@IRWolfie: you have deleted content here [1] that is supported by impeccable MEDRS sources: a book by Micozzi included in the MEDRS-suggested Brandon/Hill list, and a review paper by Mashour et al from the AMA's Archives of Internal Medicine. Also, shortly after, in the same set of edits [2], you have deleted content supported by a 2nd ref to Micozzi and a review by Nobili et al from Pharmacological Research. Would you like to restore these? EMP (talk19:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarise yourself with what WP:MEDRS sources actually say about antioxidants rather than the nonsense that was in this article (i.e look at the article I linked to). Micozzi's 2007 "Ayurveda Medicine," is not on the brandon/hill list. Mashour's paper is from 1998. Nobilli do not say "studies using human cancer cells have found that Amrit Kalash may help to prevent formation of cancer cells and transform cancer cells to normal cells", rather they say it has a "claimed potential to significantly inhibit the in vitro growth of cancer cells from human tumour. Although these compounds were also able to inhibit the tumour progression in animal models[126], no reports of trials on these two herbal remedies in cancer patients are available at present." That was 4 years ago. Also [3], pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Amrit+Kalash+AND+Review[ptyp]+AND+%22last+5+years%22[PDat] . Do I need to comment further? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Antioxidants -- we go with what sources say; we don't delete content because of something a Wikipedia article says.
MEDRS doesn't disallow a research review from 1998 if it hasn't been superseded by a subsequent review.
If you feel that Nobili wasn't accurately summarized, you're free to revise, but no policy supports deletion. The information from Nobili was clearly qualified by the sentence that followed the deleted summary, which said: "However, no clinical trials have been done, and it is unknown whether these test-tube results would translate to an effective cancer therapy."
In addition, you removed content sourced to the Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which is on the Brandon/Hill list. It's the very same journal that published the AHRQ/Ospina review.
And you have removed a 2003 scientific text (Nezu, et al) published by Wiley, and content related to it.
This peremptory deletion of reliable sources, without discussion, is a violation of the guidelines Arbcom has given for TM-related articles. EMP (talk21:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It is in violation of no ARBCOM decisions. I suggest you ask ARBCOM yourself. 1. The antioxidant articles highlights that the source is way out of date. Me pointing at that article was meant to be a subtle clue for you to check the medical sources on that article which demonstrate the out of dateness. 2. yes there are limits, preferably 2-3, 5 years stretching it. 3. With regards to Nobili, it's a brief sentence in the source and is speculative. 4. As I already pointed out, you are confusing the different Micozzi books. 5. 2003, is 10 years old. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
EMP, you're confused on multiple levels about the sources. As IRWolife mentioned, you're confusing two different books by Micozzi. You're also wrong about the Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine; the Ospina/AHRQ review was not published there, but rather in Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments (PMID17764203). As a baseline for a productive discussion, can we make an effort to cite sources accurately? MastCellTalk05:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
See "Clinical Trials of Meditation Practices in Health Care: Characteristics and Quality," Maria B. Ospina, Kenneth Bond, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Nina Buscemi, Donna M. Dryden, Vernon Barnes, Linda E. Carlson, Jeffery A. Dusek, and David Shannahoff-Khalsa. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. December 2008, 14(10): 1199-1213. doi:10.1089/acm.2008.0307. EMP (talk14:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, IRWolfie did in fact remove content sourced to Micozzi, Fundamentals of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which is on the Brandon/Hill list that MEDRS recommends. [4]EMP (talk19:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you; apparently I'd forgotten to watchlist this page. You are mixing up two review articles by Ospina. As I said, the AHRQ report was published in Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments as PMID17764203. Subsequently, Ospina et al. expanded on their findings from the AHRQ analysis in a separate article in J. Alternative and Complementary Medicine (PMID19123875). These are two separate articles. Both may be useful here, but they should not be conflated. I recognize that these sources are a bit confusing, but all the more reason to strive for more precision in discussing them. MastCellTalk09:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
My turn to apologize for delay. Re: your point: Note that my reference was to the review article published in a journal, which is why I specifically used the word "journal." EMP (talk04:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The material sourced to the Miccozi book was a pseudoscientific perspective from a MVAH researcher. I have removed the material as being inherently non-neutral. Why would you presume a medical book is reliable for statements about quantum mechanics? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
