This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Meg Patterson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A User has removed the following sentence, despite it being properly referenced: She established that electro-acupuncture analgesia, usually applied to control pain post-surgery, could also significantly ameliorate the symptoms of opiate withdrawal. Mais oui! ( talk) 12:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
An assertion like "Mainstream scientists have dismissed NET as quackery" gives a strong impression that the therapy has been subject to studies by mainstream science, and found it faulty, but the source provided does no such thing - in fact it sais quite the opposite, that mainstream science has NOT studied the phenomenon. The wording is thus misleading. The general tone of the source is one of providing anecdotal evidence in favor of the treatment; IMO using it to support calling "quackery" because of an in-passing comment largely misrepresents the article. I don't deny that the therapy might have been viewed as pseudo-science, but a much better reference will be needed to claim that in Wikipedia's voice.
The only part of the article that could remotely support this claim are two convoluted sentences ("You would be forgive n for thinking the doctor a quack. This is precidely[sic] how the medical establishment has viewed Meg Patterson's neuro-electric therapy"). This would require require WP:SYNTH to arrive to such general claim, as it only supports mentioning that some unidentified mainstream scientist have expressed an opinion that this is quackery, based on its superficial features (the weirdness of expecting electric currents "behind the ears" to heal). Definitely not proof of scientific consensus" describing this as quackery, I'm afraid. Diego ( talk) 12:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't aware of that arbitration result (BTW, shouldn't that radical exception to WP:V be included at WP:BURDEN?)I don't think so because we don't need sources for obvious things like the earth going round the sun, or that giving different kinds of electric shock corresponds to a cure for addiction to particular substances. That's where we're at and you're editing against sense. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
We're not saying smoking causes cancer, we're saying most doctors believe smoking causes cancer, so it's not biomedical information.That's a trick from the woo camp, and we ain't having none of that. (We're not saying patients get better, we're saying patients feel better.)
Can it really be true that different addictions to different sorts of drugs respond to different sorts of electrical waveforms giving you shocks? It’s a highly reductionist view of what addiction might be and smacks of pseudoscience.
There does appear to have been a 2012 review conducted in Scotland, NeuroElectric Therapy™ in Opiate Detoxification Fingleton and Matheson - Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, December 2012. Unfortunately it's not online, though appears to be excerpted here. Money quote: "The evidence base for the use of NET™ in opiate detoxification is generally poor. NET™ was found to be no more effective than placebo at reducing withdrawal and craving during opiate detoxification.". AIUI the device is still marketed by Patterson's son. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
behaviour and further research of good methodological quality is required." that is not the language that would be used for an obvious pseudoscience one. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn, please stop pushing the bogus and too generic wording of "medical establishment called this quackery". The New Scientist is a medical magazine, the lowest admissible quality barely barely over the WP:MEDORG threshold; the sentence about the medical establishment is an in-passing mention and not the focus of the article.
And it is not even gramatical. If we deconstruct the two sentences like you're doing, the precedent of "this" in "This is precisely how the medical establishment has viewed Meg Patterson's neuro-electric therapy" would be "thinking the doctor is a quack", but the adjective "quack" is applied to "doctor" and the "medical establishment" is applied to "therapy". The composition of these sentences does not add up as the generic "medical establishment dismissed Patterson's therapy as "quackery"" that you wrote.
