Surprisingly, I think your heuristic may have failed this time! Acupunture is pseudoscience and you would normally be right to disregard it, but in this case what Gokhale does for her day job seems entirely irrelevant. This is an article about real science that happens to have been done by a pseudoscientist. It would be a mistake to let her sketchy profession distract you from her legitimate work.

Gokhale might as well have been a paralegal or an engineer. She is an acupuncturist who had recurring back pain that surgery didn't fix, so she went looking for a different answer in a relatively scientific way. She made observations, formed hypotheses, and tested them. It seems they were informal tests and not clinical trials, and one might argue that more research is needed to justify her conclusions, but at least there's standing to have a conversation. Even bad science is can be productively discussed and criticized -- a low bar that pseudoscience fails to cross. The fact that this science was does by a pseudoscientist shouldn't detract from the actual work.

I'm actually surprised the article isn't more about the acupuncturist who is doing real science than about the particular details of the work. That's the most interesting aspect, and it's not even mentioned explicitly as far as I can tell.

Keep reading; in a shocking display of journalistic competence, the journalist interviews someone else who proposes a sensible alternative explanation for the results the acupuncturist may be seeing.

The aforementioned sensible alternative explanation is currently related to one of my pet theories, which at the moment hasn't got enough scientific evidence to make a call either way, but: My theory is that the reason "standing up a lot" seems to help people is that it builds core muscles up, which do think I have sufficient evidence that at least one American, namely, me, did not naturally have a lot of. This A: suggests that the argument that science is currently in the middle of about "how much standing should one do" is entirely misguided, dealing with a secondary if not tertiary variable instead of the real problems... and there is a LONG history of this in the health field, so it's hardly a crazy idea... B: explains why "too much standing" could be a problem... "standing" isn't "good", it's just that it builds core muscles, and too much of it is independently "bad", and C: if true would suggest that one could obtain the benefits of standing, and probably more, by directly focusing on building core strength instead of indirectly and more inefficiently building it.

I call this a "pet theory" because I believe it to be a reasonable harmonization of several current lines of scientific inquiry, and I don't have the evidence to disprove it, but I also lack the evidence to really solidly prove it.

One can see how it might also relate to this article.

Having had at least my own experience with my own core weakness, it is actually somewhat astonishing to me that my core can become so weak as to be a source of pain even in my mid-30s. It would be natural to assume that the very things causing pain would itself spur the core on to grow stronger, but it seems at least in my experience the core needs "superstimulus" to grow large enough to even competently do its main job. (I'm not saying I'm confused as to why that's the case... if one looks at the history of our species and considers the working of natural selection, it's not an impossible or nonsensical outcome. It just wasn't my first guess.)

I noticed, but looked further. Most people have simoultaneously beliefs of which some are true and some are false. Very educated people don't vaccinate their kids. Which is not to say they are false in any other aspect of life. Indeed, they loose their credibility. But I think it's a matter of critical thinking to be both skeptic and charitable. Otherwise we fall into the classical, but very recent trap: you can't be a scientist and also be religious.

I had the same reaction, but I'm a biologist that cuts code writing server code for a living. I'm rather good at it, and have many graduates, engineers, and a few masters work under my lead. I also know medical doctors that prescribe antibiotics for virus, and PHD's in the sciences that don't understand the basics of evolution or the basics of formal logic.

Here is some bio on her website:

http://gokhalemethod.com/biography/Esther_Gokhale_L_Ac_

This early interest in healing led her to study biochemistry at Harvard and Princeton and, later, acupuncture at the San Francisco School of Oriental Medicine.

I agree ... my first thought when I saw the teaser was ... the average lifespan for the pre-morden world was about 25. Back pain is a problem in your 40's - 50's I doubt if a culture will change for such a rare problem. It is like us getting rid of all stairs because people in their 60's aren't as mobile. But then if you are willing to believe in acupuncture you are willing to believe in anything.

http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/common-pains-o... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy