huh? The 3,000 studies were on acupuncture. I took the time to write about acupuncture, this is not a post about acupuncture. If it's too exhausting for you to scroll a little down my page, then here let me help you out:
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thank you. I don't have the time to scroll down your page unfortunately or many others at the time. The post is indeed about cupping, but the way you start presenting the reasearch, by mentioning 3000 papers on acupuncture, makes your findings about cupping sound stronger than they are. You cite one paper, with unclear findings. You are also presenting the whole thing as a placebo effect, but you don't seem to realize that there is also the nocebo effect.
I'd say from experience, that cupping has changed in the last 30 years. The cups themselves used to be much much smaller and you didn't leave them on for long. It isn't supposed to be done on your hand, or performed by a friend, just to try something out. It should be performed by a medical doctor for very specific things. It is indeed dangerous if done inappropriately or as a fad. Just FYI 😘
I didn't go through the same research-style post as last time precisely because I had done it before. It feels like repeating myself if I simply post one type of pseudoscience and then create a list of studies that show it's wrong. I've put the idea out there that there is plenty of evidence, now I want to explore different aspects of that, such as why positive research is wrong (in this post's case), and next about placebos, and maybe about blinded trials or whatever. Good to keep thngs fresh!
Cupping has changed and as stated, has some very specific places in medicine by chance, after real scientists looked into it. But in the same way, acupuncture is good for bursting spots on my back. It doesn't make it a relevant medicine. It just happens to use sharp needles.
Actually, acupuncture isn't only sharp needles, there is also another type where they use hot incense sticks to spot warm the acupuncture points.
But I digress , the reason why I wrote is, that the post loses it's validity, precisely because you don't feel like doing it in depth. You clearly aren't a real scientist to be writing this, or giving medical advice, which you do.
It's not the positive research which is bad per say, it's biased research.