You think, or you know?
And if you do know, why doesn’t every anesthesiologist in the world also know? They could save a lot of money on drugs.
And Aristotle was convinced that women have fewer teeth than men. Just because somebody had an idea once upon a time doesn’t mean it’s correct, or that it’s even worthy of consideration, or that it somehow deserves respect or a deliberate pardon from intellectual rigor by virtue of being from Olden Tymes.
If I tell you the details of why I’m asking, would you spare me the lectures on self-delusion and the futility of arguing with people who’ve already made up their minds? Because I got enough of that in the kinesiology thread, thanks, and when I ask for cites I’d like to get cites.
I hope that didn’t sound snappy. I’m not trying to be rude, I’m just heading off likely objections.
The Wikipedia article on Quackwatch lists the various organizations/websites such as the American Cancer Society and WebMD that cite Quackwatch as a dependable source of information.
Beyond such references, and discussions of the veracity of articles appearing on Quackwatch, what are you looking for?
i know i have read in both the popular media and science journals accounts of both.
Well of course acupuncture has been used for that. The question is the effectiveness. Some studies show that acupuncture is somewhat effective against some pain. It is difficult to design a good double blind experiment however, as both the prickee and pricker know what is going on. I participated in one of those as a patient in 1976. Much time and energy has gone into researching acupuncture. It was all the rage in the 70s, and researchers would have been delighted if it worked. The reality is that it has limited effectiveness for certain types of pain, but it is not the miracle that people hoped it would be.
So yes, it is possible that sticking a needle in someone may relieve pain to some degree. But the traditional practice of acupuncture to treat a variety of ailments, and the concept of regulating Qi, are not supported by evidence.
People who practice acupuncture to treat things other than pain are stealing money from the gullible.
The blinding of these studies is of course problematic but methods have improved since the '70s. We now know that acupuncture is more effective than a placebo against pain. However, it is no more effective than sticking needles in someone without the slightest regard for traditional acupuncture points or the proper flow of Qi.
In other words, needles work somewhat; all the rest seems to be hooey.
The study I cited was not small and poorly controlled, it was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study. Your cite does not say that Glucosamine Sulfate in ineffective, just that some preparations give better results than others. In fact, it does say that the therapy is effective.
This is Dr. Barrett’s problem - some things like Glucosamine and accupunture are effective, but we don’t fully understand why they are effective. That is no reason to bash them as he does.
Wait - the article you link to reaches the opposite conclusion from how you describe it. The “fake” acupuncture is the placebo, and studies have shown that it works just as well as “real” acupuncture.
How can you interpret that as saying that acupuncture is more effective than a placebo?
You’re correct and I wasn’t very clear. I don’t see the details in the article I link to but I recall that both “real” acupuncture and sham acupuncture were compared to placebos - at least in some of the studies included in the meta-study. Both real and sham acupuncture were distinguishable from the placebo (this part was obviously not double blind). And as you point out, real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture in the meta-study.
So, poking people with needles is better than nothing - poking people with a stick probably releases endorphins too. I can’t tell from the data above whether needles are better than the standard of care since I’m not aware that that was ever tested (I’m sticking to ibuprofen). As for meridians and Qi: the review does not support them.
I disagree with that conclusion too. Poking people with needles in traditional locations is no more effective than poking them with needles in random, non-traditional locations, and that’s no more effective than “sham” acupuncture where you pretend to poke them with needles but really don’t.
I don’t see how you can get from there to “We now know that acupuncture is more effective than a placebo against pain.”
DanBlather said:
I don’t see Lamar Mundane arguing otherwise or defending acupuncture. Rather, he’s complaining that if the topic is supposed to be about acupuncture, then why does Barrett go off chasing black bears? What do black bears being hunted have to do with sticking needles in your body?
See post #10.
Well, your cite says what I was saying. What seems to make a difference is that if patients think they’re getting acupuncture, then they seem to do better. The biggest problem with doing a clinical study on acupuncture is proper blinding to get rid of the placebo effect, and it was pretty ingenious that some studies figured out a way to pretend to do acupuncture, but not really. And the data we have shows that “real” acupuncture is no better than pretend acupuncture. Some have spun this as “acupuncture works, even if it’s sham acupuncture!” while others more soberly point out that if the real thing doesn’t work any better than the sham treatment, then that’s not a positive outcome.
Look at it this way - if a pharmaceutical company had a drug to relieve pain, and they released studies that they did comparing their drug, which had a strong name recognition, with giving patients a sugar pill, but telling them they were getting the drug with the strong name recognition, and the results of the studies were that patients reported less pain, equally, whether they were taking the real drug or the pretend drug, what would you say if the company cited this as evidence their product works? “Look, the product works so well that even fake Zambilor relieves pain!”
Most people would say “what kind of idiot do you take me for?”
On re-reading 74westy’s posts, I think I need to clarify my point. You were saying that either traditional acupuncture or sham acupuncture is better than a placebo, in the cases where the placebo is something like a pill.
As we both agree, if you’re comparing a pill vs. jabbing you with something sharp, then if the patient is conscious there is no blinding for the test. The whole point of giving a placebo is to blind it so that the patient doesn’t know which treatment he’s getting, so you can’t blind an acupuncture trial with a pill placebo.
The researchers who came up with the sham acupuncture did so specifically to give them a fake treatment that the patient wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. In other words, the sham acupuncture was the placebo in those tests. And the genuine article acupuncture did no better than the placebo, therefore the null hypothesis is not rejected, and we can’t say that acupuncture works (acupuncture being the sticking of needles into the skin).
Now I think what you’re saying is that jabbing someone’s skin with something sharp, such as a toothpick, but not actually penetrating the skin, works better than placebo. This seems like a conclusion that’s unjustified by the data, because it has not been tested against a placebo.
Now maybe poking people with toothpicks really does help with pain, and I admit that this hasn’t been disproved, but it also doesn’t have any data in its favor. We have no data about that. If you can figure out how to test it against a valid placebo I’m sure researchers would be interested.
Your statement earlier that I objected to was that we now know that acupuncture is more effective than a placebo against pain. I hope it’s clear now why I think this is not true. Acupuncture is the sticking of needles under the skin, and when you test this idea by testing some patients with acupuncture and just making some of them think that they’ve had acupuncture, there is no difference. What matters seems to be whether the patient thinks he’s had acupuncture, and that’s a failed hypothesis.
I guess an article from a completely unquestionable source- someone with no axe to grind.
That’s what Stephen Barrett is - a highly-qualified source with no axe to grind. If you found your ideal source, the SCAM folks would question and nitpick him just like they have Barrett.
Like maybe the American Cancer Society or MedMD?
What would be great would be if he also reviewed some of the quackery that is done supported the medical establishment. The beauty of Cochrane is that they look at some of what we traditional Western docs accept as true and find that the evidence to support it is often lacking. Does he take those on as well?
As an example that is in the news - long before the Preventative Services Task Force made their new recommendation against the established and still clung to by many dogma that screening women 40-49 with mammography is a clearly wonderful thing that every woman should do, that it may actually cause more harm than good, Cochrane (in 2001) was saying
Did he go after that subject? I don’t think so.
I think what he concludes is usually valid, but what he chooses to put under the light of an evidenced based review is selective.
According to its Wikipedia page, “Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine ‘select sites that provide reliable health information and resources.’” Also: