Adventures in Wooland - Back and Forth With an Acupuncture Instructor

Physiotherapist said:
Well, it just shows that this guy knows nothing about massage therapy or bodywork modalities in general.

When you are performing massage, you are not just working on the muscles, but the fascia that surrounds the muscle as well. He is probably referring to Trigger Points in what he is talking about and massage can de-activate TrP's just as effectively.

In my practice as a physical therapist, I do perform massage and myofascial work. I always include active client movement, as this helps both the muscles and fascia to release more effectively and results are lasting. It is really about working with muscle balance and being able to see and feel which muscles are short and tight and releasing these. I also work with postural re-education, as people who have desk jobs develop poor postural patterns that stay with them.

I would say that your acupuncturist is incorrect. Massage done in the way he describes will not be effective. However, if you work to stretch out short and tight muscles and fascia and include active client movement, then it is extremely effective and can start to bring the whole musculoskeletal system back into balance.
Click to expand...



Well he doesn't just jump into inserting needles. He actually performs an introductory massage which involves many stages and it involves a lot of "client movement". He does of course work with muscle balance to be able to see which are short and which are tight. It's not like "Ok, here goes needle number one" without even testing the patient's body.
 
So the instructor has not replied, but the other guy did:

Mr. Alexandre,
First of all, it took a long time before evidence for global warming was acceptable to certain people. I am glad that you accept the evidence that is available as proof for global warming even though I would not be surprised that the research may not meet the standards that you expect from research for acupuncture. I am also glad that you were mildly amused but, sorry I did not read your "accusation" related to this issue.
I am sure that you would discover that there is a lot of research available for conventional medicine that is not at the level of the studies that I gave you as an example, yet you don't seem to question conventional medicine for that reason. The few studies that I e-mailed you may not be perfect in your mind, but I can assure you that the majority of well known researchers have no problems accepting them as very valuable. As mentioned in previous e-mail, I do not have hope to convert you into accepting that acupuncture and TCM is very valuable, nor is that my intention. But it seems that you have not had the chance to go through the book that I recommended. Also you should know that there is nothing wrong with a single blinded research study, nor is there with pilot studies: they all are valuable. Why would researchers even bother doing them if they had no value? Even most double blinded tests sometimes lend themselves to bias and criticism will always be possible. Indeed the second study included the use of Diclofenac, but dismissing this study completely for that reason shows how much you think in black or white, how narrowminded you are which has never helped the progress of science. You mentioned the German study and how narrow the margin is between acupuncture and what is referred to as sham acupuncture. The fact alone that what is referred to as "sham" acupuncture was significantly superior to the conventional approach, tells me that it should not be identified as placebo, unless placebo of acupuncture is almost twice as effective as a conventional approach??? Would that make you say that conventional medicine has no merit?
This study was discussed at a recent convention of researchers in I believe Baltimore and the conclusion was that what was used as "sham acupuncture" was probably not "sham" acupuncture and may not be "placebo" at all (thank goodness for conventional medicine!). So be careful to call the results of that study (and others) placebo. I have attached a few articles for you to illustrate that research as you like to see may not be the best way to show evidence for efficacy of acupuncture. Double blinded studies are not always the answer and are not always possible.The issues are far more complex than you seem to understand.
To avoid clutter, I will not e-mail you again.

Marc Raedschelders, R.Ac., Dipl. Ac.(NCCAOM)
Click to expand...

I was also sent two PDFs, though only one is within the JREF forum's size limit; it's attached.

Honestly, this whole thing has tired me out. I don't think I'm replying again. The constant sidestepping of the issue these fools do just doesn't amuse me anymore.
 

Attachments

Yeah. Anyway, it's really the people who think there might be something to acupuncture and who potentially would go an waste their money on a useless treatment instead of getting proper medical care that you want to concentrate on convincing, not the ones who are already convinced and make their living from it.

Wow, that's a heck of a long sentence.
 
Jimbo07 said:
Very interesting.

The prevailing attitude around here seems to be that physiotherapists do good work, but chiropractors and acupuncturists dilute this contribution to society by adding in supernatural bunkum. Has this been your experience?
Click to expand...

My experience has been more so with chiropractors. They base their theories and teachings on subluxations, which don't exist. Also, there are more muscles in the body and it is my experience that if you work on the muscles and fascia to create a correct balance, then any other structures that might be pulled out of place by short tight muscles will revert to normal once this balance is restored.

Ron,

In this case then, it is probably not the acupuncture that is working, rather massage part beforehand.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah. Anyway, it's really the people who think there might be something to acupuncture and who potentially would go an waste their money on a useless treatment instead of getting proper medical care that you want to concentrate on convincing, not the ones who are already convinced and make their living from it.

Wow, that's a heck of a long sentence.
Click to expand...

Sound advice, and yes, in that order. :)
 
The instructor replied, with the usual childishness and bared fangs of someone who is cornered. I shan't be replying to it. Here it is:

Carlos,
I appreciate you tell me your background honestly. You are neither a scientist nor a practitioner of medicine. I believe you are capable of reading, but suspect your logical thought. I am also glad that you give some credit to eastern medicine. By the way, eastern medicine and western medicine are two common names accepted by most people, just like your name, Carlos. Without name, how could you communicate.

You asked me to tell you other way to reach the truth. It is PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. Practice is the only way to reach and test the truth. It is the practice that deny the wrong science and create new science. That is why history is important. You may learn the old saying ""Time is the best test".

