Acupuncture - woo or not

[Satra]

that is your opinion. not ultimate truth.

Scientific consensus is hardly a mere matter of opinion.

you are not conscient of the amount of different scientific concepts exist at this moments and how many have existed since human searched for Truth.
you think, yours is the one and only true. many sciences thought that. And one day that civilization fades, another comes, another science comes. our civilization is pretty young. it will die one day, like the others. and other concepts will be there, who will construct more or less upon and diverge more or less from "ours". Just as if has been before. The Egyptians built pyramides - you think they were stupid and did not know about science? They did. Differently than us.

You do not find it a problem that you cannot tell one homoeopathic preparation apart from another? Why do homoeopaths have so many remedies, when nobody see a difference?

No. You just show how much you are centered on your visual sense.
As long as a heavy contusion I have does not get really bad and completely disappears after a few days I'm happy (example I experienced).

You were talking about some sort of atomic or subatomic frequency. Orbiting planets clearly have a frequency, and it is well-known that it has an effect on life on Earth. Just what relevance does this have for homoeopathy?

Homeopathy works with this kind of forces. That's the reason why things are diluted: to leave behind the material and get the power or frequency behind it.

Unsubstantiated rubbish.

likewise to you.

Hardly. There is only one reality. But it is quite possible that you do not live in a reality at all.

No. Of course not. Emotions are chemical reactions in your head. Very physical. And there are also a number of problems that can be solved merely by appealing to the emotions, like pain, as when mommy blows on a hurting spot on her child.

But this is not very relevant in a discussion about homoeopathy.

Yes, obviously. But it is irrelevant for our discussion.

It was you who brought the discussion towards music, I'm very sorry. You asked if music could cure any physical disease. If you continue like this I don't see any sense in answering your questions.

Spirits do not exist. And the disharmony concept is just bogus. Is malaria a disharmony? Does the plasmodium parasite that causes malaria have its own "harmony"? There are homoeopaths who claim that homoeopathy can cure malaria.

My answer does not really interest you. You're just in your box having a nice square dance in it. I'm outside. This discussion is none. We are not communicating.

And the genes that cause people to have diabetes and many other diseases have no influence?

I could tell you how that works after the concept I refer to. But I know you are not interested at all, but just try to find weak points at my concept. Nice sport, indeed.

I have no claim to omniscience, whereas your "harmony" concept surely sound to me as an attempt at omniscience ...

Thank you for reminding me of lacking proof that there would be no "essence", as you postulated?
I experienced states of mind where I experienced Universal Harmony (without any drugs ). And many MANY persons did and do as well. There is whole science which teachs about, different sciences who mutually agree with each other. It is not your science and your approach, ok! That doesn't mean it's unworthy.
"Conventional western" science did not search for such things. They don't try to see the whole. They try to cut everything in as little particles as possible and understand it by this method. If anyone tried to cut you or me in little particles I do not think he would get a representative information about who we are respectively would have been.
So I respect and listen to this science for some answers, for others I prefer to orient towards others. There are specialists for everything.

I have been at this place for many years, and I can only agree: there is rarely a winner or loser in these debates.

that sounds as if you wished it was different. we have another conscience in general.

 

[lomiller]

Possibly of interest

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=b25e81e23f7bf679ee6f2574c99d6ec9

Seems like a legitimate paper, though I don’t know enough about the topic to comment on its quality. It doesn’t seem to identify a mechanism which would explain why ‘real” acupuncture would have an effect not seen in the “sham” control set.

Acupuncture therapy evoked short-term increases in MOR binding potential, in multiple pain and sensory processing regions including the cingulate (dorsal and subgenual), insula, caudate, thalamus, and amygdala. Acupuncture therapy also evoked long-term increases in MOR binding potential in some of the same structures including the cingulate (dorsal and perigenual), caudate, and amygdala. These short- and long-term effects were absent in the sham group where small reductions were observed, an effect more consistent with previous placebo PET studies.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Homeopathy works with this kind of forces. That's the reason why things are diluted: to leave behind the material and get the power or frequency behind it.

Please stop using these words unless you are prepared to justify their use properly.

This is the third time of asking.

Please specify one remedy and say what its frequency is in Hertz. It would be interesting to know how that frequency was measured, so please explain that as well.

and now you've made me say it in bold.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

As long as a heavy contusion I have does not get really bad and completely disappears after a few days I'm happy (example I experienced).

