As reported here, a recent study found that sticking needles in people randomly is pretty much as effective as using "proper" acupuncture
( Read more... )
actually - traditional acupuncture (theory and practice) has been -confirmed- in other studies (in specific treatments). -acupressure- has been ruled "woo woo". (as has "touch therapy" and a load of other ones) Big difference. so no it's not complete nonsense. It just contains some nonsense - and the proportion of that is unknown as yet.
(and investigation has been kept separate from the mythology in the reports I've seen - but it has been a few years since I last read any) Personally I think this whole field should be kept in the "questionable, under review" branch until more thorough research is done.
Well, this study quite clearly demolishes the "theory and practice" of acupuncture, from what I can see. Poking people with needles is just as effective as poking people with needles according to the practice of acupuncture. That means that the practice of acupuncture has no effect, just the needles and/or placebo effect.
No it doesn't - just this particular group of treatments. It also opens up a new channel of enquiry re: WHY these needles are effective in this treatment regardless of acupuncture methods. It is still an open question.
However this doesn't legitimize the practise either - just to keep that clear.
Look, Acupuncture has this huge complicated theoretical basis involving "chi flows" and "energy centres" and such guff. If that theoretical underpinning, which goes against everything science tells us about how the human body operates, is completely wrong about one application of the theory, it's a damn good indication to me that it's most probably also wrong for all other applications.
We're left with a really big placebo effect, or possibly some effect from the needles that works in a way completely different to how the acupuncturists claim. So, if there is an actual effect from the needles, the acupuncturists have got it all wrong. They need to throw away their mumbo-jumbo magical theory and start looking at what actually happens.
But of course, they will never do such a thing, because they're SCAM practitioners, and their mystique is far more important than actual evidence.
It's based on interrupting nerve communications. What's so irrational about that? (people can call it what they want - they always do. Certainly plenty of examples in medicine for that - the whole magic bean movement *cough* I mean pharmaceutical industry for instance). That's just language, hand waving and semantics. What's being tested is the methods - and their applicability. No more, no less. Certainly NOT the philosophy - it can't be tested this way. Just because a language and culture are alien to you doesn't mean they're a scam.
(I'm still not arguing for it's legitimacy - I DO feel it needs to be tested. But saying just because this corner of the ocean's got no fish - doesn't mean it's true everywhere)
That would be an interesting theory, except that the "chi flows" that acupuncture is based on do not match up to the layout of the nervous system. You might hypothesize that interrupting nerve communication is a possible mechanism for the effects of acupuncture, but that's certainly not what acupuncturists say.
In fact, that sounds more like chiropractic, which also seems to have some measurable effects while being based on a completely irrational system. And surprise, surprise, chiropractic's successes are mostly in the realm of back pain, too!
Could it perhaps be that back pain responds very well to placebos?
It isn't what they say that's being tested - it's what they do.
and going by explanations - especially when translated from other culture/linguistic roots - is always trouble for testing. I mean - just because they are not using latin/greek constructs with english structure does NOT mean that it's false - just that we are not communicating effectively.
Now those stupid new age trend-kickers with their facile explanations? THOSE are scam artists - and sadly so because they are (usually) deluding themselves too.
What I suspect is that - for specific treatments (and I'm not talking back pain here) - that some effective treatments will be found. For others - perhaps a useful mechanism. I do not bet that the majority of acupuncture will survive an in-depth study - any differently than any of the other past methods of medicine have. However I do not see a single negation as proof that an entire field of medicine is false - as you are declaiming at the start of this thread.
Big difference.
so no it's not complete nonsense. It just contains some nonsense - and the proportion of that is unknown as yet.
(and investigation has been kept separate from the mythology in the reports I've seen - but it has been a few years since I last read any)
Personally I think this whole field should be kept in the "questionable, under review" branch until more thorough research is done.
Reply
Reply
It is still an open question.
However this doesn't legitimize the practise either - just to keep that clear.
Reply
We're left with a really big placebo effect, or possibly some effect from the needles that works in a way completely different to how the acupuncturists claim. So, if there is an actual effect from the needles, the acupuncturists have got it all wrong. They need to throw away their mumbo-jumbo magical theory and start looking at what actually happens.
But of course, they will never do such a thing, because they're SCAM practitioners, and their mystique is far more important than actual evidence.
Reply
What's being tested is the methods - and their applicability. No more, no less.
Certainly NOT the philosophy - it can't be tested this way. Just because a language and culture are alien to you doesn't mean they're a scam.
(I'm still not arguing for it's legitimacy - I DO feel it needs to be tested. But saying just because this corner of the ocean's got no fish - doesn't mean it's true everywhere)
Reply
In fact, that sounds more like chiropractic, which also seems to have some measurable effects while being based on a completely irrational system. And surprise, surprise, chiropractic's successes are mostly in the realm of back pain, too!
Could it perhaps be that back pain responds very well to placebos?
Reply
and going by explanations - especially when translated from other culture/linguistic roots - is always trouble for testing. I mean - just because they are not using latin/greek constructs with english structure does NOT mean that it's false - just that we are not communicating effectively.
Now those stupid new age trend-kickers with their facile explanations? THOSE are scam artists - and sadly so because they are (usually) deluding themselves too.
What I suspect is that - for specific treatments (and I'm not talking back pain here) - that some effective treatments will be found. For others - perhaps a useful mechanism. I do not bet that the majority of acupuncture will survive an in-depth study - any differently than any of the other past methods of medicine have. However I do not see a single negation as proof that an entire field of medicine is false - as you are declaiming at the start of this thread.
Reply
Leave a comment