PDA

View Full Version : Advice on accupuncture please



jscotello
15th February 2001, 15:47
I am considering a visit to the accuputurist for treatment of some chronic gastro-intestinal issues with a chrones type of prognossis. First of all, I am curious to specific qualifications one should look for in a practicioner - to include methodology and certification. Furthermore, as I have never been, I don't know if accupunture can treat this type of situation. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Warrior Don
16th February 2001, 11:58
Dear John;
Acupuncture is a wonderful Holistic method for curing just about any ailments. A licensed acupuncturist who is also a licensed Herbologist would be your best bet. Combining acupuncture with chinese medicinal herbs should be able to help if not cure your condition. If you need any further help in finding someone credible please feel free to e-mail me.

Also if you have an Apothecary (Chinese Pharmacist) close to you, they most certainly will have Herbs and Teas that can help and can most likely steer you to an Acupuncturist/Herbologist.

Good Luck and be well

Bob Steinkraus
16th February 2001, 17:44
Acupuncture is a treatment with no known benefits apart from placebo.

I am aware of no studies that indicate acupuncture has any effect on gastro-intestinal disease. The basic theory behind acupuncture remains unproven, and most studies that claim to find a benefit seem to have been poorly designed.

Check http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html

for an overview of the scientific consensus on the topic.

If you feel you must try it, I would strongly recommend two things.
- Continue to see your regular MD. Inform him of any herbs or treatments that the acupuncturist recommends, as some herbs interact with regular medications, and not always for the better. Since most herbs are not regulated by the FDA, there is no way to tell how much (if any) of whatever active ingredient is supposed to be in your herbs is really there, nor that it does anything.
- Insist that the needles be sterilized before they are inserted, or watch while he or she opens the sealed packet of needles. Infections from dirty needles are a risk you don't need to take.

Bottom line is that acupuncture is a waste of time and money, but some people are able to convince themselves and others that it is not. Caveat emptor.

Steve Williams
17th February 2001, 00:13
Originally posted by Bob Steinkraus
Bottom line is that acupuncture is a waste of time and money, but some people are able to convince themselves and others that it is not. Caveat emptor.

Just to rain on your parade :)

I personally have not had accupuncture, but some of my friends have, and almost without exception they have been extremely pleased with the results....Placebo--possibly.

How do you explain the success of accupuncture on animals, I have seen it done, and although the animals can't say they are better, they certainly look and act better....Maybe there is something in it, you must agree that there are many things which we do not fully understand, a large number in the medical field, so don't dismiss it because there are no published studies.


Just to shed a little more light on peoples views: not so long ago people balked at the use of leaches (they said it was from the dark ages when they did not know what they were doing!!) now surgeons use leaches and maggots in their treatments. Who was or is right?

Warrior Don
17th February 2001, 12:03
Mr. Steinkruas;

What is your medical background? Do you hold any degrees in any type of Medicine?

Holistic medicine, specifically accupuncture and accupressure have been around since the beginning of time. As a matter of fact when "Americans" started bring chinese immigrants over to work as servants and on the railroads, western doctors started looking and the herbs that they brought with them. Experimenting with these and native herbs and plants scientists formulated the first "modern medicines" as we know them. The key problem with taking these plants and herbs and transforming them into forms we call "pills", was that they did not last very long. When dried, crushed and pressed into pill form there effectiveness was greatly shortened, but they made due until the 20th century. Around the turn of the century scientists began experimenting with synthetic compounds to simulate the compounds found in the plants and herbs. Eventually they came up with the medicines that we know today.

The problem that I have with western medicine is that all of the artifical compounds used to derive these medications are NOT good on our bodies! And yes it has been proven!

I know first hand that there are in fact plants and herbs that do cure many of the things that ail us.

I had bursitis in both of my shoulders for about 10 years. Believe me there were days that I thought that I would never be able to continue training/teaching it hurt so bad.
On a trip to San Francisco's China Town I went to an Apothocary shoppe to look at some things of interest. While shopping I came across a Budda statue that caught my eye. When I picked it up my should gave way to pain, because the statue was heavier than I had anticipated. The owner Sifu Yeung came over and asked if I was in pain? I said yes and explained my illness. By the way I had this disorder diagnosed by my family doctor. Sifu immediately brought me a cup of tea and instructed me to drink it. I did. Sifu then brought me a little pouch of wildflower leaves which he instructed me to steep in boiling water to make tea and drink it twice a day for two weeks and then once a day from there on out. So I did. After one month I had no more pain in my shoulders and don't to this day!

After the month was up I went back to my Dr. and he did another ultrasound and x-rays and could find no swelling. I had told him of the treatment and he said "that is impossible". Well then where did my bursitis go? It doesn't just go away, especially after 10 years. My Dr. was a skeptic. He asked for the name of the Apothocary where I had gotten the tea leaves. I gave him the name and he sent for some of his own. He tried them on a few patients with the same condition as I and guess what? It worked on them as well. Could it have been a placebo on 4 people? I think not.

I think it wise for you to take off the blindfold before walking down a crowded street.

I as well have had and self-perform accupuncture to relieve a lower back injury I sustained as a freshman in high school. Until I did accupuncture nothing would help it when it flaired up!

Jeremy Hulley
18th February 2001, 00:31
I pulled my pleformis, sorry about the spelling, and gave myself a case of sciatica. I was unable to put any weight on my left leg without shooting pains. After one treatment and some rest i was on the mat. I came in a little skeptical but it worked well.
Jeremy C Hulley

jscotello
19th February 2001, 15:15
I would like to thank everyone for posting thier well intentioned advice. I can see that some people disagree on the subject. At this point I am very willing to try anything - but will keep a keen eye and honesty evaluate the results. My condition is not medically labled "chronic" but is something that I have had to live with for a while now. I have seen several specialists whos methods to treatment have ultimately lead to high level narcotics. I simply don't like to take them. Numbing the pain and my senses is a very temporary solution. I have been advised that there is an excellent praticioner of accupuncture and Chinese herbalism not far from me. I will see him, and objectively report back.

jscotello
19th February 2001, 15:15
I would like to thank everyone for posting thier well intentioned advice. I can see that some people disagree on the subject. At this point I am very willing to try anything - but will keep a keen eye and honesty evaluate the results. My condition is not medically labled "chronic" but is something that I have had to live with for a while now. I have seen several specialists whos methods to treatment have ultimately lead to high level narcotics. I simply don't like to take them. Numbing the pain and my senses is a very temporary solution. I have been advised that there is an excellent praticioner of accupuncture and Chinese herbalism not far from me. I will see him, and objectively report back.

Bob Steinkraus
19th February 2001, 17:54
Steve Williams writes:
Just to rain on your parade Not to worry, I let a smilie be my umbrella.

He further writes:
How do you explain the success of accupuncture on animals Also as regards the question of placebo in animals:

Have a look at http://www.prioritiesforhealth.com/1102/acu.html for an article on veterinary acupuncture on animals. Much of the research into acupuncture on animals seems to have been done on horses. I am also aware of a study done in the late 70s on acupuncture in horses (my father supervised it - he is a DVM and had been appointed to the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association licensing board). I cannot give you a cite for this study, as it had to be discontinued. Acupuncture was producing no good effects, and the acupuncturist did not sterilize his needles, as it did not fit into his medical theories. The horses were getting staph infections from the dirty needles.

The article cited above mentions some of the reasons for apparent 'placebo' effects in animals. Another is the fact that for many animals, social interaction affects their health. Thus if you divide dogs into two groups, and leave one in their cages all the time, and give the other group the social interaction involved in acupuncture, the fact that the acupunctured animals are taken out and handled can affect the course of whatever disease you are studying.

Mr. Williams also writes:
not so long ago people balked at the use of leaches (they said it was
from the dark ages when they did not know what they were doing!!) now surgeons use leaches and maggots in their
treatments. Who was or is right? Well, in your example the doctors using leeches were wrong. The idea behind leeches was the same as for bloodletting. The theory was that the human body held four 'humors', namely blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile, and that an excess of one of these 'humors' would produce disease. Leeches were used to remove some of the 'excess' blood.

We now believe these ideas to be nonsense, and leeches are no longer used to remove excess blood. The use of maggots to which you refer is to keep surgical or traumatic wounds clean, as the maggots will eat the infected or necrotic tissue and assist in healing.

So the apothecaries of the Middle Ages were wrong, because their basic theory was wrong. Similarly, acupuncturists teach that the human body contains a magic force called "ch'i", or (in Japanese) "ki", and that this force flows along meridians thru the body. Interference with the flow of this "ch'i" is believed to cause disease.

No evidence exists for the "ch'i" any more than for the theory of the four humors. Therefore, since the effects of acupuncture can be explained by placebo, counter-irritation, and the self-limiting nature of many diseases, acupuncture remains in the category of unproven treatment.

Warrior Don asks:
What is your medical background? Do you hold any degrees in any type of Medicine? Fair question. I have no medical or other post-graduate degree, just a bachelor's degree. I make my living as a computer consultant.

The people who wrote the articles I cited do have such degrees. Dr. Ramey, who wrote the article cited in this post, is a DVM in large animal practice. Dr. Stephen Barrett, who wrote the introductory article cited in my first post, is an MD, a retired psychiatrist who works against health fraud. Also check the references cited at the end of the articles. The credentials of all the authors are usually listed in their publications.

He also writes:
Holistic medicine, specifically accupuncture and accupressure have been around since the beginning of time Actually not quite that long. I had a vision of dinosaurs in white coats that made me smile.

The rest of Warrior Don's post is too sweeping to be taken seriously. Specifically, herbs are not longer-lasting than pills, and
The problem that I have with western medicine is that all of the artifical compounds used to derive these medications are
NOT good on our bodies! And yes it has been proven! Really? All Western medicine is harmful? Can you point me to where that has been proven?

Or
Could it have been a placebo on 4 people? I think not.

I think it wise for you to take off the blindfold before walking down a crowded street. The placebo effect is not controlled by sample size, but by techniques like double blinding. And I don't think a sample size of four people, with no control group, could be considered valid proof of anything.

If you classify a desire to withhold belief until the evidence is in as wearing a blindfold, fine with me. The road I am walking is already crowded enough with people who think they see things that aren't really there.

MarkF
20th February 2001, 12:06
Just speaking as a clinical pharmacist, I haven't practiced in a hospital yet which didn't stock or have access to leeches. Seems they are very good at debriding a wound about to fester, but hasn't, and Bob is correct too, about the maggots. They aren't used routinely, but they are used.

As to bloodletting, there is still some good reasons for this, but not as described above. I've noticed some patients, for example, a woman in her forties, have "too much blood" and this causes severe essential hypertension. Usually, this is with people who are morbidly obese, but some doctors will remove blood as part of hypotension therapy. Sometimes, when faced with a coronary event, with patient who is nearly omniallergic, taking a pint or two of blood can ease a heart event, or stroke. It has been used in this way as late as in the late twentieth century.

It isn't for the ancient ways of alchemists, but it is done in some rare cases.

Also, the comment of synthetic substances being a health risk, this is also partly true. One substance which is definitely a carcinogenic, and is in hundreds of drug preparations is Tartrazine, or FD &C yellow number five, can be fatal to some people who are allergic to this substance. It is a coloring found in many OTC and Rx drugs, and has never been a necessary substance. It can also cause cancer, and is found in large amounts, in chemical spills, on purpose or otherwise. Selenium is a good food supplement, but this, in large quantities, is a mineral also found in these spills. Eveything you put in your pie hole has odds both ways.

Now to go the other way with Chinese herbology. First of all, as in any science, faith plays the bigger role. While some substances are common and temporary in relieveing symptoms, so too should one be wary of unknown and known ingredients. The funny thing is, that when the same drug, natural in most cases, is found in these herbs, some which are claimed to relieve asthmatic breathers, are the same drugs which are sold or prescribed/dispensed as, for example, temporary relief of asthma, stuffy noses, and in herbs, are given in the natural form, which causes the same reactions, and making people feel better very quickly.

The drug is Ephedra, or ephedrine, when extracted and formulated using the apothocary, or avradupois measuring system (16 drams equals an ounce. 16 ounces equal a pound). Normally, to relieve a stuffy nose, 25 to 50 mgs of ephedrine are prescribed orally, which is approximately equivelent to six mgs of ephedra, the most common drug, natural or otherwise, in some chinese herbs. This drug is in the same family as amphetamines, as ephedrine is used, both in making the drug for dispensing legally, or using in hotel labs where crystal meth is made.

Either way, when taken to help assist breathing into the lungs, or unplugging noses, it is more addicting than any narcotic on the market. Why? Ask a person who buys three bottles at a time of nasal spray, such as Afrin, or one who takes something containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine how much better they breathe, but within three days, the rebound effect of these over-the-counter drugs, are so much worse then the original symptom, that more is used, and then more and more. This causes no psychological addiction, nor does it create a high of any kind. It simply helps people breathe, but at a cost. The Wal.Mart stores here in Albuquerque have put a limit on how many of the neosynephrine (similar to ephedrine) generics which can be bought, because some people come in and buy every bottle on the shelf. This is not an easy addiction to shake, even though no high is felt from it, except relief of a stuffy nose. This is called rhinitis medicamentosa and any doctor will instantly recognize it. It works by shrinking the nasal or pulmonary arterioles, therefore making more room for air to pass. It isn't controlled. It isn't even a prescription drug. Most of these drugs were made available to the general public by the early seventies (Afrin was the last one).

Deadly nightshade is natural death, but is also considered an herb. It has medicinal value, as in Belladonna. Ask about the most common treatment for gout. This too, is a natural drug, but can have deadly consequences if overused: Colchicine. I could go on and on, but if the world's pharmaceutical companies would work with herbologists, coming up with just the correct dosages, and just the right time to give it, we might get somewhere. Even Osteopathic Doctors, are using the prescription pad more and more because of time constraints with patients. No time, write scrip.

All of the so-called "bad drugs;" narcotics, cocaine, amphetamines, barbituric acids, Marinol (marijuana in pill form) are all available by a doctor's written, or if hospitalized, phone or verbal prescription. These are wonderful drugs, most narcotic and cocaine-added preparations are available, but most people die in agony anyway. If allopaths were not so intent with attacking the body to kill the disease, perhaps the lack of study wouldn't be lacking today. Why withhold the drug, or underpresribe the one drug or drugs, which, in the correct doses, can relieve the pain of cancer ridden victims? What is the point? Addiction? In someone who is dying?

This is a self-medicating society, and there is no difference in the patient who needs medications (possibly) for their pain, to those who shoot up the same drugs in shooting galleries, for their pain. It is just a different kind of pain. Even Ibuprofen and naproxen, both painkillers, are advertised to be "stronger" than Tylenol with codeine #3 (two doses) even though they are addicting as are most over the counter cough syrups but also is a true statement...to a point. While the NSAIDs, such as Advil, can be a stronger drug in relieving inflamation, the same cannot be said of Tylenol. It isn't an anti-inflammatory drug. It affects the CNS, but the codeine, is much stronger in killing pain brought on by inflammation. So, one naproxen is stronger than one gram of codeine. Right. Legally, they skate on thin ice here, but it is not true, not in the way Joe Average believes. Dextromethorphan, the one opiate availabe over the counter, is widely abused, and advertised on television.

Enter the Dragon: Penicillin, and most antibiotics are now, after decades of warning that this was coming, and allopaths with hands over ears, now have a possible pandemic disease on their hands. So much has been dispensed, even neo-nates are born resistant to them.

Not all what is claimed of the uncontrolled side of the aisle will do what is promised, nor will all drugs now available do much of anything towards a
"cure." That is a misnomer at best. Doctors and drugs don't cure anything, it is the immune system we all have which promotes the cures. The drugs merely treat the symptoms so we "feel" cured. But if you are going to take any kind of herbs, read the labels. If there isn't one, then ask for the ingredients or package inserts, in your first language. If one isn't coming, then don't take it. This goes for pharmaceuticals as well. If your doctor doesn't have this info available, get it from your pharmacists. After all, retail pharmacists are having their practices yanked, for not counseling enough. Make then earn the "big bucks."
*****

OK, rant over, I'm done. People need to see the value in sharing, whether it works as a placebo, as most people, with colds or flu, were given antibiotics for their ills, even though the medico knew it woudn't do a thing, except ease one's mind.

Bob Steinkraus
21st February 2001, 13:02
Dr. Ramey, who I cited in a previous post, has been kind enough to post me some URLs regarding studies on acupuncture.

One is
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11158960&dopt=Abstract

This one shows that patients who have never received acupuncture before do not react to it with arterial dilation. This suggests that patients learn to react to acupuncture; i.e. that it is caused by suggestion.

Another is

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10929448&dopt=Abstract

which shows that whether or not needles are placed in accordance with traditional acupuncture makes no difference in pain relief from arthritis, again suggesting that traditional acupuncture theory is wrong, and that pain relief is due to placebo and counter-irritation.

There are more URLs at http://www.seanet.com/~vettf/Medline2.htm, if you care to examine. The problem is that so much of the research is not particularly good.

Gotta love the Internet! A few mouse clicks, and we have access to scientific studies on practically anything under the sun.

Warrior Don
22nd February 2001, 06:06
Mr. Steinkraus;

We all know that the gov't doesn't lie! Yeah and Bill Clinton is the most truthful, righteous living American on the planet!

Western science has never favored Eastern Holistic Medicines or methods.

You can argue "scientific" studies all you wish. I have witnessed first hand and personally been subject to accupuncture, chinese herbs and holistic medicine. Believe it or not I am not easily impressed with things that I don't know. Well it has worked for me!

And why is it until western restaurants such as, Mc D's, B.K. and others started appearing in Asian countries that diseases like cancer and diabetes were the lowest in the world. Now that there is "American" fast food available over there these diseases have increased 10 fold. According to our beloved gov't. those stats are all crap.

Well I have personal contacts in both Japan and Hong Kong that can verify these stats as true. Did the gov't. lie? Could that be?

I have heard straight from doctors (2 DO's, 4 MD's, 1 Oncologist and 1 Thorasic Surgen) that I know personally, that the gov't and the pharmaceutical companies will NEVER publish or admit that eastern medicine has any viable use. THEIR WRONG!!!!!

Just like their still trying to find a cure for cancer. They already have! Why don't they come out with it you ask?
Well if they cured cancer think of all of the people in the research industry that would be out of jobs.

What do you think helped the economy of the 80's?
HIV/AIDS!

Ask yourself this. Why after centuries of habitation on this planet did HIV/AIDS all of the sudden pop up in the 1980's? Especially at a time when the country was in the midst of a recession. Look how many new jobs this disease created and how many pharmaceutical companies have profitted from it as well. Would they be able to if they admitted that there is an eastern herb or root that can do the same thing as AZT.

And why is it that Asians out live us by nearly 30 years on the average with fewer diseases?

While all of the politicians and scientists, who write these wonderfully truthful studies, were busy studying at their fancy Ivy League Colleges, I was busy attending the College of Life!

The thing with that College is, the education never ends and I don't need text books to tell what I am suppost to learn. Daily living teaches me that!!!!

MarkF
22nd February 2001, 10:54
And why is it until western restaurants such as, Mc D's, B.K. and others started appearing in Asian countries that diseases like cancer and diabetes were the lowest in the world. Now that there is "American" fast food available over there these diseases have increased 10 fold. According to our beloved gov't. those stats are all crap.



Hi, Don,
There is an old saying about practicing tort law: "Never, ever ask why, unless you know exactly what answer will begiven." (a bit parapharsed)

First you must designate what you mean by "Asian Countries." The Asian continent, that is, basically, China, and the former USSR. Not many Japanese feel they are Asian, but let's put this aside and answer your question.

You are only partially correct. While in Japan, for example, the average cases of colon cancer are almost nil, the cases of stomach cancer are amoung the highest in the world. However, in the great Metropolis of Tokyo, the rate of colon cancer is much higher than the country overall. Most of the meat eaters in Japan arein the bigger cities, can afford it, therefore there is more colon pathology. Stomach cancer, or rather, the rise in it, was caused by chemical and oil spills, in which fish and other seafood, had high concentrations of mercury.


Just like their still trying to find a cure for cancer. They already have! Why don't they come out with it you ask?
Well if they cured cancer think of all of the people in the research industry that would be out of jobs.



Could you be more specific in this area? While a potential cure for a certain type of leukemia has been produced, it will be years before the testing sequence is finished before it is released for the general public. Aside from that, I know of no cancer cures, nor cures of any kind.


I have heard straight from doctors (2 DO's, 4 MD's, 1 Oncologist and 1 Thorasic Surgen) that I know personally, that the gov't and the pharmaceutical companies will NEVER publish or admit that eastern medicine has any viable use. THEIR WRONG!!!!!



I agree that the pharmaceutical companies are extremely selfish, and are even more notorius in this country (US), the statement concerning this cure for one type of leukemia is the only one of which I know. Who or which company will invest in a drug which will cure a few thousand world wide would be the better question. It will become an "orphan drug" as so many others have.



What do you think helped the economy of the 80's?
HIV/AIDS!

Ask yourself this. Why after centuries of habitation on this planet did HIV/AIDS all of the sudden pop up in the 1980's? Especially at a time when the country was in the midst of a recession. Look how many new jobs this disease created and how many pharmaceutical companies have profitted from it as well. Would they be able to if they admitted that there is an eastern herb or root that can do the same thing as AZT.



Huh? The country was in a recession and AIDS/HIV "helped" this economy? Who did it help? All substances were at one time natural. Yep, HIV brought us right out of a recession and into the growth spurt of the nineties. Again, where did you get this one from? When will this disease help third world countries out of the economical stress they live in? Would not the Pharmaceutical companies make millions, even billions of dollars by making it available?


And why is it that Asians out live us by nearly 30 years on the average with fewer diseases?



By thirty years?? Well, let's see. The average life span of a woman in the United States is 77, and is about 73 for man, if that. Even if you put the Asian peoples at the top of the curve, it just isn't true, but I will agree with one thing. The Senior citizens of the Asian and Pacific people are *better* off than seniors of this hemisphere. Here, we help them live longer, only to have their kids toss them aside into nursing homes.

The natural circle of family life is certainly a better, and more fair one, so I can see how this may look this way, but it just isn't a verifiable statistic. Most elders are better cared for, and so live out happier lives, but this does not account for gravity pulling on every piece of every persons body, making them diseased, and sick, as anywhere else.

Come up with some stats you can argue and I will admit I am wrong. Until then, I think I will begin to worry whether I have twenty or thirty years left, because if it is thirty, then I wil certainly outlive the curve.

Mark

Bob Steinkraus
22nd February 2001, 18:28
Mark has made a number of useful points as regards some of the statements in Warrior Don's post.

I would like to address a couple of the others.

First of all, his first post stated that western medicine was based on examination and testing of herbs.

Thus:
Experimenting with these and native herbs and plants scientists formulated
the first "modern medicines" as we know them.

Then, in a later post, he denies that western scientific medicine will even consider herbs.

the gov't and
the pharmaceutical companies will NEVER publish or admit that eastern medicine has any viable use. THEIR WRONG!!!!!

Which is it?

Warrior Don states:
Western science has never favored Eastern Holistic Medicines or methods.

You can argue "scientific" studies all you wish. I have witnessed first hand and personally
been subject to accupuncture, chinese herbs and holistic medicine. Believe it or not I am not
easily impressed with things that I don't know. Well it has worked for me!

Actually, western science neither favors nor disfavors any medicines or method. It applies (at its best) one set of standards to all claims.

Eastern medicine is no different than western. It has to work, or it is rejected.

The scientific method is applied impartially to all claims based on anecdotal evidence such as Warrior Don has supplied. People claim that acupuncture, or herbs, or voodoo, or quinine, or whatever, has 'worked for them'. By applying double blinded, large scale studies, scientists are then able to determine why it worked for you. Was it placebo or auto-suggestion? Did the disease or condition go away on its own, as many do? Or is there some real effect there that can be isolated and studied for the benefit of others?

The placebo effect can be brought about in a number of ways. Some of these ways are painful, dangerous, and expensive. Others are easy and cheap. There is no percentage in finding out new ways to invoke the placebo effect, especially if these new ways involve dangers that outweigh the advantages of someone talking himself out of feeling sick. This is especially so in cases where genuine treatments exist that can really help a disease or condition. Even if acupuncture were the best placebo-producer in the world, it would be silly for a person with (for instance) skin cancer to seek acupuncture instead of surgery.

Much of the rest of Warrior Don's post related to his claim that there was already a cure for cancer that has been suppressed by greedy executives because it would cut into their profits. A few moments of rational thought would reveal this to be silly as well as paranoid. Research is considered an overhead cost by pharmaceutical companies. Spending the money to try to find a cure for cancer, and then not trying to reap the gigantic profits that would result, is about as opposite to the self interest of a drug company as can be imagined.

And does Warrior Don really believe that no pharmaceutical company executives, and no member of their families, ever suffer from cancer? Does he really mean to suggest that they are willing to die, and to let their parents and children die, when a cure is available, all because they are committed to the balance sheet of their latest employer?

I may have posted this story before, but perhaps it bears repeating.

Niels Bohr was the inventor of the first modern atomic model of the hydrogen atom. A visitor to his office once noticed that he had a horseshoe nailed up over the door to his office. The visitor asked why a scientifically trained mind such as Bohr's would put any belief in a superstition such as a lucky horseshoe. Bohr responded immediately that he did not believe in any such foolishness. "Then why," asked the visitor, "do you have it up there?"

"Well," replied Bohr, "I am told that a horseshoe will bring you luck whether you believe in it or not."

This is the paradigm of scientific medicine. It seeks for things that will do you good even if you don't believe in them. So far, acupuncture does not seem to fall into that category.

AST
22nd February 2001, 19:56
This subject is one that is somewhat close to my heart, so I'm not going to pretend that I am even neutral in my viewpoints.

Point one: In South Africa medical aid schemes are encouraging clients to switch to alternative therapies, due to their lower cost and the rising costs of modern medicine.

With this in mind I tried acupuncture to cure habitual ear infections that I contract. I figured that after 25 years of ENT's and they hadn't got much right what did I have to lose.

End result:
Ear infection cured right now, waiting for long term reoccurence to determine possible superiority / inferiority to western methods.

No discernible superiority demonstrated by either system. Approached acupuncture without any great belief in it, placebo? maybe? However results achieved are exactly the same as the ENT's and 100% covered by my medical aid, ENT's are not.

As to the inability to scientifically prove acupuncture I have one word to say on this.

COMPETITION

While I may not have strong feelings about acupuncture I do have strong feelings about the state of western medicine and the pharmaceutical companies that supply it.

Western medicine will always rally against such things as acupuncture, homeopathy, qi gong etc, because they are the cheap alternative to the drugs that prop up their mutli billion dollar (US) industries. Nobody punts the competition.

Most western researchers are incapable of being objective since they are largely funded by these juggernaughts.

Secondly most western doctors and researchers that I have met walk around with this projected swagger of arrogance and contempt when these subjects are raised.

An example can be seen above with the site so arrogantly titled quack watch. Thank God that we have these wise people to tell us all exactly what is quackery and what is not. Whew! I almost used my brain there for a second. The mere title of that site automatically prejudices any one searching for content there in.

Why don't we create a site about medical malpractice and it's subsequent cover ups. We can call it greedybastards.com. I'm sure the medical community won't take offence. We could probably fill a couple of gigs.

If anybody thinks I'm a little bit biased, my wife worked for a pharmaceutical company that has it's headquarters in the USA. I personally witnessed the paying of commission to doctors to prescribe their drug over the competitors. Next time your enlightened GP writes out a script, ask yourself, best drug available or best price available.

Also since the attitude of the researcher has been shown to effect the outcome of even double blind testing, what effect does the dismissive arrogance of the western researcher have on their result findings.

Is it not quantum physics that postulates that thought can affect atoms and thus the outcome of experiments. What implication does this have for this research.

Acupuncture is some 2500 years +- old, and still in use. Something must work beyond the mere placebo effect. When western medicine is this old perhaps then it can denounce with contemptuous authority that it seems to think is it's sole claim and right.

However from where I sit, it's like a teenager. Thinks it knows it all and still has so much to learn.

jscotello
23rd February 2001, 14:39
I have now had my first acupuncture session, and have another scheduled for tomorrow. All in all it was one of my more enjoyable doctor's appointments. I filled out a medical history, explained my conditions, and mentioned that I had a bit of soarness in my lower back (from working out too hard). The doctor (a Chinese MD from Hong Kong with license in acupuncture and herbalism), explained the coarse of treatment - how acupuncture could help, and then fully explained what was going to happen. I had about twelve needles in various meridians and around my lower GI. These were then hooked up to a slight electric current (the way a physical therapist or sports trainer might treat muscle damage). I was then left for twenty minutes to relax. I was able to meditate more easily at this point than I had ever been able in my life. After the acupuncture, the doctor messaged my back and gave me a "cupping" treatment for my back muscles. This lasted five minutes. After the cups were removed - MY MUSCLE PAIN WAS GONE! We then further discussed my GI, and the doctor expressed her belief that after two more acupuncture sessions, I would be cured. So far my stomach seems better, although I may just be overly optimistic. However, with a chance of a "cure" looming ahead after only $100ish dollars and 2 hours of relaxation - I am certainly willing to try. That is a fraction of the time and money that I have already exhausted on Western treatment, that has thus far, gotten me nowhere. I'll keep you posted.

Bob Steinkraus
26th February 2001, 17:56
AST writes:


And the day that 'alternative therapies' are shown to be as effective as scientific medicine, they cease to be alternative and enter the mainstream. The only way they will be shown to be effective is thru double blinded, large scale testing. I notice you do not claim that the alternative therapies to which you refer are as effective as scientific medicine. Cheaper ain't better if cheaper don't work.

As far as the other claims made that Western researchers don't research acupuncture and homeopathy because they are scared of cheap competition, bunk. Why do cardiologists recommend the use of aspirin to cardiac patients? Aspirin isn't expensive. By your beliefs, the research on aspirin should never have been conducted, since it isn't a costly drug. And I don't see the medical establishment making a whole lot of money if I reduce the fat in my diet and exercise regularly, and I can't read an article on health without coming across those recommendations sooner or later.

And further:[quote}Most western researchers are incapable of being objective since they are largely funded by
these juggernaughts. Nonsense. All decent scientific research is reproducible. If Bristol-Myers does research, and finds a new, effective drug, and chooses not to bring it to market, what is to stop some French drug company from cornering the market? When some silly researcher, blinded by bias, comes out with a mistaken piece of research, the rest of the scientific community immediately sets to work to try to reproduce his results. When it doesn't work, they rip the research to shreds. This is how scientific reputations are made. You don't see a lot of research into cold fusion anymore. Why? Because cold fusion is too cheap to interest the power companies? Nope, because there is no such phenomenon.

Most new drugs never make it to market. Drug companies desperately want to find new drugs and treatments. But if their research shows that their ideas are not safe or effective, they don't ignore the research. They drop the drugs and try something else.


Also since the attitude of the researcher has been shown to effect the outcome of even
double blind testing, what effect does the dismissive arrogance of the western researcher
have on their result findings. None. That is the whole point of double blinding.


Is it not quantum physics that postulates that thought can affect atoms and thus the
outcome of experiments. What implication does this have for this research. A great deal - if it can be proven. What evidence do you have that telekinesis works at the sub-atomic level, or anywhere else, for that matter?


Acupuncture is some 2500 years +- old, and still in use. Something must work beyond the
mere placebo effect. A non sequitor. Witchcraft is even older than acupuncture. Are we assuming that airlines are suppressing it because airplanes are bigger profit generators than broomsticks?

Got to go to a meeting. If I am arrogant because I respond to extraordinary claims by saying "Show me", then yes, I am arrogant.

gmanry
2nd March 2001, 04:13
A recent study that my wife, a PA student, informed me of involved applying accupunture to patients suffering from chronic pain (arthritis I think) and then using MRI scans to map the decrease in pain response in the brain. Significant changes in pain response were mapped that were not observed in the control group.

Now, this study does not suggest that accupuncture can help gastro-intestinal problems, but it suggests that it can have predictable and replicable impacts on pain response. So, the claim that there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of accupuncture is not entirely true. In terms of good science, it is a fact that no surgical procedures have ever been tested in double blind control group studies (the accepted standard). So, in essence there is no solid scientific evidence for its efficacy. Ethical standards prevent such testing, but for some reason we accept its efficacy based on case studies, when we do not on anything else. Science is subjective.

On the subject of quack watch, I would be careful of the information on that site. In an email exchange I had with Dr. Barrett (who maintains the site) concerning some studies that emerged in JAMA concerning the impact of pharmaceutical marketing and gifts on prescription patterns, he basically told me that pharmaceutical companies do not give gifts to doctors most of the time (a flat inaccuracy as I used to work for a marketing company that arranged the "educational meetings" and gifts for more than one major company and my sister was a pharm. rep for Squibb-Myer until she quit in disgust) He also touted the tired party line that such contributions do not affect a physician's judgement on prescription because the gifts are not of high value, which is an opinion that contradicts known psychological evidence (hmm how pseudo scientific, but all that stuff is just COMMON SENSE anyhow).

Social psychological research has demonstrated that gift value is irrelevant in the establishment of obligation. The act of reciprocation is established from the act itself. Not to mention two studies have strongly suggested that pharmaceutical incentive does indeed affect prescription patterns and flow of information in major hospitals (can anyone say ritalin and phen phen?). So, Dr. Barrett tows the industry line, and in my opinion is less than objective about the serious issues facing his profession. I then have trouble believing that all the dimensions of the research on alternative medicine are being presented on his site.

This is not to say that all the information on quack watch is suspect, but Dr. Barrett's objectivity is questionable on at least one dimension, in my opinion, and he may have agendas that are not fully concerned with full information.

On the other hand, acupuncture is not rigorously regulated yet in our culture, and there are indeed a lot of questions concerning its applications and efficacy. On a purely anecdotal note, it did great things for my sister's hammer toe problem, for which she had to have corrective surgery. Two years of drugs with the podiatrist and nothing was relieving the pain. Six months with accupunture and she can wear regular shoes again. I think that pain control may be a valuable area for accupuncture, complex disease on the other hand may not be such a good idea.

Just my observations, the skeptics form their own pseudo-religion eventually if you listen to them enough. Lots of illogical arguments and slippery slope logic when it suits them. Often they turn the scientific model on its head. The true believers are just as dangerous.

Glenn R. Manry

AST
2nd March 2001, 09:44
Let me kick off this post with a quick note to Mr Bergstromm. I realise that the comment about witches was tongue in cheek, and I do not think that it caused offence to anyone.

That said, let’s tackle that substantial replies that have been posted by Mr Steinkraus and Mr Maney.

The initial point was that alternative would not replace mainstream because alternative was not as effective as mainstream and could not be "scientifically proven."
Perhaps in the USA. Here in South Africa over 75% of the African population continue to use traditional African herbal remedies supplied by Sangomas and Nyangas. Even when they do utilise state supplied western medicine it is often supplemented by a visit to the above parties. In the white communities the perceived shift towards alternative treatments has as much to do with effectiveness as cost. Many try alternatives in desperation when the "mainstream" has continually failed them.

I am a case in point. My one and a half year old daughter has been suffering from violent coughing attacks for the last 8 months now. She is too young to understand what is happening to her, and I have grown tired of the desperate look in her eyes as she gasps for breath. After 8 months, 3 doctors and antibiotics, nasal sprays, syrups etc, the latest doc drew blood from her neck and declared it child asthma. She was placed on asthma pumps.

" What causes child asthma?" I asked.
" Who can say? A myriad of reasons. Just keep her on the pumps and everything should work itself out."

Did I mention that those pumps cost almost 10% of my monthly salary before deductions?

Anyway the pumps brought no relief and in desperation my wife took her to a homeopath. He wasn't that much cheaper than the doc but her coughing improved within a week. She still coughs but she no longer gasps for air.

Now granted I've never given homeopathy much thought, and maybe it is all just a placebo effect. When my daughter is old enough to understand I'll be sure to tell her that it was all in her head and also berate her for not responding to the real drugs like she was supposed to.

As to the comment about cardiologists and aspirin. The doctors already making money from consultations, and is going to make a fortune if he has to crack your chest. Besides I doubt aspirin is the only drug he is going to prescribe so there is plenty of opportunity to make money from other drugs.

As for reducing that fat in your diet, it fits in the same categories as jogging, tai chi, yoga etc, etc. Requires discipline to succeed so they know that the majority of people in the modern lifestyle are not going to manage to do it. Plenty of room still to make billions. How much money do you think they make off all these fat trappers that the diet industry currently promotes.

If I held up a pill and said take one of these and your fat problems will be gone forever. I guarantee you I would be scientifically challenged from that day to my death, because of the damage I would wreak.

As to the part about reproducible scientific research, not nonsense. Bob, you hold double blind testing up as this perfect method, all you have to do is reproduce the results and viola it is accepted.

What happens when you do not want to reproduce the results? What happens when you deliberately set out to disprove the results?

Case 1: Global warming. It was noted that scientists well funded by the relevant companies produced enough literature to counter the global warming argument. The public felt that the scientific community was split 50 / 50 when the actual split was something like 80/20. However that 20% was tasked with countering any evidence to support global warming.

Case 2: It is now known that tobacco companies own research proved back in the 60's that smoking was bad for you. However through the use of their own scientists they were able to challenge this perception for almost 30 years, even when they knew the truth.

You say that companies would never hesitate to test to drugs in order to corner a market. All too true. However in the case of acupuncture/acupressure/ chi kung (qi gong) etc, we are talking about things that cannot be patented, cannot be bottled and do not present an opportunity to make huge profits. Therefore it is not in their interests to allow such products to be accepted since they represent a loss in profits. Now when researchers are scrabbling around for grants, how much do you think they get for projects that are going to provide an alternative to drugs? My friend did his PhD on multi drug resistance in cancer. They threw money at him for that project. How much do you think he would have got if he wanted to do the effects of acupuncture on cancer.

As to drug companies thoroughly testing drugs and pulling unsafe products. Can we say ritilin, prozac and of course AZT (my favourite). Drug companies do not test and pull products for the safety of the consumer but for fear of litigation. Here in Africa where the poor cannot litigate we constantly have the problem of dumping expired or unsafe products on a population that no one cares about and cannot make it's voice heard.

The flippant comment about witchcraft highlights a very interesting parallel.

About a thousand years ago there was a church. It proclaimed itself to be the true church and the only way to God. It had a book that was the word of God that was written in Latin so that the ordinary man could not understand it. The only way to God was through its intermediaries, it's priests. People who chose to believe other things were denounced as heretics, and heathens. They were tortured, forced to convert or murdered and their property confiscated. Alternative religions were actively suppressed and negatively portrayed.

The Wiccan religion was one of the competition. Portrayed as evil its members have been hunted and persecuted and negative images such as the broomstick were injected into the popular psyche.

Enter the present century, we find the modern medical fraternity. A close knit society with strict entrance requirements and it's own special language and codes to keep the ordinary man from understanding it's secrets. Those who do not believe in its ways are denounced as fakes fraudsters and cheats. It actively portrays a negative image of these professions irrespective of whether it has the necessary proof or not.

Deja vu. Let us all genuflect before the Pope, I mean Surgeon General, and he will tell us what we are allowed to believe.

Bob your arrogance does not stem from a desire to be shown. It stems from a fanatical belief in a particular system. You are not waiting for proof; you are waiting for your high priests to give you permission to believe.

In many ways this argument parallels the " my kung fu is better than your kung fu", however in a strange reversal lineage and pedigree count more than real world experience.

In regards to Mr Maneys comment , it is true that the other side of the fence tends to get pseudo-scientific about many things. However they often do not have the budgets to provide the necessary forests of documentation that the scientific community requires.