Amazing. I've never had a bruise disappear. I am completely purple from head to foot from the bruises that have accumulated over the years. Your story is astonishing.

Look, Satra, you mostly witter on about your (deeply strange) feelings. No one can say what is going on inside your head except you.

However, you also claim those feelings are triggered reliably by various alt.med interventions. That brings your feelings firmly into the realm of testable science. It doesn't matter a jot what the feelings are. You are asserting that they can be triggered by an external intervention. That is science. If you think that it is not amenable to science you are wrong.

You have repeatedly used a number of sciencey sounding words claiming that they explain how alt.med remedies work. Your misunderstanding of these things is so deep that once again, you are wrong.

I cannot stop you being wrong, but if you think you can answer my repeated question about "frequencies" you will have taken a tiny step in the right direction. In the meantime I have a life and your delusional beliefs are not it.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Possibly of interest

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=b25e81e23f7bf679ee6f2574c99d6ec9

Seems like a legitimate paper, though I don’t know enough about the topic to comment on its quality. It doesn’t seem to identify a mechanism which would explain why ‘real” acupuncture would have an effect not seen in the “sham” control set.

I think this is one of those acupuncture papers that just shows having needles stuck in you hurts. If that did not affect opioid mechanisms then our understanding of pain would be deeply flawed.

What this does do is show the subtle problem of designing and applying controls to acupuncture studies. The key to that is in the nature of the sham and that is hidden behind a paywall so I'll wait for someone with access to comment further. I note there were only two arms. Hurty needles versus non-hurty needles. For the use of the words "Traditional Chinese" to have any meaning beyond making the paper look cool the control arms need to include acupuncture at non-Traditional sites. This begs the question of what hypothesis were they testing, and this seems to be the vital feature of acupuncture papers.

The hypotheses include;

Do the Chinese points have any special biological impact when needled?
Does needling at random positions have biological effects?
Do any biological effects have clinical significance?

No one is disputing that needles hurt.
There is much dispute over whether the allegedly special Chinese points are really special.
There is much dispute as to whether using a hurty needle has a meaningful clinical effect on painful conditions.
There is even more dispute as to whether using a hurty needle has a meaningful clinical effect on other conditions.

 

[Satra]

I'm sorry, but you have used the word "frequency" which has a very plain meaning. It is expressed in cycles per second or some similar set of units. Please specify what you mean by the word frequency and explain clearly why it cannot be expressed appropriately in cycles per second.

If you cannot measure this "frequency", please explain why do you use the word "frequency"? How have you defined what this frequency is?

Satra, you are the one who brought up this concept, it is tiresome and disingenuous if you object to being made to justify it.

Ok, I see the divergence between the info you need and that I gave to you.
Frequence is movement. You can mesure it following the definition we said.

For you, the fact that our body is not only material and that there is a frequence, may mean this void place is nothing but void place, and the movement mechanical without any "intelligence".

I go further: in my concept that means that the summ of our materiality says few about what we are.
So that the material alone does not define an object.

It is the frequency. I don't know if you have this word for a physical or emotional feeling. In German, frequency also refers to that. It is something that moves out of itself and makes move.

So in German I can use this word (-> Schwingung) as well to refer to a quality of being(?). A perceptible quality something or someone has but that goes beyond its/his materiality. Spiritual persons have common use of this sense, and I know others who understand / accept and even adopt it, because it refers to something familiar to them. Things can have a positive (constructive) or negative (destructive) frequency
For example, I may feel and say: "this person has a frequency of helplessness"- "this person has a frequency of love"- "this person has an aggressive frequency"- "this shop has a frequency of "financial crisis, this other a frequency of gaining more money" etc. And by this I do not refer to a visual perception, but to a feeled perception. A feeling that has similarities (in my perception) to the feeling of more or less thick fluid.

So that use of the word -hm- "Schwingung" which is translated by "frequency" does not only refer to a rotating atom. it refers to a perceptible inherent - you will love or not like at all that word, I guess - movement. And so are forces of planets. And other forces conventional science can't directly mesure for the moment (and I'm not sure it is so important to mesure it, even if several people like to do it. I'm no fanatic of mesures, excepted in music. I'm a fanatic of feeling what is adequate in the moment. that needs much attention if you are not used, and once you are used, the rest -seems for me- not to be really relevant: if I wanted to sweeten my tea it is not important to know how much grammes I need. It's just important to have a feeling for it as well as for the difference between what I need and what I actually have on my spoon. Waste of time to go mesure it, because next time a different quantity may be optimal. And as long I have got a precise "inner mesure" I will always get satisfying results.).


