Acupuncture?

[Lestrade]

@al27052

The sites I posted were just the first ones I found in a Google search for those particular acupuncture points. You are free to buy books on trigger point therapy as well, some of which don’t mention chi or meridians even once.

I don’t want to buy any book without some evidence that it will contain something useful or interesting.

The reason you guys are so resistant to this is because you can’t think of any reasonable explanation for the fact that the acupuncture points are so much more tender/sore than the surrounding areas. Since you don’t have a theory for this, and are deeply uncomfortable with the concept of chi, your bar for proof is unrealistically high. You’re deeply afraid, like ignorant people often are. Like fundamentalists of any stripe.

I am resistant to the idea of acupuncture because I have seen it not work. I have a fair bit of experience with it and know massage therapists that think it’s bunk.

Moving away from personal anecdotes, I believe that it is not supported by empirical evidence. There has been a great deal of money poured into studying it and it has not been successful on the whole. Some individual studies have found benefits, but that is what I would expect when many studies are performed. Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, sometimes placebos appear to confer benefits. This is a consequence of the nature of statistics.

Instead of actually investigating these issues, you’re just arguing with me. What are you hoping to get out of me? More links?

Here’s the wiki on trigger point therapy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_point

Have you read that page? The following appears in the second paragraph:

@Wikipedia::Trigger_point

Many practitioners of chiropractic and massage therapy find the model useful, but the medical community at large has not embraced trigger point therapy. There is no consistent methodology for diagnosis of trigger points and a dearth of theory to explain how they arise and why they produce specific patterns of referred pain."

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Here’s a link to a book on trigger points that doesn’t mention qi:

http://www.triggerpointbook.com/

My approach to massage is very practical. When I massage myself or others, I check the local acupoints for pain/tenderness, and I work from there. If there’s no tenderness, I leave the point alone.

Many acupuncturists use the same approach.

The only difference between massaging a sore muscle and trigger point therapy is that trigger point therapy focuses only on the most painful place in the muscle, which is always the same spot, assuming no direct trauma.
That’s it. That’s the difference. You get the same result, with less work.

OK, so, it isn’t acupuncture. It seems like a reasonable approach to massage. The points it indicates may or may not correlate with acupuncture points. If your argument is that massage is useful, why bring up acupuncture? I like massage and have found it useful.

Again, I say the reason that you guys are so resistant is because you have no theory as to why these points are the same for everyone, and why they are so much more sore than the surrounding tissue. It’s not my trapezius’ muscle’s fault that you don’t have a theory…it works, so I use it. I think it’s funny how stiff and afraid all of you are. Why not just use what works, then come up with a theory later? Your fear is funny.

You are mistaken. The first question is whether something works. If it does, it may be useful to have some theory, but it is not necessary. When I make bread dough I make sure not to use water that too hot. I know why, but when I’m teaching someone convinced they “can’t cook” I just tell them the rule. The theory isn’t important, they care about the results.

I don’t care about your theories about acupuncture, I want to know if it works. In your first post in this thread you said,

@al27052

Acupuncture points exist. The question is figuring out what they do.

What evidence do you have that they “do” anything? Maybe they are just bad places to punch.

[RaftPeople]

@Jackmannii

From a recent analysis of systematic reviews of acupuncture for treating pain by Ernst et al:

“In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain. Serious adverse effects continue to be reported.”

More on acupuncture’s dubious evidentiary basis here.

Ok. The number of studies I have read showing either good results and/or simply showing a biological response was pretty high, had not seen that review of studies.

Of course, there is always the possibility that everyone who has cast doubt on popular fantasies about acupuncture is a dupe of Big Pharma or actually on its payroll, flooding forums all over the Internet with the lies our Masters pay us to post. :dubious:

You mistake me for someone who cares whether acupuncture works or not. I only care that people are arguing based on the science behind it and not preconceived notions, and the scientific evidence I was finding was showing that there was something to it.

[Jackmannii]

@RaftPeople

You mistake me for someone who cares whether acupuncture works or not. I only care that people are arguing based on the science behind it and not preconceived notions, and the scientific evidence I was finding was showing that there was something to it.

My latter remarks were not in response to you, but rather to the poster who accused me of “drinking the Kool-Aid”.

[Irishman]

@al27052

Yes, because we know there’s absolutely no chance of funding from drug companies being cut, if a researcher publishes a pro-acupuncture study, for a condition that drug companies make billions a year on.

Blanket statements like this without evidence of specific incidents or indications of biased motivations for the specific investigators just discredits your own positions.

Is there the possibility that studies funded by pharmaceutical companies might be influenced to give outcomes favorable to drugs? Sure. But there is also the possibility that the “file drawer” problem is in effect - i.e. studies with negative outcomes are not published while studies with positive outcomes are. Both of these are recognized possibilities that that medical community is aware of and tries to identify and flush out.

But just making that accusation is worthless. One needs to show bias in the specific studies, or at least conflicts of interest that could lead to bias, before you will be taken seriously. A blanket accusation is just conspiracy mongering, and is a quick ticket to discounting yourself.

For example, which of the studies that were listed by the Cochrane Collection were performed by or funded by pharmeceutical companies? What was their stated purpose? Who oversaw those investigations? Where were the published, and by whom? What oversight was involved? Without answering those questions, you are asserting that the medical community as a whole is more concerned with promoting drugs that can be sold than with finding effective treatments. That’s a claim with a very high threshhold to support.

Seriously, it’s one thing to promote the Kool-Aid…but you appear to be DRINKING the Kool-Aid.

