Acupuncture

I very much agree.

To add; there is a specific person to treat a specific ailment


But, not to slander accupuncture (in general) a person who dismisses modern medicine especially in a cynical way, will look for a person who is willing to treat them in a "natural" method.

In other words, some people realize there are people willing to pay for natural treatment (like those looking to pay $$$$ for organic foods) and capitalize on the naive

 

Nahhhh, you had a good point and rereading it I definitely came off as an arrogant jerk. Thanks for the check.

See? Told you it was boring. I feel like continuing to discuss the stats definitions and I mean, I know I'm simplifying it, but yeah. If you noticed anything egregiously wrong, please feel free to correct me. :]

 

Unfortunately, there is a lot to take issue with regarding their methods:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/an-acupuncture-meta-analysis/

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMbkrev0805020

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Trick-Treatment-Undeniable-Alternative-Medicine/dp/0393337782/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390916366&sr=8-1&keywords=Trick+or+Treatment%3A+The+Undeniable+Facts+about+Alternative+Medicine"]Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine: Edzard Ernst, Simon Singh: 9780393337785: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Indeed, there are articles or data out there such as that


Just "as" there are articles out there that "support" acupuncture

Another subject close is "acupressure"

 

I caution posting articles/sources older than 2013, or you risk being behind the curve on this subject. There is not necessarily anything wrong with the arguments in these older articles (2005, 2008, etc), and who doesn't like the idea of science based medicine?...but the arguments in these articles are out of date, and don't take into account newer studies/data, which can support acupuncture. The studies are inching in the direction of support, currently. That is the "trend". That could change, but right now that is where the needle is pointing (pardon my pun).

This is not a static field of research by any means...there is a lot going on. To suggest all of the research is not worth the cost...I will disagree with any MD on that topic. Doctors are not experts on everything, especially cost-benefit analyses. Compared to what I am sure are billions wasted each year in clinical drug trials...I doubt acupuncture research is really as big a waste as that article from last year claims...if your bias is CAM is fake, then you argue every dollar is wasted. That is an extreme argument, imo.

I notice this a lot in online acupuncture "debates"...a 2013 study will be rebutted with a 2007 op-ed on CAM. It doesn't make sense to continue to use what are essentially "out of date" medical opinions, no matter whose credentials are in play. If anything these articles would need to be updated/altered to take into account new developments. But, often these articles remain "static", using old data and refusing to accept new data.

Like arguments for conspiracy theories often do... you can't only accept data that supports your position, and dismiss data that doesn't support it. This is a bias. Arguments against CAM need take both into account to be effective, which is why a lot of these online MDs campaigning against CAM are off target. They write one article, based on research up to a certain date, and then new research comes out that is counter to their conclusions.

I want to trust an MD with serious concerns about acupuncture, but if they are clearly a "campaigner" against CAM, they have a bias that is no better than the publishing biases in Asia that support CAM. This is why I prefer to just read the studies, as they are published, and use my own critical thinking, rather than the opinions of essentially bloggers with medical credentials.

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure your critical thinking skills are particularly up to scratch if you think that there are any well-designed recent studies that support the use of acupuncture for anything other than lower back pain - possibly.

Why would you not listen to an opinion piece if it points out well-reasoned flaws with a particular piece of research or meta-analysis? The arguments are still justified and certainly aren't out-of-date.

"New developments" in the field of acupuncture research seem to take the form of research that has been ill-designed, ususally with problems such as lack of control/blinding, small sample sizes or poor statistics, that amazingly manage to produce positive results. These poor studies do not magically override older well-designed studies just because they are newer.

I know you really, really want to believe, Wooden Hare, but there is no evidence to suggest you ought to.

P.S. If you don't like reading some well-reasoned arguing from 2012; here's some from 2013:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-doesnt-work/

 

If I have time I'll read over the data again and see if I reach the same conclusion as that author. Apparently his biggest concerns are that the studies weren't blind and that the reduction in pain was marginal compared to the control group. Unfortunately the traditionally small sample sizes and lack of double-blind methods do make it difficult to evaluate most of the data out there.

I think it might be wise to take a different approach here. Studies which ask patients to rate their own pain on a subjective scale aren't using the most scientific measurement criteria. Fortunately, there are a few recent studies done by US medical universities which examine brain imaging during acupuncture and control sessions.

So, while these studies are small, they demonstrate objectively that different pain processing regions of the brain are activated while receiving acupuncture versus a placebo. They also demonstrate that even the placebo treatments provided some pain relief, though it was measurably different on the fMRI results.

 

They're fine. They say hello. No need to apologize for being wrong.

I've already pointed out that I am a skeptic leaning in the direction of acupuncture based on experience. So, think again.

There justified arguments in some cases but not others, and they are often heavily biased opinion pieces. If you can't see the bias, you're not reading it critically enough, or you are biased yourself. A hint is that the tone or agenda has quite a lot to do with it.

When your anti-CAM article is also about wastes of CAM research, it has a bias. If your pro-CAM article contains how great the last 4 millenia of CAM healing have been, it's biased.

You've got it backwards. The newer studies are better in all those areas you describe, particularly sampling. So, there are few if any "older, well designed" studies. If anything, those are the studies with inconsistent results that are being clarified with newer, better constructed studies.

Double blinding has always been a challenge for these studies due to the nature of acupuncture. But there has also been improvement there.

No, you don't know much about what I want. Acupuncture has helped hundreds of people I know. I don't believe it worked for them, I know it worked for them. They feel better.

And their insurance plans cover the treatment.

I can tell you haven't read the thread. That source was already posted, and it's a very biased opinion piece that, while referencing scientific research, draws unscientific conclusions. Had the tone of that article been more objective, it wouldn't get the flak its gotten from BOTH sides.

Maybe you need to rethink what you think is "critical thinking" and stop being led around by bloggers with medical credentials, and leave the science to work itself out?

Guess what? I can find A LOT of bloggers with REAL medical credentials SUPPORTING acupuncture and commenting on positive studies...but I haven't posted any here.

Ask yourself why I don't do that...you might find the critical thinking you claim I am missing...

 

Anecdote is not data.

D'oh, OK. I'll go and rethink what I think "critical thinking" is - maybe I'd better get my MSc Biomedical Science students to do the same?

We can argue this up, down and inside out and it still won't change the facts; regardless of that, you are entitled to believe whatever you like, even if it's nonsense.

 

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

That is single handedly the worse reason to believe something works in the history of medicine.
That way of thinking is what kept us in the dark about what really worked for years.
You can find people that can say the same for literally any hocky alternative medicine you care to mention.
Even stuff we know for a fact doesn't work (like homeopathy).

 

What are you saying? Anecdotal evidence isn't real evidence, especially in the field of hard science?! How dare you! What's next, the earth is round?! :ban:

 

A real eye opening thing for me, when I started looking into these sorts of things, was how easily we can be fooled.
How many mechanisms there were that can fool us.
How we can fool ourselves.
How unreliable our own experience is.
How poor personal testimony is for determining what works.
It's no wonder we've been down so many bad medicinal avenues (leeches, bleeding, trepanning, etc etc).

 

You're kinda' sounding like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye!

The only thing I ever really consider listening to as far as anecdotal evidence is in the "softer" sciences, like psychology and sociology. They matter there, but even in those sciences you're still looking for a piece of information that is being overlooked or an association nobody is realizing. Anecdote goes further, but it doesn't turn anything concrete.

 

No one said it was.

You know what is also not data? Opinion pieces with bias.

If you appeal to authority, why do you need to use op-ed pieces as "sources".

Just because they themselves utilize objective source, does not make them objective.

Your bias is speaking again. This is not scientific, to draw conclusions based on a) poorly constructed studies or b) op-ed pieces with clear political bias involving funding levels, or put another way "I DIDN'T GET MY GRANT BECAUSE OF THOSE DAMN ACUPUNCTURIST PHONIES".

Nonsense with billions of dollars a year in well funded university research?

No. Where are the well funded studies on faith healing and tonics?

There are none because there is no evidence of them being viable for medical treatment.

Acupuncture...there is evidence. If you choose to only accept evidence that supports your position and dismiss evidence that denies it, you have a bias.

I don't dismiss evidence against acupuncture. But, when ALL studies are considered, the needle points toward a "minor, non placebo effect". Now, if you're a real expert, go invalidate that study with more research, or don't bother drawing conclusions.

Teach that to your class. I have degrees in science and engineering too, bud. I try to not let my own bias (the experiences of others) sway me too far, but after the hundredth person + recent studies, I'm leaning. Not concluding...leaning.

MOD Note: Watch the masked profanity please.

 

You're mistaken. I can clarify again, if you like.

I don't "believe" it works. I know it HAS worked for others.

You cannot claim it hasn't worked for them. No data you can provide can possibly counter my personal experience or theirs.

Science does not exist to invalidate personal experiences. It exists to quantify them.

So, please don't point at my personal experiences with other humans as "study data", or anything else. Stick to the studies if you want to debate, if you debate my personal experiences you're just trolling.

Funny I was helped my a (licensed) homeopathic doctor who correctly identified a fungal infection in my feet, after 3 trips to an ER, a GM, and a dermatologist who were dumbfounded.

But, since it's an anecdote, it's "not real".

You can dismiss anecdotes as not scientific. If you dismiss them entirely, you have an obvious bias.

Bias keeps you from thinking critically, which is why the irony is thick in this thread.

So many conclusions about acupuncture in this thread, but I'm one of the only ones actually "thinking critically".

It's probably because I avoid, as much as possible, reading blogs FOR or AGAINST CAM.

 

SO, I'm going to call you on this since you want to breathe down my neck about how relating my personal experiences is "wrong" because they aren't "data".

Leeches and other nasty critters have saved countless lives for thousands of years. They are used by MDs to this day, especially in countries where clotting medicines and antibiotics are hard to come by, or other remedies fail.

So, see your bias? In thinking "leeches....old...yucky...medieval", you are completely ignorant of their continued use in MODERN medicine.

Leeches...maggots. SCIENCE!

http://www.livescience.com/203-maggots-leeches-medicine.html

 

Yeah sure you can put a leech on a re-attached finger and it'll help the finger heal back.
Leechs are used in modern medicine...BUT they aren't used in the way they were back in the day when people were trying to balance the humours and all that bunk.
So how are bleeding and trepanning used in modern medicine?
Not bleeding to relieve pressure on an internal injury or some other modern process that invoves controlled bleeding of patient but bleeding to balance the humours.

Again...that means nothing. Literally nothing.
You can substitute your assertion accupuncture works with any other hokey treatment and it'll mean just as much.

 

Yeah but that doesn't mean homeopathy works.
That's not evidence that homeoathy works is it?