Talk:Ear candling/Archive 1

Another deleted link?

Description of ear candling by alternative therapists (remove commercial external link)

I don't understand. In what sense is this a "commercial link" in any sense that makes it objectionable? It's just a page describing what happens at an ear-candling session, it's not trying to sell you one. It's not even run by people who have any commercial interest in ear-candling, it's on the "Colon therapists network" website. Flapdragon 11:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A color ad for a therapist finder plus eight (eight!) Google ads and a popup for a "newsletter" - more ads than text, almost. It's like linking a mainstream health article to a private supply store selling medical supplies because it desribes an ailment, rather than to the CDC page about the ailment. That's why the particularly idiotic (IMHO) link by a believer about how candling "worked" for him is still there; it's not used as an excuse to wallpaper ads.

But I'll admit that, once again, this is a judgement call, not an absolute. - DavidWBrooks 15:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What have the Google ads got to do with anything? Since when do we avoid linking to pages with adverts on? If it were linkspam I'd agree with you of course, i.e. a link that sheds no real light on the article and is purely using the article to direct to traffic to a commercial service, but that's not the case here. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand where you're coming from with this. Is there any actual WP policy you're referring to? I don't care passionately about that particular page, it probably didn't contain anything irreplaceable, but if you're going to go through Wikipedia deleting links to pages with any kind of commercial purpose -- well, that rules out most of the Web, doesn't it? Flapdragon 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't particularly care about it, either, and it was a close call, but it included (IIRC) nothing that wasn't mentioned in the story - which is the whole point of an external link, of course - and had a high ad-to-content ratio. In general, I think we should err on the side of caution with external links, so that readers seeing a link have some confidence that it will be worth the effort of leaving wikipedia: the site will tell them something new or give a new perspective, and won't require too much ad-wading-through-ness and/or registration. So many wiki articles are becoming external-link-laden. - DavidWBrooks 00:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be right that it didn't add much, and that's a perfectly fine rason for deleting it. I just wondered (and still wonder) where this horror of adverts comes in. (There was no regiustration involved incidentally, just a floating ad that went away with a simple click. Apart from that, no "wading" at all.) External links are a valuable part of what WP does, IMHO, and there's no need to think of them as inherently superfluous or a necessary evil. In some articles they're becoming an endangered species. Flapdragon 14:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct (boy, this is a polite argument!) that I over-stated the evils of this link's ad side, and that the existence of advertising is not a reason to squash a link. I realize that my real problem with it is that it added nothing much, if anything, to the article; it was a bland retelling of the information the article contained, and two minutes on Google finds several equivalent summaries. (Yet if it had been ad-free, I probably would have shrugged and left it alone out of inertia, so I'm not being consistent.) Also, I may be over-reacting to articles like podcasting and geocaching, where external links have at times swamped everything. Some articles are in danger of becoming Web portals to the topic at hand. - DavidWBrooks 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DavidWBrooks here. Links to pages with pop-over ads that wiggle around (!) had better add considerable information to the article if we are to link to them. That link had more ads than content. Dforest 15:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think we all agree now(!) Flapdragon 17:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Source please

Despite it's vociferous detractors, ear candling continues to grow in use and popularity. Undertaken with care, one may expect an overall pleasing experience.

I've removed this claim pending some evidence to substatiate it. Flapdragon 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

heating earwax

As for the part of the artical that states: "Nor could the candle create a sufficiently high temperature to "melt" the earwax as is sometimes claimed." After using an ear candle I lifted my head up and a large amount of liquid earwax dripped out. Is this another coincidence?

Liquid earwax? I'm a practitioner of ear candling and I've never known this to happen.

Sometimes you get some small lumps of hardened wax in the candle, or if there's no filter it may fall into the ear. When this happens, take a small amount and crush it slightly with your fingernail and smell it. It is a brownish colour, as earwax would be - but what does it smell like? I think earwax smells kind of bitter and sour, but it's definitely not a nice smell. If it smells kind of like the candle, then it's melted beeswax. You might know what beeswax smells like anyway, quite strong and slightly sweet. If it's fluffy and leaves a black mark when you rub it, it's ash. Lottie 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ear-candling is for arel and sohould be treated as such by this ARTICLE so i recommend that any critical passages should be moeved to a special section called 'Ear candling criticisms'. if you DON'T want me to do this then tell me... NOW!

What? You're okay with it? Then I will move it. Pleas efreel free to revert it is if i am causing the offense okSmith Jones 04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that's fair - it seems ridiculous to scatter the opposing points through the article, I think your edit would benefit it and generally make it less biased. :) What's "arel"? Lottie 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For information on any medical effects of ear candling, Wikipedia's rules require that we present mainstream science findings as the majority view. Such information does not belong somewhere at the bottom of the article. See e.g. WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience, WP:Undue Weight. AvB ÷ talk 18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I DID present it as the majority view it doesnt matterwhere in the articl the viewpoiunt is the scientiffic viewpoint was represented adeuqlately in my opiunon. Smith Jones 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring, changes

I have made some changes to the article. I expect to hear some claims of NPOV, but I actually think the article is now more balanced toward claims made by reliable sources instead of self-published junk science. The Theory section has been eliminated since the claims were from a "Pen Press" published book; this is a vanity press publisher, meaning there was no editorial control. The claim that safety is a matter of finding a proper practitioner is dangerous advice and is not backed up in the medical literature. AndyR 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article isn't NPOV now - but I still think you were right to take out the reference. I was trying my best, but this was the only book I could reference! I'm still looking for a decent book on ear candling, and when I find it I'll finally be able to cite it.

