Talk:Electroacupuncture

message: The current version of this article is not accurate. The main problem is that there are more "mundane" forms of electroacupunture approved by state agencies like the US FDA. Licensed acupuncturist in e.g. US can treat patients using FDA approved electroacupunture equipment. The equivalent conditions apply in many countries. It is true, however, that FDA is unusually restrictive compared to many other countries-even compared to neighboring Canada. Still that seems not always to guarantee increased scientific approval levels for biophysics based medical devices such as electroacupunture units, because FDA is so biased in favor of the dominating biochemical model of medicine. The reason for this bias is controversial some claiming it is caused by the pharmaceutical industry's influence. That may be partly true, but tradition based on the dominating biomedical model of medicine being the main scientific paradigm here is probably the decisive reason for FDA's heavy bias on this point. Besides several excellent - and some not so excellent - electroacupuncture units are available to the public in many countries. The wiser users of those units will acquire expert medical advice how to treat their  problems before using them. Unfortunately, buying on the Internet has enabled the less wise patients to bypass sound medical advice.
The article on electroacupuncture must also reflect the facts I just mentioned, and not only mention electroacupuncture schools with very suspicious scientific credentials such as the current stage of EAV. An earlier stage of EAV, before the move to homeopathic methods, worked much better clinically and had a less controversial scientific foundation. The late Voll seemed less interested in  empirically testable medical treatment systems than in a speculative metaphysical world view based on homeopathic principles. But electroacupuncture needs not be based on esoteric speculation instead of empirically testable scientific theories. In fact, much 
electroacupuncture used today is not of the scientifically suspect kind, but - unfortunately - the esoteric metaphysical schools of electroacupuncture know how to get publicity out of proportion to their real  medical importance. The other uses of electroacupunture are not that well advertised, but the electroacupuncture article cannot neglect to mention them too! I think this article must be extensively rewritten to be more accurate. —Ivar Tonisson
:The above was written prior to the rewrite of electroacupuncture and moving the existing content to Electroacupuncture according to Voll; some of these concerns have probably been addressed by this change.
:The "suspicious scientific" credentials of American acupuncture schools are a matter of perspective.  In the US, acupuncture schools are accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, which is recognized by the US Department of Education (the same organization that recognizes virtually all other legitimate accrediting organizations in the US.)  Schools educate students in basic anatomy and physiology, and The National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine tests graduates to ensure they are knowledgeable about Chinese medicine and proper technique with acupuncture needles, including avoiding injury and infection.  What some scientists object to is the underlying theory of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), which is generally taught at American schools; TCM theory predates science, but is still taught because its metaphors of yin and yang and qi are found to be clinically useful.  That said, there are valid concerns about the safety of electrostimulation devices as noted in present version of electroacupuncture, citing this study. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 23:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on earlier version of article

message: * Oppose.  Separate topic with entirely different theoretical basis (as a quick perusal of the article shows). Electroacupuncture according to Voll does need more references, but the solution isn't to merge it with Electroacupuncture, any more than Ice 9 should be merged into water.  --Jim Butler (t) 05:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost certainly.  We already have this and I'm sure we can find more.  regards, Jim Butler (t) 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on merging in [[Electroacupuncture according to Voll]]

message: I always thought the whole idea of Wikipedia was to not present biased statements. It is very clear that electrical stimulation of muscles and nerves results in the reduction of pain. Many acu-point are on the same points that are used by people working with TENS units (Which I heard were developed based on electro acu units)and it is clear that they work. Why should electo-acupuncture be any different? It is also clear that in China they do OPs using electroacupuncture to block the pain. It is clearly working in this case as well. One last point, western science when practiced without politics and prejudices is a great thing but that does not mean that other viewpoints are invalid just because western science has not fully investigated it. Sadly western science is often backed by people seeking result to support the own views or politics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.25.54 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This whole page comes off sounding very anti-acupuncture

message: I stumbled upon this systematic review on EA for Postoperative Urinary Retention, maybe it could be included in the article?
* 
−Arthurfragoso (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electroacupuncture for Urinary Retention