Talk:Cupping therapy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2019

Someone has edited this page to classify "cupping therapy" as health fraud and includes informal phrases and descriptions. It's not professional nor a true description of cupping therapy, and even veers toward racism toward those of Chinese descent and those that are legally certified to practice Chinese descent. Please make edits to reflect both sides of cupping therapy. Legitimate national businesses practice cupping with silicon suction as well with physical benefits. Please edit this offensive article. Sassbr (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a reasonable article, so no. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur. It's absolutely not a racist statement to state that a therapy doesn't work, is pseudoscientific, and that its practice amounts to health fraud. It's generally not good practice and misguided to conflate genuine scientific inquiry and rooting out therapies that don't work with racism. There is no anti-Chinese sentiment underlying the critiques of cupping therapy nor there are "both sides" of cupping therapy. It either works or it doesn't. It's an unproven practice with an implausible rationale. It's that simple. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

This entry states, "There is reason to believe the practice dates from as early as 3000BC. THe Ebers Papyrus, written c. 1550 BC and one of the oldest medical textbooks in the Western world describes the Egyptians' use of cupping, while mentioning similar practices employed by Saharan peoples." This is incorrect. The Ebers Papyrus does not mention cupping. The details of this academic urban legend are traced here:https://www.cuppingacademy.com/post/ancient-egyptians

Suggestion is to delete the section. Should begin with "Hippocrates (c. 400 BC) used cupping..." Rae Scott (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

​Removed as it was unsourced. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

My suggestion

Cupping, including fire cupping, is absolutely safe when performed by a licensed practitioner. Cupping is performed in many hospitals, and it is thoroughly studied in its clinical application. There is a lot of research on the efficacy of cupping. Contraindications include pregnancy, open wounds, spider veins and other vascular disorders, and fever. Elefteriamantzorou (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe the following should be removed - it is biased.

While ineffective, cupping may result in bruising, burns, pain, and/or skin infection, and is not recommended for people with health problems, due to side effects. In 2016, the Cambodian Ministry of Health warned that cupping could be a health risk and particularly dangerous for people with high blood pressure or heart problems.

Research suggests that cupping is harmful, especially in people who are thin or obese: According to Jack Raso (1997), cupping results in capillary expansion, excessive fluid accumulation in tissues, and the rupture of blood vessels.

Cupping therapy adverse events can be divided into local and systemic adverse events. The local adverse events were scar formation, burns, skin infection, panniculitis, abscess formation, pain at the cupping site, and systemic adverse events including: anemia, dizziness, vasovagal attack, insomnia, headaches, and nausea.

According to the NCCIH "Cupping can cause side effects such as persistent skin discoloration, scars, burns, and infections, and may worsen eczema or psoriasis".[14]

Mishaps associated with the use of easily spilled fuel in combination with fire, during the fire cupping procedure, can result in burning of skin, eye injury, and lung injury. Severity of the injury depends on the amount of fuel spilled and ignited on the patient, and the time before extinguishing the fire.

Some contraindications for cupping may include: pregnancy, swelling, dry or cracked skin, hypotension, open wounds, or thin blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elefteriamantzorou (talk • contribs) 12:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus before using this template per usage instructions. We are not going to be doing anything to make this BS seem somehow legitimate. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Evidence

183.90.36.17, regarding these edits ([1] and [2] and the other attempts before them to add this material in), these are not okay to add into the article. They are simply false. There is no good evidence to support cupping therapy for any indication whatsoever. It's pseudoscience, pure and simple. 183, you cannot simply edit war statements like this into the article, especially not on such a controversial topic without consensus of the Wikipedia community. If you truly believe this wording should be changed, then make a case for why that should be the case here (preferably with supporting evidence). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The current page editors have confused "not enough evidence to reject null hypothesis" with "no evidence to support alternate hypothesis". Calling something BS before enough studies have been done isn't something that Harvard Health, Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic does. If we are leaving out papers published in high-quality alternative medicine journals (BMCCMT, JACM), where the bulk of evidence supporting its efficacy is (e.g. meta-analyses here and here), then of course we cannot find supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.65.38 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, there is clearly evidence pointing towards potential mechanisms by which this could treat a number of disorders in the literature. Why this has been classified as 'quackery' is beyond me. Here's a meta analysis from 2017 discussing its potential as a treatment for hypertension: https://doi.org/10.1080/10641963.2018.1510939 and another metaanalysis from 2014 going over cupping more generally: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcms.2014.11.012 both conclude that there may be some benefit but that studies of better quality are needed FAISSALOO_(talk) 23:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Cupping enthusiasts writing about cupping? No thanks. We would need WP:FRIND sources. Alexbrn (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

