Acupuncture - scam or legit?

[jadebox]

As one of the earlier posts reported, there is some evidence that acupuncture can be beneficial is some limited cases.

But, that doesn't mean it isn't a scam. Those performing acupuncture are promising that it does a lot more than help in a few specific cases. And even in those cases, I doubt it is safer and more effective than proven treatments.

 

[dann]

Acupuncture (Skepdic.com)
We had a case in Denmark ten years ago when it was discovered that a very popular acupuncturist, Klaus Lundsgaard, was actually injecting his patients with cortisone when they thought he was merely giving them acupuncture treatments.
It did take away their pain, for a while ...

 

[p0lka]

There is an acupressure point where the bones of the thumb and forefinger meet, I think it's called Ho Ku. If you have a bad headache, you rub each one, and if one feels more sensitive than the other, deep massage it for a minute or two. Something like 2/3 or 3/4 of the time, your headache will go away, and I mean fast. Not sure if there is a conventional explanation, but it works more often than not for the fam and I.

That was called an atemi point when I dabbled in trad jiu jitsu years ago.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Can I also point out, per several of Orac's posts on the subject, that claims about how ancient acupuncture is need to be looked at very carefully, as what was practised in days gone by is not what is practised now.

 

[Thermal]

I did read an interesting study where they compared traditional acupuncture with poking people in random places with cocktail sticks (without puncturing the skin). There was no difference.
Its been a long time but I'll see if I can dig that up again.
Yep, found it. They compared Individualised acupuncture, standard acupuncture and poking at random with toothpicks. The results of all these were the same.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2832641/

Thats usually how the placebo attempts are structured, and why they fail. Toothpicks on the surface? Any acupuncturist would say that of course that would do nothing. That's not how acupuncture is even theorized to work. Funny that it would be shown to be ineffective if you deliberately structure the study to make it ineffective

Eta: that study found that acupuncture was found to be effective in relieving lower back pain, but the results of random toothpicks were inconclusive (see in Conclusions)

 

[The Moog]

Thats usually how the placebo attempts are structured, and why they fail. Toothpicks on the surface? Any acupuncturist would say that of course that would do nothing. That's not how acupuncture is even theorized to work. Funny that it would be shown to be ineffective if you deliberately structure the study to make it ineffective

Do explain why acupuncture was no more effective that poking people in the back with toothpicks?
It seems you are claiming that having a placebo wing in the trial made the actual acupuncture stop working.... is that correct?

Eta: that study found that acupuncture was found to be effective in relieving lower back pain, but the results of random toothpicks were inconclusive (see in Conclusions)

No it didn't, it showed that acupuncture was exactly as effective as poking people in the back with toothpicks. Which is not at all.

 

[Mojo]

Thats usually how the placebo attempts are structured, and why they fail. Toothpicks on the surface? Any acupuncturist would say that of course that would do nothing. That's not how acupuncture is even theorized to work. Funny that it would be shown to be ineffective if you deliberately structure the study to make it ineffective

The placebo is supposed to be ineffective. That’s the whole point; it provides a baseline. Using an ineffective placebo is not structuring the study to make the treatment under consideration look ineffective. Do you think acupuncture would be more likely to perform better than an effective treatment or an ineffective one?

And in fact in this trial acupuncture performed no better than the placebo that you are complaining would do nothing.

 

[Thermal]

Do explain why acupuncture was no more effective that poking people in the back with toothpicks?
It seems you are claiming that having a placebo wing in the trial made the actual acupuncture stop working.... is that correct?



No it didn't, it showed that acupuncture was exactly as effective as poking people in the back with toothpicks. Which is not at all.

The study was structured on short-term benefit, which acupuncture doesn't even claim to do much for, so I think that it is a doomed to fail study right out of the gate.

You are right that they found the random poking to yield the same results as traditional treatment. I thought The study you cited was another that I had read that produced different results, my bad.

However regarding this, bull. They found that all worked, but they are inconclusive about why (other placebo tests have not yielded the same results). From conclusions:

It remains unclear whether acupuncture, or our simulated method of acupuncture, provide physiologically important stimulation or represent placebo or non-specific effects.

Like most studies, they can't drop the gavel. They can't say what is going on definitively, but something is.

Btw, I'm not an advocate. I'm a pragmatist. Whatever works

 

[Thermal]

The placebo is supposed to be ineffective. That’s the whole point; it provides a baseline. Using an ineffective placebo is not structuring the study to make the treatment under consideration look ineffective. Do you think acupuncture would be more likely to perform better than an effective treatment or an ineffective one?

And in fact in this trial acupuncture performed no better than the placebo that you are complaining would do nothing.

See above, I jumped the gun and assumed it was the other study. My bad, entirely.

I'll try to find the similar study where toothpicks were compared with traditional acupuncture with very different results when back on laptop. It was interesting, but like this study, inconclusive.

 

[The Moog]

Like most studies, they can't drop the gavel. They can't say what is going on definitively, but something is.

