Talk:Acupuncture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Missing link to the article in Japanese[edit]

I'm sorry, I don't know how to edit the sidebar myself, but I believe it's missing the link to https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%8D%BC, which is surprising because that one links back no problem. Help? FileComplaintHere (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

"因为缺乏足够的现代医学实验证实其疗效,针灸常在部分国家被视作替代疗法甚至伪科学。" from zh:针灸

Acupuncture is only regarded as pseudoscience in some countries and regions, not the all over the world. Please avoid the regional bias, and use NPOV statements. --風雲北洋 WPEnglish is very difficult 18:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You should read WP:NPOV because it doesn't mean what you think it means. Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Obviously a NPOV issue. Things about whether TCM is pseudoscience have already clearly been stated afterward and in TCM page. For the better-off NPOV, there's no need to be put ahead as preface. --36.227.225.249 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, User:Masdggg, please read through the archives linked in the second information box above. Your concerns regarding the use of "pseudoscience" have been covered many many times.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
A reminder also that we're interested in scientific consensus of its status, so please try providing sources that illustrate that, from whichever country. El_C 23:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about acpupncture rather than Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). And whether TCM is scientific is largely in debate (many opinions exists: non-science, pseudoscience, proto-science, pre-science, science, etc...), which can be seen (at least partially) in the article of Traditional Chinese medicine. As such, stating "TCM is pseudoscience..." as a simple fact is obviously violating WP:NPOV. Such big debate should be described in a section in the TCM article, or written in an individual section in this article with opinion in each side appropriately stated (which is probably unnecessary as this article is about acpuncture rather then TCM). If it really, really need to be stated brirely in the top section, it should at least be in a NPOV way. Mark related sentence as a POV statement and wait for experts to do appropriate revision. --111.243.224.193 (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page, IP editor, but I note that you also reinstated your edit which had been reverted by two other editors. That is edit warring, and is the fourth time you have done so in the last 24 hours, a violation of the bright line rule WP:3RR. I'd advise you to self-revert, or risk your IP address being blocked from editing. If you are reverted, you need to discuss and gain consensus, not just reinstate your edit.
I'll state that I don't agree with your analysis - the statement seems neutral and in-line with mainstream scientific opinion, there is no need that I can see for the tag. I will give you a chance to self-revert rather than reverting you myself, and I invite you to present sources that support your position here. GirthSummit (blether) 15:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Is this the page for acupuncture or TCM? The statement for TCM must've gone astray so been put as preface for acupuncture page. --36.227.225.249 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Acupuncture is a part of TCM. There is no scientific dispute that qi does not exist, meridians don't exist, and plenty of evidence that acupuncture does not work. Retimuko (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, WHO agree that meridians exists (at least in some aspect) [3], and there are also plenty of scientific evidence that acupuncture does work. A very simple idea is that something commits to pseudoscience only if it's non-science and claims to be scientific, while not all TCM practitioners would do the latter, or do it restrictively only for what is really supported by scientific papers. The term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative and biased statement in comparison with "non-science", and the definition of it is also in-obvious in the view of philosophy of science[1] There are still many existing debates about the specificity of TCM in Chinese, for example, the 中醫科學性爭論 and its talk page. Anyway, as the debate DOES exist, adding the POV mark is obviously adequate.--111.243.224.193 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. We edit according to wiki p&g, not rules you just made up. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Especially editing done with a lack of citation or discussion.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions. I don't see the references scientifically prove that acupuncture doesn't work either. Could you please provide reliable sources that clarify your thought "There is no scientific dispute that qi does not exist, meridians don't exist, and plenty of evidence that acupuncture does not work."?
Plus I don't even see "Traditional Chinese medicine is a pseudoscience" written in TCM page, why is this sentence so necessary for accupucture page? Note that even TCM is not proved totally pseudoscience yet. If you have the references that scientifically prove TCM is totally pseudoscience, please provide and put in the right place. 36.227.225.249 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Read the references that are cited on the page. You're making a nonsense argument. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Not my usual area of comment, but I don't see that a 1991 report on "a proposed standard" of nomenclature for reporting and researching acupuncture (among other things) is any use in determining the WHO's current, let alone historical, position on efficacy (if any) of acupuncture. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Acpuncture, unlike astrology, religious beliefs, and other topics commonly considered as pseudoscience, is scientifically testible[2], and should therefore be treated separately on the basis.
In the review of controlled clinical trials, WHO has approved acupuncture to be used in several conditions, with related scientific evidence reviewed and provided. In particular, for pain relief:
  • "The effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia has already been established in controlled clinical studies. As mentioned previously, acupuncture analgesia works better than a placebo for most kinds of pain, and its effective rate in the treatment of chronic pain is comparable with that of morphine."
  • "In addition, numerous laboratory studies have provided further evidence of the efficacy of acupuncture’s analgesic action as well as an explanation of the mechanism involved. In fact, the excellent analgesic effects of acupuncture have stimulated research on pain."
  • "Because of the side-effects of long-term drug therapy for pain and the risks of dependence, acupuncture analgesia can be regarded as the method of choice for treating many chronically painful conditions."
As acpuncture is supported by scientific evidence and approved by WHO in many aspects, asserting acpuncture as pseudoscience is obviously biased, if not errorneous.--118.163.43.79 (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It isn't written by the WHO, but apparently by only one author, Dr. Zhang. As for comparable with that of morphine that's full-blown delusion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Also what, 20 years old? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup, if acupuncture were comparable to morphine, we would not be having this conversation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Yea it IS published by WHO and it's listed on its website [4]. Here are 2 extra recent randomized studies published in 2016 and 2018 supporting that the analgestic effect of acupuncture is comparable with morphine[5][6]. You'll be good if you can provide a good scientific evidence to oppose them.--211.75.163.193 (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to refute every study you find. Every time someone who doesn't make a living off of acupuncture writes a review of acupuncture studies, they conclude that the "science" is either so shoddy that no conclusions can be drawn, or that it doesn't work. There are always new acupuncture trials coming out, and they always have the same problems as the ones that already came out. I think I'm going to stop responding after this. But fact is, you're not going to get your way simply by citing enough sources - the ones in the article already are quite authoritative. No, the article is not going to change much unless there is a seismic shift in medical/scientific opinion. That is, this article is not going to change until reality changes. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The boundary between science and pseudoscience is disputed and difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a century of study by philosophers of science and scientists, and despite some basic agreements on the fundamentals of the scientific method." -- [pseudoscience#Philosophy|].
  2. ^ A pointed question: Can science study acupuncture?

Cochrane Review for hypertension[edit]

Link and content added in this recent edit. Of course it has a variation on that classic line in the conclusions: "The short‐term effects of acupuncture are uncertain due to the very low quality of evidence." As well, aside from a single Canadian anesthesiologist, the entire authors list is TCM practitioners/professors at Chinese universities. Looking at the 20 clinical trials ultimately used for this review, only two were performed outside of China, and only two attempted real blinding. Of those two, Macklin (2006) reported no difference between acupuncture and control in a sample of 188 subjects who finished the program; and Yin (2007) reported a small difference between acupuncture and control in a sample of 30 subjects who finished the program. So basically, I think even the modest statement in the linked diff is overstating the case, and this work suffers from the exact same problems as reliable sources have pointed out in every other set of acupuncture studies: Most are so terrible that you can't draw conclusions, and reported effects trend towards zero as quality and sample size increase. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)