My inderstanding is that good quality trials of acupuncture did NOT find any therapeutic effect. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-doesnt-work/
Is this new study showing an actual therapeutic effect? Or is this a description of cellular activity as a possible mecanism, but without evidence of a therapeutic effect?
Edit: found the original publication mentioned in the news article. High numerical aperture confocal volumetric mesoscope reveals mesoscale subcellular dynamics in vivo.
This claims an anti-inflammatory effect on mice spleen. Hopefully we’ll hear soon what the medical research community think about this trial.
The issue with acupuncture I remember (and this may be 15 years out of date) is that while it meta-analysis indicated a slight positive effect, it didn’t seem to matter where the needles were inserted. All kinds of practitioners used different methodology.
So hopefully that’s all improved. I don’t know that lowering inflammation in move spleens is an adequate root mechanism to explain those broad results though.
The skepticism toward acupuncture is that not only the location where the needle is inserted doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if inserting needle at all, ie it’s no better than sham acupuncture. This looks like the placebo effect.
A 2009 study found it’s no better than poking patients gently with toothpicks. But still still conclude acupuncture is (more) effective. That’s misleading. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2009/05/13/another-acupuncture-study-misinterpreted/
Would be curious to read if there was a review that does a deep dive in to see what today’s best evidence show, given randomization and blinded controls.
That means it is probably the patient/practitioner interaction that is doing the work…placebo
there are plenty of peer reviewed studies showing that acupuncture is effective, here are just a few examples:
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2095496425001621
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12113930/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40938602/
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-024-05118-8?fromPaywallRec=false
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-025-02977-y?fromPaywallRec=true
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/NDT.S541627
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40971519/
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1744388126000186
I looked at the first couple links given the time I have.
These article conclude there seems to be an effect while stressing the conclusions are based on low quality studies.
From Paulo Alexandre Pereira et al 2026:
acupuncture is a safe and effective alternative to medication, despite the low to moderate methodological quality of the included studies
From Chuwen Feng et al 2025:
methodological weaknesses are worth mentioning, such as diversity between studies and the inclusion of lower-quality clinical trials. Future research should consider the importance of conducting large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trials with standardized methodology to confirm these findings
The science based medecine article I linked earlier references (reviews of) good quality trials & with strict controls, such as E. Ernst et al 2011:
numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain. Serious adverse effects continue to be reported
There are good reasons to remain skeptical, given reseach that include low quality trials see some effect, while others don’t.
I mean you just cherry picked a few here from a broad sample I gave you, and it’s disingenuous to do that to frame it as if all the studies that disagree with your study are low quality.
I looked at the first couple links you pointed me to. This is hardly cherry picking.
The author themselves write their review include low quality study, acknowledging it weakens the conclusions. It’s the author’s assessment, not mine.
Should I ignore the 2 first links, and look a another, specific one?
Looking at 2 out of 8 links provided is the definition of cherry picking. Nowhere did I say that you have to ignore anything. What I gave you is a broad example of many different studies. You zeroed in on two examples, ignored the rest, and then started making wild claims about the quality of research. If you had any genuine interest in the subject, you would’ve actually gone through all the links provided and then examined the available evidence before making further comments. But obviously you just wanted to confirm your existing biases and that’s what you proceeded to do.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/systematic-review-of-systematic-reviews-of-acupuncture/
Always fails upon a closer look.
I love how the 2014 followup showed that 100% of studies out of China are positive. It is just a marketing gimmick for industry.
This is an interesting theory. I would like to add that acupuncture definitely works for pain temporarily.
While the needles are in the relief is real. My wife, who experiences extreme nausea, also reported it worked for that. They regularly do operations where the patient would not be able to tolerate the pain without anesthesia or acupuncture.
The problem is, once the treatment (the needles are removed) is over the benefit stops. I am interested in the long term benefit. This is where your theory could be put to the test.
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40938602/
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-024-05118-8?fromPaywallRec=false
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-025-02977-y?fromPaywallRec=true
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/NDT.S541627
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40971519/
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1744388126000186
Thanks for the links.
Interesting how you respond to:
I love how the 2014 followup showed that 100% of studies out of China are positive. It is just a marketing gimmick for industry.
By posting a bunch of links to Chinese studies. At least two of which are referenced in the link provided.
These are peer reviewed studies in western journals. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the concept of peer review?
