A lot is claimed on this subject, in both directions. This page puts it in context: what is known, what is still open and what is currently being investigated.
I'm not writing this as a salesman, but because it's part of my field. Anyone who places piercings and is brought in for a scientific study has to know the state of research — otherwise they are working blind.
The idea that something can be influenced via the auricle goes back to the French doctor Paul Nogier, who described it in the 1950s. He drew up a map assigning areas of the ear to areas of the body. Auricular acupuncture developed from this.
Transferring this to piercings is much more recent and did not come from research. It spread via social networks: individual people reported that their migraine had improved after a particular ear piercing, others tried it, and it became a trend.
That's an important difference. A method that arises from personal accounts can still work — but it still has the proof ahead of it, not behind it.
Online, ear piercings are given names that suggest an effect: “migraine piercing” for the daith, “weight-loss piercing” for the tragus, “allergy piercing” for a piercing at the tip of the ear. These names don't come from research, but from auricular acupuncture and personal accounts. Whether a piercing at these spots does anything is still an open question. That is exactly what the study at the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, which I worked on, is investigating.
Little so far, and that is exactly why studies are needed. In the medical databases there are only a handful of papers on this subject, and most of them are case reports — descriptions of individual patients, not studies of groups.
A case report describes what happened to one person. It can raise a question. It can't show that something works, because nobody knows what would have happened to the same person without the procedure.
For comparison: classical acupuncture has been studied much better. Among other things, it shows that needles at spots other than the intended ones often produce similar results. Whether the exact position matters for piercings is therefore one of the open questions.
The German Migraine and Headache Society advises against piercings for treating migraine. It gives two reasons: there is no scientific proof of effectiveness, and there are health risks — in particular delayed wound healing and inflammation of the ear cartilage.
The second point concerns the craft, and it is justified. Cartilage heals more slowly than the earlobe, and an inflammation in cartilage is a serious matter. That's why my aftercare page has a dedicated section on how to recognise it and when to see a doctor.
The professional society calls for proof. That is justified, and that is exactly what I worked on.
This part is left out almost everywhere. I'm keeping it in because it explains why a study is needed.
There are plenty of personal accounts. On their own, they aren't enough for a reliable statement. There are four reasons for this:
Migraine comes in waves. People usually seek help when it's particularly bad. Afterwards it often gets better anyway — not because of the measure, but because the bad phase is over. In statistics this is called regression to the mean.
Anyone convinced that something helps experiences improvement more often. That isn't imagination or weakness, but a measurable effect. It occurs with all procedures, particularly strongly with those that are visible and one-off.
Those it helped tell others. Those it did nothing for usually stay silent. That's why successes accumulate in support groups and reviews. The failures appear nowhere.
Hardly anyone changes just one thing. People who get a piercing often take on the whole subject: sleep, medication, stress. Afterwards it's impossible to separate which of these had an effect.
That's why there are control conditions. You don't compare before with after, but one group with another — or the same person with themselves over a waiting period. Only then can you say whether the difference comes from the procedure.
At the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, exactly this gap was tackled. I was asked to do the practical part as the piercer.
The design was set up so that the objections above could be addressed at least in part:
The last point is the most important. I did the piercing. What the numbers show is decided by others.
Data collection is complete; the publication is still pending. As soon as it is available, it will be here — regardless of what it says.
Anyone who promises you an effect today either doesn't know the state of research or ignores it. Both should make you suspicious.
Headaches have many possible causes, some of which have nothing to do with the head itself. Clarifying that is a matter for a doctor, not for me.
What I can promise is craftsmanship: a position that is measured and marked, a sterile single-use needle, material made for fresh tissue, and aftercare that you receive in writing and for which I remain reachable.
That's no small promise. Most of the problems I am shown don't come from the wrong expectation, but from badly placed piercings.
How to tell good information from bad
It's less often about lies than about how information is filtered before it reaches you.
A recommendation from someone you know carries more weight than any advert. It costs the person who gives it something — their good reputation, if it turns out wrong. An advert only costs money.
As of September 2026. This page will be updated as soon as new results are available. It does not replace medical advice.
