Acupuncture not just a placebo effect

Explorer said:
"Only the brain areas associated with the sensation of touch were activated when the volunteers were touched with the blunt needles.

During the trick needle treatment, an area of the brain associated with the production of natural opiates - substances that act in a non-specific way to relieve pain - were activated.

This same area was activated with the real acupuncture but, in addition, another region of the brain, the insular, was excited by the treatment.

This was a pathway known to be associated with acupuncture treatment and thought to be involved in pain modulation."



This extract from the BBC article is the definitive answer to some who have complained that the brain would respond anyway, to a needle being stuck into the skin.

Those who mentioned that the tests also should have been conducted outside the defined "pathway areas of the skin, have IMHO, made a good technical point.

Like all these extraordinary claims, the test methods are likely to be extremely difficult to get right first time, by virtue of the fact that the claimants themselves don't truly understand the basis of their claims(although they often argue that in fact, they do).

It's absurd really, the whole test is dumb. They stuck people with fake needles and real needles, 14 of them, I might add.

How about sticking people with real needles 1 inch south of the MAGICAL QI POINT where the QI point condences and fluctuates and centers and heals and gives you inner peace and crap.
 
So basically, people respond differently when poked with needles, as opposed to when they're not poked with needles? I'm shocked.
 
I think this is an interesting quote:

...in addition, another region of the brain, the insular, was excited by the treatment. This was a pathway known to be associated with acupuncture treatment and thought to be involved in pain modulation.

This indicates that acupuncture did something strange that the fake-needle tests did not, and that they're not quite sure what it is. Because they were testing the pain relief of acupuncture, they hypothesise that this region of the brain is associated with pain relief.

It may be that this region of the brain is actually associated with the skin being peirced by needles, we just don't know.

I think the next step would be to isolate this region of the brain and find out what it does. If it really is associated with pain relief, then surely it would be activated under other types of pain-relief conditions? Once you find out what this insular actually does, you can start to make a judgement about whether acupuncture is effective.

Myself, I'm quite willing to believe that acupuncture is effective for certain things, if it can be demonstrated. Just like chiropractic is good for certain kinds of back and neck problems, acupuncture may have its niche too.

But just like chiropractic cannot cure everything from aneurysms to haemorrhoids, I would doubt that acupuncture can. Keep chiropractic for the back problems, and keep acupuncture for ... whatever.
 
I don't know for sure, but I have had some acupuncture in the past. I wouldn't really think the piercing would do much, sometimes you don't even feel the prick. THe twisting and turning of the needle is where you feel effects and something being done, definitely
 
New study just published shows fake acupuncture works just as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4508597.stm

Fake acupuncture works just as well as the real thing in relieving migraines, scientists have found.

In a study of more than 300 patients, both genuine and sham acupuncture reduced the intensity of headache compared with no treatment at all.

But real acupuncture was no better than needles placed at non-acupuncture points on the body, the Journal of the American Medical Association reports.

The article goes on to explain the placebo effect, describe the experiments in detail and quote the guy who did the previous study. Good piece of journalism.

ETA: Just noticed CFLarsen has started a new, separate, thread for this new study. So ignore me :)
 
While I think the conclusion of the study (assuming the article didn't misrepresent it) was both premature and highly questionable, I also think that the observed brain activity under the different needle types makes it worthy of further (and better designed) study - including using the needles at points that are NOT acupuncture points. This should eliminate the question of whether or not acupuncture used on specific points has a different effect.

One thing is particularly intriguing to me. Setting aside all questions of qi, specific points being used, etc - if using an acupuncture needle consistently generates brain activity that results in endorphins being released, there might be some uses for it regardless of the nonsense surrounding it.
 
CFLarsen said:
............................

CF, have you ever had acupuncture done? Kilik's comment is correct - most of the time, you're not even aware that it's been done.
 
jmercer said:
if using an acupuncture needle consistently generates brain activity that results in endorphins being released, there might be some uses for it regardless of the nonsense surrounding it.
People have been saying that since the 1970s, but still no sign of any reliable, mainstream application. I'd have thought that someone might have figured it out by now.

Rolfe.
 
jmercer said:
CF, have you ever had acupuncture done? Kilik's comment is correct - most of the time, you're not even aware that it's been done.
I think Larsen meant... something else...
 
Rolfe said:
People have been saying that since the 1970s, but still no sign of any reliable, mainstream application. I'd have thought that someone might have figured it out by now.

Rolfe.

Maybe... maybe not. How long did people know about electricity before we started using it?
 
If anyone fancies taking this topic up on another board, the loons on DigitalSpy have latched onto this report as "scientific backing for acupuncture as a valid treatment".

I would reply but, you know, being banned and all.
 
I was just sniffing this BBC article. It has the same smell as those scientists that promote bigfoot's existence.

Or that Ian Stevenson guy and his miserable 3000 attempts at proving reincarnation. Ian Stevenson

This kinda crap really annoys me. Its just another thing woos will use against me in their spaced-out arguments.
:(
 

Back
Top Bottom