You are defending a methodology (accupuncture) based upon metaphysical woo that has no empirical or physical evidence (meridians, chi) by observing a correlation between one element of the practice (the accupuncture points and their locations) and a completely different use of that pattern (massage of those points alone is more effective than massage of the entire muscle for relieving the pain in that muscle, but specifically ignoring the claims of accupuncture about the other effects those points have), and we are the ones drinking the Kool-aid? :dubious::smack:

Let me summarize my understanding of your claims - correct me if I am wrong:

1. Accupuncture has identified specific points on the human anatomy that are extra sensitive.

2. These special points are located at the center of muscles, and can be found by applying pressure and feeling where the tenderness is greatest.

3. These points are consistent between people.

4. Massage is useful to relax muscles and reduce/eliminate pain.

5. Concentrating massage on the special points is more efficient than massaging the whole muscle - you get the same or better benefit for a lot less work.

6. Accupuncture does the same thing as massage, except instead of using pressure, it uses needles (and now maybe lasers) to stimulate the spot much more precisely/locally.

7. Accupuncture as a practice is, therefore, an effective means of pain relief (regardless of whatever claimed underpinnings it uses).

And just to be clear about what I think your position is:

A. Whatever method accupuncture used to locate these points, that discovery may be incidental. The meridian and chi explanations could just be projections or teaching aids or mnemonics or complete flummury - but for whatever reason the spots that are identified have a consistent pattern of being the center points of muscles, and are useful.

B. Accupuncturist’s claims regarding other uses may or may not be valid, you don’t care. What you are supporting is the use as pain relief.

Are these accurate assessments of your position?

I will say that it is not outlandish to think accupuncture may have stumbled upon something useful buried under its metaphysical woo, and that the accidental usefulness combined with other psychological elements to make it seem valid. However, it is upon the claimant to present the evidence to make the case. Right now, the evidence is weak to non-existent. The similar response of “sham accupuncture” suggests there is something else at work.

[Lestrade]

I will be impressed with al27052 if he comes back and defends his position. I think it would take a fair bit of courage and conviction. I’m not going to hold my breath.

@Irishman

Blanket statements like this without evidence of specific incidents or indications of biased motivations for the specific investigators just discredits your own positions.

@al27052

Yes, because we know there’s absolutely no chance of funding from drug companies being cut, if a researcher publishes a pro-acupuncture study, for a condition that drug companies make billions a year on.

Is there the possibility that studies funded by pharmaceutical companies might be influenced to give outcomes favorable to drugs? Sure. But there is also the possibility that the “file drawer” problem is in effect - i.e. studies with negative outcomes are not published while studies with positive outcomes are. Both of these are recognized possibilities that that medical community is aware of and tries to identify and flush out.

But just making that accusation is worthless. One needs to show bias in the specific studies, or at least conflicts of interest that could lead to bias, before you will be taken seriously. A blanket accusation is just conspiracy mongering, and is a quick ticket to discounting yourself.

For example, which of the studies that were listed by the Cochrane Collection were performed by or funded by pharmeceutical companies? What was their stated purpose? Who oversaw those investigations? Where were the published, and by whom? What oversight was involved? Without answering those questions, you are asserting that the medical community as a whole is more concerned with promoting drugs that can be sold than with finding effective treatments. That’s a claim with a very high threshhold to support.

I think you’re making this more complicated than necessary. It seems like depression is outside the scope al27052 has claimed for acupuncture. Testing whether acupuncture can heal sore muscles faster sounds like a good high school science project. You don’t need to find rare candidates, the procedure is already approved and it would be interesting. If I was qualified and truly believed in acupuncture I would offer my services to Professors teaching intro stats, bio, etc.

To be fair, I do work in academia, but not (currently) at a University. I know how Professors often struggle for interesting material. This would be perfect if it worked and the results were being suppressed by pharma companies. It might take a fair investment of time on the part of the acupuncturist, but the potential rewards are considerable. The media loves stories like this. There are worse things than being known as the man that brought relief to the masses. If acupuncture worked I’d strive to be that man.

[Irishman]

This is my third attempt at responding - stupid laptop/keyboard mangles.

That might be a different way to establish the validity of the accupressure points. But it will take a lot more to prove the medical establishment as a whole is actively subverting accupuncture/accupressure points, which is the claim I was addressing.

I agree that depression is outside the scope of what al27052 is claiming, but he made the claim about drug companies in general, not just depression.

[markjs]

Regarding acupuncture. Some time ago a buddy gave me a “Christmas gift” to see an acupucturist (who is also an M.D. and a surgeon) to help me quit smoking. I went in a complete skeptic, but what the hell, it was already paid for.
The doctor put some needles in me, shined an ordinary desk lamp on my (clothed) balls, and had me lie there for 1/2 hour.

I went home, lit up a cigarette, and got so sick that I thought I was going to die. The doctor/acupunturist told me that the treatments would last about 6 week–until the nicotine was out of my syster–and then I was on my own. The neat thing was that there were no withdrawal symptoms.

So from a complete unbeliever I can say that acupuncture worked for me in one particular case.

Mark

[Jackmannii]

Relevant Cochrane review:

“There is no consistent, bias-free evidence that acupuncture, acupressure, laser therapy or electrostimulation are effective for smoking cessation, but lack of evidence and methodological problems mean that no firm conclusions can be drawn.”

This is one of the more odd Cochrane review summaries, in that they seem to be channeling that old altie line: “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence!”

The bottom line is that proponents of acupuncture for smoking cessation have nothing to go on but selective anecdotes - essentially, zero.