Acupuncture Article Needs Serious Attention
I’m quite taken aback by this so-called “encyclopedic” article. It is my understanding that an encyclopedia is a comprehensive body of knowledge, but from what I’ve read, this article is nothing but a few people trying to make sense of acupuncture and fear that it is only quackery. The impression I get is that the people writing this article, in general, do not know what they are talking about and need to be educated about acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). The only information that I found informing was the history, some of the theory, and the potential risks. There is absolutely no need for the sections “controversy as to effectiveness”, “purported benefits” or any links that do not educate people on the theory of acupuncture. In other words there should not be anything biased in the article that leads a person to choose for or against acupuncture. And by all means, the article itself should not be used as a means to debate the effectiveness of acupuncture. (Hence the need to remove the sections, “controversy as to effectiveness” and “purported benefits” as well as removing any non-informative links (for example, Acupuncture, The Facts (http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/acupuncture-whatis.html)).
- Thank you for your comments, but on this one point I totally disagree. When I read an encyclopedia article, I don't want to only hear what the subject says about itself. I want to know the source of the knowledge and how it fits into the rest of human knowledge, and in particular what science can say about it, if anything at all. There may be many ways to improve the article, but a discussion of the “controversy as to effectiveness” must be included in some form somewhere in Wikipedia. Art Carlson 09:11, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
Instead of using “purported benefits”, I recommend using “Benefits: According to TCM” and using only TCM, or other forms of Acupuncture theory, rather than trying to legitimize or incriminate acupuncture.
Currently, I am in my first year of studies at the Canadian College of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine CCAOM (http://www.ccaom.com) in Victoria, BC, Canada and for those that wonder about specific information on the effectiveness or what it is good for, all I can tell you is that I need to study for four more years to know. I can, however, tell you that I have seen treatments work for facial paralysis, arthritis, various joint injuries, sciatica, herpes zoster and tinea versicolor.
- Well, if anyone in this college of yours can show any of these cures or effects is real, I feel a Nobel Prize for medicin coming! Did any of these cures make it into some real medical journals? I've got access to about all of them, so please tell me which one and which issue so I can look it up. FYI, herpes zoster is an asymptomatic disease, meaning you be infected without showing any symptoms. Then it comes and goes, on its own. You have simply seen the normal diseaseprocess as it would have been without any treatment whatsoever. I have my suspicions that goes for the other examples you mentioned as well.
In British Columbia, acupuncture and TCM is regulated and governed by the CTCMA and there are specific licensing requirements. In order for me to be a Doctor of TCM, I need to two years of prerequisites, and five years of study; I also need to have the core competencies that are listed by the CTCMA (http://www.ctcma.bc.ca/Documents/Core%20Competencies%20of%20TCM%20prac%20Eng%20&%20Chinese.pdf) and pass the licensing exams. Not all places have set regulations for the practice of acupuncture, so it is best to make sure the acupuncturist you see is qualified. It is also important not to judge acupuncture or TCM itself based on a treatment you receive from someone that is not competent.
- You can regulate, license and qualify all you want, it doesn't change the fact that something does or doesn't work! That is something most people who are into alternative medicin miss completely. You can study something worthless for years, and it will remain worthless.
To answer the question about Qi: I actually wanted to study herbology and not acupuncture because I knew nothing about acupuncture, but after I received an acupuncture treatment, I experienced what is called “de qi” (a very difficult to describe sensation). Then I wanted to study acupuncture. I had not studied many meridians at all and I actually told the intern the exact pathway of a meridian I did not know. It felt like a wire moving inside my body and it was very pleasant. So now, I believe that the term “qi” is a name for a sensation that the Chinese played with and documented the results of what happened. Since western medicine has not explored this sensation, I think there is no proper translation and therefore, it seems like bogus.
- Wow, so you felt the sensation... I can strongly recommend watching Penn and Tellers 'Bullshit'. In season one they have a lady who can just feel the energy flow all through her when they wave a magnet over her arm - a magnet that they demagnitized before taping!! She feels even more when they wave a huge magnet over her, made from aluminum raingutter. Do not underestimate the power of The Force, err, I mean, suggestion. They do a lot more to various people that seems to ridiculous to be true, but plenty of them feel all kinds of great and wonderful things. The power of suggestion is an explanation of what you felt without the need for Qi and meridians, things that no scientist has ever seen. And the power of suggestion can be experimentally repeated by anyone. Check the scientific method and Occam's razor and you might understand why Qi and meridians are not the scientific explanation for the sensation you (and that lady) felt. Oh, and Western medicine has explored that sensation and came up with, guess what, the power of suggestion as explanation and then moved on to real and more promising things. While you and other acupuncturists where out in Woowooland, they developed a number of new organtransplant-techniques, new keyhole operation methods, new treatments for AIDS, new anti-cancermedicin, new ways of fighting resistant germs and so on. All this in maybe just the last 5 years. I do pray, tell me, what has acupuncture achieved in that time? Or the last 500 or 1.000 years for that matter? (besides finding ever more places to safely stick needles into).
As for the question about when to see an acupuncturist, just ask yourself one thing: Can I wait to see a doctor? If I am losing a lot of blood, I might die shortly. Therefore, I can’t afford to book an appointment sometime later in the week to see a doctor of TCM. That would be silly. Instead, I would go to the emergency room. Now, if I knew I had a condition that could wait a while or I hear the phrase, “let’s wait and see if it goes away on its own” or, “there is no cure” or my personal favorite, “would you like some pain killers?” then I would definitely see a doctor of TCM.
- Whoa, wait a minute here! Ask yourself: Can I wait to see a doctor???? That's about the dumbest and most dangerous advice I've heard in years. One of the major dangers of quackery is that it keeps people away from effective medicin until it is too late. You are giving advice that effectively has that result. People without medical qualifications should not try and make a diagnosis, not on themselves or anyone else. They simply do not have sufficient knowledge. There are many things where you're not losing blood (like shock, which does not have any severe symptoms, or meningitis, that looks like flu) that'll kill you pretty quickly none the less. How about warningsigns of a cardiac arrest? No bloodloss. Without proper diagnosis, you can't tell if it can wait or not. Don't they teach you that sort of thing in TCM school? I guess not.
For a really good introduction to TCM read “The Web that has No Weaver” (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0809228408) by Ted J. Kaptchuk OMD.
And for a standard textbook about acupuncture read “A Manual of Acupuncture" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0443039801) by Peter Deadman, et al.
For some good websites online, try http://www.internalhealers.com , http://tcm.health-info.org/index.htm , and http://www.acuxo.com/index.asp
- Well, I took your advice and visited the websites. I'm not going to be accused of having an opinion without having looked up the relevant information. Just two gems I picked up from tcm.health, under diagnosis:
- 1) falling hair: in TCM, that apparently means blood deficiency. I'd think of things like side-effects of chemotherapy, hormonal problems, poisenous substances etc. but no, it's all simple blood deficiency. What that means in TCM, I haven't been able to find out from the site yet, but I suppose a transfusion with a few pints of blood will do the trick. After all, transfusions do involve needles!
- 2) Diagnosis by taking someones pulse by palpatation. That was a revelation, an epiphany! I'll never look at an ICU the same way again. I thought all those state-of-the-art machines, monitoring every detail of the patients circulation gave all the info one could ever need. Now I see it as a complete waste of money, since all I have to do is feel the pulse by hand and I know all about them! Seems I can even feel the kidney position. Silly me, I thought my anatomyclasses taught me where the position of the kidneys was. Apparently I've been lied to, and I need to feel the pulse to find out where in the body they're hiding.