Your rational approach will get which atoms are in something / someone, maybe in which tempo an atom rotates. for the moment it has difficulties to mesure such forces or "frequencies" (Schwingung).
I am convinced, these forces and "frequencies" are at least as significant if not more as the relatively easily mesurable solid mass is.
And that is the concept of homeopathy ( I think that was how we got to this discussion about frequency ).

(Ouaah. That was an exploit for me, difficult to phrase that in a language I never did try to phrase that and I'm not exceedingly familiar with. I hope I did that a way you could understand that in case anyone really tries to to get my points. I know you may have a different approach, that's not a reason to denigrate mine. In my eyes!)

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Ok, I see the divergence between the info you need and that I gave to you.
Frequence is movement. You can mesure it following the definition we said.

For you, the fact that our body is not only material and that there is a frequence, may mean this void place is nothing but void place, and the movement mechanical without any "intelligence".

I go further: in my concept that means that the summ of our materiality says few about what we are.
So that the material alone does not define an object.

It is the frequency. I don't know if you have this word for a physical or emotional feeling. In German, frequency also refers to that. It is something that moves out of itself and makes move.

So in German I can use this word (-> Schwingung) as well to refer to a quality of being(?). A perceptible quality something or someone has but that goes beyond its/his materiality. Spiritual persons have common use of this sense, and I know others who understand / accept and even adopt it, because it refers to something familiar to them. Things can have a positive (constructive) or negative (destructive) frequency
For example, I may feel and say: "this person has a frequency of helplessness"- "this person has a frequency of love"- "this person has an aggressive frequency"- "this shop has a frequency of "financial crisis, this other a frequency of gaining more money" etc. And by this I do not refer to a visual perception, but to a feeled perception. A feeling that has similarities (in my perception) to the feeling of more or less thick fluid.

So that use of the word -hm- "Schwingung" which is translated by "frequency" does not only refer to a rotating atom. it refers to a perceptible inherent - you will love or not like at all that word, I guess - movement. And so are forces of planets. And other forces conventional science can't directly mesure for the moment (and I'm not sure it is so important to mesure it, even if several people like to do it. I'm no fanatic of mesures, excepted in music. I'm a fanatic of feeling what is adequate in the moment. that needs much attention if you are not used, and once you are used, the rest -seems for me- not to be really relevant: if I wanted to sweeten my tea it is not important to know how much grammes I need. It's just important to have a feeling for it as well as for the difference between what I need and what I actually have on my spoon. Waste of time to go mesure it, because next time a different quantity may be optimal. And as long I have got a precise "inner mesure" I will always get satisfying results.).


Your rational approach will get which atoms are in something / someone, maybe in which tempo an atom rotates. for the moment it has difficulties to mesure such forces or "frequencies" (Schwingung).
I am convinced, these forces and "frequencies" are at least as significant if not more as the relatively easily mesurable solid mass is.
And that is the concept of homeopathy ( I think that was how we got to this discussion about frequency ).

(Ouaah. That was an exploit for me, difficult to phrase that in a language I never did try to phrase that and I'm not exceedingly familiar with. I hope I did that a way you could understand that in case anyone really tries to to get my points. I know you may have a different approach, that's not a reason to denigrate mine. In my eyes!)

No. You are still wrong.

I'm not a German speaker, but I think Schwingung=Vibration. This is another poor word that is abused by alt.meddlers to hide their ignorance. If a thing has a vibration, it vibrates at a frequency.

What is the frequency of the vibration?

Is your inability to answer the question teaching you anything yet? It should be teaching you that using bad metaphors as if they have physical meaning is a huge mistake.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s. At some point you need to apologise for pretending to know what you do not then ask people who do know about these things to tell you about them. I am sorry to say that this pattern of arrogantly asserting nonsense as truth and insisting that we have a problem in not agreeing with you is another repeated pattern in alt.meddling believers.

