Talk:Auriculotherapy

Untitled

 * This needs to be re-written to include more unbiased information on the nature & history of Auriculotherapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.3 (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote to remove POV, new sources, citations needed. Mccready 05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems awfully shaky that all of the claims made about this bs are from two "Doctors". They seem like shills. Until there is independent verification, I don't think that this article should be making these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.69.147 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what Mccready said. Can we try to keep this article free of grandiose unreliable claims and general spam? - Eldereft (cont.) 14:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Auricular therapy History
Auricular acupuncture writers often make the claim that the method goes back to early Chinese sources. In fact there are only a few references in Chinese medicine texts that could make that reference plausible. The main claims are that in the Han Dynasty book Huangdineijing is stated that the kidneys open in the ears, so that superfluous substance of the kidenys is ejaculated in the ears, making the ears to an instrument of diagno. Also the same text refers that many channels (Jingluomai/meridians) exit in the ear. it never speaks about the practcie going two ways. The method of Auricular therapy is developed by the french physician Paul Nogier in 1957 using a frenological method of projection of a fetal Homunculus on the ear for reference of complaints and reated points for treatment. The method is an offshoot of Phrenology. Auricular therapy has quickly been picked up by Chinese acupuncurists who developed many different similar kinds of micropuncture, such as nose acupuncture, indexfinger acupuncture, toe acupuncture etc.(YouLiOu (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC))


 * I have made a number of grammatical and spelling changes, as well as adding wikilinks to your addition. Now it needs to be sourced or it will be end up being removed. Please provide your sources. If you have trouble making them into references, just provide them here and I'll do it for you. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the gramattical alterations. they are welcome. i am sorry for answering late since i was to preoccupied in other work. in fact the additions are to support alternative visions, and to correct them anbd not to create fudder for sceptics to prove their right. i think also the alternative corner has to have its facts correct, so a wiki stub should not avoid promotion of falso truths if it can. i have an interest in this as a chinese medicine practitioner and researcher among other things.


 * Guys... I'm all in favour of neutrality, I don't give a rat's ass which POV is right but it seems that recent "improvements" have actually tilted the POV of this article too far the other way. My suggestion: It's an article on Auriculotherapy, let the alternative's have their say, keep it neutral and leave out the ridiculously unnecessary sweeping (and totally un-cited) statements regarding scientific validity right where they belong - not on wikipedia! Let's keep to the actual facts, giving all the evidence a fair exposure. Clamping down on the tendencies of the therapist's / practicitioner's / wacko's to over-exaggurate is fair enough and I totally support it (need to keep this level headed), but replacing it with what can only be described as biased western drug company dogma is worse... We should know better. Let's not put a spin on this at all and get some more citations in! :)

James 94.168.170.51 (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-write
The article has been largely rewitten in a short time today by one new editor who seems to have a COI as ther username closely resembles that of the author of one of the 'references' in the list of books used as 'references'. They also removed the POV, Refimprove and Unreliable sources templates. I couldn't see that these issues had been addressed by the re-write so I have restored them and also added few 'dubious', 'clarify', and 'Who?' tags. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually two of the 'references' seem to have been written by the editor:
 * 1. Soliman N., Soliman’s Auricular Therapy Textbook. Blooming- ton, IN: Authorhouse; 2007. and
 * 4. Soliman N. Soliman’s Atlas of Auricular Therapy. Rockville, MD: Alternative Medicine Publishers; 2006.
 * - 220.101 talk\Contribs 00:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking through the history there have been ocassional bursts of edits by, , and . It is not a long reach to think they are the same person.LeadSongDog come howl!  21:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources do not meet WP:MEDRS
The debunking sources do not meet MEDRS. I haven't looked at the sources supporting Auriculotherapy, but at this point unless we have sources supporting the content as well as debunking it, possibly the article should be deleted.(olive (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC))

Off-topic chat
Stuff work I had this done to me once (only they just called it "acupuncture", IIRC) at a retreat we were on. It was an optional thing you could do for an hour; the practitioner siad it would relax you. I finally decided to try it out, why the hell not? But I didn't expect much, other than an interesting new experience. In fact, after she stuck the needles in, I sat in the chair for an hour, in an extremely relaxed, sleepy state; when it was over, I felt like I was getting up from a several hours long nap, totally refreshed and relaxed. I was very surprised; I hadn't expected it to work at all, and it clearly did, for whatever the reason. AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

A couple of changes
I would like to thank the contributor/contributors of this article for their hard work. I see that there hasn't been many changes made to this page and would like to recommend a couple of changes to this article:

1. I would like to move the last line of the lead paragraph (These mappings are not based on or supported by any medical or scientific evidence, and are therefore considered to be pseudoscience)to the "Criticism" section. To have a very judgmental statement like that in the lead paragraph would dissuade many readers to read further and I think that would do a disservice to the topic.

2. I would like to add a section to this article titled " Are there scientific studies to verify the effectiveness of Auriculotherapy?", above the criticism section. Under this heading I would like to add the following high quality studies:

a. Does auriculotherapy have therapeutic effectiveness? An overview of systematic reviews PMID: 30396628 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30396628/] b. Effects of Auricular Acupressure on Pain Management: A Systematic Review PMID: 30340870 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30340870/] c. Battlefield Acupuncture as a Treatment for Pain

Auriculotherapy is an evolving field and more and more studies are coming out on this subject. To have these studies available on the webpage, above the criticism section, will let the readers make their own informed decision about the topic. I m a board certified Family Physician and a certified Auriculotherapist and I one thing that I have noticed without exception, is that nothing works for everyone. Medicines don't work the same for everyone. A chiropractor might not work for everyone and so on. To make matter more difficult, Acupuncture is a provider dependent science and just like you have good and bad surgeons, you have good and bad acupuncturist which makes it difficult to get consistent good data on this topic. However the studies above show that there is promise in this field.

By having these studies in the Article will give a balance to the reader and after reading the Article, they can decide if Auriculotherapy is right for them or not. All comments are welcome:) Asharma43 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . A few quick answers to your questions/proposals. For question 1, the answer is no. The lead of an article is its summary. So the summary of the criticism section has to be present there. Furthermore, there is no reason to bury the fact that the practice is a pseudoscience; quite the opposite in fact. For section 2, just having a quick look, those studies are not super impressive (lots of non randomized studies, low quality studies, auriculotherapy used in addition of regular treatments) and looks to me to be consistent with auriculotherapy being a placebo. We can of course expand the article and add a "Studies" section. Of course, that section will have to be neutral. So for example, no cherry-picking of positive studies; if we find 1 positive study and 9 negative, all 10 will have to be listed. Last thing about your last paragraph effectiveness and how it may not work for everyone, I suggest reading the article on confirmation bias. --McSly (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

History needs fact checking
I'd be interested to better pin down the history of Auriculotherapy from some sources that aren't alt med promoters. It's possible (even probable) that Nogier invented this out of whole cloth in the 1950s. Therefore the narrative that it's an ancient practice standardized by Nogier is potentially misleading and a retcon. According to a 1975 review of Nogier's 1972 book, Nogier says auriculotherapy is not acupuncture and that his beliefs were inspired by cauterizations that occurred in the 1800s. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Auriculotherapy is a 2 year university diploma in the medical schools of Paris and Strasbourg in France and it is also called auricular neuromodulation. Since Nogier many others scientists have studied auriculotherapy and the most know work in France is the work of David Alimi, who is a neurophysiologist. Auriculotherapy in France is practiced in hospitals (I practice it as an anesthesiologist and pain doctor in a big university hospital in Paris) and from our point of view it is a complementary method, sometimes very efficient, but we are doctors who believe in science. Complementary and alternative techniques are part of the job, especially when everything else has been tried. And honestly, when I pass for 5 minutes from the oncology patient's room and help him with his nausea from chimiotherapy (already under any possible medication), or when I manage to help a bit the patient in wait for liver transplant, who can't take almost anything, because of his hepatic insufficiency, and has abdominal pain due to his ascites, I am glad to help him. And then I can use all my medical expertise as an anesthesiologist to do another lung transplantation...No magic practiced, no complex either! 2A01:CB04:831:4500:6864:209A:7D20:E275 (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Auriculotherapy is a 2 year university diploma in the medical schools of Paris and Strasbourg in France and it is also called auricular neuromodulation. Since Nogier many others scientists have studied auriculotherapy and the most know work in France is the work of David Alimi, who is a neurophysiologist. Auriculotherapy in France is practiced in hospitals (I practice it as an anesthesiologist and pain doctor in a big university hospital in Paris) and from our point of view it is a complementary method, sometimes very efficient, but we are doctors who believe in science. Complementary and alternative techniques are part of the job, especially when everything else has been tried. And honestly, when I pass for 5 minutes from the oncology patient's room and help him with his nausea from chimiotherapy (already under any possible medication), or when I manage to help a bit the patient in wait for liver transplant, who can't take almost anything, because of his hepatic insufficiency, and has abdominal pain due to his ascites, I am glad to help him. And then I can use all my medical expertise as an anesthesiologist to do another lung transplantation...No magic practiced, no complex either! Basiliki96 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge 'Ear stapling'
I propose that a short description of "Ear stapling" be added to this article, with "Ear stapling" left as a redirect. "Ear stapling" is not widely covered in reliable sources, and that article currently cites a Q&A page and two primary sources of limited-size studies. Donald Albury 11:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, please move. According to a letter by proponents of ear stapling, it is a form of ear acupuncture. By the way, I think the general text of this article can be simplified as well. ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

With no objection expressed, so far, I would like to proceed to merge Ear stapling into this article, but I have run into the question of what sources to use. The current article uses two primary sources,
 * and a Q&A from the Mayo Clinic,
 * and a Q&A from the Mayo Clinic,
 * and a Q&A from the Mayo Clinic,



A search of Google Scholar found two articles reporting infections resulting from ear stapling,
 * Response to above article:
 * Response to above article:
 * Response to above article:

As I have not found any secondary or tertiary reliable sources on "ear stapling", I am seeking opinions on how a mention of it can be added to this article. - Donald Albury 14:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merged "Ear stapling" to "History and development" section in this article. Donald Albury 00:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No hope for science
I edited yesterday the article citing many different arricles (all from pumbmed and not someone's personnal view of things) and talking about the fact that auricular medicine is a subject of two year university diplomas in medical schools in Paris and Strasbourg Someone off course erased everything, saying I had no source!!! And put back on his personal view of complementary medicine. So thank you from all medical doctors in France who practice it everyday and help patients, without leaving behind the rest of medicine. No hope with this type of opinion fascism on internet. Whoever wants real information can make his research outside wikipedia... Basiliki96 (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you have a change you’d like to make to the article, you can add that as well, but no meaningful progress on the article (“in favor” of auricular medicine or against) unless that change is clearly specified. 209.237.126.135 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)