Content deleted Content added
→Reverse: Reply |
Bon courage (talk | contribs) →Reverse: Reply |
||
Line 107:
::::::::::::Is there a source saying that's what has happened in this case? When that happens, we would also expect those studies fail to be replicated, right? Has that happened for those conditions? If random chance is the accepted explanation for positive results, then the Efficacy and Adoption sections would need to be changed to note this. The Adoption section says "the German acupuncture trials supported its efficacy for certain uses" and the Efficacy section says it is beneficial for shoulder pain and fibromyalgia.
::::::::::::I noted the 2007 German trials in the Efficacy section, but in [[Special:diff/1233462071|this edit]], {{u|Bon courage}} (hello there!) removed it with the edit summary "don't want this very dated". If the results of these trials have been disproven by later studies, that should be noted in the Adoption section. (This material can't be removed because it's part of the history of adoption in Germany.) -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The current state of knowledge is given in the efficacy section. This cannot be undercut with old unreliable sources, such as exist for GERAC. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:As for efficacy. The revert is absolutely justified.
| |||