Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

This page is not doing service to the public by suggesting that Acupuncture is "quackery". If Western Medicine does not understand or do not rely on their methods of assessing a therapy they call it quack. My suggestion is that to remove the links where is called quackery and not opinions of the authors of this page. Rheptulla (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As a wholistic practitioner, I second this. Acupuncture should not be lumped in with traditional Western medicine and thus informed as quackery. This puts the dominant culture over another and holds that it is not as important, functional or effective as traditional medicine but, that is simply not true. Calling it quackery is a form of white supremacy. I suggest a lens of viewing acupuncture of a whole different system with terminology that exists outside of the Western Medicine Hegemony. Thus not accusing those practicing of being quacks but, rather that their practice is made creditable by the millenia it's been in use and those who still use it today that find it beneficial. Science does not need to catch up to ancient practices and lineages to make it a valid treatment option for anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.153.93 (talk • contribs)

IP, I suggest that you read (in no particular order): Confirmation bias, Appeal to antiquity, Straw man argument, Poisoning the well. Also, if you have a specific change to the article in mind, please propose it in the form of "Please change X to Y" or "Please add X between Y and Z" followed by the source(s) to use to backup the change. --McSly (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention this has been discussed ad nauseam. There are several reasons why acupuncture's practice is quackery. The cited sources are reliable and the characterization is accurate. It's not about not understanding. Acupuncture has been thoroughly studied. It just doesn't work more effectively than a placebo and is based on prescientific ideas that are false. That's all. This page is not about the editors' opinions. It's about what reliable sources say-and that's what the page reflects (what mainstream science and the consensus say). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What World Health Organization (WHO) says about Acupuncture ? Whether they recommend or not? Please mention in the article Debabrata Bag (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The websites of the US NIH, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins university, and several other major organizations (that clearly have no horse in this race) all broadly agree that acupuncture is possibly beneficial and at worst harmless, and that it is a legitimate remedy to seek for purposes such as pain-relief. This Wikipedia article is grossly exaggerated in its use of language (quackery??? pseudoscience???) and appears to be written by someone with an agenda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.63.162 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins provide acupuncture services. NIH != NCCIH, and WHO's reports on the effectiveness of acupuncture were written by a TCM practitioner who based on positive results from studies that other meta-analyses considered so horrible no conclusions could be drawn. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well most hospitals provide vaccines, and most doctors believe vaccines are good; therefore vaccines must be bad, because hospitals just want to sell you vaccines? I don't understand your logic.

In any case, regardless of who has a horse in which race, Wikipedia must respect the broad consensus of the relevant scientific or medical community, and in this case, it is a fact that the general opinion on acupuncture of most medical researchers, while certainly not entirely positive, is not nearly as negative as the tone of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topotrivl (talk • contribs) 06:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not know where you got that... result of an opinion poll among "medical researchers"? - but voting is not how science is done. Science is about the results of research, not about opinions. We reflect that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, science is about results, but results must be interpreted. Doing even the most basic literature review will show that the statement "doctors are ambiguous as to whether acupuncture works" is a fact, just like the statement "most physicists agree general relativity is true" is a fact. You might go on and say "it's not about what physicists think, blah blah blah", but it doesn't make it any less ludicrous for a wikipedia article to doubt the validity of general relativity. The purpose of wikipedia is not to do original research. As far as encyclopedias go, the general state of the academic literature on a certain topic is what should be summarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topotrivl (talk • contribs) 07:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Topotrivl, yes, former medical students are indeed ambiguous. Science, however, is not. There are no such things as meridians, the effects of acupuncture are measurable only in self-reported subjective symptoms, it doesn't matter where you put the needles, or whether you even insert them at all, and the more robust the trial design, the smaller the perceived effect. In other words, it's a theatrical placebo, but one that's quite resistant to ultimate refutation due to the difficulties of blinding. Guy (help!) 11:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you just equate the evidence for relativity with the evidence for acupuncture? That is crazy. You cannot make the facts disappear by juggling them together with other facts about a different subject.

Interpreting the evidence against acupuncture is not that difficult. But the opinions of acupuncture believers are not based on the scientific evidence, they are based on their superstitious interpretations of anecdotes. As I already said, science and we disregard opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

...this would be a great conversation to have, if this were reddit. But what you say is the opinion of wikipedia editors, not doctors or medical researchers. The existing studies published on acupuncture are ambiguous, bot nowhere near as negative as this article. It's not about what you think, or even "know" to be true, it's about what the experts think, and what is written in the literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topotrivl (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Come back when you find a reliable scientific secondary source that agrees with you. Bye! --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Do I really need to google for you? Here's a start.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3996195/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708980/ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1743552/ https://academic.oup.com/bjaed/article/7/4/135/466586 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2156587215598422 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2005290115001545

Have fun reading! In the meantime, I sincerely hope you can learn how to do research.

From first link given "... the number of clinical trials examining the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of psychogenic disorders has increased. However, the quality of the studies has been relatively poor and the sample sizes insufficient". People who don't read conclusions shouldn't throw stones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, and as with most quack remedies the positive studies are conducted by advocates, the more robust the study design the less effect is seen, most studies rely on self-reported subjective measurements, and the elephant in the room - lack of any remotely plausible mechanism of action - is assiduously waved away.

What we know by now is that it doesn't matter where you put the needles, or even whether you insert them at all. Any benefits of acupuncture appear to be down to the theatre of it. Guy (help!) 23:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Second link given says as a conclusion "The conclusion of our study will provide updated evidence to judge whether acupuncture is an effective intervention for patients suffered from chronic pain with depression."

It seems the study is not finished yet. Or if it is finished, the results were not published.

The IP has obviously not checked whether any of the links contains evidence for acupuncture. They just copied the links from Google.

So, again: Come back when you find a reliable scientific secondary source that agrees with you. Bye! --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, it is not an IP, it's a user who forgot to sign. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave you my sources. In any case, why should the burden of proof on the one trying to show that acupuncture is NOT quackery? The opinion of the experts (doctors) is clear. It is YOU Wikipedians who make claims to the contrary. *In general this article is an unprecedented case of Wikipedia writers ignoring the position of the established experts and falsely presenting their own views as the accepted standard.*

I'm not gonna continue this futile fight. Maybe we can have a real discussion someday when you can get over your grudges. Seriously, Wikipedia can be so messed up sometimes. Bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topotrivl (talk • contribs) 06:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That soapbox of yours is quite high there sport. In fact, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and the evidence supporting acupuncture doesn't even hit the "ordinary" level. I hate to break the news to you, but you're making the assertions, so it's you're responsibility, in accordance with just about everything that makes Wikipedia work, to provide verifiable and reliable evidence to support those assertions. In fact, Wikipedia articles ought to be written without emotion, just evidence. Making strange accusations isn't the way to be involved. I know it's frustrating to not have evidence to support your claims, but that's the way things are with pseudosciences like acupuncture. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You gave us reliable secondary sources alright. But they do not say what you claim they say. As you would know - if you had read, comprehended and accepted our responses.

You demonstrate in a wonderful way how pseudoscience proponents argue: first claim to have evidence, then, when the "evidence" turns out to be insufficient, shift the burden of proof. (Why didn't you know that you don't need evidence when you thought you had evidence?)

Another tactic would have been to claim that the scientific method is not able to test acupuncture. That's how homeopaths do it: if homeopathy fails to pass scientific tests, they say science is at fault for failing to find evidence for homeopathy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The burden of proof is always on the proponents of a suggested therapy, not the other way around, friend. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

placebo effects of acupuncture

There was a new systematic review published recently that assessed the contribution of contextual effects to the treatment efficacy of acupuncture for knee arthritis. I thought it might be interesting for this article, but not sure where to best use it.

The systematic review found that about 61% of the total treatment effect of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis could be explained by contextual effects such as the placebo effect. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32416220/ 2001:56A:75CE:1700:55DB:55E6:C439:7786 (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Which means that 40% is caused by active healing properties specific to acupuncture. But don't tell the biased editors here, they have a consensus inside their own heads that acupuncture is 100% useless and ignore all mounting evidence to the contrary180.150.68.232 (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Not totally useless, it is a theatrical placebo which might make some people more relaxed. But it does not heal any real disease. For somebody with PTSS it could be very hard to relax, so, if acupuncture helps him/her relax, who am I to say that it shouldn't be used? But, you see, there is nothing special about acupuncture, a lot of medically bogus therapies can help some people relax. There is no qi in reiki, but if it helps one relax, why it shouldn't be used? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

The first paragraph is extremely biased and not neutral. Wikipedia is supposed to present neutral, factual content, not personal biases. The paragraph states: "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience[5][6] because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.[7]" This page needs to be edited for bias. Calling acupuncture "quackery" is just wrong. Some of the sources cited are just opinions. There are hundreds of scientifically based studies available (PubMed is a good source) showing proven benefits of acupuncture and Chinese medicine. Additionally, to say that the medicine used predominantly in the country of China is quackery and has no scientific basis in not only factually incorrect, it's racist. It looks like someone who is anti-acupuncture came through recently and changed this page. The sidebar also states this this is a part of a series on fringe medicine and pseudo-medicine. At the bottom of the sidebar is the heading "conspiracy theories." I don't know how acupuncture is a conspiracy theory. It's a system of medicine used widely in hospitals in China. This page has a lot of problems. Wheresmyjesusfish (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You should read WP:MEDRS, and probably this talk page archive. The article hasn't been suddenly changed by an anti-acupuncture editor, it has been built up over years through consensus to reflect what the best sources say about the subject. You have mentioned no sources here to support any change. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is in your own head, not in the literature. No one can view the fierce debate on this page and claim that it represents "consensus". This whole article is a total dumpster fire and should be deleted if you're not going to treat the topic fairly and even-handedly.180.150.68.232 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

With respect George, you lack self-awareness. Belief that acupuncture is a psuedoscience is a fringe belief. Many also believe it is a Eurocentric, colonialist, white supremacist belief as well. Billions of melanated folks from China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and dozens of other places consider it to be a mainstream practice. A few thousand white "skeptics" may disagree, but they really are far out on the fringe.180.150.68.232 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but we rely on wp:rs not wp:blokedownthepub.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CHOPSY. Wikipedia is all about CHOPSY-supremacism, it was never meant as a reflection of popular opinion. Wikipedia chose for mainstream science. You may dislike that choice, but it is normative for this website. For this website TCM is Maoist hypocrisy/dogmatism, with a sauce of Ancient mystical rants. Confessing that anesthesia by acupuncture does not work got one sent to the labor camp for being counterrevolutionary. Simon says Kill the sparrows! People do a lot of nonsensical stuff if the Big Brother says they must. Make no illusions: for this website a mighty fortress is mainstream science. You won't prevail here so mind your own business and go to Conservapedia or New World Encyclopedia. Oh, my, I'm surprised that Conservapedia did not embrace such woo.

Just for you to ponder: the effectiveness of acupuncture has nothing to do with race or skin color. It's pathetic nonsense that racism has anything to do with acupuncture failing by all objective measurements. Wow: objective knowledge is racism in disguise. Gee, why didn't I think about that earlier? Don't drink the postmodernist Kool-Aid. Do you know why every country will bow down to objective knowledge? Richard Dawkins - "Science. It works, Bitches." on YouTube. World's lingua franca isn't English, but scientific naturalism. Rupert Sheldrake has a TEDx jeremiad about it. Any country which bans objective knowledge will end up bankrupt. They may still play fast and loose with humanities, but if they do that with hard sciences they hammer nails in their own coffin. If they do that with medical science, they see their own people as expendable. Some inane politicians might be fooling themselves about that, but for Mao it was an aware choice to promote what he knew is woo. The reality was that China could not afford large-scale, Western-style medical care. So Mao played a cynical trick upon his own subjects. He had more power over them than previous emperors.

In short: we run this website, we believe in WP:GOODBIAS. Don't like it? Then take your business elsewhere. Your sole remedy is to stop using this website.

These being said, I would not touch the article abortion with a ten feet pole, precisely because of what I said above. I do not wish to become a troll. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Unlike folklore, religion, etc., Ayurveda promotes itself as scientific. If Ayurveda was merely a historical system not practiced today, à la "humors", then we could just classify it as "not science" or "protoscience". However, unlike folklore, religion, etc., Ayurveda is currently presented as a science -- see, for example, the multiple types of doctoral degrees offered in "vedic microbiology". In fact, it is extremely similar to Lysenkoism: short-sighted, poorly-considered programs by the government led to a humanitarian crisis (in the USSR, the famine; in India, a dramatic shortage of health care providers and infrastructure). In an attempt to combat (or at least appear to combat) this crisis and to boost nationalistic morale (i.e. redirect despair and criticism away from the ruling elite), the government heavily propagandizes a home-grown system of "science" with enormously-exaggerated validity, efficacy, scope, and benefit that can replace/supplement "foreign" (Western) methods. Lysenko was the Soviet hero who was supposed to rescue the peasants from famine; a revitalized Ayurveda will be the savior of Indian health care. Neither uses rigorous evidence-based approaches; both are rooted in a deprecated conceptualization of the physical world; both characterize opposition as an attack on their cultural ideology/identity and suppress negative reports. Both are examples of institutionalized pseudoscience. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mutatis mutandis, the same can be said about acupuncture. Evidence-based medicine still is extremely expensive for those countries. And somebody has to pay the bill. So they serve the poor, the uneducated and the superstitious with fake treatments based upon fake medical science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing

1. It were editorializing if it weren't Edzard Ernst's opinion, but just the opinion of a Wikipedian;
2. By inconsistent results we mean: it heals the pain in arms but not in feet, or something like that, which makes the whole concept owing to doubt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Aaronlife You're stepping in a heavily, heavily contentious area, covered by WP:ARBPS and discretionary sanctions. About your sources: healthcmi.com is a website of apologetics, not WP:SCHOLARSHIP, so it is bunk as a WP:RS. The second source, while the journal is indeed indexed for MEDLINE, it is a primary study. According to WP:MEDRS, WP:PRIMARY studies are unacceptable for medical claims inside Wikipedia. Conclusion: both of you sources have been rejected, neither is reliable for making medical claims inside Wikipedia. And horror of all horrors, you have stated your conclusion in the voice of Wikipedia instead of employing WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

If you would like to edit war about your addition, learn that WP:AE is just around the corner, the formality of giving you an alert of discretionary sanctions has already been fulfilled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

not interested in a war, what about secondary sources/reviews of primary sources, such as this: These studies suggest that meridians/acupoints have biophysical characteristics which are different from nonacupuncture points.

I would also like to add that studies in animals between genuine and sham acupuncture have produced results, as well, such as the Rutger's University study you can read about, seconarily, here: Scientific American How can I add that without people freaking out who are opposed to acupuncture study results that suggest acupuncture works?Aaronlife (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Aaronlife, the journal Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is far from an uncontroversial choice of source to use. The small (20 subjects) primary study in mice doesn't really tell us much - did it go anywhere, were the findings confirmed by other studies? You'll note that the study received some significant criticism in that same Scientific American article too - I wouldn't support adding anything to the article based either of these sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Aaronlife, Here's what we know about acupuncture:

• It doesn't matter where you put the needles
• It doesn't matter whether you insert them or not
• It only "works" on self-reported subjective symptoms that have a strong psychosomatic component (e.g. nausea)
• It is a hugely lucrative industry
• It was largely invented by Mao Zedong
• It is primarily supported by studies from China, which never find a negative result for anything, however self-evidently bogus

In short, it's a bust, and the continued cottage industry of small-scale "studies" by True Believers saying the same old things are precisely analogous to the last gasps of homeopathy. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Homeopathy is gasping? I hope you're right. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Introduction: weak phrase

Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, [...] The 'because' makes it seem like it's an argument, but 'Not being based on scientific knowledge' is basically the definition of pseudoscience, rendering it circular reasoning (fallacy). Just seems like some hot air to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOnlyRealEditor (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Around here we don't reason anything, we simply abstract WP:MEDRS. That's the difference. We're not the ones making the call, we are simply the scribes of mainstream scientists. Whatever we write here, it isn't our own finding or our own thinking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

But the "because" is not in the source given (Quackwatch). So, someone did "make the call" instead of being a scribe. TheOnlyRealEditor is right that the way it is, that sentence is neither logical nor written well. I suggest a change along these lines: Acupuncture is a pseudoscience. Its theories and practices are based on primitive, pre-scientific ideas that have no relation to current scientific knowledge --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest to drop "because". Put a comma instead. Retimuko (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

This article is unambiguously biased. It refers to acupuncture as a pseudoscience, most major medical schools now have a center dedicated to integration of eastern/western medicine. https://osher.ucsf.edu/patient-care/clinical-specialties/acupuncture-and-integrative-chinese-medicine https://cewm.med.ucla.edu/education/ https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2011/04/12/medical-schools-embrace-alternative-medicine

This article fails to visit both perspectives, including the millions of patients that have benefited from acupuncture and other forms of traditional Chinese medicine. It is unfair to the health and safety of the general population to keep it published in its current format, it needs an unbiased review at the very least from parties of both eastern medicine and western medical professionals that do not strongly support eastern practices. It should not exclusively and disproportionally represent a singular perspective as it currently does. For instance, it fails to mention the major news from 2020 that medicare now accepts acupuncture. How can you still be categorizing this as a pseudoscience? This is possibly the most biased mainstream article in wikipedia. On January 21, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that they would cover acupuncture services to help treat chronic lower back pain. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/does-medicare-cover-acupuncture https://www.forbes.com/sites/robinseatonjefferson/2020/01/24/medicare-will-now-pay-for-acupuncture-in-part-due-to-opioid-abuse/?sh=1fc6e420378a Logical hombre (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You haven't suggested a specific change that you think these sources might support. Looking at your general comments however, Id observe that none of these sources support an argument that the nature of acupuncture isn't pseudoscientific, or indeed the notion that millions of patients have benefited from acupuncture or any other form of TCM. What they might be used to support is an assertion that it is taught in medical schools, and that in the US it can be paid for with Medicare (although that WP:FORBESCON source isn't reliable). To assume from either of those that acupuncture is a valid treatment, or is scientifically valid, is WP:OR. There is a market for acupuncture, and there is a market for training in delivering acupuncture, and some schools are willing to service that market, and medicare is prepared to help people access acupuncture. None of this speaks against the sources describing it as pseudoscience, none of it says anything about serious scientific treatment or about efficacy. (I mean, that UCSF website is talking about an energy called qi as if it is a real thing that exists.) GirthSummit _(blether) 08:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest the edit of removing the entire, unnecessary, uneducated and biased sentence: “ Acupuncture is a pseudoscience,[5][6] the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.” YourParents (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources support the fact that acupuncture is a pseudoscience. If you have citations that meet the standards of WP:MEDRS, I'm sure we'd consider a change. Your opinion does not count for anything on Wikipedia. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Acupuncture is an established profession across the globe and has been proven again and again to be an extremely safe and effective procedure. Calling it quackery and a pseudoscience is inaccurate and offensive. 146.115.166.102 (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You do not make the call. Wikipedia obeys WP:MEDRS and WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that practicing acupuncture is an established profession doesn't mean that it isn't one based on pseudoscience and it doesn't mean that it's effective. Labeling acupuncture as pseudoscience may offend some people, particularly its practitioners, but Wikipedia reflects what the high-quality reliable sources say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Do these sources count as reliable evidence in support of acupuncture's medical effects?