My point is that 'quackery' is too harsh given the jury's still out scientifically speaking. The current citation for the term 'quackery' is a Slate article that isn't even primarily concerned with cupping. If we look at more reliable sources we instead see statements that are more tempered such as: "There is some evidence to suggest that cupping therapy may be beneficial for certain health conditions. However, research into cupping therapy tends to be low-quality. More studies are necessary to understand how cupping therapy works, if it works, and in what situations it may help." from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324817 and this seems to be the mainstream view at the moment. FAISSALOO_(talk) 12:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably we shouldn't say in Wikipedia's voice this is quackery (even if it is). But it undoubtedly has been so characterized. Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why not. I suppose we could call it bullshit instead, it's well supported by all the evidence, it's just that it isn't very polite. Calling it quackery is a fine alternative. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 13:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If the refs are strong enough, there should be no problem calling it quackery. I'm not sure what references it would take to do so in Wikipedia's voice. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bchen1100.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

1) Remove "Cupping has been characterized as a pseudoscience and its practice as quackery." from paragraph one. It is extremely disrespectful of all non-Western cultures and shows obvious bias. Its tone, and implication that "cupping is quackery" is a fact when it is actually opinion, violates Wikipedia's neutrality policies. Although "has been characterized" makes this sentence technically true, it's basically just a loophole to be able to state cupping is quackery (fact).

The sentence's passive voice attempts to disguise hearsay as fact, as if "cupping is quackery" is a quote by someone who is an expert in cupping or that the opinion "cupping is quackery" is generally accepted. Both are far from the truth. Why should we listen to someone who is not an expert in cupping talk about their opinion on cupping? At this point, cupping has neither been proven nor disproven as an effective therapy. Who cares that some people call it quackery? Just because you can quote some opinion article doesn't mean it's a worthy opinion to quote. Cupping is an accepted therapy in many branches of (non-Western) medicine. There's tons of therapies out there that aren't scientifically proven, and I don't see Wikipedia calling those "quackery". For example, see the page on Massage. That's an example of a respectful article written about a casual therapy, where the main emphasis isn't on proving that it isn't scientifically proven.

2) Remove all instances of "falsely" from paragraph 3 under Scientific Evaluation. That is not a provable statement, certainly not with the citations provided. The citations should also be removed, as they are off-target. The citation should lead directly to the "proponents", not to critics of the proponents. The citations provided in paragraph 3 under Scientific Evaluation are from some "quack" publications....sorry did I hit a nerve here? Some person (David Colquhoun) saying something in a blog does not make that thing a fact. An opinion blog article from Forbes magazine is not a proper citation for something to be considered scientific evidence that something is a false claim. Give me peer-reviewed studies from peer-reviewed journals! Otherwise, the most that this article can say towards scientific evidence is that it is lacking and requires further study.

3) The Methods section should come before "Scientific Evaluation" and "Safety"; it doesn't make sense to discuss the merits of something before you don't even know what it is. That's just bad writing, and it highlights the severe bias with which this article was written.

Actually, the entire article reeks of bias, disrespect, and lack of expertise. I recommend flagging the whole thing as needs work, or just removing the article if you can't find anybody to write a more knowledgable article. As it is, the article sounds like the author has some serious beef with cupping. The unscientific and biased way the article is written makes it no better than what it claims cupping to be -- pseudoscientific. 96.2.160.197 (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The content in question is well-sourced, and per WP:PSCI Wikipedia needs to be up-front about pseudoscience and quackery, which (per the source) this practice appears to be. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Alex I also see (per the discussions here) that the authors cherry-picked sources based on their personal pre-conceived opinions. If that's what you call "well-sourced"...well I guess I shouldn't expect much more from Wikipedia. Don't give me that "this practice appears to be" BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.160.197 (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidelines you cited clearly mention "mainstream views of the scientific community". As Wikipedia states in the linked article, a "Scientific Community" is a group of scientists interacting through peer reviewed. Everything cited in the instances I mentioned above are just opinions by random individuals, even if those individuals have some medical qualifications.

