. I'm pretty sure they have gone much deeper than a binary discussion. The statements and POV expressed on QW are usually sourced, and they are therefore always in harmony with scientific evidence, where it exists. When it doesn't exist, then that's what QW

978:

On a case by case basis has always been the decision in RfCs and ArbCom decisions about the use of Quackwatch, just like any other source. It's a highly respected mainstream source. It's not a blog. It has a large group of experts used to vet its content, even when the article might happen to be

963:

So you think the only way to remove it via an RfC would be on a case by case basis with specific examples and not broader generalities or abstractions, like those I suggested? That would take forever, 1000's of RfC's as many times as it's poorly cited! It seems like there has to be a better way.

620:

Quackwatch is a reliable source for commentary on claims in the supplements, alternative and complementary medicine (SCAM) industry. It is cited by other reliable sources, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health characterised it as a

271:

If there are such sources that address a specific piece of content, then by all means use those instead. Parity just helps give a baseline in dealing with fringe content, especially in context to how quickly fringe claims can be generated and the sheer number of them that scientific publications

243:

It's focused around the idea that fringe content typically is ignored in publications by definition. It's not saying we use rubbish sources, but just acknowledging that if we need to describe a fringe piece of content, it's not afforded time in what we consider out most reliable sources. Without

1729:

are the unreliable ones, but you're using them as examples of why Barrett should be considered unreliable. It's the other way around. History (lots of it) has clearly shown us that the basic assumption should be that QW (and also Barrett) are on the right side of the equation, and their critics

1043:

The mainstream sources in academic world are the peer-reviewed ones, those where any ambitious academic tries to get his work published. QuackWatch is a blog (and blogs naturally cannot be peer reviewed), and therefore I hardly find it as a "respected mainstream source". It's a website, a blog.

558:

If the topic is "acupuncture", then we should not really be relying on Quackwatch since there are numerous better-quality sources available. On the other hand, for obscure forms of charlatanry, Quackwatch may be the best available source, and so if we feel compelled to maintain articles on such

391:

gives me just 30 ghits, and if you exclude blogs and reader comments, it's almost zero. It's much more common for reliable, non-self-published, non-activist sources to say that it's really no different from any other type of massage, and might provide some temporary pain relief or a relaxation

3012:

When something is mainstream science, it means that there's plenty of scientific research around the subject and therefore a firm scientific consensus. When such sources are available, we don't need QuackWatch but we will use the the better sources instead. This works the other way as well: if

425:

I have some reservations about PARITY. More precisely, I have some reservations about how PARITY is (mis)used on occasion. It seems to be used and presented to making angry, pointed statements. We rarely see something neutrally phrased, like "Critics like Quackwatch say this doesn't work".

2918:

position is that they are likely wrong on health and scientific matters. Our history with them has shown that we must have that attitude. They can't be trusted for anything but their own opinions. There will be a mix of good and bad, but Adams (NN) seems to specialize in ONLY promoting what's

1005:

I agree with WhatamIdoing above, but I have to add that for claims on medical efficiency, QuackWatch really should not be used. This works in both ways, though: any claim by fringe sources on medical claims should not be accepted unless it's accepted by a MEDRS compliant source. And when it's

3244:, an online discussion group sponsored by the Louisville Area Skeptics(?) I'm really not sure, but I know it was not started by QW or Barrett. He was a latecomer. I happened to join it around 1999 and was an active participant for about six years. We discussed quackery and healthfraud topics. 1602:

Fair enough that you don't want Quackwatch in the "Other sources" section, although there are several other examples of reliable sources in that section so I don't think the section is a "blanket unreliable". I don't care where a statement like "Quackwatch is an exception and should be used

1091:

BullRangifer, you seem to know quite a bit about the history of Quackwatch on this encyclopedia. As you said, Quackwatch is undoubtedly reliable for some claims and unreliable for other claims. Has it ever been discussed as to whether or not Quackwatch is reliable enough to make claims about

1959:

I stand corrected. It was three (or more). Regardless, their decision had no bearing on medical or scientific credibility or accuracy, only on standing in that case, and in no other situation of any kind. It certainly has no bearing here, since all their other work is good. As I recall, the

990:

BTW, MEDRS applies to specific types of content in ALL articles, and never to entire articles. Well-written medical articles, especially about controversial subjects, will contain a blend of MEDRS sourced content, popular RS content, and subject expert/skeptical content which documents the

1734:

paid Barrett $ 50,000 in an out of court settlement on a libel issue, which is small change for Mercola. Barrett and QW are slandered all the time, but because Barrett is a public figure, it's almost impossible for him to win a case in the USA. Unfortunately people believe the slanderers.

291:

article, I think I would expect a higher quality of medical article as a source being used to debunk the practice. Perhaps parity leads to rather lazy editing - the fringe practice is quickly debunked by a low quality source, but nobody goes back to replace this source with one of higher

1288:, but you're being extremely heavy-handed and not really listening to what other people are telling you. I also don't think it was a good idea to write an essay offering advice which explicitly conflicts with our existing guidelines, but I will leave that up to someone else to sort out. 934:

Asking whether Quackwatch is reliable is not a useful question. It's like asking whether a particular piece of software is good. The only accurate answer is "it depends", and the answer you'll probably get is "yes, Quackwatch is always 100% reliable for everything" (which is factually

1009:

As said above, there might be some fringe topics that are not paid enough attention to by the mainstream academic research. For these instances, QuackWatch might serve as a reliable source, but only on case-by-case basis. As far as I am concerned, the very topic has been discussed at

2354:

Thanks, missed that. As far as I can determine, there were two relevant findings that passed. "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" and "Use of questionable sources by Fyslee". Be interesting to see what editors now make of that as Arbcom usually doesn't dictate content these days.

3386:

Thank you for the clarifications. I agree with SlimVirgin that it appears difficult to argue that you don't have a COI, or at minimum a strong bias, in this area, which is why I believe it would be beneficial for you to not dominate the discussion with dubious assertions of fact.

1044:

However, I agree with BullRangifer that it can be helpful in some marginal cases, but should not be used with claim on medical efficiency. Marginal sources like QuackQWatch should only be used when the subject area is also marginal enough not to catch any wider academic attention.

948:

than a (this particular peer-reviewed journal article, a book published by an academic press, etc.) for (this particular statement)?" The question isn't how to get Quackwatch's POV out of the article. It's how to fairly represent all of the POVs, including the skeptic's POV.

2840:

when it comes to identifying quackery and health fraud. That's its recognized specialty, and JAMA recommends it as a RS for that purpose. When someone joins other editors who seek to kill that canary, what are we to think? You should watch the company you keep. That's all. --

2961:

In case you had not noticed, canaries are no longer used in mines. Instead, mines have modernised and switched to science and technology to detect gas...perhaps WP should consider the same and let go of an archiac way of providing information - non-peer reviewed, opinion

1944:

Well well... Let's have a bit of respect toward the court personnel as well, shall wel? :-) Those who truly side with science are those who - not just conduct some serious scientific research - but are able to get their research published in a notable scientific journal.

1725:, thanks for striking your comment above. Much appreciated. I have never contributed to QW itself, although that would be an honor. I see you mentioned Sahelian and Doctors Data above. These are both examples of retaliation by those rightly accused of unethical behavior. 1807:

That's a good question since acupuncture is rather a well-studied subject. That discussion belongs to the article Talk Page though, not here. Anyway, QuackWatch should be never used as MEDRS, but only as RS in some few cases. And for RS, the five years rule don't apply.

