Acupuncture and mechanisms

[Guest guest]

Here's some research, really credible (funded by the US National Institutes

of Health) that describes different mechanisms behind the beneficial

outcomes of sham and legitimate acupuncture in the treatment of

fibromyalgia.

 

Many studies that measure the benefits of acupuncture use a sort of fake

acupuncture as a control, like a fake placebo pill used to study the

benefits of drugs.

 

Sham (or fake) acupuncture can fool the patient into thinking that a needle

has been inserted, but without actually penetrating the skin.

 

The problem is that recent studies have suggested that both sham and

legitimate acupuncture BOTH help with whatever problem researchers are

studying. This really confounds researchers (and frustrates acupuncturists

who get no respect.)

 

This study looks into that phenomenon and finds that there is a reason both

work, but they are DIFFERENT mechanisms.

 

The legitimate acupuncture made certain receptors in the brain more

sensitive to pain releaving chemicals secreated by the brain.

 

The sham acupuncture caused more pain relieving chemicals to be secreted,

although I think that's a default assumption made by the researchers. The

sham acupuncture definitely does not cause the pain relieving centers of the

brain to become more sensitive to pain-relieving chemicals, that much we

know, but what the mechanism is exactly seems to remain unknown based on the

page linked below.

 

Still kind of cool for those who feel like acupuncture is getting a bum rap

by researchers.

 

Here's more:

http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/110209.htm

 

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

http://twitter.com/algancao

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

A few notes related to sham acupuncture and testing.

 

1. There is a needling method in Japanese acupuncture, called Hifushin, where

the needle is not inserted into the skin only touching it. They say it's quite

effective.

 

2. In my experience, about the half of the acupuncturists don't locate the

points too precisely. We can call it kind of sham acupuncture as well.

 

3. There are people who get better just because they see someone cares about

them (for example the acupuncturist)

 

I'm not saying the article is biased to either side and I'm of course on the CM

side. I'm just trying to show how hard (impossible?) it is to measure only what

is intended and exclude other factors. And this applies to other, non-CM-related

experiments, as well.

 

Tamas

 

Chinese Traditional Medicine , Al Stone <al wrote:

 

> http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/110209.htm

[Guest guest]

Chinese Traditional Medicine , Al Stone <al wrote:

> The problem is that recent studies have suggested that both sham and

> legitimate acupuncture BOTH help with whatever problem researchers are

> studying. This really confounds researchers (and frustrates acupuncturists

> who get no respect.)

 

 

Thanks for sharing this article, it's quite interesting. I agree, it makes

acupuncture (at least for the time being until they can find better methods)

look less legitimate, which may be more about the testing process.

 

This article shows that the legitimate acupuncture really does have an effect on

the brain through a PET scan. That looks really promising and may help them

find better ways of testing and controlling variables in future studies =)

 

 

> The sham acupuncture caused more pain relieving chemicals to be secreted,

> although I think that's a default assumption made by the researchers. The

> sham acupuncture definitely does not cause the pain relieving centers of the

> brain to become more sensitive to pain-relieving chemicals, that much we

> know, but what the mechanism is exactly seems to remain unknown based on the

> page linked below.

>

> Still kind of cool for those who feel like acupuncture is getting a bum rap

> by researchers.

>

 

So the question I had was OK, they know the method in legitimate acupuncture of

making the brain more sensitive to pain reducing secretions, but what's the

reason " sham " acupuncture seems to have the same pain reducing effect. It looks

like they're just assuming that the sham acupuncture makes the body release more

opiates, although that seems like a pretty big assumption, like you said.

 

It seems to me that it's pretty hard to test a procedure (like acupuncture with

the " gold-standard " (randomized double blind placebo controlled). To me it

seems that the " gold-standard " only really works for medication. I mean clearly

the acupuncturist is going to know if he is providing real or sham acupuncture.

Also I don't know if they've ever done a controlled study on surgical

procedures. I think for the control on those they just put them on a waiting

list or something.

 

Well I guess until they find a legitimate way to test things, people will just

keep doing what they're doing =) Hopefully though they can find a way to test,

and that can further the process somehow.

 

One thing that I think is really important is that science, or the study of

something, doesn't make it true or not true, work or not work. The truth is the

truth and doesn't need anyone to believe in it to make it true. Non-truth

requires belief to exist.

[Guest guest]

It's well known that even " sham " acupuncture has positive/beneficial

effects. Sort of the punchline to all those studies.

 

 

 

 

-

" Tamas " <knz

<Chinese Traditional Medicine >

Friday, November 13, 2009 3:40 PM

[Chinese Traditional Medicine] Re: Acupuncture and mechanisms

 

 

>A few notes related to sham acupuncture and testing.

>

> 1. There is a needling method in Japanese acupuncture, called Hifushin,

> where the needle is not inserted into the skin only touching it. They say

> it's quite effective.

>

> 2. In my experience, about the half of the acupuncturists don't locate the

> points too precisely. We can call it kind of sham acupuncture as well.

>

> 3. There are people who get better just because they see someone cares

> about them (for example the acupuncturist)

>

> I'm not saying the article is biased to either side and I'm of course on

> the CM side. I'm just trying to show how hard (impossible?) it is to

> measure only what is intended and exclude other factors. And this applies

> to other, non-CM-related experiments, as well.

>

> Tamas

>

> Chinese Traditional Medicine , Al Stone <al wrote:

>

>> http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/110209.htm

>

>

>

> ---

>

> Post message address: Chinese Traditional Medicine

> http://health.Chinese Traditional Medicine/