So yeah, the only reason the article is so biased is because there aren't any decent studies or books supporting it! And as a practitioner I really, really wish there were because I want to know that I'm doing the right thing, and actually helping people. :S (BTW: Never had anyone experience pain or ear damage from treatment, and so was surprised to read this article for the first time!) Lottie 11:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, I understand you are trying improve the article - thank you. But I think you removed too much material. Despite the fact that ear candling is a useless pseudoscientific practice (hoax), it is still important to include a list of the supposed benefits, and a picture of the supposed "toxins", in order to debunk the myth. It is necessary to state the pseudoscientists' claims in order to refute them. Removing the text and picture as you did means that someone who has been fed this information by a "practitioner", and then comes to Wikipedia to check it out, will not see the claims mentioned. Please consider this and restore the deleted text. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake, I didn't mean to remove the pic. I will update this when I find some time, or anyone else feel free, of course. Thanks for alerting me. --AndyR 02:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd that it takes 15 lines of text to finally reach the line saying this procedure is reported to be ineffective and dangerous by medical experts. This was very misleading for me as I started reading the article. I'm moving the info up to the lead. nadav 09:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the Practice

The article seems to debunk the notion that the Hopi people started this practice. Who can shed some light on its true origins? MarritzN (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Photograph Caption?

While the caption on the photograph may be technically correct, should it be pointed out that the doctor was candling the patient as part of an experiement to see if ear candling does anything? And that the experiment failed, in the sense that no good was done?

If the client was not sick, it would not do any good as ear candles help the body heal itself NOT remove wax ... www.earcandling.info HarmonyCone (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)HarmonyCone

He didn't exactly say "no good was done", in fact he wrote "On the positive side, I've seen middle ear infections respond very quickly to ear candling." However he also demonstrated it to be ineffective for removing earwax, and suggested the safety risks may outweigh the benefits. There is already a link in the caption to the article describing his experiments. I believe that is sufficient. --Dforest 05:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a close one, but I agree with the anonymous comment above - the casual reader will, I think, see the photo and caption as "gee, a real doctor uses ear candling!" (actually - what the heck is an "N.D."?) Forcing them to follow an external link to get the context seems excessive. How about something like "James Mally, N.D. ear candling a patient, as part of experiments that led him to suggest that safety risks outweigh any possible benefits." - DavidWBrooks 15:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ND seems to mean Doctor of Naturopathic medicine. I made a change to the caption along the lines you suggested without having read these comments. I strongly agree it was misleading otherwise. Incidentally, I wonder what your objection was to the link to the satire of ear candling, "butt candles"? It was an anology that made a valid point, i.e. that you would not expect to cure constipation by sticking a burning candle into your rectum to suck out the obstruction. Flapdragon 23:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has enough trouble debating which straightforward external links to use ... if we started adding satire pages - hoo boy! Imagine what links they would put on political pages!! - DavidWBrooks 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "if we started adding satire pages" -- they're there already, and why on earth not! Have you seen the articles on Westboro Baptist Church or Google, for example? What makes a link to site that uses satire to oppose something less "straightforward" than one to any other kind of site, or in any way objectionable as long as it sheds light on the subject? I'm not aware of any WP rule against it. Of course, "they" can put whatever links they like on political pages, and if they're deemed unsuitable for some good reason they'll simply be removed. But there would need to be some kind of reasonable objection, and I'm still hoping for an explanation of the nature of your objection to this one (bearing in mind also NPOV). Flapdragon 02:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It was juvenile, uninteresting and added nothing to the debate, IMHO. Calling it "satire" is a stretch; "frat joke" would be a better category. -DavidWBrooks 13:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You might not like it, you might think it was juvenile (though it didn't seem so to me), but there's no denying it's satire. I think I've explained the point it's making, if that was necessary, and it's a long way from "a frat joke". The idea that ear wax could be removed by suction without massive tissue damage, and using just a candle, is absurd, and I think neatly satirised by the analogy of hearing one's intestines gurgling as the blockage is freed. Of course, if you don't like your satire scatalogical you're up against a pretty mighty tradition (Rabelais, Swift et al), but more to the point (as you know) WP is not in the business of censoring things some people might find tasteless. The description of the link makes it quite clear what kind of page it leads to, so no-one would be offended by stumbling on it. I'm reinstating the link on the grounds that it makes a good point not made elsewhere. Best wishes, Flapdragon 02:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Citing Rabelais ... oh dear, that's awfully close to the cranks who argue "they also censored Gallileo!" But since edit wars over external links are wikipedia at its most navel-gazing, I'll leave the link in and we'll have to agree to disagree. (Although I see that somebody else has removed it) - DavidWBrooks 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

NO PROOF!

I was the user that submitted my personal account of ear candling in JPEG form. I personally FELT like it worked... but when I tried it again two weeks later, I burned one that was stuck into the ground by about 1cm and it had the same, if not MORE "toxins" and "wax". All it merely must be is cotton granuals and melted bees wax, not human ear wax. Altonbr 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right - Biosun, who make one brand of candles that holistic therapy insurance companies will cover, have confirmed that the residue in the candles after use is not anything from the ear. It is a bit of beeswax and ash from the cotton burning. This is common sense, because some candles have filters, and the residue is on the wrong side of the filter for it to have come from the body. If a practitioner used candles with filters and tried to tell a client that the wax was from their ears, all it would take was one question: "why is there no wax on the other side of the filter?" The practitioner would be stumped, and also would look silly! Lottiotta

I will try to find a reference for the paragraph already explaining that in the article. --Lottiotta 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An insurance company covers ear candles??? That's quite interesting and should be in the story; can you provide a link to evidence? (But what is a "holistic therapy insurance company" anyway? Sounds like ... well, like hokum, frankly, but maybe I'm being too quick on the snide draw. - DavidWBrooks 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

Sure, I'll write to Biosun and ask them to give me a reference or send me the information about the study that says it doesn't "suck out" the ear wax. Presumably I can't add it in here unless it's published, but I'm sure it is. And because I'm a "believer", I'll definitely be finding some information to rebalance the bias! :) The insurance company (well, one of several) here in the UK is the TIS, Therapy Insurance Service. I'll try and add some of their policies and cite them, in the article. Lottiotta 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed Biosun, and I'll edit once I hear back from them. :) Lottie 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Still no word... Lottie 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit of original research here: I've never tried these, but observed my parents doing so. My mother got a big orange "sausage" of wax out, which appeared only in the candle applied to her ear, not when burning one by itself. I thought this was odd, and couldn't figure out what mechanism could possibly remove that much wax from an ear. Maybe it works for some people whose ears are totally clogged? My ears are always clear so there's no point in me trying it. 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Criticism

Having stumbled across this page through simple curiosity, i find this entire article to be stunningly unprofessional. It only considers American, and to some extent Canadian opinion, and is obviously biased toward a critical point of view. There is a proliferation of unnessecary italics. There is also an unnessecary criticism of the long established and respected CE standard certification, which again uses unnessecary and unprofessional italics. This criticism only stands to further narrow the emphasis and view point presented by this article. This is quite possibly the worst article i have ever read on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minarelli (talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the research into the field does seem to have been done in North America; there are citations from European sources such as Prof. Edzard Ernst, though. I take your point on the emphasis italics, though. Pseudomonas_(talk) 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the small changes evident, they do much to render the article more scholarly in presentation. Minarelli 7 October 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Ear Candles Don't Suck

I've removed a verbatim quote of the pages http://www.wallysnatural.com/faq.html and http://www.wallysnatural.com/how_to.html posted by GolfVixen. I have no objections to discussing the content of the pages, but copyright rules preclude mirroring them here. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative Pressure

Would suction even work? I can make pretty good suction in my ear with my finger, and it doesn't pull wax out, it just hurts. You'd need to somehow put positive pressure behind the wax, in order to get it to move... and if your wax was that bad, you'd be totally deaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's suction you guys need, why not use something that doesn't run the risk of dumping wax into the ear rather than sucking it out? In other words, get a vacuum cleaner and downsize it... this alternative treatment of candling strikes me as the silliest thing since bloodletting and that treatment administered to Qin Shi Huang of mercury pills for immortiality (which killed him).204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status

Legal Status is an incorrect topic name, as the content only refers to its marketing or selling regulatory rules. Legal Status is only relevant to products that are illegal in some countries. Ear Candling is legal everywhere therefore requiring no "status" descriptor, and also, this topic is not about an individual product or a particular ear candling product, this article is for the Ear Candling "Procedure" which frankly requires a piece of paper and some wax. Procedures, whether for ear candling or changing nappies are not subject to legality, unless an ingredient or material used is illegal or regulated. I'm changing the topic to "Product Regulations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.181.187 (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ernst paper - evidence

A recent edit claimed that Prof Edzard Ernst's paper Ear candles: a triumph of ignorance over science was "basing [its] claim on hearsay providing no trials or scientific data.". The paper itself here (requires login) shows this is not the case; the article is mainly based on the work of Seely &.al, as well as a documentation of the steps he took to ascertain the absence of any clinical trials that might have supported the claims made by the manufacturers. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, gullable or a solution ?

I don't know. I've done it a number of times, because I have problems with my left ear getting plugged up. Every time I've done it there's been significantly more "wax" in the candle I used on my left ear. Also, If you did it again a couple weeks later, it makes sense that there wouldn't have been much more wax in the candle you used in your ear vs. the test candle in the ground, because there wouldn't have been very much wax build up in your ear after only a few weeks. (user's view moved by Lottie 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

I've read a lot of information on Ear Candling, and about its purported benefits, as well as its controversy, but for some reason it appeared to cure a problem I had.

For some months a few years back, I had been suffering from impared hearing, consisting of occasional distortion of higher frequencies (like a speaker that's been turned up too loud), and a rhythmic popping sound at other times. I had been to the doctor, who referred me to a hearing consultant that I visited several times. I had a number of hearing tests and even an MRI on my head (just to cover all bases). But in the end he was at a loss as to the cause. I suggested it was congestion based (perhaps a blocked eustacian tube?), but no decongestant treatment seemed to have any effect.

I eventually heard of "Ear Candles" and went to a local Holistic Therapist. Immediately after the treatment, there was slight improvement, but then over the next 24 hours my sinuses appeared to be draining, with a couple of significant expulsions of mucus into the top of my throat from the passages behind my nose. The symptoms cleared completely, and my hearing was restored. I have no other explanation to attribute to the sudden "cure" except for using the Candles.

I just used the candles again this last weekend, as I have been starting to occasionally get the same distortion I used to have. And again it appears to have "cured" it. Regardless of common sense prevailing over "quackery", and my scepticism on what the candle contains after use, I would be interested in understanding what actually happened to restore my hearing if it wasn't the Candles themselves.

