Does acupuncture work?

[phiwum]

Some people have a high pain tolerance. I suspect old Chinese women (my mother-in-law is one of them) generally do. Also, a sharp implement like a scalpel can cut without causing much pain. I've recovered from serious surgery without pain medication, and been sliced open and stitched up in various places without pain medication or significant pain.

Maybe that's what happened. I don't have any expertise in these matters and only have second hand tales.

 

[arthwollipot]

And that is not acupuncture!

Passing electrical currents through the body is an actual therapy, not the same as acupuncture. It just shows how the dishonesty of the mindset of these unregulated "therapists" allows her to call herself an acupuncturist when she is really doing something else.

It is one of the tools that acupuncturists use.

If a doctor only ever prescribes amoxycillin for everything from the common cold to cancer, you'd quickly stop going to that doctor. Doctors have a number of different tools in their toolbox, so that they don't have to rely on just the one thing. Relying on just the one thing is one of the hallmarks of quackery, but a lot of quacks don't do that. Acupuncturists will use acupuncture, TENS, massage, prescribe TCM, etc. Some of them may actually work. That doesn't mean that they're not acupuncturists.

 

[asydhouse]

It is one of the tools that acupuncturists use.

If a doctor only ever prescribes amoxycillin for everything from the common cold to cancer, you'd quickly stop going to that doctor. Doctors have a number of different tools in their toolbox, so that they don't have to rely on just the one thing. Relying on just the one thing is one of the hallmarks of quackery, but a lot of quacks don't do that. Acupuncturists will use acupuncture, TENS, massage, prescribe TCM, etc. Some of them may actually work. That doesn't mean that they're not acupuncturists.

Quibble, squabble,
Ducks will waddle.

 

[arthwollipot]

Quibble, squabble,
Ducks will waddle.

Okay then.

 

[Ziggurat]

And that is not acupuncture!

Passing electrical currents through the body is an actual therapy, not the same as acupuncture.

It involves sticking lots of small needles into the body. That's acupuncture.

It just shows how the dishonesty of the mindset of these unregulated "therapists" allows her to call herself an acupuncturist when she is really doing something else.

It's not traditional acupuncture, but it's still acupuncture. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, saying that it's a mallard not a duck doesn't make sense. I'm not sure why you're arguing for strict purity of a word when you don't even like it. It's not like we insist on restricting surgeons to performing 18th century techniques.

 

[asydhouse]

It involves sticking lots of small needles into the body. That's acupuncture.



It's not traditional acupuncture, but it's still acupuncture. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, saying that it's a mallard not a duck doesn't make sense. I'm not sure why you're arguing for strict purity of a word when you don't even like it. It's not like we insist on restricting surgeons to performing 18th century techniques.

Because by your logic vaccinating people is acupuncture. You're arguing to give licence to scam artists to associate themselves with other practices that are effective, thereby allowing them to associate themselves and their bs in the minds of ignorant and/or gullible people with those effective treatments, and thereby encouraging them to trust dangerously deluded or outright con artist practices.

What's next on your agenda? Homeopaths prescribing drugs, so they can bait and switch to their money-spinning sugar pills for serious conditions?

Your allusion to surgeons smacks of disingenuity, since the idea of cutting is not related to some deluded woo which depends on an unscientific philosophy based in a fantasy.

What's the point of critical thinking if it's just to show off how much better you are at quibbling over definitions on the internet without affecting the bs happening in the communities that aren't reading it anyway? Here it really doesn't matter, but if one were to write a letter to a newspaper in the same vein to defend acupuncturists this way I would say that was actively promoting harm.

 

[Donn]

You're arguing to give licence to scam artists to associate themselves with other practices that are effective, thereby allowing them to associate themselves and their bs in the minds of ignorant and/or gullible people with those effective treatments, and thereby encouraging them to trust dangerously deluded or outright con artist practices.

Have to agree with Syd on this one. There's no advantage in soft-excusing acupuncture; in blurring the picture so it may bleed into legitimacy. There will always be a time when the woo comes out. It casts a long shadow.

 

[asydhouse]

Have to agree with Syd on this one. There's no advantage in soft-excusing acupuncture; in blurring the picture so it may bleed into legitimacy. There will always be a time when the woo comes out. It casts a long shadow.

Thank you Donn. I often feel the only reason people post here is just for the sake of arguing for its own sake. It wearies me no end.

ETA I'm off to watch England play a qualifying match for the World Cup (on telly, that is!).

