Talk:Shiatsu/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Citing from scientific Journal Publishers with some of the highest impact factor journals in the world

There is nothing in the policy and guidelines which suggests that wikipedia prevents updates to articles by putting citations to scientific articles from Elsevier, BioMedCentral, Mary Ann Liebert, Sage - publishers with the highest impact factors in the world on some of the journals.

Jytdog[edit] WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them - see WP:RS for general content and WP:MEDRS for health-related content) - Springer, Pub MedCentral, Elsevier - these publishers produce some of the world's highest impact factor journals. These are where the articles I am wanting to cite come from." WP:MEDRS - this is our guideline for sourcing health-relating content in Wikipedia. This is probably the key thing you need to learn. - Springer, Pub MedCentral, Elsevier - these publishers produce some of the world's highest impact factor journals.These are where the articles I am wanting to cite come from." WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT. Pay special mind to the WP:PSCI section, which is further elaborated in the WP:FRINGE guideline. - Springer, Pub MedCentral, Elsevier - these publishers produce some of the world's highest impact factor journals.These are where the articles I am wanting to cite come from." WP:MEDMOS - this our manual of style, for how we write about health-related things. We are very careful not to discuss pre-clinical findings, as well as initial clinical results, as though they are applicable to medicine. We are very conservative in that regard! - These are published articles not pre-clinical findings as they are in published journals ...

So how is citing from these journals outside of wikipedia's policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

you do realize that the above, written here, is pure babble, right? I'll say here, that nothing you write above addresses WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what is written above, but would like to clarify that being published in a journal does not automatically qualify as a reliable source per WP:MEDRS (in fact, most publications in journals do not meet MEDRS as they are primary studies, editorials, etc.) Further clarification for the new editor will have to wait for a more coherent argument to identify where they seem to be misunderstanding this guideline. Yobol (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Eikoku, your "wall of text", above, is not helpful in addressing the topic at hand which is, I suppose, this revert which, as was pointed out earlier, removed well-verified content and replaced it with some non-neutral and unverified text: "There is a growing body of scientific literature written in western languages that shiatsu can be helpful in treating a range of different conditions, though like acupuncture it is not a replacement for western medicine" is followed by a negative assessment from CRUK, not with a reference that makes that general statement acceptable.

  The individual articles you link to above may well be acceptable and useful and all that, but if you use them only to build an argument against this article and its editors you'll not get very far. Better to propose smaller, individual edits based on those articles, so the articles and proposed edits can be judged rather than your somewhat forum-like post. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you both for weighing in. Eikoku was starting to make this about me. whew. (note - Eikoku's copied his note above from his talk page; what he did in that note was copy snips of something i had written to him, and respond within it, kind of. this is a difficult discussion) Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"in fact, most publications in journals do not meet MEDRS as they are primary studies, editorials, etc." Sorry? I think you will find that all articles in journals are write-ups of primary research not 'editorials." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

you still have not read the definition of "secondary source" in MEDRS. you still have not read it. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS states that we generally do not use primary studies for health information (such as individual clinical trials) but instead use secondary sources such as literature or systematic reviews that look at the body of primary literature as a whole. Please see WP:MEDREV. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Identifying reliable sources (medicine) wikipedia page says "Biomedical journals - Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles." These are what I have been trying to cite, but is being rejected / undone. Can someone explain precisely why such citations are being rejected?Eikoku (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)eikoku

you are ignoring what all three of us are telling you. I am not going to respond further until you actually deal with what we are saying, and I suggest the same for others.Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed links

Why are links to other pages being removed when I add them in? E.g. qi and meridians? Thetruthmightsurpriseyou (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Thetruthmightsurpriseyou:. Your changes includes more than those links. It also added unsourced changed. See here for example. On Wikipedia, you have to make sure that changes are supported by source (WP:CITE). That's why they were reverted. --McSly (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This does not explain why the links were removed. Thetruthmightsurpriseyou (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Verbal not written tradition.

When trying to write down information that is from a verbal tradition rather than a written one, how are you supposed to provide 'references'. E.g. I've been challenged that there's no 'evidence' that Shiatsu is a complementary therapy rather than an alternative therapy. Every Shiatsu therapist is taught this verbally. Is anyone asking for evidence that physiotherapy is a clinical intervention not a complementary therapy?

I really understand the need for accuracy, but there's no recognition that some things come from a verbal tradition. Nor any recognition that not everything in life is quantitively tested or testable. I'm concerned that this cultural whitewashing is undermining the value of Wikipedia as it's becoming innacurate as a result, so loosing it's value. Thetruthmightsurpriseyou (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You need to find a "verbal" encyclopedia; this one deals with knowledge as written (though reliably-published audio recordings can be used). Alexbrn (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

article confusing

one does not necessarily have to know east Asian medicine to provide shiatsu massage, the efficacy of which is comparable to regular massage and is not geared towards fighting cancer? too many topics are conflated in this article and that makes it misleading. Chedca (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

recent changes

Eikoku please do discuss your proposed changes. I especially don't understand this part that you added: Shiatsu can however help in reducing pain. Examples where scientific studies have shown a positive effect include neck pain and lower back pain,

References

The source doesn't mention shiatsu. I know [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiatsu&type=revision&diff=660798247&oldid=660777228 your edit note" said "shiatsu is a form of acupressure". if it really is the same and not distinct, perhaps we should just merge this article into acupressure (i don't think it is the same, btw)?

The changes include removal of what appears to be appropriate sourced text and adding commentary that are rebutted in that section by remaining text. Googling "shiatsu" and "accupressure" together shows that practitioners have a varied assessment of the relationship between the two. It should also be noted that just because one modality is a subset of a larger modality, that a discussion of the larger modality cannot be used to justify for a discussion of the subset, logically. We cannot use sources that speak of accupressure in general for a discussion of a subset of accupressure even if it were true one is the subset of the other. Yobol (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yobol If you look at the talk page on Shiatsu you can see may people who practice Shiatsu complaining about the biased nature of the web page - I find it odd in this context that while I am editing, on such a page, edits are being undone. For example I have not been able to finish cross reference to articles about shiatsu / acupressure in Biomedcentral / PLOS etc because they are being undone while I am editing. Yobol has also deleted cross references to the law in Japan that regulates shiatsu practitioners.

Shiatsu is a type of acupressure - namely it is a discipline that it functions by putting pressure on meridians on the body. As a type of acupressure why cannot articles that refer to acupressure be referred to under shiatsu? It is a bit like saying articles on tubers cannot be cross referred to on pages about potatoes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Please see this study of literature from London South Bank University that is a literature review of Shiatsu and Acupressure - making no distinction: http://www.shiatsusociety.org/sites/default/files/SystematicReviewJULY2011cs31aug2011.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry just seen how to add a signature - apologies. Eikoku (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

glad you figured that out. the source doesn't agree with your claims: first "Much of the evidence was for protocol-based acupressure using set acupoints, which has limited application to Shiatsu practice. The nature of shiatsu, as distinct from acupressure, is that it is a complex intervention whose techniques, including diagnostic, and effects are implemented within the individual therapeutic relationship between the practitioner and client in every treatment and are invariably different each time. This requires a complex and project specific methodological design which may include a combination of methods modified to suit the particular research question and research conditions." then "This review includes studies on both Shiatsu and acupressure, but it should be noted that the two treatments are not synonymous, although some Shiatsu practitioners incorporate acupressure as a technique. Evidence for the efficacy of acupressure may be used to support claims about the efficacy of some aspects of Shiatsu for specific conditions. " Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey y'all -- Just to add my two cents as a Shiatsu practitioner. There is unfortunately not a lot of practical, thoughtful research studies out there on the effectiveness of Shiatsu massage therapy, as (mentioned above), the structure and set up of most studies are atrocious (my opinion, but also reflects facts somewhat. and I do have studies in mind to cite and back up that opinion, but I will post those later because I'm about to go to bed). Shiatsu, as mentioned above, is a complicated, individualized program of healing that in many ways unfortunately defies the standardization of scientific study. I for one would love to see more complex and thoughtful studies with a sample size of more than n=2, but that's like complaining about how someone is doing their job and not helping them. However, it does pain me to see this in a series that lumps together pseudoscience (I'll take that) and "medical conspiracy theories" (that bothers me). There is a lot of well-documented evidence that shiatsu, as part of the wider massage umbrella of massage therapy, can have a profound impact on pain. Again, I don't have the specific studies in front of me to cite, but I do have a wealth of anecdotal evidence from my clients (that I can't release for privacy reasons, thanks HIPPA!). So I have a few requests: if anyone finds in their research any studies on the effects of shiatsu, well-done or otherwise, please post them here on the talk page and email me to give me a heads up (mbruffee@gmail . com -- is that legal to post my info? if not just take it down); and any way we can be really clear about the complex nature of this practice and distinguish it from genuine medical conspiracy theories, that would be really helpful. Again, not saying it's not pseudoscience--i'll take that--but it's not, say, the anti-vaxx movement. Mikebruffee (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a hilarious observation and request Mike, it appears that you haven't got any sources to support effectiveness of shiatsu beyond that of any other "rub down with a wet chamois leather manipulation therapy". Astonishingly, you appears to want us to provide you with sources to support your position. I doubt that any sources can be found to support you. Please note that you have a wp:coi with regard to any massage related article, and should limit yourself to making suggestions (supported by WP:MEDRS sources when making medical claims), on Talk pages. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "hilarious" request. It's a rational and reasonable request you would expect from a fellow researcher. All he's asking is to simply be forwarded relevant studies, regardless of their verdict, so he can review them in the talk page.24.171.3.175 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Boy, I need to learn my way around. Just returning to this page after getting involved with the editing years ago.

Anyway, for one thing, “shiatsu” and “acupressure” are overlapping words. In some context, “acupressure” can be an English translation of the word “shiatsu”. In other cases, the two words describe distinct forms of practice (though, of the same origin in some sense). “Shiatsu” refers to a Japanese style of “acupressure”. “Acupressure” can be a very general term, and as such it has probably had form in all cultures. Usually though, “acupressure” relates to acupuncture, of Chinese medicine, in that they evolved together and utilize meridian theory of Chinese medicine. So, “acupressure” has many non-Japanese forms in China (relating to tuina), and I would assume in other countries historically infuenced by Chinese medicine. Bramblehillshaman (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresenting source

This edit appears to be misrepresenting what the source says. Also, that other source is a private website, not a reliable source. Misrepresenting a source and/or using unreliable sourcing is a violation of the Pseudoscience ArbCom case and can result in sanction for all editors involved, so I've changed the text to more closely match what the source actually says. If any disagreement, please state so here before reverting the text back to a state that may be a violation. Cla68 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK is an ideal WP:MEDRS, the other (lower quality, perhaps even questionable) source says evidence for shiatsu is poor. So: no good evidence. We need to be neutral. Also, don't edit war and remove strong sources from the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to save you from a ban Alexbrn because it appears that you're violating the ArbCom sanctions by misrepresenting a source. Explain to me why that cancer victim advocacy website is a reliable source? Cla68 (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably the world's most respected Cancer research organisation, a major medical body and so an ideal MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn is right. Cancer Research UK is a highly respected, professional organization that funds cancer research, engages in educational outreach and facilitates communication between cancer researchers. It is not a "cancer victim advocacy" group by any means. It is absolutely in keeping with MEDRS.

Also, the other source, which Cla68 says is misrepresented states quite definitively that "Evidence [of Shiatsu's effectiveness] was of insufficient quantity and quality." before moving on to discussing acupressure more specifically. This is the context in which we interpret the conclusion's statement that "...evidence was poor." It does nothing to suggest that evidence would be forthcoming with better studies, and so it is a misrepresentation of the source to suggest it by wording the text in the article to suggest that there is no evidence "thus far". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That some cancer found insufficient evidence of benefits to shiatsu does not mean there is insufficient evidence. For one thing, a general contraindication for shiatsu treatment is cancer, at least for inexperienced practitioners and those who do not specialize in that kind of care. Shiatsu benefit is much more evident when treating more acute musculoskeletal problems and a large range of other health imbalances, like sciatica, stiff necks... cold symptoms... circulation disorders... sleep disorders... and the list goes on and on. The cited references do not support that there is insufficient evidence of benefits. Bramblehillshaman (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It's what is says, and it's not just about cancer. Alexbrn (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The source here [1] says “There is no scientific evidence that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer.” Theroadislong (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Italics?

The use of italics in this article does not seem to comply with policy. MrBill3 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Efficacy

My addition of a review of published studies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200172/) on the efficacy of shiatsu for various conditions (such as pain, stress, etc.) was removed in favor of a summary of an article specific to cancer. Even the statement in the wiki page that it may be helpful for relaxation is based on a study of only cancer patients; the article is not intended to inform about shiatsu's effectiveness for conditions other than cancer. A review of studies drawn from a broader group of participants for more conditions is not only more rigorous, but more appropriate for a general overview of efficacy. Rufe12 (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried to remove your POV edits too, but was beaten to the punch. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article, University of Minnesota page, and the CancerUK page cited in the previous version of the article before drawing that conclusion?

Incidentally, it's not my POV. I personally don't believe in alternative medicine, but this article made statements beyond those supported by the science. Rufe12 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes and yes. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Good! If you read the sources, you should have seen that citation 7 used for the statement "neither qi nor meridians exist" literally reached the opposite conclusion, that there's "suggestive" evidence of meridians. (Electrical properties of acupuncture points and meridians: a systematic review: "the preliminary findings are suggestive and offer future directions for research based on in-depth interpretation of the data.")

It's clear that the original text was fishing for sources to support the author's own bias regardless of the actual content of the cited articles. Rufe12 (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You have to make a difference between signal and noise. The signal is "the quality and quantity of research is too small to conclude shiatsu is effective for any condition." The noise is "Some studies included found evidence that shiatsu may help with certain types of pain, stress, sleep quality, mental illness, fibromyalgia, and inducing labor". The noise does not belong in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the same thing as some pseudoscientific treatments where a control group getting sham treatment had no significant difference from the treated group. Every quality study found some effect from shiatsu, they were simply limited in their ability to draw conclusions.

The statement "there is no evidence that shiatsu is effective" is simply a false statement. A more accurate statement would be "there is not conclusive evidence that shiatsu is effective for any condition" with the caveat that there is some inconclusive evidence of efficacy for pain, stress, sleep quality, mental illness, and inducing labor (which is not even surprising, pretty much all types of massage has evidence of efficacy for these conditions). Rufe12 (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

From the CRUK source: "There is no scientific evidence that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer". Seems pretty clear. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That very same article goes on to say there's evidence that it can help with sleep quality and discomfort from cancer treatment so it's clearly not conclusive. For example, helping with stress is not the same thing as treating a disease since stress is a normal condition. Inducing labor in healthy women is another example.

Furthermore, I would still argue that Cancer Research's article is narrowly focused on cancer. They clearly mean it won't help you get better from cancer, not that it can't help you getting to sleep or with pain. Rufe12 (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Stroking a cat relieves stress; that doesn't make cat stroking a "medical treatment". We do say in the article "some weak evidence suggests it might help people feel more relaxed." It's debatable whether something like that belongs in the lede too. The CRUK article is explicitly not specific to cancer ("any type of disease" it says). Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Cancer research UK is not an authority on anything other than cancer. Rufe12 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"there is not conclusive evidence" - The usual wording is "there is no good evidence". That means there is the sort of evidence you would expect if there is no effect: 5% significant results and 1% highly significant results (Texas sharpshooter fallacy), plus enhancement by the file drawer effect. This case looks exactly like that. Of course, this sort of evidence is no good. You need reproducible results. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

And Cancer Research UK, as one of the foremost medical organizations on the planet, is super-reliable for all things medical. For something like shiatsu it is complete overkill as a source, but we're lucky to have it. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy means you look for statistical significance in anything until you find something that is. Looking at massage for pain is not that. Observational studies are not useless as evidence, you can often correct for bias by looking at the effect for a certain group and yes, some of these studies did try to correct for biases. That's similar to the argument the tobacco industry used against observational studies that tobacco caused cancer.Rufe12 (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, cancer research UK is a foremost medical organization. No, they do not research nor are they particularly an authority on subjects other than cancer. Rufe12 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

