Talk:Ear candling: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:02, 16 May 2015

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Bias

Talk about a biased article. This page is exactly what SHOULDN'T be on wiki. Look at the main description, it's a short description of the practice (good) and then 3 sentences/references of skepticism. Article needs to be rearranged badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.226.154 (talk • contribs) 7 December 2009

Please post new comments at the bottom. I have moved your comment for you.

The purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article. As such, the lead gives weight to each point in proportion to what is written in the article. This is exactly what SHOULD be in a Wikipedia article. If you have any constructive suggestions to make, rather than complaints, then make them. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy to justify putting more of the skeptical/accurate information in the lead, but that should really only be done when there is content added. Right now I think the article is long enough, and it reflects a good cross-section of the available facts on the subject. Treedel (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is skeptical because ear candling really is ineffective and dangerous, and there are references from respected medical organizations that say so. If you can find reliable sources that say otherwise, go ahead and stick them in. Asarelah (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article seriously needs to be revised, because the bias in this article is astounding. I completely agree with the comment above that said an article like this should not be on Wikipedia. Personally, I think this article is very misleading. I do not have the time to research something like this, so I just suggest that someone else does.Wesleyx357 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading how? If the article is "biased" against ear candles, that's because the entire medical establishment is "biased" against ear candles. Medical articles should be based around science, not New Age flim flam. Asarelah (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HA HA HA! Good argument, Wesley: "This article is biased, but I can't be arsed to do anything about it!" "Somebody" should DOOO something! Think of the CHILDREN! Sigh... Don't complain about things not going your way if you aren't willing to get off your arse to do something to improve matters. Famousdog (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did spend the time to research this, and I think the "bias" is exactly where the evidence and reliable sources agree that it should be. It confuses me why you assume that the editors here didn't do the research already. Frankly, even skimming the references should prove that this is the neutral point of view: The best sources (By which I mean scientific journals and the FDA) are outright hostile to candling, and the most favorable sources are neutral. Treedel (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My wife & children have had chronic problems with ear wax overproduction. We tried several doctor recommended remedies, none of which worked. We finally tried ear candles and I was thoroughly surprised at how much ear wax was removed. There literally chunks of dark, old ear wax. Their hearing has improved significantly and the process was comfortable. As in all things use some common sense and err on the side of caution. This topic seems polarized - candling works in my opinion. This wikipedia entry is far too biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.179.31 (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but your anecdotal experienc is not useful for an encyclopedia article. It also displays a misunderstanding of what actual scientific research has shown about earwax candling. As the article explains, the dark residue that you see inside the candle is not earwax, just candle residue.174.50.216.137 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if 1 anecdotal experience isn't enough, would 1 million be better, or perhaps more? Actualized experience and careful scientific research are equally valuable on a planet that is dynamic and ever-changing. I too, have had my ears candled, wonderful experience. Indeed, the wax I saw inside the little portion of candle was the same color and viscosity as my earwax (reddish amber). The pollen was bright yellow, crumbly/powdery and the yeast was a dull tan color with similar physical characteristics to the pollen, only less apt to crumbling.

The argument from personal experience

I would like to add that someone recommended ear candles to me when I had ear ache and it really helped. Since then I recommended to 6 people whos ears also got better after using the candles. None of them burned themselves or caused accident. Ear candles are as dangerous as any other things on fire(candles, cigarettes, cookers). - Unsigned comment 11/10/10

Um, you don't put candles, cigarettes or cookers in your ear though! Well, unless you're daft. Famousdog (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you didn't even read the section right above this, and just made a new section here to try and prove something. Anecdotes do not belong on Wikipedia.69.98.206.184 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First I am a scientist and I get paid handsomely for my investigative skills. I don't wish to say that your wrong or right, just that when I have ear pressure which is causing me significant pain, ear candles help. Now if you want to say that studies have shown they don't help, well then I would say, I have never seen a medical study prove 100% that something does not work. Only that within the bounds of the test and the resultant statistics it was not found to demonstrate any significant improvement in outcome. I suggest that the article is fine but if you ever do get an ear ache, spend the buck and try it. If it works for you wonderful, if it doesn't I am sorry that you didn't get relief. By the way I did the same test with and without an ear under the ear candle, because I thought it was a hoax. Well the one in my ear did show a wax travel from the ear up and the other showed none. Don't care though maybe it is just the warmth that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.170.138 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write up and publish a case study of yourself in a medical journal. Cite it here. I, personally, have dug deep for any -reliable- sources supporting either a mechanism or results that applied to a specific, identifiable, individual. The most favorable source I found was the Linda Dahlstrom anecdote, the one that ends "...I wouldn't recommend it to anyone." (Unsourced anecdotes published in an advertising manner count as ad copy. I had no trouble finding lots of ad copy. It's summarized under "Proponets claim...")

I also suggest trying some actual science- Mock up a model of the outer ear, from the eardrum out, and try a candle on it. Measure the Δp across the eardrum if you have an instrument sensitive enough. If you don't feel like making a good mockup, just use regular candleholders. I expect that you, like others, will see the same "wax travel" in all cases where air is not free to travel up the center of the candle. Treedel (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too have had success with ear candles in helping to decrease pressure in the inner ear, though they were not as described as they are in this article, but paper-wax cones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.170.155 (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too have used ear candleing several times over a period between 4-6 years ago. I have to say that although it is satisfying to see all the supposed "ear-wax" in the candle stub, no perceivable difference to my hearing, swallowing or feeling of my ears being blocked resulted immediately, or med/long term. I don't think my personal findings matter much to this discussion, except to state which side of the fence I sit. But what is really interesting here is that obviously a lot of people have problems with ear wax, or think they do. It appears this is a huge problem for many people all over the world. They are trying out ear candles in the absence of any other easily obtainable solution. This topic is a useful wiki and I hope it survives.60.234.229.163 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

candles do work!!!

when i was little i had ear infections every other wk for yrs and yrs. i was getting to old to get tubes put in my ears. so instead of spending all this money my parents decided to just try the ear candles. THEY WORKED!!! NEVER AGAIN did i get a ear infection!!! great news!!! and i believe the only reason doctors and everyont is saying they dont work is because its cheap way to fix your ears and then they wouldnt get pays that many more thousands of dollars a yr. fyi... the pills / meds they give ppl arnt really that good for you either. ear candles are natural and cheaper than a doc bill so why not try them. i have to have time and do it right.

ĴƐńŇĬFƏṝ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.224.227 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Asarelah (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

I've added the NPOV tag to the article. Upon reading the above thread about bias and some comments about section blanking in the article's edit history, I see that this tag is warranted.

Things to work on to make the article more evenly-sided include more references and information about the benefits and origins of ear candling. Currently the "Origins" section only states where ear candles do not come from. Where then do they come from? The criticism section seems good and a benefits section could be just as good if supported by reputable resources. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia article, and should read like an encyclopedia article, free from personal anecdotes or vitriol. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above threads gives any source, or any policy reasons, to support the position that the article is not NPOV, and none has been forthcoming in the month or so since the tag was added. I also don't see any comments about section blanking in the article's edit history that suggest the tag is needed: can you provide diffs for the ones you mean? While reliable information about origins is desirable, the lack of it is not a reason for the NPOV tag; the statement about "where ear candles do not come from" is validly included given the prevalence of claims that it is associated with the Hopi. As far as I can see the position reported by sources that comply with WP:MEDRS is that it doesn't work. Unless MEDRS can be found to support it introducing a "benefits" section would be inconsistent with your suggestion that the article should be "free from personal anecdotes". NPOV doesn't require false balance. And I don't see any "vitriol" in the article, just sourced criticism. Brunton (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safety and effectiveness, reference citing

A fifth edit would surely be an edit war :)

rev 626307432 (me) --> per the source some, not all
rev 626308208 (VQuakr) --> partial rv - "sometimes" does not appear in the source
rev 626353002 (me) --> per the source: "Some ear candles are offered as products that purify the blood, strengthen the brain, or even 'cure' cancer," says...
rev 626356371 (2over0) --> it would be more accurate to say "some people promote ...", but the more direct presentation carries the same information

Of two sources for this paragraph (7 and 8), both hedge the blanket of products they cover when they talk about extravagant claims or dangerous dosages. However, the article portrays these findings as being shared by the entire field of marketers/distributers.

VQuakr's partial revert was probbably due to just a quick review, looking for an exact string match of "sometimes". Seeing this talk page, I can understand the vigilance (but still contend the revert was incorrect :).

Respecfully, I disagree with 2over0's assertion that "ear candling is promoted with extravagant claims..." has the same connotation as "some ear candles are promoted with extravagant claims...". Perhaps a better revision would be "ear candling has been promoted with some extravagant claims...". This would be more in keeping with the source's material:

Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)
— http://www.webmd.com/fda/stay-away-ear-candles

Very clearly a section less than 100% of the offerings are reported by Dr. Mann to have the claims he specifies. How big that section is isn't specified, and the current wording makes an unsubstantiated inferrence of 100%.

Thoughts?

72.208.126.27 (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with "some ear candles are promoted" or "ear candling is sometimes promoted", either way. My objection is to the word "extravagant" in the same sentence, which is a subjective opinion and therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. I have removed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion that the word safety be removed from the article.

I had this process done today. It was very strange and in my opinion very ineffective. However the process could never be described as dangerous or unsafe. The wax (or whatever they claim it to be) is captured by the protector long before it even gets to your face. To say this is an unsafe of dangerous practice is just a fallacy and should be stricken from the article.

(edit conflict) Thank you for taking the time to make a thoughtful post outlining your reasoning. I just see it as a matter of simplifying the presentation. Compare: "Botox is promoted for the treatment of migraines" - I would say that this does not imply that others do not market the same product for cosmetic purposes. Would "is sometimes promoted" address your concerns? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allays my concerns :) Cheers! 72.208.126.27 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]