Acupuncture and The Placebo Effect

[Guest guest]

People on another group that I belong to claim that acupuncture does

not perform significantly better than a placebo in randomized trials.

(i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the performance of

actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is: Acupuncture doesn't

really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

 

One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works by way of the

placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical effectiveness of

veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals such as cows,

horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex psychological

processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

 

Can anyone here point me to some good research data or clinical trials

describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment of livestock to

help me support this line of debate?

 

Thanks,

 

EM

[Guest guest]

You're obviously debating with ignorant people. Phil brought a beautiful study

to our attention a few years ago:

 

Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2000 Jun;107(6):231-5.

Treatment of wobbler syndrome in dogs with electroacupuncture.

Sumano H, Bermudez E, Obregon K.

Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Veterinary Medicine,

National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico-City, Mexico.

 

[!! There is a large flaw with this research though; the dogs were subjected to

intensive propaganda campaigns originating from the PRC claiming that

TCM/acupuncture is a national treasure and that results must be over 80% in

order for them to be published.]

 

Based on favorable experiences with acupuncture for the treatment of hind limbs

paralysis, lumbo-sacral alterations, and other spinal cord problems; a clinical

trial, involving 40 dogs affected with wobbler syndrome was carried out.

Patients were graded in three categories according to the severity of each case

and then randomly divided in two groups. Both groups contained all three grades.

Group 1 (20 dogs) was treated using orthodox medical and surgical interventions,

while Group 2 (20 dogs) were treated mainly with electroacupuncture, and in a

few cases with surgical intervention as well. The study was carried out in a

three-year period. Acupuncture treatments were given every other day delivering

150 to 300 mVolts at 125 Hz, equivalents to approximately 20 microAmps, in ten

acupuncture points per treatment. Deep needle insertion was used. Overall per

cent success in Group I was only 20%, while in group II the corresponding value

was 85%. The number

of acupuncture treatments required to achieve full recovery in Group II was

dependent upon the severity of the case, as follows: Grade I: 18.5 +/- 2.5;

Grade II: 25 +/- 5.4; and Grade III: 34 +/- 6.7 (r = 0.962). No adverse effects

were observed with acupuncture. The use of this technique is proposed for

large-scale clinical trials.

 

 

 

PMID: 10916938

 

Enojoy,

Hugo

 

 

establishment_man <establishment_man

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, 19 December, 2007 4:25:03 PM

Acupuncture and The Placebo Effect

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People on another group that I belong to claim that acupuncture does

 

not perform significantly better than a placebo in randomized trials.

 

(i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the performance of

 

actual acupuncture) . The natural conclusion is: Acupuncture doesn't

 

really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

 

 

 

One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works by way of the

 

placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical effectiveness of

 

veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals such as cows,

 

horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex psychological

 

processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

 

 

 

Can anyone here point me to some good research data or clinical trials

 

describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment of livestock to

 

help me support this line of debate?

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

EM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-mkp{

border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}

#ygrp-mkp hr{

border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#ygrp-mkp #hd{

color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}

#ygrp-mkp #ads{

margin-bottom:10px;}

#ygrp-mkp .ad{

padding:0 0;}

#ygrp-mkp .ad a{

color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}

-->

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{

font-family:Arial;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{

margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{

margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

-->

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}

#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,

sans-serif;}

#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}

#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}

#ygrp-text{

font-family:Georgia;

}

#ygrp-text p{

margin:0 0 1em 0;}

#ygrp-tpmsgs{

font-family:Arial;

clear:both;}

#ygrp-vitnav{

padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}

#ygrp-vitnav a{

padding:0 1px;}

#ygrp-actbar{

clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}

#ygrp-actbar .left{

float:left;white-space:nowrap;}

..bld{font-weight:bold;}

#ygrp-grft{

font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}

#ygrp-ft{

font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;

padding:5px 0;

}

#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{

padding-bottom:10px;}

 

#ygrp-vital{

background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}

#ygrp-vital #vithd{

font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:upp\

ercase;}

#ygrp-vital ul{

padding:0;margin:2px 0;}

#ygrp-vital ul li{

list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;

}

#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{

font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-ri\

ght:.5em;}

#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{

font-weight:bold;}

#ygrp-vital a{

text-decoration:none;}

 

#ygrp-vital a:hover{

text-decoration:underline;}

 

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{

color:#999;font-size:77%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov{

padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{

padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{

list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{

text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #nc{

background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad{

padding:8px 0;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{

font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%\

;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{

text-decoration:none;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{

text-decoration:underline;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{

margin:0;}

o{font-size:0;}

..MsoNormal{

margin:0 0 0 0;}

#ygrp-text tt{

font-size:120%;}

blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}

..replbq{margin:4;}

-->

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________

Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with For Good

http://uk.promotions./forgood/

 

 

[Guest guest]

The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better than " sham " , the

question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is simply no. I

won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of a control is

to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact that we know

that there is a systemic response immediately negates the use of these

" sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection model to

choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not possible in

Natural Science to objectively quantify work between individuals, if

it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and every other

modality that has touch and communication as its central component

would have pages of peer reviewed material.

My humble opinion is that a proper control must be devised, the law of

only double blind analysis must be put away and the ability to actual

connect with another person must be taken into account in the trials.

Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that points do not

of themselves do anything. To assume such is not Acupuncture.

Tymothy

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine ,

" establishment_man " <establishment_man wrote:

>

> People on another group that I belong to claim that acupuncture does

> not perform significantly better than a placebo in randomized trials.

> (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the performance of

> actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is: Acupuncture doesn't

> really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

>

> One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works by way of the

> placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical effectiveness of

> veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals such as cows,

> horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex psychological

> processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

>

> Can anyone here point me to some good research data or clinical trials

> describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment of livestock to

> help me support this line of debate?

>

> Thanks,

>

> EM

>

[Guest guest]

Tymothy,

 

The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to introduce a

placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:

 

Control - Nothing

Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something

Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure) being given

 

Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither the doctor

nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting a Real thing

or the placebo.

 

So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid. However, it is very

tricky to excecute.

 

I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points to the

clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary acupuncture.

 

Anyone?

 

EM

 

-- In Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

<jellyphish wrote:

>

> The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better than " sham " ,

the

> question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is simply

no. I

> won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of a

control is

> to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact that we

know

> that there is a systemic response immediately negates the use of

these

> " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection model to

> choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not possible in

> Natural Science to objectively quantify work between individuals,

if

> it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and every

other

> modality that has touch and communication as its central component

> would have pages of peer reviewed material.

> My humble opinion is that a proper control must be devised, the

law of

> only double blind analysis must be put away and the ability to

actual

> connect with another person must be taken into account in the

trials.

> Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that points do

not

> of themselves do anything. To assume such is not Acupuncture.

> Tymothy

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine ,

> " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> >

> > People on another group that I belong to claim that acupuncture

does

> > not perform significantly better than a placebo in randomized

trials.

> > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the

performance of

> > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is: Acupuncture

doesn't

> > really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

> >

> > One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works by way

of the

> > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical effectiveness

of

> > veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals such as

cows,

> > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex

psychological

> > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

> >

> > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or clinical

trials

> > describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment of

livestock to

> > help me support this line of debate?

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > EM

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Establishment man,

Having a degree wherein i studied statistical analysis i am well aware

of the requirements for a clinical trial.

The use of term " placebo " in a clinical trial for acupuncture is

actually incorrect, as the definition is simply the effect of an INERT

ingredient (primarily pharmacogolic, as again, a double blind trial

can not rule out human interaction and therefore can not control for

all variables, this alone makes the trials suspect and therefore the

data questionable as any decent researcher would tell you). As

application of needles in non-acupoint sites is known to cause a

systemic reaction, it can not be a control because it is not fails the

defintion of placebo.

I hope this makes it clear, it is really simple science. The only

placebo in such trials is the perception of insertion by the patient

without actual penetration.

It should be also be stated that the success rate was generally around

50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey shoving a needle into someone

will get 50%, my goodness, any first year intern at a TCM school is

getting these kinds of results, and this is the experimental

(statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.

Tymothy

 

Chinese Medicine ,

" establishment_man " <establishment_man wrote:

>

> Tymothy,

>

> The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to introduce a

> placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:

>

> Control - Nothing

> Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something

> Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure) being given

>

> Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither the doctor

> nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting a Real thing

> or the placebo.

>

> So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid. However, it is very

> tricky to excecute.

>

> I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points to the

> clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary acupuncture.

>

> Anyone?

>

> EM

>

> -- In Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> <jellyphish@> wrote:

> >

> > The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better than " sham " ,

> the

> > question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is simply

> no. I

> > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of a

> control is

> > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact that we

> know

> > that there is a systemic response immediately negates the use of

> these

> > " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection model to

> > choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not possible in

> > Natural Science to objectively quantify work between individuals,

> if

> > it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and every

> other

> > modality that has touch and communication as its central component

> > would have pages of peer reviewed material.

> > My humble opinion is that a proper control must be devised, the

> law of

> > only double blind analysis must be put away and the ability to

> actual

> > connect with another person must be taken into account in the

> trials.

> > Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that points do

> not

> > of themselves do anything. To assume such is not Acupuncture.

> > Tymothy

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine ,

> > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > >

> > > People on another group that I belong to claim that acupuncture

> does

> > > not perform significantly better than a placebo in randomized

> trials.

> > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the

> performance of

> > > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is: Acupuncture

> doesn't

> > > really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

> > >

> > > One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works by way

> of the

> > > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical effectiveness

> of

> > > veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals such as

> cows,

> > > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex

> psychological

> > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

> > >

> > > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or clinical

> trials

> > > describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment of

> livestock to

> > > help me support this line of debate?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > EM

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Tymothy,

 

Opponents to acupuncture would argue that if a sham acupuncture point

does (as you have said) produce a systemmic effect, then why study

acupuncture at all?

 

If random needle sticking exerts a systemmic effect comparable to

traditional acupuncture, then why not just poke needles into bodies

at random?

 

EM

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

<jellyphish wrote:

>

> Establishment man,

> Having a degree wherein i studied statistical analysis i am well

aware

> of the requirements for a clinical trial.

> The use of term " placebo " in a clinical trial for acupuncture is

> actually incorrect, as the definition is simply the effect of an

INERT

> ingredient (primarily pharmacogolic, as again, a double blind trial

> can not rule out human interaction and therefore can not control for

> all variables, this alone makes the trials suspect and therefore the

> data questionable as any decent researcher would tell you). As

> application of needles in non-acupoint sites is known to cause a

> systemic reaction, it can not be a control because it is not fails

the

> defintion of placebo.

> I hope this makes it clear, it is really simple science. The only

> placebo in such trials is the perception of insertion by the patient

> without actual penetration.

> It should be also be stated that the success rate was generally

around

> 50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey shoving a needle into someone

> will get 50%, my goodness, any first year intern at a TCM school is

> getting these kinds of results, and this is the experimental

> (statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.

> Tymothy

>

> Chinese Medicine ,

> " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> >

> > Tymothy,

> >

> > The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to introduce

a

> > placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:

> >

> > Control - Nothing

> > Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something

> > Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure) being

given

> >

> > Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither the

doctor

> > nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting a Real

thing

> > or the placebo.

> >

> > So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid. However, it is

very

> > tricky to excecute.

> >

> > I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points to the

> > clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary acupuncture.

> >

> > Anyone?

> >

> > EM

> >

> > -- In Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > >

> > > The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better

than " sham " ,

> > the

> > > question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is

simply

> > no. I

> > > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of a

> > control is

> > > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact that we

> > know

> > > that there is a systemic response immediately negates the use

of

> > these

> > > " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection model

to

> > > choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not possible in

> > > Natural Science to objectively quantify work between

individuals,

> > if

> > > it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and

every

> > other

> > > modality that has touch and communication as its central

component

> > > would have pages of peer reviewed material.

> > > My humble opinion is that a proper control must be devised, the

> > law of

> > > only double blind analysis must be put away and the ability to

> > actual

> > > connect with another person must be taken into account in the

> > trials.

> > > Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that points

do

> > not

> > > of themselves do anything. To assume such is not Acupuncture.

> > > Tymothy

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > People on another group that I belong to claim that

acupuncture

> > does

> > > > not perform significantly better than a placebo in randomized

> > trials.

> > > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the

> > performance of

> > > > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is: Acupuncture

> > doesn't

> > > > really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

> > > >

> > > > One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works by

way

> > of the

> > > > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical

effectiveness

> > of

> > > > veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals such

as

> > cows,

> > > > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex

> > psychological

> > > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

> > > >

> > > > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or

clinical

> > trials

> > > > describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment of

> > livestock to

> > > > help me support this line of debate?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > EM

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This is a subject of some interest to me.

 

I wrote an article about this very topic a few years ago.

http://www.oasisacupuncture.com/articles/placebo.htm

 

Christopher Vedeler L.Ac.

Oasis Acupuncture

http://www.oasisacupuncture.com

9832 N. Hayden Rd.

Suite 215

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

Phone: (480) 991-3650

[Guest guest]

Chrostopher V.

 

Interesting essay. GHowever, I need Data not editorial opinion.

 

You state in your essay that it is a well documented that

acupuncture works on animals. Where is the documentation??

 

EM

 

Chinese Medicine , " Christopher

Vedeler L.Ac. " <vedeler wrote:

>

> This is a subject of some interest to me.

>

> I wrote an article about this very topic a few years ago.

> http://www.oasisacupuncture.com/articles/placebo.htm

>

> Christopher Vedeler L.Ac.

> Oasis Acupuncture

> http://www.oasisacupuncture.com

> 9832 N. Hayden Rd.

> Suite 215

> Scottsdale, AZ 85258

> Phone: (480) 991-3650

>

[Guest guest]

Did you not receive this through the list a week ago? Phil also provided

additional resources.

 

Hugo

 

You're obviously debating with ignorant people. Phil brought a beautiful study

to our attention a few years ago:

 

Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2000 Jun;107(6):231- 5.

Treatment of wobbler syndrome in dogs with electroacupuncture.

Sumano H, Bermudez E, Obregon K.

Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Veterinary Medicine,

National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico-City, Mexico.

 

[!! There is a large flaw with this research though; the dogs were subjected to

intensive propaganda campaigns originating from the PRC claiming that

TCM/acupuncture is a national treasure and that results must be over 80% in

order for them to be published.]

 

Based on favorable experiences with acupuncture for the treatment of hind limbs

paralysis, lumbo-sacral alterations, and other spinal cord problems; a clinical

trial, involving 40 dogs affected with wobbler syndrome was carried out.

Patients were graded in three categories according to the severity of each case

and then randomly divided in two groups. Both groups contained all three grades.

Group 1 (20 dogs) was treated using orthodox medical and surgical interventions,

while Group 2 (20 dogs) were treated mainly with electroacupuncture, and in a

few cases with surgical intervention as well. The study was carried out in a

three-year period. Acupuncture treatments were given every other day delivering

150 to 300 mVolts at 125 Hz, equivalents to approximately 20 microAmps, in ten

acupuncture points per treatment. Deep needle insertion was used. Overall per

cent success in Group I was only 20%, while in group II the corresponding value

was 85%. The number

of acupuncture treatments required to achieve full recovery in Group II was

dependent upon the severity of the case, as follows: Grade I: 18.5 +/- 2.5;

Grade II: 25 +/- 5.4; and Grade III: 34 +/- 6.7 (r = 0.962). No adverse effects

were observed with acupuncture. The use of this technique is proposed for

large-scale clinical trials.

 

PMID: 10916938

 

Enojoy,

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

establishment_man <establishment_man

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, 22 December, 2007 8:22:09 AM

Re: Acupuncture and The Placebo Effect

 

Chrostopher V.

 

Interesting essay. GHowever, I need Data not editorial opinion.

 

You state in your essay that it is a well documented that

acupuncture works on animals. Where is the documentation? ?

 

EM

 

Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Christopher

Vedeler L.Ac. " <vedeler > wrote:

>

> This is a subject of some interest to me.

>

> I wrote an article about this very topic a few years ago.

> http://www.oasisacu puncture. com/articles/ placebo.htm

>

> Christopher Vedeler L.Ac.

> Oasis Acupuncture

> http://www.oasisacu puncture. com

> 9832 N. Hayden Rd.

> Suite 215

> Scottsdale, AZ 85258

> Phone: (480) 991-3650

>

 

 

 

 

 

________

Sent from Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

EM,

Apologies for taking so long to answer you, was on extended holiday.

To answer your question, i would say that the real question is: what

is a sham point and how we do we correctly define a proper placebo? To

that end, how do we define what a " true " acupoint is, in biomedical

terms, if that is necessary at all, i am not personally interested in

what Allopaths think of my work. As a great teacher of mine once said

" do you not ask the snakes what it is like to fly. "

 

Until these two considerations are properly discussed throughout the

professional community, and up until they most certainly have not,

then all research is highly suspect and the data should be questioned.

 

Lastly, what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain

removed from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but you

will notice that all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment,

generally prolonged continual administration of a modifying substance.

This, however is rarely provocative of healing. This is my work, and

the work of many on this list. No trial can properly demonstrate this

phenomenon, and yet it is the only true medicine, all others are

merely as to paraphrase Hippocrates distracting so that nature can

exert her cure.

 

On a more personal note, the needle is nothing, save but an extension

of my compassion. The only thing that matters in this life is proper

communication, within ourselves, eachother and the Creative Force,

simple as that.

 

Regards, Tymothy

 

(PS. Thea Elijah gave a great talk some years ago titled " Perrineal

Medicine, " which i could not give justice to, but profound in its

implications.)

 

>

> Tymothy,

>

> Opponents to acupuncture would argue that if a sham acupuncture point

> does (as you have said) produce a systemmic effect, then why study

> acupuncture at all?

>

> If random needle sticking exerts a systemmic effect comparable to

> traditional acupuncture, then why not just poke needles into bodies

> at random?

>

> EM

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> <jellyphish@> wrote:

> >

> > Establishment man,

> > Having a degree wherein i studied statistical analysis i am well

> aware

> > of the requirements for a clinical trial.

> > The use of term " placebo " in a clinical trial for acupuncture is

> > actually incorrect, as the definition is simply the effect of an

> INERT

> > ingredient (primarily pharmacogolic, as again, a double blind trial

> > can not rule out human interaction and therefore can not control for

> > all variables, this alone makes the trials suspect and therefore the

> > data questionable as any decent researcher would tell you). As

> > application of needles in non-acupoint sites is known to cause a

> > systemic reaction, it can not be a control because it is not fails

> the

> > defintion of placebo.

> > I hope this makes it clear, it is really simple science. The only

> > placebo in such trials is the perception of insertion by the patient

> > without actual penetration.

> > It should be also be stated that the success rate was generally

> around

> > 50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey shoving a needle into someone

> > will get 50%, my goodness, any first year intern at a TCM school is

> > getting these kinds of results, and this is the experimental

> > (statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.

> > Tymothy

> >

> > Chinese Medicine ,

> > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Tymothy,

> > >

> > > The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to introduce

> a

> > > placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:

> > >

> > > Control - Nothing

> > > Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something

> > > Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure) being

> given

> > >

> > > Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither the

> doctor

> > > nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting a Real

> thing

> > > or the placebo.

> > >

> > > So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid. However, it is

> very

> > > tricky to excecute.

> > >

> > > I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points to the

> > > clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary acupuncture.

> > >

> > > Anyone?

> > >

> > > EM

> > >

> > > -- In Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better

> than " sham " ,

> > > the

> > > > question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is

> simply

> > > no. I

> > > > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of a

> > > control is

> > > > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact that we

> > > know

> > > > that there is a systemic response immediately negates the use

> of

> > > these

> > > > " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection model

> to

> > > > choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not possible in

> > > > Natural Science to objectively quantify work between

> individuals,

> > > if

> > > > it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and

> every

> > > other

> > > > modality that has touch and communication as its central

> component

> > > > would have pages of peer reviewed material.

> > > > My humble opinion is that a proper control must be devised, the

> > > law of

> > > > only double blind analysis must be put away and the ability to

> > > actual

> > > > connect with another person must be taken into account in the

> > > trials.

> > > > Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that points

> do

> > > not

> > > > of themselves do anything. To assume such is not Acupuncture.

> > > > Tymothy

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > People on another group that I belong to claim that

> acupuncture

> > > does

> > > > > not perform significantly better than a placebo in randomized

> > > trials.

> > > > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the

> > > performance of

> > > > > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is: Acupuncture

> > > doesn't

> > > > > really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

> > > > >

> > > > > One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works by

> way

> > > of the

> > > > > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical

> effectiveness

> > > of

> > > > > veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals such

> as

> > > cows,

> > > > > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex

> > > psychological

> > > > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or

> clinical

> > > trials

> > > > > describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment of

> > > livestock to

> > > > > help me support this line of debate?

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks,

> > > > >

> > > > > EM

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Tymothy,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Now, allow me to flame you -

(or at least the ideas that you have presented).

 

" the real question is: what is a sham point and how we do we

correctly define a proper placebo? To that end, how do we define

what a " true " acupoint is...... "

 

This is a very important distinction in terms of acupuncture

research.

 

A sham point is a non-defined, non-acupuncture location. A random

spot on the body, if you will. Whereas a " true " acupuncture point

(for the purpose of research) would be a defined location with pre-

defined clinical applications.

 

Why is this distinction important?

 

While, acupuncturists may be inclined to argue that ANY place where

a needle is inserted will exert some systemic healing action, and

therefore insertion of needles anywhere can reasonably be defined as

acupuncture.

 

However, in clinical trials, if sham acupuncture (i.e. insertion of

needles into random sites) performs as well as actual acupuncture,

then it begs the question: " Why bother studying acupuncture theory,

location, etc. at all? "

 

Why not just stick needles into people at random to cure their

ailments?

 

" what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain removed

from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but you will

notice that all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment, generally

prolonged continual administration of a modifying substance. This,

however is rarely provocative of healing. This is my work, and the

work of many on this list. No trial can properly demonstrate this

phenomenon....... "

 

This proposition seems logically flawed to me. If " no trial can

properly demonstrate " the effectiveness of the therapy one offers,

then how will we validate its effectiveness (or non-effectiveness)?

 

" On a more personal note, the needle is nothing, save but an

extension of my compassion. The only thing that matters in this life

is proper communication, within ourselves, eachother and the

Creative Force, simple as that. "

 

Well, I will liberally grant your last point; it is a simple view

indeed. The problem is that it has no basis in reality.

 

If the needle is nothing, why bother with all of the training,

memorization, education, etc?

 

Why not just gaze lovingly at and compassionately at the ailing

person's knee, or spine, or uterus? Tymothy......are you serious?

 

As for " the Creative Force " that you speak of, I don't even want to

try to tackle that one. I certainly haven't encoutered any medical

references such a force in either CM or WM, so I do not see any

relevance to such a thing in a discussion of medicine.

 

Sorry to be a dick about it, Tym. But if CM is ultimately just the

final resting to which we each affix our own mamby pamby ideations

of healing, then the intelligence and wisdom of actual CM is just

watered down and eventually lost altogether. What prevails in its

absence is a diluted hodge-podge of mysticism and new age c-r-a-p.

 

And unfortunately (but rightly so), this is how the more

conservative elements of both the medical establishment and

society at large come to define .

 

How can that possibly benefit our field?

 

EM

 

 

 

 

In Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

<jellyphish wrote:

>

> EM,

> Apologies for taking so long to answer you, was on extended

holiday.

> To answer your question, i would say that the real question is:

what

> is a sham point and how we do we correctly define a proper

placebo? To

> that end, how do we define what a " true " acupoint is, in biomedical

> terms, if that is necessary at all, i am not personally interested

in

> what Allopaths think of my work. As a great teacher of mine once

said

> " do you not ask the snakes what it is like to fly. "

>

> Until these two considerations are properly discussed throughout

the

> professional community, and up until they most certainly have not,

> then all research is highly suspect and the data should be

questioned.

>

> Lastly, what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain

> removed from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but you

> will notice that all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment,

> generally prolonged continual administration of a modifying

substance.

> This, however is rarely provocative of healing. This is my work,

and

> the work of many on this list. No trial can properly demonstrate

this

> phenomenon, and yet it is the only true medicine, all others are

> merely as to paraphrase Hippocrates distracting so that nature can

> exert her cure.

>

> On a more personal note, the needle is nothing, save but an

extension

> of my compassion. The only thing that matters in this life is

proper

> communication, within ourselves, eachother and the Creative Force,

> simple as that.

>

> Regards, Tymothy

>

> (PS. Thea Elijah gave a great talk some years ago titled " Perrineal

> Medicine, " which i could not give justice to, but profound in its

> implications.)

>

> >

> > Tymothy,

> >

> > Opponents to acupuncture would argue that if a sham acupuncture

point

> > does (as you have said) produce a systemmic effect, then why

study

> > acupuncture at all?

> >

> > If random needle sticking exerts a systemmic effect comparable

to

> > traditional acupuncture, then why not just poke needles into

bodies

> > at random?

> >

> > EM

> >

> >

> >

> > --- In

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Establishment man,

> > > Having a degree wherein i studied statistical analysis i am

well

> > aware

> > > of the requirements for a clinical trial.

> > > The use of term " placebo " in a clinical trial for acupuncture

is

> > > actually incorrect, as the definition is simply the effect of

an

> > INERT

> > > ingredient (primarily pharmacogolic, as again, a double blind

trial

> > > can not rule out human interaction and therefore can not

control for

> > > all variables, this alone makes the trials suspect and

therefore the

> > > data questionable as any decent researcher would tell you). As

> > > application of needles in non-acupoint sites is known to cause

a

> > > systemic reaction, it can not be a control because it is not

fails

> > the

> > > defintion of placebo.

> > > I hope this makes it clear, it is really simple science. The

only

> > > placebo in such trials is the perception of insertion by the

patient

> > > without actual penetration.

> > > It should be also be stated that the success rate was

generally

> > around

> > > 50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey shoving a needle into

someone

> > > will get 50%, my goodness, any first year intern at a TCM

school is

> > > getting these kinds of results, and this is the experimental

> > > (statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.

> > > Tymothy

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Tymothy,

> > > >

> > > > The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to

introduce

> > a

> > > > placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:

> > > >

> > > > Control - Nothing

> > > > Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something

> > > > Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure)

being

> > given

> > > >

> > > > Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither

the

> > doctor

> > > > nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting a Real

> > thing

> > > > or the placebo.

> > > >

> > > > So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid. However, it

is

> > very

> > > > tricky to excecute.

> > > >

> > > > I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points to

the

> > > > clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary acupuncture.

> > > >

> > > > Anyone?

> > > >

> > > > EM

> > > >

> > > > -- In

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > > > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better

> > than " sham " ,

> > > > the

> > > > > question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is

> > simply

> > > > no. I

> > > > > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of

a

> > > > control is

> > > > > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact

that we

> > > > know

> > > > > that there is a systemic response immediately negates the

use

> > of

> > > > these

> > > > > " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection

model

> > to

> > > > > choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not

possible in

> > > > > Natural Science to objectively quantify work between

> > individuals,

> > > > if

> > > > > it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and

> > every

> > > > other

> > > > > modality that has touch and communication as its central

> > component

> > > > > would have pages of peer reviewed material.

> > > > > My humble opinion is that a proper control must be

devised, the

> > > > law of

> > > > > only double blind analysis must be put away and the

ability to

> > > > actual

> > > > > connect with another person must be taken into account in

the

> > > > trials.

> > > > > Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that

points

> > do

> > > > not

> > > > > of themselves do anything. To assume such is not

Acupuncture.

> > > > > Tymothy

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > People on another group that I belong to claim that

> > acupuncture

> > > > does

> > > > > > not perform significantly better than a placebo in

randomized

> > > > trials.

> > > > > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the

> > > > performance of

> > > > > > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is:

Acupuncture

> > > > doesn't

> > > > > > really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works

by

> > way

> > > > of the

> > > > > > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical

> > effectiveness

> > > > of

> > > > > > veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals

such

> > as

> > > > cows,

> > > > > > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex

> > > > psychological

> > > > > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or

> > clinical

> > > > trials

> > > > > > describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment

of

> > > > livestock to

> > > > > > help me support this line of debate?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > EM

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Because, the systemic effect that it gives (sham) may not be the

effect you are after. Like taking pills for headache randomly, You may

not want to take pills with ASA if you have liver problem because the

give you an affect that is dangerous to you, even if the might cure

the headache, which is the effect you are after, but give you side

effects you do not want. acupuncture on the other hand has a few side

effects, bur shamming random points may not give you the right effect

even if it has effect on the system.

 

Chinese Medicine ,

" establishment_man " <establishment_man wrote:

>

> Tymothy,

>

> Opponents to acupuncture would argue that if a sham acupuncture point

> does (as you have said) produce a systemmic effect, then why study

> acupuncture at all?

>

> If random needle sticking exerts a systemmic effect comparable to

> traditional acupuncture, then why not just poke needles into bodies

> at random?

>

> EM

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> <jellyphish@> wrote:

> >

> > Establishment man,

> > Having a degree wherein i studied statistical analysis i am well

> aware

> > of the requirements for a clinical trial.

> > The use of term " placebo " in a clinical trial for acupuncture is

> > actually incorrect, as the definition is simply the effect of an

> INERT

> > ingredient (primarily pharmacogolic, as again, a double blind trial

> > can not rule out human interaction and therefore can not control for

> > all variables, this alone makes the trials suspect and therefore the

> > data questionable as any decent researcher would tell you). As

> > application of needles in non-acupoint sites is known to cause a

> > systemic reaction, it can not be a control because it is not fails

> the

> > defintion of placebo.

> > I hope this makes it clear, it is really simple science. The only

> > placebo in such trials is the perception of insertion by the patient

> > without actual penetration.

> > It should be also be stated that the success rate was generally

> around

> > 50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey shoving a needle into someone

> > will get 50%, my goodness, any first year intern at a TCM school is

> > getting these kinds of results, and this is the experimental

> > (statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.

> > Tymothy

> >

> > Chinese Medicine ,

> > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Tymothy,

> > >

> > > The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to introduce

> a

> > > placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:

> > >

> > > Control - Nothing

> > > Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something

> > > Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure) being

> given

> > >

> > > Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither the

> doctor

> > > nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting a Real

> thing

> > > or the placebo.

> > >

> > > So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid. However, it is

> very

> > > tricky to excecute.