I've rewritten the Effectiveness section to something closer to what can be extracted from those two sentences. If you want to use the article to support a claim of quackery, please use a wording like that, being as close as possible to the source per WP:STICKTOSOURCES. Diego ( talk) 15:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
In 1980 Patterson conducted a survey, and successfully contacted 66 out of 130 former patients. She found that 53 reported being drug free. [1] In 1981, Philip Connell attempted to replicate these findings in a comparison with methadone treatment for opiate withdraw. Connell concluded that the effects of NES were "not incompatiable with a rather ineffective treatment or even simply a placebo effect." Patterson took issue with Connell's methodology, including small sample size, high rates of attrition, [a] and insufficient training for nurses providing the treatment. She published her response in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1985. [1] [2]
Later studies have failed to find evidence that NES was more effective than a placebo. [3] [4] [5] However, NET may have influenced the dosing used by similar therapies decades later. [6] As recently as 2006, Laurence Gruer of NHS Health Scotland, suggested NET may treat withdrawal symptoms, and others such as Ken Barrie of Alcohol and Drug Studies at the University of the West of Scotland, described the research as being in an early stages, requiring additional study. [7]
Notes
References
- ^ a b c Sattuar O (16 January 1986). "Cross currents in treating addiction". New Scientist (1491): 57. Retrieved September 30, 2017.
{{ cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=
( help)- ^ Patterson, MA (1985). "Electrostimulation and opiate withdrawal". British Journal of Psychiatry: 146:213. PMID 3872148. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=
( help)- ^ Platt, Jerome J. (2000). Cocaine Addiction: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Harvard University Press. p. 254. ISBN 9780674001787. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ Alling, Frederic A.; Johnson, Bruce D.; Elmoghazy, Elsayed (1990). "Cranial electrostimulation (CES) use in the detoxification of opiate-dependent patients". Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 7 (3): 173–180. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(90)90019-M. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
- ^ Gariti, Peter; Auriacombe, Marc; Incmikoski, Ray; McLellan, A.Thomas; Patterson, Lorne; Dhopesh, Vasant; Mezochow, John; Patterson, Meg; O'Brien, Charles (1992). "A randomized double-blind study of neuroelectric therapy in opiate and cocaine detoxification". Journal of Substance Abuse. 4 (3): 299–308. doi: 10.1016/0899-3289(92)90037-X. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
- ^ Knotkova, Helena; Rasche, Dirk (Nov 15, 2014). Textbook of Neuromodulation: Principles, Methods and Clinical Applications. Springer. pp. 10–11. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ "Electric therapy trial for heroin". BBC News. June 16, 2006. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
I'm personally fine citing the two journal studies based on the abstracts, since we do have access to the book which references them, and who has presumably read them carefully, probably with a higher level of competence than we have, and summarized them in a secondary source. Basically, I'm citing the secondary source and giving their own citations in turn in the case that a reader is particularly interested and has access. Anyway, this attempts to cover everything in a fair amount of detail, rather than oversimplifying down to a single sentence, saying "pseudoscience" as if it was a magic word and calling it a day. And when all is said and done, there appear to be two sides to the story: people who think the case is closed and we're pretty much done here, and people who are open to additional research. However, there does not appear to be a serious and independent side anywhere claiming that the research so far represents strong empirical support for effectiveness.
Overall, she seems to have been a fairly legitimate scientist testing a new treatment approach, but one who in the end just happened to be wrong. At least two of her three objections to Connell seem like unquestionably legitimate methodological concerns about a pretty objectively weak study. Although the self-selection bias in her own survey pretty much ruins it (i.e., if I'm passed out in a crack house with a needle in my arm, I'm not very likely to respond to a survey). GMG talk 12:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If the problem is with the BBC source, then that can be nixed and I won't debate it. Until the point that I posted this, no one had reverted it. So we get something like this instead:
In 1980 Patterson conducted a survey, and successfully contacted 66 out of 130 former patients. She found that 53 reported being drug free. [1] In 1981, Philip Connell attempted to replicate these findings in a comparison with methadone treatment for opiate withdraw. Connell concluded that the effects of NES were "not incompatiable with a rather ineffective treatment or even simply a placebo effect." Patterson took issue with Connell's methodology, including small sample size, high rates of attrition, [a] and insufficient training for nurses providing the treatment. She published her response in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1985. [1] [2] Later studies have failed to find evidence that NES was more effective than a placebo. [3] [4] [5] However, NET may have influenced the dosing used by similar therapies decades later. [6]
Notes
References
- ^ a b c Sattuar O (16 January 1986). "Cross currents in treating addiction". New Scientist (1491): 57. Retrieved September 30, 2017.
