2 ms·

> That's actually happening though. No, it is not. From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture>: “Acupuncture i

by teddyh 1y ago

> That's actually happening though. No, it is not. From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture>: “Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine and a component of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in which thin needles are inserted into the body. Acupuncture is a pseudoscience; the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.” (Now you either accuse Wikipedia of Western chauvinism or dismiss Wikipedia altogether.)

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
Notice that Wikipedia talks about acupuncture vs "sham acupuncture". That's intellectually dishonest IMO. They should just compare acupuncture against placebo pills. The problem with making that comparison is that if you do, acupuncture beats placebo! So the western scientists who need acupuncture to lose had to come up with a new "placebo". Hence "sham acupuncture". The problem with "sham acupuncture" is that it is designed to mimic the physical sensation of acupuncture. But if you read the text I linked, it explains that acupuncture works primarily via the nervous system! So "sham acupuncture" is basically the real thing. Total intellectual dishonesty. Go on Amazon and search for "acupuncture mat". You'll find lots of plastic mats that don't penetrate the skin, but replicate the sensation of penetrative acupuncture, with many many 5-star reviews. I often fall asleep on an acupuncture mat. The sensation in my back muscles is unmistakeable after 15 minutes. Saying "acupuncture doesn't do anything", for me at least, is like saying "alcohol doesn't do anything". It's just absurd, and I don't need an RCT to classify it as absurd. (I've recommended acupuncture to others; some have an immediate strong response like me, others find it useless. Maybe it's variation in how the nervous system works.) Anyways, if you read the textbook I recommended, it says many of the same things as Wikipedia. The needle location doesn't matter a ton. The stuff about meridians has no scientific basis. That's why they call it a "Western Medical Acupuncture" text. But acupuncture is still a useful treatment and has proven so in many RCTs.

by teddyh 1y ago

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago

Notice that Wikipedia talks about acupuncture vs "sham acupuncture". That's intellectually dishonest IMO. They should just compare acupuncture against placebo pills. The problem with making that comparison is that if you do, acupuncture beats placebo! So the western scientists who need acupuncture to lose had to come up with a new "placebo". Hence "sham acupuncture". The problem with "sham acupuncture" is that it is designed to mimic the physical sensation of acupuncture. But if you read the text I linked, it explains that acupuncture works primarily via the nervous system! So "sham acupuncture" is basically the real thing. Total intellectual dishonesty. Go on Amazon and search for "acupuncture mat". You'll find lots of plastic mats that don't penetrate the skin, but replicate the sensation of penetrative acupuncture, with many many 5-star reviews. I often fall asleep on an acupuncture mat. The sensation in my back muscles is unmistakeable after 15 minutes. Saying "acupuncture doesn't do anything", for me at least, is like saying "alcohol doesn't do anything". It's just absurd, and I don't need an RCT to classify it as absurd. (I've recommended acupuncture to others; some have an immediate strong response like me, others find it useless. Maybe it's variation in how the nervous system works.) Anyways, if you read the textbook I recommended, it says many of the same things as Wikipedia. The needle location doesn't matter a ton. The stuff about meridians has no scientific basis. That's why they call it a "Western Medical Acupuncture" text. But acupuncture is still a useful treatment and has proven so in many RCTs.