@SkepticalRaptor:@TylerDurden8823: I have found some relatively reliable sources that support the medicinal effects of acupuncture.

• Penn Medicine (University of Pennsylvania): https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/health-and-wellness/2017/march/acupuncture - article from the oldest medical school in the U.S. strongly supports acupuncture
• Johns Hopkins Medicine (Johns Hopkins University): https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/acupuncture - "studies have shown that acupuncture is effective for a variety of conditions."
• WebMD (Reviewed by MD, quotes UCLA): https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/acupuncture-pain-killer
• NCCIH (part of the National Institute of Health): https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-in-depth - government institution states that acupuncture can help manage certain pain conditions
• Harvard Health (Harvard University): https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/relieving-pain-with-acupuncture - while the article says that effects of acupuncture are mixed, it concedes that some credible studies do support acupuncture as a legitimate medical practice.
• NPR (reporting on US Army): https://www.npr.org/2011/04/10/134421473/weight-of-war-soldiers-heavy-gear-packs-on-pain#:~:text=Soldiers%20and%20Marines%20in%20Iraq,body%20armor%2C%20weapons%20and%20batteries - that the world's most powerful military is now practicing acupuncture on some level should offer an amount of supporting credibility to the practice.

I believe in light of these articles from credible institutions, the previous posters were right about that sentence on the validity of acupuncture being way too harsh. Shotgunscoop (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No. We already knew that there are more-or-less-scientific publications in favor of it and others against it. What counts here are only secondary publications that have a look at the quality of the best of them and summarize the total situation based on that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I'm far from an expert on this subject, but WP:MEDRS affirms the validity of citing medical guidelines and position statements from important medical institutions and government institutions such as the NIH. Given that the NIH and other credible medical organizations have released position statements in favor of the practice of acupuncture, or at least have admitted the existence of evidence for both sides, the characterization of acupuncture as "quackery" is undermining either the authority of the NIH and Penn Medicine and etc. or Wikipedia, and I don't think it fits. Shotgunscoop (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Those naughty legislaters in the US have put the inmates in charge of the asylum at NIH, so the woosters are getting a free hand to write anything they want and call it science. Please dont make the mistake of thinking that USian legislaters can legislate what makes up real scientific investigation. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The NCCIH is the quackery branch of the NIH. It exists because quackery-friendly politicians have invented it, and it is not a reliable source. Search the archives of this Talk page for "NCCIH" and you will find that this has been discussed in archive 29, 30, 32 and 33. Actually, everything you said above has already been discussed somewhere in the archives, and if you want to get closer to becoming an expert on the subject, you could start by looking through them.

Generally, if a Talk page has archives, looking at them before you repeat the same request that has been discussed there ad nauseum is a good idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hob is less cynical than myself, and a really nice person. They said what I said, but far more nicely. Thanks Hob. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

In other words, you both are appealing to (or maybe inventing your own, IDK) CONSPIRACY THEORIES in order to label reliable sources "quackery" because you just don't like it. (or maybe you have conflicts of interests, I don't know - if you did, and I am not saying you do, but if you did I would hope you would disclose them and then recuse yourselves from any discussions. as for myself, I hereby affirm I am not an acupuncturist, nor am I friends or family with any, nor do I take money from any acupuncturists or anyone affiliated with them. oh, and to clarify, on this matter I would more or less consider anyone in the field of western medicine to have a conflict of interest.). good day to you. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

To be a conspiracy theory, something needs to have no evidence for it. Read Tom Harkin, Berkley Bedell and NCCIH (which, unfortunately, says nothing about its foundation, except that Harkin was its patron). People who are prone to belief in conspiracy theories (for example, those who, when contradicted, do not think "maybe I am wrong" but "maybe the person who contradicts me is paid for contradicting me") often do not understand the difference.

If I had a conflict of interest, I had declared it 15 years ago when I started editing Wikipedia pages about pseudoscientific bullshit. But if you insist on hearing it: no, I have no financial interest in opposing pseudoscientific bullshit.

Regarding your own non-existing conflict of interest: I am not interested. My view is that who is right and who is wrong can be determined by the quality of their reasoning, not by hypothesizing external financial motivation.

About you rejecting any arguments coming from anybody with medical expertise (BTW, medicine does not have a direction, such as "West"): we are familiar with that immunization strategy. It is the same excuse climate change deniers use for rejecting evidence they do not like (the evidence comes from climatologists, and all climatologists are corrupt, so you can just ignore the evidence). Since Wikipedia uses sources written by medical doctors, I guess you should just leave because there is absolutely no chance you will be able to change that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:, those ARE secondary sources, are they not?? Or is the issue that you have with them that they do not (according to you) have a look at the quality of the best of them and summarize the total situation based on that? If that be what you meant, that is tantamount to saying "those aren't reliable sources because I don't agree with their conclusions; in other words, because WP:IDONTLIKEIT." and if that's so, that is a shameful thing and a dishonest for any wiki editor to push. Editors do not get to decide which reloable secondary sources "have a look at the quality of the best of them and summarize the total situation based on that" and are therefore acceptable. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• There's 2 problems I see, here.

First, those sources aren't as good as most of the sources used in this article. The first is an info-page about acupuncture that ends with a call for the reader to "schedule an appointment". That's not a reliable source, at all. It's ad-copy. The second one is also ad-copy. The third is okay as a source, but only for the opinion of the practicing physician writing it. It's not a statement on the consensus, nor anything approaching a Cochrane review in quality. It's maybe useable in this article, but it'd likely be the sketchiest source used. Best to leave it out. Others have pointed out the problems with the third source. The fourth article ends with a different call to the reader; Buy our book! Again... Ad-copy. Final source is an NPR story on the Army using acupuncture. This is a great RS for the claim that the Army is using acupuncture. It does not imply (and we should not presume it implies) that acupuncture is effective. I would like to point out that, as an Army veteran myself, the Army has variously employed; psychics, monkeys, robots, dogs, cyborgs and astrology. I can personally assure you that they would be beside themselves with glee if someone offered them a dragon, and depending on which particular conspiracy theories you find most credible, and how credible you find them, they might well have employed a balrog or two, or maybe some lizardmen. Their endorsement of anything vaguely scientific carries about the same weight and much of the same character as my 6-year-old's toy preference.

The second problem is: even if each of these were a well-documented trial with a large sample size and rigorous testing standards, they are too few to make any significant impact in the balance of literature about this subject. The vast majority of studies have been inconclusive, many of the studies that support acupuncture have been flawed or suspect, the most well-structured studies have found no effect (beyond placebo), and the meta-reviews don't support the efficacy, either.

I don't see any point to including any of these (only the third and final links could even be used, in any case), because they won't let us say anything different than what the article already says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to say a vaguely similar thing to what Roxy said: MjolnirPants said it far more detailed than I could. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No no no, he's a really short, ugly chap. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I may be ugly, but I ain't short. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Acupuncture has no medical effects. It has been conclusivelyt demonstrated that it doesn't matter where you put the needles, or even whether you stick them in or not. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement of Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I thought I should clearly state my bias in this article before helping contribute to it. I am a student currently working toward a doctorate in acupuncture, which means that I obviously have a specific point of view. I'll try to avoid pushing that POV and instead focus on identifying factual inaccuracies, outdated information, and points where there is not a neutral point of view, and refrain from making any contentious edits given my obvious bias, but I wanted to make sure I was upfront about that. It looks like there are some biased individuals on the other side of the debates as well so hopefully some truly neutral parties without any emotional ties or biases will help with some of that. I actually haven't edited anything on Wikipedia in so long that I don't even remember what my old username was, so my memory of the rules and regulations for things may be more than a little deficient at this point (but I'm going to avoid making any major edits myself anyway). I set up a new account and jumped in here after finding my way to Wikipedia while working on a homework assignment and saw the one-sided presentation of the topic in the opening paragraph and a couple of other sections of this article as well as a few minor inaccuracies and details that are out of date and thought I should contribute to making sure accurate information is being presented. I just wanted to be clear that I am studying this subject in school (and currently practicing as an intern in my clinical rotations) so that does give me a biased perspective, but also makes it easier for me to spot the little things that might be off or outdated. I'll try to go through the references and read the article in depth to identify any clear changes that need to be made in time, but I'm also a grad student who has already spent several more hours on this than I had budgeted in for this week. I did read through the Wikipedia standards on Neutral Point of View, Fringe Theories, and Identifying Reliable Sources (Medicine) along with some of the style manuals (such as words to watch).MasterStephenE (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

