Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

FAQ | Register Now | Sign In

HOME PHYSICAL SCIENCES EARTH SCIENCES LIFE SCIENCES MEDICINE SOCIAL SCIENCES CULTURE VIDEO CONTRIBUTORS

1 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM
Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

HOME > MEDICINE > PUBLIC HEALTH > NEWS ARTICLES

KNOW SCIENCE AND WANT TO WRITE?

Register Now To Get Your Own Column!

WHAT'S HAPPENING

Top Articles New Comments Events

1. Even When Pure, Water Is Blue

Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful 2. Who Is Stalking You On Facebook? Who Is
Your Biggest Fan?
By News Staff | April 15th 2011 08:40 AM | 20 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments 3. Full Metal Alchemist: Researchers
Magnetize Gold And Silver Atoms
Like
4. Guess The Plot 5
5. The Science of Baseball
Acupuncture is advocated by some for
News Articles 6. Survival Of The Stupidest
pain control but there are doubts about its 7. Leukemia And Lymphoma Breakthrough:
effectiveness and its safety. Investigators MORE ARTICLES Half-Matched Transplants May Mean Donors
For All
from the Universities of Exeter&Plymouth Leukemia And
(Exeter, UK) and the Korea Institute of Lymphoma Breakthrough:
News Staff Half-Matched Transplants
Oriental Medicine (Daejeon, South Korea) May Mean Donors For All
evaluated systematic reviews of Binge Drinking And The
Biology Of Blackouts
acupuncture in order to explore the issue.
Endocannabinoids - Why
You Can't Eat Just One
Their analysis in PAIN concluded there is little convincing Potato Chip
evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain and All Articles
serious adverse effects continue to be reported.
ABOUT NEWS
They identified and examined systematic reviews of News From All Over The
acupuncture studies for pain relief and case reviews reporting World, Right To You...
adverse effects. Reviews were defined as systematic if they
View News's Profile
included an explicit Methods section describing the search
strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews
had to focus on the effectiveness of any type of acupuncture for pain. Of the 266 articles found,
56 were categorized as acceptable systematic reviews.

Children's personalities linked to their

The authors observe that recent results from high-quality randomized controlled trials have chemical response to stress
shown that various forms of acupuncture, including so-called "sham acupuncture," during which Male smokers less likely to need joint
replacement surgery of hip or knee
no needles actually penetrate the skin, are equally effective for chronic low back pain, and
World War II bombing raids offer new insight
more effective than standard care. In these and other studies, the effects were attributed to into the effects of aviation on climate
Differing lifestyles: A study of ethnicity and
such factors as therapist conviction, patient enthusiasm or the acupuncturist's communication health
style. A gene implicated in speech regulates
connectivity of the developing brain

If even sham acupuncture is as good as or better than standard care, then what is the harm? more
The answer lies in the adverse effect case studies. These studies were grouped into three
Science 2.0 Links Hot Topics SB News
categories: Infection (38 cases), trauma (42 cases) and other adverse effects (13 cases). Many
of these adverse side effects are not intrinsic to acupuncture, but rather result from malpractice Science 2.0 Links
of acupuncturists. The most frequently reported complications included pneumothorax,
Take a look at the best of Science 2.0
(penetration of the thorax) and bacterial and viral infections. Five patients died after their
pages and web applications from around
treatment.
the Internet!

"Many systematic reviews of acupuncture for pain management are available, yet they only
support few indications, and contradictions abound," commented lead investigator Professor
Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, Laing Chair in Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School,
Universities of Exeter&Plymouth, UK. "Acupuncture remains associated with serious adverse
effects. One might argue that, in view of the popularity of acupuncture, the number of serious
adverse effects is minute. We would counter, however, that even one avoidable adverse event
is one too many. The key to making progress would be to train all acupuncturists to a high level
of competency."

In an accompanying commentary, Harriet Hall, MD, states her position forcefully: "Importantly,
when a treatment is truly effective, studies tend to produce more convincing results as time

2 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM
Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

passes and the weight of evidence accumulates. When a treatment is extensively studied for
decades and the evidence continues to be inconsistent, it becomes more and more likely that
the treatment is not truly effective. This appears to be the case for acupuncture. In fact, taken
as a whole, the published (and scientifically rigorous) evidence leads to the conclusion that
acupuncture is no more effective than placebo."

RELATED ARTICLES ON SCIENCE 2.0

What Do Meatloaf, Acupuncture, Psychotherapy, and Clinical Trials Have in Common?

