RE: Chinese Pseudoscience #2: Cupping
I didn't go through the same research-style post as last time precisely because I had done it before. It feels like repeating myself if I simply post one type of pseudoscience and then create a list of studies that show it's wrong. I've put the idea out there that there is plenty of evidence, now I want to explore different aspects of that, such as why positive research is wrong (in this post's case), and next about placebos, and maybe about blinded trials or whatever. Good to keep thngs fresh!
Cupping has changed and as stated, has some very specific places in medicine by chance, after real scientists looked into it. But in the same way, acupuncture is good for bursting spots on my back. It doesn't make it a relevant medicine. It just happens to use sharp needles.
Actually, acupuncture isn't only sharp needles, there is also another type where they use hot incense sticks to spot warm the acupuncture points.
But I digress , the reason why I wrote is, that the post loses it's validity, precisely because you don't feel like doing it in depth. You clearly aren't a real scientist to be writing this, or giving medical advice, which you do.
It's not the positive research which is bad per say, it's biased research.