Trick or Treatment is a book by Simon Singh (a physicist) and Edzard Ernst, apparently the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, a medical doctor who once practiced complementary medicine but then became disillusioned with it. It has been a while since I read it (I did have a copy, but its the sort of book one feels compelled to lend to gullible people, and they* aren’t great at returning them).
Chapter by chapter, he dismantles most complementary medicine, but the ones on herbal medicine and acupuncture have caveats. There is evidence for benefit of acupuncture for some conditions (in fact a doctor friend told me that as far as knee arthritis was concerned research suggested it was as good as anything else on the market, although the Cochrane study on elbow arthritis was not impressed (I checked the other Cochrane studies and the only one with promising results was this one for fibromyalgia but the evidence was fairly weak. I should also point out that a ‘significant’ result means that there is a less than x% chance (normally 5% for medicine) that the results were due to chance; the more studies you do the more likely you are to get such a result that IS due to chance, which is one reason small studies are bad unless researchers publish the failures as well as the successes.
(Yeah, in case you were wondering, this was supposed to be a debunking of Cecil, but then it turned out that the evidence I thought was out there wasn’t :smack: )
Cecil mentioned the original theory of Qi, but declined to mention Western theories.
Pain Gate Theory is I believe still current (taught to a physiotherapist friend of mine a few years ago) and suggests that stimulus of ganglia can turn off pain receptors (in much the same way that rubbing a sore area sends signals (via slow C fibers) which the brain is forced to pay attention to at the expense of input from the stabbing pain signal sent by fast A fibers). This doesn’t explain how the effects of acupuncture are supposed to last for weeks though.
Are you saying one of the authors say in the book that herbal medicine and acupuncture have caveats? What sort of caveats? A quick Googling show that both authors think acupuncture is bunk.
That’s the best you want to do to support your claim? A doctor friend supposedly said something really, really wrong?
So, you really should have posted this in another forum, since it’s not very relevant to the Cecil article.
I’m sure the caveat on herbal medicine goes something like “herbs can have active components that actually do affect the body - many medicines come from plants, after all. However, just because a certain herbal remedy is claimed to be good at treating dental warts doesn’t mean it actually does. Plus, herbal remedies that do have active components are not quality controlled for efficacy or dose consistency. So you’re still guessing at what it will do.”
The question “does acupuncture really work?” is too broad. It wouldn’t surprise me if it worked on a small number of medical conditions, probably less effectively than “modern” medicine but might be useful if someone is allergic to the modern medicine.
A study focusing on acupuncture treatment of a specific condition, such as fibromyalgia, would be more credible. Of course, studies showing it fails need to be published.
Same with herbal medicine. A study saying that “herbal medicine works” isn’t credible. A study saying “herbal medicine doesn’t work” isn’t very credible either. A study saying “willow bark relieves pain, here’s how it compares to X” is more credible. (Willow bark contains salicin, a pain-relieving compound. But is this better than artificial painkillers? More effective? Cheaper? Less likely to provoke an allergic response?) A study showing that Herb X does not treat Condition Y is more credible.
My issue with alternative medicine isn’t that they don’t work. They don’t work, most of the time, but there’s a few treatments that do. Unfortunately there are very few studies on alternative medicine being used to treat specific disorders following the scientific method. As a result, it’s difficult to prove they don’t work most of the time.
Believe me, we are on the same page. But I feel the urge to nitpick. I would put it this way:Alternative medicine doesn’t work, for certain values of “work.”
It’s highly unlikely that alternative medicine has any chemical, physical or physiological effect of any significance, and none have been shown. But it has been shown to have effects equivalent to placebos. If your definition of “work” is “the patient feels better,” some alternative treatments do work.
But if your definition of “work” is “showing demonstrable chemical, physical, or physiological effects of a significant degree,” it is a huge fraud.