Talk:Acupressure

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A humble alternative explanation[edit]

I am as skeptic as one can be regarding alternative medicine, religions, spirits, all non-scientific stuff, but after I was unwillingly given acupressure by an skilled practitioner on my hand to heal a respectable headache, I must say, for a fact, that it worked. I doubt it was a placebo thing due to the lack of respect I feel for alternative medicine and the likes. I got curious since that.

On the other hand, I've felt pain on the acupressed point afterwards, between the Thumb and the Index (softer than the headache, anyway). And I read once, don't remember where, that we actually only feel one kind of pain at once, our brain prioritizes what it think is the most important. So, if this second assertion is true, I think that, maybe, what acupressure (and, maybe, acupuncture) does is to know the pains that overlaps other pains and suppress them. I've got a new, softer, pain in the hand that my brain thought was more urgent for me to deal with than the headache. This explanation, to me at least, makes much more sense from a scientific, evolutionary POV than some meridian, Qi or the likes. Maybe the ancient Chinese got the points right and the theory wrong, but it might work anyway.

Anyway, this is just an amateur attempt to explain on more rational terms what happened. The placebo, on my case at least, makes much less sense. I think that it might be something here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.209.54.74 (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting what you have put . I know you have said how you don’t believe in alternative things etc … I wanted to say this… there are structures tiny in length and width that stand up inside the tissues in the body . If you can directly press down on one , and release, and do again and again, the area of problem heals rapidly. One more thing I would like to say. When you have had a condition causing pain for a long time , or had a condition for a long time , URIC acid crystals or just one will appear at the site of the area that needs clearing through manipulation acupressure. The Crystal can eventually be encased in a skin around it, body’s reaction to an object perhaps. If you break the crystal ( very heavy manipulation) the problem you may have will go, the pain removed immediately. When you clear a channel in that manner it causes a momentary sweat which you will notice .I don’t know if this happens with all illnesses people have but I have noted it in in a serious Vine Bone infection and a Gall bladder problem. When you break the crystal the pain goes and the illness. I’ve yet to read what the association is as to why Uric acid crystal occurs and is attached to the pain/ illness…. I’ve yet to read about the tiny gently ridgid upright structures you can depress and fix a problem. Kind Regards Karen 82.47.234.136 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Placebo effect[edit]

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:

  • Dent HE, Dewhurst NG, Mills SY, Willoughby M (June 2003). "Continuous PC6 wristband acupressure for relief of nausea and vomiting associated with acute myocardial infarction: a partially randomised, placebo-controlled trial". Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 11 (2): 72–7. doi:10.1016/s0965-2299(03)00058-x. PMID 12801491.

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. —PaleoNeonate – 23:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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... —PaleoNeonate – 18:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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... —PaleoNeonate – 01:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks, that's not a problem. It's always still open to improvement as well, —PaleoNeonate – 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
concur w/ PALEONEONATE--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Prof. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

scientific updates in last 5-10 years[edit]

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)[reply]

Please stop removing new scientific information from the last 10 years and reverting to quackwatch[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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. PepperBeast (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talkcontribs)
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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs)

Yes, my bias being toward science and against pseudoscience. Once more, WP:SIGN your edits. Praxidicae (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talkcontribs)
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)[reply]
didn't realize the talk page was different, sorry --2604:6000:E6CF:C600:793F:A30A:223C:FF27 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good instrumentation doesn't make good science on its own. PepperBeast (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anecdotal evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. GirthSummit (blether) 18:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed Oracle bone attestation[edit]

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)[reply]