Talk:Cupping therapy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cupping therapy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to blood.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Why is Cupping "Pseudoscience" and Acupuncture is an "alternative therapy?"

Cupping is a PART OF ACUPUNCTURE - and if you accept acupuncture as an alternative therapy, by default, you accept Cupping, Gua Sha, Acupressure, and Moxibustion - all parts of the Chinese Medicine/Acupuncture system. You cannot separate them. LetaHerman (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see related discussions above. Also, our page on acupuncture also describes that as pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely biased and inaccurate

article contains biased, inaccurate and irrelevant information. 38.20.249.104 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it. Bon courage (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely biased in a manner that is bizarre for wiki. Also comes across xenophobic at best. 172.58.160.89 (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SJW talk cannot replace hard science (scientific facts).

If you want a more just society: nothing wrong with that. It is just that arguments for a more just society have no bearing upon scientific facts.

Wikipedia does not call it quackery in order to increase social injustice. We call it quackery because we call a spade a spade.

We call it quackery because:

it severely lacks biological plausibility;
it severely lacks evidence for its purported therapeutic effects. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People still say SJW in 2024? 172.58.27.233 (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tgeorgescu What on earth is "SJW talk"? Do you mean the disparaging term "Social Justice Warriors"? That would be really weird given that it is usually right-wingers that are anti-science, not the left! Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: It's the left, usually not the right, which is baselessly accusing other of xenophobia in order to push pseudoscience. You see, while the extreme right and conservative evangelicals generally speaking support pseudoscience, they don't have a monopoly on it: many liberals support pseudoscience, too, although liberals as a whole are much less inclined to support pseudoscience. So: the right wing does not have a monopoly on pushing pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think, however, that it would be a good idea not to use terms such as SJW and not to push your own political biases on an article that isn't in the slightest political. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a reply to xenophobic. They are accusing evidence-based medicine of being xenophobic. Meaning they play the victim of racism and political persecution in order to get their pseudoscience accepted by Wikipedia. I don't know if they were the victim of xenophobia IRL, but that has nothing to do with cupping therapy. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Need more to provide a more balanced perspective such as provided here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6435947/ 108.204.127.70 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:MEDRS. Why? Not indexed for MEDLINE. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Cupping Therapy and its' effect on neck and back pain

I request to make the following edit: The comparison of dry cupping therapy to control groups shows a substantial effect on pain intensity in chronic neck pain and non-specific low back pain. In comparison to the control group, dry cupping therapy was found to have a substantial, medium effect on neck function. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33218554/ Dry cupping for musculoskeletal pain and range of motion: A systematic review and meta-analysis Nscura (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim quote: "However, definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of dry cupping for musculoskeletal pain and range of motion were unable to be made due to the low-moderate quality of evidence." tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Physiological Effects of Cupping Therapy and How They Contribute to Pain Relief:

I reqest someone to make the following edit:

Physiological Effects of Cupping Therapy and How They Contribute to Pain Relief:

Negative Pressure Microenvironment: The negative pressure microenvironment produced by cupping therapy has the potential to decrease low back pain. Through mechanisms including mechanoreceptor stimulation of nerve impulses, which "close the gates" of pain sensation, this negative pressure is believed to regulate pain.

Activation of Neuroendocrine-Immune System: Cupping therapy stimulates the skin, resulting in immunological, hormonal, and autonomous responses. The neuroendocrine-immune system, which helps alleviate pain, is activated by these responses. This process may involve the release of hormones, genes-related peptides, and endorphins, which all help to help manage pain.

Pain Modulation through Pain-Gate Theory: The pain-gate theory states that by impeding the pain signals passage through the spinal cord, cupping therapy's stimulation can reduce pain perception.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36595746/ Priyapatel26 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the source that you provided does not adequately support the edit that you have proposed. Additional inline citations would be necessary to add this content. --BeauregardTA (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

another meta analysis https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590020300031 147.235.231.211 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the evidence is still limited by the clinical heterogeneity and risk of bias." from the source just given. Heterogeneity is also a huge problem for the first source given in this thread. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]