Talk:Acupressure/Archive 1

Otzi
The otzi tattoos with acupressure are all speculation. Not all of the points on him are equivalent to the meridian system. Further, no one knows as to their function - decorative vs. relgious (warding off evil) vs. medical. To state that the Otzi mummy possessed parasites and arthritis is pointless, as thousands of years ago, everyone had arthritis, parasites, and disease. Kennethtennyson 23:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
-- There is no discussion in this article of the efficacy of acupressure, nor any links to peer-reviewed studies of same. ONe science based criticism of acupuncture/acupressure can be found at the National Council Against Health Fraud's web site: http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.219.2 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 February 2006.

Puff removal
I disagree on the statement removal. (I was the one who added it) I wanted to say that 'even if the whole theory of Acupressure is complete bunk that doesn't mean you can't still enjoy it.' Don't you think that is a worthy statement? In the sense of, the article need not to be entirely about the science, and the merits of said science, of Acupressure theory. MaxMangel 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, acupressure is a belief system. Partititioners and patients believe it works regardless whether it is scientifically sound.  Write the article in such a way that it does not claim any scientific facts.  Just state what the unproven theory is.  Wikipedia has many articles on religions, no one needs to proof the existence of the Almighty as long as you say it is a belief, not a fact.  Why can't this article written the same way too?  Kowloonese 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Copying
http://www.crystalinks.com/acupressure.html It seems that this page is word-for-word the same as this Wikipedia page. Should someone contact the person who owns that page?
 * Wikipedia is linked as a reference.--192.234.160.253 (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

EBM summary in lead
I don't agree with the first clause of this sentence: "With the exception of a disputed study on the P6 point, acupressure has not been proved to the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine (cf. Cochrane Collaboration)." First, it's not a matter of one but a collection of studies in meta-analysis. Second, there is little or no dispute among EBM reviewers Cochrane and Bandolier. One author in SRAM, run by a notoriously biased gang, disagrees. That disagreement doesn't constitute "hot debate" among EBM reviewers. I changed it to "With the exception of stimulation of the P6 point for nausea, acupressure has not been proved to the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine (cf. Cochrane Collaboration)." Jim Butler 09:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Following the lead section garnered consensus in acupuncture, I've now changed the lead here to say: Whether acupressure is efficacious or a placebo is subject to scientific research. There is no scientific consensus over whether or not evidence supports efficacy.  Reviews of existing clinical trials have been conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration and Bandolier according to the protocols of evidence-based medicine; for most conditions they have concluded a lack of effectiveness or lack of well-conducted clinical trials.  The stuff on P6 and low back pain follows after a paragraph or two.  -Jim Butler 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jim, this is unacceptable. Please see [points 8 and 9 of my Editing principles for Pseudoscience articles in wikipedia]. Also, my understanding, perhaps mistaken, is that acupressure is a western adaptation. Please cite a ref for it being TCM. I've checked my Cochrane and Bandolier stuff. As far as I can see the best result is that one in four adults have reduced early post-operative reduction of nausea, not vomiting. Pls remind me of other relevant studies. Your continued disparagement of sources you don't like is not helpful. If you want to attack the ideas, by all means do so, but don't label people a notoriously biased gang. You should know better. It's also not based on the same principles (if we are taling sticking needles into people), it's based on the same theories. I'll try to limit my edits on the rest until we have consensus if we can achieve it. I've also borrowed some words from acupunture about paradigms. If they are unacceptable we can come up with something else. Mccready 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Noticed I'd missed this from earlier, so: On the bias of authors associated with the NCAHF, please see my comments on my talk page.  On acupressure and TCM, As I mentioned below, what we refer to as acupressure is one form of tuina.  It's taught in TCM programs in China and elsewhere, and many American schools include some training in it.  Hope we'll see you back soon Kevin and the above is just for the record.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

revert explanation - monthly statement
hi jim, this is to give you the courtesy of explaining my revert. you said Many (probably most) practitioners don't take it literally). I don't accept this unsourced conclusion. "conceptual framework" gives it a grander cachet. It is a belief system. Your notions of when "science" began appear to be OR. So I've reverted that too. I have aboriginal friends who've lived in a continuous culture for at least 60,000 years. Their scientific knowledge of flora and fauna and their ability to think logically and scientifically about such things is nothing short of stunning. talk to any australian scientist whose ever had anything to do with aborigines in this regard and you're likely to hear the same remark. Pity that the whites have wiped out large bodies of knowledge. Mccready 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I edit lots of pseudoscience articles, among others, and wanted as a matter of courtesy to let editors here know where I am coming from. Please check my Editing principles for pseudoscience articles. I'm always keen to talk and try to reach consensus. Mccready 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)nbvnbnbvnbvnbvnbvnbvnbnv


 * Hi Kevin, thanks for the discussion (am copying all this to acupressure page). One of the things I truly appreciate about your edits here, even if I'm sometimes frustrated by them, is that they frequently make me think and dig more deeply into the issues we're discussing.  I agree with your point about "scientific thinking" predating, and don't mind your reverting my edit on that.  However, you need to come up with a better reason for using the term "belief system" in place of "principles" (or "ideas", etc.)  It adds a gratuitous judgement about the attitudes of people who developed and used the system, some of whom may be as on-the-ball scientifically as your aboriginal friends.  You want a source for practitioners not taking TCM as literal truth?  Try Kaptchuk (Web, 1983 ed., pp. 34-35):
 * These ideas are cultural and speculative constructs that provide orientation and direction for the practical patient situation. There are few secrets of Oriental wisdom buried here.  When presented outside the context of Chinese civilization, or of practical diagnosis and therapeutics, these ideas are fragmented and without great significance.  The "truth" of these ideas lies in the way the physician can use them to treat real people with real complaints.  They are valuable because they comprise a medical paradigm that makes possible the substantive discussion of "what is going on", thereby allowing the physician to diagnose patterns of disharmony.  Through diagnosis and treatment the ideas are pragmatically tested and examined for validity, consistency, and truth.
 * Kaptchuk is a pretty well-known disseminator of TCM in the West, and his point goes to the heart of the issue of "belief". You may dismiss his take as apologetics, but in fact there some acupucturists (like me) who are comfortable with a fundamentally pragmatic view of TCM, and this is what Kaptchuk is getting at.  (Philosophical tangent: have you read Rorty on pragmatism?)  People who think along such lines are more interested in how TCM theory can help them achieve clinical goals than in whether or not to believe in it.  For for a Taoist priest, TCM is likely a belief system, but not necessarily for others.


 * So why "go there"? I hope you don't make "belief system" your next pet lead-section riff.  cheers, Jim Butler 08:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about speculative constructs? Mccready 12:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Or how about bullshit? ;-)  Seriously, what is wrong with the plainly descriptive term ideas?  Jim Butler 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we owe it to the reader to let them know it's unscientific, based on a diff paradigm to what they might expect in health care. Ideas doesn't quite convey that. Mccready 14:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Howzabout the riff from TCM article (just added)? Jim Butler 14:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus. Well done to us both. Bullshit might have been another option :-) Mccready 02:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Yes - Hi Firestar - agree with merge. Acupressure is a subset of tuina; the latter also includes various massage and manupilative techniques (e.g., this link). So I'd think after merging that acupressure should redirect to tuina. Cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 09:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience
There was some discussion recently at Category talk:Pseudoscience about when to use this cat. User:FeloniousMonk, an admin, said that NPOV explicitly allows for a topic to be categorized as pseudoscience when a majority of scientists believe that topic is pseudoscientific. FM was rather adamant that this was a dead issue and, because it is part of WP:NPOV, non-negotiable. I expressed some reservations about FM's conclusions, but was happy go along with what he said was existing consensus.

If FM is correct, then we can put a topic in Category:Pseudoscience if we can show that a majority of scientists believe it is pseudoscientific. The burden of evidence, per WP:V, is with those who wish the cat to remain. For notorious pseudosciences like intelligent design, that's easy: there are plenty of reliable sources stating scientific consensus. For acupressure, I don't know if such evidence exists. If it doesn't, then I don't see how we can use the cat. There are many scientifically dubious fields on which most scientists haven't voiced their opinions, and if WP:V won't let us use the cat, c'est la vie. But we can of course still say in the article that so-and-so says acupressure is pseudoscientific, for X and Y reasons.

So what is scientific consensus on whether acupressure is a pseudoscience? Damned if I know. Obviously the idea of the meridian system is based on Chinese metaphysics, but the efficacy of treating the actual acupoint is subject to scientific research, and (cf. article) some of it enters into EBM territory. The fact that the term "pseudoscience" is used in various ways doesn't help either. Until someone can provide a good source meeting what FM says is WP's "majority of scientists" standard, I think removing the cat is justified. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just like people are not allowed to edit articles about themselves, I'm not sure how appropriate it is that you are trying to enforce your own conclusions - and then somehow treating that as if the text at the category page is an independant thing you can cite. So the admin made you conceed ground, but you are still doing the thing you wanted to do anyway - so forgive us if we take your 'enforcement' with a grain of salt.
 * You are throwing up barriers to using this category by defining the citable sources as small as possible - so that the only way we can define this as pseudoscientific is if a international study has been done on scientists beliefs on this category. That is a ridiculous assessment because it would require ninety-eight percent of the articles within the category to be removed. Intelligent design might be the only one left. Have you treated every other article in this category the same way? I believe the simple wide ranging opinion of those who are vocal about psuedoscientific subjects should serve as a reasonable form of citation. MaxMangel 13:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi MaxMangel. I've edited my comments down for the sake of brevity.  Nutshell, I think that depopulating the category is a good idea, though not as drastically as FM's approach (taken literally) would, and not for the same reasons. (My citing previous discussion - meant as a courtesy to help others follow the thread.)
 * My concern is simply this: we should be careful about using categories when there are "grey" areas.  With such topics, it's better to make the case for all sides in the article and refrain from using the cat tag.  This is what WP:CG says, and seems to me to be entirely consistent with the letter and spirit of NPOV.  Do you disagree?
 * I agree that the criticisms you mention are fine to cite in articles ("Carroll calls X pseudoscience for Y reasons"). I don't agree that they necessarily represent scientific consensus, or that their views suffice for categorization.  You've offered no evidence as to how widely held their views are.  Remember WP:V and WP:NPOV.  The latter says "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts."
 * If a viewpoint can't be shown to be a majority (even among scientists), why should we categorize something on that basis? Should WP let all significant minority views dictate categorizations?  Can of worms.  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * have to agree with max. the fact that scientists don't have time to dismiss crap doesn't alter the fact that we can judge it to be crap. see discussion on my page. Mccready 15:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:CG and WP:V. Nice essay on your page but I missed the part about how it superseded WP policies.  ;-)  BTW, welcome back.  :-)  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So come on then, where are the scientific papers from controlled trials in peer-reviewed journals demonstrating it is science? The burdon of proof is on those who follow this sort of stuff, not the other way round. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you in the habit of actually reading articles that you edit? Four reviews (three from highly respected EBM reviewers, e.g. Cochrane Collaboration) referenced in the article cite at least a dozen such trials.  Acupressure's efficacy is amenable to research, is being researched, and legitimate debate about it exists in the peer-reviewed mainstream literature.  The view that it is pseudoscience is nonetheless still held by some.  There is no indication of scientific consensus in either direction.  I suspect a large number of scientists are simply unsure at this point.


 * The burden of evidence is on those who want an edit to remain. If I want to place this in "category:EBM" or some such thing, I bear the burden.  If you want to place it in category:pseudoscience, you bear the burden, which you have not met.


 * Use of a cat endorses a POV. Removal of the cat endorses no POV.  Discussion of significant POV's should be in the article, without a single POV unqualifiedly endorsed by a cat.  Read WP:CG.