2710:" (empahsis mine). No one said to only use Quackwatch and not look for better sources (that would be the logical fallacy on your part), but when one of the most highly regarded general medicine journals recommends a website as reliable, we should probably listen. 3269:

I have never been a member of any kind of society, skeptical or otherwise (except my professional PT organization), and have never met another skeptic in person, and never been to any conventions or meetings. It's always been strictly online contacts on that HF

2639:

We're not talking about academia, but about reliability here on Knowledge. There is no binary reliable/nonreliable, but context. When high quality sources like JAMA specifically cite QuackWatch as generally reliable for medical content, we should probably

758:

an unreliable source due to its status as a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog, but I could imagine the followers of Gorski and other SBM advocates desperately trying to push any source that opposes CAM therapies against prevailing medical consensus. -

1531:

OK, so if you're talking about a proposal to modify the MEDRS guideline to mention QuackWatch specifically, let's see that proposal. Personally I don't think a direct mention of QW is needed here, the existing guidelines and policies already cover it.

1059:@BullRangifer: Please excuse this intrusion into the main topic of this thread. I totally agree with your summary above of what a well-written medical article should contain. However, this is not what is happening! Please look at the recent edits on 3449:-- Regarding the question above about advocacy: This may be part of the advocacy movement of the Skeptics to try to increase membership and interest in their work on Knowledge. They are organizing off-Knowledge to as illustrated by the video 1338:, however, there are a couple of points I would like to make. You stated "I don't know of any cases where QW has been proven unreliable, at least not in any serious manner." There are multiple pages of complaints about QW, for example, here 386:

If would not be worth pointing it out, because it is factually wrong. Acupressure is not "often" characterized as delusional nonsense. Only a very small minority of rather strident sources choose inflammatory characterizations like that.

2214:

You helpfully replied that I should look at RSN. I was hoping you might have something a little more precise, because I am asking you where the consensus has been reached. A diff for a user/admin closing a discussion on RSN will be fine.

576:

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but how can a source that is not peer-reviewed ever be considered to be a suitable source for a medical article? It flies completely in the face of good editing and the purported high standards of

312:

does this statement exist on the acupuncture page, it's in block quotes! So not only is it unreliable in this particular instance, it's also a weight problem because we're block quoting it, giving it a stage, lights and a megaphone.

650:

article of material by starting this thread. The Quackwatch articles are so old I am certain more recent, peer-reviewed articles exist, but perhaps the "medics" like Quackwatch because it provides lovely cherries for them to pick.

522:. Note that we do not take any individual policy or guideline (whether it be MEDRS or NPOV or OR or RS, etc) in isolation, but apply them together to determine what goes in a Knowledge article. There is no contradiction in using 1870:

Can someone explain how a site run by someone who lost there medical license and has been called "Biased, and unworthy of credibility" by the California Appeals Court in the case of NCAHF v King Bio is an ok source? --

2776:

favorite fringe practices. That's not going to succeed. We don't allow whitewashing here. Articles will still contain explanations of the subject, as well as documentation of their reception. That's what we do here --

1107:

their claims. On further examination, they are wrong, usually because they are parroting unreliable sources like Natural News, Mercola, NVIC, etc.. Their sources are often blacklisted here, they are that unreliable!

234:

uses a really rubbish reference to support a fringe medical practice, this can be discredited by an equally rubbish reference? This really does not sound like the principles of high quality sources behind WP:MEDRS.

1555:

First, I would really like to see a direct answer from an admin to my direct question above as to whether those sources would be considered suitable for a vet article or an animal behaviour article. Second,

3675:

would not need peer-reviewed articles published in medical journals for sources. News stories, well-respected true crime journalists and criminologists would provide reliable and more comprehensive writing.

2688:). He done it and lets give him credit for that. But let us not go over board and suggest this is considered by the mainstream as reliable. Let us not mislead other editors into using it. Just saying. OK!-- 3525:

movement to use Knowledge to recruit more people to their movement and ideology this way? Would it be okay for Christians, Scientologists, gamblers, mountain climbers or anti-GMO activists to do the same?

879:

In other words, MEDRS is reliable. Non-MEDRS is unreliable, but many editors participating in this discussion are unable to accept the core policies and guidelines of MEDRS, so it makes the list necessary.

1516:

on an animal behaviour, would I be able to cite a single-author web-site publishing statements on the occurence of a behaviour without any other supporting sources? (This is usually called "anecdote".)

704:

Have you guys not thought that perhaps the reason that this issue is rearing its head again is because new editors come along and have the same concerns? Perhaps you really need to have a look at this

286:

Thanks for that, I appreciate the explanation. I can't but help feel that this parity concept rather lowers the high bar that WP:MEDRS states it wishes to achieve. If as a reader I was to look at the

628:

Obviously it is unpopular with the SCAM industry, but we must always remember Ersnt's Law: if you are investigating alternative medicine and the quacks don't hate you, then you're not doing your job.

2285: 1114:

I have always favored attribution when there might be any doubt. If an opinion is clearly allied with mainstream science, attribution may not be necessary, but otherwise it's often a good idea. --

1267: 2581: 710:

there not a single editor out there willing to take responsibility and put in suitable RS references ...or do you all just prefer to sit around insulting anyone who might question your dogma.

3467:" on WP to promote a "skeptical ideology" (scientism coupled with fanatic atheism) in Knowledge articles. It's supported by the James Randi Foundation and includes at least 90 editors. They 3341:"Stephen Barrett's assistant listmaster." For years on WP, you've closely involved yourself with his interests, website and legal issues. It would be difficult to argue that there's no COI. 1748: 3026: 2954: 2868: 2514: 2375:

fraud. That it is widely cited by other reliable sources such as government agencies and journal articles (how many other websites are specifically suggested by high quality journals like

2052: 2013: 1969: 1954: 1844: 1764: 3551: 3535: 2817: 1995: 1939: 3471:

and elsewhere off-WP to take control of pre-determined pages, attacking critics and adorning those of fellow believers. I hear them echoed on almost every talk page I visit these days.

3042: 2472: 1863: 1817: 1781: 1560:

contains a section "Other sources" where it discusses that many web-sites are low quality and unreliable. Perhaps there can be a sentence saying that Quackwatch is an exception to this?

1223: 1072: 3401: 3309: 3291: 3227: 3203: 1161: 1146: 1023: 426:

Instead, the statements tend to say things like "Critics like Quackwatch say that this is 'irrational pseudoscience-y quackery performed by evil charlatans on unsuspecting innocents'".

2554:

citing policy and guideline to caution against using (1) "online and self-published sources", (2) "Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources" and (3) "Extremist sources"

2072: 1465: 890: 793: 3379: 3347: 2364: 1896:

paid Barrett $ 50,000 in an out of court settlement when Mercola repeated that false statement. Barrett was never "delicensed" or "lost his license". He retired. (Read the sources in

1499: 3689: 3646:

I'm having trouble deciding where to reply, also. It's clear that we should use the best sources available. However, if Quackwatch says that a source is wrong, we should question

3060: 3007: 2983: 2966: 2850: 2649: 2634: 2423: 2138: 2120: 1800: 1569:

Why "from an admin"? This is a content-related question and so being an admin would not give any special status or qualification in answering it. Admins act as admins on issues of

1352: 1327: 803: 776:

for a bulleted list; Quackwatch meets three of the five), but that wouldn't help you determine whether a source is "reliable", because "reliable" is actually shorthand for "reliable

741: 467: 296: 281: 266: 253: 3678:

However, where medical experts have extensively studied claims, such as acupuncture, an extensive coverage of those claims should be sourced to review literature in medical sources.

