So wait, despite the thousands of research - including doctors who believe in acupuncture - finding that it's not true, you are saying that the answers are obvious out there that it's true, and therefore you're not going to show me the truth you're referring to?

If I'm to dismiss all science because it's biased, what exactly am I basing the 'truth' off? You think simply asking believers whether or not it's true is not biased?

Literally the only things I can do is A) Look at peer-reviewed (look that up if it means nothing to you) science on any given topic, or B) get a degree in all medical sciences, get the legal permission and funding to do all the thousands of experiments myself.

I assume, given that you know for a fact that acupuncture is true, you went via the B route? I'd honestly like to know more.

Here, let me be the bigger person here. I'm going to google 'proof that acupuncture works' and have a look.

Ok, first up, proof that the acupucture points are more sensitive than other points, which disrupts C. Fibers. I click on the link and, oop... it's been removed from the University website. How odd. Maybe it was the evil government.

So I'll see if I can find it elsewhere. Well, after opening this many tabs looking for the answer, I came up with nothing. Hardly everywhere is it? Even getting access to paywall'd papers via scihub:

So I went with an alternative paper I found, one of the researcher's partner's work on a similar theme: A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Acupuncture for Chronic Daily Headache.

Bear in mind that headaches are well known to be fixed by A) Placebo B) time. But I'm open to see what the paper reads.

So in their own comments I read this:

...that placebo-controlled trials of complementary or alternative medical interventions (including acupuncture) are feasible and essential.30 Nonetheless, we intentionally did not use a sham acupuncture comparison in this study.

They go on to explain that 'sham acupuncture' is still invasive, since you're inserting things into the body, but even if that was relevant there are numerous versions of sham acupuncture that do not penetrate, like using toothpicks (which has been proven just as effective as real acupuncture).

They also note, very quickly, that:

Acupuncture did not improve subjective daily pain severity

Hmm, interesting.

So not only did they fail to use a control group like any decent scientist would, but they used a very small sample size of 76 individuals, set out with a conclusion in mind (bias) and treated something that can easily be treated with placebo in the first place. Their results, by the way, state that acupuncture WITH regular treatment works months after acupuncture.

Seriously?

So, to conclude, not only was it actually not my responsibility to argue with myself, but your claim that the answers are everywhere is false because it took me quite some time to find any answers at all, the answers I did found were heavily biased, small and weak in a flawed study.

So with science out the window since you refuse to actually help me out, might I suggest moving on to the bigger point that I think you are taking issue with here:

Why? Why would scientists dismiss a procedure and forcefully lie about it being fake, if it does indeed work? There are some treatments of killing pain that can to this day only be helped with opioids that have severe, sometimes fatal side effects, so finding acupuncture as a safe alternative would be fantastic, and even if it were a money-hungry evil corporation, they would want in on that.

You'd know about this problem because I wrote about it. Unfortunately they found the acupuncture was not effective. Please explain to me why they would lie about that? And of course, provide evidence.