 

[Satra]

Amazing. I've never had a bruise disappear. I am completely purple from head to foot from the bruises that have accumulated over the years. Your story is astonishing.

Look, Satra, you mostly witter on about your (deeply strange) feelings. No one can say what is going on inside your head except you.

However, you also claim those feelings are triggered reliably by various alt.med interventions. That brings your feelings firmly into the realm of testable science. It doesn't matter a jot what the feelings are. You are asserting that they can be triggered by an external intervention. That is science. If you think that it is not amenable to science you are wrong.

You have repeatedly used a number of sciencey sounding words claiming that they explain how alt.med remedies work. Your misunderstanding of these things is so deep that once again, you are wrong.

I cannot stop you being wrong, but if you think you can answer my repeated question about "frequencies" you will have taken a tiny step in the right direction. In the meantime I have a life and your delusional beliefs are not it.

I don't get your points and I don't esteem that they are worth it. You have a different kind of conscience than I have. That's ok. There is nothing to exchange.
I have another opinion than you, and I know many persons who share it. And would more or less gently smile on yours and ask me why I tried to discuss with a person with such a state of conscience . That does not mean you are wrong. That just means: we have different views, different concepts, different vocabularies (and I don't mean by that that English does not belong to my mother tongues). If I try to explain you my concept I have to use vocabulary you use.
That is the only chance to communicate by words, and the difficulty about communicating about concepts with very different fundamental approachs.

So I will close down this discussion, on my side. I said what was relevant and tried hard to adapt my approach to your way of thinking, while you did not at all try to get my way. So the full possible profit about developping flexibility of thought was on my side . Wish you a nice time and hasta la vista all of you guys, and thank you for your participation in whatever we should call it let's say: the essay of a discussion...

 

[Satra]

No. You are still wrong.

I'm not a German speaker, but I think Schwingung=Vibration. This is another poor word that is abused by alt.meddlers to hide their ignorance. If a thing has a vibration, it vibrates at a frequency.

What is the frequency of the vibration?

Is your inability to answer the question teaching you anything yet? It should be teaching you that using bad metaphors as if they have physical meaning is a huge mistake.

I'm very sorry for the mistake. but the day you will discuss about such matters in a foreign language you may have some more respect for my efforts.

and: that doesn't change so much. take the developpement of my thought and let go the word.

For the rest: I volunteerly apologize for all errors I may have done. Linguistic as conceptional. Nobody is perfect.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Hey, I can admire the effort to communicate in a foreign language, but the problem is not linguistic. As I just showed, if you were saying "frequency" when you meant "vibration" that is only a small linguistic shift but it is still a huge conceptual error. The problem is that you wanted to use the word Schwingung at all.

As I have pointed out you have been misled into thinking that poor metaphors have real biological meaning. You have been led to confuse fiction with reality. So, again, this is not a matter of different perspectives where one can learn from the other, your ideas are just wrong. But if you want to learn, just ask.

 

[steenkh]

The Egyptians built pyramides - you think they were stupid and did not know about science? They did. Differently than us.

I never thought the Egyptians were stupid, and I know that their science was no difference from ours - because they managed to build the pyramids. They were not basing their engineering on empty concept that could not be shown to work, but on real stuff that actually worked.

No. You just show how much you are centered on your visual sense.
As long as a heavy contusion I have does not get really bad and completely disappears after a few days I'm happy (example I experienced).

Telling two differences apart is not just a matter for the visual senses. According to the homoeopaths, the wrong treatment could have grave consequences for you, so it is vitally important to know what homoeopathic remedy you are taking - except that nobody knows, and it is impossible to check if the homoeopath made a mistake when he mixed the original ingredients.

Last week I hurt my foot and my little toe went rather blue. Today there is not a trace to be seen, and I used the equivalent of homoeopathic to heal it, ie. I did absolutely nothing! amazing, isn't it?

Homeopathy works with this kind of forces. That's the reason why things are diluted: to leave behind the material and get the power or frequency behind it.

How do you know if you cannot show that the "power or frequency" is in the remedy? How do you know when you cannot even tell if you have a bottle of alcohol or a bottle of remedy in your hand?

Thank you for reminding me of lacking proof that there would be no "essence", as you postulated?

It is your postulate that "essence" exists. I think it is fairly reasonable to demand evidence for something would make normal physics go awry if it actually existed.