1123: 1000: 973: 958: 565: 360: 94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2608: 914: 799:

for any article on WP, let alone medical articles for which we purport to have the highest standards. There really should be a ban on using these single-authored opinion articles.

454: 3665: 3658:(and, IMO, should) use it for claims that a treatment is considered scientifically implausible (or even stronger statements), in the absence of a better source, such as Ernst. — 2836:

My comment on your talk page is clear enough. I haven't mentioned you in that manner, but you decide whether other editors will see you in that light. It's your choice. QW is the

2831: 1773:? Surely there has been relevant recent research published in secondary sources? Oh, and the Quackwatch article was written in 2007, so it also fails the standards suggested by 1336:

You stated above that you have contributed to QW in the past. I feel this gives you a conflict of interest, which makes me feel disinclined to continue this conversation with you

1274: 509: 2785: 1308: 1294: 1261: 1248: 1101: 585: 321: 238: 228: 2093: 1909: 1211: 1053: 929: 613: 494:

as the spine of all that is good in medical articles are now supporting the inclusion of non-peer reviewed, opinion articles. No wonder Knowledge has the bad name that it does.

338: 201: 772:

It's impossible to make such a list, because reliability depends upon context. You could create a list of sources that meet most or all of the typical objective criteria (see

644: 401: 3092: 3083: 3069: 2219: 2178:

Thanks for the links Neil .. I do see the ArbCom saying its not a reliable second source...they called it a " partisan site". i will lookout for this site in the future. --

2169: 2151: 2102: 1698: 1675: 1663: 1607: 1594: 1564: 1549: 1520: 1431: 1422: 1400: 1389: 1242:. Start by reviewing those, and by re-reading the responses you've gotten here, and then maybe drop the belligerent tone and try again if you're still confused about context. 539: 498: 485: 2255: 1880: 979:

signed by Barrett. It is not generally used for MEDRS content, but for the opinions of skeptics and medical experts on the topics of alternative medicine, health fraud, etc..

445:

any barely reliable source and leaving the material unsourced. It's better to cite Quackwatch for its views than to cite nothing for views held by Quackwatch (and others).

714: 673: 654: 1200:

you will not find papers in the learned journals saying that acupuncture is implausible nonsense and why, because it's obvious and doesn't need to be stated, scientifically

766: 381: 2770: 2719: 2697: 2406: 2388: 3240:

Lucky I spotted this. I almost missed it. I'll try to do my best to recall old events. My memory isn't what it used to be. I was one of the assistant listmasters for the

2297: 2273: 2205: 2187: 1603:

carefully on a case-by-case basis" should be placed in the guidelines. It just seems to be needed for clarity of the reliability of sources for editing medical articles.

694: 3641: 2126: 1835:

them. It will stand as a confirming voice documenting how scientific skeptics back up the MEDRS sources when they deal with controversies, quacks, and health fraud. --

519: 1478:

here, regarding the MEDRS guideline. If you're questioning an individual use of QuackWatch at a certain article, that should be taken to that article's Talk page, or

1279:

Many of your comments, here and elsewhere, include some form of attack, sniping, or criticism aimed at other editors, so it's pretty hypocritical for you to lecture

3149: 2281: 1396:

My sincere apologies - I misread Bull's comment. Of course, now that this is pointed out, I agree there is no conflict of interest. Should I strike my comment?

306:

we cannot use for medical claims. I don't have a problem with using it for some claims, like claims about what acupuncture skeptics believe, but statements like

47: 17: 2243: 476:

source when better sources are not available. How reliable it is depends, as with all reliability questions, on context of what text it is being sourced to.

472:

We will not be excluding Quackwatch from Knowledge, it has been time and again found to be useful and reliable in certain circumstances, but especially as a

3074:

You were the only who brought up a completely unrelated study to this discussion. Perhaps you should think ahead next time before you make unrelated edits?

1646:

Regarding your hypothetical, I can't answer without seeing the specifics of the source, article, context and content--exactly the same as with QuackWatch.

1228:

I'm losing patience with you a little bit, because people have repeatedly explained how context matters. Hell, it's explicitly written into our guidelines:

3153: 3337:

you were assistant listmaster of the Healthfraud Discussion List, and linked to a Quackwatch page when describing it. In December 2006, again on WP, you

3188: 3142: 2876:, I agree that it depends on the context, but your statement seems disingenuous. You say you "completely agree", and then you disagree almost completely. 1152:

listed in university, library, medical, and governmental sources as a consumer protection resource. It's the largest and most well-known of its kind. --

272:

don't really deal with that well for our purposes. If a better source accomplishes ascribing due weight about a fringe view, that's what should be used.

3592: 3491: 2468:

about a specific QW statement in that article without changing the article content. I have already been told that I am being "disruptive" for doing so!

3453:

noted on SlimVirgin's talk page and are attempting to use resources such as these to promote their work by using Knowledge to advertise their efforts:

1507:

I raised the issue here because in the past, when I have broached a medical subject about which there is debate, I have been instructed to take it to

751: 1923: 1636:

Voters at RFA definitely value solid content contributions, and many won't support an admin candidate unless they see that, but I guarantee you that

3367: 1219:

If QW is not reiable, it is not reliable. How can context suddenly make it reliable? ...unless of course it suits those who like to pick cherries.

2886:

We never blindly accept ANY source here. No source is reliable for all purposes 100% of the time. We can approach QW the same way we approach the

2599:(medicine)." Can we move along now? If world-renowned journals like JAMA says it is reliable, why are we talking about an 8 year old ArbCom case? 2414:

should always look for better third-party sources. We should urge caution whenever using QuackWatch, like the ArbCom case of 2007 clearly put it.

2614:

but that doesn't bring what he writes to the same level with the works that he, or anyone else, has published in a notable scientific journal. "

3160: 3263: 2370:

If we're going by what ArbCom has stated, then the final case was amended specifically to remove mention that QuackWatch was unreliable. See

123:

2) The articles appear to be blogs - they are attributed to a single author and therefore represent only the opinion of this one individual.

3075: 3052: 2711: 2641: 2600: 2394: 2380: 531: 477: 2911:

or QW, in that SINGLE instance that ONE time. Otherwise we still consider them to be reliable for the type of information they present.

120:

1) (minor concern) The articles are well out of date - considerably older than the MEDRS rule-of-thumb of more recent than 5 years old.

3262:

2006 or early 2007 when I stopped completely. It has no connection to Knowledge, and the only list member I know of who edits here is

2587: 559:

topics then Quackwatch may in fact be the most reliable source available. The main point here is that reliability depends on context.

3521:

can use Knowledge as a "tool" to do their marketing in the safety and comfort of their home. So you both feel that is okay for the

1368:

wrote. Bull didn't say he has submitted contributions to QW itself, he said that he did a lot of editing of the Knowledge article

171: 102: 1339: 724:, all sources are reliable for some statements, and all sources are unreliable for other statements. Your actual problem is with 3255:, and later on at the QW servers. That explains why the instruction page is found on the QW website. When I signed up it wasn't. 309:

if they could agree, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care.

3036: 3252: 2548: 631:

I presume this question is motivated by your ongoing campaign to sanitise critical material form the article on acupuncture?

262:

article, surely there are more robust (and recent) sources than what appear to be articles on the opinions of just one medic?

3174:

push to get Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch (which has involved an extensive network of websites and webrings) added to MEDRS.

2756:

We seem to have a small cohort of editors that are championing QW against a lager body that are asking for consensus. See:

2379:?) points to its high reputation for fact checking and therefore its reliability in the area of quackery and health fraud. 2042: 3213:

as a reliable source. Discussion boards like that one died out when that kind of activity moved over to ... Knowledge.

3126: 2538: 2371: 3506: 3484: 2827:

Please respond here to this direct question with a direct answer. I am currently taking this to be a personal attack.

2586:

No, it does not "repeatedly urged caution against using it and similar sources". When it was amended, the arbitrators

3557: 1755:

absence of better sources when a topic is so marginal that it hasn't attracted any significant scientific attention.

1640:

of our best-respected content editors are not admins. An admin is likely to have competent understanding of content

1529:

because nobody is proposing to use QuackWatch in the way you're describing, at least not without a lot more context.

2678:

We could move on if you weren’t using a logical fallacy. That about the JAMA. If you don't mind me saying so is a

1345: 1131:, it wouldn't take thousands of discussions. It might take dozens. It's only linked in about a hundred articles. 3338: 3334: 3209: 2757: 3241: 3065:

It's to do with the reliability/hypocrisy of JAMA! Anyway, I think we should return to the topic of the thread.

2530: 134:

usually reviewed prior to posting" So, how do we know which articles have been peer-reviwed and which have not?

3251:

At some point in time the connection to the Louisville Area Skeptics(?) stopped and the list was housed by the

2594:, not "urged against using it". This quote by Vassyana appears to nicely sum up their position: "Quackwatch is 2568:

to be "partisan" and repeatedly urged caution against using it and similar sources and specifically admonished

1006:

accepted by a MEDRS compliant source, where do we need the fringe source anyway? The same goes with QuackWatch.

3632:

that was way too long. and none of the sources you rely on for your personal information are MEDRS compliant.

1362:

You stated above that you have contributed to QW in the past. I feel this gives you a conflict of interest...

3623: 2534: 808:

The context is obviously within the realm of the Great Battle against Quackery, as the OP clearly indicated.

3556:

What??!!! No way. Our admins would never allow such a thing. Sounds too much like...(drum roll please)...

3421: 3088:

Oh dear... I really don't think anyone can be bothered with this - please return to the topic of the thread.

3356: 216: 581:

editing. Would there be a problem tagging all citations of Quackwatch as "potentially not peer-reviewed"?

3576: 2855:

I completely agree with BullRangifer above. Just to add one important pointy: QuackWatch is not reliable

116:

than the article talk page. I also suspect this might affect other WP articles. These concerns are -

2683: 2098:@NeilN Where is the consensus that Quackwatch is a reliable source? Has this been taken to RfC before? 1511:. If WP:MEDRS does not mention Quackwatch, perhaps it should? Quackwatch seems to be used in a rather 596: 3022: 2864: 2630: 2419: 2116: 2009: 1950: 1813: 1760: 1207: 1049: 1019: 600: 344: 38: 1257:, but in future, please refrain from comments on the editor and stick to comments on the content - OK? 3685: 2397:, for clearing that up. Your opinions on Quackwatch's reliability in certain contexts mirror mine. -- 2156:

Read what you asked me. If you asked me to show why QW was reliable I would have pointed you towards

864:- All major medical societies, reputable journals, widely used medical textbooks and reference works. 2907:

no matter the beliefs of whoever reads it), then we obviously don't use the wrong source, including

1855:

being used as MEDRS in various places. As for the age criterion, I guess what we have know is that

3547: 3531: 3258:

The list is still active, as far as I know, but I haven't participated or monitored it since about

2577: 2502: 1991: 1935: 1239: 2679: 2143:

I was actually hoping that an editor who is arguing that a source is reliable could show that it

1859:, non-peer reviewed, single-authored, opinion pieces can be used in medical articles. Hmmmmm.... 814:- All self-published Internet blogs participating in the Great Battle against Quackery including 773: 438: 153: 2706:

Of course JAMA considers it a reliable source, it specifically recommends Quackwatch as a site "

2261: 3662: 3479: 3397: 3375: 3305: 3287: 3223: 3199: 3184: 3138: 2979: 2950: 2846: 2781: 2510: 2068: 1965: 1905: 1840: 1796: 1744: 1323: 1157: 1142: 1119: 996: 954: 942: 789: 737: 450: 397: 356: 277: 249: 3018: 3001: 2873: 2860: 2626: 2415: 2112: 2005: 1946: 1915: 1824: 1809: 1756: 1203: 1068:

that they are seriously threatening the perceived standard of medical editing in the project.

1045: 1015: 179: 127: 3681: 3611: 3564: 3509:) say that it is activism, marketing and outreach to expand and recruit new people to the 8: 3543: 3527: 3460: 2573: 2147:

reliable. The onus is on you to show that it is a reliable source if this is questioned.

1987: 1931: 2044:

and he is ignoring the consensus here and elsewhere. What do you think should be done? -

780:", not "reliable in general". Furthermore, even a source that is reliable might not be 2001: 1097: 969: 925: 910: 609: 334: 317: 224: 1730:

wrong, unless proven otherwise. Court cases don't determine scientific accuracy. Even

621:

credible source, the American Cancer Society endorse it and so on. This is all in the

3659: 3619: 3474: 3450: 3388: 3371: 3330: 3301: 3297: 3283: 3214: 3195: 3175: 3134: 2975: 2946: 2939:"If the topic is well covered by scientific research, then we don't need QuackWatch." 2842: 2824: 2810: 2777: 2560:

Although the Motion clearly was designed to avoid the implication that Quackwatch is

2506: 2064: 1961: 1901: 1836: 1792: 1740: 1681:

all the time and energy I'd care to on this conversation, I may check back in later.

1577:

suggestion presumes that QW is blanket unreliable, and that hasn't been established.

1365: 1319: 1153: 1138: 1134: 1115: 992: 950: 895: 785: 733: 592: 446: 393: 352: 273: 245: 1304:. The cycle of questioning the robustness of QW seems to be about every 2 years.... 858:

might be okay, but these should be used with caution if there are no better sources.

3637: 2465: 2060: 2045: 1914:^Now who is misrepresenting the case? The appellate case cited above can be found 1191: 1011: 898: 883: 759: 729: 706: 527: 473: 212: 3300:. I hope the above answers your questions. Feel free to ask more if necessary. -- 3651: 3572: 3542:

The use of this source may indeed be from this same group for this same purpose.

3352: 3342: 3079: 3056: 2941:

You have said that many times, and each time it's wrong. It's not part of policy.

2837: 2766: 2715: 2693: 2645: 2604: 2541:

regarding the sources used by Fyslee, it did not change the rest of the content,

2384: 2157: 1897: 1774: 1690: 1655: 1586: 1557: 1541: 1508: 1491: 1471: 1414: 1381: 984: 850:, and other advocacy sites. The personal blogs of actual CAM researchers such as 692: 578: 535: 523: 491: 481: 167: 139:

My question is simple - are articles on the Quackwatch web-site reliable sources?