{{ cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=
( help)- ^ Patterson, MA (1985). "Electrostimulation and opiate withdrawal". British Journal of Psychiatry: 146:213. PMID 3872148. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=
( help)- ^ Platt, Jerome J. (2000). Cocaine Addiction: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Harvard University Press. p. 254. ISBN 9780674001787. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ Alling, Frederic A.; Johnson, Bruce D.; Elmoghazy, Elsayed (1990). "Cranial electrostimulation (CES) use in the detoxification of opiate-dependent patients". Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 7 (3): 173–180. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(90)90019-M. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
- ^ Gariti, Peter; Auriacombe, Marc; Incmikoski, Ray; McLellan, A.Thomas; Patterson, Lorne; Dhopesh, Vasant; Mezochow, John; Patterson, Meg; O'Brien, Charles (1992). "A randomized double-blind study of neuroelectric therapy in opiate and cocaine detoxification". Journal of Substance Abuse. 4 (3): 299–308. doi: 10.1016/0899-3289(92)90037-X. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
- ^ Knotkova, Helena; Rasche, Dirk (Nov 15, 2014). Textbook of Neuromodulation: Principles, Methods and Clinical Applications. Springer. pp. 10–11. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)
The thing that refutes the quackery charge is stacking up an outdated lower quality source against a more up to day higher quality one. If you want to call it quackery, and challenge Platt's characterization of the issue, you're going to have to do better than the New Scientist source. GMG talk 13:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article include the following in the further reading section? GMG talk 15:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
When there are parents as desperate as that, it's no wonder that the perpetrators of these sort of "cures" will expend any amount of effort to market their product. We ought not let our encyclopedia be used for that sort of marketing, no matter how indirectly. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)I am at my wits end trying to help my daughter with drug and alchol addiction. She has been through several traditional drug rehab programs without success. Please help
For none of these ... have promising findings been observed."; "
There was no significant difference between the active or placebo groups, suggesting that placebo was as effective as active NET in reducing drug withdrawal or craving during cocaine and opiate detoxification." (a single primary study comparing NET with placebo); "
Indeed, this study raises more questions than it answers. Certainly electrostimulation does not seem to fulfil the promises made on its behalf as an improved technique for withdrawing opiate addicts from their drugs." (a single primary study comparing NET with progressive methadone withdrawal). I'm sorry, but that's just evidence that there's no evidence of effectiveness for NET. We need to put that into the context of mainstream opinion and for that we need sources that actually offer an opinion, which Quackometer does. The latter two wouldn't be usable in the article to address the question of effectiveness of NET, but Quackometer does at least speak to the question of how NET is perceived and the scientific context by which one might approach the WP:REDFLAG-remarkable notion of passing electric current through drug users to overcome addiction. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
detail that we have nowhere else currently- And detail we have no good reason to believe is accurate, because it has no references and no editorial oversight... because it's a blog. It's not even an op-ed piece (and no idea why it's referred to above as one), which would require someone, somewhere, who actually publishes something for a living, to at least read the thing over once and suppose that it didn't contain glaring inaccuracies or omissions. It's written by a non-notable person with presumably no education or academic background that would qualify them to write on these subjects, since they explicitly refuse to address their qualification because they don't
want to offer chances for my critics to start fights( [14]). It's not affiliated with any organization that would lead us to suppose this guy might get sacked if he did a crappy job. It's a guy with a laptop and and internet connection, or in other words, a blog.
