Acupuncture - woo or not

[Satra]

Satra, did you follow my advice given earlier in the Organics - thread? Did you read through the VFF threads?

Do you understand that your stories of experiences of acupuncture, qi, prana (concepts I'm very familiar with), as nice and inspiring they might be, do not - I repeat - DO NOT mean that any of those concepts or ideas behind them are real? Do you understand this?

Hey Tapio, thank you for your advice.

I went into that thread about synergetic perception of elements and started to read it (it's not very recreative to read in English for me^^, I'm often asking myself what people exactly want to express in each phrase. The general sense is often clear but I mostly don't get the nuances of their deductions, and that makes it much less interesting than it could be. So advance slowly.)

I have another concept of reality you have.

It's not because many of you have a consense about what does not belong to reality that you are more right than (people who perceive the world similar to) me.

And just this approach here saying "supernatural or not? (not of course)" seems quite peculiar to me. I do not believe in anything supernatural. I have another perception and definition of nature, that's all.

For me, what you refer to as "realitiy" is as illusionary as for you what I refer to as "reality". I had explicite experience who encounter your definition.
In fact I find it amusing someone like me should prove something, whereas I can testify: "I experienced that. So that is or can be real." while other persons may just say "I didn't experience that. So... I didn't experience that."
I did not experience how it is to fly in a spaceshuttle. I never met anybody who did. That just means what it is. I suppose people who say they experienced a travel in a spaceshuttle are truthful. I do not exclude that Armstrong was on the Moon, even if a growing amount of people think that that was fake. In fact: I JUST DON'T KNOW.
There are 150 years, Jules Vernes visions were not much more than pure fantasy for people. What will people think about our discussions in 150 years?


For our common human focus I do not believe in objective reality. I believe in focusses and different evaluations who work like filters. And some persons have pretty much filters it seems.
And can't accept that other just have less. And nobody is wrong. Just different. As photos are not wrong. They may be more or less precise, or differently coloured or anything. more or less harmonious, more or less coloured, more or less sharp. but they never are wrong. and every kind of photo can be useful for something.
So each person has its personal focus, manner of approach and priorities. And that's fine.


I will give you opportunity to be sceptic towards different ideas than many people use to. It's a sceptical forum, isn't it?

For me it seems that the strongest idea in this forum is not curiosity and open-mindness towards Truth. The idea to prove some things doesn't exist, some authentic perceptions were right and other wrong is as common.

Some will say "that's human". That is not per se, I say. It has been the attitude of many humans in the last centuries and perhaps so far.

We pretend to be intelligent (more intelligent than nature f.ex., and that's why we could reign over it without or with few care and respect).
This attitude, not to be open but trying to prove a stubborn way oneself would be the only one who's right, is NOT intelligent at all. It causes discordance and war, and we actually have a huge problem with wars we can't cope with. With discordance as much, in fact, look into politics. And that attitude is not the only one we cultivate to be not intelligent at all.

Where should we find solutions for such problems? - A sceptical educational forum is an entirely appropriate place.

So lets cultivate a sensible culture of discussion here. I may swim against the stream in this forum, but concerning the culture of discussion I'm one of the good examples here. Best conditions for a worthful exchange.

 

[blutoski]

Well that is where we really do disagree. I'm all for testing it and seeing if it works and then working out the real reason why it works. There's a reason why pharmaceutical companies spend a fortune investigating folk remedies and myths to see if there's anything too them - often there is, just not for the reasons tradition dictates.

? I don't see a connection to the analogy. It sounds like you were saying that you were more interested in a beguiling salespitch than transferring actual understanding.

I also found the analogy strained because the question isn't how to explain that it works - the actual debate is what 'works' means and whether the results we see fit that description at all.

 

[fls]

Because IMO your posts have indicated a propensity to reject something as ineffective or false purely because the theory behind it is bogus rather than because of evidence it's ineffective.

I think that's poor logic.

The circumstances under which we try something out conspire against us to give us the appearance of an effect, regardless of whether or not an effect is present. This is why the statement "it worked for me (or the friend of a friend of a friend)" is useless, because this will almost always be the case useless the 'treatment' is overtly harmful, rather than useless (and sometimes, even then).

This means that without a hypothetical or theoretical reason for something to work, the thing you are discussing is no more likely to work than any other random idea someone wishes to propose. It isn't so much that ideas are rejected because there is evidence that something is ineffective (sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't), as much as it is recognizing that it is no more likely to be effective than 'smearing **** on your face'.