3517:

are not very good at marketing and "punking" or "something like that"; instead,

2914:

OTOH, when we look at sources like Mercola.com, Natural News, etc., our default

505:@Yobol Please could you provide links to where this has been discussed before. 46:

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

3513:

movement and ideology, and that Knowledge is an excellent "tool", because most

2971: 2376: 2293: 2251: 2183: 1926:. To claim the decision was only made by a single "idiot judge" is untruthful 1893: 1876: 1788: 1731: 1722: 1357: 901: 1919: 1198:, but should only be used on case-by-case basis. Oh... Guy, you stated that: " 1889: 1641: 1479: 1342: 1290: 1244: 1230: 1128: 1093: 965: 921: 906: 781: 725: 721: 668: 662: 639: 633: 605: 561: 515: 376: 370: 330: 313: 220: 3013:

QuackWatch presents a claim that is not backed up by scientific mainstream (

2926:

recommendation elevates QW to the same level as scientific research. It's a

2260:

Given that editor was not on Arbcom and gave no link and seemed to be quite

3615: 3502: 3132:

I have never contributed to QW itself, although that would be an honor. ...

2552:

In the Principles section of the decision, three separate votes were taken

1266:

Of course context matters. I have just written an essay showing just that.

855: 851: 1986:

FYI, I am not an attorney and nothing I say on Knowledge is legal advice.

1202:". Exactly, that's why we don't include such things in Knowledge. Cheers! 211:

does not need a top MEDRS (is there any doubt about that statement?), and

3633: 3275: 2569: 2286:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Proposed decision

1770: 1671:

Ok. If I am not misunderstanding you then, it is OK to use such sources.

1285: 1254: 1064: 1060: 288: 112: 2625:, but may only be used on case-by-case basis. It's time to move on now. 1918:

and by a search on the Californai Court's website of published opinions

1268:

Knowledge:Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles

3568: 3468: 2762: 2689: 2565: 2544: 2398: 2356: 2265: 2197: 2161: 2130: 2085: 2038: 1683: 1648: 1579: 1534: 1484: 1407: 1374: 1369: 684: 622: 259: 175: 104: 2934:

to recommend as reliable for their readers. We can safely do the same.

2349: 2289: 2247: 2193: 2179: 1885: 1872: 595:, so let me give you a real-world scenario where we were just having 3000:

Is the JAMA that supports QW the same JAMA that published this paper

938:

A more useful question would be something like "Is Quackwatch.com a

303:

Acupressure is oftentimes described as "acupuncture without needles"

209:

Acupressure is oftentimes described as "acupuncture without needles"

3518: 3429:

Conspiracy theories and assumptions of bad faith don't belong here

3360: 2000:

As interesting as the case might seem, let me remind everyone that

599:

where an editor found a statement from a textbook published by the

3522: 3514: 3510: 2464:

I have taken this advice and raised a Thread on the Talk page of

1348:

from time-to-time. I believe we should open an RfC on the issue.

1769:

If this is the case, why is Quackwatch cited multiple times in

348: 3051:

What does that have to do with the reliability of Quackwatch?

2556:. The Remedies section addressing Fyslee's behavior starts: 2037:@Moxy - It is not reliable for the article on acupuncture but 1238:(emphasis in original). We even have a handy policy shortcut: 991:

controversies. The latter will use QW and similar sources. --

2288:...i am assuming its all about Quackwatch as a source no? -- 2129:? And you realize your "@"'s aren't pinging anyone, right? -- 1194:, and the consensus has been that QuackWatch is not reliable 3368:

from the "request for clarification" to the end of the page.

2618:", or how is it put in English (The Fox and the Grapes)? ;-) 2212:

Where is the consensus that Quackwatch is a reliable source?

2107:

There is a stable consensus that QuackWatch is not reliable

1888:, keep in mind that your statement is libelous and violates 3170:, as it pertains to any potential COI you may have in your 2244:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Quackwatch

2210:@NeilN I did not ask you whether QW was reliable, I asked 1470:

Why is this conversation about QuackWatch happening here?

3654:, we shouldn't use QW for a claim of medical efficacy. We 2572:

for using such sources for the three reasons cited above.

441:

for a list of criteria to consider). I do not advocating

126:

3) The articles may or may not be peer-reviewed. The FAQs

1474:

doesn't make mention of QuackWatch so there's nothing to

3363:

did a good job with that essay. That is my position too.

2937:

I also don't agree with another part of your statement:

172:"Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"" 3150:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

2501:

Thank you for clearing that up. I was going to link to

2411:

I agree with Yobol above, just have to add one thing: "

2282:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

1525:

Well, the "parallel" argument you're making isn't very

18:

Knowledge talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

3278:, among others, and was paid handsomely by them. Now 2004:

and we shouldn't be speculating here on such things.

1851:

Well I think it is quite easy to see that Quackwatch

351:, or because it aligns with their deeply held POVs. 207:

It depends on context. For example, a statement like

3166:

Perhaps you could explain your use of the qualifier

2537:

removed the word "unreliable" from the title of the

2264:, I would not take their statement at face value. -- 1372:, so that wouldn't give him a conflict of interest. 964:Surely this encyclopedia isn't THAT broken, is it? 778:

