• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A dialogue on acupuncture

Whoa. Animal studies!

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/acupuncture/HealthProfessional/page4

The findings of these studies suggest that acupuncture may be effective in treating cancer-related symptoms and cancer treatment–related disorders and that acupuncture may be able to activate immune functions [1-3] and regulate the autonomic nervous system.[4,5] Only one study reported a decrease in tumor volume in animals treated with acupuncture compared with control animals; however, the scientific value of this report is limited because of insufficient information about the research methodology.[2]

Now its getting really strange...
 
Please tell me you are joking.

No, there have been studies showing that homeopathy is effective in treating animals. Of course these studies are not the best designed so there is a chance at bias.

But then there can be real issues with how well conducted these studies are as well.
 
Conventional physicians often belittle homeopathic remedies and their effectiveness to placebo effect. However, several studies on animals and infants show that homeopathic remedies do work. Obviously, animals and infants are less likely to be influenced by placebo. In Germany, poultry farmers are treating their hens with homeopathic remedies instead of antibiotics for coughs, colds, and digestive problems. Farmers also treat their cats, dogs, horses, cattle, and birds homeopathically.

Other animal studies add to the evidence. A 3x potency of Chelidonium lowered cholesterol in rabbits by 25 percent. Microdoses of Arsenicum (10x up to 30x; and 5c up to 15c) helped rats eliminate toxic doses of arsenic from their systems, a study that has important implications for humans who are increasingly exposed to many heavy metals in the environment. And pigs given Caulophyllum had half as many stillbirths as those who received a placebo.

Link
 
A TV programme is hardly a scientific study. However, the mechanism is probably the production of endorphins which have an analgesic effect. As pointed out here, it doesn't matter where you stick the needles. The best controlled studies have only shown an effect for pain relief (lower back?) and therefore supports the role of endorphin theory.
 
some interestic stuff from Web MD
Scientific study on acupuncture and knee athritus
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/108/108841.htm

study: acupuncture and chemotherapy from breast cacer study
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/17/1668_50953.htm
Shen and her colleagues found that those women who had received electroacupuncture had fewer vomiting episodes than the women who only received drugs. Even the women who got the "minimal needling" did somewhat better than the women who only got drugs, she reports. That suggests that some of the response to acupuncture could be explained by the "placebo effect" -- the concept that some patients will get better even without getting the real treatment, perhaps just from receiving more attention from caregivers. However, the acupuncture and the minimal needling was terminated at five days, and when Shen and colleagues went back to look at how the patients were faring on the ninth day, there were no longer significant differences between the three groups.

That's important, Shen says, because it supports the idea that acupuncture really had an effect on the body. "We were skeptical at the beginning, thinking that maybe it was just the extra attention, so that's why we did the follow-up," Shen tells WebMD. "It's the strongest part of our study."
 

Posting a link to Holistic online.com is not exactly evidence and is off topic. There is not any legitimate, scientific evidence of the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine".

As far as the topic is concerned, I really can't see that there is a whole lot of evidence that acupuncture does anything significant (a lot of use of the word "may"). The word "energy" is always thrown out when discussing the efficacy of acupuncture, but never defined. What kind of energy are you talking about, how is it affected, and how does that affect the patient and his/her perception of pain?

Does sticking a needle into someone make them feel any better than if they took a pain reliever?

I remember when I lived in Asia there was an anecdotal piece in a local expat magazine from someone who had sprained their wrist and went to an acupuncturist for treatment. After a "couple of weeks" of treatment their wrist got better. I wonder how long it would have taken if they had done nothing? In my opinion, that would be a control, not sticking needles in "non-meridian location".
 
Posting a link to Holistic online.com is not exactly evidence and is off topic. There is not any legitimate, scientific evidence of the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine".

I am illustrating that just because you have studies showing an effect doesn't mean you have an effect.

But if you believe animal studies for acupuncture why do you discount animal studies for homeopathy?
I remember when I lived in Asia there was an anecdotal piece in a local expat magazine from someone who had sprained their wrist and went to an acupuncturist for treatment. After a "couple of weeks" of treatment their wrist got better. I wonder how long it would have taken if they had done nothing? In my opinion, that would be a control, not sticking needles in "non-meridian location".


That can not work, because of the placebo effect. The patient who everyone knows is not recieving treatment, is not expected to get better by anyone, this expectation leads to a bais by the patient an the pracitioner. That is why the best studies are double blind.