Andy

Coincidence? It happens, even if it's an unsatisfying explanation. That's why long, expensive, complicated experiments have to be set up, to weed out seeming explanations that really aren't. - DavidWBrooks 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Article is NOT neutral. I think it's okay to list criticisms, but it's not okay to only show the skepticist's point of view. Ear candling worked for me, too. By the way, the argument that 'ear candles are dangerous because you can burn down your house' is bullshit! You can burn down your house with a thousand other things, eg. candles. - J.Z. 80.98.163.186 (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality issues have been resolved. Thanks to HC for the link. Treedel (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Harm claims

The article keeps mentioning claims that Ear Candling causes harm, but does not detail the harm. Does it make you deaf? Does it burn your ears? What harm? And what evidence to support the harm? Any scientific studies with Control and Test groups? What was the sample size if any? Anecdotal evidence? Has there been any cases of people using Ear Candling and then harming themselves? In all fairness a hair straigtener or a cigarette has caused far more skin burns. Despite the burn claims, the wrong or incorrect method of ear-candling leading to burns or other issues cannot be brushed off as a side effect ear-candling which may have been avoided if used correctly/as intended or described. In other words, if someone decides to use a iron the wrong way causing a burn, does not imply irons are dangerous or harmful. Comparing the Canada "survey" (not study), the case for burns was 6 times lower than that of hair straighteners. As far as I have researched, there are no significant cases to scientifically back up the anti-ear candling claims, and it also seems the homo. doctor Edzard does not cite anything scientific for his claims neither. Wikipedia does not allow citations that make a claim whereby the claim is unfounded or uncited in the citation; and if anecdotal or hearsay evidence is the basis, it clearly needs to be emphasized in the main article. Can someone please clear this up? Otherwise there would be need for further clarification. Also remember surveys are not studies or medical studies. With the Canada survey, none of the side effects reported caused any significant harm, upon closer look, the temporary loss of hearing reported by a few, was at a less intensity than that experienced in airplanes due to pressurized cabin. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I replied below. Unfortunately the fulltext paper needs a login (roll on open-access journals everywhere!), but it's based on a literature review, which is mainly the work of Seely (in vitro work on the effect of burning the candles, and a systematic survey of otolaryngologists). He also deals with biological plausibility. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a doctor myself with Athens membership. Point me to the paper, I'll take a look. Thanks Pesudomonas --93.97.181.187 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the link below. I'll comment soon. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great - also, re. Ernst, I'd say he used to practice as a homoeopathic doctor (rather than a standard medical one), but now AFAIK his chair is normal, so I'd not qualify his professorship - his subject is the assessment of alternative medicine, but he's not practicing alternative academia, if you see what I mean? Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain a bit more. I'm not sure of your point. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's cos I was talking rubbish. I'd thought that Ernst's MD was a qualification specifically in homoeopathy; I think in fact it was a normal MD, and he additionally has a PhD (iirc in something haematological), so it would have been fair enough to describe him as "Dr" without any additional specification even before he acquired the "Prof" which I was arguing above didn't need any modification (the other user described him as the homo. doctor Edzard). Er, this is all as far as I can tell based his Wikipedia article and stuff mentioned in Trick or Treatment, so take my summary of it all with a grain of salt Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MEDRS

It is my position, and that of the US FDA, and that of Health Canada, that ear candling is not a medical procedure. Verbal removed the section added to balance the POV with assertions that a thesis paper written by a Ph.D did not meet WP:MEDRS. Any opinions on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treedel (talk • contribs)

Update: Fixed the link. Treedel (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The link is WP:MEDRS. My reference to medrs was only to the sources provided, which justified a small portion of the text removed. I still think WP:RS is not met by these references, as theses are generally not considered RS - however these refs are not to a thesis. I'm not sure that Clayton is even accredited, though I may be wrong. As it is the majority of the text was not sourced, what was was not reliable per WP:RS, and the whole was a violation of WP:UNDUE. This is without even analysing the content of the edits, which fail on a few other points. Sorry about that. Please suggest what refs and balance you think needs to be added below. Verbal chat 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Clayton is not accredited. I suspect that no source that supports the concept will have an accredited education. I also don't think that the accreditation of an institute says anything about the work generated by the graduates of that institute.

http://www.earcandling.info/Earcandling.info/H.%20Cone.html is the text of what appears to be a thesis. It has the same type of flow of a thesis, credits the adviser, and has it's own bibliography. That makes it a third-party republication of information.

All three proponents appear on sublinks to http://www.earcandling.info- Did you visit the link? Would the section be better sourced if the citation was repeated for every paragraph?

As for the content, it is disjointed precisely because the three people referenced have irreconcilable statements on the matter. Their individual claims very widely, particularly on the subject of how ear candling works. While I understand that it looks silly, I can't fairly represent their views without it looking silly. Much of what I wrote was simply rewritten from their own work. The attempt was actually to resolve the POV issue, since proponents of ear candling are completely non-represented in the article.

As for the WP:RS of the sources, I feel they meet the criteria of [1]:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;

Notability has been established separtely

2. it is not unduly self-serving;

No portion of the website offers products or services for sale

3. it does not involve claims about third parties;

4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

The reference limits it's claims to the subject

5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;

I don't think that the entire site was fabricated for the primary purpose of

6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

I limited the changes to one section out of several others.

I kept the phrasing in the form of "X claims Y", and documented where X claimed Y.

Why do you feel that the content of that section failed to be adequate for inclusion?

I don't really want to put the effort into rewriting the entire article to balance the two sides. Right now I see one statement attributed to proponents, and 8 statements, opinions, or findings attributed to opponents of the procedure. I could put the discussion of how it works into "Procedure", replacing "Its proponents claim that the flame creates negative pressure, drawing wax and debris out of the ear canal, which appears as a dark residue." ...

(75.33.231.210 (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Have you ever seen the movie Backdraft MEDRS?....if not here's a quote from Wikipedia's definition of what backdraft means.

"A backdraft is a situation which can occur when a fire is starved of oxygen...Due to pressure differentials, these puffs of smoke are sometimes "sucked" back into the enclosed space from which they emanate, which is where the term "backdraft" originates."