for the specific statement being made in the article

3366:I suspect other editors would benefit from reading 1284:be used heavily, or even at all, in our article on 215:tells us that Quackwatch is fine for commentary on 3463:Susan Gerbic speaks about controlling a team of " 2621:As pointed out above, QuackWatch is not reliable 2590:: that the source is biased and it should not be 2558:"Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources...." 728:weight, not with reliability, and the policy at 3560:. Seriously, that can't be happening, can it? 683:Guy, are you sure you didn't mean "déjà-woo"? 151: 2685:Never mind the quality, feel the width my son! 1892:. If you repeat it you'll likely get blocked. 597:a discussion on the acupuncture talk page here 301:From the way I understand things, claims like 3015:providing that the subject is well researched 1405:Personally I think that'd be a nice gesture! 368:up with cardiac tamponade or sepsis I guess. 1014:more than once, and this was the conclusion. 258:Yes, I can see that. But returning to the 3434:The following discussion has been closed. 2564:unreliable, it is clear that ArbCom found 2196:. Can you link to the Arbcom statement? -- 1466:Why is a discussion about QuackWatch here? 160: 3650:reliability, even if peer-reviewed. Per 2616:Quite sour, said the fox of rowan berries 2547:and similar partisan sites as references 1344:and most recently (current I think) here. 437:Quackwatch with more formal sources (see 2708:that provide reliable health information 2041:seems determined to promote this source 154:"Massage Therapy: Riddled with Quackery" 1827:, I agree that QW should never be used 166: 14: 1190:There's been discussions over this at 732:is pretty clear on how to handle it. 329:might have to look into this further. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3461:How's this for advocacy/astroturfing? 3266:himself, and that has been very rare. 3253:National Council Against Health Fraud 2813:Are you calling me a "fringe editor"? 2531:Barrett_v._Rosenthal Arbcom Decision 1253:Not sure where you think I am being 25: 3003:showing the efficay of acupuncture? 2280:From what I see they gave the link 1644:, but you can't say more than that. 23: 3507:James Randi Educational Foundation 2930:they provide, and good enough for 129:on the Quackwatch website states " 24: 3701: 3600:had never heard of Jenny McCarthy 2543:"3.2) Fyslee has repeatedly used 1975:read in the decision, which said: 389:acupressure "delusional nonsense" 152:Stephen Barrett (March 9, 2006). 111:I have recently been editing the 1427:Done! ...with further apologies. 131:Are your articles peer-reviewed? 29: 3333:, in December 2005 (on WP) you 2758:Knowledge:Ownership of articles 828:Committee for Skeptical Inquiry 343:You don't need to worry about 145: 13: 1: 3208:Thank you. Could you please 2928:different type of information 840:The Nightingale Collaboration 824:New England Skeptical Society 3582:02:02, April 29, 2015‎ (UTC) 3154:self-identified on this page 2084:consensus to take it out. -- 1364:: I think you misread what 217:Traditional Chinese medicine 7: 3498:I further commented there: 3242:Healthfraud Discussion List 1360:, regarding your statement 10: 3706: 3607:17:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC) 3593:Reply to the main question 3552:01:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 3536:16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 3492:19:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC) 3143:15:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1749:15:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1699:13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1676:13:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1664:13:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1608:13:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1595:12:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1565:12:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1550:12:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1521:12:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1500:11:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1432:12:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1423:12:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1401:12:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1390:12:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1353:10:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1328:03:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1309:23:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1295:22:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1275:22:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1262:22:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1249:21:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1224:19:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1212:16:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1162:14:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1147:04:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1124:04:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1102:04:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1073:10:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1054:16:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1024:16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 1001:03:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 974:02:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 959:01:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 930:00:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 915:00:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 891:23:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 804:22:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 794:22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 767:22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 742:22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 715:22:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 695:22:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 674:21:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 655:08:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 645:08:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 614:21:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 601:Royal Society of Chemistry 586:21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 566:21:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 540:21:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 510:20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 499:20:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 486:20:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 468:20:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 455:19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 402:22:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 382:08:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC) 361:19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 345:search engine optimization 339:19:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 322:16:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 297:14:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 282:13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 267:13:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 254:13:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 239:12:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 229:12:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 202:11:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 2761:ground. Let us move on!-- 1573:only, not content. Your 983:are listed at the top of 752:A convenient little break 514:Extensively discussed at 3690:02:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC) 3666:04:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC) 3642:17:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC) 3437:Please do not modify it. 3402:03:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC) 3380:17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 3348:16:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 3310:15:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 3292:06:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 3228:18:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC) 3204:03:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC) 3189:02:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC) 1831:a MEDRS source, IOW not 3093:17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 3084:16:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 3070:16:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 3061:15:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 3043:11:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 3038:but I doubt it is many. 3027:09:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 3008:15:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2984:05:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC) 2967:19:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 2955:05:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC) 2879:Quackwatch IS reliable 2869:18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 2851:15:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 2832:14:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 2818:10:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 2786:17:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2771:15:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2720:15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2698:14:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2680:argument