Acupuncture advocates have published guidelines for “rigorous” acupuncture randomized controlled trials. While that sounds good on the surface, the devil is in the details, which reveal that acupuncturists’ dedication to scientific rigor is perhaps not so strong.
As high-quality evidence increasingly and resoundingly shows that ivermectin does not work against COVID-19, advocates are doing what acupuncture advocates do: Turning to lower quality “positive” studies to claim incorrectly that their favorite ineffective treatment actually does “work.”
Earlier this month, a study claiming to have identified a neurologic mechanism by which acupuncture reduces inflammation was published in Nature. It does no such thing. it’s another bait-and-switch mouse study that likely would never have been published in such a high profile journal if it hadn’t rebranded electrical stimulation as “electroacupuncture”.
Functional medicine practitioner Dr. Melinda Ring thinks that she should be considered an “early adopter” instead of a quack. However, being an “early adopter” of quackery is not something to be admired.
The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health recently released its latest 5 year strategic plan. It’s basically the same as the last strategic plan, but with one new addition. It’s not really a new addition, but it signals a resurrection of an old trope about “integrating” quackery with science-based medicine.