The mainstream scientific opinion is that there is no evidence it's effective, full stop.That's where the disagreement lies. Stopping there excludes information on why the science failed, what biases come into play, and the larger context. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, which this is not. This is covered extensively in peer reviewed literature in reputable journals, which are themselves covered in published books. If context is needed, then it can be provided without needing blogs by unqualified commentators who are themselves admittedly getting their own information from sites like this one. GMG talk 16:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This is covered extensively in peer reviewed literature in reputable journalsWhile I may be mistaken, I'm not seeing any evidence that this is correct. Nor is there any other coverage that I'm seeing on
why the science failed, what biases come into play, and the larger context.-- Ronz ( talk) 16:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The evidence base for the use of NET in opiate detoxification is generally poor. NET was found to be no more effective than placebo at reducing withdrawal and craving during opiate detoxification.Further, they concluded that the longer term studies that reported positive outcomes were sufficiently methodologically weak so as to be essentially useless, with pretty crap follow up, and either a basically meaningless control group, or no control group at all. This included not only Patterson's own research, but also the exact paper by Gossop et al cited in the New Scientist piece.
primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, or
only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues, which is what PARITY is designed to allow for. GMG talk 17:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
covered extensively in peer reviewed literature. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"one should generally avoid providing external links to: 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.")Alexbrn has already demonstrated that Quackometer has had coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources so we've a good case for it meeting WP:GNG. The exception is valid, especially in light of WP:ELMAYBE:
"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."There's no doubt that the Quackometer article about NET contains an analysis of sources concerning NET in the light of current scientific opinion, which is exactly what we want our secondary sources to do. WP:PARITY has consensus for a reason: it covers a gap that would otherwise exist when dealing with sources for fringe topics. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
If coverage in RS isn't flashy enough, go write a blog and link to that from Wikipedia instead.GMG talk 17:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Arbcom told me I don't need sources at all.I'd say moving from that to
Blogs are a reliable source.is actually quite a bit of improvement. GMG talk 18:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia."In addition, the lack of mainstream criticism may, in itself, be taken as justification to entirely remove the fringe claims made by Patterson.
"Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether."( WP:ONEWAY) As a content guideline, WP:FRINGE enjoys site-wide consensus and you need stronger arguments than those you've mustered so far to disqualify its application here. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues. GMG talk 16:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venuesto
only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in peer reviewed publications, literature reviews, and books. GMG talk 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This article said surprising little about the person. The WEIGHT was all on the celebrities she treated and the technique. I have revised this to make the article focus on her. I moved the stuff about the technique into a note. The discussion of whether NET is useful to treat addiction should really be in the electroacupuncture article. Jytdog ( talk) 03:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Information that is not typically biomedical ... if the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information.And you should be careful that bending over backward too far can lead to back injuries. GMG talk 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
promoting what is essentially snake oilI've not said anything remotely akin to promotion. That that is the assumption is probably a good indicator of why the discussion has gone exactly nowhere, and why editors are willing to flatly ignore policy. GMG talk 19:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Getting back on topic, I'm now not sure whether NET is best characterized as Cranial electrotherapy stimulation since PMID 23954780 seems to categorize it as Transcranial alternating current stimulation (now there's a poor article). Alexbrn ( talk) 11:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to Ozzie10aaaa at WT:MED who unearthed a 1995 review, PMID 8679022. This doesn't add much to what we already know. The first trial found NET ineffective, Patterson claimed it had been improperly done and set up a second trial in the USA, but this too found NET ineffective. The author of the review author comments pointedly
All of us in the healing business are prone to 'the fundamental therapeutic delusion which is the natural tendency of those involved in therapeutic activity to believe that what they do is useful. People simply do not like to admit to themselves that what they do may have no value or may be actually harmful ... enthusiasts may perceive benefit where none really exists and turn a blind eye to side effects ... '
and
It is important to remember that most 'alternative' practitioners who use techniques like acupuncture, NET, aromatherapy or reflexology, do not usually offer other types of treatment. They personify Mark Twain's dictum that if your only tool is a hammer, all your problems tend to look like nails.
I think NET is a notable topic that deserves reasonable coverage, but per WP:NOPAGE can be spliced in here, without requiring a standalone article. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Meg Patterson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A User has removed the following sentence, despite it being properly referenced: She established that electro-acupuncture analgesia, usually applied to control pain post-surgery, could also significantly ameliorate the symptoms of opiate withdrawal. Mais oui! ( talk) 12:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
An assertion like "Mainstream scientists have dismissed NET as quackery" gives a strong impression that the therapy has been subject to studies by mainstream science, and found it faulty, but the source provided does no such thing - in fact it sais quite the opposite, that mainstream science has NOT studied the phenomenon. The wording is thus misleading. The general tone of the source is one of providing anecdotal evidence in favor of the treatment; IMO using it to support calling "quackery" because of an in-passing comment largely misrepresents the article. I don't deny that the therapy might have been viewed as pseudo-science, but a much better reference will be needed to claim that in Wikipedia's voice.
The only part of the article that could remotely support this claim are two convoluted sentences ("You would be forgive n for thinking the doctor a quack. This is precidely[sic] how the medical establishment has viewed Meg Patterson's neuro-electric therapy"). This would require require WP:SYNTH to arrive to such general claim, as it only supports mentioning that some unidentified mainstream scientist have expressed an opinion that this is quackery, based on its superficial features (the weirdness of expecting electric currents "behind the ears" to heal). Definitely not proof of scientific consensus" describing this as quackery, I'm afraid. Diego ( talk) 12:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't aware of that arbitration result (BTW, shouldn't that radical exception to WP:V be included at WP:BURDEN?)I don't think so because we don't need sources for obvious things like the earth going round the sun, or that giving different kinds of electric shock corresponds to a cure for addiction to particular substances. That's where we're at and you're editing against sense. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
We're not saying smoking causes cancer, we're saying most doctors believe smoking causes cancer, so it's not biomedical information.That's a trick from the woo camp, and we ain't having none of that. (We're not saying patients get better, we're saying patients feel better.)
Can it really be true that different addictions to different sorts of drugs respond to different sorts of electrical waveforms giving you shocks? It’s a highly reductionist view of what addiction might be and smacks of pseudoscience.
There does appear to have been a 2012 review conducted in Scotland, NeuroElectric Therapy™ in Opiate Detoxification Fingleton and Matheson - Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, December 2012. Unfortunately it's not online, though appears to be excerpted here. Money quote: "The evidence base for the use of NET™ in opiate detoxification is generally poor. NET™ was found to be no more effective than placebo at reducing withdrawal and craving during opiate detoxification.". AIUI the device is still marketed by Patterson's son. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
behaviour and further research of good methodological quality is required." that is not the language that would be used for an obvious pseudoscience one. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn, please stop pushing the bogus and too generic wording of "medical establishment called this quackery". The New Scientist is a medical magazine, the lowest admissible quality barely barely over the WP:MEDORG threshold; the sentence about the medical establishment is an in-passing mention and not the focus of the article.
And it is not even gramatical. If we deconstruct the two sentences like you're doing, the precedent of "this" in "This is precisely how the medical establishment has viewed Meg Patterson's neuro-electric therapy" would be "thinking the doctor is a quack", but the adjective "quack" is applied to "doctor" and the "medical establishment" is applied to "therapy". The composition of these sentences does not add up as the generic "medical establishment dismissed Patterson's therapy as "quackery"" that you wrote.