 

[Ziggurat]

Because by your logic vaccinating people is acupuncture.

Yeah, no. Do you really need an explanation as to why that's not equivalent?

You're arguing to give licence to scam artists

I said nothing about licenses. Where the hell did you get that from?

What's next on your agenda?

Giving arsenic to small children, obviously.

Your allusion to surgeons smacks of disingenuity, since the idea of cutting is not related to some deluded woo which depends on an unscientific philosophy based in a fantasy.

Well you're wrong there. Plenty of early surgery was based on woo, even when it worked (ie, trepanning to let out evil spirits).

What's the point of critical thinking if it's just to show off how much better you are at quibbling over definitions on the internet without affecting the bs happening in the communities that aren't reading it anyway?

This entire thread isn't going to have any effect on anything. We're just here to chat.

Here it really doesn't matter

Well, duh. So if you knew that, why are you getting so wound up?

but if one were to write a letter to a newspaper in the same vein to defend acupuncturists this way I would say that was actively promoting harm.

Saying that it's a form of acupuncture is not a defense of acupuncture. There's a logical chasm you've gone leaping across.

 

[asydhouse]

Yeah, no. Do you really need an explanation as to why that's not equivalent?



I said nothing about licenses. Where the hell did you get that from?



Giving arsenic to small children, obviously.



Well you're wrong there. Plenty of early surgery was based on woo, even when it worked (ie, trepanning to let out evil spirits).



This entire thread isn't going to have any effect on anything. We're just here to chat.



Well, duh. So if you knew that, why are you getting so wound up?



Saying that it's a form of acupuncture is not a defense of acupuncture. There's a logical chasm you've gone leaping across.

Neither did I. "Giving licence" is an English language idiom, which I'm sure you know. You demonstrate again disingenuous argument for the sake of argument.

I cannot be bothered with you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither did I. "Giving licence" is an English language idiom, which I'm sure you know. You demonstrate again disingenuous argument for the sake of argument.

I cannot be bothered with you.

I'm familiar with the idiom, but I really thought you meant licenses. Given how completely disconnected your level of outrage was from the actual content of my post (which, if you want to talk about common use of the English language, calling sticking a bunch of small needles into someone's skin "acupuncture" seems pretty damned reasonable), how was I to know you weren't way off base on that too? You're having a hissy fit because I think common interpretations of words are reasonable.

And you really aren't in any position to say that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. You're the one who got angry because someone called putting a bunch of needles into someone's skin "acupuncture". And you obviously could be bothered with me, or you wouldn't have responded the first time. If you want to keep disagreeing, fine, but you're well past the point of being credible with this act that you're the only reasonable one here.

 

[Reality Check]

Yale School of Medicine
Anesthesiology

No scientific evidence that acupuncture works.
This looks like the Yale School of Medicine offering the woo that their patents believe in, e.g. acupuncture and chiropractic. No too bad since there are other medical institutions that go off the deep end, e.g. offer reiki (waving hands and "energy fields!). Standard acupuncture and chiropractic are fantasy based "treatments".

A Scientific American opinion piece. Harriet Hall states the scientific consensus:

Hall: The published evidence on acupuncture indicates that it might be helpful for pain and possibly for postoperative nausea and vomiting, but not for any other indications. All the evidence is compatible with the hypothesis that acupuncture is no more than a placebo.

The others range from "acupuncture cannot work and so does not work" (correct but ignores the placebo effect) to a bit of exaggeration ("MacPherson: Strong evidence exists that acupuncture is effective for chronic pain conditions.")

An irrelevant search of the Stoney Brook Cancer Center that juts shows what they offer - no scientific research on acupuncture.

 

[asydhouse]

I'm familiar with the idiom, but I really thought you meant licenses. Given how completely disconnected your level of outrage was from the actual content of my post (which, if you want to talk about common use of the English language, calling sticking a bunch of small needles into someone's skin "acupuncture" seems pretty damned reasonable), how was I to know you weren't way off base on that too? You're having a hissy fit because I think common interpretations of words are reasonable.

And you really aren't in any position to say that I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. You're the one who got angry because someone called putting a bunch of needles into someone's skin "acupuncture". And you obviously could be bothered with me, or you wouldn't have responded the first time. If you want to keep disagreeing, fine, but you're well past the point of being credible with this act that you're the only reasonable one here.