- (I do hope you can recognize sarcasm when you see it). I don't think I'll check out those sites any further, because the few hours I've spent reading them where a total an utter waste of my time, and I do have a life. If that is the best TCM can present for itself, it's not just a load of bullocks, but utterly pathetic as well. I simply can not fathom how anyone with the slightest knowledge of medicin can take any of it serious. Or anyone with a functioning brain to tell you the truth. I'm not sorry if I sound asinine, rude or whatever, since TCM (as one can see on the mentioned sites) is so obviously a load of crock that being polite and trying to discuss it seriously is pointless.
I hope this helps and I seriously hope to see a complete revamp of this article so that the article can deserve to be in an encyclopedia. As for me rewriting the article, I would, but right now I’m only learning the locations of the acupoints and I'm too busy studying to for upcoming tests. However, I may just add a few things once the semester is over, or when I just want a break from studying.
- Years of your life for studying acupuncture and you do not seem interested in information about its effifacy? Wouldn't you just hate it if you read an article on Wikipedia about acupuncture and think 'hey that's great, I'm going to be an acupuncturist' only to find out after wasting years of your life that it's complete nonsense? I'm not saying it is, but information that acupuncture is controversial to say the least should really be included. It is a fact, and facts should be in encyclopedias.
Request for specific info
While there is a lot about wether acupuncture works or not, there is not much on what it's actually (supposed) to do. I'd like to see more on what specifically it's (supposed to be) good for. I myself have no idea after reading this article. It is said to do things to my Chi, but what would that actually do for me? I'd like to know what ailments acupuncturists claim to be able to treat and what not. For example, I don't think acupuncture (if it works at all) could ever treat a cavity in my teeth. I can however imagine it could work for teeth that are oversensitive to heat or cold. A clear sign of quackery is that one particular cure or method can treat anything from cancer to acne and hemerroids, like the good old snakeoil. Since according to the practioners acupuncture is not quackery, there must be things that acupuncture can and can not do. I'd like to see some specifics of that included in the article. Who can help?
And how about a bit more info on the origins, such as some of the theory behind it from The Canon of the Yellow Emperor, the basis of most TCM practices.
- Good idea. There should be some info about the scope of acupuncture in the article.
- This is very much needed. There is a lot in this article about wether it works or not, but that is very much related to what acupuncture is (supposed to be) usefull for. Insulin works, but only if you're a diabetic. It doesn't do much good for you if used to treat, say, a stomach ulcer. Penicillin works too, but not against viral infections, only bacterial. So what is the indication for the use of acupuncture? There must be some acupuncturists who know what they're doing. But then again, maybe not.
- It's easy to say what insulin and penicillin are good for because (a) they have been tested in scientific studies for various ailments, and (b) we understand a good deal about how they work. With acupuncture, the scientific status of both the clinical studies and the theories is highly questionable, which makes it very difficult to identify a consensus. If rigorous science is not backing up experience and ideas, how do you decide who to listen to? Art Carlson 12:19, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
Various
Just wanted to clarify. The edit by 209.178.189.56 on Dec. 18 was me -- I guess I wasn't logged in. -- [User:Bcrowell]
Supporters of acupuncture claim that it works on animals, which are not influenced by placebos. Could somebody mention this? -- Error
- ah, but the result is interpreted by humans, with all the associated problems such as confirmation bias.
