A dialogue on acupuncture

[robinson]

Hey! You claimed you would stop derailing this thread!
































Now somebody post a picture of their cat.

 

[robinson]

So why don't you believe in the obvious benifits of trepanation?

Well, if it was your head, I would be willing to do an experiment to see.


























just kidding..

 

[ponderingturtle]

I still don't know if it was said on South Park. We only have anecdotal evidence so far.

See the first episode of the TV series "Cartman gets an Anal Probe" it is on of mr Garrisons first lines.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, if it was your head, I would be willing to do an experiment to see.

But it has all the support of so many of the things you are advocating, why do you refuse to accept its obvious benifits when you so readily accept the benifits of others that have exactly the same measure of support?

 

[PixyMisa]

And trepanation has a history going back even further than acupuncture... though possibly only because the evidence hangs around a lot longer.

Doing double-blind studies might be tricky, though.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And trepanation has a history going back even further than acupuncture... though possibly only because the evidence hangs around a lot longer.

Doing double-blind studies might be tricky, though.

But Robinson has said that people saying "It worked for me" is good enough evidence for him. Well I have supplied people saying that about trepanation.

So you don't need double blind studies, personal anecdotes are all the evidence he needs for acupunture so why not trepanation?

 

[robinson]

But Robinson has said that people saying "It worked for me" is good enough evidence for him.

No, robinson never said anything dumb like that. You make a fine example of woo thinking. Not only do you make stuff up, with no evidence, then you jump to conclusions based on that. But at least it explains your comment about holes in your head.

 

[Yahzi]

Doesn't that sound emotional and irrational?

What's irrational about it? You're being deliberately obtuse. Why shouldn't I find that annoying?

At a practical level, we don't insist on proof, double blind experiments and peer review before we use things, or do stuff. That would be absurd.

Like here, for instance. Confusing a formal study with common sense is just being deliberately obtuse. The process that underlies formal scientific investigation is the same as the process for normal empiricism.

Doctors get really angry when you... try accusing them of quackery.

Gosh, I wonder why. Surely your casual dismissal of all medical research deserves the same respect as their years of school, training, and practice.

Even if clear evidence is provided, some people are so attached to their idea of what is real, and that they have a firm hold on it, that they can't stomach any conflicting reports. The history of science is rich with examples.

The history of science is rich with examples of scientists who resisted new ideas, and then changed their minds.

Can you name any examples from other disciplines where evidence and logic eventually changed even the staunchest opposition's minds? Theology, politics, art?

They turn to personal attacks, rude commentary, joking and even insults when confronted with their lack of understanding, or the simple fact that they don't know everything.

Do they perchance fling around insinuations of quackery?

He stuck a screwdriver through it, and used the leverage gained by that to break it free. Only an idiot would say it didn't work. Only a moron couldn't grasp the scientific principle behind this. And it would be dumb to say you can't know based on this one observation, that sticking a screwdriver in that oil filter will enable you to get it off.

So Archimedes was just a rotter, eh? Anybody could have done his job. What's the big deal? Why does he get all the credit, when clearly you're just as much of a genius? This science stuff is easy - extracting deep principles from ordinary experiences is nothing special. Darwin looked at some birds, Galielo dropped some balls, Newton got hit by an apple... chumps! Posuers!

With your sterling attitude, I can't imagine why people who have actual knowledge are so rude to you.

 

[Asolepius]

WTF? Are you some kind of moron or what?

I'll ignore that. I roughly see what you are getting at, but I don't think you see the difference between simple and complex systems. An oil filter is a simple system. It's very easy to take into account all possible factors. After all, humans built the car, we know exactly what's in it. Even a trivial thing like a headache is part of a very complex system. We can't possibly know all of the factors involved. Science doesn't only deal with complex systems, but its most difficult challenges are the complex ones. That's why we need controlled experiments to minimise the confounding effects of factors we don't know about. In daily life, simple tasks can be handled without difficulty (for most of us) because they are simple. You are trying to tell us that you can draw a correct conclusion from a single observation of a complex system, without any testing.

Yes, science has a large part that is observational and not experimental. But you should remember that even a basically observational science such as astronomy uses experiment to test observations. You cite taxonomy. This has been largely observational hitherto, based on phenotypical features. But some of the assumptions made on the basis of morphological structure have turned out to be wrong, once people started experimenting with genomes.

You ask what indicative evidence is. To me, it means a suggestion that there is something going on, which needs proper testing. Definitive evidence is the result of that testing – but that's not to say that it can't be overturned by subsequent tests.

I think you had better come clean about the treatment you keep claiming worked for headache. We are trying to make you see that on the basis of a single observation you can't definitively say that it worked. You can say that it seemed to work. This is a very important distinction because most CAM supporters consider that single observations, ie anecdotes, are actually better evidence than clinical trials. Not really surprising – the anecdotes look better than the trials do, in terms of results. So they are using subjective impressions to decide what tests to use, ie putting the results before the methods. Does that sound like science to you?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, robinson never said anything dumb like that. You make a fine example of woo thinking. Not only do you make stuff up, with no evidence, then you jump to conclusions based on that. But at least it explains your comment about holes in your head.

I will point you to your own posts, where you accept that something worked for someone just because they claim it worked for them

Post 97

Hello new blood. Don't be surprised if some people want to tell you that actually trying something doesn't count. You can't be trusted if you actually do something, and note what happens.

So from that you believe him when he said that it worked for him, well I have provided testimonials for trepanation, and you still just reject it out of hand. You are very closed minded, you need trepanation to open your mind.

 

[robinson]

I roughly see what you are getting at, but I don't think you see the difference between simple and complex systems. An oil filter is a simple system. It's very easy to take into account all possible factors. After all, humans built the car, we know exactly what's in it. Even a trivial thing like a headache is part of a very complex system. We can't possibly know all of the factors involved. Science doesn't only deal with complex systems, but its most difficult challenges are the complex ones.

Of course I know the difference between simple mechanical systems and complex interconnected systems. I used a simple example to make a simple point. I don't consider a headache to be a trivial matter at all. 20 million people in the US see a Doctor about them each year. (somehow this is going to come back to acupuncture, I can feel it.) To make it more obvious, if the subject of the treatment didn't get any relief from it, it would be obvious that it didn't work. When we say something like that, most people don't object at all. If you try a medication for headaches, and you get no relief, the Doctor doesn't try and convince you it might have worked. You try a different dosage, runs some test, do some scans, or you try something else. This is just practical science at work. Anything else is absurd. If the patient gets no relief, you can't say it worked.

Science doesn't only deal with complex systems, but its most difficult challenges are the complex ones. That's why we need controlled experiments to minimise[sic] the confounding effects of factors we don't know about. In daily life, simple tasks can be handled without difficulty (for most of us) because they are simple. You are trying to tell us that you can draw a correct conclusion from a single observation of a complex system, without any testing.

No, that isn't what I said. You are trying to put words in my mouth. That is not logical, not scientific. I said, "I watched an illogical treatment for a headache the other day, one I didn't know about, and it was obvious it worked. The person suffering I know well, and this person can't fake anything, muich[sic] less headache relief in about 5 minutes. (no, it wasn't drugs silly).

I figured out the science behind it in a flash, but before I saw it done, I didn't believe it. It would be insanity to claim it didn't work. But it would also be illogical to claim it works for everybody, or any headache. But a true scientist can learn from observing. Its not anecdotal if I observe something, and devise a theory from observing.

That is science. And it also science to devise a way to either show this method is valid, or to explain how it works. Science does both, all the time. Now I'm not defending acupuncture with this logic, I am observing something I see here at the JREF a lot. The tendency to discount observation and experience of other skeptics."

If I reported there was no relief, or that the headache became worse, that is also a scientific observation. Science isn't just one thing, but at the core is discovering truth about the universe. As well as what is not true. What would be absurd, is to claim that it works for everyone, all the time, for any headache. That is woo thinking.

