Jump to content

Talk:Acupuncture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is racist

[edit]

It must be changed. 2600:100F:A110:4802:ED55:9578:694F:5135 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing quackery such as acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine does not make me a racist. Why?

If an Indian, American, British, Nigerian or Brazilian scientist makes an empirical claim about the body, they're expected to prove it, and that proof must be replicable. Why should it be different for Chinese scientists?
— User:WLU

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 3 December 2024

[edit]
perennial complaints of 'bias' have been addressed countless times already

It is not “neutral” to immediately dismiss acupuncture as “pseudoscience in the first paragraph and subheading. That is an expression of opinion that fails to take into account years of scientific research on the topic accepted by the US NIH and other major health organizations. I recommend that the current “pseudoscience” sentence be supplanted by a sentence stating “The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) states “there’s evidence that acupuncture may have effects on the nervous system, effects on other body tissues, and nonspecific (placebo) effects. (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-effectiveness-and-safety) The current “psuedoscience” sentence can be attributed to critics of the field, e.g., “Critics have dismissed the scientific research on the effects of acupuncture and characterized it as psuedoscience” [etc.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindlerva (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:MEDRS, and note that essentially nothing published by the NCCIH - a political department set up to boost alternative medicine, which is /not/ under the supervision of the NIH - is a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So cherry-picking articles that prove your point of view is a more objective approach than referring to the US NIH as a reliable source? It would be fair to say that critics of acupuncture view it as psuedoscience after noting that there is significant scientific research showing a range of benefits, accepted by NIH and the increasing number of insurance companies that provide acupuncture coverage for proven purposes, like pain relief.
But it is highly biased to dismiss the entire field in the first sentences rather than providing a more appropriately balanced and nuanced perspective. I thought Wikipedia pages were supposed to be, not for people with axes to grind, but instead for the fair presentation of information for readers to make their own judgments. Kindlerva (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what you just cited is not 'the US NIH', nor is Acupuncure 'accepted by NIH'. Also, if you're looking for balance, you should know that Wikipedia doesn't do that, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NCCIH is literally on the NIH website, which is literally part of the HHS website. Not a shocker that the Wikipedia page on NCCIH shows the same consistent bias against all alternative medicine approaches demonstrated by this site, regardless of actual research or evidence. But I don’t see how you can deny the reality of a sub-organization being part of its parent organization.
It is not “false balance” to refer to actual health research that has been reviewed and validated by major research organizations like NIH, WHO and others. It is a matter of telling the story fairly and accurately.
And it’s odd that you all seem to believe that health insurance companies are stupid enough to be increasingly providing coverage for practices that you blithely equate with astrology or Tarot card reading without bothering to review the evidence or let others add it. Sad to see Wikipedia promoting biased entries and censorship in this manner. Kindlerva (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NCCIH is 'literally' a separate institute which does not answer to the NIH director. That's because it was set up as a personal project by a US Senator who wanted an outfit that would validate the scientifically invalid bee pollen treatments he believed in. You are getting basic facts incorrect here, which is not going to be a basis for changes to this article. Some health insurance companies will cover homeopathy, too. That does not mean that homeopathy isn't nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which facts I got wrong. NCCIH is indisputably one of the over two dozen centers and institutes of NIH. (https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/list-institutes-centers). Are you saying that the National Cancer Institute or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases are not part of NIH either and therefore have no validity as sources of information?
Also, to say that NCCIH is illegitimate because Sen. Tom Harkin was its original champion does not make any sense. All agencies of the U.S. Government ultimately derive from Congressional legislation and many are the result of particular politicians championing them. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s pet project. Does that make it somehow “political” and therefore illegitimate? Kindlerva (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained what you're getting wrong, but here it is one more time: The NCCIH is illegitimate because they publish nonsense. What they accept is not 'accepted by NIH' because the rest of the NIH (especially the NIH director) gets no say in the nonsense they publish. By conflating a fringe body with mainstream medical bodies, you are undermining your argument. If you have to cite the NCCIH for legitimacy, that is a sign to everyone else that what you're doing is promoting pseudoscience. We're now just repeating ourselves, so I imagine I will not comment again unless someone new comes up. Do not interpret my silence as agreement. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you refused to respond to any of my specific questions or points, so I guess we’re done. Interesting, though, to learn that the National Cancer Institute and all of NIH’s other Centers and Institutes aren’t part of NIH and therefore their work can and should be ignored by Wikipedia. Kindlerva (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. NCCIH is not unreliable because NIH has no power over it. It is unreliable for other reasons, and it does not get to suck reputation from the NIH because NIH has no power over it. You tried to copy-and-paste the reliability from NIH to NCCIH, and that was refuted. Other centers and institutes are reliable or unreliable for their own reasons.
Possibly, the NIH itself will lose reliability from 2025 on because it will be ruled by a quackery proponent who forces it to publish dangerous nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is a bold non-neutral statement. Wikipedia is too biased in this regard and I won't donate a cent to them until they fix this. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KEEPYOURMONEY. It's precisely for reasons of neutrality that Wikipedia is obliged to observe that acupuncture is a pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To present that some say it's 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery' without presenting that there are multiple meta-anaylsis studies showing its efficacy is deeply misleading. It fails to show the scientific backing that acupuncture has. A meta-analysis study does not just look at one randomized study or one case report. It is an in depth look at multiple scientific studies. Multiplele meta-analysis studies confirm the benefit of acupuncture.
For example note the study "Acupuncture for chronic pain: update of an individual patient data meta-analysis" Authors: Vickers, A. J., et al. (2018)Published In: The Journal of Pain, 2018. This study clearly demonstrated the efficacy of acupuncture in multiple studies for muscloskeletal, headache and osteoarthritis pain. Full text is available here https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900(17)30780-0/fulltext
To have an accurate article on this subject without giving a profession that medical professionals spend years in education and which multiple scientific studies back these types of articles need to be addressed.
Dismissing such a long-standing practice as quackery is simply not showing the full picture and incredible benefit this medical profession offers the public. Rochester1980 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add UNESCO in the lead

[edit]

The practice, defined by the article as "quackery", was recognized by UNESCO in 2010: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/acupuncture-and-moxibustion-of-traditional-chinese-medicine-00425; I know it's inconvenient for you all to add this information in the lead, but it must be added. 217.196.104.215 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&oldid=1274457348"