> We are pretty sure acupuncture, DONE CORRECTLY, won't cause any harm
Yes, if you get stabbed with a dirty needle, you might get a disease. That's true for acupuncture, a tattoo shop, and even a vaccine. Don't get stabbed with dirty needles! I fully suggest not getting stabbed with dirty needles. Bad. Avoid. 0/10.
> The benefits are zero
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3982837/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984198/
It's probably about as effective as placebo? (Maybe?) That isn't zero, that's placebo - and that is an important difference
> you perpetuate junk science,
You're just wrong. This isn't even just a "you might have a different opinion". The absolute best science we have, the entirety of realms of research, is "well, it's probably placebo and maybe it's kind of an expensive placebo". The most scientific answer you can give is "we should do more studies and ask more questions", and it's part of why the medical industry has shifted from "Don't do acupuncture" to "Well, it probably won't do much for you, but sure if you like it, that seems fine".
There's more to science than just asking questions and collecting data though, there's also developing models. Without good models, you can't gain much insight from data, and in fact you'll sometimes gain incorrect understandings. If there's no supported mechanism for how acupuncture works, it's really not a good sign, and it seems dishonest to think it's at all in the same realm of safety as something like vaccines which do have known mechanisms of action.
I think back to how much "data" we had in the 50s that tobacco was harmless. Is it ever a good idea to go for something so invasive to the body as needles without a strong reason, just because the dangers aren't readily apparent? Medicine passes the necessity bar, placebo does not.
The accupuncturist's needles were each individually packed, he washes his hands thoroughly, then puts on gloves as well. Every needle gets thrown away immediately after use.
Not sure how any of that is potentially unhygienic other than the room itself possibly being slightly dirty? (it was clearly well cleaned, but obviously not to surgical standards... why should it?)
Acupuncture works as well as sham acupuncture (inserting needles at non-acupuncture locations). Which suggests to me that acupuncture works on the same basic principle that your doctor giving you sugar pills with a fancy name and strict instructions to take one every four hours with a glass of water works.
> I think back to how much "data" we had in the 50s that tobacco was harmless.
We had pretty good evidence it was bad for you, especially during pregnancy. This is maybe a better example for talking about peer review and conflicts of interest - which is still a real problem.
We can never say "is dangerous" or "is not dangerous". What we can say is X esposure leads to Y harm. Water in sufficient quantities will kill you.
Acupuncture, in a sterile environment, is pretty safe. We also know that skin deep needle penetration is pretty safe given that lots of people get tattoos. It still requires hygiene, but it is a safe activity.
I'm totally sympathetic to "we should be doing health inspections of acupuncture, like we do tattoo shops". I think some areas already do this. It's probably a good idea.
Except that sugar pills don't give anyone HIV or Hep C.
> We can never say "is dangerous" or "is not dangerous". What we can say is X esposure leads to Y harm. Water in sufficient quantities will kill you.
No. Harm is relative to reward. Cancer drugs are extremely harmful. But dying from cancer is worse.
The reward for acupuncture is 0. Just sit and eat a Twix instead. It has the same medicinal benefits. The harm of acupuncture is absolutely real, as I linked above, people have died, people have gotten chronic diseases.
If acupuncture does not beat placebo, lets direct people to homeopathy instead - which basically means drinking water - to get the exact same placebo results. There are less risks associated with drinking water than being stabbed with needles, dirty or not. We could even have those cost fully covered by the state, few millilitres of water won't bankrupt anyone.
Not sure if that's what you meant: In Germany, e.g. acupuncture (and other specific types of homeopathic treatments) are reimbursed by public health insurance, for specific conditions. Exactly because they can induce a significant beneficial placebo effect on average while having less risks, and being cost effective.
BTW, depending a bit on jurisdiction, placebos are routinely given even in hospital care. If you have family/friends who are doctors, do ask them.
On top of that, it puts the state in a weird situation because it has to decide which beliefs are OK (acupuncture fixes fibromyalgy is an OK belief -> reimbursed) and which one aren't (getting a PS5 fixes depression is not and OK belief -> not reimbursed).
People are absolutely entitled to have their own beliefs, but if a treatment hasn't shown any efficacy, we should aim for a close to 0 spending of the public health sector on it.
I feel that creating a state controlled millilitre water bottling company would make some placebo available at virtually no cost, so could be a nice way of offering some effectiveness for free, but acupuncture isn't.
No. That's junk science. There's no different opinion here. It's very clear from many many studies of acupuncture it does nothing. This kind of attitude sells people on something that does not work.
> The most scientific answer you can give is "we should do more studies and ask more questions"
Absolutely not! I am a scientist. That's a total dumpsterfire of an answer. This is how people end up with people taking crazy COVID "treatments", because we "need more study". As a community we have studied this trash extensively now. It is junk. That's it.
If acupuncture was a drug, it would be so widely discredited you couldn't get $1 to do a study. Actually, you couldn't even run a study on it because your local ethics board would think the potential harm for benefit ratio would not be good. The only reason people keep studying this is because dishonest people sell other people on acupuncture as a treatment, so it's a neverending cycle. As long as people keep wanting to engage with this junk, the scientific community needs to keep studying it, we keep finding it's total trash, but then people like you say "Oh look, people are studying it, therefore there is merit". There is no merit.
> and it's part of why the medical industry has shifted from "Don't do acupuncture" to "Well, it probably won't do much for you, but sure if you like it, that seems fine".
The medical industry cannot police snake oil salesmen. This is a well known problem. People get all sorts of insane treatments. From having your back violently adjusted by chiropractors (another junk science where people die) to having the crap beaten out of them with stainless steel rods (something called the "Graston technique"; I have seen the outcome of this, it can be horrific).
A central concept in medicine is that the patient gets to lead the charge. And attitudes like yours are exactly why so many people get caught up in this pseudoscience junk. To immense detriment to their health.