For example in this case I would want the person evaluating the people to have no idea if they are in the sham group or the acupuncture group. That would remove a potential source for bias.
 
I am illustrating that just because you have studies showing an effect doesn't mean you have an effect.

But if you believe animal studies for acupuncture why do you discount animal studies for homeopathy?



That can not work, because of the placebo effect. The patient who everyone knows is not receiving treatment, is not expected to get better by anyone, this expectation leads to a bais by the patient an the practitioner. That is why the best studies are double blind.

For example in this case I would want the person evaluating the people to have no idea if they are in the sham group or the acupuncture group. That would remove a potential source for bias.

Good points, but I guess I question that there are any legitimate homeopathic studies that demonstrate any efficacy, but since I don't want to get into a discussion on homeopathy on this thread, we can leave it. I think I understand where you are going with it anyway.

I never said that I believe in any animal studies on acupuncture. I think acupuncture provides no benefit at all. Any of the studies I have seen aren't that conclusive.

I do understand what you are saying about the sham group though. How would you structure a test for a pain study on something that could get better over time, like a sprained wrist or bad back? To me, both groups would get better eventually and you would have the statements as above that it doesn't matter if you stick the needles in the meridians, it helps just to stick the needles in. I would argue that both are as useless and the patients just got better over time.

My rule of thumb is that if there have been a bunch of scientific studies of a potential new health treatment or medication (herbal or otherwise) and there is still a significant amount of debate as to that treatment/medication's efficacy, then there is nothing there and it is time to move on.
 
Good points, but I guess I question that there are any legitimate homeopathic studies that demonstrate any efficacy, but since I don't want to get into a discussion on homeopathy on this thread, we can leave it. I think I understand where you are going with it anyway.
I was just trying to show the press releases of studies do not give you enough information to know how well the study was conducted and what weight to give to its findings.

Of course there would need to be several high quality studies for me to be convinced of any effect, because of the amount of woo that it is connected to.
I never said that I believe in any animal studies on acupuncture. I think acupuncture provides no benefit at all. Any of the studies I have seen aren't that conclusive.
And I was not as much talking to you as that was your first post in this thread. I was talking more to robinson.

I do understand what you are saying about the sham group though. How would you structure a test for a pain study on something that could get better over time, like a sprained wrist or bad back? To me, both groups would get better eventually and you would have the statements as above that it doesn't matter if you stick the needles in the meridians, it helps just to stick the needles in. I would argue that both are as useless and the patients just got better over time.

Treatment, sham, and non treatment groups. There was one study mentioned here that had treatment, sham and conventional treatment for OA knee pain. I wanted there to be two shams, one to test how pretending to stick an needle in and one to put the needle where is shouldn't work according to acupuncture.

They would all be evaluated by independent people who do not know what group anyone is.

That gives more blinding and control
My rule of thumb is that if there have been a bunch of scientific studies of a potential new health treatment or medication (herbal or otherwise) and there is still a significant amount of debate as to that treatment/medication's efficacy, then there is nothing there and it is time to move on.

It does depend on the quality of the studies.
 
I was just trying to show the press releases of studies do not give you enough information to know how well the study was conducted and what weight to give to its findings.

Of course there would need to be several high quality studies for me to be convinced of any effect, because of the amount of woo that it is connected to.

And I was not as much talking to you as that was your first post in this thread. I was talking more to robinson.



Treatment, sham, and non treatment groups. There was one study mentioned here that had treatment, sham and conventional treatment for OA knee pain. I wanted there to be two shams, one to test how pretending to stick an needle in and one to put the needle where is shouldn't work according to acupuncture.

They would all be evaluated by independent people who do not know what group anyone is.

That gives more blinding and control


It does depend on the quality of the studies.

I think we're on the same page now. I agree, my theory would certainly depend on the quality of the studies.
 
Correct. And it has been shown that it doesn't matter if the needles are placed in the wrong place.

And the comments page also gives a nice example of how this type of study won't be accepted by believers. An acupuncturist comments that

Acupuncture IS the insertion of needles to elicit therapeutic benefit, and there are many rationales about how to decide where to put those needles, not just meridian theory.

If sticking needles in the 'wrong' meridian is effective, this shows that acupuncture works - but via one of the other rationales that have been developed :rolleyes:
 
That is even weirder than if it worked as claimed!

Not necessarily - wherever the needles are put you'll get a placebo effect. It's also quite possible (likely?) that sticking needles in people has non-placebo physiological effects - which may work as well if the needle is stuck in any of a range of places...
 

Back
Top Bottom