If stroking an animal can be proven to relieve stress, it could very well be a viable medical treatment (in fact, animal therapy is a popular form of alternative medicine) Rufe12 (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, another dodgy altmed. The point is lots of things from smoking to masturbation to (sometimes) editing Wikipedia "can relieve stress". That does not mean in plain English they are "effective medical treatments". We need to follow the sources and be plain that woo is woo. Alexbrn (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No offense Alexbrn, but you don't even have a background in science, much less medicine. You have no qualification to determine what the sources say or don't say regarding if a therapy is woo or real, only your feelings. Rufe12 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Is that a deliberate personal attack on Alex? have you read WP:NPA? Alex is one of our most experienced editors in this, and other, areas, and as a rule knows what he is talking about. Comment on content not contributers. you could learn something. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rufe12: Editors here need to find, read and understand good sources, and then humbly summarize their content. Subject matter expertise is not a requirement (sometimes, it can be a hindrance). Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A peer reviewed survey of sources has evidence of efficacy. You, despite a lack of any qualification, concluded that that academic publication is not a good source and your own is. That is the fundamental problem, the sources shots be summarized, not the belief of the editor. The text of the article is beyond anything that can be concluded from the sources.

I don't intend this to be an attack on your person; if a particular editor is determining what appropriate sources are instead of three peer review process, however, the qualification or lack thereof of said editor is relevant. Rufe12 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your statement above is of course, nonsense. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rufe12: Peer-review is not sufficient for a source to be reliable. Read WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS to understand medical sourcing, and WP:FRINGE to see how fringe topics like Shiatsu are handled. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes

AlexClwn you seem to be repeatedly trying to change the article to your preferred version, but there are problems with your edits:

• A section on "Efficacy" should discuss efficacy up-front, rather than making it a subordinate "however" clause.
• We generally don't go into the weeds discussing types of study, numbers of trial subjects etc. Wikipedia is meant to summarize.
• Per WP:MEDMOS Wikipedia does not refer to "patients".

Rather than edit war, perhaps explain what you are trying to achieve, because it doesn't look very good so far as attempted. Alexbrn (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice dogma you got there

"Neither qi nor meridians exist." Lol, I don't get how sh*t like this actually can read on a Wikipedia article. A contribution to an encyclopedia should never be based on biased opinions, only neutral facts. No one is qualified to say that "qi doesn't exist", that's like saying that "there was nothing before the big bang". There is no compelling evidence for either of those statements. Both are out of our scope right now. Science is not almighty and all-knowing although humans like to think so, and can't yet acquire information about certain things, but that's just a matter of time. Think about quantum mechanics: nowadays it is a well-known scientific fact that eg. quantum particles exist, but not even a long ago anyone would have called a theory like that "pseudo-/fringe science" and "far out". There's some pretty weird stuff going on on the quantum level which is transforming our conceptions about the world, and findings from quantum physics have already forced science to expand its' borders quite a bit. I see absolutely no reason to believe that science couldn't uncover the mystery of what is called "qi" sometime in the future. Maybe it even has something to do with quantum mechanics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:1ffc:9300:4def:39f3:6f98:50d9 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

1. New contributions go to the bottom.
2. The usual second sentence after "Nice * you got there" is "Would be a pity if something happened to it".
3. This page is not a forum, it is for improving the article.
4. The only thing qi and quantum mechanics have in common is that many people do not understand them. That is not enough to draw a connection between them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Qi and Meridians are unproven to exist, rather than do not exist.

It is a bit unfair to claim that Qi and Meridians do not exist. It should be treated as any other religious based belief that can not be proven. It is neutral to not make a case for one side of the opinion or the other. It would be as wrong to say that Qi and Meridians do exist, as it is to say that they don't exist. Paladin359 (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

e/c Haha, that is like saying we cannot say the earth is round because nobody has proven it not flat yet. This isn't a religion either. Sheesh. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, this talk page came up at the top of my watchlist just now, and I didn't see you edit warring. Naughty. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The Earth has absolutely been proven to be round. Unlike Qi, you can see the state of the Earth. Qi an incredibly important part of the religion, Taoism. Paladin359 (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but as our cited sources discuss, proponents want to claim it's scientific too. See for example:[2] Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Something that is claimed to be utilised in medical treatments but “can not be proven” sounds a little pseudoscientific to me. And thanks for that link, Alexbrn, I’ve now wasted some time trying to find the original source for the quotation from Albert Szent-Györgyi (I think it might have been a lecture given in 1972, but can’t find the text of it to confirm). Brunton (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)