Talk:Acupressure

Please stop removing new scientific information from the last 10 years and reverting to quackwatch
Quackwatch is not a reliable up to date source of scientific information on the existence of acu points.

If we need to improve the citations somehow, we can do that, but recent studies are not irrelevant because they aren't on quackwatch.

If this article is going to be thorough and unbiased, we cannot ignore recent studies. If CT scans demonstrate the existence of acupoints as structures in the body, then we have to accept those images.

I am not interested in starting a back and forth edit conflict, if we want to share quackwatch view as opposed to modern scienctific views, we can do that and show both sides, perhaps that is best, but simply undoing additions to the article to reflect recent science is not unbiased or in the spirit of education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.15.110 (talk • contribs)


 * It's not a matter of "Quackwatch views". There is a large body of scientific investigation into acupuncture/pressure. A single study alleging that spots on CT scans are acupuncture points doesn't change that.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in starting a back and forth edit conflict apparently you're not interested in actual science either. Praxidicae (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please define actual science and who gets to decide what actual science is?


 * Is a CT scan image science if doctors rely upon it for diagnoses in hospitals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.15.110 (talk • contribs)
 * Sign your edits. And WP:V and WP:MEDRS decide what is reliable and actual science and not whatever woo-woo quackery you're here to promote. Praxidicae (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Is the journal of electron spectroscopy and related phenomena a reliable secondary source? https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-electron-spectroscopy-and-related-phenomena

the fact that you are calling my additions woo woo quackery reveals your bias. me being promotional would have led me to re-write the entire article and remove cochrane information etc.. not interested in that, just adding new discoveries. i don't see any attempt on your part to allow others to participate by adding new information that sheds credibility on the existence of acupoints, so if this is your attempt and mediation or discussion, i suggest the next avenue is some dispute resolution, sadly. you could even write a disclaimer...

While recently published research suggests a physical basis for acupoints, more study is needed to confirm their existence before acceptance by the larger scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.15.110 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, my bias being toward science and against pseudoscience. Once more, WP:SIGN your edits. Praxidicae (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * it's my understanding i don't need to sign edits to be a contributing member of wikipedia, but i'll look into that further. And ct scans, x-rays, and other medical imaging is not pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E6CF:C600:793F:A30A:223C:FF27 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, it is required to engage in discussion. Sign them. Switching IPs isn't going to fool anyone either. Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * didn't realize the talk page was different, sorry --2604:6000:E6CF:C600:793F:A30A:223C:FF27 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good instrumentation doesn't make good science on its own.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  16:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

who gets to evaluate whether the recent studies demonstrating the existence of acupoints are science? again, this gets back to my point. i don't expect to change your mind or opinion, but on wikipedia, we are all supposed to be allowed to contribute. what i feel is valid science and worthy of report, you don't. National Geographic, the New York Times, and such have shared recent studies demonstrating either the efficacy of acupuncture (different than acupressure), or the existence of acupuncture points vs non-points, but couch them in language to suggest more study is still needed...  it's open to debate. more scientists need to publish the same results, etc... that's all fine, but that doesn't mean we get to censor information we don't like. you already believe acupoints are quackery. that's ok. but i don't think you should decide that for everyone. so, in what manner of presentation would you allow the inclusion of any new scientific study that supports the existence of acupoints, as points on the body which can be distinguished through medical technology by researchers?

While some recent studies (citations) suggest a physical basis for acupoints, further study is needed to confirm whether these results were tampered with or manipulated??

remember these are just scientists looking at the body and finding things and reporting them, and just because acupoints exist doesn't mean acupressure is effective, that's a separate issue. but we have nerve endings. areas on the body that are more inflamed, and more oxygenated, that respond to stimulation in animal models with predictable results suggests something exists. --2604:6000:E6CF:C600:793F:A30A:223C:FF27 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

i'm surprised that you allow quackwatch on there, that's just one guy's opinion, and last i checked he thinks chiropractic is quackery, but i can tell you from experience, and those of family members, that when someone adjusts a misalignment in your spine and you suddenly feel better after days or weeks of months, you know it's real. it's quite simple really, nerves get impinged, muscles spasms, when we are out of alignment, and getting adjusted can relieve the issue, especially after a sudden injury. so i don't find quackwatch to have any credibility, and yet that's cited on here, seems unfair to cite quackwatch and not a reputable scientific journal -- 2604:6000:E6CF:C600:793F:A30A:223C:FF27 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Anecdotal evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A 'reputable scientific journal' is not a description I feel can be uncontroversially applied to Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any addition based on stuff published in it would warrant wider discussion. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Supposed Oracle bone attestation
The oracle bones don't talk about treatments like that. Maybe I've not read the bone in question, but if so, there needs to be citation for where pressure point treatment appears in the corpus. (I'm not saying it was invented in India, just that I've read enough oracle bones to doubt that the claim being made in the article is reliable.) 69.242.110.62 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)