Sounds suspiciously like what's happening when you candle your ears. By the way, have you ever ear candled your ears before MEDRS? I often appreciate Wiki for providing solid and unbiased information...however I do not feel this article lives up to those standards.(75.33.231.210 (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

I took the liberty of fixing the formatting here. I assume you are addressing me, the author of this portion of text. MEDRS refers to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Do you have an actual source for the amount of vacuum drawn by an ear candle? Do you know of a source that can help us to identify the 'experts' in the field of ear candling? I am somewhat stuck because I have no way of determining who the most notable/reliable source is, and there are no substantial points of widespread agreement among the various different sources I have. A significant number of EC proponents reject the Earwax Removal theory, but some go on about energy fields and body/world alignment, while others make direct assertions about physical changes to the endocrine and immune systems. Still others explicitly refuse to make any claims at all, and use testimonials exclusively. I need a way to differentiate the sources to provide a useful output. Please, if you can, help me out. Treedel (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Treedel... if you truly are struck because of the lack of scientifically proven medical source material in regards to Ear Candling v. the Backdraft Theory; I would have to suggest you seek the expertise of a quantum physicist! This type of person, and null others would be qualified to calculate the equation of suction over ear. Alas, I know of no quantum physicists to refer you to. But so, I still question if the author has ever ear candled their own ears? Perhaps your own experience could serve as a launching pad to constructively criticize? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.247.63 (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The source I have, which meets WP:RS but is not relevant enough for the article, measured the vacuum drawn by an ear candle to be about 50 mm of water. Alas, my own experiences are specifically exempt from inclusion under WP:NOR. The best source I have right now is an anecdotal account written by a reported who tried it, but I don't want to jump to conclusions and say that it's a "typical" experience until/unless I can show that it is. Do you have a source for the "Backdraft Theory" as it relates specifically to ear candling?

Also, I ran the concept past a quantum physics professor, and her response was that no significant suction would be drawn by any flame that didn't seriously burn the patient; You would basically need a bonfire on your head before you got enough suction to have any effect. Treedel (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

...(Cont) put summaries of the anecdotal reports under a section "Positive results" and rewrite the history section covering the history as covered by the reliable sources.

I wanted to include a statement along the lines of "An analysis of patients indicated that patients who chose to repeat ear candling were likely to report lessening of symptoms when treatment persisted until symptoms were relieved. No control group was used." Yes, I had the page number to cite. I didn't find any place where it would make stylistic sense, so I dropped it.

The article as a whole would still be negative on the subject, but it would fairly represent the published opinions on both sides. Treedel (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is simply a website unless you can prove it is a thesis, and that will be hard from an unaccredited "college". It fails WP:RS even if it is a thesis. Balance is not concerned with equal weight of opinions. Please see WP:UNDUE. The balance of the article should reflect the balance of reliable sources (ie cover topics in proportion to their weight). Verbal chat 07:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I copied and linked the checklist for "Fringe and extremist sources". Which of those tests does that source fail?

I still believe that the current article does not accurately represent what the practitioners of ear candling believe that it does. I do not want to state their beliefs as fact. I would prefer to use 'proponents say, opponents say, FDA says' type terminology. Do you think the article would be better largely rewritten with that style: Remove the initial reference to wax removal (unless someone comes out with a source supporting it.), perhaps a few corrections under -procedure-, a new section -principles of operation-, -criticism- and -product regulations- unchanged unless additions are found, -origin- perhaps expanded with actual information regarding the origin, and at least a clear statement that it was not invented by the Hopi Indians. (Unless someone finds a source that it was. I have at least two outright denials from different sources.)

Also, what are the content issues you originally mentioned? It does no good for us to hash out the sourcing issues if we can't write minimally acceptable articles. I figured that over the next week or so, I'd be able to bring this article almost to B-class. Given the subject matter, I'm not willing to spend the time to make it better than that. If I have to spend this much time discussing relatively minor changes, I won't be able to keep that timeline. Not that there are deadlines or anything. Treedel (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Proactively fixed the earwax reference. I fully intend to cite one of the studies re: debunked if it is determined that w.e.i doesn't qualify as a fringe source. I wanted to assert that ear candles were permitted in the US "for entertainment purposes only", but stopped short because I couldn't source that. How do you prove that there isn't a law in the US prohibiting recreational use of a product? If nobody has an answer, I'm just going to cop out and say something like "Despite being illegal to market .... disease", some companies market them within the US "for entertainment purposes only", and cite the marketing. Treedel (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think Treedel's edits were basically good - everything was phrased as proponents' beliefs rather than medical fact. I am trusting that these three and their views are notable within the field. I think that that issue is the heart of Verbal's contention - if outside observers only ever mention the aspiration hypothesis, that could be an indication that the other ideas have not had enough impact to justify mention here. Are there books or lecture series in this topic? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to recognize experts in the field of "alternative 'medicine'". I'll look for independent educational materials written by the AM community; If I find several of them that essentially agree, I'll post that as the 'proponets believe'. If I find several that are basically different, I'll summarize it as conflicting theories. If I can't find several, I'll write it up as poorly documented. I figure based on apparent ear candle sales, at least a significant minority of people are repeat buyers, indicating that they found the candling effective, regardless of what medical science thinks. I prolly won't be able to show results before Thursday or Friday this week, but I should at least be able to provide an updated estimate by then. Depends on how things go.

