Talk:Acupuncture: Difference between revisions

Add UNESCO in the lead

The practice, defined by the article as "quackery", was recognized by UNESCO in 2010: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/acupuncture-and-moxibustion-of-traditional-chinese-medicine-00425; I know it's inconvenient for you all to add this information in the lead, but it must be added. 217.196.104.215 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• It was recognised as a cultural phenomenon, not as a legitimate medical practice. It might be worth a sentence in the main part of the article somewhere but I don't think it's important enough to go in the lead. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Can you add the correct link in the story paragraph? The current reference (this: https://www.unesco.org/en/culture) doesn't lead to https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/acupuncture-and-moxibustion-of-traditional-chinese-medicine-00425.
  • Since Wikipedia seems to be democratic, it would be better to start an RFC about it. I don't know how to do it, can you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.104.19 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

    No, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. RFCs are for resolving intractable disputes, not for voting on random suggestions. It is mentioned in the history section, which is the proper place for it. I see no reason it should be in the lead. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

    Ahhhhh, ok! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.104.209 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

this article is based on outdated science

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.

---

it is so unfortunate that this exists as truth on wikipedia. Even though the edits of this article are as recent as this year, the authors have failed to incorporate more recent and relevant research on the proven benefits of acupuncture and its use as an allied service in medicine. Wikipedias entire pseudoscience section is grossly outdated as advancements in science continue to expand what we know and what tools we have to treat medical conditions. Good science of acupuncture exist... but i don't have it in me to go on a wiki battle with someone who is clearly out there to skew the story, rather than to provide information and let people make their own choice as to whether its the right path for them. 2001:569:7893:AF00:38DF:835A:4B9C:DB71 (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2025 (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.

Aggregating valid modern sources on acupuncture

I am starting a new topic because two people have been reverting my comments and comments of others on the two below discussions as "closed" despite the two topics below this one not being closed. (The third section indeed has a closed flag.)

I was absolutely stunned to hear the first paragraph of this article quoted from a Google Assistant today, and even more horrified as a decade+ donor to Wikipedia to learn that it was due to it being pulled from Wikipedia. The frame of 'alternative medicine' itself is outdated and problematic -- alternative to what?? It posits western medicine as the dominant norm in a way that is clearly biased. To then escalate this to 'pseudoscience' and 'quackery' is honestly stunning. Shame on all of you who defend this outrageously racist framing. By the policy noted on the talk page this is at most 'questionable science'. A review on the supporting studies from the last ten years shows over and over that the limitations in finding results from RCT have to do with the difficulty of assessing needling in a controlled trial, NOT a dispute that patients find the treatments both effective (for chronic pain in particular) and cost-effective. This is why, as many other users are noting, insurance increasingly covers acupuncture. Lumping it with astrology is absolutely absurd and again quite racist.

Regarding the validity of the NCCIH: The NIH is pretty clear that its institutions are held to the same research standards, but this is a bit silly because what it mostly does with regard to acupuncture is aggregate studies published in other journals. Where should we be aggregating the many more modern studies that contribute to the current expert consensus that more research needs to be done on acupuncture because as the studies improve in methodology results are being seen in specific implementations? Headache for instance is a perfectly legitimate journal: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31872864 The NCCIH article itself has now been marked as in need of updating because of outdated content. The same should be true on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdspace (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The vast majority of modern sources on acupuncture come either from China (where negative results of clinical trials essentially do not exist, especially for woo), or Ted Kaptchuk, who has a MASSIVE conflict of interest.

The best scientific evidence says:

• The effects of acupuncture are visible almost exclusively in self-reported subjective measures
• There is no remotely plausible mechanism of action, despite years of attempts to retcon one.
• It does not make any difference where the needles are inserted, or even whether they are inserted.