from authority 2650:14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2635:14:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2609:13:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2582:08:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2533:: Although it is true 2515:03:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2473:11:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2424:11:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2407:03:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2389:02:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2365:01:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2298:01:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2274:01:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2256:00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2220:00:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2206:00:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2188:00:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2170:00:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2152:00:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2139:00:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2121:11:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2103:00:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2094:18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 2073:03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 2053:18:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 2014:11:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1996:07:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1970:06:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1955:11:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1940:05:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1910:03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1881:18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 1864:16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 1845:03:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1818:15:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 1801:03:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1782:15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 1765:14:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 1983: 3357:WP:Lunatic charlatans 2919:inaccurate and wrong. 1978: 526:when appropriate and 42:of past discussions. 3469:organize on Facebook 3148:Here's the arbcase: 2158:Quackwatch#Influence 848:Respectful Insolence 182:on 29 September 2010 170:(30 December 2007). 2922:I don't think that 2063:, you're wrong. -- 920:it over and again. 433:NB that I advocate 3505:(president of the 3465:guerrilla skeptics 3210:explain this then? 3152:(BullRangifer has 2838:canary in the mine 2125:Have you searched 1235:depends on context 530:when appropriate. 490:OK...users citing 430:source instead. 107:a reliable source? 3628: 3614:comment added by 3590: 3589: 3581: 3567:comment added by 3346: 2825:User:BullRangifer 2811:User:BullRangifer 1240:WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 899:User: A1candidate 896:User:WhatamIdoing 672: 643: 380: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3697: 3627: 3608: 3606: 3580: 3561: 3489: 3487: 3482: 3477: 3439: 3426: 3425: 3394: 3345: 3220: 3181: 3172:quite determined 3091: 3068: 3041: 3019:Jayaguru-Shishya 3006: 2965: 2874:Jayaguru-Shishya 2861:Jayaguru-Shishya 2830: 2816: 2627:Jayaguru-Shishya 2503:my comments here 2471: 2466:Talk:Acupuncture 2416:Jayaguru-Shishya 2403: 2361: 2353: 2270: 2218: 2202: 2166: 2150: 2135: 2113:Jayaguru-Shishya 2101: 2090: 2061:User:A1candidate 2049: 2006:Jayaguru-Shishya 1947:Jayaguru-Shishya 1862: 1825:Jayaguru-Shishya 1810:Jayaguru-Shishya 1780: 1757:Jayaguru-Shishya 1697: 1695: 1688: 1674: 1662: 1660: 1653: 1606: 1593: 1591: 1584: 1563: 1548: 1546: 1539: 1519: 1498: 1496: 1489: 1430: 1421: 1419: 1412: 1399: 1388: 1386: 1379: 1351: 1334:@BullFangifer. 1307: 1273: 1260: 1231:Proper sourcing 1222: 1204:Jayaguru-Shishya 1192:Talk:Acupuncture 1071: 1046:Jayaguru-Shishya 1016:Jayaguru-Shishya 1012:Talk:Acupuncture 947: 941: 887: 802: 774:WP:NOTGOODSOURCE 763: 713: 691: 687: 666: 653: 637: 584: 508: 497: 466: 439:WP:NOTGOODSOURCE 390: 374: 295: 265: 237: 200: 192: 191: 189: 187: 178:. Archived from 164: 158: 157: 149: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3705: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3609: 3604: 3595: 3562: 3485: 3480: 3475: 3473: 3435: 3424: 3392: 3339:called yourself 3218: 3179: 3129: 3089: 3066: 3039: 3004: 2963: 2828: 2814: 2469: 2401: 2359: 2347: 2268: 2216: 2200: 2164: 2148: 2133: 2099: 2088: 2047: 1898:Stephen Barrett 1860: 1778: 1691: 1684: 1682: 1672: 1656: 1649: 1647: 1604: 1587: 1580: 1578: 1561: 1542: 1535: 1533: 1517: 1492: 1485: 1483: 1468: 1428: 1415: 1408: 1406: 1397: 1382: 1375: 1373: 1349: 1305: 1271: 1258: 1220: 1069: 985:Talk:Quackwatch 945: 939: 902:User: DrChrissy 885: 800: 761: 754: 711: 697: 689: 685: 651: 582: 506: 495: 464: 388: 293: 263: 235: 198: 196: 195: 185: 183: 165: 161: 150: 146: 109: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3703: 3693: 3692: 3679: 3676: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3594: 3591: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3558:ADVOCACY DUCKS 3544:David Tornheim 3540: 3539: 3538: 3528:David Tornheim 3496: 3495: 3494: 3455: 3454: 3441: 3440: 3431: 3430: 3423: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3364: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3271: 3267: 3256: 3249: 3245: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3164: 3163: 3161:evidence page. 3157: 3128: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3010: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2942: 2935: 2920: 2912: 2888:New York Times 2884: 2877: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2701: 2700: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2619: 2574:David Tornheim 2529:Regarding the 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2409: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2284:that leads to 2105: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 1998: 1988:David Tornheim 1984: 1976: 1942: 1932:David Tornheim 1894:Joseph Mercola 1849: 1848: 1847: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1732:Joseph Mercola 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1600: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1132: 1112: 1108: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1007: 1003: 988: 980: 936: 880: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 859: 806: 753: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 719: 718: 717: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 682: 629: 626: 618: 617: 616: 590: 589: 588: 569: 568: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 365: 364: 363: 194: 193: 159: 143: 142: 141: 140: 136: 135: 124: 121: 108: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3702: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3680: 3677: 3673: 3672: 3667: 3664: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3648:that source's 3645: 3644: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3601: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3559: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3499: 3497: 3493: 3490: 3488: 3483: 3478: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3438: 3433: 3432: 3428: 3427: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3272: 3268: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3211: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3173: 3169: 3162: 3158: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3133: 3094: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3044: 3037: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3011: 3009: 3002: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2943: 2940: 2936: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2910: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2882: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2826: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2812: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2759: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2686: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2549: 2546: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2474: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2410: 2408: 2405: 2404: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2373: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2363: 2362: 2351: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2272: 2271: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2242:From 2007 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2204: 2203: 2195: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2168: 2167: 2159: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2146: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2137: 2136: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2104: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2092: 2091: 2083: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2051: 2050: 2043: 2040: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1982: 1977: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1943: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1736: 1733: 1728: 1724: 1700: 1696: 1694: 1689: 1687: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1659: 1654: 1652: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1609: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1590: 1585: 1583: 1576: 1575:Other sources 1572: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1545: 1540: 1538: 1528: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1495: 1490: 1488: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1433: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1420: 1418: 1413: 1411: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1385: 1380: 1378: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1346: 1343: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1303: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1293: 1292: 1287: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1246: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1234: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1008: 1004: 1002: 998: 994: 989: 986: 981: 977: 976: 975: 971: 967: 962: 961: 960: 956: 952: 944: 943:better source 937: 933: 932: 931: 927: 923: 918: 917: 916: 912: 908: 903: 900: 897: 894: 893: 892: 889: 888: 881: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 863: 860: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 836:Dcscience.net 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 813: 810: 809: 807: 805: 797: 796: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 770: 768: 765: 764: 756: 755: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 720: 716: 708: 703: 696: 693: 688: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 670: 665: 664: 658: 657: 656: 648: 647: 646: 641: 636: 635: 630: 627: 624: 619: 615: 611: 607: 602: 598: 594: 591: 587: 580: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 567: 564: 563: 557: 556: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 512: 511: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 493: 489: 488: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 470: 469: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 452: 448: 444: 440: 436: 431: 427: 403: 399: 395: 385: 384: 383: 378: 373: 372: 366: 362: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 341: 340: 336: 332: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 319: 315: 310: 304: 300: 299: 298: 290: 285: 284: 283: 279: 275: 270: 269: 268: 261: 257: 256: 255: 251: 247: 242: 241: 240: 232: 231: 230: 226: 222: 218: 214: 210: 206: 205: 204: 203: 181: 177: 173: 169: 163: 156:. Quackwatch. 155: 148: 144: 138: 137: 132: 128: 125: 122: 119: 118: 117: 114: 106: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3660:Arthur Rubin 3655: 3647: 3610:— Preceding 3599: 3596: 3563:— Preceding 3503:D. J. Grothe 3476:petrarchan47 3472: 3464: 3451:Petrarchan47 3446: 3436: 3389: 3372:BullRangifer 3331:BullRangifer 3302:BullRangifer 3284:BullRangifer 3279: 3259: 3215: 3196:BullRangifer 3176: 3171: 3167: 3165: 3135:BullRangifer 3131: 3130: 3035:Some do e.g. 3014: 2976:BullRangifer 2947:BullRangifer 2938: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2915: 2908: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2880: 2856: 2843:BullRangifer 2808: 2778:BullRangifer 2707: 2684: 2622: 2615: 2595: 2591: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2542: 2507:BullRangifer 2461: 2412: 2399: 2357: 2346: 2266: 2211: 2198: 2162: 2144: 2131: 2108: 2086: 2081: 2080:it out, get 2065:BullRangifer 2048:A1candidate 2046: 2036: 1979: 1962:BullRangifer 1927: 1902:BullRangifer 1856: 1852: 1837:BullRangifer 1832: 1828: 1793:BullRangifer 1741:BullRangifer 1737: 1726: 1721: 1692: 1685: 1657: 1650: 1645: 1637: 1588: 1581: 1574: 1570: 1543: 1536: 1530: 1526: 1512: 1493: 1486: 1475: 1469: 1416: 1409: 1383: 1376: 1366:BullRangifer 1361: 1335: 1320:BullRangifer 1315: 1301: 1289: 1280: 1243: 1232: 1229: 1199: 1195: 1188: 1154:BullRangifer 1139:WhatamIdoing 1135:BullRangifer 1116:BullRangifer 1042: 993:BullRangifer 951:WhatamIdoing 886:A1candidate 884: 861: 856:Ben Goldacre 852:Edzard Ernst 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 786:WhatamIdoing 777: 762:A1candidate 760: 734:WhatamIdoing 661: 632: 593:WhatamIdoing 560: 447:WhatamIdoing 442: 434: 432: 428: 424: 394:WhatamIdoing 369: 353:WhatamIdoing 307: 302: 274:Kingofaces43 246:Kingofaces43 208: 197: 184:. Retrieved 180:the original 162: 147: 130: 110: 75: 43: 37: 3276:Hulda Clark 3156:as Fyslee.) 2535:this Motion 2002:WP:NOTFORUM 1833:in place of 1771:Acupuncture 1286:acupuncture 1255:belligerent 1065:Acupuncture 1061:Acupuncture 832:Quackometer 289:Acupuncture 113:Acupuncture 36:This is an 3447:unreliable 3353:Sarah (SV) 3343:Sarah (SV) 3282:a COI. -- 2894:magazine, 2566:Quackwatch 2545:Quackwatch 2039:User:NeilN 1928:ad hominem 1370:QuackWatch 1302:The Lancet 846:, Orac's 816:QuackWatch 812:Unreliable 623:Quackwatch 260:Acupunture 186:3 November 176:Quackwatch 168:Barrett, S 105:Quackwatch 95:Archive 20 87:Archive 15 82:Archive 14 76:Archive 13 70:Archive 12 65:Archive 11 60:Archive 10 3090:DrChrissy 3067:DrChrissy 3040:DrChrissy 3005:DrChrissy 2972:DrChrissy 2964:DrChrissy 2829:DrChrissy 2815:DrChrissy 2596:obviously 2470:DrChrissy 2217:DrChrissy 2149:DrChrissy 2100:DrChrissy 1861:DrChrissy 1789:DrChrissy 1779:DrChrissy 1723:DrChrissy 1673:DrChrissy 1605:DrChrissy 1562:DrChrissy 1518:DrChrissy 1429:DrChrissy 1398:DrChrissy 1358:DrChrissy 1350:DrChrissy 1306:DrChrissy 1272:DrChrissy 1259:DrChrissy 1221:DrChrissy 1070:DrChrissy 801:DrChrissy 730:WP:YESPOV 712:DrChrissy 707:WP:Parity 652:DrChrissy 583:DrChrissy 528:WP:FRINGE 507:DrChrissy 496:DrChrissy 474:WP:PARITY 465:DrChrissy 435:replacing 392:effect. 294:DrChrissy 264:DrChrissy 236:DrChrissy 213:WP:PARITY 199:DrChrissy 3652:WP:MEDRS 3624:contribs 3612:unsigned 3577:contribs 3565:unsigned 3519:skeptics 3515:skeptics 3296:Pinging 3159:and the 2262:involved 1775:WP:MEDRS 1571:behavior 1558:WP:MEDRS 1527:parallel 1509:WP:MEDRS 1472:WP:MEDRS 1291:MastCell 1245:MastCell 1129:LesVegas 1094:LesVegas 966:LesVegas 922:LesVegas 907:LesVegas 862:Reliable 844:xkcd.com 722:LesVegas 625:article. 606:LesVegas 579:WP:MEDRS 562:MastCell 524:WP:MEDRS 492:WP:MEDRS 443:blanking 331:LesVegas 314:LesVegas 292:quality. 221:Johnuniq 3616:RayvnEQ 3523:skeptic 3511:skeptic 3393:Georgia 3280:that is 3264:Barrett 3219:Georgia 3180:Georgia 2962:pieces. 2640:listen. 2592:misused 2539:section 2462:Comment 2393:Thanks 2246:. -- 1857:ancient 935:wrong). 39:archive 3663:(talk) 3634:Jytdog 3605:~Rayvn 3168:itself 2916:per se 2904:per se 2881:per se 2857:per se 2623:per se 2570:Fyslee 2562:always 2215:Thanks 2109:per se 2082:actual 1890:WP:BLP 1642:WP:PAG 1513:ad hoc 1480:WP:RSN 1341:, here 1316:Lancet 1281:anyone 1233:always 1196:per se 782:WP:DUE 769:(UTC) 726:WP:DUE 518:, see 516:WP:RSN 463:stand. 3569:Atsme 3390:Sandy 3298:Sandy 3270:list. 3216:Sandy 3177:Sandy 3127:Query 3076:Yobol 3053:Yobol 2763:Aspro 2712:Yobol 2690:Aspro 2642:Yobol 2601:Yobol 2588:noted 2395:Yobol 2381:Yobol 686:Atsme 669:Help! 640:Help! 532:Yobol 478:Yobol 377:Help! 16:< 3686:talk 3638:talk 3620:talk 3573:talk 3548:talk 3532:talk 3422:More 3398:Talk 3376:talk 3335:said 3306:talk 3288:talk 3260:2005 3224:Talk 3200:talk 3185:Talk 3139:talk 3080:talk 3057:talk 3023:talk 2980:talk 2951:talk 2932:JAMA 2924:JAMA 2909:JAMA 2900:NEJM 2896:JAMA 2892:Time 2865:talk 2847:talk 2782:talk 2767:talk 2716:talk 2694:talk 2646:talk 2631:talk 2605:talk 2578:talk 2511:talk 2420:talk 2400:Neil 2385:talk 2377:JAMA 2372:here 2358:Neil 2350:Moxy 2294:talk 2290:Moxy 2267:Neil 2252:talk 2248:Moxy 2199:Neil 2194:Moxy 2192:Hey 2184:talk 2180:Moxy 2163:Neil 2160:. -- 2132:Neil 2117:talk 2087:Neil 2069:talk 2010:talk 1992:talk 1966:talk 1951:talk 1936:talk 1930:. -- 1924:here 1920:here 1916:here 1906:talk 1886:Moxy 1877:talk 1873:Moxy 1841:talk 1814:talk 1797:talk 1761:talk 1745:talk 1727:They 1638:most 1324:talk 1208:talk 1158:talk 1143:talk 1120:talk 1098:talk 1050:talk 1020:talk 997:talk 970:talk 955:talk 926:talk 911:talk 854:and 790:talk 738:talk 610:talk 536:talk 520:here 482:talk 451:talk 398:talk 357:talk 349:free 335:talk 318:talk 278:talk 250:talk 225:talk 188:2010 3682:TFD 3656:can 3370:-- 3361:Guy 2127:RSN 1686:Zad 1651:Zad 1582:Zad 1537:Zad 1487:Zad 1482:. 1410:Zad 1377:Zad 826:", 822:, " 820:SBM 784:. 663:Guy 634:Guy 371:Guy 103:Is 3688:) 3640:) 3626:) 3622:• 3579:) 3575:• 3550:) 3534:) 3481:คุ 3400:) 3378:) 3359:. 3308:) 3290:) 3226:) 3202:) 3187:) 3141:) 3082:) 3059:) 3025:) 2982:) 2953:) 2898:, 2890:, 2867:) 2849:) 2784:) 2769:) 2718:) 2696:) 2648:) 2633:) 2607:) 2580:) 2550:." 2513:) 2422:) 2387:) 2355:-- 2296:) 2254:) 2186:) 2145:is 2119:) 2071:) 2012:) 1994:) 1968:) 1953:) 1938:) 1908:) 1879:) 1853:is 1843:) 1829:as 1816:) 1799:) 1763:) 1747:) 1693:68 1658:68 1589:68 1544:68 1494:68 1476:do 1417:68 1384:68 1326:) 1210:) 1160:) 1145:) 1122:) 1100:) 1052:) 1022:) 999:) 972:) 957:) 946:}} 940:{{ 928:) 913:) 842:, 838:, 834:, 830:, 818:, 792:) 740:) 612:) 538:) 484:) 453:) 400:) 359:) 337:) 320:) 280:) 252:) 227:) 219:. 174:. 91:→ 3684:( 3636:( 3618:( 3571:( 3546:( 3530:( 3486:ก 3396:( 3374:( 3304:( 3286:( 3222:( 3198:( 3183:( 3137:( 3078:( 3055:( 3021:( 2978:( 2949:( 2863:( 2845:( 2823:@ 2809:@ 2780:( 2765:( 2714:( 2692:( 2644:( 2629:( 2603:( 2576:( 2509:( 2418:( 2402:N 2383:( 2360:N 2352:: 2348:@ 2292:( 2269:N 2250:( 2201:N 2182:( 2165:N 2134:N 2115:( 2089:N 2067:( 2008:( 1990:( 1964:( 1949:( 1934:( 1904:( 1875:( 1839:( 1812:( 1795:( 1777:. 1759:( 1743:( 1322:( 1206:( 1156:( 1141:( 1118:( 1096:( 1048:( 1018:( 995:( 987:. 968:( 953:( 924:( 909:( 882:- 788:( 736:( 690:☯ 671:) 667:( 642:) 638:( 608:( 534:( 480:( 449:( 396:( 379:) 375:( 355:( 333:( 316:( 276:( 248:( 223:( 190:. 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 13 - Knowledge

Index