I have gotten the feeling that Verbal, like myself, doubts the efficacy of the treatment, and is grouping me with other editors who have, on this article, pushed their own agenda. There is nothing wrong with that, and he has pointed out some valid criticisms regarding my changes so far.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Treedel (talk • contribs)

No offence intended. All the best, Verbal chat 20:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

None taken. I hope that you will be happier with the final result than with the original article. Treedel (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence

Added section, populated with sourced information. The second paragraph (Proponents claim...) could probably use a little cleaning up. Treedel (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada

They are not illegal in Canada. I don't know why this page says that. I just bought some today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.28.71 (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article bases the claim on http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/med/ear-oreille-eng.php , which looks legitimate: Health Canada has not issued any licences for ear candles. Therefore, the sale of this product for therapeutic purposes in Canada is illegal. As well, both Canada and the United States have issued directives that ban the importing of ear candles. Some promoters try to get around Health Canada's Medical Devices Regulations by advertising that ear candles are "for entertainment purposes only". However, Health Canada maintains that these people are selling the product illegally, for medical purposes, as there is no other reasonable use for ear candles. It looks like the people you bought them from might have been breaking the law in selling them; I have no idea how well the law is enforced. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not too difficult to find, but do appear to be illegal. It would seem the law isn't enforced very well. 66.207.112.30 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone

This article has a very skeptical tone, which is fine, but the main source of the skepticism comes from quackwatch.com, as if that's the end-all-be-all. With homeopathic remedies, the "proof" is always going to be more anecdotal and less clinical. That doesn't necessarily mean that the practice ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.229.188 (talk • contribs)

Actually, that's pretty much the definition of an ineffective practice, if your definition of "effective" is "actually treats the underlying condition." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.166.7 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one of the main sources of skepticism is the Canadian Ministry of Health, pretty reputable. Themindset 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is very biased against ear-candling. While reading this, you'd get the impression that the only proponents of this technique are scammers and morons. There are many proven evidential and empirical scientific studies of Ear-candling that have proven that it may have some effect but of course, knowing the bunch of cynics on this page they will be reverted to maintain the ridiculously-biased super skepitcal tone existing on this page. Smith Jones 16:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

'

Scammers and morons, perhaps, but mostly the naive and those who confuse wishful thinking with reality. There is, as the article makes clear with well-sourced references, no evidence - none, zero, nada - that it does anything but enrich candle-sellers, burn the occasional ear, and produce a bit of placebo effect now and then. Presenting that information isn't being "biased against" the topic; its being factual. - DavidWBrooks 18:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That you go to all these pains to pretend you are able to be 'objective' and then offer James Randi's opinion as a reference--That just says it all. You crack me up! Gosh, you're right, DavidWBrooks--you and James Randi are just smarter than the rest of us naive and confused folks. 74.74.69.184 (talk)

No, you are right, there is no objective reality. Whether it works or not is purely a function of your opinion... I'm glad reality is so malleable. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

137.111.47.29- You seem to be responding to a statement made circa two years ago. Also, the sarcasm and implied personal attack are inappropriate.

There is a current discussion towards the bottom of the page, where we are trying to put all the relevant facts into the article. Those facts include things along the lines of "Some people claim to have had beneficial results" as well as "The FDA has found no evidence of beneficial results". There's at least some infighting and disagreement among the EC folks as well, if it is notable enough to mention, it will further weaken their claims. Feel free to open a free account and/or help with the editing. Editors without accounts are rarely taken seriously in content discussions, and so are suited mainly for minor typographical edits, but officially have the same status. Note that if you have a dynamic or shared IP address, you are indistinguishable from anyone with the same ISP or IP address as you. Happy editing. Treedel (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out that my sarcasm is inappropriate is somewhat comical, since I was using sarcasm to mirror the sarcasm in the previous response, which nobody responded to for two years. I was commenting on the relativism that people use to try to artificially balance facts that contradict their opinions. While a shared IP might not carry a weighting that you appreciate, I would hope that some people make judgements based on the strings of words I choose to use to elucidate my points. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I based the only substantive portion of what I said on your words- I didn't get here until well after that comment was made, so I didn't bother to mention that the previous comment was also inappropriate. Also, most non-account contributions tend to be along the lines of "you and James Randi are just smarter than the rest of us naive and confused folks" or "I'm glad reality is so malleable", Rather than "I can't find a way to determine the relative qualifications of practitioners of alternative medicine."

Speaking of which, are you aware of any 'independent' body which rates members of the AM community? I'd prefer to be able to quote the "Foremost 'expert' in the 'field'", rather than picking one at random- I am having trouble figuring out if there is enough of an EC community to have an opinion.

If you want to make a social commentary, go ahead. The talk page, however, is not the right place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treedel (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you hadn't read the previous discussions then why did you wade in? Ninahexan (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted links

Reference 16 was broken. Pity because it's a great article. I found it again on the Now Magazine website at http://www.nowtoronto.com/lifestyle/story.cfm?content=145396&archive=24,20,2005 --CRASH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.239 (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ref 16 works for me. I did incorporate the NOW magazine ref for you. Treedel (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a link which was here for a few weeks which was removed, to EarsUnblocked.com. I support the reinclusion of the site. First, this article needs more neutral links. The one link listed right now as "neutral" does not contain any further information besides pictures. The Ears Unblocked website is not the greatest but it is a useful resource for a large segment of the readers of this page. I found it here myself earlier when my own ears were blocked. I found the site helpful, and found that it had content not immediately accessible in a single place on any of the other Wikipedia articles or linked sites. Until there is a full Wikipedia article detailing the various methods of surplus earwax removal, I think we should reinclude the link.

I disagree, as the largest manufacture of handcrafted ear candles it is irreprehensible that anyone would market their candles as ear wax removers. It is simply impossible. The website www.earcandling.info shows this clearly and supports the position of Dr. Seely HarmonyCone (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)HarmonyCone

The removal mentioned that there are ads on the site -- true, but they are not particularly intrusive, and Wikipedia policies as far as I know do not exclude linking to sites with ads on them. The content-ad ratio of the site is fine, and it is not directly selling any of the products or services it discusses. The removal also mentions content. As I mentioned above, I felt that the content was useful enough to warrant reinclusion. Not having any link of this type on the articles in question ultimately makes the articles less useful to a large segment of readers -- those who have the condition and are researching it. 76.67.15.164 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the site should be put back. Can the original deleter chime in? Site has ads but quite a bit of useful stuff that is not in the Wiki entry. Unless someone wants to create a general "excessive earwax" page on Wiki, as suggested above? I'll restore the link in a few days if there are no objections. BrucePrior 04:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed a couple of external links to an ear-candling supply store. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and connections to retail establishments are frowned on. - DavidWBrooks 13:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since many people do in fact believe in this, for what it's worth, there should be some links that explain the proponent's point of view. To have six critical links and no positive ones is severely POV. Dforest 01:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The proponent is a fool who believes lies. Their point of view should be stamped out and burned as an effigy. The FACTS are not to be disputed for the sake of crazy people who believe their voice should be heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.29.75 (talk • contribs) 13 April 2009

Point, but the crazy people's beliefs are notable, and worth including. Treedel (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going through http://www.earcandling.info, and I'll place in-context summaries of the proponents, and cite them. Treedel (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with this, this article is not neutral! 80.98.163.186 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ear candling is only used symptomatically. It is not intended to remove ear wax. It is used for ear infections, sinus infections, etc. It allows the body to internally heal itself not allow items to be removed from the body HarmonyCone (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)HarmonyCone

Why don't you find those links and add them? I mean, I think this is an NPOV article... Ear candling is a dangerous scam, Health Canada doesn't have any interest in discrediting legitimate alternative medicine. Themindset 03:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ear Candles are not dangerous when used properly and the ear candles are made properly. Wiki does not even begin to address the quality control of raw materials ... see www.earcandling.info to address this issue thoroughly HarmonyCone (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)HarmonyCone

Well, mainly because I'm personally not a proponent of ear candling. But that doesn't change my opinion that to show six critical links without several neutral or positive ones is a serious POV problem, which someone should solve. There should be more specific talk of the claimed benefits – without resorting to weasel words – and ideally someone should research the history of this thing. A lot of the proponent sites say this has Hopi origins. Dforest 04:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ear Candles are not of a Hopi Origin. As a matter of fact, the Hopi Tribe has repeatedly as Biosun (the German company that manufactures Hopi Candles to stop illegally using their name. see www.earcandling.info for documented facts HarmonyCone (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)HarmonyCone

Hopi origins? Interesting: That's a new one to me. Can you point to a cite, so we can incorporate it in the article? - DavidWBrooks 12:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly Dforest, don't simply stick on a Neutrality tag and then not do something. Be bold and do something about, do the things you are suggesting and avoid sticking on the neutrality tag. My roomate got seriously injured using these things, and if this article helps even one person avoid the very real dangers of ear-candling, GREAT. No matter what you do or say, you can't go against physics: if there was enough suction to pull out ear wax, it would be doing incredible damage to the subject. But, in fact, the only danger is wax (the wax from the candle) leaking back into your ear. Themindset 02:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again using the proper raw materials is INTEGRAL ... please review www.earcandling.info HarmonyCone (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)HarmonyCone

If you look in the history, I did do some considerable work toward making it NPOV. I absolutely agree, the warnings should be in there. But before my edits it wasn't even listed in the alternative medicine category, only as pseudoscience. There were but two full sentences describing it–in a rather biased way–and the rest was basically criticism. I personally seriously doubt the effectiveness of this, but I note that Straight Dope, for example, based its experiment on only one candle, while sites I looked at said 2-3 candles are usually necessary the first time. [2] It may well be purely placebo, but someone has to play devil's advocate in these situations. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and not a medical guide. There should be a more thorough explanation of the practice and its history and ethnography. BTW, I'm very sorry about your roommate. Dforest 05:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Also note that many 'conventional' meds, like Viagra, have serious dangers, (see [3]) but they must be explained in the article in a neutral way. Dforest 06:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks, I've googled for more info about the history on this, and I find a lot of sites connecting it with Hopi, but, alas, most of it is vague marketing drivel... [4] I would look into some books of Hopi ethnography, but I'm living in Japan right now, and its very hard to find such things here. Dforest 05:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Vague marketing drivel, alas, is what constitutes most evidence in this field, usually wrapped in pompous new age gobbledygook and misused medical terminology. Which explains a lot of the extreme skepticism- DavidWBrooks 10:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No doubt, there are a lot of dubious alternative medicine practices out there. You always have to separate the wheat from the chaff. But many of them are interesting whether or not they they are physiologically effective, particularly if they have ethnological history behind them. By the way, have you heard of the Museum of Questionable Medical Devices? [5] It's a place I've been meaning to visit for some time. Dforest 13:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Excessive scope

The article currently contains a claim that ear candling is "widely" described as being Hopi in origin, and that "the manufacturers" (plural) have used that description and refused to stop when it was refuted. In fact, the citations for these comments only refer to one specific manufacturer. In that case, shouldn't the claims in the article be toned down? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that anyone except that one manufacturer ever used the "It is Hopi in origin" claim, let alone refused to stop doing so. 128.100.5.116 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, I agree with you. This article suffers from edits from biased editors. I just rephrased that section. Feel free to fix any other problems that you find. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please move that reference to the proper section, and remove it from the lead? If it is that unimportant then it has no place in the first paragraph. Miami33139 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was unimportant. Mention of this belongs in the lead, because the lead should summarize the article. I have rephrased it. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Section blanking

An IP editor has blanked sections from this article that contain cited observations. I reverted the edits under the impression that the IP was possibly vandalizing the article. After messaging the IP they have contunued their blanking, but are including edit summaries. This implies a certain amount of good faith, so I am loathe to revert without some outside opinion. If editors could weigh in with their opinions, it would be greatly appreciated. Regards Tiderolls 19:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Ear Candling.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ear Candling.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

People need to do their research BEFORE writing an article on here.

I am very disappointed with whoever wrote this section on ear candles.

One:If you are stupid enough to burn yourself that's your problem, do you burn yourself cooking too or should that be banned also?