If nothing else, this is a misuse of the word "quackery". According to any dictionary, quackery is characterized by fraud and pretend, which both require intent to deceive. That is an unnecessary and inaccurate demonization of cupping proponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.160.197 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: as Alexbrn said, this article (and particularly the description of cupping therapy as pseudoscience or quackery) is well sourced. If you think that the sources are "cherry picked" and that the scientific consensus is actually the opposite of what this article describes, you will have to cite reliable sources to demonstrate that. Crying foul that the sources used in this article do not represent the mainstream viewpoint is not enough without providing the sources for that mainstream viewpoint. As a side note, you can be a quack through fraudulence or through ignorance, malicious intent is not necessary. Volteer1 (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Complain about Cupping therapy wikipedia page

Hello, I would like to file a complaint against this text about hijama cuuping therapy on a respected wikipedia. Namely, this is a very frivolous text that was obviously written by someone who knows nothing about this method of treatment. There are many untruths and the text alludes to a treatment that is dangerous and untested! I am a long-time Hijama therapist with over 2500 patients and the most experience in this method of treatment in the Balkans, so I can be relevant in explaining this topic. Sources were taken from unverified sites where attempts were made to apply cupping therapy in the worst possible context. As a person who is competent to talk about this topic, I demand corrections in this frivolous text, which is intended only to insult and belittle one of the oldest methods of natural healing in the world. Jasnapiano (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

See your talk page --Hipal (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Are there "non-therapic uses"? as for massage?

I ask it.

--Joujyuze (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Film error?

I think the movie Zorba the Greek starred Anthony Quinn, not Anthony Quayle. 2601:283:4202:42B0:4119:7F6D:65C5:DD2F (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. VdSV9•♫ 01:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Don’t know where else to say this but this page has an error

Hi. I don’t know where else to say this but cupping therapy is not quackery. In fact, the FDA has approved a durable medical device called the Lymphatouch. It’s made in Finland. I have one. The claims made for “eliminating toxins” is legitimate and it is a legitimate treatment for lymphedema. All the various cupping devices use negative pressure. The negative pressure lifts tissue and somehow allows the extra fluid to move where it can be reabsorbed and eliminated.

The good new is that you don’t have to believe me. Lymphatouch has a website that explains how it works and has the medical studies with clinical evidence that shows that it had to illustrate to the FDA for approval.

I feel like I should mention that cupping machines like the Lymphatouch are more effective than hand powered or low tech cupping methods but that they are all also standard recommended therapies (not considered quackery) for lymphedema that have been recommended to me by Certified Lymphedema Therapists. I prefer the machine but my power was out last week and I used a hand pumped cupping set and it did work. 68.171.91.28 (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Provide WP:MEDRS which pass WP:REDFLAG. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

And, technically, what you say isn't "cupping therapy" in the meaning of this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Physical mechanism of suction in fire cupping

The article states that during fire cupping, "The fire uses up all the oxygen in the cup which creates a negative pressure inside the cup". This physical mechanism is not referenced, may be completely wrong, and is almost certainly an incomplete explanation. The fire cupping section does not account for the drop in pressure caused by the cooling of the cup (this is mentioned in the heated cups section), nor for the fact that the gaseous products of alcohol burning have a greater volume than the oxygen consumed. While one of the gaseous products is water vapour, which does indeed condense inside the cup and cause a pressure drop, the article should not state uncited that this is the sole explanation. This may not be the case.

It is also worth noting that if the temperature inside the cup (immediately after the fire's removal) is too high for water to condense, then it might still be said that temperature drop has caused the pressure drop, even if the major component of pressure drop is due to water condensation rather than thermal contraction of the gases in the cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:1281:9801:b0e8:c50c:ed40:7ed9 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Biased page where the other view is discredited

While reading through this page I was feeling that this is a biased page written, edited and approved by people with the same bias. Though this definitely goes against Wikipedia standards, we can see the page live and this is what I hate sometimes about Wikipedia, you get and editor and a moderator who would love to falsify without considering any questioning.

I read some of the cited elements and I don't understand how it related to the cited text. And then you get "quackery and pseudoscience" that's something I never heard of! 154.121.86.129 (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed biased for mainstream science and medical orthodoxy. Cupping therapy has documented adverse effects, no discernible therapeutic effect, and no plausible mechanism of action (i.e. of healing). It is based upon obsolete and implausible medical theories (i.e. removal of "bad blood"). It is basically superstition. Sometimes being intellectually humble is a virtue, but at other times is folly. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this is a bad faith belief in light of the recent validation of myofascial release therapy by the scientific community, and the implication of how those fascial tissues change under a vacuum effect. Just because it's historically been based on bad blood and toxins is poor reasoning to discount a practice when we can look an MRI showing clear changes with the treatment [1], and randomized trials related to the use of it with movement have shown promise.[2] I feel as though it is you who is showing the inability to be intellectually humble in this context. 174.6.117.242 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you believe that a treatment should be declared as effective based on a case report and a pilot study of 17 people, 9 of whom received the treatment? Also, there was no blinding, which means that subjective endpoints can be very biased. Also, for Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources are usually necessary to meet WP:MEDRS requirements. They are very weak evidence. Therefore citing those two primary source documents is not sufficient. ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

efffective no, connected to yes - I was not trying to make an firm statements on efficacy, but more a statement on the current direction of the practice 174.6.117.242 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

eg. "it is quackery, but it's still being researched in this context or for this reason"... etc. 174.6.117.242 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm stating this largely for the reason's I've put in a post below - but cupping is being widely sold as Myofascial Decompression, a form of myofasical release, but neither the myofasical release article nor the cupping article refer to each other. 174.6.117.242 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand, but from reading WP:MEDRS the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy would qualify as a peer reviewed source, I would have thought despite the lower but not abysmal level of evidence it would be enough to connect the Cupping and Myofascial release articles without drawing any conclusions on efficacy given that. Particularly when the underlying physical mechanism of both treatments (negative pressure, and surface tissue manual manipulation) involve connective tissue manipulation, the conclusions of the study seem obvious. Particularly therapists have begun to advertise cupping as Myofascial Decompression and this article lacks the context for informing the reader those are synonymous, and I did not think that would require such rigor in sourcing when the article uses WP:MEDPOP articles upfront as a citation for the practice inefficacy.

Article in question https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7735689/ - The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 15, Number 4 | August 2020 | Page 579 DOI: 10.26603/ijspt20200579 174.6.117.242 (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

and the WP:MEDPOP citation I mean is the 4th citation, the one that goes to a slate article, that is used as a reference for the article's thesis that is is quackery. 174.6.117.242 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ScienceFlyer. Because the information deals directly with human health, we have to adhere to WP:MEDRS. MEDRS distinguishes between primary and secondary sources. The article in the IJSPT is a primary source, a specific study (and a very small one, at that). What we need is a review article in a peer-reviewed journal, as a secondary source that surveys multiple primary sources and comes up with a broad picture based on that. Until we have that, we shouldn't include that content. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree if we were talking about efficacy, and not connecting the two concepts which have become connected within public consciousness using what seems to be the journal that sourced the definition of the new appellation - MFD or Myofasical Decompression.

Additionally, I'm not even sure that would be relevant if we were talking more broadly than just a connection, say claimed mechanism of action. Under those rules, I'm not even sure how I could update the claimed mechanism of action without a study that actively disproves it. I understand the point in avoiding the poor quality for studies for claims and edits related to efficacy, but outlawing (instead of simply avoiding) them makes it very challenging to update the current state of the practice and the claims it makes; and in turn makes the article read as though it is purposefully omitting the things.

Particularly it makes it feel more frustrating when, as is, the article makes value judgements against the practice without incorporating any of the iterative science that has been undertaken in recent years. Reading lines like "Celebrity endorsements such as these may bias individuals to feel benefits from the practice." which while true, is a fact relevant to celebrity endorsement, and not any more relevant to cupping than it is to gambling, fashion, etc. Similarly, as I started to look deeper and understand what is valid for sourcing I still don't understand how references 3 & 4 cited in the header paragraph ( https://slate.com/technology/2012/08/quack-medicine-in-the-military-acupuncture-cupping-and-moxibustion-are-endangering-troops.html?via=gdpr-consent & https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-odds-and-ends/ ) meet WP:MEDRS. And similarly yet again the article never mentions connective tissues which from my reading seems to be a key focus of the current iterative wave of scientific studies - both the initial one I cited, but also now reviewing the contents of pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov I'm finding more and more studies I could have linked that have tied negative pressure (again not mentioned in the article) to efficacy on stuck tissues (which wasn't really my intent in the first place). Here are some of what I've found:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36216334/ (a lower quality, but meta study concluding "There is level B evidence to support dry cupping as an effective treatment method for improving pain and function in patients with plantar fasciitis as compared with therapeutic exercise and electrical stimulation.")