> > >

> > > I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points to the

> > > clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary acupuncture.

> > >

> > > Anyone?

> > >

> > > EM

> > >

> > > -- In Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better

> than " sham " ,

> > > the

> > > > question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is

> simply

> > > no. I

> > > > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of a

> > > control is

> > > > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact that we

> > > know

> > > > that there is a systemic response immediately negates the use

> of

> > > these

> > > > " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection model

> to

> > > > choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not possible in

> > > > Natural Science to objectively quantify work between

> individuals,

> > > if

> > > > it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and

> every

> > > other

> > > > modality that has touch and communication as its central

> component

> > > > would have pages of peer reviewed material.

> > > > My humble opinion is that a proper control must be devised, the

> > > law of

> > > > only double blind analysis must be put away and the ability to

> > > actual

> > > > connect with another person must be taken into account in the

> > > trials.

> > > > Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that points

> do

> > > not

> > > > of themselves do anything. To assume such is not Acupuncture.

> > > > Tymothy

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > People on another group that I belong to claim that

> acupuncture

> > > does

> > > > > not perform significantly better than a placebo in randomized

> > > trials.

> > > > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the

> > > performance of

> > > > > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is: Acupuncture

> > > doesn't

> > > > > really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

> > > > >

> > > > > One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works by

> way

> > > of the

> > > > > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical

> effectiveness

> > > of

> > > > > veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals such

> as

> > > cows,

> > > > > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex

> > > psychological

> > > > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or

> clinical

> > > trials

> > > > > describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment of

> > > livestock to

> > > > > help me support this line of debate?

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks,

> > > > >

> > > > > EM

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

EM,

It seems to me someone or some groups are doing a research on Sham

acupuncture. This sounds very interesting.

Their works of finding any points in a body which offer the same job or the

same results instead of real acupuncture points. This is fascinating and the

questions why should we bother to study acupuncture is also very logic. But what

they are doing is based on a defined ancient system, TCM , and then eliminate it

according to their science? Don't they know that some new points in a body may

produce certain healing or anesthesia is called " Ashi Points or Extra points " .

This is Acupuncture science.

Why don't we all do the same thing this way. There are cases in which WM

cannot treat certain migraine headaches, but acupuncture would. Can we reject,

proclaim or lobby that WM medicine should not be taught or learned to treat

migraine? Why should they bother teaching something they do not know ? How about

lower back, sciatica, or some internal problem ? Should we reject all MDs to

treat all cases in which they define there are no cure, or unknown causes, but

some special acupuncturists could help?

We all know that certain placebo effects sometimes bring out an astounding

result which WM has surrendered. Should we eliminate WM to treat these cases?

These people have your jobs to do and they may find out something new or

special, but those new findings should be added or mixed with the old one to

bring out new things, we call new science. It is not designed for them or for

someone new to come up with new ideas based on its original and against it.

I think we are studying health science to help our people to achieve their

quality of life, not to excel ourselves and damage or to insult others. They may

use all kinds of techniques to claim themselves a new science such as " Sham

acupuncture " and reject the traditional if they want to. But what make them

focus only on acupuncture and try to reject it in helping people this is wrong

and I do not buy it. Why don't they do something which is real and perhaps it

may bring them fruitful on what they are doing. Something against the WM's

failures which were stated as facts. He and his group of scientists should do

something beneficial to their or our people, do reject something which Western

Medicine has claimed there is no cure and it causes more harm, or something that

WM has produced eminent side effects which may be fatal.

Oncologists have treated millions of cancer people, but do they know how many

patients have died daily from their treatments? And how many have been survived

among all patients, how many had died from idiopathy? They only counted the

numbers of survival cases - how long can their patients last after their

treatments ? And they are still practicing. Why don't these scientists try to

find a way to reject them ?

 

Thanks for trying ......... new science " Sham acupuncture "

Any ideas ??????????????

 

Nam Nguyen

 

 

 

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pejo,

 

This is just the problem, though. Sham acupuncture in many research

studies DOES give the desired effect. At least as well as Actual

acupuncture in many cases. In other words, the sham protocol

performs on par with the actual acupuncture treatment in many

instances.

 

EM

 

-- In Chinese Medicine , " pejo_mstd "

<pejo_mstd wrote:

>

> Because, the systemic effect that it gives (sham) may not be the

> effect you are after. Like taking pills for headache randomly, You

may

> not want to take pills with ASA if you have liver problem because

the

> give you an affect that is dangerous to you, even if the might cure

> the headache, which is the effect you are after, but give you side

> effects you do not want. acupuncture on the other hand has a few

side

> effects, bur shamming random points may not give you the right

effect

> even if it has effect on the system.

>

> Chinese Medicine ,

> " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> >

> > Tymothy,

> >

> > Opponents to acupuncture would argue that if a sham acupuncture

point

> > does (as you have said) produce a systemmic effect, then why

study

> > acupuncture at all?

> >

> > If random needle sticking exerts a systemmic effect comparable

to

> > traditional acupuncture, then why not just poke needles into

bodies

> > at random?

> >

> > EM

> >

> >

> >

> > --- In

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Establishment man,

> > > Having a degree wherein i studied statistical analysis i am

well

> > aware

> > > of the requirements for a clinical trial.

> > > The use of term " placebo " in a clinical trial for acupuncture

is

> > > actually incorrect, as the definition is simply the effect of

an

> > INERT

> > > ingredient (primarily pharmacogolic, as again, a double blind

trial

> > > can not rule out human interaction and therefore can not

control for

> > > all variables, this alone makes the trials suspect and

therefore the

> > > data questionable as any decent researcher would tell you). As

> > > application of needles in non-acupoint sites is known to cause

a

> > > systemic reaction, it can not be a control because it is not

fails

> > the

> > > defintion of placebo.

> > > I hope this makes it clear, it is really simple science. The

only

> > > placebo in such trials is the perception of insertion by the

patient

> > > without actual penetration.

> > > It should be also be stated that the success rate was

generally

> > around

> > > 50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey shoving a needle into

someone

> > > will get 50%, my goodness, any first year intern at a TCM

school is

> > > getting these kinds of results, and this is the experimental

> > > (statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.

> > > Tymothy

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Tymothy,

> > > >

> > > > The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to

introduce

> > a

> > > > placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:

> > > >

> > > > Control - Nothing

> > > > Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something

> > > > Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure)

being

> > given

> > > >

> > > > Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither

the

> > doctor

> > > > nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting a Real

> > thing

> > > > or the placebo.

> > > >

> > > > So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid. However, it

is

> > very

> > > > tricky to excecute.

> > > >

> > > > I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points to

the

> > > > clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary acupuncture.

> > > >

> > > > Anyone?

> > > >

> > > > EM

> > > >

> > > > -- In

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > > > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better

> > than " sham " ,

> > > > the

> > > > > question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is

> > simply

> > > > no. I

> > > > > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of

a

> > > > control is

> > > > > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact

that we

> > > > know

> > > > > that there is a systemic response immediately negates the

use

> > of

> > > > these

> > > > > " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection

model

> > to

> > > > > choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not

possible in

> > > > > Natural Science to objectively quantify work between

> > individuals,

> > > > if

> > > > > it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and

> > every

> > > > other

> > > > > modality that has touch and communication as its central

> > component

> > > > > would have pages of peer reviewed material.

> > > > > My humble opinion is that a proper control must be

devised, the

> > > > law of

> > > > > only double blind analysis must be put away and the

ability to

> > > > actual

> > > > > connect with another person must be taken into account in

the

> > > > trials.

> > > > > Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that

points

> > do

> > > > not

> > > > > of themselves do anything. To assume such is not

Acupuncture.

> > > > > Tymothy

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > People on another group that I belong to claim that

> > acupuncture

> > > > does

> > > > > > not perform significantly better than a placebo in

randomized

> > > > trials.

> > > > > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the

> > > > performance of

> > > > > > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is:

Acupuncture

> > > > doesn't

> > > > > > really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works

by

> > way

> > > > of the

> > > > > > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical

> > effectiveness

> > > > of

> > > > > > veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals

such

> > as

> > > > cows,

> > > > > > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex

> > > > psychological

> > > > > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or

> > clinical

> > > > trials

> > > > > > describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment

of

> > > > livestock to

> > > > > > help me support this line of debate?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > EM

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yes Nam,

 

I appreciate your words and point of view. But I do not agree that

acupuncture is science.

 

I think that acupuncture is on its way to becoming science, but has

not yet arrived. This is because it has not been adequately tested.

 

I realize that it has stood the proverbial " test of time " but I

reject the idea that something is true or valid simply because it is

extant. People thought that the world was flat for a very long time,

but that notion did not get any truer as the centuries passed.

 

I suspect that as acupuncture is subjected to more rigorous and

better controlled studies, much of it will be found to be useful.

But I also suspect that many of the ideas and theories of TCM that

have survived due to the momentum of thier folk relevance and

anecdotal success will be proven therapeutically invalid.

 

The problem/point is that I actually agree with many of the critics

of TCM. Anecdotal success is not sufficient validation. I think more

and better scrutiny is required. I recognize that this idea may

provoke the purists and the mystics, but the world has changed.

 

If we are able to develop the tools to scientifically validate the

proper use and scope of acupuncture as a medical therapy, then why

should we continue to misuse it based on allegiance to its heroic

roots? When the curtain is pulled back, and the truth can be seen -

why should we continue to believe that professor Marvel is the

Wizard of Oz?

 

EM

 

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , Nam Nguyen

<dr_namnguyen58 wrote:

>

> EM,

> It seems to me someone or some groups are doing a research on

Sham acupuncture. This sounds very interesting.

> Their works of finding any points in a body which offer the

same job or the same results instead of real acupuncture points.

This is fascinating and the questions why should we bother to study

acupuncture is also very logic. But what they are doing is based on

a defined ancient system, TCM , and then eliminate it according to

their science? Don't they know that some new points in a body may

produce certain healing or anesthesia is called " Ashi Points or

Extra points " . This is Acupuncture science.

> Why don't we all do the same thing this way. There are cases in

which WM cannot treat certain migraine headaches, but acupuncture

would. Can we reject, proclaim or lobby that WM medicine should not

be taught or learned to treat migraine? Why should they bother

teaching something they do not know ? How about lower back,

sciatica, or some internal problem ? Should we reject all MDs to

treat all cases in which they define there are no cure, or unknown

causes, but some special acupuncturists could help?

