BBC Programme to show acupuncture deactivates brain

[steenkh]

It's the same old story again and again and again. Skeptics claim something is absolutely impossible, then they're are shown to be wrong. It's happened throughout human history and they never ever ever learn their lessons.

It is curious, I would have thought that you would applaud when skeptics wmen their ways and bow to superior evidence! There is no pleasing some people!

How about:
It's the same old story again and again and again. Woo-woos claim something is absolutely possible, then they're are shown to be wrong. It's happened throughout human history and they never ever ever learn their lessons.

Ring a bell?

 

[brettDbass]

3. A combination of sedation, systemic analgesia and spinal/regional anaesthesia allow open heart surgery. The acupuncture was completely irrelevant I would see that surgery as a marvel of Western scientifc medicine with the acupuncturist providing no more than an additional potential source of MRSA in the operating room.

In support of the above (and also to help completely put this one to bed)...

I was catching up on reading some old New Scientists over the weekend.
In an issue from September (or maybe October) on the letters pages, a couple of Doctors had written in complaining about an article where someone claimed hypnosis could be used in major surgery such as this, in exactly the same way as our acupuncturist did: ie, as a "complement" to local anaesthesia and sedation.
These Docs pointed out that this kind of operation has been performed a great many times across the globe without hypnosis (or anything else) and that in medical terms they had shown beyond doubt that the only extra effect it had was that one more person (the hypnotist) was involved in the procedure.

 

[Deetee]

I wouldn't like to say what I think about her, I'd just be banned.

If I said everything I think about her, I would too ..

 

[Rolfe]

If I said everything I think about her, I would too ..

Dearie me! How am I supposed to interpret that?

I'd still like to know the expert opinion on using the technique described in that paper form Turkey that Camillus quoted, with a heart-lung bypass and actual open-heart surgery. It's obviously possible to do far more than I (or many other people discussing this) envisaged, and I have to say that I'd never have thought it possible as my experience has all been in species with mediastinal tissue much too fragile even to begin to support that (even if they would stay still for the telling, which they won't). Nevertheless, I still feel that connecting a bypass system and stopping and opening the heart is another bridge which might be a bridge too far.

It does seem possible, indeed likely, that that was what was actually done on the programme, but would it be considered safe or sensible this side of the Urals?

By the way, call me a skepchick if you're tired of living!

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Some of the posts about the presenter can easily be interpreted as attempts to discredit the program by discrediting her. Although in my opinion she was stupid to put her self forward as an authority figure (e.g. the famous "as a scientist" lines) I don't think there is any need to even appear to be doing a character assassination on her.

That said, if we need to establish the legitimacy of the claims we do need to put forward theories.

Gimme a break. This is an Internet forum, not a meeting of the Royal Society. Frankly, this blonde bimbo front, and "as a scientist", and the giggling breathless acceptance of some very dubious claims, and the way she seemed merely to make the odd sceptic remark for form's sake then completley failed to follow any of that up to see if scepticism might have been justified, simply made me start to strop my claws.

Miaow!

The style of presentation is as relevant to discussion as the rest, and (being impervious to blonde curls and a winsome giggle), I was seriously underwhelmed.

Rolfe.

 

[Camillus]

I'd still like to know the expert opinion on using the technique described in that paper form Turkey that Camillus quoted, with a heart-lung bypass and actual open-heart surgery. It's obviously possible to do far more than I (or many other people discussing this) envisaged, and I have to say that I'd never have thought it possible as my experience has all been in species with mediastinal tissue much too fragile even to begin to support that (even if they would stay still for the telling, which they won't). Nevertheless, I still feel that connecting a bypass system and stopping and opening the heart is another bridge which might be a bridge too far.

It does seem possible, indeed likely, that that was what was actually done on the programme, but would it be considered safe or sensible this side of the Urals?

Rolfe.