Acupuncture Eases Chronic Lower Back Pain In Trial (But So Does Simulated Acupuncture)
Deepak Chopra Defends Oprah, Commits Endless Logical Fallacies
Acupuncture Does Not Reduce Radiotherapy-Induced Nausea, But Patients Believe It Does
Acupuncture Helps Headaches - But So Do Fake Treatments

COMMENTS

I read the actual articles in question and the authors and Dr. Hall draw unfair conclusions. If Western medicine were held to
the same standard - "even one avoidable adverse event is one too many" - then we would have no medicine at all. Asprin and
other NSAIDS are well known to have adverse effects, such as gastric bleeding, ulcers, and death, all with much higher
numbers than the 95 individual cases of adverse events dispersed over the hundreds of thousands of acupuncture treatments
over a 10 year span. Prolonged antibiotic use has been shown to lead to candida overgrowths and formation of
"Superbacteria". Recently knee surgery was found to not help much with knee pain at all, and the risk of serious events is
MUCH higher than any acupuncture treatment. Just ask your anesthesiologist.

Furthermore, the conclusion that "acupuncture is no more effective than placebo" is also an unfair conclusion, since many
studies find conclusively that acupuncture AND the so-called "placebo" acupuncture (another issue entirely) BOTH work
BETTER than the standard Western medical care. By this standard, it is Western medical care that should be eschewed, as it
lacks the efficacy of placebo and true acupuncture. Furthermore, animal studies and veterinary acupuncture both show
Sci. Fell Short in Courtroom
tangible effects from acupuncture, and rats do not "think" like humans do, therefore ruling out "patient expectation". What's
Skeptics, Alarmists Unite?
more, brain imaging studies show there is indeed a difference between true and "sham" acupuncture. Aussies: Kill Farting Camels
Giant Wombat Fossil Found
This is not to say acupuncture is the cure-all for everyone. However, this is a fine illustration of how a poorly written article Were NASA's Shuttles Worth It?
with unfair conclusions can cause a wildfire of controversy as uneducated reporters on the internet pick up the article and
more
come to their own conclusions, based of course, on the conclusions of the authors, usually only by reading the abstract of the
article.
BOOKS BY WRITERS HERE

Reply to This Link Skeptical (not verified) | 04/15/11 | 12:54 PM

Agree-this article and header appear to be very biased

Reply to This Link Mac (not verified) | 04/18/11 | 14:32 PM Social Culture and
High-Tech Economi...
Fred Phillips
Best Price $84.85
or Buy New $110.00

Privacy Information

3 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM
Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

We would counter, however, that even one avoidable adverse event is one too many.

As stated in the previous post, this position is untenable and places a rather strange criteria for a scientific
test.

While I don't have much of a position either for or against acupuncture, I still question the point regarding placebos.

In fact, taken as a whole, the published (and scientifically rigorous) evidence leads to the conclusion that
acupuncture is no more effective than placebo."

In my view, the overwhelmingly significant question here, is why placebos are effective at all. This raises important questions
regarding the effect that trials may have that attempt to demonstrate a benefit or not. If the placebo effect exists, then the ScientificBlogging on Facebook
expectation of the testers may well be influencing outcomes beyond the range of truly objective results. In fact, one of the Like
problems with this blanket assertion is that pain may often be a subjective experience for which a placebo may be precisely
the answer needed. 4,244 people like ScientificBlogging.

Reply to This Link Gerhard Adam | 04/15/11 | 13:24 PM

Vimana Laurence Howard Marcin Espen

Here is a video with research done in the UK that unequivocally proves Acupuncture has a physiological effect on the deep
structures of the brain, the limbic system, or pain matrix...something that the placebo or even superficial needling does not
have.

Reply to This Link James Whittle (not verified) | 04/15/11 | 14:02 PM

Jesus, some of these posts remind me of the rationalization I hear from the dowsing rod people.
(Oh, so now actual PLACEBOS should be approved pain treatment? lol.)
The "placebo effect" is simply stating that our emotions and attitude can make us feel better or worse.
Wow. I think we've actually understood that for a while now.
Acupunture is, of course, complete and total bullshit, just like all the other so-called homeopathic/ancient traditional/non-
Western "medicine". This is fully obvious with a little rational thought and requires no advanced degree or medical training,
just an open and unbiased mind. These quackeries are performed by so many "physicians" for one reason and one reason
only- they know there's plenty of people out there who are determined to believe in it and they want their share of that
immense market of suckers.

Reply to This Link StevoDog21 (not verified) | 04/16/11 | 16:31 PM

The "placebo effect" is simply stating that our emotions and attitude can make us feel better
or worse.
Wow. I think we've actually understood that for a while now.

Wow, I think you don't know what you're talking about. In the first place, many instances of pain are subjective and do
not have a "real" interpretation (such as phantom limb pain). So should you give actual pain medication for a pain that
originates in a limb that doesn't exist?

Obviously there is a psychological component that is affected by placebos, but the mere fact that such an effect exists,
indicates that much more needs to be studied to determine what role it plays and how much influence it can exert.
Positive or negative, this becomes a concern because it may make drug trials appear more effective than they are, just
like other treatments might produce worse results than they objectively should. The placebo effect is largely an
uncontrolled variable which can upset any concept of objectivity in testing.

I'm certainly no advocate for acupuncture or many of the non-traditional medical practices, but your cynical interpretation
is also not correct. These practices existed long before there was a "market of suckers", so that statement is simply
irrelevant and contributes nothing to the discussion. It is legitimate to question whether such treatments in the past
obtained any measure of success, and whether or not this was dependent on various elements to exploit the placebo
effect.

If the placebo effect can actually be harnessed, then it would be scientifically ignorant to presume that we can only affect

4 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM
Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

behavior or outcomes (especially subjective) with actual drugs. This becomes even more true when we consider many
of the psychotropic drugs that are being employed today for no better reason than to manipulate behaviors. If something
like the placebo effect was better understand and could be harnessed to that end, do you still think it would be
"quackery"?

Reply to This Link Gerhard Adam | 04/16/11 | 17:08 PM

The headline here is overly broad as the study dealt only with acupuncture's remedial effect on pain. I cannot comment on
that as pain is not my problem. Last year, though, I did spend about nine months suffering from lack of sleep vigilance (sleep
3-4 hours then wake up unable to go back to sleep and then nod off all day long). Three physicians, each with a different
approach, proved unhelpful. I saw an acupuncturist and, bang, one session and sleeping a normal night. I saw him for several
sessions. At some point, I mentioned that I go to bed late, a couple of hours after my wife, and that it would help our
domestic logistics if I could retire and rise with her. He asked what time I'd like to turn in. That night at ten (my specified
time) I was asleep on my feet. Even though I haven't seen my practitioner in months now, I remain on the same sleeping
schedule as my wife.

I doubt this is the result of a placebo effect. For one thing, I can barely understand him. For another, I'd tried ten sessions of
acupuncture years earlier, just prophylactically, and felt I got zilch out of it. However, if I did benefit solely from a placebo
effect, that's one helluva blessed placebo!

Reply to This Link Charlie (not verified) | 04/18/11 | 11:01 AM

I think some of the comments here illustrate exactly why acupuncture is effective for so many people: beyond all rational
observation, in spite of any evidence presented, they want it to be.

Take Gerhard's observation about phantom limb pain. In fact, that DOES have a very 'real' physiological component, having to
do with the brain, and specific treatments for it work very well because they are based on that knowledge.

It is certainly true that placebos like acupuncture have SOME use as long as you believe it, but then again paying some
charlatan lots of money can cause stress which easily negates any psychological effect. There is simply no substitute for real,
Western style medicine that is scientifically proven to work.

Reply to This Link Christoban (not verified) | 04/18/11 | 11:04 AM

In fact, that DOES have a very 'real' physiological component, having to do with the brain, and
specific treatments for it work very well because they are based on that knowledge.

What "real" physiological component is at work? Without nerves in the limb to send a pain signal, there is
no physiological cause. It is obvious that the brain is processing or interpreting something in its pain receptors, but you
can't argue that it is based on the actual transmission from a missing nerve.

In truth, phantom limb pain is difficult to treat because causes are not specifically known.
http://www.anesthesiologyinfo.com/articles/01272002.php
http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/1/107.full
http://www.bfe.org/protocol/pro05eng.htm

So perhaps your notion of "scientifically proven to work", needs a few more test cases.

It is surprising that many people want to simply ignore the idea of a placebo effect, because it is perceived as somehow
being a lesser quality treatment. I believe this originates in a reductionist view of medicine where every problem must
have a specific mechanistic cause. This works fine when one has a broken bone to treat or a bacterial infection. It
doesn't work nearly so well when the cause is largely unknown and perhaps subjective. In these cases, treatment is
often a cobbled together affair of various elements that are "hoped" to be effective, but rarely are.

Reply to This Link Gerhard Adam | 04/18/11 | 12:36 PM

Dude, that's total bullshit, that's just opinion no real facts.

5 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM
Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

Reply to This Link Anonymous (not verified) | 04/18/11 | 12:25 PM

Thank you for the article. The non-effectiveness of acupuncture has been known for a while now, but the public perception of
this "treatment" lags behind the body of research. And no, one positive or negative study does not comprise a body of
research - rather multiple studies should be examined critically together.

The placebo effect IS a well-studied phenomenon that actually exists, but it is important to note that you do not have to
subject yourself to sham "treatments" such as acupuncture or homeopathy (or Reiki, etc...) to gain the benefit of a placebo
effect - taking an ASPIRIN also has a placebo effect, only the aspirin has the ADDITIONAL benefit of actually administering a
proven remedy! So you get TWO for ONE!

To continue to defend acupuncture when the evidence over the past 30 years has shown nothing more than a placebo effect is
to continue to support a lie on the order of Bigfoot. The public should not be swindled into paying money for something that
does not exist - no matter how warm and fuzzy it personally makes them feel - they should be encouraged instead to seek
proven treatments with a better track-record.

I'm not saying acupuncture should be illegal, I'm saying it should come with a required disclaimer like, "This treatment has not
been demonstrated to be effective for treating any illness".

Thanks again.

Reply to This Link SWEJ (not verified) | 04/18/11 | 12:31 PM

The placebo effect IS a well-studied phenomenon that actually exists...

It is known to exist, but hardly falls into the "well-studied" category. I'm agnostic regarding acupuncture,
so I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other, simply because I haven't reviewed much
research on it. My own point is simply that even treatments that are not specifically effective in modern medical terms
may have been successfully used in the past due to the placebo effect.

I certainly agree that one needs to be cautious in pursuing treatments that are expensive without any demonstrable
benefits, however, it is unfortunate that much of Western medicine also falls into that category (in both expense and
effectiveness).

There is no question that when modern medicine has a specific diagnosis and a well established treatment, that it can be
very effective and verge on the miraculous. However, there are many areas where this simply isn't true, so while I'm not
advocating all manner of alternative treatments or therapies, nor am I suggesting that "magical" solutions are
appropriate, I think that we need to do far more in understanding the placebo effect to determine why various therapies
have been able to successfully persist over many generations.

It is easy to suggest that these treatments are shams, however, it is a more interesting question to ponder why they are
still around if it were that simple.

DISCLAIMER: My interest is very much in the placebo effect, so this is not an endorsement of homeopathy, acupuncture,
psychic healing, etc. I still expect that claims in any alternative medicines be subject to scientific explanation (even if it
is just the placebo effect). I am also opposed to simplistic "mind over matter" explanations regarding what occurs in
the brain.

Reply to This Link Gerhard Adam | 04/18/11 | 12:46 PM

The public should not be swindled into paying money for something that does not exist - no
matter how warm and fuzzy it personally makes them feel...

The question to be answered here is whether this is about money or effectiveness of treatment. The
point being that, I suspect no one would be having this discussion if it were free.

Of course that raises the second question, which is why it should be fine to pay large sums of money for any medical
treatment that doesn't prove itself to be effective. After all, if the patient dies in both cases, what is the basis for
claiming that one form of treatment had greater legitimacy than another?

6 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM
Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

Reply to This Link Gerhard Adam | 04/18/11 | 12:50 PM

Because of this, the NIH Consensus Panel concluded that acupuncture was proven to be
evidence-based for only two indications: dental pain and nausea (postsurgical, chemotherapy
induced, or nausea related to pregnancy). Their panel concluded that it was time to take
acupuncture seriously and that their systematic review of the literature indicated that it might also
be useful for a longer list of indications.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/501973_3

The recommendation, from the NHS rationing body NICE, said that the scientific evidence now showed that
acupuncture was not only effective at treating back pain, but also cost effective when other treatments, such
as painkillers, were found not to be working.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/alternative_medicine/article6623351.ece

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/acupuncture-for-pain.htm

The central point in all of these is that there are many unknowns regarding definitive proof of effectiveness or sham, as well
as the unknown influence of the placebo effect.

Once again, it is easy to dismiss some of these treatments when we compare them to well known diseases or injuries,
however a significant problem exists where people experience pain of non-specific origin, or headaches that do not lend
themselves well to specific treatments. In these cases, it is presumptuous to assume that Western medicine is the solution,
when there is no acceptable solution from any quarter.

Reply to This Link Gerhard Adam | 04/18/11 | 13:19 PM

where people experience pain of non-specific origin, or headaches that do not lend themselves well to specific treatments. In
these cases, it is presumptuous to assume that Western medicine is the solution, when there is no acceptable solution from
any quarter.

What is 'presumptuous' is to assume that any non-science based solution is a solution, when they are proven time and again
to be nothing more than placebo. I can rub myself all over with aloe to try to cure a headache, but I've almost certainly just
wasted some money, and possibly some time and effort I could have been using to see a real doctor who might have
diagnosed a brain tumor in its early stage.

Reply to This Link Christoban (not verified) | 04/18/11 | 13:32 PM

What is 'presumptuous' is to assume that any non-science based solution is a solution...

No, actually what you're doing is claiming that something that hasn't been completely verified or rejected
is, by default, a "non-science" solution. You insist that it has been "proven time and again" despite the
fact that I just posted several links that indicate that nothing definitive has been proven. This doesn't lend legitimacy to
acupuncture, nor does it deny that it may be effective.

I can rub myself all over with aloe to try to cure a headache, but I've almost certainly just wasted some
money...

Of course, and you might also go to a doctor who prescribes medication that is equally ineffective. Given the state of
treatment for migraine headaches, you certainly can't be claiming that your money is any more effectively spent on a
treatment that may not work. Do you get a refund if a drug doesn't work? Actually you will accept the failure of Western
medicine because your belief system considers that such an outcome is actually reasonable because you believe there's
a "scientific" basis for it. More interesting, is that you will accept the "science" despite having no evidence that your
doctor is actually aware of the "science". It becomes a series of self-fulfilling prophecies based on a mutual belief
system.

My own father got his "cancer survivor's" pin less than four weeks before he died of cancer, so what kind of "scientific"
effectiveness are we talking about here? Don't get me wrong, because I'm not blaming medicine nor doctors for these

7 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM
Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

kinds of outcomes, but I also don't believe that we are nearly as informed "scientifically" as we are often lead to believe.

There's no question that an inappropriate diagnosis or inappropriate treatments can be detrimental, but there's also no
guarantees with Western medical treatments regardless of how much hubris is often displayed.

As with many "believers", we tend to accept the failure of Western medicine as simply being an unfortunate outcome,
while we want to blame other methods as being arbitrarily "non-scientific". My point is that ineffective treatments are
ineffective regardless of where they originate from and the mere fact that they are ineffective is a strong indicator that
they are not "scientific". In other words, we don't know what to do about that particular condition.

While your quaint example regarding aloe and headaches is cute, how does it apply to issues like prescribing ritalin to
children for ADHD? Remember at one point, lobotomies were considered "scientific", so let's not be quite so quick to
climb on the bandwagon when our knowledge is incomplete.

As I've mentioned before, I am not an advocate of alternative medicines, nor do I believe that anything goes simply
because scientific knowledge may be lacking. However, I also don't accept the notion that we should be dismissive of
treatments that appear to have a long history of use, because we could easily be missing something. Similarly, I am not
dismissive of the placebo effect, because as I've said elsewhere, we may well find that the ability to harness such an
effect is significantly more important than ignoring it.

When it comes to something like acupuncture, we may want to dismiss it because of the belief that it is based on, and
perhaps the explanation of how it supposedly works may be scientifically flawed. However, we shouldn't confuse the
explanation with some phenomenon as being the same as the phenomenon itself. Science is often wrong about
explanations, but that doesn't change the nature of the underlying event.

Reply to This Link Gerhard Adam | 04/18/11 | 14:10 PM

"Of course, and you might also go to a doctor who prescribes medication that is equally ineffective. Given the state
of treatment for migraine headaches, you certainly can't be claiming that your money is any more effectively spent
on a treatment that may not work."

Of course it may not work. But at least it has a decent chance. Even the most effective of non-scientific treatments
you simply don't know, and it is as likely to hurt you as help. In fact, the majority of modern, western medications
do work, at least when you can get the diagnosis right (and imbalanced 'chi' will never be a 'real' diagnosis, sorry).
From diabetes to cancer to depression, modern medicine is far, far more likely to help your condition than some
random remedy, especially ones like acupuncture proven scientifically to be useless, even possibly harmful.

As to what someone said about only 20% of doctor appointments being certain to help you (guessing the 'likely to
help' # is higher), that is a very high statistic compared to 0%.

Reply to This Link Christoban (not verified) | 04/18/11 | 18:24 PM

...imbalanced 'chi' will never be a 'real' diagnosis...

No one is arguing that point, however such an explanation doesn't mean that a treatment is
automatically ineffective. Many herbal medicines were effective (and ultimately transformed
into the drugs we use today) without having a scientific explanation for their effectiveness, so that's an
irrelevant argument.

Acupuncture doesn't have to work based on an accurate explanation, however the accurate explanation
becomes a necessary element to put it on a scientific footing.

But at least it has a decent chance. Even the most effective of non-scientific treatments you
simply don't know, and it is as likely to hurt you as help.

That's just wishful thinking. Doctors have exploited the placebo effect when it suited them (which introduced
ethical problems that have been explored as well). However, the problem here is in defining what is meant by
a "scientific" treatment. How "scientific" can a treatment be in the absence of absolute knowledge of causes?
Certainly we can claim that we're only providing supportive treatment for symptoms, but what makes that
"scientific"?

8 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM
Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

How many treatments are being provided by modern medicine for psychological diagnosis, that are often far
more subjective than they are "scientific"? Is there a scientific consensus for HRT (Hormone Replacement
Therapy) in women? Is there truly an objective diagnosis or is it merely subjective in the patient?

As I said, I'm not advocating for alternative medicine, or magical solutions. In some cases, it is easy to look at
a treatment and argue that there is no basis for claiming effectiveness. However, as I said, a historical
approach is also necessary to help establish whether something is more likely to be quackery, or to have
served some useful purpose over time. In the latter case, it bears considering whether there are some
avenues of investigation that need to be pursued to better understand why it appears to work and determine if
there is a scientific basis for it.

As it stands, some earlier links I provided indicate that it appears that there may be a narrow range of
applications in which acupuncture appears effective. If so, then let's see what studies indicate and then we
can establish how "scientific" it is. My concern with statements like "unscientific" is that often something isn't
actually unscientific at all. It's like the flat earth idea. That idea isn't unscientific, it is precisely scientific
because it can be tested and verified. Therefore the flat earth hypothesis is scientific and wrong which is the
whole point of conducting such examinations.

Reply to This Link Gerhard Adam | 04/18/11 | 19:01 PM

Christoban sed:

"There is simply no substitute for real, Western style medicine that is scientifically proven to work."

Wowzers! Hate to break it to you, but I'm a science editor. One of the first authors I worked with back in the 70s was an MD
who'd worked with the Hersey Hospital to find out why treatments that worked on typical patients did not work on their
Amish/Mennonite patients. He advised using plasters, poultices and other folk remedies... and they worked.

Going back 30 years, I was familiar with a study that determined that in 20% of cases, treatment by a physician is a clear-cut
boon to a patient (mostly having to do with trauma care and infections). In 10% of cases, patients were negatively impacted
by seeing a physician (thru iatrogenic and nocosomial effects). In the other 70%, there was no clear benefit or harm. Either
patient outcomes were indeterminate (some improved slightly, some worsened) or the patients would've recovered every bit
as quickly absent seeing a physician.

The book I completed over the last two years was in conjunction with faculty of a medical school. On the subject of clinical
trials, what is being proven is that the pharmaceutical in question is "safe," not effective to any great degree. People with long
careers were telling me they only recall a couple of drugs coming through with real clear benefit, and they were ambivalent
about such drugs because of their likelihood of dealing a blow to the finances of the practice, as H2 inhibitors did to gastric
surgery.

We are a long way from having an effective practice of medicine, in this country or anywhere else. Some of the things coming
down the pike in areas like genetics, photonics and nanotechnology promise to equip physicians with powerful tools down to
the ability to see what is going on in individual cells and organelles, but for now we are stumbling around. We could slash
medical budgets by 80% nationwide with no overall detriment. Keep that in mind next time you go searching for a great
outcome from medicine, Western or otherwise.

Reply to This Link Charlie (not verified) | 04/18/11 | 17:43 PM

I'm still waiting for a study that can identify 'Health' Aitch

Reply to This Link Henry Cox | 04/18/11 | 19:20 PM

ADD A COMMENT

Your name:

E-mail:

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage:

9 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM
Acupuncture No Better Than Placebo And May Be Harmful http://www.science20.com/news_articles/acupuncture_no_better_placeb...

Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
<img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody>
<div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

Notify me when new comments are posted

All comments Replies to my comment

CAPTCHA

If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar
to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.

Who's >
Online?
494 guests

About Us | Contact Us | RSS | Terms | Privacy | Copyright and Removal | Advertise with Us 2011 ION Publications LLC

10 of 10 7/9/2011 4:49 AM