I experienced states of mind where I experienced Universal Harmony (without any drugs ). And many MANY persons did and do as well. There is whole science which teachs about, different sciences who mutually agree with each other. It is not your science and your approach, ok! That doesn't mean it's unworthy.

This depends on what it is worthy of. It may be worthy of singing to music or for making nice drawings, but it is not worthy for basing your health or your concept of reality on.

"Conventional western" science did not search for such things. They don't try to see the whole.

What utter nonsense!

They try to cut everything in as little particles as possible and understand it by this method. If anyone tried to cut you or me in little particles I do not think he would get a representative information about who we are respectively would have been.

You cannot cure poliomyelitis by looking at the big picture alone. I think that understanding everything, not just the big picture, but all pictures at the same time will be best.

So I respect and listen to this science for some answers, for others I prefer to orient towards others. There are specialists for everything.

But you prefer to listen to people who are only specialists in giving you a fuzzy-wuzzy feeling.

 

[Rolfe]

It's post-moderist twaddle.

I'm off to debate a right-wing American. More sport in it.

I'll stop by with popcorn....

Rolfe.

 

[lomiller]

What this does do is show the subtle problem of designing and applying controls to acupuncture studies. The key to that is in the nature of the sham and that is hidden behind a paywall so I'll wait for someone with access to comment further. I note there were only two arms. Hurty needles versus non-hurty needles. For the use of the words "Traditional Chinese" to have any meaning beyond making the paper look cool the control arms need to include acupuncture at non-Traditional sites. This begs the question of what hypothesis were they testing, and this seems to be the vital feature of acupuncture papers.

From the abstract, it seems this paper conducted a blind test where some people had needles inserted in accordance with traditional acupuncture, while others had them inserted at random so the subject couldn’t tell if traditional acupuncture was really being performed. The group with the traditional acupuncture showed short and long term reactions to pain receptors while the control group showed no such reaction.

As you point out, this paper is behind a paywall, but plenty, even most peer reviewed research is. The journal this paper appears in, doesn’t have a high impact factor but it ranks comparably with journals in the same field (neural imaging). While there could be serious methodology errors not visible in the abstract, there is absolutely no evidence such errors actually exist.

Yes peer review can sometimes fail to catch serious blunders, but to simply assume this has occurred is wrong IMO. Rather then asking for proof the peer review process didn’t fail a far more appropriate skeptical response is to point out that these results are yet to be independently reproduced, contain no proposed mechanism for the observed effect, and doesn’t contain any quantified data on the efficacy of acupuncture.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

From the abstract, it seems this paper conducted a blind test where some people had needles inserted in accordance with traditional acupuncture, while others had them inserted at random so the subject couldn’t tell if traditional acupuncture was really being performed. The group with the traditional acupuncture showed short and long term reactions to pain receptors while the control group showed no such reaction.

As you point out, this paper is behind a paywall, but plenty, even most peer reviewed research is. The journal this paper appears in, doesn’t have a high impact factor but it ranks comparably with journals in the same field (neural imaging). While there could be serious methodology errors not visible in the abstract, there is absolutely no evidence such errors actually exist.

Yes peer review can sometimes fail to catch serious blunders, but to simply assume this has occurred is wrong IMO. Rather then asking for proof the peer review process didn’t fail a far more appropriate skeptical response is to point out that these results are yet to be independently reproduced, contain no proposed mechanism for the observed effect, and doesn’t contain any quantified data on the efficacy of acupuncture.

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood me. I wasn't attacking the journal or the process of peer review. I was highlighting the things that need to be paid attention to when trying to assess what these results really mean and that was necessarily a bit speculative with only the abstract available to me.

I forgot to mention a really tricky area for acupuncture trials. The security of the blinding needs to be tested, i.e. subjects need to be asked whether they thought they had the real or sham acupuncture. If they can't tell then it may be because the sham needles cause pain like the real needles and it is fairer to say that the trial has tested the significance of 'real' acupuncture points. On the other hand, if the patients can tell which treatment they have had then the groups differ in both the location of the points and the pain caused.

 

[MikeSun5]

In an effort to keep this thread on topic, I think for all intents and purposes, homeopathy should be synonymous with acupuncture - for the sake of this thread.

Many people (MikeSun, you also) pretend: homeopathy works because people believe in it (same principle in fact, yes).

