Talk:Acupuncture
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
- Add new text under old text.
- New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
- Assume good faith
- Be polite and avoid personal attacks
- Be welcoming to newcomers
- Seek dispute resolution if needed
In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following:
- Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
- Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
- Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
- Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
- Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
- Alternative theoretical formulations : Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant noticeboards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
(I Moved this to a separate section. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC) )Reply
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) Reply
- 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) Reply
- (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
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) Reply
- 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) Reply
- 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) Reply
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) Reply
- NCCIH is the pro-quackery wing of the US government, therefore not reliable, see WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
- 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) Reply
- 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) Reply
- 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) Reply
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) Reply
- 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) Reply
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Top-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles