Acupuncture: Why the Skepticism?

[@VinceAggrippino]

I think the fact that acupuncture's popularity, as part of "Traditional Chinese Medicine", is the product of a political campaign by a Chinese politician in the 1950's is a factor. Before that, the practice was declining in popularity even in China.

[@slizzardshroomer9666]

It was outright banned at one point

[@Snor947g]

because there is little evidence to suggest its anything more then a placebo effect. this is a real harm when it can dissuade people from seeking real treatment with actual evidence behind them for their issues

[@JosephD1986]

Kind of hilarious that she accidentally defines the placebo effect at 1:55 but describes it as a benefit of acupuncture 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@ImHeadshotSniper]

this is EXACTLY what some chiropractics say about their treatment as well.. sometimes i feel like this world is a giant circus...

[@tommytwogloves16]

Where do you find these quacks?

[@sarak6860]

Many people have testified that it doesn't work for them. Besides, it's expensive. Why take away opioids in the many cases where they do work?

[@Tryptic2x]

Of course people are skeptical. Studies show it doesn't matter where the needles are put, or even if you use toothpicks, the results are the same. It is just an elaborate placebo.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

Lmao placebos is just a way for atheists to call bullshit when they're the ones bullshitting others. It isn't a placebo. Steel needle or toothpick it's still accupuncture. The point is that it works but it's not good so don't do it. The real placebo is atheism. That's a fact.

[@Tryptic2x]

@@IsraelCountryCube I don't know what the belief or non belief in a god has to do with acupuncture, but regardless, I think you need to buy a dictionary and go look up the definition of the word "placebo". It appears you don't know the meaning of the word. Also.. you come across as a bit of a weirdo... just saying...

[@thomasjust2663]

Because it does not work, that is why

[@allcan4175]

cause it doesn't really work consistently ; I mean, you can just relax at home, without the risk of getting infected with some bacteria and so on..

[@jcarbonell410]

This is false. A placebo test can be done using toothpicks, and it has been done.

[@VinceAggrippino]

The presenter addressed that in the video at about 1:48. Her point was that it was difficult to discredit acupuncture with that type of test because applying pressure to the points with toothpicks would be considered a legitimate treatment with an effect of it's own. Also, it's very easy to distinguish between needles inserted into the skin and toothpicks. A placebo needs to be something which is known to have *no* effect without the knowledge of the participant.

[@perroesbueno]

Thank you for pushing me forward to receive acupuncture treatments again (it’s been years). I’m fortunate to live in a city with university affiliate medical care-in this case the practitioners are students whose treatments are overseen by faculty. My health insurance covers it. No quackery in this, and opioids are barely available and hard on the body, with diminishing results as time moves along.

[@charliecharliewhiskey9403]

Regardless of its actual efficacy, I don't see why everyone who talks about acupuncture immediately jumps to "it's thousands of years old!" as if that is a valid point in favour of the practice. People also spent milennia cutting open patients bloodletting out the "humours", and trepanning (drilling a hole into the skull) to relieve headaches. Doctors were outraged only in the 1840s when they were told they must wash their hands before dealing with patients, the practice of not washing hands first being "thousands of years old". Or what about the 3000 year old treatment of people by giving them mercury (another ancient Chinese remedy that was seen as a cureall), a heavy metal that is toxic to the human body? Time is not valid evidence for OR against a procedure, only its efficacy is; does it work, does it not work. If it works, great, we should do it. If it does not work, the "thousands of years" of usage doesn't mean squat. Anecdotal evidence in a 900 year old dusty tome is not and should not be considered evidence of efficacy; we *know* that the scientific method even TODAY is somewhat flawed (eg journals tendency to focus on positive results where a hypothesis was proved), and the farther back you go in time the less reliable results generally are. They didn't make control groups. There was no oversight or regulatory bodies. Physicians likely fudged results to maintain reputation. Sometimes people would get better spontaneously, or because they changed their diet, or because they were resting, but would assume they got better because they were being treated. Placebo effect too. Do those things apply to acupuncture? Probably, because those things also applied to the things we know for sure worked some of the time, like bark of willow (refined to aspirin). Yes, that's right; if you told me that "chewing on willow bark has been a headache cure for thousands of years", I would say the same thing; that is irrelevant, give me a modern study instead. Because length of time people have been doing something is simply not a relevant thing when it comes to efficacy. All you have to do is look at modern society to see that foolishness, mistakes and corruption exist. To look at the plethora of religions which all claim to be correct despite contradicting each other to realise that at *most* one religion can be right, meaning the other literal billions of people are under some kind of mass placebo in their faith. And if we are going to consider time, for the sake of argument, to be relevant to whether something should be used, then we also must extrapolate those things back through the ages too; people back then must have been just as if not more foolish, mistake-prone and corrupt, and susceptible to faith-placebo. Not to mention the other weird beliefs people had; in the west that faith could heal directly, in the east that martial arts mastery could make you fly. And then note that they had none of the technology, none of the procedural minimums, none of the regulatory requirements, little of the scientific method, no double blind studies, none of the standardisation of healthcare or education, no sterile environments, no control groups. They were flying by the seat of their pants, and they should not be mocked for their work; we have what we have because we built on their successes and failures. But the fact is that they did indeed have failures, and didn't realise those failings for hundreds or even thousands of years. And so "ancient" can never be a substitute for hard evidence. Does acupuncture work? I don't know. Would be nice if it does. Would like to see some non-biased studies for and against. But apparently we can't have that, because it's just too culturally significant.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

Because Christianity has the correct answer to it don't do it because it's demonic and evil. Those two aren't separated. So is yoga. You'll know why when you study it yourself.