Satra, I have tried homeopathic products and they DID NOT WORK. I took homeopathic medicine for headaches, the flu, and (taking a page out of Randi's book) I once ate an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills in front of my believer aunt -- just to prove that it wouldn't kill me (or even make me tired). My headache persisted, my flu persisted, and I did not die (or even get tired). I have never had acupuncture, but I'm POSITIVE the results would be similar. Reason? I don't believe in it. If acupuncture and homeopathy were legitimate sciences, the results would be the same regardless of whether or not I believed. ...but they are not.

My questions:
1. If homeopathy and acupuncture actually work, why is it that they only work on "some" people?
2. If humans are made of frequencies, then why wouldn't manipulating those frequencies work on EVERYONE? Are only some of us frequencies?

If your answer includes the words "faith," or "belief," or anything similar, you'd actually be proving what I said correct. Acupuncture and homeopathy ONLY work through belief and faith (that phenomena is also known as the placebo effect).

 

[JJM]

Physical procedures, performed by humans, are the most difficult to blind. Acupuncture is no exception. The ultimate problem is that the provider knows whether s/he is providing true acupuncture or placebo, and this may alter their demeanor when providing one or the other. Even if the subjects do not get the sense that they are being given true or sham acupuncture, the true procedure may be delivered with more enthusiasm.

There are two good ways to provide placebo acu. One involves non-penetrating needles, the other uses needles at the wrong sites. A recent study compared both sham treatments with true acupuncture, reviewed here http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=500 The result was that the three procedures were equally effective for back pain. One can conclude the study was well-blinded and that any acupuncture-like ritual induces a response.

However, one must evaluate each claim for acupuncture separately. In a review of acupuncture for osteoarthritis, Y. D. Kwon et al (Rheumatology 2006; 45: 1331–1337) concluded that it was better than placebo. That conclusion is suspect since there were a lot of poor-quality studies (4 were not blinded, one had a 25% dropout rate) in dubious journals. Yet, there were a couple studies published in generally good journals that showed a powerful advantage for acu.

In Lancet (2005; 366: 136–43), C Witt et al did acupuncture vs. superficial needling. However, the single-blinding was seriously flawed because B) the sham treatment was not performed near the affected joint, whereas acu was applied to the joint. B) In acu, the needle effected deqi (an elicitation of needle sensation to check that the puncture was performed in the correct site); but the superficial needling lacked this aspect. Another study by Jorge Vas in the British Medical Journal (BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38238.601447.3A (published 19 October 2004)) was better controlled in terms of needle placement; but it used non-puncture needles so the deqi problem still exists. Plus, it was a study of electroacupuncture which is not the same as acupuncture.

In addition to the sensation of deqi, the practitioner must be solicit that information, making him more attentive to the subject. The bottom line is that an acupuncture study that is strongly positive is strongly suggestive of poor control/blinding.

 

[MikeSun5]

I was just reading one of the latest SWIFT blogs which deals directly with the OP on quackupuncture.

The author mentions that:

"There was no significant difference between groups, and thus it can be assumed that the subjects remained adequately blinded, though the study does not mention any blinding of the researchers, making it quite likely that the researchers were unblinded, which could have an effect on the study results."

This got me wondering about the motives of the researchers performing the "procedures"...
If you have a genuine acupuncture practitioner who believes in what they do, and you tell them to deliberately stick needles in the wrong places to discredit their own profession, I wouldn't think it likely that they'd be too happy about that. They may even administer the sham-acupuncture with less conviction or concentration than they normally would have. I wonder if the control group patients were "tipped off" to the sham-acupuncture by a semi-offended, less-than-professional practitioner.

 

[JJM]

... This got me wondering about the motives of the researchers performing the "procedures"...
If you have a genuine acupuncture practitioner who believes in what they do, and you tell them to deliberately stick needles in the wrong places to discredit their own profession, I wouldn't think it likely that they'd be too happy about that. They may even administer the sham-acupuncture with less conviction or concentration than they normally would have. I wonder if the control group patients were "tipped off" to the sham-acupuncture by a semi-offended, less-than-professional practitioner.

That is exactly the problem with studying any physical intervention.

 

[Stacy Head]

Accupuncture may lead to infections in a compromised immune system

A good massage is the way to go, it may lead to extra credit