If you carry on about editors in this way, rather than on improving the article, this will not end well. -Roxy . wooF 07:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

To quote Guy from the section above: It has been conclusively demonstrated that it doesn't matter where you put the needles, or even whether you stick them in or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an opinion, not a fact, that was a common consensus about a decade ago when small clinical trials did not have enough statistical weight to prove statistically significant differences. Even within the paper that published that opinion, it acknowledged that there is growing acceptance of this field and that there are proponents of it arguing that it is based in science. The fact that even opponents of it feel compelled to acknowledge that there are views on both sides suggests that this is not the quackery that many of the people in this talk page want to see it as. I have no issue with calling it a psuedoscience (even though it does not meet Wikipedia's own definition), and at the very least it certainly is well within the realm of fringe science. What I find concerning is the one sided approach in the research sections, and the one sided perspective offered in the opening paragraph which highlight a clear bias toward pushing the point of view that it is quackery and downplaying the fact that it is acknowledged as beneficial by the CDC, NIH, WHO, and respected medical schools and hospitals around the world and that at worst the Cochrane Reviews generally hold that results are inconclusive and more research is needed (a far cry from being conclusively demonstrated to be ineffective). It is important to note that this is a rapidly advancing field in terms of what the research says given that as much research has been done in the past 6 years than in the half a century before that, and much of the information in this page was consensus a decade or two ago, so I do think it is perfectly reasonable for people who do not directly work with this and regularly monitor the research on the topic to still hold the views from that time period, but at the same time, when that enters into the writing of what is attempting to be a respected encyclopedia, allowing word choice and selection of what is and isn't included to push that specific point of view to the exclusion of others is not ideal. I certainly wouldn't suggest striking it from the article completely as the controversy, the fact that Cochrane typically finds results to be inconclusive and that additional research and needed, and its place as fringe science while the mechanisms of action remain in the realm of hypothesis are all highly relevant to the topic. That being said, pushing the opponents of the subject as the one and only major view on the subject, using opinion based language such as quackery, and excluding views from proponents such as the CDC, NIH, WHO, and other major medical institutions that have issued guidance recommending the practice does not create anything close to a neutral point of view.MasterStephenE (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, and please make sure you also read WP:ADVOCACY, paying close attention to WP:FALSEBALANCE in particular. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that, I had read the False Balance information, but had not seen the Advocacy page. I'll try to go back to that frequently during discussions on this page so that I can remind myself of those points. My goal is not to advocate for a specific point of view (quite the contrary as a scientist hoping to spend the bulk of my career in medical research I very much do want a neutral point of view that accurately represents both sides of the topic). The reason for me giving a lengthy introduction here in the talk page was so that others can help keep me accountable to the goal of helping make this page the best it can be and not simply push a specific point of view. That being said, this article currently does push a specific point a view, and I am hoping to at least highlight the counterarguments to those so that a better informed consensus and a more neutral point of view can be reached. Those who know me in daily life know that I also tend to argue both sides of an argument as I try to push things to the fair middle (which I acknowledge is not necessarily the halfway point between the two opinions, but due weight based on significance, support, and relevance). In the case of this page, the reputable proponents of the topic of the page should at least be getting a mention (such as the NIH), and currently they aren't, and the opponents of the topic should also be given a mention (or really at least a main section within the page) but should not be given exclusivity, especially when the general consensus on the topic is pretty mixed (see: Cochrane generally says the data is inconclusive and encourages more research, and most major medical institutions say that it has at least some benefit to patients, showing that proponents are at the very least not an insignificantly small minority). Overall this is going to be a difficult page to properly maintain given that research on the subject is expanding rapidly, and the consensus on the topic within the medical community is pretty rapidly changing as well, but it is important to at least acknowledge both the views of the proponents and the opponents and stick to a neutral, fact-based article that allows the readers to make up their own minds based on the information presented instead of just telling the reader in the opening paragraph what they should think.MasterStephenE (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

All of the TL:DR stuff above is just wasting your time unless you have reliable (read WP:MEDRS) sources that support your contentions. -Roxy . wooF 19:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources I have referred to, identified as ideal in WP:MEDRS, have already been listed elsewhere in the talk page and article. There was a whole section above where someone listed several sources that were guidelines or positions statements from national or international expert bodies, and several of the editors on this page sounded off denouncing each of those bodies as not good enough for one reason or another (though I will certainly second the sentiment that just because the military is trying something doesn't necessarily mean it is valid). The other source I referenced was Cochrane, which has also been linked to extensively in the article. These are the sources that WP:MEDRS specifically identifies as ideal sources. I could go into detail on RCTs as well, but those are specifically listed as not being ideal in MEDRS. At some point when I have some time I can try to go through and collect all the different sources and add them together in one place to make them easy to find, but nothing I have said comes from any sources other than ones that have already been cited in the talk page and article, with the exception of possibly the WHO's statement which can be found here: http://digicollection.org/hss/en/d/Js4926e/ . I am simply pointing out what has already been said and cited, which is that most of the major medical institutions support acupuncture as a therapy that at least has some benefit for some patients and that the research according to Cochrane simply says that more research is needed. It's a practice that is being actively researched with thousands of new peer-reviewed studies being published each year, which is a far cry from the quackery that this article claims it to be without even a mention of the many institutions who identify it as being beneficial. There are certainly individuals within the medical field who no doubt consider it to be quackery, and it obviously still has a lot to prove, but the consensus among major medical institutions is that it has some value and warrants continued use and study.MasterStephenE (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening paragraph is not neutral

Rephrase "and it has been characterized as quackery." in the opening paragraph.

You can hide behind any Wikipedia guidelines you want. A reasonable person would not find that this inclusion meets the criteria: "Content must be written from a neutral point of view." The resistance to change this seems like a pointless power struggle that only serves to hurt Wikipedia's goal of being an unbiased repository of information.

Please do a basic web search and compare the tone of the other top results to the tone of this Wikipedia article. Examples:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/acupuncture/about/pac-20392763 https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-in-depth https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/acupuncture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceguy16 (talk • contribs)

WP:RULES are subservient to the purpose of writing a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. For scientific and medical purposes, WP:NPOV is the same as WP:SPOV. And there is no way to undo the supremacism of WP:MEDRS on medical matters inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well as far as I can tell, most medical journals are not using the word quackery in their discussions of acupuncture. Can you point to a recent MEDRS that asserts that acupuncture is quackery? Herbxue (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I will have to repeat the litany:

Aaronlife, Here's what we know about acupuncture:

• It doesn't matter where you put the needles
• It doesn't matter whether you insert them or not
• It only "works" on self-reported subjective symptoms that have a strong psychosomatic component (e.g. nausea)
• It is a hugely lucrative industry
• It was largely invented by Mao Zedong
• It is primarily supported by studies from China, which never find a negative result for anything, however self-evidently bogus

In short, it's a bust, and the continued cottage industry of small-scale "studies" by True Believers saying the same old things are precisely analogous to the last gasps of homeopathy. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So, recent MEDRS do not call it quackery, but make clear it has the same effectiveness as quackery (or placebo, if you insist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And that is why this article's assertions are original research.Herbxue (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the first three studies that are retrieved in a pubmed search of "acupuncture" are wholly positive about its scientific efficacy and the future of research in the area, I think you are somewhat mischaracterizing the "cottage industry of small- scale studies by True Believers." Here are those three academic journal articles and some of what they say. And don't mistake me, these are just the first three that come up-- there have been dozens more just in the past decade.

Zhuang Y, Xing JJ, Li J, Zeng BY, Liang FR. History of acupuncture research. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2013;111:1-23. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-411545-3.00001-8. PMID: 24215915. "Based on current achievements, we believe that although the challenges and difficulties exist, a more collaborative, innovative, and integrated approach will help us to achieve further progress in future acupuncture research."

Molly J. Mallory, Alexander Do, Sara E. Bublitz, Susan J. Veleber, Brent A. Bauer, Anjali Bhagra, Puncturing the myths of acupuncture, Journal of Integrative Medicine, Volume 14, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 311-314. "A growing body of evidence increasingly validates the practice of acupuncture. Further developing scientific data will play an important role in the future of acupuncture and other complementary and alternative medicines in public health. Acupuncture is commonly used concurrently with conventional medicine."