> We all know that certain placebo effects sometimes bring out an

astounding result which WM has surrendered. Should we eliminate WM

to treat these cases?

> These people have your jobs to do and they may find out

something new or special, but those new findings should be added or

mixed with the old one to bring out new things, we call new science.

It is not designed for them or for someone new to come up with new

ideas based on its original and against it.

> I think we are studying health science to help our people to

achieve their quality of life, not to excel ourselves and damage or

to insult others. They may use all kinds of techniques to claim

themselves a new science such as " Sham acupuncture " and reject the

traditional if they want to. But what make them focus only on

acupuncture and try to reject it in helping people this is wrong and

I do not buy it. Why don't they do something which is real and

perhaps it may bring them fruitful on what they are doing.

Something against the WM's failures which were stated as facts. He

and his group of scientists should do something beneficial to their

or our people, do reject something which Western Medicine has

claimed there is no cure and it causes more harm, or something that

WM has produced eminent side effects which may be fatal.

> Oncologists have treated millions of cancer people, but do they

know how many patients have died daily from their treatments? And

how many have been survived among all patients, how many had died

from idiopathy? They only counted the numbers of survival cases -

how long can their patients last after their treatments ? And they

are still practicing. Why don't these scientists try to find a way

to reject them ?

>

> Thanks for trying ......... new science " Sham acupuncture "

> Any ideas ??????????????

>

> Nam Nguyen

>

>

>

> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with

Search.

>

>

[Guest guest]

EM,

With all due respect, you're missing the point.

The definition of placebo is " perception of possibility of a modifying

substance " , there was discussion for some years over how to properly

administer a placebo agent to an acupuncture trial (and as i have

quoted from Kaptchuk, the same holds true of any modality where touch

is a portion of the treatment, which distorts the data from the

outset). This included needles that appeared to penetrate, retractable

needles, etc.

An insertion of a needle is simply not a placebo, period.

Further, there are studies that demonstrate that so called

" acu-points " (which the Japanese, Master Tong practitioners AND

French-Vietnamese practitioners would correctly argue against

geographically) were more effective than the non-agreed upon " sham "

points.

But, again this research continues to demonstrate that L.Ac.'s as a

profession are not strident enough with research, ie. there is

virtually nothing coming out of America whatsoever. We have not met as

a profession to agree upon the proper parameters for trials, until

this is done ALL research is not only suspect, but in my mind worthless.

Tymothy

 

" establishment_man " <establishment_man wrote:

>

> Tymothy,

>

> Thanks for your thoughtful response. Now, allow me to flame you -

> (or at least the ideas that you have presented).

>

> " the real question is: what is a sham point and how we do we

> correctly define a proper placebo? To that end, how do we define

> what a " true " acupoint is...... "

>

> This is a very important distinction in terms of acupuncture

> research.

>

> A sham point is a non-defined, non-acupuncture location. A random

> spot on the body, if you will. Whereas a " true " acupuncture point

> (for the purpose of research) would be a defined location with pre-

> defined clinical applications.

>

> Why is this distinction important?

>

> While, acupuncturists may be inclined to argue that ANY place where

> a needle is inserted will exert some systemic healing action, and

> therefore insertion of needles anywhere can reasonably be defined as

> acupuncture.

>

> However, in clinical trials, if sham acupuncture (i.e. insertion of

> needles into random sites) performs as well as actual acupuncture,

> then it begs the question: " Why bother studying acupuncture theory,

> location, etc. at all? "

>

> Why not just stick needles into people at random to cure their

> ailments?

>

> " what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain removed

> from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but you will

> notice that all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment, generally

> prolonged continual administration of a modifying substance. This,

> however is rarely provocative of healing. This is my work, and the

> work of many on this list. No trial can properly demonstrate this

> phenomenon....... "

>

> This proposition seems logically flawed to me. If " no trial can

> properly demonstrate " the effectiveness of the therapy one offers,

> then how will we validate its effectiveness (or non-effectiveness)?

>

> " On a more personal note, the needle is nothing, save but an

> extension of my compassion. The only thing that matters in this life

> is proper communication, within ourselves, eachother and the

> Creative Force, simple as that. "

>

> Well, I will liberally grant your last point; it is a simple view

> indeed. The problem is that it has no basis in reality.

>

> If the needle is nothing, why bother with all of the training,

> memorization, education, etc?

>

> Why not just gaze lovingly at and compassionately at the ailing

> person's knee, or spine, or uterus? Tymothy......are you serious?

>

> As for " the Creative Force " that you speak of, I don't even want to

> try to tackle that one. I certainly haven't encoutered any medical

> references such a force in either CM or WM, so I do not see any

> relevance to such a thing in a discussion of medicine.

>

> Sorry to be a dick about it, Tym. But if CM is ultimately just the

> final resting to which we each affix our own mamby pamby ideations

> of healing, then the intelligence and wisdom of actual CM is just

> watered down and eventually lost altogether. What prevails in its

> absence is a diluted hodge-podge of mysticism and new age c-r-a-p.

>

> And unfortunately (but rightly so), this is how the more

> conservative elements of both the medical establishment and

> society at large come to define .

>

> How can that possibly benefit our field?

>

> EM

>

>

>

>

> In Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> <jellyphish@> wrote:

> >

> > EM,

> > Apologies for taking so long to answer you, was on extended

> holiday.

> > To answer your question, i would say that the real question is:

> what

> > is a sham point and how we do we correctly define a proper

> placebo? To

> > that end, how do we define what a " true " acupoint is, in biomedical

> > terms, if that is necessary at all, i am not personally interested

> in

> > what Allopaths think of my work. As a great teacher of mine once

> said

> > " do you not ask the snakes what it is like to fly. "

> >

> > Until these two considerations are properly discussed throughout

> the

> > professional community, and up until they most certainly have not,

> > then all research is highly suspect and the data should be

> questioned.

> >

> > Lastly, what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain

> > removed from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but you

> > will notice that all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment,

> > generally prolonged continual administration of a modifying

> substance.

> > This, however is rarely provocative of healing. This is my work,

> and

> > the work of many on this list. No trial can properly demonstrate

> this

> > phenomenon, and yet it is the only true medicine, all others are

> > merely as to paraphrase Hippocrates distracting so that nature can

> > exert her cure.

> >

> > On a more personal note, the needle is nothing, save but an

> extension

> > of my compassion. The only thing that matters in this life is

> proper

> > communication, within ourselves, eachother and the Creative Force,

> > simple as that.

> >

> > Regards, Tymothy

> >

> > (PS. Thea Elijah gave a great talk some years ago titled " Perrineal

> > Medicine, " which i could not give justice to, but profound in its

> > implications.)

> >

> > >

> > > Tymothy,

> > >

> > > Opponents to acupuncture would argue that if a sham acupuncture

> point

> > > does (as you have said) produce a systemmic effect, then why

> study

> > > acupuncture at all?

> > >

> > > If random needle sticking exerts a systemmic effect comparable

> to

> > > traditional acupuncture, then why not just poke needles into

> bodies

> > > at random?

> > >

> > > EM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- In

> Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Establishment man,

> > > > Having a degree wherein i studied statistical analysis i am

> well

> > > aware

> > > > of the requirements for a clinical trial.

> > > > The use of term " placebo " in a clinical trial for acupuncture

> is

> > > > actually incorrect, as the definition is simply the effect of

> an

> > > INERT

> > > > ingredient (primarily pharmacogolic, as again, a double blind

> trial

> > > > can not rule out human interaction and therefore can not

> control for

> > > > all variables, this alone makes the trials suspect and

> therefore the

> > > > data questionable as any decent researcher would tell you). As

> > > > application of needles in non-acupoint sites is known to cause

> a

> > > > systemic reaction, it can not be a control because it is not

> fails

> > > the

> > > > defintion of placebo.

> > > > I hope this makes it clear, it is really simple science. The

> only

> > > > placebo in such trials is the perception of insertion by the

> patient

> > > > without actual penetration.

> > > > It should be also be stated that the success rate was

> generally

> > > around

> > > > 50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey shoving a needle into

> someone

> > > > will get 50%, my goodness, any first year intern at a TCM

> school is

> > > > getting these kinds of results, and this is the experimental

> > > > (statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.

> > > > Tymothy

> > > >

> > > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Tymothy,

> > > > >

> > > > > The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to

> introduce

> > > a

> > > > > placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:

> > > > >

> > > > > Control - Nothing

> > > > > Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something

> > > > > Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure)

> being

> > > given

> > > > >

> > > > > Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither

> the

> > > doctor

> > > > > nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting a Real

> > > thing

> > > > > or the placebo.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid. However, it

> is

> > > very

> > > > > tricky to excecute.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points to

> the

> > > > > clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary acupuncture.

> > > > >

> > > > > Anyone?

> > > > >

> > > > > EM

> > > > >

> > > > > -- In

> Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > > > > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better

> > > than " sham " ,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is

> > > simply

> > > > > no. I

> > > > > > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of

> a

> > > > > control is

> > > > > > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact

> that we

> > > > > know

> > > > > > that there is a systemic response immediately negates the

> use

> > > of

> > > > > these

> > > > > > " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection

> model

> > > to

> > > > > > choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not

> possible in

> > > > > > Natural Science to objectively quantify work between

> > > individuals,

> > > > > if

> > > > > > it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and

> > > every

> > > > > other

> > > > > > modality that has touch and communication as its central

> > > component

> > > > > > would have pages of peer reviewed material.

> > > > > > My humble opinion is that a proper control must be

> devised, the

> > > > > law of

> > > > > > only double blind analysis must be put away and the

> ability to

> > > > > actual

> > > > > > connect with another person must be taken into account in

> the

> > > > > trials.

> > > > > > Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that

> points

> > > do

> > > > > not

> > > > > > of themselves do anything. To assume such is not

> Acupuncture.

> > > > > > Tymothy

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > > > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > People on another group that I belong to claim that

> > > acupuncture

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > not perform significantly better than a placebo in

> randomized

> > > > > trials.

> > > > > > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the

> > > > > performance of

> > > > > > > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is:

> Acupuncture

> > > > > doesn't

> > > > > > > really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works

> by

> > > way

> > > > > of the

> > > > > > > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical

> > > effectiveness

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals

> such

> > > as

> > > > > cows,

> > > > > > > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex

> > > > > psychological

> > > > > > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or

> > > clinical

> > > > > trials

> > > > > > > describing the success of acupuncture in the treatment

> of

> > > > > livestock to

> > > > > > > help me support this line of debate?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > EM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

EM,

I think most of us and or with others are considering Acupuncture

is not a science, but something else, may be an art or some kinds of

occult or religion.

To me, I think Acupuncture is a science just as WM, not an exact

science. WM has always changed and developed something new constantly,

for this, it is recognized as a superior science of all.

Science means knowledge. This knowledge is based on theory ,

experiment, work, experience,and results, then recorded.

I have studied and done research on Acupuncture and herbology my

own to disregard OM as science , but I could not. There is one thing I

had known, the theory or the reasoning behind the Acupuncture and

Herbology are fixed. I believe sometimes I may call it a " law " . This

is a science and it has been recorded years ago, with dated, and named

of famous acupuncturists and herbologists. There are books, stories

and cases studies and still we are to disbelieve it to be a science. I

do not understand all people, but I think there is a reason for it not

to be in a science. It is politics.

There is a sad thing, non-profit, non-organization, and or no one

to support us to do researching, for this we, OM , is left behind our

younger brother, WM. We are aging with time.

We have not developed any new things or ideas within hundred of

years -except some toys such as machines or equipments, all we have

done is to study and bring the old wisdom out into practice. But there

are many of us have not learned nor mastered the whole truth but only

partial, this is why we all see randomly results as we wish, not a

perfect one.

Like a language, such as words comes into being, replicated or

reproduced, it will remain. If not, they are being forgotten and died,

we called them " dead language " .

How can we expect something as Acupuncture or herbology remain in

existence if they are not growing nor reproducing something fruitful

to go along with or competing with our brother, WM? For reincarnation,

we should do something to make it alive " re-energize " instead of

insulting it or exterminate it.

 

 

Nam Nguyen

[Guest guest]

Tymothy,

 

I think that we agree that most acupuncture research is indeed

suspect. But, taking the part of the Devil's Advocate; isn't it

possible that we are acting irresponsibly by practicing an unproven

medical procedure? In the absence of adequate research (something

that we both agree exists) there is no way to validate what

acupuncture is and is not, what it does and does not do. Without such

validation, are we not all complicit in promoting a therapy that is

questionable at best, possibly worthless, and at worst even harmful?

 

EM

 

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

<jellyphish wrote:

>

> EM,

> With all due respect, you're missing the point.

> The definition of placebo is " perception of possibility of a

modifying

> substance " , there was discussion for some years over how to properly

> administer a placebo agent to an acupuncture trial (and as i have

> quoted from Kaptchuk, the same holds true of any modality where

touch

> is a portion of the treatment, which distorts the data from the

> outset). This included needles that appeared to penetrate,

retractable

> needles, etc.

> An insertion of a needle is simply not a placebo, period.

> Further, there are studies that demonstrate that so called

> " acu-points " (which the Japanese, Master Tong practitioners AND

> French-Vietnamese practitioners would correctly argue against

> geographically) were more effective than the non-agreed upon " sham "

> points.

> But, again this research continues to demonstrate that L.Ac.'s as a

> profession are not strident enough with research, ie. there is

> virtually nothing coming out of America whatsoever. We have not met

as

> a profession to agree upon the proper parameters for trials, until

> this is done ALL research is not only suspect, but in my mind

worthless.

> Tymothy

>

> " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> >

> > Tymothy,

> >

> > Thanks for your thoughtful response. Now, allow me to flame you -

> > (or at least the ideas that you have presented).

> >

> > " the real question is: what is a sham point and how we do we

> > correctly define a proper placebo? To that end, how do we define

> > what a " true " acupoint is...... "

> >

> > This is a very important distinction in terms of acupuncture

> > research.

> >

> > A sham point is a non-defined, non-acupuncture location. A random

> > spot on the body, if you will. Whereas a " true " acupuncture point

> > (for the purpose of research) would be a defined location with

pre-

> > defined clinical applications.

> >

> > Why is this distinction important?

> >

> > While, acupuncturists may be inclined to argue that ANY place

where

> > a needle is inserted will exert some systemic healing action, and

> > therefore insertion of needles anywhere can reasonably be defined

as

> > acupuncture.

> >

> > However, in clinical trials, if sham acupuncture (i.e. insertion

of

> > needles into random sites) performs as well as actual

acupuncture,

> > then it begs the question: " Why bother studying acupuncture

theory,

> > location, etc. at all? "

> >

> > Why not just stick needles into people at random to cure their

> > ailments?

> >

> > " what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain removed

> > from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but you will

> > notice that all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment,

generally

> > prolonged continual administration of a modifying substance.

This,

> > however is rarely provocative of healing. This is my work, and

the

> > work of many on this list. No trial can properly demonstrate this

> > phenomenon....... "

> >

> > This proposition seems logically flawed to me. If " no trial can

> > properly demonstrate " the effectiveness of the therapy one

offers,

> > then how will we validate its effectiveness (or non-

effectiveness)?

> >

> > " On a more personal note, the needle is nothing, save but an

> > extension of my compassion. The only thing that matters in this

life

> > is proper communication, within ourselves, eachother and the

> > Creative Force, simple as that. "

> >

> > Well, I will liberally grant your last point; it is a simple view

> > indeed. The problem is that it has no basis in reality.

> >

> > If the needle is nothing, why bother with all of the training,

> > memorization, education, etc?

> >

> > Why not just gaze lovingly at and compassionately at the ailing

> > person's knee, or spine, or uterus? Tymothy......are you serious?

> >

> > As for " the Creative Force " that you speak of, I don't even want

to

> > try to tackle that one. I certainly haven't encoutered any

medical

> > references such a force in either CM or WM, so I do not see any

> > relevance to such a thing in a discussion of medicine.

> >

> > Sorry to be a dick about it, Tym. But if CM is ultimately just

the

> > final resting to which we each affix our own mamby pamby

ideations

> > of healing, then the intelligence and wisdom of actual CM is just

> > watered down and eventually lost altogether. What prevails in its

> > absence is a diluted hodge-podge of mysticism and new age c-r-a-

p.

> >

> > And unfortunately (but rightly so), this is how the more

> > conservative elements of both the medical establishment and

> > society at large come to define .

> >

> > How can that possibly benefit our field?

> >

> > EM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > In Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > >

> > > EM,

> > > Apologies for taking so long to answer you, was on extended

> > holiday.

> > > To answer your question, i would say that the real question is:

> > what

> > > is a sham point and how we do we correctly define a proper

> > placebo? To

> > > that end, how do we define what a " true " acupoint is, in

biomedical

> > > terms, if that is necessary at all, i am not personally

interested

> > in

> > > what Allopaths think of my work. As a great teacher of mine

once

> > said

> > > " do you not ask the snakes what it is like to fly. "

> > >

> > > Until these two considerations are properly discussed

throughout

> > the

> > > professional community, and up until they most certainly have

not,

> > > then all research is highly suspect and the data should be

> > questioned.

> > >

> > > Lastly, what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain

> > > removed from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but

you

> > > will notice that all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment,

> > > generally prolonged continual administration of a modifying

> > substance.

> > > This, however is rarely provocative of healing. This is my

work,

> > and

> > > the work of many on this list. No trial can properly

demonstrate

> > this

> > > phenomenon, and yet it is the only true medicine, all others are

> > > merely as to paraphrase Hippocrates distracting so that nature

can

> > > exert her cure.

> > >

> > > On a more personal note, the needle is nothing, save but an

> > extension

> > > of my compassion. The only thing that matters in this life is

> > proper

> > > communication, within ourselves, eachother and the Creative

Force,

> > > simple as that.

> > >

> > > Regards, Tymothy

> > >

> > > (PS. Thea Elijah gave a great talk some years ago

titled " Perrineal

> > > Medicine, " which i could not give justice to, but profound in

its

> > > implications.)

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Tymothy,

> > > >

> > > > Opponents to acupuncture would argue that if a sham

acupuncture

> > point

> > > > does (as you have said) produce a systemmic effect, then why

> > study

> > > > acupuncture at all?

> > > >

> > > > If random needle sticking exerts a systemmic effect

comparable

> > to

> > > > traditional acupuncture, then why not just poke needles into

> > bodies

> > > > at random?

> > > >

> > > > EM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- In

> > Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > > > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Establishment man,

> > > > > Having a degree wherein i studied statistical analysis i am

> > well

> > > > aware

> > > > > of the requirements for a clinical trial.

> > > > > The use of term " placebo " in a clinical trial for

acupuncture

> > is

> > > > > actually incorrect, as the definition is simply the effect

of

> > an

> > > > INERT

> > > > > ingredient (primarily pharmacogolic, as again, a double

blind

> > trial

> > > > > can not rule out human interaction and therefore can not

> > control for

> > > > > all variables, this alone makes the trials suspect and

> > therefore the

> > > > > data questionable as any decent researcher would tell you).

As

> > > > > application of needles in non-acupoint sites is known to

cause

> > a

> > > > > systemic reaction, it can not be a control because it is

not

> > fails

> > > > the

> > > > > defintion of placebo.

> > > > > I hope this makes it clear, it is really simple science.

The

> > only

> > > > > placebo in such trials is the perception of insertion by

the

> > patient

> > > > > without actual penetration.

> > > > > It should be also be stated that the success rate was

> > generally

> > > > around

> > > > > 50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey shoving a needle

into

> > someone

> > > > > will get 50%, my goodness, any first year intern at a TCM

> > school is

> > > > > getting these kinds of results, and this is the experimental

> > > > > (statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.

