/sci/ - Science & Math

it works, but not at all in the way traditionalists claim.

people who just realise it my treat pain and stimulate various neurotransmitters use the words "dry needling" to distinguish themselves from the 5 elements, meridians, chi energy bullshit

It does actually work, but not in the way that it was originally though to.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704841304575137872667749264.html
There is no 'chi' or life energy. The reason it works is scientific.

Your body reacts to the stimulus by releasing adenosine which is a natural anaesthetic. Your body 'thinks' it is being attacked, (because you are being stabbed) but acupuncture just uses very small needles that do not cause any damage and barely any pain.

Yes. Placebo effect.

is it recognized as a valid medicine?

>>4615769
More than that.

>>4615773
A valid treatment to relieve pain, yes.

>>4615774
No.

You have obviously no idea what placebo effect means.

it doesnt fucking work, its like crystal healing and fucking homeopathy
get your bullshit off my fucking /sci/!

>>>/x/

>>4615765
Harriet is right about this, or close to. I don't recall how the sham acupuncture (with the needle not actually being properly in the skin) came out.

The treatment is covered at length in Alternative Medicine on Trial (book).

>>4615773
By health insurance companies? Depends on where you live and on the insurrance.

It works, mostly as a placebo. For instant, all the shit about "this point is for neck pain" is bullshit. Location doesn't matter.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/09/acupuncture-may-be-more-effective-for-back-pain-treatmen
t-than-conventional-medicine.ars

>>4615785
>For instance
Fixed.

Another thing to check is whether the skin needs to be penetrated at all.

>>4615780
it maybe works "better than placebo". the studies aren't of great quality. there's a cochrane review that says maybe it works, more study needed

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001351.pub2/abstract;jsessionid=C1286E72EA4B67
831A599ECB8E7F085F.d01t02

>>4615782
The original theory is false (Chi energy), but it truly does have a real medical effect, even if just by coincidence.

>>4615794
Why is chi energy false? It's not a scientific theory and makes no testable predictions, so it can't be proven wrong. It's unfalsifiable.

>>4615800
if only you knew what energy means.

>>4615792
The word placebo does not appear in your link. And after reading it, I have to say I suspect you, too, don't know what placebo effect is, because your link has nothing to do with that.

>>4615800
>it's unfalsifiable so it's not wrong
So, Harriet says it's wrong, and you counter by saying "it can't be wrong if it doesn't say anything". Bravo.

>>4615800
>Why is chi energy false? It's not a scientific theory and makes no testable predictions, so it can't be proven wrong. It's unfalsifiable.

Falsifiability is a broken concept. It does not work the way many people think it works. Read Quine on confirmation holism.

Chi energy is quite easy to disprove. There are no energy fields in the places where the theory states that there are. And then there is the problem of which theory is correct. They all have the same evidence (none), and they are all inconsistent with each other. Since at most one of them is correct, any randomly chosen one with regards to the evidence is overwhelmingly likely to be false.

Then we can also test the other things that chi theory predicts that acupuncture can treat for, and none of these work, etc. etc. etc. Chi theory is testable and proven false.

>>4615815
Welcome to /sci/. It's a magical place.

>>4615805
you seem to be quite big on telling people they don't know what placebo means.

here's the part your looking for.

"for chronic low-back pain there is evidence of pain relief and functional improvement for acupuncture, compared to no treatment or SHAM therapy" (my emphasis)

saying acupuncture doesn't work because chi doesn't exist is like saying sanitation doesn't work because miasma doesn't exist.

okay, so the original theory as to why it might work is bullshit, but the treatment itself is effective.

bumping

>>4618589
why? OP has been answered, acupuncture is a scam

>>4618601
It's a procedure that works better than a placebo for some things. But all the stuff about "this point on your skin fixes X" is bullshit, location of the needles doesn't matter.

>>4615785

>>4618601
>>4618584
that was why

>>4616388
only as effective as the placebo.

It has been scientifically proven. go check it out.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html