Last year my cousin died of cancer. Even at the final stages when it was clear that the chemo and the radiation therapy were not working she clung to the western medical model. Even when alternatives were suggested by myself and others. Even when her medical aid refused to continue to cover her and her family had to foot the very expensive bill. At that point it seems to me that if the doctors had an ethical bone in their body they should have admitted failure to her and suggest she try seek alternatives. To continue to charge someone for expensive treatments that you know are not going to work, to me, violates the creed of do know harm. My wife’s grandfather currently has cancer of the bladder, they been treating it for 5 years now and he is slowly getting worse. Yet he clings to the western paradigm because they portray themselves as the only holders of knowledge. He’s not a patient he’s a cash cow.

I oppose the fanaticism of the western medical model and if the alternatives become fanatical and close minded I will oppose them as well.

AST
2nd March 2001, 11:44
In an effort to find some substance for my point of view I turn to the master. Joe Svinth master of Google-jutsu.

I have learned much from Shihan Svinth, but I am unsure as to wether my hyper link waza has acquired the level of mushin.


Try:
www.tnp.com/therapy.asp?ID=4#P6
for a discussion of acupuncture and the difficulties of using double blind testing.

www.seanet.com/~vettf/Medline2.htm

for more medical abstracts than you will ever want to read.


Then this sucker for a little thought.

John P Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
West Yorkshire

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Were the meridians ever meant to be real?


Email John P Heptonstall:
john@mac-tcm.demon.co.uk

Dr. Watts

Perhaps it is best the thesis was never published.

Over many years of study I have come to the conclusion that the meridians as described in Traditional Chinese Medical (TCM) articles and theory are as 'real' as any other anatomical and physiological component of a living creature I have studied. In recent years Chinese scientists have used an array of physical equipment to assess the location and characteristics of meridians and acupoints from infra sound to computersied infra-red, and have carried out numerous electrical tests - generally based on the phenomenon of 'low impedance' - with which to locate acupoints.

Only a couple of years ago a Professor of Anatomy in Beijing announced that he had located what he suggested could be 'meridians' when observing cross-sectional tissue samples from amputated limbs; in the stratum corneum he found an unusual alignment of cells - nerve bundles, nerve sheaths and mast cells - which had the unique character of 'low impedance' found where 'acupoints' are known to exist. About 10 years ago a group of scientists at the Fujian Institute of TCM, Fuzhou, China, produced infra-red radiant tracer data through a computerised graphics process from 30 healthy individuals finding that the 'tracks' displayed from infra-red tracings of those human bodies coincided with classical meridian pathways; I have copies of the results and they are extremely impressive.

Several decades ago Dr Robert Becker (an American Orthopaedic Surgeon twice nominated for the Nobel Prize and Professor at the State University of New York, Upstate Medical Centre and Louisiana State University Medical Center in Shreveport, a leading expert in the field of biological electricity and regeneration, whilst researching the mechanisms involved in body self-repair and the restoration of growth at amputation sites on amphibian limbs, found what appears to be a universal vertebrate primitive 'DC current' system which probably preceded the 'evolved' AC system recognised by modern medicine. During a study for the NIH (which had become interested in the use of acupuncture techniques after Nixon's visit to China in the late '60s) Becker 'found that about 25% of the acupuncture points on the human forearm did exist in that they had specific reproducible and significant electrical parameters and could be found in all subjects tested'...'we found also that the meridians had the electrical charactersitics of transmission lines, while nonmeridian skin did not. We concluded that the acupuncture system was really there, and that it most likely operated electrically' (Cross Currents, by Robert O. Becker MD). He further postulates that acupoints are 'amplification points' for this primitive DC 'nervous system' which facilitate transmission over the distances from brain to periphery.

My own conclusion is that the merdians are indeed 'energy transmission lines' which have defined locations and, through the TCM model, well-defined and predictable characteristics. The 'energy' is electromagnetic in nature and, by the mid-'80s, the Chinese had identified several components of QI (energy) having detected static electric, ultra- violet, magnetic and infra-red components along merdian pathways. I believe that it is the unique collective of cells within the tissues at the body surface, following well-defined pathways into the deeper regions where they interconnect with their respective organs as described in TCM, that communicate at various frequencies (of the EM spectrum) determined by their associations with various body physiological functions. Russian biophysicists many years ago described the human cell according to which structures emitted which frequencies of radiation. They measured radiation spectra emissions at helium neon wavelength from mitochondria whilst other intra-cellular structures were found to emit radiation at infra-red, ultra violet, and other wavelengths.

The meridian ('Ching Luo') system of TCM is analogous to our modern day microwave communication systems utilising relay stations which provide for regular amplification of communication signals around the country.

If the links fail to work I will consult the Shihan for more kihon training.

AST
2nd March 2001, 11:45
Just when you were getting tired of me.

I believe the term was show me.


1. Requirements of western vs eastern research.

Wainwright Churchill,
Traditional Chinese acupuncturist and herbalist in private practice
London

Send response to journal:
Re: Clarifications


Email Wainwright Churchill:
WChurchill@bigfoot.com

Several of the points made on this webpage require comment.

1) NON-RIGOROUS EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED FOR THE EVIDENCE BASIS OF CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE

The studies Imrie that cites are small scale. Studies accept as ‘evidence’ the opinion of the research team that a medical treatment works, rather than rigorous experimental evidence. For example, in the Ellis et al study, 35% of the ‘evidence’ that treatments were evidence based rested on the ‘unanimity on the team about the existence of convincing non-experimental evidence’. [Ellis J, Mulligan I, Rowe J, Sackett. Inpatient general medicine is evidence based. A-Team, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine. DL Lancet 1995 Aug 12;346(8972):407-10] In the study ‘Evidence-based surgery: interventions in a regional paediatric surgical unit’ [Kenny SE, Shankar KR, Rintala R, Lamont GL, Lloyd DA Arch Dis Child 1997 Jan;76(1):50-3], 86%, of the ‘sound evidence’ was based on ‘convincing non-experimental evidence’.

2) ‘CONVINCING NON-EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE’ IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTIBLE FOR CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE, BUT TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE IS DENIED THIS COURTESY – THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD

Many doctors will only accept rigorous experimental evidence for complementary medical treatments, but are happy to accept a lower order of evidence for their own type of medicine. Furthermore, even when conclusive evidence exists for a number of applications of acupuncture, they still maintain that its efficacy is not proven, or comment on a paucity of evidence.

There would seem to be a double standard with regard to what constitutes convincing non-experimental evidence. Chinese studies or doctors’ opinions about evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture are deemed unacceptable, but biomedical doctors’ judgements are.

3) ACUPUNCTURE’S EFFICACY IS ALREADY CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED FOR A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS, AND MAY WELL BECOME ESTABLISHED FOR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

Dr. Imrie is out of date with information he quotes regarding Prof. Ernst. As he could have seen from my previous citations, Ernst considers that there are three conditions for which evidence of acupuncture’s efficacy is conclusive, not one as Imrie quotes. [Prof. Edzard Ernst. ‘Clinical effectiveness of acupuncture: An overview of systemic reviews’ in ed. E. Ernst and A. White (1999), Acupuncture - A Scientific Appraisal, Oxford, Butterworth- Heinemann, pp107-127] There is a strong possibility that in future, conclusive evidence will be established for acupuncture’s effectiveness in treating a number of other conditions, as preliminary although not yet conclusive evidence already exists. Such conditions include experimental pain, neck pain, headache/migraine, osteoarthritis, inflammatory rheumatic disease, stroke, addictions, asthma. [See Ernst(1999) p126.]

4) ACUPUNCTURE IS A SAFE METHOD OF TREATMENT

With regard to the safety of acupuncture, in Acupuncture - A Scientific Appraisal, the Western medical acupuncturist Jacqueline Filshie quotes a private communication to her from Prof. Ernst: ‘The side effects of acupuncture are “dimensionless” less than those of drugs’. [p36] This acknowledges the much greater safety of acupuncture over conventional drug treatment with regards to side effects, even if the exact rate of iatrogenesis from acupuncture is not known.

It is generally accepted that when administered correctly by properly qualified practitioners, acupuncture is a very safe form of treatment. No form of treatment is entirely without risks, but little evidence exists to indicate that acupuncture is a risky procedure as long as proper and fairly simple precautions are taken.

2.Questioning the supposed brilliance of the western medical model.

John P Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
West Yorkshire

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: "Only 20% of Western medicine is evidence-based"? Wrong.


Email John P Heptonstall:
john@mac-tcm.demon.co.uk

Robert

I'm grateful for the list of 'EB-studies' as they prove my point very effectively and illustrate exceptionally well that you may have a mind-set which fails to allow you to support your arguments with more appropriate deduction. Then again you may merely be misinterpreting the data.

I'll take it study by study, but first can I make an observation that will affect my own interpretation:- It is clear from general criticism of all CAMs by NCAHF, CAHF, 'Healthwatch' and other individuals that CAMs will only become 'acceptable' if RCT is a fundamental aspect of Evidence- Based (EB) research. Bearing that in mind let's look at the EB of your examples:

a. Qual. Health care 1996....Geddes JR etal. Concludes that only 65% of primary interventions in a 28 day period were based on randomised trials OR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS (SR). If we ignore the SRs as they cannot be substantiated as 'like with like studies' having been drawn from dissimilar studies/protocols/patient groups/practitioner styles etc. we are left with RCTs. Unfortunately I have no figures for the %age of RCT- supported interventions but it's less than 65%.

Perhaps the study of psychiatric cases (mental health) by Slade M et al Soc Psychiatric Epidemiology 1999 May;34(5):243-9 'The Feasibility of routine outcome measures in mental health' can throw more light on the universal validity of the study conclusions. Slade et al conclude that "there is no concensus about the meaning of feasibility, or how it should be measured" and "one reason for standardised outcome measures not being used routinely (in mental health studies)is the lack of appropriate instruments". Doesn't this tell us that current psychiatric practises (as of May 1999)have so little standardisation that outcomes cannot be effectively measured across the board? Yet 'outcomes' measurement have been cited as being imperative in support of EB-study. This conclusion tends to support the findings of a Scottish University study finding a few years ago that it depended which 'guru' one saw on admission to a psychiatric ward as to what diagnosis (and hence treatment)one was subjected to - SIX mentally 'normal' research students found themselves committed to a mental ward and, despite acting perfectly normal after admission, were (I think all but one of them) diagnosed with some psychiatric complaint! Presumably any treatments meted out would have been given in accordance with an RCT for the (mis) diagnoses!!

and as for 'outcomes studies'...

'Evaluation in clinical practice...' Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, McIntyre N., J Eval Clin Pract 1995 Sep;1(1):5-13 some words of wisdom from N McIntyre:- "Understandbly doctors are concerned about possible litigation, undermining of their authority and/or interference with their methods of practice. Furthermore few are willing to comment adversely on the work of others....Outcome audit measures the effect of care on patients' health....requires a large patient group, is costly, and is of value for a limited number of conditions. ..It may be fallacious to compare outcomes in different settings, and with different patient groups.'

b. Lancet 1995 Aug 12;346(8972): 'Inpatient medicine...' by Ellis J et al. I think this is typical of some of the studies we will see as physicians, hospitals and other areas of the 'Health' service desperately try to prove they are doing 'scientific things' since the '90s declaration that EB- medicine is to be the norm. Clearly it was in the interests of the team to prove that point as they do not appear to have been 'independent' of the establishment they were studying. One cannot exclude BIAS so one is left without a clear-cut conclusion other than 'in that hospital one of its medical teams classified 53% of interventions as RCT-supported and 29% as not'. The concept that a research team can decide on appropriateness of treatment through 'unanimity about the existence of convincing non- experimental evidence' is alarming, not least as this is a concept not allowed for by critics of TCM and other CAMs which are expected to be scientific-EB!

c. 'Evidence-based surgery...' Kenny SE et al, Arch Dis Child 1997 Jan;76(1):50-3, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, UK. This was perhaps the most DISTURBING study you highlighted. Children were subjected to surgical intervention based on RCT evidence only 11% of the time! 'Convincing non-experimental evidence was used 66% of the time, it's not clear who was 'convinced about what', and an ALARMING 23% were subjected to surgery for which there is NO SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE.

d. 'Haematologist in district..', Clin Lab Haematol 1997 Dec:19(4):243-8. Galloway M et al. County Durham, UK. This study concludes that '70% of the primary therapeutic decisions made on 83 patients were EB'. It does not mention how much were RCT, but one has to assume quite a bit less than 70%. It was also 'prospective' which can lead to BIAS as one is attemtping to prove what one wants. Let's contrast this with another study involving haematology and it's bang up to date as of February this year:- 'The quality of medical evidence in hematology-oncology' by Djulbegovic et al, Am J Med 1999 Fed:106(2):198-205 Dept. of Medicine, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Kentucky, USA. They identifed 783 RCTs pertaining to ONLY 24% of the interventions/decisions made (of 154) searching from 1966 to 1996 for the supportive RCTs. ONLY retrospective or anecdotal evidence supported 55% of those decisions/ interventions! A follow-up study tended to confirm those figures. The final conclusion "LEVEL 1 EVIDENCE TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF RELAPSED OR RFRACTORY MALIGNANT DISEASES IS CURRENTLY LACKING".

Another sound indictment on your theory that Western Medicine (WM) is EB.

e. 'Evidence based general practice...' Gill P et all, Centre for Research into Primary Care, Leeds Uni. BMJ 1996 Mar 30;312(7034):829-21 This concludes, FROM A RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF CASE NOTES, (and no clue as to whether the diagnosis was accurate) - and excluding 21 of 122 consultations 'due to insufficient data' - ONLY 30.7% were RCT-supported. The 'insufficient data' cases may, by their nature, suggest a lack of appropriateness in intervention/recording and hence consign them to the non-RCT list making the final RCT figures 25.4%.

I found other studies that allow us to look more clearly at 'General Practice' care in terms of EB support for interventions

eg.

'Are therapeutic decisions supported by...' Arch Intern Med 1998 Aug,10-24:158(15):1665-8, Michaud G et al. Conclusion ONLY 20.9% RCT

General Practice is perhaps the most important and heavily used part of a 'Health' service; in the UK the GP sees/ treats/assesses for further opinion virtually ALL patients. It is important that he/she gets it right...the following piece of research probably says it all and is the nail in the coffin for your support for the false premise that WM is EB other than perhaps a few % in reality. Also that Dr Kerr White's report of 1995 has probably been the fundamental catalyst for WM to start to put it's house in order - only then can patients be saved the (almost certainty) of a faulty diagnosis prior to an equally faulty intervention. Dr White should be applauded.

This paper reflects the attitude and abilities/facilities enjoyed by the average GP who may or may not wish to 'entertain' evidence-based medicine.

'General practitioner's perception of the route to evidence based medicine...' BMJ 1998 Jan 31:316(7128):361-5 McColl A et al

conclude that

1. Only 302 of 452 GPs actually responded to the questionnaire designed to assess their perceptions of the route to EBM. 2. Only 40% knew of the Cochrane database of Systematic Reviews and 3. Even if aware, many did not use them 4. In their surgeries 20% had access to bibliographic databases and 5. Only 17% had access to the www 6. 'Most' had some understanding of the technical terms used. 7. The major perceived barrier to practising EBM was lack of personal time

If we take the figures acknowledged to be based on RCT-supported intervention from your studies analysed above (excluding those not separated into 'RCT and other') we have the ones at b,c,d and e; these are 53% (prospective with potential bias but allowed for this purpose), 11%, 24%, 20.9%. Interestingly the non-prospective studies revealed RCT support in ONLY 11% to 24%, almost the same as the 1963 paper you criticise!!

In order to USE EBs one has to have access to/access EB studies. According to McColl et al's research, ONLY 40% knew of and few of these used Cochrane facilities; ONLY 20% had bibliography access in their surgeries; ONLY 17% had access to the www (for MEDLINE searches etc.) so we suspect that the potential for using an RCT Evidence-Based system of Health Care (in the UK where the above research was carried out) varies from about 11% to 24% according to research having little potential for bias. Those able to access EB-data are less than 20% of GPs. Thus if the potential for EB intervention is only 11% to 24%, the probability that ANY PATIENT WILL RECEIVE AN EB INTERVENTION is between about 2% and 5%....and even then one has to ASSUME THAT EVERY DIAGNOSIS IS ACCURATE!

Even if one accepts eg. 'Systematic Reviews' as valid (despite these being 'invalid for scientific purposes' for CAMs!) the best medical department Experimental and Non-experimental Evidence based intervention figures from your studies above are 82% (PROSPECTIVE Centre for EBM in Oxford study). If we reduce this by GP access/ability of 20% of GPs having the facility we find that only 1/5 of the 82% of patients are now likely to enjoy EB medicine - 16.4%.

Thank you Dr Kerr White for waking everyone up, and for the Northern GP study published in 1963 for an 'unusually' accurate result.

I rest my case!

* A retired GP in the North of England, when asked recently how he managed to diagnose his patients so readily, replied that 'he hadn't a clue what was wrong with 90% of them'.

* An elderly Traditional Chinese Medic, with decades of experience, when asked about the value of scientific appraisal of his doctrine remarked "I don't need little rats to tell me that my medicine works".

Regards

John.

PS. Almost forgot the last three papers you quoted:-

Br J Surg 1997 - surprise surprise ONLY 26% were supported by RCTs.

Int J Dermatology - surprise surprise about 75% of out-patient therapy was based on 'scientific evidence' ranging FROM RCTs to "LOGICAL DEDUCTION FROM ANALOGOUS CLINICAL SITUATIONS" - sounds a bit like.... LIKE TREATS LIKE!!

and finally

Br J Anaesth 1999 'Anaesthesia'....96.7% were 'evidence-based'....oh yes, and Santa lives...

3.The supposed altruism of the pharmaceutical companies.

b. Senator Edward Kennedy, conducting a hearing of the Senate Health Sub-commitee, noted that if only 10% of the data from on-going CCTs is defective the problem is enormous "when you consider the potential cumulative effect of faulty animal data coupled with faulty human data you have the elements of a regulatory nightmare".

.......'Reviews' of "The Controlled Clinical Trial: an Analysis" at http://www.pnc.com.au/~catmr/reviews2.html

c. Dr. John Braithwaite, now a Trade Practices Commissioner, wrote the devastating expose 'Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry (1984)'. In this 440 page book he states:- :- that international bribery and corruption, fraud in the testing of drugs, criminal negligence in the unsafe manufacture of drugs - the pharmaceutical industry has a worse record of law breaking than any other industry. :- his study is based on extensive international research including interviews of 131 senior executives of pharmaceutical companies in the USA, UK. Australia, Mexico and Guatemala. :- he shows how pharmaceutical multinationals defy the intent of those regulating safety of drugs by bribery, false advertising, fraud in safety testing, unsafe manufacturing processes, smuggling and international law evasion strategies. :- data fabrication is so widespread that it is called 'making' in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry, graphiting' or 'dry labelling' in the USA. :- the book reports that between 1977 and 1980 the USA FDA discovered 62 doctors who had submitted manipulated or downright falsified clinical data. A study conducted by the FDA has revealed ONE IN FIVE DOCTORS investigated, who carry out field trials of new drugs, had invented the data they sent to drug companies, and pocketed the fees. "The problem is that most fraud in clinical trials is unlikely ever to be detected.. most cases which do come to public attention do so because of extraordinary carelessness by the criminal physician" Braithwaite says.

d. Dr Judith Jones, Director of the Division of Drug Experience of the FDA says that if the data by a clinician proves unsatisfactory towards the drug being investigated it is quite in order for the company to continue trials elsewhere until satisfactory results and testimonials are achieved. Unfavourable results are very rarely published. Some doctors can earn up to $1 million per year, at $1000 per patient, and if they don't produce the desired results they lose the work.

....."Reviews" at http://www.pnc.com.au/_catmr/reviews2.html

Warrior Don
7th March 2001, 05:54
Bob;

To put it bluntly western medicine SUCKS!!! And yes I whole-heartedly believe that.

You are a very arrogant S.O.B. if you ask me! And I'm still waiting to find out what YOUR specific medical background is. Not quotes from people you know or have read about.

Have you ever tried accupuncture? Why not? If it is a placebo as you say, then why not try it? Placebo's don't hurt, right?

What are you afraid of? I am ten times more afraid of putting a pill in my mouth than a needle in my skin.

A needle is just a needle, but a pill, I don't know what exactly is in that pill. Will there be an ingredient that I am allergic too? Or maybe an ingredient that will cause some other type of problem.

Next you will ask where I am coming from. Well I come from a point of view as I am a former Paramedic w/a neo-natal intensive care background.

Why former? You might ask

Because of all of the things that I was exposed to working in the 3 different hospitals that we were dispatched from. As well I was witness to the 4 months of "medical drugging" that my grandmother was subjected to in 1988. The dr.'s said it was to ease the pain she was encountering, but all it really did was sustain her agony so that they could continue to bill medicare for an additional $17, 689.21. The whole time the hospital was receiving kickbacks from the pharmaceutical co's for trying their "experimental" drugs that so-called "eased the pain".

Hospitals are right full of "DRUG GUINEA PIGS". Yes I know this for a fact. I spent 5 years in the para-medical field and the things I witnessed were truly scary.

People being kept alive just so some new test drug could be tested on them to see if they work.

Eastern herbal remedies have been tested and we know what are in them. Herbs and roots! Real complicated stuff...Huh!

It has been reported in the N.E.J.O.M. that the human body decays at a 40% slower rate that the bodies of just 30 years ago. The reason for this, as stated in the report, is because our bodies consume incredible amounts of artifical preservatives...especially those found in prescription drugs!

It is amazing that we live longer now than we ever have, decay slower than we ever have and have more diseases, itises and rare-case illnesses than ever before.

My family medical history is a very rocky path. My maternal grandfather died at 65 years old...exactly one week after passing his yearly physical with flying colors.
My maternal grandmother died at 70 years old of CHF and an aortic aneurism, due to plaque build up that caused multiple tiny strokes.
My maternal uncle died at 56 years old, (never drank or smoked), after serving as a Det. Sgt. on the police force for 33 years and coaching youth hockey, softball & basketball. My maternal aunts, ages 66, 51, 41 and my mother, 57, all have rhumatoid arthritis, diabetes, retenal myopathy and poor circulation.

Having witnessed all of these family medical problems I decided to try to do something that may increase my chances at a healthier middle age life.

Well I found that the wildflower and herbal teas that I have been drinking all of my life, are actually helping to keep my system "flushed out" if you will. The arterial build up that would be normal for a man of my age is practically nill according to the Doctor.

When I renewed my driver's license last year I passed the eye exam for the first time in 18 years without corrective lenses. My opthamologist cannot believe the difference in improvment in my eye sight. Both of my eyes had astigmatisms in them for years...there gone!
My vision went from 20/175 to 20/40 Left eye and 20/200 to 20/50 right eye (over a ten year period). No I did not have corrective surgery either.

Studies have been performed to find that the medicinal qualities in the teas and herbs that I consume actually are what helped me.

These are statements that has been made to me by my western family doctor and opthamologist.

Bottom line is....If you ain't tried it, don't knock it!

Bob Steinkraus
8th March 2001, 18:22
So much confusion, so little time...

A couple of quotes from the very first article supplied by AST:



For most conditions, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether acupuncture is proven
effective as a therapy. is the first line.

And particularly insightful was this quote:
There is one additional problem in evaluating the evidence for acupuncture: many of the
studies have been performed in China, and there is evidence of systematic bias in the
Chinese medical literature.5 Researchers evaluating the acupuncture studies coming out of
China discovered that every single one found acupuncture effective! This led them to
look further into other Chinese medical research. Reviewing controlled trials involving
other therapies such as standard drugs, it was noted that Chinese trials reported positive
results 99% of the time. By comparison, trials published in England are positive only
85% of the time. While some bias exists in all medical publications, this finding suggests a
particularly high rate of bias in the Chinese research record.

again emphasizing that not all research can or should be accepted at face value.

Much of the rest of the article addressed the difficulties of double blinding acupuncture. I can't see that this is the case, as the article contained some good suggestions on sticking the needles into places that, according to acupuncture theory, should have no effect. If this makes no difference, then acupuncture's effects are due to placebo and counter-irritation. See one of my previous posts on how this has been done.

The post about the alleged reality of the meridian points, interestingly, is contradicted in several of the articles listed in the websites posted. Have a look, keeping in mind my previous warnings about differences in research quality.

I found the following quote interesting as well:
There is a strong
possibility that in future, conclusive evidence will be established for acupuncture’s effectiveness... I would say there was a strong possibility of a lot of things in the future. If and when these possibilities are realized, we can evaluate our beliefs. Until then, 'unproven' is a perfectly valid category for lots of claims.

I believe some of the posts are throwing about the idea that some small percentage of Western medicine is evidence-based, and that there are double standards in play. If anyone is interested, I will dig up some cites on why this may not be a figure to base an argument on.

I seem to have given offense by lumping witches and acupuncturists together. If this is really the case, I apologize to any witches who might be reading, as well as to acupuncturists who do not make unsubstantiated claims.

Usagi
11th March 2001, 13:05
Originally posted by Warrior Don
Mr. Steinkraus;


You can argue "scientific" studies all you wish. I have witnessed first hand and personally been subject to accupuncture, chinese herbs and holistic medicine. Believe it or not I am not easily impressed with things that I don't know. Well it has worked for me!-...

...-While all of the politicians and scientists, who write these wonderfully truthful studies, were busy studying at their fancy Ivy League Colleges, I was busy attending the College of Life!

The thing with that College is, the education never ends and I don't need text books to tell what I am suppost to learn. Daily living teaches me that!!!!

HALELUJJA!!!!!!

PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(i'll rot in hell for that...)

Bob Steinkraus
12th March 2001, 14:06
You are a very arrogant S.O.B. if you ask me! And I'm still waiting to find out what YOUR
specific medical background is. Not quotes from people you know or have read about.
[blushing] Arrogant? Me? [/blushing}
It's worse than that. I am an arrogant S.O.B. with access to the Internet.

All this stuff I post is easily available to anyone who can access e-budo, as are more scientific studies than Louis Pasteur read in his entire life. Check it all for yourself. As a matter of fact, one thing that sets off my BS detector big time is someone who, when asked to back up a claim, either calls me names, or tells me to take his/her word for it.

And in case you missed it, I already gave you my medical background. I have none. My father is a DVM and my cousin is an MD. I have no graduate degrees. I make my living as a computer consultant, and I have an interest in the scientific method, especially as it applies to health-related issues.

Feel free to dismiss my claims if you choose because I have no PhD. This is known as ad hominem argument, and it is generally considered a logical fallacy. Also be prepared for Warrior Don to post telling you of his advanced degree in the College of Life!

The truth, as they say, is out there. You can choose to avail yourself of it, or not, as you see fit.

But ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Acupuncture is unproven. Most of the studies on it found no effect apart from placebo or counter-irritation, and the better the study, the less effect was found. It would be lovely if there were a whole new area of study for medicine, but it doesn't appear that there is.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=11239191&dopt=Abstract


if you would like more evidence.

I don't think that ignorance is bliss. I am not alone in this. Neither, I am sorry to say, are those who disagree with this position.

jscotello
12th March 2001, 14:47
I've now undergone three acupuncture treatments for my GI problems. In the month since I started these treatments, I maintained my "regular" diet, and my stress level remained what can only be described as constant. Now I am happy to report that this is actually the best I've felt in three years! I went in with an open, but sceptical mind, and my results have been just short of miraculous. I've had no bloating, no cramping what so ever, and instead of needing to go to the bathroom eight times a day (yes eight times) - the number has decreased to once or twice. Whether the effects are placebo in nature, or genuine - I don't care! I feel better and enjoyed the very relaxing procedures. By the way after three treatments my acupuncturist says that I don't need to come back, and that my problem will probably not surface again. I was given a two month herbal prescription that cost a whopping total of $5.

I should add, that I did have one day with a stomach ache - but in all fairness, I polished of two boxes of Girl Scout cookies in a sitting (my own fault). Damn those little girls and the tasty treats they peddle.

MarkF
13th March 2001, 09:13
Most of this thread is based on second hand knowledge and Internet "facts." There is a lot of good stuff from which to learn, but at least half of it is as valid as a Joke soaki doki.

Acupuncture is a valid modality if done by MDs or DOs in most states, including New Mexico, California, New York, and Illinois. The problem with this type of treatment is that any medical doctor or Osteopathic physician may be certified, as in MA, in a weekend seminar, and proven by a signed testament by the guy running the slide show. I know MDs who have added this to their practices based on that knowledge, or lack thereof.

Frankly, one can prove or disprove almost anything on the Internet, and frequently, even on the most reputable websites, mistakes, claims, etc., are made with the flimsiest of evidence. Both sides must be investigated thoroughly before conclusions can be made. Even in this, it can be misinterpreted or proven that such and such therapy works, or is effective depending on how it is worded, or how the double blinds, other studies are taken. Generally, double blinds usually consist of paid or unpaid (possibly a payment in free "drug" treatment) volunteers. Rarely, do these groups start with more than one-thousand patients, and some less than one-hundred, many of whom drop out. Sometimes, double blinds are stopped midway through because the case for efficacy is so strong, that they believe by withholding the true drug from those takinga placebo, the safety of the treatment is never fully realized until unleashe onto a trusting public.

With the new federal drug testing laws and periods of testing, not to mention the time a drug company has to claim it one of its own, many drugs are rushed to market well before anything more than the efficacy of the drug proven in controlled conditions and since the patent claims of drugs is seventeen years, in the late seventies the law was changed to, instead of one company keeping its patent, and starting with the day of release to the public, now a drug company's patent begins as soon as controlled studies with the drug is begun. That is why a drug such as Ativan, being released some ten years after Librium and Valium, was allowed to go "generic (a misleading term btw, since most of the giant drug companies own most generic companies today)" on the same day as the two latter drugs.

It is like the cunundrum of chemo therapy as treatment for cancer. In fact, even those with terminal illness are treated with these type of modalities with virtually no evidence that a cure will happen, but as is practiced, oncology still requires that these treatments being strongly recommended because on person survived for three years out of all who had the disease, terminal, all on the basis of the one study patient who survived the treatments for a short period.

Today, in modern medicine, those with certain types of malignancies are treated with what amounts to be poisen to the body, while also being a poisen to the cancer cells. So therapy is down to a shootout at high noon, so to speak. You will either survive (most will go into immediate remission with the first treatement) or you will die from the effects of the treatment drugs, you will spontaneously just get well (this is extremely rare but does happen), or even on the day of your death doctors can claim victory as the cocktail of accepted medical practice did kill all cancer cells aong with the CEAs, or Carcinoembrionic Antigens, which every human being and most mammals carry, but are killed off with treatement. Most of the time, so is the patient as the immune system ceases to function, there by causing death from literally any of thousands of virus' which is referred to as "viral load." The person in good health has no "viral load" because the immune system is functioning properly. Chemo makes this system a non-comodity in the cure. Essentially, there is none, no immune system after just one period of dosing with these cocktails.

Be careful what of what you accept as gospel. Science and medicine is still as it was in the days of alchemy and blood letting as specific treatment for certain diseases. All chemotheraputics carry a great risk with them.

Remember, even taking aspirin is called chemotherapy.

This is also true of Chinese Herbs and herbalists. Cinchona, colchicine, digitalis, all coming from plant sources, are usually present to a degree in these herbs. Another is ephedra. These are just a few of the "natural" ingredients one can find in many Chinese Herbs. Cinchona is quinine, a drug used today most commonly to relieve leg cramps, is also found in plain Tonic Water. Why do you think it is called a "tonic?" It does work for this and other purposes. The others can be overdone because most think these substances are natural, therefore they are safe. About half the time, this is true. The other half, while they may be perfectly honest about contents, sometimes use other words to describe them and are not known to many.

IOW, become educated. Make sure to question the doctor, nurse, and pharmacist, and ask for package inserts, or get yourself a PDR, and the eqivelant for vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and other natural substances you have found to be beneficial. If you don't understand, ask again somewhere else.

This is a self-medicatin society. In some countries, people will not take even the most enocuos substance without a doctor's directions.

Mark

Sorry for the rant.

Bob Steinkraus
13th March 2001, 16:15
Mr. Bergstrom writes:

Lets hear from folks who have benefited from it.
Or
Folks who have found it useless by experience..

All the cites I posted were of people who found it useless by experience - carefully designed, double blinded experience.

If you reject scientific evidence in favor of anecdotes, you can prove anything.

Science is designed to eliminate
- Placebo
- Coincidence
- Self limiting ailments
- People who say they are better, but aren't
- People who weren't sick in the first place


Anecdotes don't. Why would you reject good evidence in favor of bad?

AST
15th March 2001, 17:56
In response to my earlier postings, it was pointed out that Chinese research into acupuncture was not trusted.
There seems to be a contradiction in standards, since it was equally pointed out that western research was of questionable value.

If anything the Chinese are simply not as slick as their western counterparts in faking their results. They need to take some lessons.

However the more I read Bob's comments the more I see that it is not acupuncture he has a problem with, but anyone who would question that holiest of grails, the double blind test. (Everyone bow at this point)

Even if Bob were chained down and all ailments healed via some questionable method, he would not accept it, for the double blind has not said it is so. (Blessed be it's name) ;)

The fact that TCM treats each person as an individual (shock / horror), means that it is very difficult if not impossible to measure in a double blind situation. For in TCM the same symptoms may be caused by differing factors and thus the treatment would have to change. So perhaps the failure rests not on the part of TCM but on the limitations of the tool that they would use to measure it. (Burn the heretic!:redhot:)

Was it not Maslow that said:
" If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as if it were a nail."

MarkF
16th March 2001, 10:06
Kent,
My point in saying it was a "valid modality" if done by MDs and DOs was only a reminder of the term "caveat emptor." IOW, a psychiatrist can prescribe pain medication or even chemotherapy because s/he is a medical doctor. The fact that his area of expertise is not in oncology or pain mangement, doesn't necessarily stop some from delving into an area with little or no experience. I did not mean to imply TCM is not, on its own, a valid trade, only that with certain circumstances, some who claim to do it really have no idea except how to insert needles while not knowing the meridians.

People sometimes need to be reminded that putting one's doctor on a pedestal doesn't mean s/he knows sh*t about accupuncture even if certified.

MarkF
16th March 2001, 10:46
Originally posted by AST


Was it not Maslow that said:
" If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as if it were a nail."





Today, some even consider the double blind to be a cruel hoax perpetrated on a believing group of people with certain terrible symptoms/diseases. The fact that many DBs today are being halted in favor of treating the entire group with a promising "cure" gives even greater emphasis to the worth of said DB drug method, surgery modality, etc.

The major problem here is that there is much more to a drug being effective or not. Some may be comparably effective, even more effective than current treatment, but after halting the DB, the experimental enters the public domain as a "miracle cure." It failed to take in the side effects because the DB was halted simply because early reports showed significant improvement in the non-placebo group.

A good example is the public's reaction to lowered levels of cholesterol in one's blood by the Framingham Heart Institutes Study of ratios of different types or weight of cholesterol lipoprotein. While even the newer drugs meant to lower total cholesterol levels and even more effective in lowering tryclicerides, has the public running to the doctor for a prescription for Zocor, Pravachol, and now Lipitor, the one which shows the most promise in this area, never took into account that the numbers of people whose cholesterol was in the "danger" levels, and whose levels were significantly lowered to passable levels, never tells the patient that no DB, or any other kind of test of the older, or Atromid-types of these drugs to the newer "Statin class" of same, never has shown an improvement in quality of life, and certainly showed that people on these drugs, not only died of heart disease at the same rate as those not on these drugs, but also showed, in random, double-blinds that morbidity increased dramatically in non-cardiac related disease and death over those treated with these drugs, and that the death rate in drug-treated groups was significantly higher in those taking these drugs. This study, btw, was over a five year period. Ignorance is bliss.

So is the DB effective in proving efficacy? Of course. Does it prove an increase in quality and quantity of life spans to be significantly higher? Absolutely not. But the DB proved the efficacy of the treatment even though it also proved significant increase in morbidity and mortality in the drug/treatment group.

Pretty narrow look at double blinds by Scientists and treating doctors, at least in this case.

Now, there is the case of Phen/fen....

Mark

Bob Steinkraus
19th March 2001, 18:21
AST writes:


If anything the Chinese are simply not as slick as their western counterparts in faking their results. They
need to take some lessons. I think I posted before that all data should be evaluated on their own merits. If the Chinese are faking data, this says nothing about Western methods.

He further writes:

Even if Bob were chained down and all ailments healed via some questionable method, he would not
accept it, for the double blind has not said it is so. (Blessed be it's name) If all ailments were curable by some method, it would be apparent in double blind studies. This is no more than saying that if acupuncture had some measurable effect, the effect could be measured. The weight of the evidence to date is that it does not.

Is it being close-minded to ask to see the evidence for the large claims made by acupuncturists?

Anecdotal evidence is weak evidence; scientific evidence is strong evidence. Lots of things that are just as enthusiastically endorsed as acupuncture are found, upon real examination, to be bogus. Science marches on, precisely because 'data' is not considered the plural of 'anecdote'.

And this lack of hard evidence validating acupuncture leads to such as this:
The fact that TCM treats each person as an individual (shock / horror), means that it is very difficult if
not impossible to measure in a double blind situation. For in TCM the same symptoms may be caused
by differing factors and thus the treatment would have to change. So perhaps the failure rests not on the
part of TCM but on the limitations of the tool that they would use to measure it. Five minutes of thought show this to be less than accurate.

Many common symptoms can arise from different causes. If you have a headache, the cause could range from simple stress to brain tumor. Would you agree that therefore the treatment of headache is not susceptible to scientific medicine?

Years ago, people noticed that patients reacted differently to blood transfusion. Some got better, some died immediately, and some people got better consistently when they received transfusions from certain donors. Did they dismiss the phenomemon as another example of something that could never be examined scientifically, because it involved 'treating people as individuals' and not as groups? They did not, and it led to the modern practice of blood typing.

If acupuncture has a system whereby the acupuncturist uses different methods for different people, either every patient is absolutely unique, in which case the acupuncturist would never use the same techniques twice, or patients can be grouped into types. If they can be grouped into types, then the system the acupuncturist is using can be derived from experimentation. Even if it is casting horoscopes, or looking at the patient's aura, or looking the time of day up in the I Ching, there have to be rules the acupuncturist is using, consciously or otherwise, to decide how to proceed.

The process of double blinding still works to test acupuncturists who change their treatments from day to day. All that is necessary is to collect a group of patients who the acupuncturist agrees can be helped. Then you divide them into two groups. One gets the acupuncturist's treatment, whatever it is. Maybe he is thinking "on alternate Tuesdays in months with no R, I will insert the needles here, except for Presbyterians or those with an L in their last name" or whatever. It makes no difference.

The other group gets some treatment that, according to acupuncture theory, should not work. Again, it doesn't matter what that treatment is, as long as it seems plausible to the patient, and that the ones administering the treatment can convince the patient that it will work.

Then, you measure the results. If there is anything to acupuncture, there should be some measurable difference in outcome between the two groups.

And it is only after you have conducted such a study, and found some effect, that you can reasonably say that acupuncture has any more validity than nothing at all, and you begin examining to find out what the rules are. It is entirely possible that a treatment will work for reasons that have nothing to do with the 'official' explanation.

Until you have shown that it works, there is nothing to examine or to explain. Unless it can be shown that acupuncture works on some basis beyond placebo and counter-irritation, it remains an unproven remedy - just like homeopathy, Laetrile, chiropractic - and voodoo.

There are lots of areas in which science cannot operate. But the instant anyone says that acupuncture will affect the course or outcome of any disease, you have stepped into the realm of science.

And I, for one, am going to say "Oh yeah? Prove it!" And if you can't do it, I will not pretend that you have.

Kimpatsu
29th October 2001, 08:03
Given the tone of this thread, perhaps everyone should go and read the data at www.randi.org and then come back to continue the discussion.
Just a thought.