> > > > > Tymothy

> > > > >

> > > > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tymothy,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to

> > introduce

> > > > a

> > > > > > placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Control - Nothing

> > > > > > Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something

> > > > > > Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure)

> > being

> > > > given

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither

> > the

> > > > doctor

> > > > > > nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting a

Real

> > > > thing

> > > > > > or the placebo.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid. However,

it

> > is

> > > > very

> > > > > > tricky to excecute.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points

to

> > the

> > > > > > clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary

acupuncture.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Anyone?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > EM

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -- In

> > Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

> > > > > > <jellyphish@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The question is whether " true " acupuncture is better

> > > > than " sham " ,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > question is this, is sham a proper control? The answer

is

> > > > simply

> > > > > > no. I

> > > > > > > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function

of

> > a

> > > > > > control is

> > > > > > > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact

> > that we

> > > > > > know

> > > > > > > that there is a systemic response immediately negates

the

> > use

> > > > of

> > > > > > these

> > > > > > > " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point

selection

> > model

> > > > to

> > > > > > > choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not

> > possible in

> > > > > > > Natural Science to objectively quantify work between

> > > > individuals,

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > it were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy,

and

> > > > every

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > modality that has touch and communication as its

central

> > > > component

> > > > > > > would have pages of peer reviewed material.

> > > > > > > My humble opinion is that a proper control must be

> > devised, the

> > > > > > law of

> > > > > > > only double blind analysis must be put away and the

> > ability to

> > > > > > actual

> > > > > > > connect with another person must be taken into account

in

> > the

> > > > > > trials.

> > > > > > > Until then, i will rely on what i've seen which is that

> > points

> > > > do

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > of themselves do anything. To assume such is not

> > Acupuncture.

> > > > > > > Tymothy

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chinese Medicine ,

> > > > > > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > People on another group that I belong to claim that

> > > > acupuncture

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > not perform significantly better than a placebo in

> > randomized

> > > > > > trials.

> > > > > > > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal

the

> > > > > > performance of

> > > > > > > > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is:

> > Acupuncture

> > > > > > doesn't

> > > > > > > > really work, but just triggers a placebo effect.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > One of the ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture

works

> > by

> > > > way

> > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical

> > > > effectiveness

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that

animals

> > such

> > > > as

> > > > > > cows,

> > > > > > > > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex

> > > > > > psychological

> > > > > > > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. "

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Can anyone here point me to some good research data

or

> > > > clinical

> > > > > > trials

> > > > > > > > describing the success of acupuncture in the

treatment

> > of

> > > > > > livestock to

> > > > > > > > help me support this line of debate?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > EM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nam,

 

I will have to respectfully disagree with many of your statements.

 

First among them, that Acupuncture is a Science. I think that I am

using a stricter definition of the term - one that includes

adequately controlled studies in large samples, that have consistent

repeatability, and have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

 

When acupuncture can repeatedly and consistently meet that standard,

I will say that " Acupuncture Is a Science, " but not until.

 

Secondly, just because something has a long history, a specialized

nomenclature, and a rich past filled with documentation and peopled

with respected elders does not make it true. Think of Ptolemy and the

Catholic Church - both of whom enjoyed great respect from their

contemperaries and held broad authority. But, scietifically - they

just turned out to be dead wrong!

 

Whoops.

 

So, I think the " It's really old so it must be true " argument is

patently unreliable. So is the " How could billions of people possibly

be wrong " argument for that matter.

 

The ONLY argument that will ultimately silence the critics is the

properly controlled, consistently repeated, adequate sample sized

argument.

 

And isn't that the way it should be?

 

EM

 

Chinese Medicine , " dr_namnguyen58 "

<dr_namnguyen58 wrote:

>

> EM,

> I think most of us and or with others are considering Acupuncture

> is not a science, but something else, may be an art or some kinds of

> occult or religion.

> To me, I think Acupuncture is a science just as WM, not an exact

> science. WM has always changed and developed something new

constantly,

> for this, it is recognized as a superior science of all.

> Science means knowledge. This knowledge is based on theory ,

> experiment, work, experience,and results, then recorded.

> I have studied and done research on Acupuncture and herbology my

> own to disregard OM as science , but I could not. There is one

thing I

> had known, the theory or the reasoning behind the Acupuncture and

> Herbology are fixed. I believe sometimes I may call it a " law " .

This

> is a science and it has been recorded years ago, with dated, and

named

> of famous acupuncturists and herbologists. There are books, stories

> and cases studies and still we are to disbelieve it to be a

science. I

> do not understand all people, but I think there is a reason for it

not

> to be in a science. It is politics.

> There is a sad thing, non-profit, non-organization, and or no one

> to support us to do researching, for this we, OM , is left behind

our

> younger brother, WM. We are aging with time.

> We have not developed any new things or ideas within hundred of

> years -except some toys such as machines or equipments, all we have

> done is to study and bring the old wisdom out into practice. But

there

> are many of us have not learned nor mastered the whole truth but

only

> partial, this is why we all see randomly results as we wish, not a

> perfect one.

> Like a language, such as words comes into being, replicated or

> reproduced, it will remain. If not, they are being forgotten and

died,

> we called them " dead language " .

> How can we expect something as Acupuncture or herbology remain in

> existence if they are not growing nor reproducing something fruitful

> to go along with or competing with our brother, WM? For

reincarnation,

> we should do something to make it alive " re-energize " instead of

> insulting it or exterminate it.

>

>

> Nam Nguyen

>

[Guest guest]

EM,

 

You seem to have a patent disregard for TCM. I am curious to know why

you are on this list, if you hold these views?

 

Respectfully yours,

 

Mark

 

On Jan 18, 2008 9:18 AM, establishment_man <establishment_man wrote:

> Nam,

>

> I will have to respectfully disagree with many of your statements.

>

> First among them, that Acupuncture is a Science. I think that I am

> using a stricter definition of the term - one that includes

> adequately controlled studies in large samples, that have consistent

> repeatability, and have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

>

> When acupuncture can repeatedly and consistently meet that standard,

> I will say that " Acupuncture Is a Science, " but not until.

>

> Secondly, just because something has a long history, a specialized

> nomenclature, and a rich past filled with documentation and peopled

> with respected elders does not make it true. Think of Ptolemy and the

> Catholic Church - both of whom enjoyed great respect from their

> contemperaries and held broad authority. But, scietifically - they

> just turned out to be dead wrong!

>

> Whoops.

>

> So, I think the " It's really old so it must be true " argument is

> patently unreliable. So is the " How could billions of people possibly

> be wrong " argument for that matter.

>

> The ONLY argument that will ultimately silence the critics is the

> properly controlled, consistently repeated, adequate sample sized

> argument.

>

> And isn't that the way it should be?

>

> EM

>

> Chinese Medicine , " dr_namnguyen58 "

>

>

> <dr_namnguyen58 wrote:

> >

> > EM,

> > I think most of us and or with others are considering Acupuncture

> > is not a science, but something else, may be an art or some kinds of

> > occult or religion.

> > To me, I think Acupuncture is a science just as WM, not an exact

> > science. WM has always changed and developed something new

> constantly,

> > for this, it is recognized as a superior science of all.

> > Science means knowledge. This knowledge is based on theory ,

> > experiment, work, experience,and results, then recorded.

> > I have studied and done research on Acupuncture and herbology my

> > own to disregard OM as science , but I could not. There is one

> thing I

> > had known, the theory or the reasoning behind the Acupuncture and

> > Herbology are fixed. I believe sometimes I may call it a " law " .

> This

> > is a science and it has been recorded years ago, with dated, and

> named

> > of famous acupuncturists and herbologists. There are books, stories

> > and cases studies and still we are to disbelieve it to be a

> science. I

> > do not understand all people, but I think there is a reason for it

> not

> > to be in a science. It is politics.

> > There is a sad thing, non-profit, non-organization, and or no one

> > to support us to do researching, for this we, OM , is left behind

> our

> > younger brother, WM. We are aging with time.

> > We have not developed any new things or ideas within hundred of

> > years -except some toys such as machines or equipments, all we have

> > done is to study and bring the old wisdom out into practice. But

> there

> > are many of us have not learned nor mastered the whole truth but

> only

> > partial, this is why we all see randomly results as we wish, not a

> > perfect one.

> > Like a language, such as words comes into being, replicated or

> > reproduced, it will remain. If not, they are being forgotten and

> died,

> > we called them " dead language " .

> > How can we expect something as Acupuncture or herbology remain in

> > existence if they are not growing nor reproducing something fruitful

> > to go along with or competing with our brother, WM? For

> reincarnation,

> > we should do something to make it alive " re-energize " instead of

> > insulting it or exterminate it.

> >

> >

> > Nam Nguyen

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear EM,

 

This medicine (TCM) has been around for at least a couple of thousand years and

is not unproven nor is it experimental. TCM is about as experimental as the

Chinese language itself. Going back to western allopathic medicine, only about

22% of it's techniques have been proven with double-blinded studies, the other

80% is simply considered " accepted standard procedure. " Therefore, do allopaths

just stop practicing also? This is not reasonable and I agree that all

medicines should be outcome based. Double blind placebo controlled studies only

work well with internal medicine. For instance, how do you do a double blind

study on surgery? And acupuncture is more closely akin to surgery than drugs.

 

Well, this is only my opinion and like everyone elses probably doesn't mean

much. But I believe medical outcomes should be comparative. Perhaps, as an

example, taking 100 or 500 each asthma or LBP patients for OM, DC, and allopaths

and comparing the results after each has done whatever their medicine has to

offer a patient, THEN compare the results.

 

Thanks for your time,

 

Donald J. Snow, Jr., DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

:

establishment_man: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:01:19 +0000TCM -

Re: Acupuncture and The Placebo Effect

 

 

 

 

Tymothy,I think that we agree that most acupuncture research is indeed suspect.

But, taking the part of the Devil's Advocate; isn't it possible that we are

acting irresponsibly by practicing an unproven medical procedure? In the absence

of adequate research (something that we both agree exists) there is no way to

validate what acupuncture is and is not, what it does and does not do. Without

such validation, are we not all complicit in promoting a therapy that is

questionable at best, possibly worthless, and at worst even harmful?EM--- In

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 " <jellyphish

wrote:>> EM,> With all due respect, you're missing the point.> The definition of

placebo is " perception of possibility of a modifying> substance " , there was

discussion for some years over how to properly> administer a placebo agent to an

acupuncture trial (and as i have> quoted from Kaptchuk, the same holds true of

any modality where touch> is a portion of the treatment, which distorts the data

from the> outset). This included needles that appeared to penetrate,

retractable> needles, etc. > An insertion of a needle is simply not a placebo,

period. > Further, there are studies that demonstrate that so called>

" acu-points " (which the Japanese, Master Tong practitioners AND>

French-Vietnamese practitioners would correctly argue against> geographically)

were more effective than the non-agreed upon " sham " > points. > But, again this

research continues to demonstrate that L.Ac.'s as a> profession are not strident

enough with research, ie. there is> virtually nothing coming out of America

whatsoever. We have not met as> a profession to agree upon the proper parameters

for trials, until> this is done ALL research is not only suspect, but in my mind

worthless.> Tymothy> > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote:> >> >

Tymothy,> > > > Thanks for your thoughtful response. Now, allow me to flame you

- > > (or at least the ideas that you have presented).> > > > " the real question

is: what is a sham point and how we do we > > correctly define a proper placebo?