Yes, science has a large part that is observational and not experimental. But you should remember that even a basically observational science such as astronomy uses experiment to test observations. You cite taxonomy. This has been largely observational hitherto, based on phenotypical[sic] features. But some of the assumptions made on the basis of morphological structure have turned out to be wrong, once people started experimenting with genomes.

Good point. Many things about our understanding of life turn out to be wrong, as science and technology advance. Same as it ever was.

You ask what indicative evidence is. To me, it means a suggestion that there is something going on, which needs proper testing. Definitive evidence is the result of that testing – but that's not to say that it can't be overturned by subsequent tests.

OK thanks. Which brings us back to acupuncture. Studies on headaches and acupuncture point to something going on. This is obvious. They don't prove that acupuncture works, especially in regards to HOW it is supposed to work. But a true scientist doesn't discount evidence, nor start off with an axe to grind, attempting to disprove something, no matter what. If there were no evidence at all that acupuncture does do something, sometimes, we wouldn't be having this discussion. No point. It would be like talking about using mercury to cure syphilis.

I think you had better come clean about the treatment you keep claiming worked for headache. We are trying to make you see that on the basis of a single observation you can't definitively say that it worked. You can say that it seemed to work. This is a very important distinction because most CAM supporters consider that single observations, ie anecdotes, are actually better evidence than clinical trials. Not really surprising – the anecdotes look better than the trials do, in terms of results. So they are using subjective impressions to decide what tests to use, ie putting the results before the methods. Does that sound like science to you?

Of course I can say it worked. I already did. I could also say it didn't work, if that is what happened. See? A little research and I found out why it worked, and that it is a very old remedy, that doesn't always work, as well as why it wouldn't work.

In regards to acupuncture, (see? I just knew we would get back to that discussion), clearly 20 million anecdotes and 4000 years of use is not enough to prove anything. You could have a million case reports of relief from headaches, and it doesn't mean a thing. Until science proves something works, it can't possibly work. It is like smoking used to be. Until science proved smoking was bad for you, smoking never hurt anyone. It was only after valid testing was done, and repeated, that smoking became bad for you.



Calm down. Just kidding. I'm not at all happy to find evidence that valid research shows definitive evidence of acupuncture causing changes in rats digestive systems. That is just whack. That they even "know" where the acupuncture points are on rats, just reeks of woo to me. How can they know that? How can you test something like that?

Same thing for human acupuncture points. How can they know they even exist? Wouldn't that be the first test to do? See if any point on the body stimulated by a needle or other means causes any change at all?

 

[robinson]

So from that you believe him when he said that it worked for him...

No, that isn't what I wrote. There you go again, making stuff up.

 

[Asolepius]

OK robinson, let's get down to basics. Let's temporarily accept for the sake of argument that the headache treatment `worked' (even though you won't say what it was - what's the embarrassing secret?). You agree that you can't generalise this observation by saying that it will work on anyone else. So what's the value of your conclusion that it worked? Is it of any use to anyone, other than pointing towards the need for proper testing?

 

[robinson]

Oh I don't mind telling you. And the value was in learning a simple way to help a headache sufferer. The science of headaches is pretty simple, (when they are not a symptom of a serious medical problem). If a treatment relieves or rids the patient of the headache, it worked. If it didn't, or it made it worse, then it didn't work.

For someone in crippling pain from a headache, it doesn't matter much how it worked. What is important is results, not theory.

Of course I want to know the mechanism, the science behind something. But most people don't.

And while acupuncture is questionable for headaches, if someone has found it stops headaches, especially headaches that did not respond to conventional treatments, it makes sense to investigate what is going on there.

 

[robinson]

Interesting. While looking for documentation on this, I ran across this:

http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=6588

How surprising. From that site-

Acupuncture
Effective: Yes - Safe: Yes


Physical therapy
Effective: Possible - Safe: Not known

???

So acupuncture is safe but Physical therapy is "Not known"? WTF?

 

[Asolepius]

Interesting. While looking for documentation on this, I ran across this:

http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=6588

How surprising. From that site-

Acupuncture
Effective: Yes - Safe: Yes


Physical therapy
Effective: Possible - Safe: Not known

???

