On 2016 Apr 05, Leigh Jackson commented:

The authors state (I have omitted text references):

"Four commonly held tenets among acupuncturists regarding electrodermal activity (EDA) at acupuncture points are: (1) acupuncture points have lower electrical resistance than surrounding skin; (2) pathology-related acupuncture points are distinguishable from non-pathology-related acupuncture points; (3) changes in electrical skin resistance or conductance at acupuncture points correlate with acupuncture treatments and with the persistence of, or recovery from, disease; and (4) changes in EDA at acupuncture points occur when substances that are either therapeutically beneficial or toxic to an individual are placed in the electrical circuit with that individual.For more than 50 years these widely-held assumptions have formed the basis for the use of electrodermal devices in clinical practice, yet scientific studies to support these beliefs are sparse and methodologically diverse. The first tenet was comprehensively evaluated by Ahn et al in a recent systematic review. This review found preliminary evidence to suggest that acupuncture points and meridians may be electrically distinguishable from non-acupuncture point and non-meridian tissue. The latter three tenets, however, have yet to be rigorously examined."

If (1) could be scientifically shown to be true, then the other tenets would become a credible prospect. Is (1) scientifically credible? What might explain such a state of affairs? The safest bet as regards the data examined by Colbert et al. is the null hypothesis. Without powerful evidence to support (1) and with no scientific explanation as to why (1) should be true, the other three tenets will require extraordinarily powerful evidence to convince sceptics.

The first tenet must be scientifically established before the others have a chance to run. Otherwise it is piling weak evidence on top of weak evidence, conjecture on top of conjecture. A house of cards is being built on a pre-scientific foundation.

On 2016 Apr 05, Leigh Jackson commented:

The authors state (I have omitted text references):

"Four commonly held tenets among acupuncturists regarding electrodermal activity (EDA) at acupuncture points are: (1) acupuncture points have lower electrical resistance than surrounding skin; (2) pathology-related acupuncture points are distinguishable from non-pathology-related acupuncture points; (3) changes in electrical skin resistance or conductance at acupuncture points correlate with acupuncture treatments and with the persistence of, or recovery from, disease; and (4) changes in EDA at acupuncture points occur when substances that are either therapeutically beneficial or toxic to an individual are placed in the electrical circuit with that individual.For more than 50 years these widely-held assumptions have formed the basis for the use of electrodermal devices in clinical practice, yet scientific studies to support these beliefs are sparse and methodologically diverse. The first tenet was comprehensively evaluated by Ahn et al in a recent systematic review. This review found preliminary evidence to suggest that acupuncture points and meridians may be electrically distinguishable from non-acupuncture point and non-meridian tissue. The latter three tenets, however, have yet to be rigorously examined."

If (1) could be scientifically shown to be true, then the other tenets would become a credible prospect. Is (1) scientifically credible? What might explain such a state of affairs? The safest bet as regards the data examined by Colbert et al. is the null hypothesis. Without powerful evidence to support (1) and with no scientific explanation as to why (1) should be true, the other three tenets will require extraordinarily powerful evidence to convince sceptics.

The first tenet must be scientifically established before the others have a chance to run. Otherwise it is piling weak evidence on top of weak evidence, conjecture on top of conjecture. A house of cards is being built on a pre-scientific foundation.