I have only been able to find two reports of awake cardiac bypass, both for valve replacements. Given that one source I found spoke of over 2000 of the awake procedure for beating heart surgery now having been performed worldwide it is clearly unusual to attempt CPB in a conscious patient.

As to whether it is considered safe or sensible I do not feel in a position to comment.

 

[Rolfe]

Thank you for that information.

It seems we can now agree that what was seen on TV wasn't necessarily trick photography, and quite possible (with a bit of luck) at the current state of knowledge of the subject. Whether it was safe or best practice, I very seriously doubt. Nevertheless, if you want to impress the relatively credulous with the power of acupuncture, I'm sure it's a helluva effective demonstration. And it appears the patient did in fact survive.

Just a pity they hadn't sent along someone who knew enough to explain what was actually happening. The way it was presented left those who didn't understand the incongruity of the breathing, open-chest patient very very impressed, and those who did, but lacked sufficient familiarity with cutting-edge research to realise that it was in fact feasible, suspicious and baffled.

Not my idea of quality journalism.

Rolfe.

 

[EHocking]

...
Not my idea of quality journalism.
Rolfe.

Indeed and not objective science, either. There are two segments where the professor has consultations with acupuncturists herself.

The first, In London, examines her tongue and declares, "Your tongue's rather red on the tip here. I think you suffer from circulation problem. Is that right?".

She answers, "Um, no. I don't thinkk I do.

Later in the programme she's in Shanghai consulting "one of acupunture's masters", who declares through an interpreter, "He says the top of your tonge's very good condition, very red.

She, "And that's good." (a statement not a question)
He, "Yes, that's good".
...
...
...
And that's it. She encounters two opposing diagnoses of the same "condition" and doesn't even consider questioning this potential dilemma.

 

[Rolfe]

Um yes, I noticed that. Trouble was, I was having such difficulty figuring out how they'd sawn the lady in half that I didn't really pay proper attention to the rest. Now that we've got that pretty much sorted, I need to go back and look again.

Rolfe.

 

[John A]

It's the same old story again and again and again. Skeptics claim something is absolutely impossible, then they're are shown to be wrong. It's happened throughout human history and they never ever ever learn their lessons.

All new ideas initially have weak or non-existent substantiatory evidence. If anyone who doesn't believe it is a "skeptic" and anyone who does is a "believer", any idea that is true will by definition have been denounced by "skeptics". Classic Type II error - false negative arising from a lack of statistical power.

So we should all learn what lesson from this? To believe everything based on weak evidence? Well then we'd all be comitting Type I (false positive) errors:

It's the same old story again and again and again. Woo-woos claim something is absolutely possible, then they're are shown to be wrong.

No, the lesson to learn is to increase the statistical power (more experiments, rejecting alternative hypotheses, replication etc) making the false negative less and less likely. If both error levels are low then the intial position of the "skeptics" will have been shown to be wrong and they will become "believers".

So it is inevitable that there will exist many cases where "skeptics" have been "shown to be wrong" but it doesn't follow that this will be true for all cases - only for the case where the idea is true. It is fallacious to dismiss a sceptical opinion on the grounds that "people who have disagreed with things in the past have been wrong when the thing they have disagreed with was true".

To my mind, "Skeptic" (and "Believer") are straw-man labels primarily useful for self-identification with a group or ad hominem reasoning. For example, Ian's run around claiming things are "absolutely impossible". An assertion I've rarely heard and one quickly backed down on if made. "Incredibly improbable", "no evidence to suggest", "wishful thinking", "no effect beyond placebo", "an artefact of publication bias" are far more common in my experience.

I am sceptical about the interpretation of the results of the MRI/MEG experiement presented in this program. I am sceptical primarily because of the unclear methodology and the weak controls. I have little problem with the idea that sticking needles in people will have some effect on their perception on pain but I have doubts about it's clinical efficacy and concerns about how this effect is presented to the public (particularly in this program). Does the fact that "people once laughed at the idea of toast" mean that my doubt is unnecessary?