This page required major editing, apparently was written by someone with an ax to grind against acupuncture, but little depth of knowledge. It was riddled with errors and omissions, starting with the first sentence referring to acupuncture as a "surgical" procedure. Also, it made no reference to any literature within the past decade (such as the NIH consensus statement). I retained the NCAHF excerpts in the interest of healthy skepticism. Yes, most research on the physiology of acupuncture has been performed on animals. I admit to bias, being a practitioner and student of the medical art of acupuncture for 18 years; also I am an MIT graduate and am no more fond of exaggerated claims or fuzzy thinking by my colleagues re acupuncture than is the NCAHF.[user:barrylevine]
When I asked my father, a respected doctor with 25+ years experience, about his opinion on acupuncture, he said 'of course it works, and it isn't just opiates either'. He is a firm believer in the energy field, and claims to sense it himself, actually. In fact, hundreds of doctors apparently sense this energy field, along with vortices which correspond curiously with the chakras... To deny the possibility of such an energy field is only closed-mindedness... It sickens me how much the religion of science has taken hold of social opinion. Any real scientist recognises science for what it is--a tool, rather than a dogma. People who go about calling others 'psuedoscientists' are actually, ironically, the epitome of psuedoscientists themselves, in having directly conflicted with the essential nature of science as both a tool and an artform which includes no absolute certainty, but only theory. It is more aligned with Tao than with dogma, it seems. Khranus
- Let your father show James Randi or CSICOP that he can sense that energy field, take a million dollars and probably a Nobel Prize to boot. I'm afraid he wouldn't recognize energy if he got hit on the head by it. Science has investigated (using science as a tool) the energy field, found absolutely nothing and moved on to more useful things. And 'only theory'? You should look up what 'theory' means in a scientific context before using it like you do.
- Ironically? Only theory? You seem to not understand the meaning of theory and irony... [1] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,985375,00.html)
This thing is like the art of drawing blood. Some doctors could poke holes in their patient's arm for hours until a more experienced nurse takes over. The difference is that the bruises on the arm is a visual indication that if the poke is successful or not. Acupuncture does not show immediate feedback. A researcher may be spending years poking at the wrong spots and draw a wrong conclusion about the effectiveness of acupuncture. It is like proving no one could fly by asking a child to build an airplane.
12.234.73.11 08:26, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
re External links sec'n
PubMed
The following link
- PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/) - US National Library of Medicine search engine with hundreds of scientific article on acupuncture is imperfect in that the site offers no URL that produces the effect of keying in the word "acupuncture". That is certainly no excuse for removing it, but if one of our programming or searching gurus could come up with a means of single click access, it would be a significant improvement. --Jerzy 17:58, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
- Okidoki. -- Kimiko 19:17, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Su Jok
On the other hand, the Su Jok link & graph added by IP 202.63.171.4
leading to e.g. a first sentence
- Su Jok TM acupuncture stands as one of the aspects of the ONNURI TM medicine founded by Professor PARK JAE WOO, a scholar from South Korea are an adv, and i have removed them. --Jerzy 17:58, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
Photo
I could put my photo (currently linked) here, but with the drawing and the infobox, it seems like a bit much. Thoughts? heidimo 02:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Something weird
I've edited out a pretty blatant and rather clumsy POV paragraph and somehow the Wikipedia managed to remove any access to the previous version which included it dated 4 July, 2004. I've had some problems before with the Wikipedia not registering edits, but this is the first time that this has happened. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the contributor whom I reverted. If it does somehow return to us, and if such a thing belongs anywhere, it should be cleaned up and posted at Qi. Fire Star 04:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Well, today it has reappeared, very good. I thought for a minute that I had magically developed sysop powers! I can see that the bit does have some relevance to the article - it is an attack on acupuncture's underlying theory - but is so insulting that it can't stand as it was written. Scepticism about qi is quite real and noteworthy, but it shouldn't be given the dismissive finality of the bit that I edited out. Fire Star 14:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article is bad. Is this neutral: "For the skeptic, this is proof enough...". How about something more in the line of: those who are familiar with the effect of placebo (and when it's more likely to be found) and the difficulties doing a double blind study of something like ac. most often come to the conclusion that ac. is a pseudoscience.
English is not my first language but could someone not currently taking homeophatic medicine, dancing in circles hoping for rain, change this please.
Best regards /
closet scientist practising ac. on a daily basis for personal gains
- Dear 195.198.190.70, I agree, and have edited the offending section. Fire Star 22:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Criticisms
Okay, I have been reading this article, and it is in no way, shape or form a NPOV article. I am quite sceptical about acupuncture, and nothing about my reasons for scepticism is reflected in the article.
I will do some research to find some sources but I want to question several things:
- The Otzi story: the only reference I could find says that the tattoos are on the actual painful joints, not the acupuncture spots! References please! I will remove it from the introduction, and either remove it or put it in a less prominent place with some disclaimers.
- The NIH declaration: this has been heavily criticised. I will add some of the criticisms of this declararation to the article
- The line Acupuncture has eluded scientific explanation to some degree. seems to me far too weak. It has eluded scientific explanation to any degree, and many believe there is nothing there to explain! The only evidence are statistical studies.
Anybody got any problems with this?
--Frank.visser 15:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The line Acupuncture has eluded scientific explanation to some degree. seems to me far too weak.
From what I've read, acupuncture is at least sometwhat effective (i.e., better than a placebo), and the mechanism is well understood scientifically: it's the principle of counter-irritation, which is that one source of irritation distracts the patient from another. The stuff about qi energy is of course nonsense, and I believe there is also evidence against the traditional beliefs about where to apply the needles for various complaints. One criticism I've seen of acupuncture is that the use of needles is an unnecessarily invasive technique; the same thing could be accomplished with any other type of irritation, e.g., rubbing with sandpaper. What I really hate about the article as it stands is that it is clearly written from the point of view of true believers in acupuncture, and it blithely mixes real science with pseudoscientific nonsense.
- Support. From my firsthand experience with accupuncture, the counter irritation really works quite well, but I've found that it works equally well using fingernails or other noninvasive techniques, as the German study in the article has shown. Still, it does not invalidate accupuncture as a valid treatment. --Autrijus 05:01, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
- It's the old 'if you hit someone on the thumb with a hammer, he'll forget about his headache for a while'. No chi, no meridians, no energy. Works just fine!
The "Protoscience" tag
User:Tim Starling has reverted 65.30.121.64's change of adding "protoscience" tag, citing that it is "not new, not under development". However, scientific study of accupuncture and qi theory is active in Chinese, Taiwan and especially Japan academic fields (cf. Academia Sinica researcher Wang Wei Gong's journal articles and projects in http://www.phys.sinica.edu.tw/~publication/html/ongoing_projects28.htm and his book, 'the symphony of qi' ISBN 986-7975-50-2). Also, it may be considered "new", as in "newly subjected to scientific investigation". Based on above reasons, I think it warrants the protoscience tag. I'll wait for reasonable consensus before adding the tag back. Autrijus 04:50, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
- Accupuncture as praticed in not a protoscience. Praticioners a pretty much able to dd what they like and do not have to show scientific evidence for any of thier practices in order to be able to do themgeni14:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Considering "Category:Protoscience", I think your description also fits the popular practice of Alchemy, Biorhythm, Chiropractic medicine, Cryptzoology, Gaia philosophy, Meme and Parapsycology. IMHO, the fact that most practicioners don't cite relevant research should not count against a developing protoscience. Autrijus 14:26, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
- Alchemy partly lead to chemistry and towards the end it was becoming vagly scientific. Biorhythm shouldn't be there. There are a few prationers of Chiropractic medicine who do praticve it acording to scientific principles (becoming more common in europe). Can a catogry be listed on vfd?Geni 10:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Two Taipei CAM clinics I've been to (漢醫苑 and 古道堂) are operated by CAM researchers actively publishing papers, especially on pulse-measuring machines and counter-irritation treatments (eg. http://jbsc.nhri.org.tw/abs_search2.php?reg_no=1135&abs_no=1135 is authored by 漢醫苑's Y.C. Kuo, in collaboration with Dr .Wang). Since it is required in Taiwan for CAM doctors to also have degrees in western medicine, I think the situation is comparable to the European situation you described on Chiropractic medicines. Would you agree? Autrijus 14:26, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
- Your link is broken. there are many areas of alt med that try and get them sleves a vinear of respetibilty by having thier own journals. Got anything beyond low level pain relife published in mainstream journals (pref in english)?Geni 21:10, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If there are any scientific theories (scientific method, falsificationism) or positive results of clinical trials (double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials) related to acupuncture or the existence of qi, it would be certainly important to quote in the article, next to references to studies by National Council Against Health Fraud and University of Heidelberg. The host jbsc.nhri.org.tw doesn?t seem do exist, though. Rafał Pocztarski 22:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yikes. That page is still in Google cache, though. Here are some quick links I've found from a bit of googling in IEEE med and bio journals:
- * [Pressure wave propagation in arteries (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=566153)] -- the basis of Wang's meridian and qi theory; for some of Wang's other papers, see http://www.ee.ntu.edu.tw/www/publications/backup/wk-wang and the sinica page above.
