[quote=Charm2017]WOO WOO alert. Acupuncture is as far from a sound medical concept as possible. The "premise" of accupuncture is explained by the Mayo clinic
[quote]Traditional Chinese medicine explains acupuncture as a technique for balancing the flow of energy or life force � known as qi or chi (CHEE) � believed to flow through pathways (meridians) in your body. By inserting needles into specific points along these meridians, acupuncture practitioners believe that your energy flow will re-balance. [/quote] Not one valid Scientific study or any competent not faked research has not found any histological or physiological correlates for qi, meridians and acupuncture points.
[/quote]

I wasn't going to get involved in a pointless discussion where minds appear to be already made up but I am curious why you used only half the quote from the Mayo Clinic website. The rest of the explanation from Mayo Clinic is as follows:

[quote]In contrast, many Western practitioners view the acupuncture points as places to stimulate nerves, muscles and connective tissue. This stimulation appears to boost the activity of your body's natural painkillers and increase blood flow.[/quote]

As a mathematician and a researcher, I absolutely abhor misinformation and bogus research but I also believe incomplete information can be equally damaging. If a statement has logical merit, a contrasting statement will do nothing to detract from it. Scientific hypotheses arise not only to determine if something is valid but also why something is valid. In fact, as soon as we automatically discount all things unproven or anything for which we do not understand the reason, science comes to a screeching halt. Everything we now hold dear as scientific fact was at some point in history absurd to mainstream society, much as future humanity will laugh at the naivety of many of our currently held "incontrovertible" beliefs.

I personally don't care where anyone stands on the issue of acupuncture. I was a complete disbeliever who agreed to try it because a doctor I respected at NIH asked me to participate in their research. I'm happy to facilitate legitimate scientific research whenever I can. I expected to be among those for whom the treatments wouldn't work. As it turned out, I was not included in the study but did have a single treatment that apparently increased my saliva flow. I believed it must be coincidental but my oncologist at Johns Hopkins said the swiftness and timing of the improvement indicated the treatment was a probable cause. I still don't know and, selfishly, care only that I'm better whatever the reason.

I can respect anyone's argument on any side of any subject as long as it's logically constructed and accurately presented. Doesn't mean I'll concur, of course. Please, if you're going to stand on logical premise, play by the rules of logic when it comes to correlation, cause and effect, and proof or disproof.

Karen