Regarding the million dollar question, I would like to ask you who are they? who are the Judges for the James Randi Education Foundation? If the Judges like you, who wear color glasses and refuse to see the fact, no one will won. It is useless game.

To honor your honesty on your creditial, I would like to answer both of your and my questions on last email, although it might be hard for you to digest. Sham acupuncture is a issue in acupuncture research. Currently, there are two type of sham control. One is point location control, which choose a non-point near the real acupuncture point. But so far we do not know how big is the point, we do know the point size changes as the pathological condition changes. So it is dangerous to set a sham control like this. Another sham control is technique control, which put a needle on the same acupuncture points but do not stimulate, like Park needle. In order to make the patient believe she/he is received a acupuncture treatment, you have to put some pressure on it. It is not a comlete no stimulation, but mild or shallow stimulation. But shallow stimulation does cause effect, like Japanese acupuncture. That is why in Germany study, both sham and real acupuncture have double effect than conventional medicine group.

To end up our debate, let me summarize as following:
1. You did not answer my questions in your email. I am assume that you are agree with my point;
2. You ask me to give you proof that acupuncture works. After my collegaue and I gave you the proof, you said you were not going to read it, which lead me think are you really looking for proof, or just want to discrdit CAM. Be careful, discredit an existing profession might cause law suit and very likely you will lose just as American Medical Association lost the case against Chiro Association in 1980's.
From the debate point of view, you lost already. You should apologize to the public, esp. CAM community for your misleading articles. I am glad you know science is not doctrine. But what you are doing has just set a perfect example to show people what doctrine science is.

Merry X'mas


Jiulin Wang, R.Ac.
Instructor and Clinical supervisor
Acupuncture Program
Grant MacEwan College
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Wang kind of schooled you, so did the other person, sorry to say. :)

Moreover, in doing some basic research, one can see they are for integrating both, not advocating one at the exclusion of the other.

Do yourself a favor, instead of putting in Clausian blinders and saying 'where is the evidence?' after it is repeatedly shoved in your face, read AND understand (look up that last one) what you are reading.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Mr. Wang kind of schooled you, so did the other person, sorry to say. :)

Moreover, in doing some basic research, one can see they are for integrating both, not advocating one at the exclusion of the other.

Do yourself a favor, instead of putting in Clausian blinders and saying 'where is the evidence?' after it is repeatedly shoved in your face, read AND understand (look up that last one) what you are reading.
Click to expand...

T'ai, you are a funny person.
 
In the grand scheme of things, many, many, many more therapies have been proposed that are worthless, than have been useful. And while it's pretty easy to leave open the idea that you may be right, it's somewhat counterintuitive and a little bit harder to show that you are wrong. But here's the thing. We have made tremendous progress in understanding the human body and extending life and health over that last two centuries, especially the last hundred years. And what it was that we started doing differently was to try and figure out where we were wrong. We started to pare away all of our wrong ideas, discard them, and build instead on those which were demonstrably useful.

Along the way, we discovered that all of the things that DIM practitioners (like the ones you are arguing with) depend upon (observation without controls or blinding, subjective perceptions rather than objective measures of change, extrapolation from specifics to generalities or from analogy rather than theory without testing) are highly unreliable when it comes to discovering real relationships. The difference between medicine and DIM is that DIM practitioners insist upon clinging to the information gathered over hundreds/thousands of years using these highly unreliable methods. And while it is possible that a few nuggets of useful information are contained within the dross, there is no way to find them using the methods of DIM (i.e. the test of time or PRACTICE, as mentioned in the e-mails). Instead we depend upon the scientific method to eliminate the junk and find those nuggets. For example, of the 200 different Chinese herbal preparations in traditional use for the treatment of malaria, only one showed actual activity against malaria when all were subject to scientific testing. Two hundred were presumed to have activity, as determined by the methods of DIM. And DIM was unable to discover that one of them was different from the rest in that it actually did work.

That acupuncture is not part of medicine does not require blinders, coloured glasses, a closed-mind, or ignorance of the 'evidence'. All it requires is a recognition what we have been wrong far, far, far more often than we have been right. What I would ask these practitioners instead is, how do they know they are not wrong, given that under identical circumstances we usually are? If special water, blood-letting, purging, incantations, and lucky charms can all give the illusion of real effects on the human body, what makes acupuncture any different?

Linda
 
T'ai Chi said:
Mr. Wang kind of schooled you, so did the other person, sorry to say. :)

Moreover, in doing some basic research, one can see they are for integrating both, not advocating one at the exclusion of the other.
Click to expand...

Quite right. I'm a Voodoo inclusionist. I just want voodoo to be used alongside other medicines. Where's the problem in that?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Mr. Wang kind of schooled you, so did the other person, sorry to say. :)

Moreover, in doing some basic research, one can see they are for integrating both, not advocating one at the exclusion of the other.

Do yourself a favor, instead of putting in Clausian blinders and saying 'where is the evidence?' after it is repeatedly shoved in your face, read AND understand (look up that last one) what you are reading.
Click to expand...

...Are you an imbecile?

Please pardon the tone of that question. But... really, are you an imbecile?

Because, I have to say, sir, that you just posted what is quite possibly the dumbest thing I'll ever read until the new year hits.
 
Ah, you haven't met T'ai Ching, but but your analysis is stil correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom