Marc and Jiulin: I'm going to reply to both of you in one email to avoid clutter. Also, I will not send this as a Reply to All; that way, anybody who doesn't want to deal with this discussion doesn't have to (sorry about using it so liberally before). If either of you wishes to forward this reply to anybody else, go right ahead.
Jiulin:
I have known, since well before our emails back and forth began, about the study in Germany you cited. I didn't respond to it because I wanted to see if you would actually send it to me, but you didn't, and you continue to use it as proof. It is time to put that to rest. To ensure we're on the same page, you're talking about this study, correct?
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/17/1892 (If this is not the one, let me know.)
Let's talk about the numbers this test presented. At 6 months, 47.6% of the group of patients receiving acupuncture responded positively. But only 27.4% of the group of patients receiving conventional physical therapy responded positively. Most acupuncture supporters use these numbers as their argument. What they forget is that the third group of patients, the patients receiving so-called "sham" acupunture (acupuncture performed improperly, if you will), reported an astonishing 44.2% positive response. I think you'll agree that the difference between 47.6% and 44.2% is, in this case, virtually irrelevant; for all intents and purposes,
regardless of whether or not acupuncture was performed properly, the same amount of people responded positively to both "real" and "sham" acupuncture. Tell me, Jiulin: how is it possible that acupuncture worked when it wasn't even performed in adherence with its described methods and principles? Is it not correct to say that if acupuncture were indeed real, that "sham" acupunture would not have nearly as much positive results? That, and that
alone, should be sufficient not only to dismiss this particular experiment as proof of acupuncture's validity, but also as further proof of the placebo effect at work.
However, that is not the only questionable element in this experiment. We do not know what prior treatment, if any, the subjects of this experiment had during their 8 years of back pain. We have no confirmation that pain-killers or other drugs were not taken before or after each 30-minute session. Finally, the data ends after six months, giving us no confirmation that the relief found from acupuncture (both real and sham, remember) lasted. Considering all that, along with other problems that should be obvious to a critical thinker, the Germany study is, at best, inconclusive, and, at worst, more evidence that acupuncture is a placebo.
I ask you again for real evidence. I will not look for it for you. Sending me links about defamation suits, interviews, and titles of books I'm not going to buy is not evidence. Send me the real scientific papers (or the links to them), the real documentation of real experiments, and ensure that they are up-to-date and relevant. You are making the claim that acupuncture is real medicine. I say again: prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Marc:
I find it mildly amusing that you would compare me to a global warming denier, considering the key difference between global warming and alternative medicines. Global warming, unlike acupuncture, homeopathy, and other quack practices, has been continuously and consistently proven, with real evidence backing it up. If I were to deny global warming, I would be a fool, doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence. I also find it mildly amusing that you would make that comparison so relatively soon after I made the same accusation in a letter to Connie Howard of VUE Weekly. But that I'll chalk it up to coincidence.
And I need not evidence given to me on a silver platter: just the evidence will do, no silver platter required. The onus lies with you, the person making the claim. I'm not going to find your evidence for you, nor do I care how many others do or don't agree with that evidence you claim exists; I'm a skeptic, and I look at claims with doubt until they prove their validity. Speaking of which, thank you for sending me the PDF. I've looked it over. Two things stand out to me: the first was that the test was single-blinded, which lends itself towards experimenter's bias, and the second was the use of the drug Diclofenac, which impacts the validity of the results. I cannot accept that as proof. If you have other scientific materials to send, or can send me links to the material, I would be happy to look it over.
keep it up, some sense might seep in through the holes.