Two:If you did your research you would find that only the paraffin wax ear candles actually leave a residue and YES it is from the wax in the candle. You need to use beeswax candles and there will be NO residue because ear candles don't "suck out" ear wax!!!! They made it so that the wax will start to drain later on. And no it is not something that occurs right at the second you are done you have to wait. Don't knock it because it doesn't work like a miracle drug.

I have horrible allergies and I have used them a few times when my ears were so plugged and full of pressure I could barely hear. I used the ear candles and it helped out a lot. They are no wonder cure but they do help out so quit bashing something just because it's not scientifically proven, which by the way neither is the flight of a bumble bee, guess they don't exist either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.232.197.130 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed with the above comment. "Anecdata" is not evidence. At best, your experience could be a (questionable) single data point submitted as part of a much larger attempt at analyzing how effective candling is. Since you are contributing a single data point, perhaps you would be better served by looking at one of the in-depth studies already conducted by medical researchers and professionals. You may find a few other instances where ear candling was perceived as effective, perhaps a reflection of your own personal experience. But this, sadly, means little compared to the veritable sea of data points and observations that it provided no effect or benefit to the user. You see, when the evidence is stacked against your viewpoint, it's easy to feel disappointed. But it means that even though it may have worked for you, chances are it will not work for someone else. Your comment reminds me of religious argumentation. And while there is something to be said about placebo effects (and confirmation bias), belief in something does not make it so. =( Please try to understand.

The flight of a bumblebee is not something to be proven. It's a phenomenon to be studied. I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.

This type of fallacious argumentation is dangerous. I understand the desire to contest scientific studies when their conclusions differ from your own experiences, but science is not about personal observation. It's about externalizing the experience of a phenomenon in a way that can be studied, experimented and repeated with the same results by anyone who asks the same question. If you can't externalize ideas and observations there is no way to test them objectively. See the problem? It has little to do with bias. Religious experience cannot be tested and that is why there is so much disagreement.

Maybe you should look at some of the studies more carefully and see if they made any errors in they way they conducted the research. Then maybe you could submit this to researchers who work in the field.

Maybe I am overstepping the boundaries of this discussion, but since I see this type of argument frequently on discussion pages, I felt the need to reply. Feel free to delete this if it's irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.51.206.251 (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I hasten to add to this discussion that the flight of a bumblebee has been proven. There's even a section about it right here on Wikipedia: [[6]].

The above poster is correct in that anecdotes do not count, especially on Wikipedia. The medical consensus is that of ear candling doesn't work, and there is no scientific mechanism for it to work. If you so doubt our knowledge of physics, then you should not drive anywhere, use the Internet or a computer, fly anywhere, or even use GPS. 71.199.114.176 (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I read the ear candling article here to start my research. I was disappointed because I could really see the bias that excluded what honest proponents say about the practice. I did another 5 minutes of searching and found another website which explains what ear candling really does: (website removed by Famousdog because it's clearly promotional). I understand the no anecdotal evidence stance of wikipedia, but that is essentially what this biased article is doing in the reverse. I don't understand how someone could claim they did honest research on ear candling and didn't find the website I found in 5 minutes that supports ear candling and clearly states that ear candling doesn't create negative pressure or draw out wax. They give a clear description of the way in which ear candling works, and they don't make false claims. After reading that site I feel like I know what ear candling is even if I am not that interested in trying it. But after reading this article I am just aggravated by the hypocrisy of ignoring the facts and claiming "NPOV".

I have a challenge, prove you are not biased and quote from the website I found and explain what honest ear candling advocates claim, and don't claim. You may ask "how come you don't write the pro view?" Hmm, I don't trust the process here and expect my edits would be trashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.52.73 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith on your part, I think you're being shockingly naive. That website is clearly a promotional website with links to sites that sell ear candles. For crying out loud, it clearly says: "We've tried and reviewed just about every brand and found the best quality candles to be *****'s Candles." It is an advert and therefore not a reliable source. Also, the claims that they make are not backed up by references to any (verifiable, published, peer-reviewed) research. The fact that Republican senators think ear candles are great is neither here nor there. All the verifiable, reliable, peer-reviewed research on ear candles suggests that they are a ****ing joke and therefore this article is not POV for presenting that consensus. Famousdog (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Check the revision history. I did research what the advocates said about how they worked. I wrote a paragraph each from four different sources, and I couldn't get those sources to reconcile. One used the 'negative pressure' claim, another used a claim which boiled down to 'magic', a third used a different claim about energy, balance, and unspecified 'toxins', and the fourth made a claim somewhere between the benefits of massage and the placebo effect/positive thinking. Many sources flatly and explicitly contradict each other, and none of them make claims remotely compatible with objective evidence. The Dahlstrom reference is the most positive reliable source I found- if you can find any other qualified source without any conflict of interest, feel free to either add a bit, or reference said source in the talk and someone will eventually get around to including it. Treedel (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Categories

The current article is tagged with categories that may be in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

The main article is tagged with the category Pseudoscience, which seems pejorative and could be lofted at any number of practices in alternative medicine.

This talk page is tagged with the category Skepticism, and while it seems to be of interest to a few people who hold skeptical views around the topic at hand, it is not an article about skepticism and should not be tagged as such.

This is part of a longer conversation about NPOV, discussed elsewhere on this talk page. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The policy WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as well as the guideline WP:FRINGE suggest that we call a spade, a spade, and categorize pseudoscience topics accordingly.

The category may be unnecessary although I don't object to its inclusion here. I would object to the lead paragraph calling the practice of ear candling "pseudoscientific" without a reliable source to back it up. That would be pejorative. The article currently does not do this, instead correctly describing it as "an alternative medicine practice".

I agree that the Skepticism category is a bit of a stretch, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)