New Scientist: Acupuncture's scientific credentials are growing

[Kuko 4000]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18817-why-acupuncture-aids-spinal-recovery.html

Rats with damaged spines can walk again thanks to acupuncture.

To find out why, Doo Choi and his colleagues at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, South Korea, damaged the spines of 75 rats. One-third were given acupuncture in two locations: Shuigou – between their snout and mouth, and Yanglingquan – in the upper hind leg. Others received no treatment or "simulated acupuncture".

After 35 days, the acupuncture group were able to stand at a steeper incline than the others and walk better. Staining their paws with ink revealed that their forelimb-hindlimb coordination was fairly consistent and that there was very little toe dragging, whereas the control groups still dragged their feet.

...the ancient treatment seems to stop nerve cell death by reducing inflammation.

Here's a quote from the abstract:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=859141883f7f6512948d2bd4d9a66682

Thus, our results suggest that the neuroprotection by acupuncture may be partly mediated via inhibition of inflammation and microglial activation after SCI and acupuncture can be used as a potential therapeutic tool for treating acute spinal injury in human.

I don't have access to the whole paper, but would be interested to see more.

 

[DC]

im pretty sure Accupuncture will one day make it from woo to science.

 

[Kuko 4000]

im pretty sure Accupuncture will one day make it from woo to science.

Well, maybe. In that case, my guess is that the beneficial "acupuncture" in the future would look much different from the acupuncture that people are practising these days, and it would also have a basis in reality instead of chi, etc.

 

[McHrozni]

Hmm, interesting. I don't have distant access to Science Direct any more, unfortunately. Can someone who has access read the article and tell us what it says without violating the copyright?

The abstract reads okay and it was published in a respected science magazine, so it can't be that wooish. I'd still like to see results repeated asap, though, since fake results were published in some publications before.

McHrozni

 

[paximperium]

im pretty sure Accupuncture will one day make it from woo to science.

Why?

 

[paximperium]

Well, maybe. In that case, my guess is that the beneficial "acupuncture" in the future would look much different from the acupuncture that people are practising these days, and it would also have a basis in reality instead of chi, etc.

Direct needling with injection(even of plain old saline) has a known beneficial affect and it is used by Physical Rehab medicine and neurology.

 

[Kuko 4000]

There's two things I'd like to know more about:

The overall quality of the study?

And, how does this treatment compare to the best currently available treatment?

 

[CKava]

I can get access to the paper when I go home today so anyone really dying to read it send me a PM and I'll forward a copy. As far as the study goes... I'll be interested in taking a look. I suspect however the 'acupuncture' performed on the rats will bear little resemblence to the acupuncture performed on humans.

Studies with acupuncture are not providing scientific support for the claims made for the treatment. By and large, they are showing that acupuncture > no treatment but that it doesn't seem to matter where the needles are inserted or if the needles are inserted at all (as long as the patient believes they have been).

 

[paximperium]

The overall quality of the study?

I don't have access to the paper. We need to see it replicated and frankly the number of "magic" treatments that work in cell and animal models that translate to actual human treatments are few and far between.

I once dealt with a substance with no name(except a code number) that basically "cured" strokes...nevermind the massive kidney failure and destruction of the mice's platlets.

And, how does this treatment compare to the best currently available treatment?

The best current treatment for spinal cord damage?
Nothing. Nothing works well if at all.

 

[macdoc]

Stem cells...

http://www.thescizone.com/news/9825/stem-cell-target-repair-spinal-cord-damage

and another approach

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100416094012.htm

Not well...but promising

and for dogs....well you decide

http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com...cell-treatment-of-spinal-cord-injury-in-dogs/

•••

I don't think there is any woo about the acupuncture approach as it's known to reduce inflammation which is what stops nerve re-growth. Making it into an effective therapy is another question entirely.

 

[seanbrockest]

im pretty sure Accupuncture will one day make it from woo to science.