 * Please undo your revert. Please take the time to read articles and discussion before reverting.  In the spirit of good science, please look at the evidence before defending a preordained conclusion.  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 23:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just added a section on criticism as pseudoscience. Never let it be said I don't write for the enemy.  NPOV is great, but not the POVish category:pseudoscience in this case.  Jim Butler(talk) 09:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to your quote "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." - yes, that is no problem. I can do exactly what the quote asks for. But, you are saying, "oh, finding lots of opinions by widely accepted reference texts isn't enough evidence to show it is a majority view" essentially the opposite of the meaning of the sentence you are quoting. The entire point of the above quote is to escape this rigmoral of debate by making the process easier of showing what is a majority view - looking to widely accepted reference texts and seeing what they say with regards to the issue. Widely accepted reference texts on the subject of pseudoscience treat accupressure as pseudoscience - this is enough evidence to demonstrait it as a majority view according to the wikipedia policy you yourself are quoting. It's all very plain English really. I trust you will do the right thing and revert the article. MaxMangel 07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Max, didn't see your comments until today. Which reference texts specifically are you speaking of?  Can you show that these texts represent the consensus of the scientific community?  Please show me a text that is widely-accepted as reporting scientific consensus on the subject of acupuncture's efficacy, or acupressure's efficacy, or whether these are pseudoscientific and why.  Carroll's SkepDic or Randi's essays are preaching to the choir; they can be taken as representing a "hard skeptical" viewpoint, but not necessarily a majority.  Given that there is scientific evidence for acupressure's efficacy, using cat:pseudosci is misleading to the reader.  What is wrong with the simple NPOV approach of just presenting the different POV's and arguments in the article, without using categories to endorse any single POV?  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 02:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I conceed that avoiding the tag and simply discussing all the issues in the article is a viable path, but that is not what is under debate here - that is simply an escape route if no compromise can be found. What is under debate is whether the majority of scientists view acupressure as psuedoscientific and whether that can be verified such that the tag can be attached. Your attempts to change the topic from this is not appropriate.
 * Now, just have a look at how many qualifiers you put into your requirements for the things I can cite. This is exactly what I'm talking about - now your asking I produce a citation that defines acupressure as psuedoscientific BUT I'm not allowed to cite people who deal primarily in defining and discussing psuedoscientific topics because...because...why? Because then I'd have easy access to a citation...
 * Like I've said before, on the one hand you demand citation, on the other you try to make sure that there is nothing and nobody who can possibly be cited. Which instutuition that deals primarily with discussing psuedoscience does meet your lofty criteria? You tell me. How about CSICOP then? Or is that one too "hard skeptic" as well? --MaxMangel 06:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

MM, you might assume a little more good faith here. The fact that we don't agree doesn't mean one of us is being disingenuous. Here's why I think that cat:pseudoscience is problematic under both WP:V and NPOV.

On WP:V: Popular literature, and literature by advocacy groups, can't by default be presumed to represent either popular or scientific consensus. That should be pretty obvious. Please read the relevant section of WP:RS. There is nothing wrong with writing primarily about pseudoscientific topics. There is also nothing wrong with asking for whom such authors speak, and how you are sure of this. Just because someone is a well-known skeptic doesn't mean that everything he says represents scientific consensus. Penn and Teller are well-known for their TV show Bullshit!, and on one episode they dismissed scientific consensus on global warming.

Please tell me specifically which text(s) you had in mind for citation, and why you think they represent scientific consensus. Or do you really want to say that scientific consensus doesn't matter here? That would be a pretty ironic stance to take on pseudoscience. :-)

On NPOV, my concerns about the POVishness of using some categories echo WP:CG, and I think it's completely appropriate to point that out. There is no compromise between having something be in a cat or not, so citing relevant WP guidelines and appealing to NPOV seems to make perfect sense. Maybe you could clarify whether or not you disagree with WP:CG on this issue.