I've rewritten the Effectiveness section to something closer to what can be extracted from those two sentences. If you want to use the article to support a claim of quackery, please use a wording like that, being as close as possible to the source per WP:STICKTOSOURCES. Diego ( talk) 15:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
In 1980 Patterson conducted a survey, and successfully contacted 66 out of 130 former patients. She found that 53 reported being drug free. [1] In 1981, Philip Connell attempted to replicate these findings in a comparison with methadone treatment for opiate withdraw. Connell concluded that the effects of NES were "not incompatiable with a rather ineffective treatment or even simply a placebo effect." Patterson took issue with Connell's methodology, including small sample size, high rates of attrition, [a] and insufficient training for nurses providing the treatment. She published her response in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1985. [1] [2]
Later studies have failed to find evidence that NES was more effective than a placebo. [3] [4] [5] However, NET may have influenced the dosing used by similar therapies decades later. [6] As recently as 2006, Laurence Gruer of NHS Health Scotland, suggested NET may treat withdrawal symptoms, and others such as Ken Barrie of Alcohol and Drug Studies at the University of the West of Scotland, described the research as being in an early stages, requiring additional study. [7]
Notes
References
- ^ a b c Sattuar O (16 January 1986). "Cross currents in treating addiction". New Scientist (1491): 57. Retrieved September 30, 2017.
{{ cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=
( help)- ^ Patterson, MA (1985). "Electrostimulation and opiate withdrawal". British Journal of Psychiatry: 146:213. PMID 3872148. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=
( help)- ^ Platt, Jerome J. (2000). Cocaine Addiction: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Harvard University Press. p. 254. ISBN 9780674001787. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ Alling, Frederic A.; Johnson, Bruce D.; Elmoghazy, Elsayed (1990). "Cranial electrostimulation (CES) use in the detoxification of opiate-dependent patients". Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 7 (3): 173–180. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(90)90019-M. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
- ^ Gariti, Peter; Auriacombe, Marc; Incmikoski, Ray; McLellan, A.Thomas; Patterson, Lorne; Dhopesh, Vasant; Mezochow, John; Patterson, Meg; O'Brien, Charles (1992). "A randomized double-blind study of neuroelectric therapy in opiate and cocaine detoxification". Journal of Substance Abuse. 4 (3): 299–308. doi: 10.1016/0899-3289(92)90037-X. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
- ^ Knotkova, Helena; Rasche, Dirk (Nov 15, 2014). Textbook of Neuromodulation: Principles, Methods and Clinical Applications. Springer. pp. 10–11. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ "Electric therapy trial for heroin". BBC News. June 16, 2006. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
I'm personally fine citing the two journal studies based on the abstracts, since we do have access to the book which references them, and who has presumably read them carefully, probably with a higher level of competence than we have, and summarized them in a secondary source. Basically, I'm citing the secondary source and giving their own citations in turn in the case that a reader is particularly interested and has access. Anyway, this attempts to cover everything in a fair amount of detail, rather than oversimplifying down to a single sentence, saying "pseudoscience" as if it was a magic word and calling it a day. And when all is said and done, there appear to be two sides to the story: people who think the case is closed and we're pretty much done here, and people who are open to additional research. However, there does not appear to be a serious and independent side anywhere claiming that the research so far represents strong empirical support for effectiveness.
Overall, she seems to have been a fairly legitimate scientist testing a new treatment approach, but one who in the end just happened to be wrong. At least two of her three objections to Connell seem like unquestionably legitimate methodological concerns about a pretty objectively weak study. Although the self-selection bias in her own survey pretty much ruins it (i.e., if I'm passed out in a crack house with a needle in my arm, I'm not very likely to respond to a survey). GMG talk 12:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If the problem is with the BBC source, then that can be nixed and I won't debate it. Until the point that I posted this, no one had reverted it. So we get something like this instead:
In 1980 Patterson conducted a survey, and successfully contacted 66 out of 130 former patients. She found that 53 reported being drug free. [1] In 1981, Philip Connell attempted to replicate these findings in a comparison with methadone treatment for opiate withdraw. Connell concluded that the effects of NES were "not incompatiable with a rather ineffective treatment or even simply a placebo effect." Patterson took issue with Connell's methodology, including small sample size, high rates of attrition, [a] and insufficient training for nurses providing the treatment. She published her response in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1985. [1] [2] Later studies have failed to find evidence that NES was more effective than a placebo. [3] [4] [5] However, NET may have influenced the dosing used by similar therapies decades later. [6]
Notes
References
- ^ a b c Sattuar O (16 January 1986). "Cross currents in treating addiction". New Scientist (1491): 57. Retrieved September 30, 2017.