I agree. While i disagree with the way it's typically applied, and the way it's promoted by some (energy flow, etc), i have my own ideas on why it might be working, if indeed it is.

It was used on me by a trained licensed therapist after a serious back injury, as part of a larger treatment, and while i know that personal claims add up to nada in the scientific realm, the effects it had on me were far from trivial.

 

[technoextreme]

im pretty sure Accupuncture will one day make it from woo to science.

Why? Most acupuncture studies are horrible flawed to the point where they are useless.

 

[seanbrockest]

He's just keeping an open mind, which we all should. It's one thing to be a skeptic, it's another to be a closed minded fool.

 

[Number Six]

im pretty sure Accupuncture will one day make it from woo to science.

Will it make it from woo to science or will it make it from woo to widely accepted by the general public as being scientific? That's a difference.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Before this gets out of hand, you need to define acupuncture. If you use the narrow definition that relies on the quaint notion of meridians and chi, then acupuncture doesn't work. If you use a broad definition of "sticking needles in people" then NIH and WHO seem to believe that it can be effective for a few conditions, mostly pain pain relief and nausea.

The biggest impediment to acupuncture research is that most researchers are working from the narrow definition and trying to "prove" that it works for all sorts of conditions. What they need to do is start with the studies that show that sticking needles in people does produce a biological reaction (no surprise there), and that it seems to have some effect in the areas noted above. They should build from there instead of devising studies based on theories developed when the earth was still the center of the universe and blood flow was back and forth rather than circular.

ETA:
http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997Acupuncture107PDF.pdf
http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4926e/s4926e.pdf

 

[casebro]

"...Kyung Hee University in Seoul, South Korea,..." is about all I need to suspect the results.

I expect that acupuncture is just as effective as stubbing one's toe. More disruption = more endorphins.

 

[RhodyDave]

Maybe one day acupuncture will be regarded as science - in application to rats.

Humans, however, is another thing. I believe that sticking needles into the flesh (my understanding is that the needle only penetrates into the flesh, not deeper) has no effect on any healing processes or bodily functions.

 

[technoextreme]

Before this gets out of hand, you need to define acupuncture. If you use the narrow definition that relies on the quaint notion of meridians and chi, then acupuncture doesn't work. If you use a broad definition of "sticking needles in people" then NIH and WHO seem to believe that it can be effective for a few conditions, mostly pain pain relief and nausea.

The biggest impediment to acupuncture research is that most researchers are working from the narrow definition and trying to "prove" that it works for all sorts of conditions. What they need to do is start with the studies that show that sticking needles in people does produce a biological reaction (no surprise there), and that it seems to have some effect in the areas noted above. They should build from there instead of devising studies based on theories developed when the earth was still the center of the universe and blood flow was back and forth rather than circular.

ETA:
http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997Acupuncture107PDF.pdf
http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4926e/s4926e.pdf

Yeah I pretty much proved that most of those studies are horrendously flawed the last time we got into a debate about this.

 

[seanbrockest]

Humans, however, is another thing. I believe that sticking needles into the flesh (my understanding is that the needle only penetrates into the flesh, not deeper) has no effect on any healing processes or bodily functions.

In my experience, this was not the case. My needles went considerably deeper. It depends on what part of the body they are being placed. I had to hold pretty still with the deep ones in my back in fact, as any contraction of those muscles would hurt. not a lot, but enough for me to stop myself.

Before this gets out of hand, you need to define acupuncture.

Exactly, i fear many in this thread are talking about entirely different subjects.

 

[Erigena]

Will it make it from woo to science or will it make it from woo to widely accepted by the general public as being scientific? That's a difference.

I agree. I don't want to derail the thread but this is like the myth about cell phones causing a fire or explosion at a gas station. There isn't any scientific evidence to support this, but many gas stations post warnings at the pumps.

In the case of acupuncture, as a placebo it might be somewhat effective.