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35848010/ (a larger meta study concluding "cupping therapy has low to moderate evidence in musculoskeletal and sports rehabilitation")

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35961647/ (a smaller trial study concluding "Both IASTM and TC impacted hamstring mobility during a single treatment using only an instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization technique without any additional therapeutic intervention.)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35751549/ (a medium trial study concluding "the per-protocol analysis showed that dry cupping effectively alleviated neck pain across all treatment groups. Although, this effect on neck disability index was statistically equal in all three groups, the 12-min protocol was more successful in reducing pain.")

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35751549/ (a medium trial study concluding "Zhuang Medicine Lotus Acupuncture Cupping Stasis Therapy can significantly reduce the pain of PHN patients, with a good therapeutic effect, and it is worthy of clinical use.")

Even if there are quality issues in places with these studies, there is a clear correlation here for something to be studied for not being quackery, but reading this article initially in isolation of these facts I was of the conclusion that science had decided on the matter.

To be blunt, this article as is reads a bit too much of having thrown the baby out with the bathwater, the bathwater in this context being blood letting and toxins - which good riddance to that stuff. Given that the mechanical function of negative pressure on tissue is to act as a form of traction on said tissue is something that is objectively true (tissues have to go into the tube) the state of study of the practice seems to be across many articles and studies I've read now:

"Can negative pressure provide enough traction on tissues to see an appreciable effect, and if so how does it do that or if not why not."

And this outcome, that cupping is still being reviewed for a much narrower application in medicine and the direction those studies are headed, not being reflected in what intended as a repository of current factual information on the practice is wrong and does the reader disservice of leaving them uninformed. 174.6.117.242 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

1. If your sources are used to WP:V the claim that cupping has been rebranded as MFD, that isn't a medical claim in itself, so it is exempt from WP:MEDRS;
2. Detox is a paragon of quackery;
3. WP:MEDRS does not only require systematic reviews, but also indexation for MEDLINE. While there could be exceptions from such indexation, in light of WP:ECREE it is not such a good idea;
4. Chinese medical papers are as a rule of thumb worthless;
5. SBM is WP:RS for debunking quackery, see WP:RSP, see also WP:PARITY. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Of those sources, this one: [3], is an entirely acceptable one for us to cite. Including it, but not in the lead, without exaggerating what it says, would be fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the "similar articles" listed at the bottom of that source, there is this one: [4], that finds some efficacy, but cautions that the evidence is weak, and this one: [5], that concludes that it is "not greater than placebo". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and quackery?

You could find a journal article to make any claim you want and it would meet Wikipedia's requirements. One wonders about the editorial bias present, which is definitely against Wikipedia's rules.

PS I have no opinion on this and I come to Wikipedia to learn about it. "Not well-documented" by American MDs does not equal "pseudoscience and quackery." 174.62.138.75 (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed biased for mainstream science and medical orthodoxy. Cupping therapy has documented adverse effects, no discernible therapeutic effect, and no plausible mechanism of action (i.e. of healing). It is based upon obsolete and implausible medical theories (i.e. removal of "bad blood"). It is basically superstition. Sometimes being intellectually humble is a virtue, but at other times is folly. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Modern Physiotherapy

Cupping is used in modern physiotherapy. These are unheated plastic suction cups. The suction helps to reduce tightness in muscles, ligaments, and tendons. For example, in ITB syndrome, the ITB gets so tight that the patella (knee bone) sits crooked. This is known as patella-femoral syndrome. Cupping, along with other modern physiotherapy methods is widely used to treat this and other ailments. Heated glass cupping helps create suction, but poses risks of burning the skin. This is why modern cupping, in sports medicine just use the plastic suction cups. It is used with a lubricant, and can be static (the cups left in one spot) or dynamic (the physiotherapist sliding the suction cups from the origin to the insertion of the muscle, ligament, or tendon). This page seriously needs an overhaul.2607:F2C0:95AC:C100:B067:2F8C:ABBB:2F82 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Please provide references. Note that WP:MEDRS applies to the medical claims. --Hipal (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why all the sources the IP just removed should be removed, and this is mostly alternative medicine. --Mvqr (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. read this book. https://books.google.ca/books/about/Cupping_Therapy_for_Muscles_and_Joints.html?id=5MkfEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gb_mobile_entity&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&gl=CA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:95AC:C100:B067:2F8C:ABBB:2F82 (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ulysses Press is a fascinating publisher. Should we start with Herbal Tea Magic for the Modern Witch or Healing Power of the Pineal Gland first, or just jump straight in to the cupping book? I fear that publisher is not going to meet WP:MEDRS. Sam Kuru (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

And, again, that changes the meaning of cupping (i.e. purported healing due to sucking "bad blood") into physiotherapy that uses vacuum suction. Not the same thing. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Main picture needs to be changed

Modern cupping uses silicone suction cups. https://www.northboulderpt.com/blog/all-about-cupping-therapy/ It might be ok to include an ancient cupping set in the picture as well, but not alongside "bloodletting", which never had any medical benefit. The picture right now is biased.2607:F2C0:95AC:C100:B067:2F8C:ABBB:2F82 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It's the picture we have. Do you have a better one? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate and biased

"Quackery" and "pseudoscience" = unsubstantiated bias, scientific lit review found cupping therapy had statistically significant impact on various morbidities. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/8/1750 2600:4040:5165:1E00:D1C7:CF32:1998:7E34 (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Bru-ha-ha! MDPI was never compliant with WP:MEDRS. Publishing papers like that is a firm guarantee that it will never be. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC about the word choice and tone of voice in the intro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should “quackery” and “pseudoscience” appear in the opening paragraph of this entry? Aenean (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support these descriptors, with caveats (Summoned by bot). This seems to be a fair summary of the content of the article, and so a perfectly valid application of WP:lead in that respect. However, I do feel the sourcing being used to directly support this statement in the lead itself could be improved. For such a major practice among traditional folk cure and trendy new age contexts both, I can't imagine these are the only sources which treat the therapeutic value of cupping empirically. So I'd ideally like to see more in that respect. However, even if working from just the sourcing cited in the lead and that scattered throughout the rest of the article casting doubt on the claims of efficacy associated with these, shall we call them arts, it would still be enough for me to narrowly support the statement as written. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• RfC should be withdrawn. Per WP:RFCBEFORE. Aenean has made no attempt to discuss the matter nor edit the article. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  User:Aenean, thanks for trying to start a conversation about this. It would be good to know why you think this discussion should happen. If you think the terms are inappropriate, the first step would be to be WP:BOLD and either change the lead or tag the lead for improvement. Or you can start a conversation here on the Talk page without the full "request for comment" process. (As you can see, starting an RFC results in editors who aren't connected to the page [like me] receiving notifications, so it's often best to discuss any changes with people more familiar with the topic area before starting a full Request for Comment.) Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As someone who responds to a lot of RfCs, I'm starting to see a call for a procedural close on almost every single one (having ramped up steadily in occurence over the last few years), and I have to say, without meaning personal offense Hipal, some are so reflexive and counter-intuitive, I'm beginning to wonder if we need a WP:BEFOREYOUCITERFCBEFORE addendum to the RfC guidance page. Because there are multiple fairly long discussion on this page, going back more than six months, about exactly the language being discussed by the RfC prompt, more discussion in the archives, and there is an extensive back and forth, complete with edit warring and much edit summary cross chatter, in the recent weeks (and also obviously having been a habitual point of contention for a long while).

Most importantly this is an issue that we can reasonably predict will not be settled unless there is a firm consensus established, and such an effort benefits from extra eyes, ideally from previously uninvolved editors. I see no reason why the OP should not have availed themselves of this process to the resolve the matter and end the slow moving edit war, and it would be extremely WP:BURO to procedurally close just because they hadn't themselves opened a thread immediately before this one, given that they knew the dispute existed, had been revisted multiple times here recently, and was in an intractable place. That more than satisfies the purpose of RFCBEFORE. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Not even to mention the procedural fact that this can't be withdrawn since someone !voted support... CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 20:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hipal, Suriname0, Girth Summit, et al.,

With respect, scroll up.

I find the contention on this article, its edit history, and its talk page self-evident.

I saw less experienced editors protest, and lose to their seniors not necessarily because of the efficacy of their arguments but because of their ignorance of Wikipedia:BURO and become disallusioned with the editing process.

So I studied Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to invite more seasoned voices, not knowing that a meta conflict would fester here because I failed to ceremonily ask that what had been asked-and-answered before.

I maintain this procedural ask to withdraw and counters in the _intent_ of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

And thank you Snow Rise for your empathy for the new editor experience, and for putting to words that which I could not.

Respectfully, Aenean (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The WP:PROFRINGE editors did not lose on WP:BURO grounds, but mainly due to WP:PSCI and WP:MEDRS, which are WP:PAGs. For many years it isn't a secret that Wikipedia is biased for the medical orthodoxy, see WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Creationists, climate change deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, astrologers, homeopaths, covidiots, flat-earthers, holocaust deniers and many others agree with you. What you said is pretty much the same reasoning they use. According to them, their worldviews are also not rejected by Wikipedia because they are rejected by mainstream sources but because of all those biased Wikipedia editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not only a WP:Manual of Style, but also, so to speak, a Manual of POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Aenean, though in truth I am just calling the procedural issue as I see it. If I am honest with you on the substantive issue, I don't think you have much chance of prevailing here, but because there had not previously been a formal consensus discussion of any significant scale arriving at a firm conclusion on this wording, you were/are entitled to raise it via RfC. Even if it is the kind of long shot a more experienced editor might have decided not to waste the effort on, you are still invoking the right process for the right purpose, which means we should be equally pro forma about engaging with that inquiry--even if we are highly confident of the result.

All of that said, if you really would like to show appreciation for my taking a moment to support your right under process to ask a question that others feel has a foregone conclusion, please just pay the courtesy forward in kind by accepting the resulting consensus, whatever it is, and letting the matter go (at least for the foreseeable future) if the result is to include the language. On a more general note: welcome to the project and happy editing! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Obviously yes, these descriptors should be in the lead section, because they are accurate and give the reader important information about the subject. But I agree with others that this RfC is unnecessary and should be withdrawn. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes (support), and yes, it's obvious. I'm someone who already watches this page, and I know that this is a perennial complaint, that always fails to get traction, every time it comes up, but it keeps coming up again and again. Whatever the procedural arguments may be about whether this RfC should exist or not, the answer to the RfC question remains the same: asking to treat this as anything other than quackery and pseudoscience fails WP:MEDRS and is POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes in mainstream medicine cupping therapy is dead in the water. Whether physiotherapy using vacuum suction might have some merit is a question that has to be addressed separately from this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have the same concerns you do there, if I had to guess what they are: that any discussion of the physiotherapy use of suction cups as a therapeutic treatment (no matter how minor its role or how limited the evidence for its value) will be latched on to as a gateway to try to validate the entire collective of "cupping" practices. However, if it came to the point where RS were actually discussing these physiotherapy techniques as a "type of cupping" or otherwise associating the topics, our hands would be tied at that juncture.

As it is, keeping out reference to this purported new physiotherapy practice with the little plastic apparatuses is a little dubious, since it pretty obviously does involve some of the same mechanics, if only on a very superficial level. We can embrace the technicality for now that it is not called "cupping" as best we know, but if that changes, we'll have to cover it here as WP:DUE matter and just be careful about how we frame it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes the adjectives pseudoscience and quackery accurately describe the current status of this purported medical treatment. (Summoned by bot) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 03:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes In fact, this should be the first sentence, not the second. It's quackery and pseudoscience used in alternative medicine, not alternative medicine derided as quackery. AltMed as a term gives too much credit to the fringe and lends it legitimacy.

Cupping therapy is a pseudoscience in which local suction is created on the skin with the application of heated cups. Its practice mainly occurs in Asia but also in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. Cupping has been characterized as quackery though it is practiced as a form of alternative medicine.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes it should be in the lead paragraph, if not the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I am strongly opposed to trigger and peacock terms like these in general, but they are well-used and well-attested in this instance. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2024

Cupping is NOT pseudo science unless physical therapy and chairopractic is also pseudo science. There are pseudo scientific assertions that practitioners make about outcomes but it is at a baseline a alternative medicine and a very effective myo-fascial release technique. The statement that it is pseudo science first and alternative medicine second is an extreme and misleading statement. 38.75.2.10 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Your assertions are both WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)