- * [Electrical properties of meridians (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=499759)]
- * [The science of acupuncture-theory and practice (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=499758)]
- * [Applying quantum interference to EDST medicine testing (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=499760)]
- * [Clinical applications of the EDST (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=499761)]
- --Autrijus 03:59, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
- You should probably add references to those papers to the article if you find them appropriate and on-topic, however judging from their abstracts they focus on trying to explain phenomena which don?t seem to have been demonstrated in any double-blind clinical trial, using hypotheses and devices often considered pseudoscientific at best and fraudulent at worst, so don?t be surprised if you later have to argue with anyone who questions their assumptions, relation to scientific method, or relevance—e.g. before referencing a paper on “applying quantum interference to EDST (electrodermal screening test) medicine testing” you should read on “electrodermal screening” in Quack “Electrodiagnostic” Devices (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/electro.html) article on Quackwatch by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, for that article and the references therein contain very important examples of the arguments you will subsequently have to refute. Rafał Pocztarski 14:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm aware that EDST medicine is highly controvertial, and the experiments in Wang's pressure wave propagation theory are mostly only known in China, Japan and Taiwan. As I'm not a researcher in this field, I'll contend myself in adding the first two references to the article. Autrijus 17:04, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
I do appreciate the constructive discussion here. :-) Since a consensus is not reached, I'll refrain from adding the protoscience tag on this article, although I'd like to point out the inconsistency withthe article Protoscience, which lists acupuncture among lucid dreaming as protosciences before this discussion begins. Also, other articles currently listed in the protoscience category does not seem to be subjected to a consistent standard. Autrijus 17:04, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
- I wouldn?t exactly call acupuncture new, nor does it follow scientific method, so I am not sure why do you call it protoscience. You have posted links to papers which cost $35.00 each to read. It would probably make more sense to reference only publicly available texts so the External links section would contain only things which can actually be directly linked to.
- From the abstract it is not clear what the “model with radial dilatation for simulating the behavior of a real artery” has to do with acupuncture:
- Abstract: The authors solve the equation of pressure wave propagation in an artery with radial dilatation to give an analytic solution of wave propagation in an elastic vessel for more generalized conditions. This will serve as a complementary solution to work that is based on the assumption that the radial dilatation of the arterial wall is small. The authors' solution is important for physiological studies because it simulates the behavior of a real artery. To confirm the authors' analytic solution, experiments were performed in tubes with different elastic constants
- Also, while the second paper might not have any reference to “electrodermal screening” in the title itself, it has several such references in the abstract alone:
- [...] The EDST is also based on ancient practices and is safer and more holistic, versatile, and cost effective. The device is elegantly simple and not extremely expensive. Hopefully, it will help free medical progress from its dependence on ever more expensive and specialized medical instrumentation. This alone would have a profound effect on health care cost and accessibility. The quality of health care will also improve with integration of the EDST into modern medical practice. Because the EDST makes use of the body's meridian system, it can map and help analyze the body's own signals, making it particularly useful in early diagnosis. With its solid theoretical foundation in modern physics and quantum mechanics, it is perhaps the most "modern" medical methodology available today.
- You have to realise that you do not help acupuncture at all by connecting it to quackery.[2] (http://www.google.com/search?q=electrodermal+screening) [3] (http://www.google.com/search?q=electrodiagnostic+devices) [4] (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/electro.html) [5] (http://www.devicewatch.org/) If you are arguing against acupuncture then providing those links might be a good idea, though. Rafał Pocztarski 00:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Uhm, acupuncture IS quackery.......
- Just for the record, the abstract of the second paper on “the science of acupuncture” starts with:
- Acupuncture has been used for thousands of years and is effective in a wide range of situations. It has not been integrated into modern health care primarily because of lingering suspicions that it is not scientific. A bioenergetic model has been developed to explain nearly all aspects of acupuncture and meridian theory, but there remains a definite prejudice against human energetic theories in the medical-scientific community, which must be overcome before integration can take place.
- Rafał Pocztarski 00:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The latest meta-analysis for the Cochrane library finds evidence for a small but significant effect on PONV by stimulation of the P6 acupuncture point: as this is the most recent study currently available (march 2004), i thought it was relevant. I have quoted all the authors conclusions as I am always suspicious about precis about what author's actually said. Meta-analyses are generally agreed to be of more worth than individual studies like the Heidelberg study (which has been criticised: more details later).
BScotland.
- One line destoryes the credibiblty of the meta analysis "none of which reported adequate allocation concealment". Not one experiment was even single blinded. As for meta analysis being better than single studies where did you get that idea?Geni 11:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sheesh.I didnt say it was the case, i said it was generally agreed to be the case, which is ..er...generally accepted. Of course one good study is worth more than a meta-analysis of twenty (or whatever) bad studies. I mean, duh. However, the Cochrane has a generally good reputation, and I thought that the results of their meta-analysis should be included. I also included another conclusion from another study that points out that whereas most studies point to a beneficial aspect to acupuncture, few of these studies are of an acceptable standard, and that more research is clearly necessary. BScotland.
Spamming
An anonymous user at 62.49.59.192 keeps adding
[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Acupuncture&diff=4652328&oldid=4584479)
[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Acupuncture&diff=7170364&oldid=6993825)
this link:
and now with a new domain:
to the External links section. Incidentally, 62.49.59.192 is an IP address of tai-chi-chuan.demon.co.uk, no less... This “very informative site about acupuncture” is in fact an advertisement of “The College of Chinese Medicine, Three Year Part Time Weekend Professional Training Course in Acupuncture Chinese Herbal Medicine and Traditional Chinese Diagnosis.” The first time it got posted, I changed
[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Acupuncture&diff=5314902&oldid=5314807)
that link to the real website title, wondering whether that advertisement should stay at all. (At that time I didn’t know that it was added from an IP in the same domain.) Later, someone else has removed it, and now someone from the IP of that website has added another “very informative site about Acupuncture” link, which I am now removing. Please stop adding links to your website. If you want traffic for your training course, consider buying AdWords on Google. Wikipedia is not a place for spamming. Rafał Pocztarski 03:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
colorpuncture
Does anyone know anything about colorpuncture [[9] (http://www.colorpuncture.com/whatis.html)],[[10] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10513100)]?
Controversy
The Acupuncture article is top-heavy with at least mildly PoV commentary and long quotes about effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Its inclusion in such volume in a general article on the subject is PoV: it is not absurd to claim that responsible consumers of med care can reasonably risk making decisions about seeking out acupuncture without consulting their physicians, but it is entirely reasonable to argue that no one without training in physiology and experimental design should do so. I will split everything after somewhere in the middle of "Purported benefits" out to a Controversies on effectiveness of acupuncture or Claims of effectiveness of acupuncture article, and substitute a 'graph pointing at the new article, unless someone better qualified does so soon. That will provide a less PoV relationship between the general interest topic and the specialized one. --Jerzy(t) 19:55, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
Dated NCAHF Statement
The National Council Against Health Fraud statement cited in the article stated that acupuncture had not been proven in scientific research in the last 20 years. However, that statement was released in 1991. As the PubMed link will show you, there have been a number of more recent studies and meta-analyses of acupuncture.