{{ cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=
( help)- ^ Patterson, MA (1985). "Electrostimulation and opiate withdrawal". British Journal of Psychiatry: 146:213. PMID 3872148. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=
( help)- ^ Platt, Jerome J. (2000). Cocaine Addiction: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Harvard University Press. p. 254. ISBN 9780674001787. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ Alling, Frederic A.; Johnson, Bruce D.; Elmoghazy, Elsayed (1990). "Cranial electrostimulation (CES) use in the detoxification of opiate-dependent patients". Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 7 (3): 173–180. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(90)90019-M. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
- ^ Gariti, Peter; Auriacombe, Marc; Incmikoski, Ray; McLellan, A.Thomas; Patterson, Lorne; Dhopesh, Vasant; Mezochow, John; Patterson, Meg; O'Brien, Charles (1992). "A randomized double-blind study of neuroelectric therapy in opiate and cocaine detoxification". Journal of Substance Abuse. 4 (3): 299–308. doi: 10.1016/0899-3289(92)90037-X. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
- ^ Knotkova, Helena; Rasche, Dirk (Nov 15, 2014). Textbook of Neuromodulation: Principles, Methods and Clinical Applications. Springer. pp. 10–11. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
{{ cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)
The thing that refutes the quackery charge is stacking up an outdated lower quality source against a more up to day higher quality one. If you want to call it quackery, and challenge Platt's characterization of the issue, you're going to have to do better than the New Scientist source. GMG talk 13:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article include the following in the further reading section? GMG talk 15:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
When there are parents as desperate as that, it's no wonder that the perpetrators of these sort of "cures" will expend any amount of effort to market their product. We ought not let our encyclopedia be used for that sort of marketing, no matter how indirectly. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)I am at my wits end trying to help my daughter with drug and alchol addiction. She has been through several traditional drug rehab programs without success. Please help
For none of these ... have promising findings been observed."; "
There was no significant difference between the active or placebo groups, suggesting that placebo was as effective as active NET in reducing drug withdrawal or craving during cocaine and opiate detoxification." (a single primary study comparing NET with placebo); "
Indeed, this study raises more questions than it answers. Certainly electrostimulation does not seem to fulfil the promises made on its behalf as an improved technique for withdrawing opiate addicts from their drugs." (a single primary study comparing NET with progressive methadone withdrawal). I'm sorry, but that's just evidence that there's no evidence of effectiveness for NET. We need to put that into the context of mainstream opinion and for that we need sources that actually offer an opinion, which Quackometer does. The latter two wouldn't be usable in the article to address the question of effectiveness of NET, but Quackometer does at least speak to the question of how NET is perceived and the scientific context by which one might approach the WP:REDFLAG-remarkable notion of passing electric current through drug users to overcome addiction. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
detail that we have nowhere else currently- And detail we have no good reason to believe is accurate, because it has no references and no editorial oversight... because it's a blog. It's not even an op-ed piece (and no idea why it's referred to above as one), which would require someone, somewhere, who actually publishes something for a living, to at least read the thing over once and suppose that it didn't contain glaring inaccuracies or omissions. It's written by a non-notable person with presumably no education or academic background that would qualify them to write on these subjects, since they explicitly refuse to address their qualification because they don't
want to offer chances for my critics to start fights( [14]). It's not affiliated with any organization that would lead us to suppose this guy might get sacked if he did a crappy job. It's a guy with a laptop and and internet connection, or in other words, a blog.