Acupuncture is one of the unflushable turds of woo, like homeopathy and chiropractic. It doesn't matter how discredited and disproven it is, people will always hold up a thousand poor-quality studies by people with a vested interest in the outcome and assert that they trump the careful and well-constructed work of the infidel. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

This is another comment that was reverted out for being on the 'closed' discussion that is relevant to the article's condition today:

Agreed with the statement below. There is evidence that Acupuncture has proved to be effective in reducing pain if administered precisely by a professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:B003:9700:9E7:C:F31D:8B22 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdspace (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources, has a special duty to call out pseudoscience and avoids useless clichéd fluff like FRIN. End of story. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

You cannot achieve what you want for this article. Nobody can. Some things can't be changed. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it could be changed, if Qi suddenly became a thing and there was any repeatable evidence to prove that location and actual insertion make some objectively testable difference, but of course if that proof existed we would not be having this argument on this page repeatedly for decades. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

NHS hospitals in UK offered a well-paid job to a Reiki therapist. Not because Reiki is effective, but because it is an easy way to soothe nervous patients. See https://www.nature.com/articles/526295a

More to the point: that is considered deeply unethical. MDs should not offer fake therapies for monetary gain. If they do, then nothing stops a hospital from going rogue and scamming all its patients. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

About outrageously racist framing: we are equally merciless with chiropractic and homeopathy, which are Western medical pseudosciences. I wouldn't like to be treated according to 17th, 18th, or 19th century Western medicine. The West understood that those were primitive stages of medical science and moved along. China and India failed to understand it. Treating the population with ancient and medieval quackery should never be a reason for national pride. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed it's a kind of racism of low expectations to think that this nonsense should be indulged because it's associated with certain peoples (e.g. "they don't get real science, so let's allow them this woowoo ...") Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Yup, Western MDs recognized that old Western approaches were wrong, and were prepared to learn from their own mistakes. TCM and Ayurveda are not doing that.

The claims that Ayurveda and TCM are right are rhetoric-based, not fact-based; they are divorced from the objective reality. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Having not received an answer to my question about where we should be aggregating more modern evidence, I am appending it here. I would also lodge my objection to the preponderance of blog sources listed as reference in the article associated with the same community (New England Skeptics Society), which seem to be cited with a biased level of frequency (number of times a single author is cited, who is a member of that society and blog author). I will continue adding sources here and signing my additions.

Heterogeneity has been specifically analyzed using meta-regression and found that variables like needle location/depth could explain heterogeneity for specific conditions. (Rebuts claim that "acupuncturists can't agree on acupuncture points" and that sham comparisons are invalid.) "SA type did not appear to be related to the estimated effect of real acupuncture." This source also finds moderate effect on musculoskeletal pain with systematic methodology and large sample size.

Adenosine signaling has been specifically identified and studied in humans as progress toward a biochemical mechanism for analgesic effect of acupuncture. (Efficacy on pain relief is the emerging area that is finding increasing evidence.)

"There is evidence for the therapeutic effects of acupuncture for the management of cancer-related fatigue, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and leucopenia in patients with cancer." ... "Because acupuncture appears to be relatively safe, it could be considered as a complementary form of palliative care for cancer, especially for clinical problems for which conventional care options are limited."

Acupuncture activates the salience network (insula, anterior cingulate cortex) and deactivates the default mode network (medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex), which are known to be involved in pain processing and self-awareness. (Article also comments on real vs sham and validity of this study. Also addresses neurological mechanism responding to critiques of efficacy of visualization of acupuncture following acupuncture therapy.)

I am requesting help integrating these sources into the main article and continuing my argument that the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lede is wildly incorrect. It is fair to critique many claims about acupuncture; it is not fair to categorize it as quackery (proven wrong claims) vs borderlands (mechanisms being pursued, pain relief effects proven with increasing robustness). 3rdspace (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

How can we change Wikipedia's gross mischaracterization of acupuncture as "quackery" when there are thousands of double-blind RCTs proving its efficacy? The fact that the first paragraph on acupuncture has not changed decreases validity of Wikipedia as a trusted source. 172.250.1.125 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

References

None of those sources are suitable WP:MEDRS, and Chinese research in a dodgy journal like Scientific Reports are at the very opposite end of what is required here. Wikipedia uses reliable sources to report on this quackery, it is not a venue for spreading the quackery itself. Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Objectively showing that acupuncture is effective would be rewarded with a Nobel Prize. Since that has not happened, there is no reason to assume it is. E.g., the discovery of artemisinin was rewarded with a Nobel. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)