So acupuncture is safe but Physical therapy is "Not known"? WTF?

Curious site this. This is a key admission:

The type of evidence supporting the recommendations is not specifically stated.

But if you look at Bandolier, this is what you find:

Studies of higher quality and validity should be given more weight in systematic reviews because they are more likely to produce reliable results. Just look at how the picture can change when quality, validity and size enter the equation. With no source of bias considered there are seven trials in which acupuncture is statistically better than sham acupuncture. With reporting quality of 3/5 or better, that drops immediately to 1, stays at 1 when validity is added, but drops to zero when we add size. There is no evidence that acupuncture is effective. Not a single decent trial.

Regarding safety, it depends on what you mean by `safe'. Acupuncture is approximately as safe as aspirin, which is OK but not totally without side effects (even though a hospital ethics committee assured me that was the case for acupuncture once). Physiotherapy for headache has probably not had much research published (I haven't looked yet). Don't forget that you need much larger populations to assess safety than you do efficacy.

 

[jon]

re. safety of 'acupuncture', it depends what you mean by 'acupuncture' as well. This isn't properly regulated, and there are obviously a lot of things that can be done wrong if you strike it unlucky and the person sticking needles into you is incompetant.

There are obvious potential problems with them sticking the needle in the wrong place and doing damage that way, or a bit of the needle breaking off in the patient. There's also issues around proper hygiene and the potential for infection (IIRC the UK blood service won't take blood from people who've had acupuncture within a certain period - 1yr, I think).

Acupuncture done well might be about as safe as aspirin; acupuncture done by an incompetant practitioner can be a lot more dangerous...

 

[Asolepius]

Oh I don't mind telling you.

Well are you going to?

And the value was in learning a simple way to help a headache sufferer.

At the most that particular sufferer, not all sufferers, and you can't even predict with certainty that it will work for that sufferer next time. Now you might say that that invalidates normal clinical practice whereby a doctor presciribes something that worked for that patient last time. There is a big difference, in that the doctor should use treatments which have previously been tested in properly controlled trials and were found to work. Doctors have an obligation to prescribe treatment with a reasonable expectation, based on evidence, of success.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh I don't mind telling you. And the value was in learning a simple way to help a headache sufferer. The science of headaches is pretty simple, (when they are not a symptom of a serious medical problem). If a treatment relieves or rids the patient of the headache, it worked. If it didn't, or it made it worse, then it didn't work.

For someone in crippling pain from a headache, it doesn't matter much how it worked. What is important is results, not theory.

Of course I want to know the mechanism, the science behind something. But most people don't.

And while acupuncture is questionable for headaches, if someone has found it stops headaches, especially headaches that did not respond to conventional treatments, it makes sense to investigate what is going on there.

And why do people just dismiss MCS? They obviously feel bad and feel better when they reduce their chemical load, so there must be something there by your logic.

Just like with trepanation they feel so much better with a hole in their head there must be something there.

So why are you so against trepanation when you so clearly accept acupuncture based on the same evidence?

 

[robinson]

never try to teach a turtle to sing

And why do people just dismiss MCS?

I have no idea, either that they do, or what "people" means in your question. I don't even know what MCS is. Go do your own homework. We are not here to answer dumb questions.

They obviously feel bad and feel better when they reduce their chemical load, so there must be something there by your logic.

Maybe it is obvious to you, but your logic sucks. I'm not going to even try and explain your fallacies here.

Just like with trepanation they feel so much better with a hole in their head there must be something there.

If you say so, but how do you know? Evidence?

So why are you so against trepanation when you so clearly accept acupuncture based on the same evidence?

I keep trying to convince myself you are a reasonable logical skeptic, but your woo responses, your lack of logic and ability to avoid fallacies and your constant dumb questions, are making me wonder. I keep telling you and you just don't get it.

But if you can show any evidence, any quote at all, that comes close to your dumb conclusion "you so clearly accept acupuncture" or "based on the same evidence", I might consider trying to learn you something.

And what in the hell does "accept acupuncture" mean?