Acar HV. Acupuncture and related techniques during perioperative period: A literature review. Complement Ther Med. 2016 Dec;29:48-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.09.013. Epub 2016 Sep 13. PMID: 27912957. "A number of studies suggest that its mechanism of effect can be explained in biomedical terms. In this context, a number of transmitters and modulators including beta-endorphin, serotonin, substance P, interleukins, and calcitonin gene-related peptide are released. For that reason, acupuncture can be used in a wide variety of clinical conditions. Studies showed that acupuncture may have beneficial effect in perioperative period. " I don't know why you refuse to believe science that is plainly written in literally dozens of biomedical articles, but I feel like a third party needs to come in and make a determination on whether that first paragraph is or is not biased. I'm brand new to engaging in discussions on wikipedia, so I don't know if there is a more formal way to request this. By the way, I am not an acupuncturist. I work as a Medical Residency Manager in a Public University clinic, where we have one MD who is also a licensed acupuncturist (although I don't know him personally), and I've worked with Western medical doctors for a great deal of my 40 years in this world. I take medical research seriously, and I'm sure you do as well. But I feel like you may have a blind spot here, and a third party admin would be a very helpful CharaeLol (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I hit publish in the middle of that sentence and didn't have a chance to go back and review before publication, but I think I got my point out. CharaeLol (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi CharaeLol, you should urgently review our policy document WP:MEDRS to understand why those sources are not very good. Thanks. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 01:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

How do we fix this page? It is grossly inaccurate, using words like quackery. It appears the author did not do enough research into the subject to write about it. YourParents (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Simply removing the highly contentious phrase stating that it has been characterized as quackery would be a big step toward making the article sound more neutral. That sentence already states that it is a psuedoscience, and that its theories and practices are not based on scientific knowledge. How many ways do you need to say that the author of the article doesn't think it's valid in one sentence anyway? Is a third dig at the subject in one sentence really needed? It might also help to look at how it is discussed in similar pages like the Dry needling page, which makes the same general point using more neutral and fact-based language. MasterStephenE (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't invented by Mao, he didn't even use it himself according to the sources of the TCM article. 185.167.230.68 (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Poorly researched article with bias

Article fails to mention anything about myofacial research or any of the positive studies done. Author has a clear cut bias and therefore can't explain the western connection or history accurately. Article is missing a ton of information and its clear the author is putting a lot of emotion into their writing which is not helpful in educating people new to the subject. I suggest the author do more thorough research on subjects and learn to write articles that don't contain personal feelings. EMiley72 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

EMiley72, you may be interested to know that Wikipedia articles have no single author, and are in fact a collaborative effort among many different people, adhering to a set of guidelines which tell us how to write and what sources to use. If you have specific suggestions of sentences to change, or sources to suggest, that would be very helpful. It would also likely go a lot farther than broad statements, which are not very useful for improving a complex article like this. I'm not saying that any of your suggestions will be accepted without alteration, that will likely not occur. This is not a comment on you as a person, but rather an acknowledgment that you appear to not have a long editing history here, so you may be unaware of certain guidelines which explain why the article is written this way. For example: WP:FRINGE and WP:RSUW. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia to note that this and a few other articles are poorly written. Its an emotionally charged piece that lacks information. That is indisputable, regardless of how long my account has existed. I have a background in western medicine and more recently have taken courses on eastern medicine. I can guarantee the authors of this article have neither. There is no talk of myofascial links which is a huge problem. My suggestions are to have qualified people write articles instead of "keyboard warriors" with little to no work experience. Further suggestions: do adequate research of the actual practice and history as this is lacking and an eyesore. EMiley72 (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, all editors here including yourself are equal and can propose changes to the article. If you think that the article is incorrect and needs to do be changed, please provide a specific update and a list of reliable sources to back up that change. As I'm sure it is obvious, just saying "I don't like it" is not going to result to any kind of change to the article. Only specific change requests are actionable. --McSly (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine has this to say about the connection between acupuncture and myofascial trigger points: [1]

You should be aware of the existence of quackademics. Not all you learn at an institution, even an academic one, is science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

"Acupuncture is pseudoscience. The practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge and is classified as quackery"

"Quackery" - That is not a professional description. Acupuncture is used and prescribed by the federal government and department of veterans affairs. If there were no scientific backing, the VA would not invest money into appointments for their patients. 2601:283:C202:83E0:C586:1186:EE4D:CD12 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The government is not a body of medical experts, nor is the administration of the VA (though it damn well should be). Also, "quackery" is a well-recognized term, frequently used in professional contexts. See [2] & [3]. Finally, I see no reliable sources provided to make the claim that Acupuncture has a scientific backing, despite the reams and reams of evidence against it, and even if you had such a source, one would not be enough. You'd need about 300 or so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

How about the WHO? They are literally a body of leading medical experts. Check out the WHO's rebuttal to your less than reputable source reference at Quackwatch - who is really Stephen Barrett - whats hilarious is he is a fraud and documented liar (see excerpt below) which makes him the very definition of a quack -"a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill"

"At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed "expert testimony" as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a "legal expert" even though he had no formal legal training.

This was not the first time that Negrete was a trial attorney in a Barrett case. He also represented anti-fluoridation advocate Darlene Sherrell in a federal lawsuit filed in Eugene, Oregon by Barrett. Barrett also lost in trial of that case. Negrete also represented Robert King of King Bio in a case filed by an organization led by Barrett, which was lost by Barrett’s organization. Barrett has also filed a lawsuit against Negrete and his client Dr. Hulda Clark, which is now pending and awaiting trial in San Diego, California federal court.

After the Koren trial, Negrete stated: "The de-bunker has been de-bunked. I am pleased and satisfied with this outcome for Dr. Koren and am proud that Dr. Koren did not succumb to the pressures of the intimidation of Barrett’s legal wrangling. Not everyone can stand up to someone as well known as Barrett."

Negrete continued, "It is another great day for health freedom and alternative healthcare around the world. I am especially pleased that this most important victory was in Barrett’s own hometown. It just goes to show you that there is justice anywhere, even when you are a visitor challenging the home team. Barrett is a shill for the medical and pharmaceutical cartels and his bully tactics and unjustified discrediting of leading innovators, scientists and health practitioners should not be tolerated." Here is the source https://chiro.org/LINKS/FULL/Quackwatch_Founder_Loses_Defamation_Case.shtml

https://holistic-health.org.uk/acupuncture-evidence-project-deeper-look/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slivingstee (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

We trust WP:MEDRS sources on this most of all. And the sources you have linked/quoted are not those. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Purported scientific basis for gastrointestinal disorders / fMRI?

Regarding the final paragraph currently in Purported scientific basis, I propose the elimination of it, per:

• Studies discussing how acupunture might work for GI disorders give me a Physics of Santa Claus vibe. Or that of papers discussing the Physics of how the Planets might influence people's lives. It is futile to research the how, when the what hasn't been verified to be there.
• Additionally, many issues with the reliability of fMRI have led to the review of conclusions and to criticism of hundreds of papers using fMRI techniques while ignoring its limitations in the past several years. I don't feel like I have the expertise to say that this is the case in the paper currently in there, but the use of an often unreliable method of analysis to justify a pseudo-therapy might be enough for us to get rid of it.

I'll add that the current penultimate paragraph in that section seems to end in a bit of a WP:HOWEVER, and I think it should trimmed or removed altogether as well.VdSV9•♫ 11:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove it. Both refs are more than 10 years old and fMRI basically tells us that people react when other people stick pins in them !!! -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 11:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. As at Traditional Chinese medicine, Wikipedia is not the place for long lists of random things, especially potential medical treatments. They clutter the article, distract from its theme, and may look as if they are endorsed.ch (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly in violation of WP:MEDANIMAL. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Animal study

@MrOllie @Shibbolethink @Danstronger @VdSV9 I assume you guys follow this page given your rapid response time to my editing. I don't want an edit war either so created this space for us to discuss fairly.

I took my time to add in an animal study. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1050806968 then only 20 mins after, I see two of you quickly deleting it and claim it violates WP:MEDANIMAL or fringe topic. I disagree.

First off, the information on (mice inflammation) study I added did not claim that acupuncture can help reduce inflammation in humans. It very clearly stated that it worked on mice. WP:MEDANIMAL only applies if someone was claiming that the same studies work on humans. (Which I did not)

Secondly it's not a Fringe Topic. Acupuncture is still a medical interest and people should know about medical research on the area. It's not abnormal for scientists to use animal in studies to better understand the potential effects of acupuncture. But the end purpose of such research is NOT to treat animals but humans. And given that the article is about Human acupuncture, such research is very relevant to the topic.

Lastly, this is an encyclopedia. An article on Acupuncture, should include all relevant areas. I think scientific research on the topic, is definitely allowable to be included.

Nvtuil (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't, and simply can't, include every single study on every topic in the encyclopedia. That's why we need standards to define what goes in and what doesn't, and the current standards when it comes to medicine are laid out mainly in WP:MEDRS. I reverted your addition because it was a single study done on animals, which means their evidentiary value is close to nothing. Also, the conclusion of those studies go against the mainstream scientific understanding regarding the efficacy and mode of action of acupunture, making those references WP:PROFRINGE, another reason not to use them. The ref from "Harvard Mag" is pretty much simply advertising for Professor Ma's work. The paper itself is meaningless. VdSV9•♫ 04:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect there are enough reviews of animal studies that it would make sense to have a subsection of efficacy (after the one about moxibustion) called "animal studies" or "electroacupuncture in animals" (which seems to be a fairly popular thing to study). Here's one (I added a sentence about this to electroacupuncture, but felt it was borderline to add it here by itself): [4] Danstronger (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Danstronger Thanks for replying. Mice are common animals that are used for medical research. When Chinese researchers discovered the malaria drug compound (Artemisinin) for humans. It was literally after testing the compound on mice using TCM cures. Similarly they are merely doing the same with acupuncture by using mice as test subjects. But it's not acupuncture for animal use, but still medical research meant for humans. As long as it is made clear to the reader that it's performed on only mice, then would be fine to just put it under (Scientific Research). Since there is a page for electroacupuncture and the mice studies was specifically using only that method. I would agree on putting the mice study in "electroacupuncture" page. Nvtuil (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with the mice studies and the Harvard study is that they are primary sources. I suggest taking a closer look at WP:MEDRS#Avoid_primary_sources and WP:MEDDEF. Because there are many studies, the only way to neutrally describe the findings is to look at what independent, reliable, secondary sources say about them. The best secondary sources are systematic reviews. Danstronger (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@VdSV9 Unless you have proof that those researchers plus neuroscientists at Harvard university, are bad people without resorting to blatant prejudice. You're now making inappropriate speculations about the researcher's character. The study was published in a reputable journal and as Wikipedia editors, we can't exclude them with opinions that their findings are insignificant as Not anyone can be published on Harvard and this is a historic first for a team of neuroscientists from a reputable university, to apply electroacupuncture to a hind leg accupoint, be able to successfully activate the vagal-adrenal axis and also know the appropriate and inappropriate time to give such treatment. An encyclopedia needs to document historically significant info and I still feel given the significance of the successful findings, it should be mentioned in acupuncture and/or "electroacupuncture" page. Nvtuil (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Danstronger That is more a general guideline and not an absolute rule. Not being reviewed, doesn't necessarily disqualify it as a reliable source. Usually a team of neuroscientists and Harvard researchers, are deemed as reliable sources. But given that it's a very recent study and consequently zero secondary reviews on it so far. If further future studies/secondary sources confirm the results then there should be no more reason to not add it in. I will abstain from adding the study for now, until future research exists to either further prove the findings (or won't add it in if they disprove it). Particularly when the researchers in that study themselves warned "that observations must be confirmed in future research and the optimal parameters for acupuncture stimulation must be clearly defined." . Nvtuil (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nvtuil Who said anything about anyone being "bad people"? Who said anything about anyone's character? I have no idea what you're talking about. Again, the weight of evidence provided by this study is close to zero. Again, see WP:MEDRS. The fact that this is a "first" is even more reason not to add it. And have a good day.VdSV9•♫ 14:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@VdSV9 then next time if you don't want me to misunderstand. Don't go out of your way to claim that the reason the Harvard mag published that study was questionably to promote Ma's career and implying that he is not here for science but wants attention and is not a real proper scientist.

And it's not a fringe. From what I read, understanding from systematic reviews seems to overall point towards acupuncture having legitimate effects and is recommended by national health orgs. https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-panel-commends-acupuncture https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-in-depth/

Also on closer look, it's not a first study. There was an earlier study.

...was intrigued by a 2014 paper which showed that using acupuncture in mice could alleviate systemic inflammation by stimulating the vagal-adrenal axis — a signaling pathway in which the vagus nerve carries signals to the adrenal glands — to trigger the glands to release dopamine.Nvtuil (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In order to misunderstand We don't, and simply can't, include every single study on every topic in the encyclopedia. [..] The paper itself is meaningless. as those researchers plus neuroscientists at Harvard university, are bad people you need to add a lot of false assumptions and use a lot of bad logic. There is simply no connection between what VdSV9 said and what you claim VdSV9 said. If you do it like this, nobody has a chance of being correctly understood by you.

Also, be more careful with indentation. I removed a bit of your chaos. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Bias towards David Gorski

Even in the article's intro right now, a "review" is given from a single opinion author who is just debunked when speculating without proof, that acupuncture is just a placebo effect. It's true that for chronic pain, early systematic reviews had found that they were not able to find evidence that acupuncture was not a placebo effect. But that is now outdated when later systematic reviews in 2012 by the same authors with improved methods, show there is solid evidence that the experienced effects is more than a placebo effect.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3658605/

I get that this page has editors who wants to push their view that acupuncture doesn't work and why they give disportionate weight to a single person who supports their pov.. But a systematic review precedes and outranks David Gorski.. You cannot delete systematic reviews simply because one guy, disagrees with it. I was nice last time.. Delete systematic reviews again and I will have to report it to vandalism as I am not going to let the article be corrupted by opinion authors and remove legitimate research. Nvtuil (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

What did you find after following the advice I gave you in my edsum? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 19:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The Vickers et al. paper is already cited in the article, followed by criticism of its weaknesses. Science is not finished when a paper is published - other scientists can find fault with the study, which makes it less likely to be useful. If we quoted it as showing efficiency although we are aware of its faults, that would mean we want to push our view that acupuncture does work.

Judging scientific evidence is not as easy as you think it is. The editors you are opposing know how to do it. That is why they come to a different conclusion than you do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No, instead you guys cherrypick your favorite skeptic author and promote his words with undue weight more than the rest. That 2012 study had showed Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture which indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo. David has done no studies but merely and clearly already made up his mind from the start based on his bigoted nature and not from his research. The only thing certain is not that acupuncture doesn't work. It's that the results are not conclusive in either direction but research suggests that acupuncture helps with certain pain conditions. NCCIH should have more weight in the article than a single person.

Research suggests that acupuncture can help manage certain pain conditions, but evidence about its value for other health issues is uncertain. Nvtuil (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

And why is the words of one individual David Gorski bring overrepresented in the article, but the views of Large organisations like NCCIH, is practically nonexistent? It appears more like a climate change denial type of article where reputable science organisation words are censored heavily and stonewalled. (No reason for reverting but just reminders not to edit war despite my edits were well sourced and factual) and instead climate change denier experts are promoted more than Large science organisations. That is wrong and not how Wikipedia should behave. The views of NCCIH should have always more precedence than any cherrypicked skeptic. That is not disputable. Nvtuil (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you see what I did? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 19:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No, leave my words on Talk Page as is. My point is individual skeptics from a skeptic website should not have more precedence on Wikipedia than large science organisations. Imagine we did the same with climate change. Overly promote and give undue weight to single individuals just because they share your skeptical views. But censor out the much larger organisations simply because they contradict your stance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051652773 Nvtuil (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No one pays attention to the NCCIH because they're a political organization, set up by a US senator who was a fan of homeopathy to try to produce evidence in favor of various altmed practicies. They fund lots of studies and generally do not bother to publish the results when the studies fail to produce the results they would like. They're the governmental face of Publication bias. MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That is like every climate change denier argument. Calling the government science organisations as corrupt. Where is your actual proof that they are funded by a dishonest person and do not bother to publish the results if it's negative? How would you know? You're making up baseless claims and speculations. Nvtuil (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

They used to be under the authority of the NIH, and were spun out into an independent budget item that didn't answer to anyone because the NIH director tried to impose scientific standards on them. All of this is documented with citations on our article on them: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, I suggest you read it. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected page formatting. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

NCCIH is the pro-quackery arm of the government. To sum up the whole activity of NCCIH: they haven't discovered/identified a single therapy that passes muster. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the analogy Nvtuil is making with Climate Science is that the current mainstream science supports Anthropogenic Climate Change, and so-called "climate skeptics" are generally being denialists, often because of an agenda or political bias. Current mainstream science does not support acupuncture; the analogous agents here would be the NCCIH and pro-acupuncture researchers as whole, who are similar to climate deniers in the sense that they fail to acknowledge the evidence against their beliefs, and have an agenda to promote their pseudoscience of choice, or are biased because that is their job. This whole exchange is kind of funny: You demand evidence for a supposed accusation that you think I made about some researchers being "bad people", and the next day you say Gorski is bigoted. I would agree that he is prejudiced against acupuncture, as anyone familiar with the shoddy science used to promote it tends to become. Bigoted is a harsher accusation.VdSV9•♫ 21:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Guys, it is your own opinion that NCCIH is corrupt. It isn't your place to decide that they are dishonest and another person isn't. There is no reason to not include the research view of NCCIH and give proper attribution in their findings. Nvtuil (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Deciding if they are a reliable source and how much weight to give them is exactly what we're supposed to be doing as Wikipedia editors. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nvtuil: You would be right only if the following were abolished: WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS; WP:CHOPSY; WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE and WP:PSCI; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM. Since this hasn't happened, you're wrong, completely wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not my opinion that they are corrupt. This is not about corruption. Stop misinterpreting what I say, please.VdSV9•♫ 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Getting this article up to standards

My apologies, but this article is very badly constructed and needs serious content improvement all over. As some examples: First, there are so many mis-references/-citations of articles in the sense that stated sentences are not supported by the references cited. Second, there are quite a few cited personal websites, opinion pieces, or editorials rather than actual research studies. Third, the logical construction is terrible and is built up as if to falsify a state of mis-perceptions from decades ago, when in reality science has long moved on. Fourth, independent of any actual statements, just the logical flow is all over the place. Let's start slowly just with the first few sentences, but one could go on like this for the entire article:

• The first sentence reads: "Acupuncture[b] is a form of alternative medicine[2] and a component of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in which thin needles are inserted into the body."
  • Let's first examine whether citing [2] is appropriate in an introductory sentence defining acupuncture: while it's true that Berman2010 includes a nicer overview over the topic than one might think from the title, why would one cite a back pain article to introduce a general definition of acupuncture? I'm glad that all Ernst papers seem to be accepted by all sides here on the page, so why not e.g. cite [8] for the introductory definition, or actually Nasir2002 like Ernst does in [8] himself? If Nasir2002 is good enough for Ernst to reference a definition, why not also here? But this is a minor point.
  • Next up: [2] is actually cited to support that acupuncture is alternative medicine, which puts the burden of evidence on [2] quite high, as by the Wiki page on Alternative Medicine, [2] would then have to unequivocally show that acupuncture "lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective". I've seen in past edit "debates" here that everything which is not a meta-review was rather energetically discarded. So there is no reason why [2], a mix of a hypothetical case study on lower back pain and a narrative review article on acupuncture for lower back pain should be accepted as corroboration of the statement that acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. [2] just cannot deliver such proof, it's impossible by its very scope. Note that I'm not saying that it is or is not a form of alternative medicine, just that [2] shouldn't be cited to support the first 7 words of this article.
• So let's next move to the TCM part of the first sentence: Certainly at least since the GERAC studies, and many more, no-one in their right mind would believe that acupuncture would be limited to or be based on TCM postulates. So the reference to TCM should be a historical one. The scientific discussion has not been about qi or whatever in a long time anymore, and the fact that effects are not solely arising out of insertions at TCM-proposed locations as shown by GERAC is only one clear example thereof. Claiming to cover science on acupuncture by falsifying TCM pseudo-religious arguments on qi and elements and whatever is the definition of a straw man fallacy. So anything with TCM in it should be clearly marked as a reference to its historical origins, not a definition of acupuncture.
• Let's move to the second part of the first sentence: "in which thin needles are inserted into the body.[3]" Why would one cite a paper on pediatric safety when defining what acupuncture is? Again, as above, why not use [8] or Nasir2002 or whatever else which is actually a general overview article?
• Second sentence, first half: references [4] and [5] are badly chosen to support the statement: Neither seem to be peer-reviewed, and neither cite any peer-reviewed study when making the statements cited, and actually neither of them cite ANY study at ANY section in which they discuss acupuncture. They seem to be on par with opinion pieces without citing any evidence. This half-sentence also again seems to confuse acupuncture with TCM. If by above definition acupuncture is the act of needle insertion, then there can be scientific research on said acts, and TCM can be denounced as pseudo-science due to its strange religous-like assumptions, but the two should not be confused or mingled.
• Second sentence, second half: Same comment on putting forth TCM as straw man fallacy as above. Also, while not wanting to belittle Dr. Barrett's notable achievements, surely a blog/website entry is not an adequate reference.

I literally could continue through the entire article like this. Please also note that I haven't yet expressed any view as to what statements should be formulated or what references should be used, just pointed out strong weaknesses of the current version.

Moving forward, my proposal would be to quote the opening sentences of [8] or Nasir2002 for a definition, and cite either or both of these. Then I imagine that a hot topic for both sides in this debate is wanting to quickly drop a comment on its efficacy or non-efficacy. But let's also appreciate that such a sentence could come as second sentence or a bit later, and the second sentence could also be a reference to its history or not, or something else. There are many options. But looking ahead a bit to the probably most heated debate here: There are so many logical fallacies in later arguments. For example let's look a bit at how [11] is used as a reference in the article:

• The sentence "Acupuncture is most often used to attempt pain relief,[11][12]" is in reality not supported by the references cited. Nowhere in [11] is that statement made. [11] just states that it is commonly or frequently used for pain patients.
• Even more drastically, let's consider "The conclusions of trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture are inconsistent, which suggests that it is not effective.[11][15][16]". Here, the citations are placed wrongly, at least [11] and [15] should go after "inconsistent", because that is what the quoted papers state. Also, the difference in thrust between the two Ernst papers should be appreciated: the 2008 paper shows that 25 out of 32 Cochrane reviews did not show a benefit. Fair enough, no-one would want to argue with that. Then the 2010 Ernst paper is on pain only, and finds that 25 out of 57 came to a positive conclusion (14 of which from outside China). Clearly, this difference between the 2008 and 2010 studies should be addressed somehow, including their different scope. Then for [16], while written as opinion piece in a strong tone, certainly it can be used to support the notion that clear, unequivocal positive evidence is lacking, as it also presents arguments and refers to meta-reviews. At the same time, by the time [16] was published (2013), there had long been high-level scientific discussion (like https://cmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1749-8546-4-1 and including at review level https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965229903001249, or https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/180805/ ) on the inadequacy of equating sham with placebo, on which much of the reasoning in [16] is based. But both aspects could equally be pointed out, no problem.

I've now written over a page on the first two sentences plus two uses of one particular citation. I'm sorry to say, but the article's quality is so bad that I could go on at this rate about just every single sentence in it. Not meaning to belittle previous efforts, and not even advocating any one side or thrust. But I'm sure whichever stance you take, you'd want it to be solidly presented? And the current version is far from being able to do that, sorry. It's really in a bad state, and it would be nice to fix it. Koalava (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You are right. This article is absolutely terrible. I feel that WP:TNT would be more appropriate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Koalava: As long as you don't want to significantly change the balance between "medicine" and "pseudoscience", probably the best way to figure out whether your ideas here are supported by consensus is for you to start (gradually) making the improvements that you envision. A long talk page discussion isn't needed unless there is a disagreement. You don't need to ask "surely everyone wants the page to be improved?", if you think your improvements will be uncontroversial just do them. Danstronger (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the gradually advice from Dan is probably the most important thing to remember here. If you can write this much on the first two sentences, you'll require a whole 'pedia's worth of text to explain, and nobody will bother to read that. I didn't bother to read this btw as it is far too long. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I did browse through it, and this sentence grated: Certainly at least since the GERAC studies, and many more, no-one in their right mind would believe that acupuncture would be limited to or be based on TCM postulates.

Is there a single acupuncturist in the world who says to their patients, "Well, the GERAC studies have found out that all that magic ancient-Chinese meridian stuff is pure bollocks, so I will now put needles into you at a few random points. Wrists are fine, so you don't need to remove any clothing"? I would like to see evidence of that. Until that attitude becomes a mass phenomenon, the results of the GERAC studies will stay something that skeptics have known all the time and that acupuncturists will continue to ignore or misrepresent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, there is no remotely credible evidence linking this to most of the claimed effects, no evidence to account for the fact that studies show acupuncture "works" for some conditions and not for other, similar conditions, no evidence of any persistent effect form such signalling, and good evidence that it does not matter if you stick the needles in or not, including evidence that acupuncture "works" equally well if you stick the needles in a dummy rubber hand instead of the patient's hand. How does purinergic signalling affect "treatment" of stroke, leukopaenia, depression and other things acupuncture is claimed to cure:
— User:JzG

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Terming acupuncture a pseudoscience in the opening sentences is the sort of thing that means I never donate to Wikipedia. It has worked for me. 89.175.204.6 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC) I have disagreed with many editors in the past but never had my contributions removed from the talk page. Labelling acupuncture as a pseudoscience in the lead may be quite counterproductive. Britannica does not do so. The British NHS recommends acupuncture for some conditions, there may be thousands of RS which don't call it a pseudoscience. If the use of the word pseudoscience turns people away from Wikipedia editors should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.175.204.6 (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Preceding edits by Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you got any WP:MEDRS compliant sources for your unlikely suppositions? -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cmart35.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 October 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bdubzzzz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

QHACKERY? "the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery."

who wrote this? pfizer? who characterized it as quackery? this writer??? ​

Acupuncture has been around for at least 2500 years with hundreds of thousands of cases of clinical data to support its beneficial impact on health. So some schmuck on wikipedia gets to say its characterized as quackery? No person in their right mind could possibly read the opening of this article and not see the bias against any truth searching on this subject. This is fox news caliber work... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slivingstee (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Slivingstee: I suggest that you actually read the article. The sources for that claim are listed there and on Wikipedia, we just report what reliable sources say on a given subject.Once you are done, I also suggest that you read the past discussions for this topic on this talk page and its archives (the links to the archives are at the top of this page). Hope that helps. --McSly (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks for reply -please check his source for calling it quackery.

http://www.truthwiki.org/stephen-barrett-quackwatch/

"Retired psychiatrist and author of Quackwatch, a mission to slam holistic medicine and call it all “quack” medicine, has been officially declared by the US Court System to be “Biased, and unworthy of credibility.”

this is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slivingstee (talk • contribs) 19:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No. "Truthwiki" is not a reliable source. VdSV9•♫ 21:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, it would not be difficult to replace the Quackwatch references. Examples: Guardian Anesthesia & Analgesia The Times (London) The Lancet and so on. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

no i meant is stephen barrett a reliable source? this guy was caught in court lying about his credentials and expertise trying discredit alternative medical practices. he is a proven fraud on record.

link listed above. more too but cant get post with copyright warning or whatever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slivingstee (talk • contribs)

Yes, Stephen Barrett is a reliable source and an authority on alternative medicine and 'quackery' in general. A lot of people on the internet don't like his conclusions and sling mud at him. A link to such an attack page doesn't erode his credibility. - MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Pseudomyopia

This recent review article mentions that acupuncture combined with massage therapy can help with pseudomyopia in young people. PseudoReview (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I dont agree with you, having read the conclusions. Let's see what others think. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo, the only thing you could interpret that way is where it off-handedly mentions another single study of 64 adolescents. I'm not going to bother with a deep dive on this, but I can tell you that WP:MEDPRI applies, and I'm sure somebody will find a way to discredit the journal it's published in. MarshallKe (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe "PseudoReview" is a sock of Belteshazzar. I have filed an SPI [5] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Current article is biased and a joke

Currently the article says that research and evidence shows that acupuncture is not effective for pain. That's actually not true at least not anymore. It's not really disputed that more sufficient research is needed to establish whether or not it's effective. There's a difference between not enough evidence and proven to be ineffective. Yet it's clear that some editors here, seem to not want to present this topic fairly. But am also not really interested in fighting with those who already made up their mind, but this article should at least emphasize that more research is needed to form conclusions and also the results of more recent systematic review and evidence does suggest that at least for chronic pain, it is promising and not a placebo effect.

(British National Health Service carried out a systematic review of the evidence for the use of acupuncture to treat or manage a range of disorders. They found that there was evidence that acupuncture is effective to treat dental pain, jaw pain and to control nausea after operations and chemotherapy treatment.)

(For many conditions where acupuncture can be used, the evidence has not been systematically reviewed, or the current scientific evidence to prove that it is effective is not yet established.)

120.18.46.202 (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Refs 1 and 3 are not acceptable, failing WP:MEDRS and the long established consensus here is that ref2 isn't really strong enough to suggest that acu is a real process. It seems that despite what acupuncturists say, where you put the needles makes little difference, and the difference between "real" and sham acu is really very marginal. sorry. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If that is what you believe in. That a UK government funded systematic review using European studies, is not acceptable. Then I am not going to bother arguing on this. However current article already includes a newer systematic review stating that the systematic review shows that it's not a placebo and effective for chronic pain. However that information is buried so deeply into the article that it's hard to find. Meanwhile the introduction includes a 2011 systematic review ironically, and stating lack of evidence found for treatment of chronic pain. That information despite being outdated, is being given heaps of exposure on the page. The article already has both information published but it gives undue weight to older studies and pushes the New studies into lower chapters. It's clear the page is edited with bias but if you want to continue burying real systematic reviews based in European studies, simply because they have conclusions you dislike. Then I have nothing more to say here and finished.120.18.46.202 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, see tgeorgescu's comment, currently at the bottom of the next section. It says - "It's not even indexed for PubMed, let alone MEDLINE. It's a Vickers review (woo peddler)." - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Acupuncture is a pseudoscience;[4][5] the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.[6] I would like to have this comment removed. Im an acupuncturist. I find this to be utterly humiliating Hamburger2 (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but the text you refer to is reliably sourced, and will not be changed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hamburger2: Please try to find reliable sources that comply with the WP:MEDRS policy that support the benefits of acupuncture. The sources chosen for this article may well be the result of a predetermined bias to find negative reviews, which is understandable since many editors here are skeptics. Having experienced acupuncture myself, I will say that there are effects, depending on the specific use cases, but I am not a published medical source. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Lots of people have already tried and failed to find reliable sources that comply with the WP:MEDRS policy that support the benefits of acupuncture, which is understandable since many editors here are fans of alternative medicine. Most of those do not stay long though, because they are unsuccessful in their attempts to find good sources that say what they want them to say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It is sourced on outdated data. Surely science evolves, don't you think? 88.19.250.158 (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If it did in this case, then all you have to do is find newer reliable sources saying the opposite of the ones we have now. Until then, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

See below. 88.19.62.83 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. We always had meagre "evidence" for acupuncture "working", and usually, as in this case, it uses the weasel word "some", which strongly hints at the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. For every type of quackery, there are always new attempts at validating them, occasionally even systematic reviews, that are later found faulty. We wait until the scientific community had a thorough look at those studies. Reliability means the sources have to meet the criteria in WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

1) The scientific community already has. Look at the clinical guidelines over the world.

Birch, S., Lee, M.S., Alraek, T. & Kim, T.H. (2018) Overview of Treatment Guidelines and Clinical Practical Guidelines That Recommend the Use of Acupuncture: A Bibliometric Analysis. J Altern Complement Med, 24 (8), pp. 752-769. DOI: 10.1089/acm.2018.0092

2) The studies provided below meet the criteria you mention - I had already looked at this requirement. If it is your opinion these articles do not meet the criteria you mention, please provide a detail explanation as to why.

- Ma, Y., Dong, M., Zhou, K., Mita, C., Liu, J. & Wayne, P.M. (2016) Publication Trends in Acupuncture Research: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis Based on PubMed. PLoS One, 11 (12), p. e0168123. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168123

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27973611/

- Vickers, A.J., Cronin, A.M., Maschino, A.C., Lewith, G., MacPherson, H., Foster, N.E., Sherman, K.J., Witt, C.M., Linde, K. & Acupuncture, T.C. (2012) Acupuncture for chronic pain: individual patient data meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med, 172 (19), pp. 1444-1453. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3654 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29198932/

3) The fact you mention the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is fallacious in itself. I could totally say that you focus on the handful of knives not hitting the target. This is exactly what the current wikipedia page on acupuncture does, by using outdated references that do not correspond to the opinion of the scientific community anymore, but serve the purpose of qualifying acupuncture of quackery. 88.19.62.83 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Studies by true believers always find that it works. No surprise here. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I could totally say that you focus on Of course. You can say whatevery you want. Doesn't mean it's true.

J Altern Complement Med Alternative medicine is not medicine, just as alternative facts are not facts. You need better sources than that.

About Vickers et al.: We already quote that one in the article and name its weaknesses. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What I see is that you are both doing exactly what you accuse people of doing: using personal opinions and biased data to make your point (i.e. Ernst's comment, and the response to it, that you quote but only the one sentence that serves your purpose, even if it's not the actual opinion of its authors). More than anything, you are bitter and condescending in your tone, which is everything but showing a critical and neutral mind, ready to be challenged.

It appears you already made your mind, and whatever data is brought to you, you dismiss if it doesn't go your way. Including dismissing a study based on the name of its journal… such a good research practice you have, congratulations. Maybe you could have found other characteristics of said journal to dismiss it? (I'll help you, look at the impact factor for a start.)

No data is perfect, but that is also true for mainstream medicine.

I can see why people stop trying to change this article, and that is not because there is no good data. It's because you refuse to see it anyway. 88.18.162.206 (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The data you supplied is no good, as it doesn't meet decent reliability standards, as has been explained to you. Bring data that does meet those standards, and we will happily change the article to meet the new facts. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have brought you a systematic review of clinical guidelines, and this was dismissed on the basis it was published in a journal with 'complementary' in its name. According to the MEDRS standard you mention:

"Ideal sources for biomedical information include:

- review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals;

- academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers;and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials.

=> Define objectively "reputable journal" in a measurable way, and give me a measurable criteria, not one that can be based on interpretation.

I have several other meta-analysis, and I'm fairly certain that none of you actually made the effort of reading them. And finally, the Wikipedia:MEDRS mentioned here as gold standard is prone to interpretation: 88.18.162.206 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I posted the previous entry before finishing the edit - but you have most of the elements I wanted to include there anyway, so I'll leave it at this. 88.18.162.206 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not a reputable medical journal. It is not MEDLINE indexed, and it is the official journal of the Society for Acupuncture Research, so they have a bit of a vested interest (a COI, that is). I see you quoted from WP:MEDRS - you should study the whole guideline, the definitions you're interested in are in there. MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, finally somebody willing to have a constructive mindset!

- The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is indexed by MEDLINE: you will find it under the name Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine, there is an announcement on the last link regarding the change of name. Now I see the affiliation with the Society for Acupuncture Research, and whilst I disagree this necessarily means there is a COI, I can understand why it may be seen as problematic. Thank you for pointing this out.

- Alright, I will have a better look at the guideline indeed, now that I am not met with sarcasm and condescending tone. 88.18.162.206 (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

... but you couldn't be bothered before. It isn't our responsibility to baby you along, you need to engage your brain too. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This may be a good source for finding current research in this field. https://www.evidencebasedacupuncture.org/ Acupuncture is absolutely studied and there are 100's of studies being performed every year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.91.130 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Evidence based acupuncture is an oxymoron. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

And your opinion is coming from which scientific source?

Here is an actual study published in a peer reviewed journal, to demonstrate that there is data https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27973611/

Here is another one, meta-analysis, showing positive effects of acupuncture https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29198932. Again published in peer reviewed journal. 88.19.250.158 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The current article seems to have no Issues in publishing the much older systematic reviews and using that information in the introduction liberally. But bury away the more recent systematic reviews showing that acupuncture is superior to sham and placebo, and effective for chronic pain. That is just bias in emphasising the old studies and reviews and not doing the same for the more recent reviews stating the opposite. UK government funded research did recent systematic reviews and found it as effective for pain conditions and recommend it for those conditions. Yet the current article seems to suggest the very opposite and only depends on outdated reviews. https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/acupuncture-shown-to-have-benefits-for-treatment-of-some-chronic-pain/ 120.18.46.202 (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)