I acknowledge that are some good arguments for acupressure's TCM theory being pseudoscientific, cf. the article. One can also find in peer-reviewed literature good arguments for its efficacy. One can also find plenty of studies showing that its claims are testable, and that they're taken seriously enough by scientists to be subject to testing. Given that situation, I argue that using cat:pseudoscience is inaccurate, one-sided and misleading to the reader. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I conceed defeat. I'm not prepared to put in more time and effort(and money) into research only to be told that this source or that quote is quite good enough to satisfy all the criteria you've established and get led into an endless debate. Your arguments are obviously not entirely without merit. Anyway, well done. MaxMangel 06:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Max, thanks. I think there is merit on both sides.  Hopefully the article can convey that in an NPOV way.  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

scientific study
found this article rather interesting, might be usefully incorporated. http://www.healingthemind.net/html/Why_tapping_works.html -- Alex Ov  Shaolin  16:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge again?
There isn't a distinction made in the acupressure or tui na articles, or even much mention made in either one for the other. The two are largely redundant. I propose they be merged if no one objects. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am learning tuina at the moment and believe a difference with acupressure should be done.

Alough it refers theoretically to the same concepts, the applications and movements are not the same.Sariputra8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although I agree that the Tui Na article needs a ton of work it's not appropriate to merge it with Acupressure. Tui Na is, in essence, closer to Chiropractic treatment than to acupressure in that it is largely characterized by deep massage, range of motion and bone adjustment.  It is, however, based on a different theory of health treatment than Chiropractic treatment - being part of TCM.  Give me a couple of weeks to get Tui Na up to snuff.  But I have to disagree over the appropriateness o fthe merge.The preceeding is not an endorsement of Tui Na or Chiropractic treatment nor is it a comment on the effectiveness of either methodology.Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Biased AND incomplete
It's one thing to include "Criticism", which has been done, and quite another thing to also START with implied denial of A.'s efficacy, as this article does.

Furthermore, and even more seriously, there is no information about the specific techniques of manual (digital) manipulation - and there are very few - that a reader would hope to get.

This is not an informative article - certainly not informative about acupressure.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.38.232 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not informative. It reads more like an opinion essay than an informative one. The author clearly has a prefabricated and uninformed notion of traditional chinese medicine and he is polluting the space with it.

TCM has undergone extensive empirical testing when the chinese were prepared to do away with it in favor of western medicine after WWII. After about 25 years of comparitive testing, they decided both eastern and western medicine were effective and should be used (The Web That Has No Weaver, Ted J. Kaptchuk, O.M.D.). The author of this 'acupressure' bit should understand that and a few other things that are missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.80.244.83 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

TCM
I can find no evidence that acupressure is a TCM, rather than derived from TCM. If no one objects I'll place a citation note in the article. Kevin McCready (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the archive-bot at WP:ANI archived the discussion about lifting your topic ban before any resolution was reached (see archive here.) With no community consensus to remove it, the indef ban "from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" remains in place.  So, when you ask "if no one objects", the ban answers that question.  I've posted at ANI/I asking for clarification (discussion; diff). --Middle 8 (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, since acupressure relies on TCM principles and is a subset of tui na, it appears that the citation you're asking about is unnecessary. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. I disagree with your assessment of the "topic ban". Editors have said since it hasn't been properly logged, properly reviewed etc ... 2. Discussion at Tui Na says "Tui Na is, in essence, closer to Chiropractic treatment than to acupressure". Perhaps that is irrelevant or just an example of the fringe promoters disagreeing amongst themselves. I note that nobody including yourself has provided a reliable source on the matter and that you only cite what appears to be your personal opinion. In any case please provide a reliable citation that acupressure is "a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) technique" or we should alter the article. A "subset of TCM principles" as interpreted by you is not a reliable source that it was originally a TCM. Kevin McCready (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a definition of Acupressure from a good V RS. And if you want to keep violating the topic ban, go ahead, but I suspect it will not help your cause and may result in a block. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding? The issue is TCM. The source you quote doesn't even mention the word Chinese. Thank you for your opinion on blocking, but as I've said I disagree with your analysis and so do others. May I respectfully ask one last time, please provide a source for your opinion that acupressure is "a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) technique". Kevin McCready (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a pretty decent library of TCM stuff that could answer that question, but I'm not going to dig up any sources. I'll leave that to someone else who believes that WP is a profound asset to humanity rather than a joke. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Acupressure not derived from Acupuncture
According to my knowldge its true that (at least in Germany) Acpressure derived from Acupuncture (by the German Prenzel see in German http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akupunkt-Massage_nach_Penzel ). He searched for solutions and found chinese Acupuncture which at his time was few known. He learned and practiced as massage therapist, but due to being not alowed trough German law he instaed of needles did only use pressure. Nevertheless in ancient China acupressure was developped before acupuncture. So it is actually wrong to say acupuncture derived from acupuncture. It is only the case when you only focus on Europe and the recent history.

