[simmer2]

For all those folks requiring evidence, here's an article citing the main benefit Acupuncture provides...a natural release of endorphins.

http://www.tcmwell.com/TCMNaturalThe...ndorphins.html

"Although the technique has been used for thousands of years, these findings help us merge what western medicine has taught us with the tradition of Chinese techniques," said the University of California's Dr John Longhurst.

Here's an article describing endorphins.

http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Di-Fa/Endorphins.html

And lastly, this is probably the best article I found. I would encourage everyone to read this article if they've been following this thread.

A Doctor whose mission it has been to go out and disprove Acupuncture...and failed. Basically this is a Western skeptic based doctor who set out to disprove acupuncture and wound up finding evidence that it does in fact work.

http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/ac...meranzart.html

Some interesting quotes:

Let me make myself clear. I think there are two ways of being a scientist or even a modern person. There's the empirical approach, which is trial and error: Does it work? If it works, then I'll use it. In alternative medicine you see this in spades. If chicken soup works, use it. You don't have to have a theory about chicken soup. Then there's the theoretical approach. To me, those are the two ways of handling yourself. If acupuncture works, then use it; it doesn't matter whether it works through chi or endorphins.
Modern medicine has gone down the theoretical route and alternative medicine has stayed closer to the empirical route. My favorite example to help explain the dichotomy is this: A cook will use spices - salt, pepper, cumin - and he will mix them in certain proportions and taste them. If it tastes good, he will use it next time, but there's no theory of spices. You don't have to know which nerves in your tongue are affected by which spice in what proportion. You do it empirically. The theoretical approach is the other one. And we could do it. We know which nerves cumin affects, we know which nerves salt affects, and we could work out an equation for which ones are the best, but we wouldn't end up cooking for another thousand years until we figured it out.

AT: Because that's theory as opposed to the phenomenon?
Pomeranz: That's exactly right. In the ancient textbooks of acupuncture, they found 11 meridians. But because of the zodiac, they had to have 12 meridians. Do you follow me? Everything they did was to make it fit. Everyone needs an explanation. Nevertheless, we cook without a theory, we marry without one, we do incredibly intuitive things in our fives, but we think we have to have an explanation for everything. We think we must understand the world to control it. Instead, what we should do with our lives is be empirical: use trial and error.
Now, there is good empirical science and bad empirical science. Clinical controlled trials are good empirical science. Acupuncture has been shown to work based on clinically controlled trials.

Photon, he does touch on the concept of "chi" or energy and has said he cannot find evidence to prove its existence. That being said, he also touches on evidence based understanding, trial and error, empirical evidence, etc.