1997 Consensus statement of the NIH on acupuncture

Thirty years of active acupuncture research have failed to unequivocally demonstrate its clinical efficacy is a citation from a 1999 summary article in the pro-acupuncture American Journal of Acupuncture.

I can hardly imagine how the conventional acupuncture treatment could possibly hurt anyone writes Little Hawk. Just to help a little bit your imagination here's one of several articles about possible harms (they are easy to find if you care):
Norheim JA, Fennebe V. Adverse effects of acupuncture. Lancet 345:1576, 1995.
A survey of 1,135 Norwegian physicians revealed 66 cases of infection, 25 cases of punctured lung, 31 cases of increased pain, and 80 other cases with complications. A parallel survey of 197 acupuncturists, who are more apt to see immediate complications, yielded 132 cases of fainting, 26 cases of increased pain, 8 cases of pneumothorax, and 45 other adverse results is a fair summary of this article.

This is not to say that other treatments are without risks, no effective treatment is, but a no-risk statement concerning acupuncture is at best uninformed. I personally run away from any physician who tries to tell me that there is no risk at all in a treatment. That just shows that he/she is incompetent.

Mrrzy has posted what I think is the best summary at this time as for effectiveness.

There has NEVER been a documented case of AIDS infection from an acupuncture needle writes Peg boldly and obviously has never come across this article:
Vitttecoq D, Mettetal J.F, Rouzioux C, Bach J.F. Acute HIV infection after acupuncture treatments New England J Medicine 1989; 320(4): 250-1.

A single case should never be treated as conclusive, there are always alternative interpetations and the documentation of any case can be questioned, but 'never' was not the appropriate word to use in the response to Gargoyle. However, the AIDS risk with today's procedures is nil for the reasons Peg and Little Hawk have given.

Wolfgang