Talk:Acupuncture

There is a growing body of evidence for some legitimate purposes of acupuncture; kind of disingenuous now to call it "quackery"

NIH agrees; papers that make up that review can be found on their website. I also think there's a lot of talk on the wiki page about qi and whatnot, when in the real world today a lot more focus has been put on the not-so-mystical aspects of the physical practice.

Anywho, regardless of the origin of the practice, I think it's quite anti-science to dismiss acupuncture as quackery in 2026 in the same way as some other "medical methods" (homeopathy, magnet therapy, toxic plants, etc. as @Black Kite mentioned previously) rightfully have been. Let's take the second sentence of the page:

"Acupuncture is a pseudoscience;" - (Before y'all dog on me as was done with the previous person, I ask y'all to be civil. And no it's not an alt, I'm personally starting neuro study in the fall lol) This is debatable, for now please consider 2 examples on animals: [1][2] - these have little to do with traditional acupuncture concepts and a lot more to do with real anatomy like stimulation of the trigeminal nerve to resume breathing via the pain reflex. I hope this can be looked more into, and this fs isn't "quackery"!

And take these extra ([3][4] - 4th one from Nature) on stimulation of the vagus nerve through auricular acupuncture.

"The theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge" - This is a final and overgeneralizing statement; as long as you have 3rd grade reading comprehension it insinuates that no aspect of traditional Chinese medicine has any scientific backing. I can't find other places on Wikipedia where such a statement is said except for things like aforementioned auriculotherapy, including the actual TCM page itself which takes the more moderate and accurate stance "A large share of its claims are pseudoscientific, with the majority of treatments having no robust evidence of effectiveness or logical mechanism of action."

"And it has been characterized as quackery." - No problems because it's true, it has indeed been characterized as quackery.

I think it's backwards and a little extreme to stay attached to the idea that acupuncture is totally whack when the rest of Wikipedia has kept up. Just because this viewpoint is the establishment on this page based on numerous papers doesn't mean new papers (of which there are many now, lots with poop quality but some are legitimate so gotta filter through a lot) on this topic should be dismissed as statistical errors! Why not question the current sources' methodologies too? And doomscrolling through other talk pages has generally shown to me that hesitance towards new data hasn't aged very well. Theskieshface0 (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the previous discussions on this talk page and its archives. I also suggest you read WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Then, if you think the article should be updated, please a provide a specific change in the form of "Please change X to Y" or "Please insert X between Y and Z" followed by the sources used to justify that change. Without specifics, there isn't anything to discuss or do here. --McSly (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit to address the below: If you've read what I've said, we should swap out broad language like "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience; the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery" into a more moderate statement, something along the lines of "Traditional beliefs and theories of acupuncture are pseudoscience and have been characterized as quackery. Research is ongoing in connecting some practices of acupuncture as it applies to neurology and broader medicine."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theskieshface0 (talk • contribs)

As people have pointed out before, acupuncture is used as a textbook example of a medical pseudoscience.

While it cannot be stated that all TCM remedies are bunk, most of them have no biological plausibility, and no evidence of effectiveness.

I'll bite: what is the mainstream neurological or mainstream medical research that is ongoing thereupon, according to you? WP:CITE WP:MEDRS. Handwaving won't do. And I say "mainstream" because we don't want WP:FRINGE research and dodgy papers.

See https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/electroacupuncture-study-in-nature/ tgeorgescu (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel inclined to take several papers I already mentioned with a combined 800+ citations over some person's blog with 0 shares! Theskieshface0 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, in the WP:FRINGE page it literally says "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". However, there is NO current research on this page that counters the notion that acupuncture is entirely pseudoscience. What a double-standard!

In any case, the mainstream right now is split into two: (1) neuroscience/neuromod, which is more respectable; (2) pain, which has a ton of justified criticism because it's all over the place with poop-quality trials mixed in with decent ones - and also the one that this page solely focuses on right now. Theskieshface0 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not just some person's blog. SBM has been consistently recognized as WP:MEDRS-compliant for alt-med topics. See WP:PARITY and WP:SBM. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Exactly back to my point about needing to include both sides - SBM is denoted yellow with the warning sign and the description "Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, has a credible editorial board, and has been cited by other reliable sources. It is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. Article written by the site editors are considered WP:SPS and WP:BLP considerations apply." Theskieshface0 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup, I had read that before posting it. The point of the SBM post is that the effect is not bunk, but it is 100% TENS and 0% acupuncture. The effect is entirely plausible, but the explanation that that is acupuncture is bunk. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to agree, but unfortunately the author of that article is completely conflating TENS with electroacupuncture. TENS involves conductive gel pads (noninvasive), whereas electroacupuncture involves 2 conductive needles being inserted into the skin (technically "minimally invasive", but invasive nonetheless). Theskieshface0 (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Its point is that electroacupuncture has nothing to do with acupuncture: Ancient and Medieval Chinese doctors did not have electricity, did not have thin needles, besides it has nothing to do with Qi, meridians, and traditional acupuncture points (which vary vastly among diverse traditions from mainland China). tgeorgescu (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Its beginning thesis is

"Last week, a study claiming to have identified a neurologic mechanism by which acupuncture reduces inflammation was published in Nature. It does no such thing. it’s another bait-and-switch mouse study that likely would never have been published in such a high profile journal if it hadn’t rebranded electrical stimulation as “electroacupuncture”."

I find that to be clear - his point is that the authors are rebranding TENS as electroacupuncture. If he actually closely read the paper and its figures he'd clearly notice the mouse having 2 needles inserted with an electrical current run between them, which by definition is electroacupuncture and not TENS. I find his jaded analysis in an effort to prove his (as he describes) years-old point about bait-and-switch articles to be rather flawed - usually papers about acupuncture are indeed bogus, but he picked the wrong one this time.

But anyways, back to the main point of my original post - there should be more representation of current research and final statements (like the ones I mentioned above) should be replaced to keep up with modern research. Theskieshface0 (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The TCM consensus upon which are the real acupuncture points was imposed through argumentum baculinum by Mao, not through empirical medical research. It is a make-believe, arbitrary consensus. The acupuncture points were standardized by fiat, through repression, by a totalitarian state. The totalitarian state did not need empirical research about where are those points located, since deep inside they knew those points are bogus. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so now you're just throwing out everything about my point/argument and engaging in unsourced straw-man fallacies, thereby exposing your underlying bias. Good day! Theskieshface0 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The totalitarian state did not care about where those points are located, they only cared about concocting a coherent story, in order to make it look like a science. Make an educated guess: did scholars of medicine discuss that point in WP:RS?

MDs practicing acupuncture cannot agree where the acupoints are located. Source: Molsberger, A. F.; Manickavasagan, J.; Abholz, H. H.; Maixner, W. B.; Endres, H. G. (2012). "Acupuncture points are large fields: the fuzziness of acupuncture point localization by doctors in practice". European Journal of Pain (London, England). 16 (9): 1264–1270. doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00145.x. ISSN 1532-2149. PMID 22492604. Retrieved 11 June 2026.

And: Zhang, Yi (2021). "Interpretation of acupoint location in traditional Chinese medicine teaching: Implications for acupuncture in research and clinical practice". Anatomical Record (Hoboken, N.J.: 2007). 304 (11): 2372–2380. doi:10.1002/ar.24618. ISSN 1932-8494. PMID 33739620. Retrieved 11 June 2026.

Another source which saw the problem: Satterthwaite, John R.; Tollison, Joseph W.; Trent, C. Glenn (1989). Handbook of Chronic Pain Management. Williams & Wilkins. p. 184. ISBN 978-0-683-08335-4. Retrieved 11 June 2026.

See also the quote in big letters from https://www.cliniciansbrief.com/article/acupuncture-history-application Also available at https://assets.ctfassets.net/4dmg3l1sxd6g/6hR9hmlkI7KVdpYjdQSt6d/90cebac094fc59907e5b046689e6637a/acupuncture-history--application-17871-article.pdf

The standardization was based upon doxography, not upon empirical medical research. The rationale was "let's pretend that some of the traditional texts are true, without asking for evidence."

Producing research that acupuncture anesthesia was ineffective often meant being sent to the labor camp, and sometimes death by lynching (AKA criticism of the masses, a combination of humiliation and violence, which was in certain cases fatal). Such research was never published in Maoist China, so of course, people did not get punished for publishing it, but simply for writing the draft.

There one legitimate use of acupuncture, as a fake remedy fooling people to refrain from using opiates. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

NIH agrees Firstly, that is not NIH per se, it is its quackery branch NCCIH that was invented by politians lobbied by the alt-med industry, such as Tom Harkin. Secondly, even if it were the NIH itself, the reliability of the Trump-era NIH is dubious since it is currently in the power of the crackpot anti-science lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the NIH's boss is the notorious spreader of medical disinformation Jay Bhattacharya. Your sources are not credible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I concede that point - NCCIH isn't very reliable. However, there's still 4 papers I mentioned which you entirely didn't address; before you misconstrue my point again, my only proposal was to include something like "research is ongoing" in the page. Theskieshface0 (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I would like to address the claim "There is a growing body of evidence for some legitimate purposes of acupuncture". As Harriet Hall, MD pointed out years ago:

"The biggest problem with acupuncture studies is finding an adequate placebo control. You’re sticking needles in people. People notice that. Double blinding is impossible: you might be able to fool patients into thinking you’ve used a needle when you haven’t, but there’s no way to blind the person doing the needling. Two kinds of controls have been used: comparing acupuncture points to non-points, and using an ingenious needle in a sheath that appears to have penetrated the skin when it hasn’t... Guess what? It doesn’t matter where you put the needle. It doesn’t matter whether you use a needle at all. In the best controlled studies, only one thing mattered: whether the patients believed they were getting acupuncture. If they believed they got the real thing, they got better pain relief — whether they actually got acupuncture or not! If they got acupuncture but believed they didn’t, it didn’t work. If they didn’t get it but believed they did, it did work." Source:[1] Another source:[2]

So, if you wish to dispute Wikipedia stating that Acupuncture is a pseudoscience, you need to address that fact that "pseudoscience" is the correct technical term for when a medical treatment gives you the same results as a placebo, yet the practitioners continue to insist that it is effective. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Safety of Acupuncture

(I Moved this to a separate section. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC) )

Regarding "medical treatment gives you the same results as a placebo" - this is a known misconception. Acupuncture is not better than placebo, and not necessarily as good as placebo. Bascially, it is at most as good as placebo. --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That's really interesting, and news to me. Do you have a source I can study? It could very well be that my information is out of date. The definitive sham needle double blind clinical trials were done years ago. Every so often I check to see if there is any new research, but it appears that nothing has changed other than the occasional acupuncturist claiming that sham needles are somehow actual acupuncture and not a placebo even though there is no needle.

Now you are telling me that there is a difference -- that real acupuncture is worse! This is like the difference between homeopathy (no effect of any kind) and Ayurveda (harmful). I really want to see the research that shows that acupuncture is harmful. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Adverse Events of Acupuncture: A Systematic Review of Case Reports
• Acupuncture-related adverse events: a systematic review of the Chinese literature

• Safety of Acupuncture: Overview of Systematic Reviews

PepperBeast (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

So, is the current wording of this article ("Acupuncture is generally safe when administered by an experienced, appropriately trained practitioner using clean-needle technique and sterile single-use needles. When improperly delivered it can cause adverse effects. Accidents and infections are associated with infractions of sterile technique or neglect on the part of the practitioner") wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't understand. All forms of the so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are in the best case (!) as good as placebo. The "difference between real and sham acupuncture is negligible" (doi:10.1073/pnas.2613544123), which is plausbile as you compare placebo with placebo. As for safety: "For instance, needling can cause lungs to collapse (pneumothorax) and this is not rare". --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Evidence, please. When you quote something, please tell us what you are quoting.The article does not say that pneumothorax is not rare. In fact, it says that from January 2009 to December 2011, 468 safety incidents were recognized within the NHS organizations, and that 1% of them were pneumothorax. 468 is a very small number compared to how many people in the UK got acupuncture in those years, and 1% of 468 is 4 or 5.

Please explain why we should think that "Acupuncture is generally safe when administered by an experienced, appropriately trained practitioner using clean-needle technique and sterile single-use needles. When improperly delivered it can cause adverse effects. Accidents and infections are associated with infractions of sterile technique or neglect on the part of the practitioner" is wrong. With sources, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

AI Generated comment

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Request for neutrality and evidence balance review in efficacy section."

Request for review of neutrality, due weight, terminology, and evidence balance in efficacy/scientific basis sections I would like to request a review of several sections of this article, particularly the "Efficacy" and "Purported scientific basis" sections, with regard to Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view (NPOV), reliable sourcing, and due weight. My concern is not that criticism of acupuncture should be removed. The article should include well-supported scientific criticism, including the lack of evidence for some traditional explanations and the limitations identified in many systematic reviews. However, some wording may present a more categorical conclusion than the broader evidence base supports and may not sufficiently distinguish between criticism of traditional theory and evaluation of acupuncture as a clinical intervention. = Distinction between traditional theory and clinical practice = The article states that acupuncture is "pseudoscience" and that Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theories are not based on scientific knowledge. This reflects criticism of traditional concepts such as qi, meridians, and energy pathways, which are not supported by modern biomedical evidence. However, a distinction may be important between: the historical explanatory framework of TCM; acupuncture as a physical intervention involving needle stimulation; and modern research investigating possible physiological and clinical effects. A lack of evidence for traditional TCM mechanisms does not necessarily establish that every clinical application of acupuncture is ineffective. Modern research has investigated acupuncture independently of traditional explanations, including possible effects involving nervous system signalling, pain processing, and other physiological responses. The article may benefit from making this distinction clearer to avoid implying that criticism of the traditional theory automatically resolves the question of every clinical use. = Evidence regarding efficacy is heterogeneous = The article currently contains statements including: "The conclusions of trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture generally provide no good evidence of benefits, which suggests that it is not an effective method of healthcare." While some systematic reviews have reached this conclusion, other high-quality reviews and clinical guidelines have reported more nuanced findings. For example, the individual patient data meta-analysis by Vickers et al. examined a large number of acupuncture trials and reported that acupuncture was associated with greater improvements in chronic pain outcomes compared with both no-acupuncture controls and sham acupuncture controls. The authors concluded that the effects were modest but statistically significant. This does not establish acupuncture as universally effective, but it suggests that the evidence base is not simply divided into "effective versus ineffective". Outcomes vary depending on: the condition studied; the type of comparator used; whether the outcome is pain relief, function, quality of life, or another measure; the threshold used to determine clinical significance. A more balanced summary could acknowledge that systematic reviews differ in interpretation, with some finding effects that are small or uncertain and others finding modest benefits for selected conditions. = Clinical recognition within healthcare systems = Acupuncture is also recognised within some mainstream healthcare systems, which suggests that it is not universally treated as equivalent to an unsupported practice. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) recognises acupuncture as a treatment used in some clinical settings, including some GP practices, pain clinics, and hospices. The NHS describes acupuncture as a treatment option for certain conditions and notes that it may be recommended in specific circumstances. The inclusion of acupuncture within healthcare systems does not mean that all traditional acupuncture claims are accepted or that acupuncture is effective for every condition. However, it demonstrates that the intervention has been subject to clinical evaluation and is considered within some evidence-based healthcare frameworks. Similarly, some clinical guidelines include acupuncture as an option for selected conditions. Examples include: The American College of Physicians guideline on chronic low-back pain, which includes acupuncture among non-drug treatment options. The American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline, which conditionally recommends acupuncture for some osteoarthritis-related pain. These recommendations should not be interpreted as proof of broad effectiveness, but they are relevant evidence that major medical organisations have not treated acupuncture solely as a historical belief system. = Use of the term "quackery" = The term "quackery" should be reviewed for neutrality and attribution. Historically, "quackery" has been used in disputes between competing medical approaches and has carried a strong negative connotation. In modern usage it generally refers to practices considered fraudulent or unsupported, but applying the term directly in Wikipedia's voice may risk introducing an editorial judgement unless clearly attributed. A more neutral approach may be to state the specific scientific criticisms rather than relying on a broad label. For example, instead of stating simply that acupuncture is "quackery", the article could explain that: some critics argue that traditional acupuncture mechanisms lack scientific support; some reviews find limited evidence of clinically meaningful benefit for certain conditions; other reviews and guidelines report modest benefits for selected conditions. If the term is retained, attribution may improve neutrality, for example: "Some critics have characterised acupuncture as quackery due to concerns about the evidence base and traditional explanations." rather than presenting the term as an uncontested fact. = Suggested wording change = A more balanced summary might be: "Traditional acupuncture theories, including concepts such as qi and meridians, are not supported by modern biomedical evidence. However, acupuncture as a clinical intervention has been studied independently of these theories. Evidence varies considerably by condition, with some reviews finding limited or uncertain benefit beyond placebo, while others report modest benefits for selected conditions, particularly some chronic pain disorders." This would preserve the article's discussion of scientific criticism while ensuring that the full range of high-quality evidence and clinical perspectives receives appropriate weight. I request that uninvolved editors review whether the current wording accurately reflects the balance of contemporary evidence and whether additional nuance is required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view and due weight policies. = Suggested sources for consideration = Vickers AJ et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of acupuncture for chronic pain. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) — evidence summaries on acupuncture effectiveness and safety. American College of Physicians clinical guideline on noninvasive treatments for chronic low-back pain. American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline for osteoarthritis management. NHS information page on acupuncture and its clinical uses.

Chrisdavies111 (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've told this tale before but it is worth repeating, and quite true.

A good friend of mine told me that you only need three things to successfully edit Wikipedia.

What three things Walter, you ask?

sources, sources and more sources.

.

To that end, you should read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Welcome and good luck. - Walter It's my 70th birthday Ego 21:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Vague AI-ish ramble. Requested changes should be of a specific "Change X to Y" form, with relevant sourcing provided. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And some more AI

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article currently states: "The conclusions of trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture generally provide no good evidence of benefits, which suggests that it is not an effective method of healthcare." I propose changing this to: "Systematic reviews of acupuncture have reached differing conclusions. Some reviews find little or no evidence of clinically meaningful benefit for many conditions, while others report modest benefits for selected conditions, particularly some chronic pain disorders." Reason: The current wording appears to present a single conclusion regarding the entire evidence base. However, some high-quality reviews and clinical guidelines have reached more nuanced conclusions. Examples include: Vickers AJ et al., individual patient data meta-analysis of acupuncture for chronic pain, which reported statistically significant benefits compared with both sham acupuncture and no-acupuncture controls. American College of Physicians guideline recommending acupuncture among non-pharmacological treatment options for chronic low-back pain. American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline conditionally recommending acupuncture for some osteoarthritis-related pain. Could editors please review whether the current wording gives appropriate weight to these sources? Chrisdavies111 (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done We cite a systematic review of reviews, so excellent for an overview of the topic area. Single papers, especially really old ones like Vickers, are of no encyclopedic value given this, and would serve to make the article look like it was pushing a POV. Bon courage (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

More AI

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for the feedback. I understand the concern regarding relying on individual studies rather than overview-level sources. I am not suggesting that individual trials should determine the article wording. My concern is whether the current sentence accurately reflects the conclusions of systematic reviews of reviews and other high-quality evidence summaries. The article currently states: "The conclusions of trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture generally provide no good evidence of benefits, which suggests that it is not an effective method of healthcare." I suggest changing this to: "Systematic reviews of acupuncture have reached differing conclusions, with evidence varying substantially by condition. Some reviews conclude that benefits are limited or uncertain, while others report modest benefits for selected conditions." This wording would still reflect the systematic reviews that question efficacy, while avoiding a single broad conclusion across all conditions. Sources for consideration: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) evidence summaries on acupuncture effectiveness and safety. Clinical practice guidelines that evaluate acupuncture for specific conditions, including chronic pain and osteoarthritis. Systematic reviews and umbrella reviews assessing acupuncture across multiple conditions. The proposed wording is intended to improve precision and neutrality rather than promote a particular viewpoint. Chrisdavies111 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

NCCIH is the pro-quackery wing of the US government, therefore not reliable, see WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And now our AI-Slinging Quack has been blocked. What's the world coming to when a bunch of robot-hating meatsacks won't let a fun-loving LLM argue that it doesn't actually matter whether the acupuncturist uses actual needles? Skynet is not amused. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I only blocked them from this page. I think Skynet can work its way round that restriction... Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)