My original statement was in no way an angry rant, and neither was my response to you. Despite having no respect for your defence of dishonest practitioners of "acupuncture", I was (just) willing to explain to you how your assertion equating any old action involving needles with "acupuncture" was moving the goal posts in special pleading for a scam "therapy", which I think is a dangerous outlook and practice for the vulnerable people you might thereby encourage to be bamboozled (all of it engendered in the first place by someone's earlier post saying "it worked for me", implying that acupuncture as commonly understood to be the actual definition of acupuncture had a real effect).

Don't try to claim that my concern for the ignorant and vulnerable has anything to do with a desire to refute every silly "argument" you advance in your cause of posturing sophistry.

"Outrage" "hissy fit"!

If you weren't projecting, you would have read the words I composed for your enlightenment and understood their meaning, instead of busily composing your "arguments" as you "read" what I wrote. Since you seem so keen to "debate", why don't you actually read what I wrote and consider my message first before thinking up come backs?

Now I'm not going to engage with you in this any more. I'm sick of pedantic "arguing".

 

[jt512]

Not many years ago I saw a programme about a surgeon who was not using anaesthetics for his surgery patients. He simply worked with them (not hypnotising them exactly, but psychologically preparing them over a period of time or something) to expect to feel no pain. They filmed an operation, some kind of open surgery where the body was open (chest or on the trunk of the body, right inside and wide open), while the patient was fully conscious throughout. The patient was reporting no pain whatsoever and was perfectly relaxed.

They film Bigfoot and flying saucers too.

 

[Donn]

They film Bigfoot and flying saucers too.

I'm sure Syd would agree. There are also local anaesthetics which can leave a patient wide awake and talking. It's possible to secretly use those while aping acupuncture.

 

[Ziggurat]

My original statement was in no way an angry rant

And nothing I said was a defense of pseudoscience.

I was (just) willing to explain to you how your assertion equating any old action involving needles with "acupuncture"

Your comparison was ridiculous and wrong. Let's refer to my actual words:

It involves sticking lots of small needles into the body. That's acupuncture.

How many needles do you use for vaccination? One. Does one count as "lots"? No, it does not.

Vaccinations are not acupuncture even under my loose definition.

(all of it engendered in the first place by someone's earlier post saying "it worked for me", implying that acupuncture as commonly understood to be the actual definition of acupuncture had a real effect).

As commonly understood, what he had done falls under acupuncture. Which is why he called it acupuncture, because that's how he thought of it. You may not like this general understanding of the meaning of the word, you may object to it, and your grounds for objection may even be quite sensible. But that doesn't change how the word is actually understood.

Don't try to claim that my concern for the ignorant and vulnerable has anything to do with a desire to refute every silly "argument" you advance in your cause of posturing sophistry.

Your semantic objection (and that's all it is) protects nobody.

Now I'm not going to engage with you in this any more. I'm sick of pedantic "arguing".

Promises, promises.

 

[Modified]

If electroacupuncture is effective, the fact that needles were used is in all likelihood irrelevant. Any method of delivering the current similarly would have the same effect. If you don't like the analogy of delivering drugs through a single needle, then consider delivering drugs through multiple needles in specified locations.

 

[Ziggurat]

If electroacupuncture is effective, the fact that needles were used is in all likelihood irrelevant.

Quite likely, but we don't know that for certain. Nevertheless, that's how it was done in this case.

If you don't like the analogy of delivering drugs through a single needle, then consider delivering drugs through multiple needles in specified locations.

Suppose someone did decide to deliver vaccines through lots of tiny needles simultaneously. Suppose I called it acupuncture. What then? What terrible calamity would ensue?

 

[Donn]

Quite likely, but we don't know that for certain. Nevertheless, that's how it was done in this case.



Suppose someone did decide to deliver vaccines through lots of tiny needles simultaneously. Suppose I called it acupuncture. What then? What terrible calamity would ensue?

"Acupuncture" means something: it's a system of dubious origins and complete woo. To take the label out of that and stick it on anything science-based is perverse. We may as well describe medicine as homeopathy because it often involves little bottles of liquids and pills.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Acupuncture" means something: it's a system of dubious origins and complete woo. To take the label out of that and stick it on anything science-based is perverse.

Who said that this electric treatment was science-based? You're making an unfounded assumption here. There are scientific reasons to suspect that it might work, but that doesn't mean it's scientifically based. Leaches sometimes work too, doesn't mean its early practitioners knew what the hell they were doing. Same with trepanning.