Linda

 

[blutoski]

Because IMO your posts have indicated a propensity to reject something as ineffective or false purely because the theory behind it is bogus rather than because of evidence it's ineffective.

I think that's poor logic.

I think the reason Soapy Sam is confused is because nobody's actually doing that. Acupuncure is 0/2: its underlying principles are contrary to thousands of confidently known scientific findings, and also it fails when tested.

Having said that, I think there's a difference between "rejecting" and "not accepting" something if it's ridiculous.

The "you owe me $1,000" analogy is like that: do you reject the claim that you owe me $1,000 "because the spirits say so" because it's ridiculous? Or are you going to go through the motions to convince me that its false? Who has the burden of proof?

As Linda points out, there are an infinite number of ridiculous ideas. It's normal to weigh acceptance in proportion to evidence. When there is weak evidence, there should be weak acceptance. Otherwise, we could not build a cohernet model of reality.

Notice, though, that the argument has shifted from "I can show it works" to "OK, ok... I can't show it works scientifically. This means science has to change so it can confirm my beliefs."

I'm reminded of the chiropractor who discovered that blind testing didn't confirm applied kinesiology worked. His conclusion: science should stop using blind testing.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I can't speak for others, but I would say - as I have said before in this thread - that there might be something to the trigger point theory.

**ANECDOTE ALERT**ANECDOTE ALERT**

Here's the thing. I've always held the door ajar for acupuncture for musculoskeletal problems, but I've been prepared to accept the evidence from the increasingly well-controlled studies that it probably doesn't do much in the models under study (knee pain etc) and probably doesn't really work in musculoskeletal disease.

But, a veterinary colleague has recently been trained in something that calls itself acupuncture but seems, at third hand description, to be something like 'trigger point' therapy. This has been taught without all the qi and meridians baggage.

This vet has also been treating people recently.

Mrs BSM has had hip pain for the last several years. Her friend palpated a muscle around Mrs BSM's hip that seemed to be in spasm and needled it according to her training. It hurt quite a lot and the problem vanished. She has been able to sit cross-legged and lay without a pillow supporting her knee for the first time in several years after that one treatment a few months ago.

Now, I think I can safely expect people to regard me as genuinely sceptical rather than than being a creduloid numpty of the 'I was sceptical about homeopathy until I tried it' variety, but I find that anecdote to be quite impressive.

I know essential nothing about this idea of 'trigger points', but is it possible that this is the 'acupuncture' that works except that it is very hard to fit it under the umbrella of conventional [sic!] acupuncture?

Does this mean that the failed trials of acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain have tested the wrong kind of acupuncture for the wrong kind of problem?

Can anyone provide an overview and a critical appraisal?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s. Here is Wikipedia's take on "Trigger Points", but from its typically balanced description I still end up not able to work out whether the controversial claims being made are false because Wikipedia's "NPOV" policy always ends up giving nonsense "undue weight".

 

[icerat]

This means that without a hypothetical or theoretical reason for something to work, the thing you are discussing is no more likely to work than any other random idea someone wishes to propose.

You consider thousands of years of development of "traditional medicine" to be random? As I mentioned earlier, there's a reason why pharmaceutical companies spend millions researching traditional treatments. I'd venture to suggest they are orders of magnitude more likely to have a "real" effect than a random idea.

I seriously doubt you (or at least hope you don't) mean in this way, but what you've effectively stated here is "if we (or whoever explains it to us) don't understand how it works, then it's pretty certain it doesn't work"

That's absurd.

 

[Satra]

"a creduloid numpty of the 'I was sceptical about homeopathy until I tried it' "

one of the weeks highlights in this forum XD XD

Being fond of paradigmata I'll try to participate and propose this one:
"Saw a rainbow but it was not tangible so it was an illusion of course."

and, yeah, really cool you found sth new!

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote and might better comprehend the meaning of 'creduloid numpty' with the aid of a mirror.

 

[fls]

You consider thousands of years of development of "traditional medicine" to be random?

It pretty much turned out that way, didn't it? We've got homeopathy, which is completely bogus, mixed together with acupuncture, which may have accidentally hit upon a few correct elements, mixed together with the use of herbal medicine, which at least has the benefit of providing us with some active therapeutics even if the attached knowledge is now essentially useless. "Traditional medicine" seems to have been incapable of sorting out which of those were useless and which were useful.

As I mentioned earlier, there's a reason why pharmaceutical companies spend millions researching traditional treatments. I'd venture to suggest they are orders of magnitude more likely to have a "real" effect than a random idea.