The mainstream scientific opinion is that there is no evidence it's effective, full stop.That's where the disagreement lies. Stopping there excludes information on why the science failed, what biases come into play, and the larger context. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, which this is not. This is covered extensively in peer reviewed literature in reputable journals, which are themselves covered in published books. If context is needed, then it can be provided without needing blogs by unqualified commentators who are themselves admittedly getting their own information from sites like this one. GMG talk 16:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This is covered extensively in peer reviewed literature in reputable journalsWhile I may be mistaken, I'm not seeing any evidence that this is correct. Nor is there any other coverage that I'm seeing on
why the science failed, what biases come into play, and the larger context.-- Ronz ( talk) 16:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The evidence base for the use of NET in opiate detoxification is generally poor. NET was found to be no more effective than placebo at reducing withdrawal and craving during opiate detoxification.Further, they concluded that the longer term studies that reported positive outcomes were sufficiently methodologically weak so as to be essentially useless, with pretty crap follow up, and either a basically meaningless control group, or no control group at all. This included not only Patterson's own research, but also the exact paper by Gossop et al cited in the New Scientist piece.
primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, or
only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues, which is what PARITY is designed to allow for. GMG talk 17:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
covered extensively in peer reviewed literature. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"one should generally avoid providing external links to: 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.")Alexbrn has already demonstrated that Quackometer has had coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources so we've a good case for it meeting WP:GNG. The exception is valid, especially in light of WP:ELMAYBE:
"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."There's no doubt that the Quackometer article about NET contains an analysis of sources concerning NET in the light of current scientific opinion, which is exactly what we want our secondary sources to do. WP:PARITY has consensus for a reason: it covers a gap that would otherwise exist when dealing with sources for fringe topics. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
If coverage in RS isn't flashy enough, go write a blog and link to that from Wikipedia instead.GMG talk 17:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Arbcom told me I don't need sources at all.I'd say moving from that to
Blogs are a reliable source.is actually quite a bit of improvement. GMG talk 18:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia."In addition, the lack of mainstream criticism may, in itself, be taken as justification to entirely remove the fringe claims made by Patterson.
"Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether."( WP:ONEWAY) As a content guideline, WP:FRINGE enjoys site-wide consensus and you need stronger arguments than those you've mustered so far to disqualify its application here. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues. GMG talk 16:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venuesto
only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in peer reviewed publications, literature reviews, and books. GMG talk 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This article said surprising little about the person. The WEIGHT was all on the celebrities she treated and the technique. I have revised this to make the article focus on her. I moved the stuff about the technique into a note. The discussion of whether NET is useful to treat addiction should really be in the electroacupuncture article. Jytdog ( talk) 03:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Information that is not typically biomedical ... if the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information.And you should be careful that bending over backward too far can lead to back injuries. GMG talk 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
promoting what is essentially snake oilI've not said anything remotely akin to promotion. That that is the assumption is probably a good indicator of why the discussion has gone exactly nowhere, and why editors are willing to flatly ignore policy. GMG talk 19:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Getting back on topic, I'm now not sure whether NET is best characterized as Cranial electrotherapy stimulation since PMID 23954780 seems to categorize it as Transcranial alternating current stimulation (now there's a poor article). Alexbrn ( talk) 11:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to Ozzie10aaaa at WT:MED who unearthed a 1995 review, PMID 8679022. This doesn't add much to what we already know. The first trial found NET ineffective, Patterson claimed it had been improperly done and set up a second trial in the USA, but this too found NET ineffective. The author of the review author comments pointedly
All of us in the healing business are prone to 'the fundamental therapeutic delusion which is the natural tendency of those involved in therapeutic activity to believe that what they do is useful. People simply do not like to admit to themselves that what they do may have no value or may be actually harmful ... enthusiasts may perceive benefit where none really exists and turn a blind eye to side effects ... '
and
It is important to remember that most 'alternative' practitioners who use techniques like acupuncture, NET, aromatherapy or reflexology, do not usually offer other types of treatment. They personify Mark Twain's dictum that if your only tool is a hammer, all your problems tend to look like nails.
I think NET is a notable topic that deserves reasonable coverage, but per WP:NOPAGE can be spliced in here, without requiring a standalone article. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)