May be there are experts with access to historic materials to check this in detail. Edgar8 (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for WP:AfD, and redirect to Traditional Chinese Medicine
This article has no content that is not already in acupuncture or Traditional Chinese Medicine, so should be a small section or Traditional Chinese Medicine, not its own article. PPdd (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've searched WP:AfD past discussions and did not find an Afd for this article. I searched the talk page for Acupuncture and found an old merger proposal that did not end with a consensus decision. I am restoring the most developed version of this article I can find. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch
Quackwatch is not a neutral and unbiased source, and is also not a reliabe source (it is not peer reviewed, but self published by Stephen Barrett). There exist much better sources for this kind of criticisms like the Cochrane Collaboration or the Institute of Medicine or peer reviewed articles.

LEAD also says: According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.

As such, it does not belong to the lead of the article, as it violates NPOV and LEAD.--Luis Zelda Cappello (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quackwatch is an established RS on the topic of Quackery - it has been discussed on WP:RSN several times and been found useful in alt-med cases where Quackwatch is in line with mainstream scientific consensus (as it is here: mainstream medicine does not recognize the concept of energy meridians). Any prominent controversy/criticism should also be included in a lede. There was however a problem here with the lede being too short and not summarizing enough of the body. I've had a go at fixing this - see what you think. Alexbrn talk 09:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you use Quackwatch in the article body it should be fine. But in the lead, you should only include peer-reviewed published sources, and not selfpublished websites. I am sure there are also peer reviewed criticisms available. --Luis Zelda Cappello (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no Wikipedia guidance which states ledes are restricted to using peer-reviewed sources. Ledes must summarize article content, and article content must be based on reliable sources (as Quackwatch has consistently been found to be). It would however, be improper to have a lede which omitted mention of criticsm and controversy. Alexbrn talk 09:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

LEAD says that published sources should be used. And according to RS, self published sources are largely not acceptable, especially if a reliable peer reviewed source can be cited (which is the case).

Citing self published websites in the lead also looks like it is a cheap way for spamming the website on wikipedia. --Luis Zelda Cappello (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, on Wikipedia the reliability and quality of Quackwatch is well-established as a source of information on quackery. I suggest searching the WP:RSN archives since it has been discussed several times, and at great length. Alexbrn talk 10:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A wikipedia discussion board is not the same as a wikipedia policy. Can you give the link to the discussion at RSN so that we know if the discussion was relevant to this case? --Luis Zelda Cappello (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd start with a search. The policy-based consensus seems to be that Quackwatch is potentially a reliable self-published source because of its uptake from medical/consumer communities, and because of its founder's expertise. But like any source the reliability needs to be assessed in context and on a case-by-case basis. Alexbrn talk 10:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first statement. Quackwatch is not an unbiased nor reliable source.  Acupressure should not be singled out with these types of comments.  Out of sixteen alternative health method articles I searched on Wikipedia, acupressure was the only alternative health practice where a comment by Quackwatch was mentioned at all, let alone in the lead of the article.  If none of the articles on these other practices include a comment from Quackwatch, then it does not seem appropriate to allow the comments on this article. 17 November 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.7.137 (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acupressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to https://www.healthierlifeday.com/2022/07/acupressure-benefits-and-uses.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122104312/http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/section.php?xSec=122 to http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/section.php?xSec=122

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Placebo effect
The lead reads: "Like many alternative medicines, it may benefit from a placebo effect". The placebo effect is only meaningful as part of a study. That some people believe to experience positive effects doesn't mean that they benefited from the practice and it doesn't mean that the placebo effect is effective. If a study concludes that there was no effect beyond placebo, it means that there was no determined effect. In fact, those who receive placebo have not been exposed to the actual treatment which effectiveness was being evaluated. If the subjects who received the actual treatment fare better than the ones who received placebo, this may be evidence of an actual effect. Let's consider this source for instance: Its conclusions are that there was no statistically significant effect and that it's safe when used as part of standard medical treatment (antiemetic medication). Thus "Any benefit from acupressure may derive from the placebo effect." also misrepresents it. — Paleo Neonate  – 23:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's my temporary fix, although the article could still benefit from some work. — Paleo Neonate  – 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Both the edit summary previously, and your edit here are not correct. Firstly, all medicines benefit from a placebo effect when the symptoms have a subjective character. A more correct summary is it does not provide a benefit above that of a placebo, but the original text was already correct and shouldn't have been changed. The placebo effect is totally effective, in fact some doctors prescribe placebos rather than medicines which could cause harm. In pain medicine the placebo effect is partly mediated through the opioid system and can be reversed by naloxone. The placebo effect is a very important part of medicine. PainProf (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a medically reliable source supporting the claim that the placebo effect can be used effectively as a medication? It's not what the above source claimed either...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A systematic review from Cochrane Collaboration said that "on average [placebo treatments] had a modest effect on outcomes reported by patients, such as pain." PainProf is correct that some patients take open-label placebos and believe that it is helping them.  Perhaps some day, we'll figure out how to make those more effective.  There is probably a combination of presentation (e.g., the prescriber listens carefully and acts confident that he understands the problem and can help), patient (e.g., maybe the people who are more susceptible to hypnosis get more value from a placebo), and product (we know that two pills is better than one for pain) that works better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, thanks. Another complication is that often pain is temporary, so would go away by itself despite our tendency to link whatever we had or did with it.  While of course some molecules do demonstrate a definite result and are selected accordingly (despite their side effects if they're considered more useful than harmful).  I also acknowledge that a  sensation of trust may have a calming effect, potentially helping in times of crisis...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Many, for a recent review see for instance. If there is no statistically significant effect it means that there is no benefit above placebo. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m1668 The debate about using placebo is almost entirely ethical as the scientific evidence is very good. PainProf (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With hindsight my revert was careless, I just saw the apparent removal of the placebo statements which aren't correct and failed to look at the full context of the edits which were generally positive so I apologise for that. PainProf (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's not a problem. It's always still open to improvement as well, — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * concur w/ PALEONEONATE--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries Prof. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

scientific updates in last 5-10 years
there have been a number of recent studies that have identified a structural basis for acupressure points in the body, both in humans and animals, and how they might work with regards to inflammation and the endogenous opioid system. there is no reason to remove such citations as they advance a person's understanding of what acupressure is, pressing on points on the body that causes a response or not.

quackwatch has been discussed on the talk page before, and quackwatch is one guy's attempt to be skeptical about whatever he wants, while he himself is evidently a quackpot (not my word, someone else's). quackwatch is not a rigorous scientific study or CT scan result.

i hope that the addition of modern scientific study and citations can stand here without push back. let's just let reality be whatever it is and hope that we can identify it through science so we can use that evidence for further understanding and study.

any removal of scientific evidence is evidence of bias and wikipedia should not have biased articles against acupressure. let's just let it be whatever it is or isn't and give science time to figure it out, which they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.15.110 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)