I think you are referring to herbal medicine?

I suspect that those herbs in traditional use represent a collection of botanicals which are somewhat more likely to have a physiologic/therapeutic effect (maybe one or two orders of magnitude?) and less likely to be overtly toxic. So there is some use in focussing on their study, as the yield per tested drug will be better. But the knowledge associated with their use hasn't been particularly valuable - the herbs are ineffective against the conditions for which they are traditionally used, important and useful effects have been missed by traditional use, and harm has been missed by traditional use.

But the idea that natural sources can supply us with therapeutic agents is not without hypothetical and theoretical basis. This is still the source of the bulk of our therapeutics. We just don't confine ourselves to the small subset of those natural sources which have a traditional use.

I seriously doubt you (or at least hope you don't) mean in this way, but what you've effectively stated here is "if we (or whoever explains it to us) don't understand how it works, then it's pretty certain it doesn't work"

That's absurd.

Nope. What I've stated is that if we don't have any particular reason to think that it does work, then we don't have any particular reason to single it out for consideration.

Linda

 

[icerat]

It pretty much turned out that way, didn't it? We've got homeopathy, which is completely bogus, mixed together with acupuncture, which may have accidentally hit upon a few correct elements, mixed together with the use of herbal medicine, which at least has the benefit of providing us with some active therapeutics even if the attached knowledge is now essentially useless. "Traditional medicine" seems to have been incapable of sorting out which of those were useless and which were useful.

Well let see, you mention 3 items - herbal treatments, acupuncture, and homeopathy. You admit traditional herbal treatments are worth studying, and acupuncture may have some interesting aspects ... and your third option, homeopathy has a history of just over 200 years .... not exactly "thousands". Homeopathy is not a "traditional medicine" by any stretch.

But the idea that natural sources can supply us with therapeutic agents is not without hypothetical and theoretical basis.

It was until someone came up with a testable theory. Their efficacy or otherwise did not change because the theory of their mechanism changed. Just because the greek's believe Wolf'sbane was a creation of the goddess Hecate doesn't stop it being as effective a poison today as it was for them.

Nope. What I've stated is that if we don't have any particular reason to think that it does work, then we don't have any particular reason to single it out for consideration.

And that's where we disagree, and clearly where many others disagree since a great deal of effort has been put in to studying various versions of acupuncture. Furthermore, there have been various quite sensible theories proposed as to why it might work, such as triggering endorphin release.

The idea you shouldn't even study something because someone has a bogus explanation of how it might work is irrational.

 

[Physiotherapist]

I know essential nothing about this idea of 'trigger points', but is it possible that this is the 'acupuncture' that works except that it is very hard to fit it under the umbrella of conventional [sic!] acupuncture?

Does this mean that the failed trials of acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain have tested the wrong kind of acupuncture for the wrong kind of problem?

Can anyone provide an overview and a critical appraisal?

When trials of acupuncture have been conducted, I believe they been tested using the TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) concept. So practitioners come up with the diagnosis and then treat accordingly. They claim that they treat the whole person whilst doing this.

However, treating TrP's (Trigger points) with acupuncture is known as dry needling. In a lot of musculoskeletal conditions, trigger points can be found in muscles and basically, what practitioners are doing are locating these tender areas that may or may not refer to other parts of the body and then needling them to release them.

When I treat patients however, I do exactly the same thing except I release any trigger points that I find with my thumbs, fingers and knuckles. I have even used an elbow so that I could get deep enough into the tissue. Once released I then stretch the muscle and also give patients stretching exercises to perform between treatments.

Travell and Simons have published two volumes on trigger point theory and spent their careers researching them.

Basically, TrP's are areas of hyper-irritability in the muscles and fascia that refer pain to other areas of the body when pressed, as well as pain locally. They can be the cause of chronic pain within the body.

 

[blutoski]

The idea you shouldn't even study something because someone has a bogus explanation of how it might work is irrational.

I don't think anybody has suggested that, though.

You're confusing "somebody has a bogus explanation" with "there is no scientific plausibility."

You're also confusing "needing an explanation for why they work," with "needing proof that they even work at all."

What we're saying is that in the universe of infinite claims, use Ocham's razor to zero in on the low hanging fruit: things that are demonstrated to work, or of those that have not, start with those that have plausible scientific mechanisms.

Whether a modality in question has some fru-fru story is irrelevant: what's the demonstration of efficacy, or is there plausibility of mechanism based on related principles?

These are the indicators that motivate investigation. The associated mythology is merely a footnote.

 

[Physiotherapist]

Acupressure (aka Shiatsu) is basically deep tissue massage. And it works for all the things that massage works for - tension, headache, etc. I use shiatsu principles when I massage.

Shiatsu is still based on the principles of Chinese Medicine (TCM), so it uses the meridians with the point being to open the 'energy channels' that are blocked by palming down the meridians.

Take the TCM out of Shiatsu and what you really are left with is ischaemic compression to the myo-fascia which is deep and where you can get to the painful spots - trigger points and hold into them. So yes, I would agree that it is a deep tissue massage through clothes and not using oil.

 

[blutoski]

And that's where we disagree, and clearly where many others disagree since a great deal of effort has been put in to studying various versions of acupuncture. Furthermore, there have been various quite sensible theories proposed as to why it might work, such as triggering endorphin release.

I find that to be poor reasoning, though. Yes: a lot of money has been invested in investigating various traditional modalities. That doesn't mean the decisionmakers were making sound decisions. Fools and their money are soon parted, as they say.

Part of skepticism is observing the tragedy that bad investments are not only abundant, but perennial: we don't seem to learn well from history.

Regarding the exploration of traditional modalities, I would wager that money has been better spent on bioprospecting (randomly testing against indications) than ethnobotany (testing against traditional indications).

 

[MikeSun5]

Take the TCM out of Shiatsu and what you really are left with is ischaemic compression to the myo-fascia which is deep and where you can get to the painful spots - trigger points and hold into them.

Yea, but "Shiatsu" sounds so much better than simply "deep tissue massage" or "vigorous back rub." It's like a $45 Nike t-shirt as opposed to a generic $10 t-shirt. Same materials, but you get more money for a well known name.

 

[Satra]

Monkey, we're here for scientific approach, not to insult each other, are we?

There is no excuse in your pseudo or wherever to be such impolite.

(I do not have few respect towards monkeys. Perhaps you do. That's your problem than.)

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Monkey, we're here for scientific approach, not to insult each other, are we?

There is no excuse in your pseudo or wherever to be such impolite.

(I do not have few respect towards monkeys. Perhaps you do. That's your problem than.)

Don't know about you but I'm here for well-constructed arguments based on evidence and sound logical principles. Failing that I'm here for the humour. And failing that I'm here for the bananas and to fling poo at the tourists' cars.

You have made a number of vague assertions. You have been asked for evidence and have not provided even a "jot". So, I've moved onto humour. Poo-flinging is next on the list. You might want to wear a hat.

 

[icerat]

I don't think anybody has suggested that, though.

au contraire, it was pretty much stated as such earlier

You're confusing "somebody has a bogus explanation" with "there is no scientific plausibility."

Scientific plausibility does not depend on the practioners explanation. I can think of a variety of plausible reasons why basic acupuncture might work.

You're also confusing "needing an explanation for why they work," with "needing proof that they even work at all."

That's putting the horse before the cart. What's needed is some kind of evidence something might work. Large numbers of people believing something has worked for them is evidence. It's poor quality evidence that could clearly be cause by something else, but nevertheless it is evidence there's something worth investigating.

What we're saying is that in the universe of infinite claims, use Ocham's razor to zero in on the low hanging fruit: things that are demonstrated to work, or of those that have not, start with those that have plausible scientific mechanisms.

Nothing has a plausible scientific mechanism until someone comes up with one. Plausible scientific mechanisms result from the initial study of a phenomenon. If you refuse to study it without a plausible scientific mechanism then you're left with nothing to study.

While clearly one needs to prioritise, it would be a sad world if we couldn't find the time to investigate interesting phenomenen.

Whether a modality in question has some fru-fru story is irrelevant: what's the demonstration of efficacy, or is there plausibility of mechanism based on related principles?

Precisely - but answering those questions requires investigating the phenomenon!

These are the indicators that motivate investigation. The associated mythology is merely a footnote.

I agree, except that again you're running in circles. Unless someone has already investigated in some manner, then you will have no such indicators to motivate.

 

[MikeSun5]

Satra, lots of people here at JREF like to "fling poo at tourists." I wouldn't let that deter you. If you're honestly looking for good conversation and debate here, you will be sure to find it.

You seem to have a spiritual view of things that will most definitley come under scrutiny in this forum. You also seem to come from a culture where it is polite to address all those that have addressed you. Don't. My advice is to ignore anything you consider a direct insult or ridicule.

That being said... I'm curious as to why you would be agnostic about something like the moon landing, but certain of a universal consciousness?