Talk:Acupuncture

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 It could very well be that my information is out of date.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)

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)

New data re: pseudoscience

A number of new peer-reviewed articles by reputable medical journals have come out since the matter of whether acupuncture was a pseudoscience was last reviewed. May I ask that we reopen this topic? Adlewis (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITE WP:RS. I don't believe it could get undone, but let's see what you have read. NCCIH is completely bunk in this respect.

Also mind WP:ECREE. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)