Traditional healing methods: are they really pseudo-science?

Cupping, massage, acupuncture— perhaps you’ve tried at least one of these traditional healing methods. Even without understanding the underlying scientific mechanism, you may have experienced some relief, especially for musculoskeletal or sports-related issues like neck and back pain. But was this relief due to a placebo effect, or simply the condition resolving on its own? What are the scientific principles, if any, that explain how these alternative therapies work?

Do traditional healing methods work?

Many studies have attempted to address this question but have yet to provide a convincing answer. For example, a recent review of clinical trials conducted from 2008 to 2022 found that wet cupping therapy was effective for alleviating lower back pain, based on the participants’ reported pain scores and quality-of-life assessments. However, many of the reviewed clinical studies were neither blinded nor designed to have a placebo control group, limiting the reliability of their results. In fact, it is challenging to execute a blinded, placebo-controlled study for cupping considering patients can easily feel and see real suction. Moreover, self-reported pain scores may have introduced undesired bias, further weakening the studies’ conclusions.

On the other hand, there has been some compelling evidence supporting the effectiveness of acupuncture. A systematic review of double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and randomized clinical trials reported recently that traditional acupuncture is both effective and safe for pain management. However, the number of blinded, placebo-controlled studies is limited, and most studies had a small number of participants, which affects the generalizability of their results.

What are the scientific credentials behind traditional healing methods?

Rather than scientific evidence, traditional healing methods are rooted in testimonials, personal anecdotes, religious beliefs, or even superstition. Yet science does not deal in absolute truths, only in approximate truths that are continually tested and refined. According to Karl Popper’s concept of falsifiability, a scientific theory can never be definitively proven true and is only proven false through testing. With Popper’s theory in mind, it may be premature or overly simplistic to label traditional healing methods as pseudo-science – given that many of these methods have not had the opportunity to be rigorously tested or proven false. Thus, it may be more accurate to view them as “awaiting scientific evaluation” instead. Are traditional practices testable and open to scrutiny? Is there any plausible mode of action (or proxy) that can explain their claimed efficacy?

One example of a traditional healing method that has withstood scientific scrutiny is electroacupuncture. Electroacupuncture is a form of acupuncture that allows small electric currents to pass between pairs of needles, electrically stimulating targeted sites on the body known as acupoints. Low-intensity stimulation of a leg acupoint can reduce inflammation by activating the vagus nerve, which sends signals from the brain to the adrenal glands and promotes the release of anti-inflammatory molecules such as dopamine and noradrenaline. A study published in 2021 showed that in a mouse model of sepsis—a life-threatening response to infection that is caused by excessive inflammation—specific sensory neurons are involved in anti-inflammatory effects of acupuncture. These neurons, which express the protein Prokr2, were found to be essential for the anti-inflammatory response triggered by low-intensity stimulation at acupuncture point ST36 located in the lower spinal cord. These neurons have extensions that run down the hindlimb and also connect upward to the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS) in the brain—a region that helps regulate the vagus nerve, a key player in the body’s inflammatory and immune responses. This study brought plausible scientific credentials for the ancient acupuncture practices and may help to treat fatal systemic inflammation for patients with severe bacterial or viral infections.

Meanwhile, how much modern medicine is evidence-based?

Western modern medicine is widely regarded as evidence-based or scientifically proven. However, you may be surprised to know that there are current medical practices that have insufficient or contradictory scientific evidence. One example is spinal fusion surgery, a common procedure for treating chronic back pain or spine problems. In a randomized controlled trial of Swedish adults with spinal stenosis (a condition that narrows spaces in the spine and causes pain), researchers compared two treatment types: decompression surgery alone and decompression surgery combined with spinal fusion. After following 247 patients for several years, they found no significant difference in pain relief or overall outcomes between the two treatment groups. Furthermore, patients who received fusion surgery faced increased medical costs due to longer surgery times, extended hospital stays, and cost of the implant.

Another case to consider is neurontin (gabapentin), a drug often prescribed off-label for mental health conditions like bipolar disorders. Even though neuronin is well-tolerated by patients, numerous clinical trials and reviews have shown it is not effective as a primary treatment for bipolar disorder, particularly for managing mania or depression.

Despite these examples, it is far-fetched to claim that Western medicine is flawed or unreliable. The foundation of Western medicine is scientific research, which means it is constantly self-correcting and striving for reliable and improved therapeutic outcomes. This commitment to scientific scrutiny is what sets Western medicine apart—and why it continues to evolve in the pursuit of safe and effective care.

Conclusion

Are traditional healing methods pseudo-science? The answer may be more nuanced and ambiguous than it seems. While many traditional practices lack robust scientific evidence, emerging research—such as studies on electroacupuncture—suggests there may be plausible biological mechanisms at play. Also, not all modern medical treatments are fully evidence-based, which highlights the need for continual evaluation of all healthcare practices.

Ultimately, science is a process of continuous questioning, testing, and refinement—not a source of absolute truth. Both traditional and modern therapies should be held to the same standards of evidence and scrutiny, with an open but critical mind. The goal should not be to dismiss one in favor of the other, but to seek the most effective, safe, and evidence-based treatments regardless of their origin.