Point taken, maybe I'm outside my limits posting a rebuttal that is not my own without any explanation of what it was about the rebuttal I liked. It was a while ago that someone posted a link to the abstract on facebook and I read it and showed it to my skeptic friend who showed me this rebuttal article.
Since I don't subscribe to the service where the abstract was puplished I can't read the original in detail. I got more detail of the original study in the rebuttal than the abstract, which summarizes a few problems with the study. It's been a while since I read the rebuttal but I thought other posters here might find it enlightening on the scientific study that supposedly reaffirms acupuncture.
I won't go into great detail for now about what I thought was most important in it, but the two points that I still remember well are that the study is not examining acupuncture as it claims. Pins weren't inserted in specific meridians, (if they can be identified in mice at all), being poked with needles is not acupuncture unless its done in specific locations.
The other point that I found most profound was how the injection of A1 receptor agonists could be studied in search of new methods to treat pain and neuro-muscular disorders, but the author instead decides to have tunnel vision for acupuncture in her discussion and conclusion.
Now that I'm done that, I'll leave the acupuncture discussion in hopes that this thread gets derailed into chi fireballs and no touch knockouts. I don't feel qualified to discuss the science of these particular papers anymore due to my inexperience with A1 receptor agonists and other biological mechanisms that are beyond my intermediate (or beginner by bullshido standards) understanding of the human body.