Nah, the study along with many similar ones is very clear. There is nothing going on.
As with all these alternative medicine schemes, whenever a controlled trial is done the effects mysteriously vanish.
I'm fine with "Whatever works", but this doesn't.

It was interesting, but like this study, inconclusive.

The study was conclusive though. It showed acupuncture to be no more effective than a placebo.

 

[sackett]

Can I also point out, per several of Orac's posts on the subject, that claims about how ancient acupuncture is need to be looked at very carefully, as what was practised in days gone by is not what is practised now.

Come to that, claims for the extreme antiquity of anything Chinese need to be examined, well, skeptically. In the absence of texts, a huckster can tell you ALL about how venerable his snake oil is, and in China that still tends to work.

Tried on the red-faced devils, it goes down like ham at Sunday breakfast.

 

[Thermal]

Nah, the study along with many similar ones is very clear. There is nothing going on.
As with all these alternative medicine schemes, whenever a controlled trial is done the effects mysteriously vanish.
I'm fine with "Whatever works", but this doesn't.


The study was conclusive though. It showed acupuncture to be no more effective than a placebo.

Yet the study also found that "acupuncture was found effective for chronic low back pain", and as noted earlier, that questions were raised but the word they chose was "unclear" to describe the results.

Your claim, however, was that: "No it didn't, it showed that acupuncture was exactly as effective as poking people in the back with toothpicks. Which is not at all."

"Not effective at all" was not their finding. Effective, but unclear on if the traditional, individualized, or random was significant, was their finding. Big difference, that.

I do get your point that the study didn't show dramatically different results than a placebo-style toothpicking (regular acupuncture did perform better, but not hugely more than placebo). My provisional assumption is that there is some overlapping effect with nerves or natural endorphin release or something, and not all that "chi in the meridians" jazz. I'd like to see more research into why exactly it sometimes shows significant results.

 

[The Moog]

Yet the study also found that "acupuncture was found effective for chronic low back pain", and as noted earlier, that questions were raised but the word they chose was "unclear" to describe the results.

No it didn't, it found acupuncture was just as effective as jabbing tooth picks in your back at random.

Your claim, however, was that: "No it didn't, it showed that acupuncture was exactly as effective as poking people in the back with toothpicks. Which is not at all."

That's right, and that's what it shows. Try looking at the data.
There was no statistically significant difference between the acupuncture and toothpick arms of the trial.

 

[Thermal]

No it didn't, it found acupuncture was just as effective as jabbing tooth picks in your back at random.

I'm copying and pasting the quoted parts. It's not really disputable.

That's right, and that's what it shows. Try looking at the data.
There was no statistically significant difference between the acupuncture and toothpick arms of the trial.

Ok, third time now: that's not what you claimed. You claimed, and I quoted and hilited for you, that you said acupuncture was found to be just as effective as random toothpicking, which was not at all. That is untrue. Both were found effective, which is the opposite of your claim.

Maybe you meant that acupuncture was not found at all to be more effective? Read your quote again, please, because that's not what you said.

 

[The Moog]

Ok, third time now: that's not what you claimed. You claimed, and I quoted and hilited for you, that you said acupuncture was found to be just as effective as random toothpicking, which was not at all. That is untrue. Both were found effective, which is the opposite of your claim.

Acupuncture was found to be just as effective as random toothpicking <- this is exactly what the data shows.

The random toothpicking is a decent placebo to test against and the acupuncture and toothpick arms were decently blinded against each other.

 

[Elagabalus]

Time to break out the big guns!

 

[Mojo]

See above, I jumped the gun and assumed it was the other study. My bad, entirely.

I'll try to find the similar study where toothpicks were compared with traditional acupuncture with very different results when back on laptop. It was interesting, but like this study, inconclusive.

Are you using the definition of an inconclusive study that some homeopaths use, meaning one that failed to show a significant difference between the treatment and placebo?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The study was structured on short-term benefit, which acupuncture doesn't even claim to do much for,

<snip>

A quick Google shows that is just not true. Acupuncturists do claim short term benefits.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sure I've posted this before but Dr Harriet Hall gave a great lecture on acupuncture to our Seattle skeptic's group.

Some key points:

Research out of China is not always reliable

Often people treated with acupuncture in China are also given standard pain medicine

I believe there was at least one very suggestible person who was able to have surgery with acupuncture anesthesia but this was not repeatable

It's difficult to use controls just like sham surgery is hard to replicate; but where it has been done like using the wrong sites or poking the person with something other than a needle—it fails the test

Western medicine has little to offer some people with chronic pain except pain meds with serious side effects with long term use; like with chiropractic treatment, the placebo effect of acupuncture may also be a better alternative​

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Thats usually how the placebo attempts are structured, and why they fail. Toothpicks on the surface? Any acupuncturist would say that of course that would do nothing. That's not how acupuncture is even theorized to work. Funny that it would be shown to be ineffective if you deliberately structure the study to make it ineffective

Which brings us back, yet again, to the lack of a biologically, anatomically, physiologically credible, coherent and evidence-based means of action for acupuncture...