 

[steenkh]

I am sceptical about the interpretation of the results of the MRI/MEG experiement presented in this program. I am sceptical primarily because of the unclear methodology and the weak controls. I have little problem with the idea that sticking needles in people will have some effect on their perception on pain but I have doubts about it's clinical efficacy and concerns about how this effect is presented to the public (particularly in this program). Does the fact that "people once laughed at the idea of toast" mean that my doubt is unnecessary?

Well said,

 

[EHocking]

Um yes, I noticed that. Trouble was, I was having such difficulty figuring out how they'd sawn the lady in half that I didn't really pay proper attention to the rest. Now that we've got that pretty much sorted, I need to go back and look again.

Rolfe.

Well they chopped and changed and threw a lot of anecdotal "evidence" at us in that show, so I'm not surprised. I located 2 other segments on the operation sequence that sheds further light on the pre-op preparations too.

I'm pretty much putting the operation claim behind me and now moving on to the osteo-arthritis study. The full trial article is available at www.annals.org . I'm going to have a bash at listing some of the more glaring things that make me uncomfortable with the authors' conclusions and then hunt up the MRI paper and do the same.

If the first "scientific" programme in this series is anything to go by, I'm not looking forward to the rigour of the review of the Healing programme tonight.

 

[Interesting Ian]

All new ideas initially have weak or non-existent substantiatory evidence. If anyone who doesn't believe it is a "skeptic" and anyone who does is a "believer", any idea that is true will by definition have been denounced by "skeptics". Classic Type II error - false negative arising from a lack of statistical power.

That's not the definition of a skeptic. Not the modern definition (as opposed to the original meaning). A skeptic is someone who asserts something cannot possibly exist and who will only start to believe when the evidence is overwhelming.

So we should all learn what lesson from this? To believe everything based on weak evidence? Well then we'd all be comitting Type I (false positive) errors:

I don't believe we should believe anything on weak evidence alone. There are a variety of factors to consider.

No, the lesson to learn is to increase the statistical power (more experiments, rejecting alternative hypotheses, replication etc) making the false negative less and less likely. If both error levels are low then the intial position of the "skeptics" will have been shown to be wrong and they will become "believers".

You're talking about science, I'm talking about the real world. What we should believe based on rational considerations.

So it is inevitable that there will exist many cases where "skeptics" have been "shown to be wrong" but it doesn't follow that this will be true for all cases - only for the case where the idea is true.

I was referring to those phenomena which have been universally reported.

It is fallacious to dismiss a sceptical opinion on the grounds that "people who have disagreed with things in the past have been wrong when the thing they have disagreed with was true".

Good job I don't do it on those grounds then. There is absolutely no purpose to asking a skeptic his/her opinion because I already know the answer. They will emphatically reject anything which is at tension with the modern western Weltanschauung. To me that means they're not thinking and I consequently do not value their opinion.

To my mind, "Skeptic" (and "Believer") are straw-man labels primarily useful for self-identification with a group or ad hominem reasoning.

I used to think that too before I first started communicating with skeptics. Once you've talked to one skeptic, you've talked to the majority of them.

I am sceptical about the interpretation of the results of the MRI/MEG experiement presented in this program. I am sceptical primarily because of the unclear methodology and the weak controls. I have little problem with the idea that sticking needles in people will have some effect on their perception on pain but I have doubts about it's clinical efficacy and concerns about how this effect is presented to the public (particularly in this program). Does the fact that "people once laughed at the idea of toast" mean that my doubt is unnecessary?

I think your doubt is to be commended. I have never said we should just believe stuff. We should examine reasons and evidence and try to reach a conclusion purely through these means. I don't approve of this metaphysical baggage that skeptics bring to bear on examining whether some phenomenon occurs or not (and what are the acceptable theories to explain the said phenomenon should we conclude the phenomenon is likely to exist).

 

[steenkh]

A skeptic is someone who asserts something cannot possibly exist and who will only start to believe when the evidence is overwhelming.

"Modern" skeptics only hold to their skeptical views when the evidence is already overwhelmingly on their side. Obviously they need pretty strong evidence to contradict evidence that has been built up over the last thousand years.

You on the other hand seem to grasp at rather thin evidence to support very unlikely theories. Such as when you used testimonials of people who had clearly never died, to explain what happens after people have died! What a laugh

 

[Interesting Ian]

"Modern" skeptics only hold to their skeptical views when the evidence is already overwhelmingly on their side. Obviously they need pretty strong evidence to contradict evidence that has been built up over the last thousand years.

If that is indeed the case then that's fine. There is, however, just one very slight problem.

Not only do I invariably not agree that there is overwhelming evidence for their views, but quite often it seems to me there is no evidence at all to supposrt their views!

You on the other hand seem to grasp at rather thin evidence to support very unlikely theories. Such as when you used testimonials of people who had clearly never died, to explain what happens after people have died! What a laugh

Clearly never died? How is it clear that they did not die??

 

[fsol]

"Modern" skeptics only hold to their skeptical views when the evidence is already overwhelmingly on their side. Obviously they need pretty strong evidence to contradict evidence that has been built up over the last thousand years.

You on the other hand seem to grasp at rather thin evidence to support very unlikely theories. Such as when you used testimonials of people who had clearly never died, to explain what happens after people have died! What a laugh

Haven't we been through this argument with Ian before? He seems to have made up a definition of skeptic just so he can throw mud at people. It doesn't matter to him that the people he is throwing mud at don't actually fit his definition. And round and round we go.

 

[DreadNiK]

That's not the definition of a skeptic. Not the modern definition (as opposed to the original meaning). A skeptic is someone who asserts something cannot possibly exist and who will only start to believe when the evidence is overwhelming.



I don't believe we should believe anything on weak evidence alone. There are a variety of factors to consider.



You're talking about science, I'm talking about the real world. What we should believe based on rational considerations.



I was referring to those phenomena which have been universally reported.



Good job I don't do it on those grounds then. There is absolutely no purpose to asking a skeptic his/her opinion because I already know the answer. They will emphatically reject anything which is at tension with the modern western Weltanschauung. To me that means they're not thinking and I consequently do not value their opinion.



I used to think that too before I first started communicating with skeptics. Once you've talked to one skeptic, you've talked to the majority of them.





I think your doubt is to be commended. I have never said we should just believe stuff. We should examine reasons and evidence and try to reach a conclusion purely through these means. I don't approve of this metaphysical baggage that skeptics bring to bear on examining whether some phenomenon occurs or not (and what are the acceptable theories to explain the said phenomenon should we conclude the phenomenon is likely to exist).

Stop trolling...

 

[I'll_buy_that]

... Skeptics have been proved to be wrong yet again...

How can skeptics be proved wrong? aren't skeptic asking questions and waiting or researching for answers? the answers to their questions could be negative, but that doesn't make the skeptic wrong.

---------------------------
But he added: "The thing about acupuncture is that it does not work on everyone. It is more likely to be effective if you believe it.

"I think it is a psychological manipulation technique, a distraction. We are not going to get to the stage where this could be used instead of a general anaesthetic."

"But doctor, I don't believe in it........AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Tonight's programme...

(Moved to the other thread)

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

The study is described on the university's website.

From that link and slightly derailingly;

"acupuncture has a powerful and measurable effect on the human brain. The effect is surprising, because scientists have previously predicted that parts of the cortex would be activated during acupuncture. This unique experiment suggests that, on the contrary, parts of the brain, beyond the cortex, are actually deactivated."

Doesn't this just show what a primitive level we are at when we are discussing brain function. Billions of neurones each with thousands of connections and some neuroscience discussion can still be presented in terms of "the cortex would be activated" or something like "dopamine was released in the mid-brain"

Someone once say that neurophysiology was like trying to work out how a computer worked with a voltmeter and a hammer. They were right.