3 ms·

One of the ways I avoid getting stabbed with a dirty needle is based on background rates. I think I'm safe in sticking with my priors that acupuncture clinics a

One of the ways I avoid getting stabbed with a dirty needle is based on background rates. I think I'm safe in sticking with my priors that acupuncture clinics are held to less of a standard than vaccines are. Hypodermic needles necessarily come in sanitized packages, after all. There's more to science than just asking questions and collecting data though, there's also developing models. Without good models, you can't gain much insight from data, and in fact you'll sometimes gain incorrect understandings. If there's no supported mechanism for how acupuncture works, it's really not a good sign, and it seems dishonest to think it's at all in the same realm of safety as something like vaccines which do have known mechanisms of action. I think back to how much "data" we had in the 50s that tobacco was harmless. Is it ever a good idea to go for something so invasive to the body as needles without a strong reason, just because the dangers aren't readily apparent? Medicine passes the necessity bar, placebo does not.

azeirah 4y ago
Dunno, I had some acupuncture sessions as recommended by my doctor. The accupuncturist's needles were each individually packed, he washes his hands thoroughly, then puts on gloves as well. Every needle gets thrown away immediately after use. Not sure how any of that is potentially unhygienic other than the room itself possibly being slightly dirty? (it was clearly well cleaned, but obviously not to surgical standards... why should it?)
vorpalhex 4y ago
> If there's no supported mechanism for how acupuncture works, it's really not a good sign Acupuncture works as well as sham acupuncture (inserting needles at non-acupuncture locations). Which suggests to me that acupuncture works on the same basic principle that your doctor giving you sugar pills with a fancy name and strict instructions to take one every four hours with a glass of water works. > I think back to how much "data" we had in the 50s that tobacco was harmless. We had pretty good evidence it was bad for you, especially during pregnancy. This is maybe a better example for talking about peer review and conflicts of interest - which is still a real problem. We can never say "is dangerous" or "is not dangerous". What we can say is X esposure leads to Y harm. Water in sufficient quantities will kill you. Acupuncture, in a sterile environment, is pretty safe. We also know that skin deep needle penetration is pretty safe given that lots of people get tattoos. It still requires hygiene, but it is a safe activity. I'm totally sympathetic to "we should be doing health inspections of acupuncture, like we do tattoo shops". I think some areas already do this. It's probably a good idea.
- light_hue_1 4y ago
  > Which suggests to me that acupuncture works on the same basic principle that your doctor giving you sugar pills with a fancy name and strict instructions to take one every four hours with a glass of water works. Except that sugar pills don't give anyone HIV or Hep C. > We can never say "is dangerous" or "is not dangerous". What we can say is X esposure leads to Y harm. Water in sufficient quantities will kill you. No. Harm is relative to reward. Cancer drugs are extremely harmful. But dying from cancer is worse. The reward for acupuncture is 0. Just sit and eat a Twix instead. It has the same medicinal benefits. The harm of acupuncture is absolutely real, as I linked above, people have died, people have gotten chronic diseases.

azeirah 4y ago

Dunno, I had some acupuncture sessions as recommended by my doctor. The accupuncturist's needles were each individually packed, he washes his hands thoroughly, then puts on gloves as well. Every needle gets thrown away immediately after use. Not sure how any of that is potentially unhygienic other than the room itself possibly being slightly dirty? (it was clearly well cleaned, but obviously not to surgical standards... why should it?)

vorpalhex 4y ago

> If there's no supported mechanism for how acupuncture works, it's really not a good sign Acupuncture works as well as sham acupuncture (inserting needles at non-acupuncture locations). Which suggests to me that acupuncture works on the same basic principle that your doctor giving you sugar pills with a fancy name and strict instructions to take one every four hours with a glass of water works. > I think back to how much "data" we had in the 50s that tobacco was harmless. We had pretty good evidence it was bad for you, especially during pregnancy. This is maybe a better example for talking about peer review and conflicts of interest - which is still a real problem. We can never say "is dangerous" or "is not dangerous". What we can say is X esposure leads to Y harm. Water in sufficient quantities will kill you. Acupuncture, in a sterile environment, is pretty safe. We also know that skin deep needle penetration is pretty safe given that lots of people get tattoos. It still requires hygiene, but it is a safe activity. I'm totally sympathetic to "we should be doing health inspections of acupuncture, like we do tattoo shops". I think some areas already do this. It's probably a good idea.

light_hue_1 4y ago
> Which suggests to me that acupuncture works on the same basic principle that your doctor giving you sugar pills with a fancy name and strict instructions to take one every four hours with a glass of water works. Except that sugar pills don't give anyone HIV or Hep C. > We can never say "is dangerous" or "is not dangerous". What we can say is X esposure leads to Y harm. Water in sufficient quantities will kill you. No. Harm is relative to reward. Cancer drugs are extremely harmful. But dying from cancer is worse. The reward for acupuncture is 0. Just sit and eat a Twix instead. It has the same medicinal benefits. The harm of acupuncture is absolutely real, as I linked above, people have died, people have gotten chronic diseases.