To that end, how do we define > > what a " true " acupoint is...... " > > > > This

is a very important distinction in terms of acupuncture > > research. > > > > A

sham point is a non-defined, non-acupuncture location. A random > > spot on the

body, if you will. Whereas a " true " acupuncture point > > (for the purpose of

research) would be a defined location with pre-> > defined clinical

applications.> > > > Why is this distinction important? > > > > While,

acupuncturists may be inclined to argue that ANY place where > > a needle is

inserted will exert some systemic healing action, and > > therefore insertion of

needles anywhere can reasonably be defined as > > acupuncture.> > > > However,

in clinical trials, if sham acupuncture (i.e. insertion of > > needles into

random sites) performs as well as actual acupuncture, > > then it begs the

question: " Why bother studying acupuncture theory, > > location, etc. at all? " >

> > > Why not just stick needles into people at random to cure their > >

ailments?> > > > " what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain

removed > > from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but you will > >

notice that all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment, generally > > prolonged

continual administration of a modifying substance. This, > > however is rarely

provocative of healing. This is my work, and the > > work of many on this list.

No trial can properly demonstrate this> > phenomenon....... " > > > > This

proposition seems logically flawed to me. If " no trial can > > properly

demonstrate " the effectiveness of the therapy one offers, > > then how will we

validate its effectiveness (or non-effectiveness)?> > > > " On a more personal

note, the needle is nothing, save but an > > extension of my compassion. The

only thing that matters in this life > > is proper communication, within

ourselves, eachother and the > > Creative Force, simple as that. " > > > > Well, I

will liberally grant your last point; it is a simple view > > indeed. The

problem is that it has no basis in reality.> > > > If the needle is nothing, why

bother with all of the training, > > memorization, education, etc?> > > > Why

not just gaze lovingly at and compassionately at the ailing > > person's knee,

or spine, or uterus? Tymothy......are you serious?> > > > As for " the Creative

Force " that you speak of, I don't even want to > > try to tackle that one. I

certainly haven't encoutered any medical > > references such a force in either

CM or WM, so I do not see any > > relevance to such a thing in a discussion of

medicine.> > > > Sorry to be a dick about it, Tym. But if CM is ultimately just

the > > final resting to which we each affix our own mamby pamby ideations > >

of healing, then the intelligence and wisdom of actual CM is just > > watered

down and eventually lost altogether. What prevails in its > > absence is a

diluted hodge-podge of mysticism and new age c-r-a-p. > > > > And unfortunately

(but rightly so), this is how the more > > conservative elements of both the

medical establishment and > > society at large come to define .>

> > > How can that possibly benefit our field? > > > > EM> > > > > > > > > > In

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 " > > <jellyphish@>

wrote:> > >> > > EM,> > > Apologies for taking so long to answer you, was on

extended > > holiday.> > > To answer your question, i would say that the real

question is: > > what> > > is a sham point and how we do we correctly define a

proper > > placebo? To> > > that end, how do we define what a " true " acupoint

is, in biomedical> > > terms, if that is necessary at all, i am not personally

interested > > in> > > what Allopaths think of my work. As a great teacher of

mine once > > said> > > " do you not ask the snakes what it is like to fly. " > > >

> > > Until these two considerations are properly discussed throughout > > the>

> > professional community, and up until they most certainly have not,> > > then

all research is highly suspect and the data should be > > questioned.> > > > > >

Lastly, what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain> > > removed

from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but you> > > will notice

that all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment,> > > generally prolonged

continual administration of a modifying > > substance.> > > This, however is

rarely provocative of healing. This is my work, > > and> > > the work of many on

this list. No trial can properly demonstrate > > this> > > phenomenon, and yet

it is the only true medicine, all others are> > > merely as to paraphrase

Hippocrates distracting so that nature can> > > exert her cure.> > > > > > On a

more personal note, the needle is nothing, save but an > > extension> > > of my

compassion. The only thing that matters in this life is > > proper> > >

communication, within ourselves, eachother and the Creative Force,> > > simple

as that.> > > > > > Regards, Tymothy> > > > > > (PS. Thea Elijah gave a great

talk some years ago titled " Perrineal> > > Medicine, " which i could not give

justice to, but profound in its> > > implications.)> > > > > > >> > > >

Tymothy,> > > > > > > > Opponents to acupuncture would argue that if a sham

acupuncture > > point > > > > does (as you have said) produce a systemmic

effect, then why > > study > > > > acupuncture at all?> > > > > > > > If random

needle sticking exerts a systemmic effect comparable > > to > > > > traditional

acupuncture, then why not just poke needles into > > bodies > > > > at random? >

> > > > > > > EM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 " > > > > <jellyphish@>

wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Establishment man,> > > > > Having a degree wherein i

studied statistical analysis i am > > well > > > > aware> > > > > of the

requirements for a clinical trial. > > > > > The use of term " placebo " in a

clinical trial for acupuncture > > is> > > > > actually incorrect, as the

definition is simply the effect of > > an > > > > INERT> > > > > ingredient

(primarily pharmacogolic, as again, a double blind > > trial> > > > > can not

rule out human interaction and therefore can not > > control for> > > > > all

variables, this alone makes the trials suspect and > > therefore the> > > > >

data questionable as any decent researcher would tell you). As> > > > >

application of needles in non-acupoint sites is known to cause > > a> > > > >

systemic reaction, it can not be a control because it is not > > fails > > > >

the> > > > > defintion of placebo. > > > > > I hope this makes it clear, it is

really simple science. The > > only> > > > > placebo in such trials is the

perception of insertion by the > > patient> > > > > without actual penetration.>

> > > > It should be also be stated that the success rate was > > generally > >

> > around> > > > > 50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey shoving a needle into

> > someone> > > > > will get 50%, my goodness, any first year intern at a TCM >

> school is> > > > > getting these kinds of results, and this is the

experimental> > > > > (statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.> >

> > > Tymothy> > > > > > > > > > --- In

Chinese Medicine ,> > > > > " establishment_man "

<establishment_man@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Tymothy,> > > > > > > > > > >

> The point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to > > introduce > > > > a

> > > > > > placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:> > > > > >

> > > > > > Control - Nothing> > > > > > Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like

something> > > > > > Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure) >

> being > > > > given> > > > > > > > > > > > Such studies should also be double

blinded, where neither > > the > > > > doctor > > > > > > nor the patient knows

whether or not they are getting a Real > > > > thing > > > > > > or the

placebo.> > > > > > > > > > > > So, I think the " sham " idea is perfectly valid.

However, it > > is > > > > very > > > > > > tricky to excecute.> > > > > > > > >

> > > I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that points to > > the > > >

> > > clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary acupuncture.> > > > > > > >

> > > > Anyone?> > > > > > > > > > > > EM> > > > > > > > > > > > -- In > >

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 " > > > > > >

<jellyphish@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > The question is whether " true "

acupuncture is better > > > > than " sham " , > > > > > > the> > > > > > > question

is this, is sham a proper control? The answer is > > > > simply > > > > > > no.

I> > > > > > > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of > > a >

> > > > > control is> > > > > > > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered,

the fact > > that we > > > > > > know> > > > > > > that there is a systemic

response immediately negates the > > use > > > > of > > > > > > these> > > > > >

> " sham " points. Next, TCM is not the only point selection > > model > > > > to>

> > > > > > choose from. Lastly and most importantly, it is not > > possible in>

> > > > > > Natural Science to objectively quantify work between > > > >

individuals, > > > > > > if> > > > > > > it were than manual therapy,

chiropractic, osteopathy, and > > > > every > > > > > > other> > > > > > >

modality that has touch and communication as its central > > > > component> > >

> > > > would have pages of peer reviewed material. > > > > > > > My humble

opinion is that a proper control must be > > devised, the > > > > > > law of> >

> > > > > only double blind analysis must be put away and the > > ability to > >

> > > > actual> > > > > > > connect with another person must be taken into

account in > > the > > > > > > trials.> > > > > > > Until then, i will rely on

what i've seen which is that > > points > > > > do > > > > > > not> > > > > > >

of themselves do anything. To assume such is not > > Acupuncture.> > > > > > >

Tymothy> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

Chinese Medicine ,> > > > > > > " establishment_man "

<establishment_man@> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > People on another

group that I belong to claim that > > > > acupuncture > > > > > > does > > > > >

> > > not perform significantly better than a placebo in > > randomized > > > >

> > trials.> > > > > > > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal

the > > > > > > performance of > > > > > > > > actual acupuncture). The natural

conclusion is: > > Acupuncture > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > really work,

but just triggers a placebo effect.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the

ways I like to refute the " Acupuncture works > > by > > > > way > > > > > > of

the > > > > > > > > placebo effect " argument is by citing the clinical > > > >

effectiveness > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > veterinary acupuncture. Most people

agree that animals > > such > > > > as > > > > > > cows, > > > > > > > > horses

and pigs are relatively immune to the complex > > > > > > psychological > > > >

> > > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or > > > > clinical > >

> > > > trials > > > > > > > > describing the success of acupuncture in the

treatment > > of > > > > > > livestock to > > > > > > > > help me support this

line of debate?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > EM> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This sham acupunctue subject is intriguing. However, I really don't think sham

acupuncture is possible. If anyone has studyed Master Tong's acupuncture or

read any books from Dr. Richard Tan, or even looked at the pre-Mao Ts Tung

acupuncture theory, there is no part of the body that cannot be an acupuncture

point since we in TCM use microcosm and mirroring techniques. All parts of the

body contain points, not just meridian theory acupuncture.

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

 

 

:

jellyphish: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:34:15 +0000Re:

Acupuncture and The Placebo Effect

 

 

 

 

EM,With all due respect, you're missing the point.The definition of placebo is

" perception of possibility of a modifyingsubstance " , there was discussion for

some years over how to properlyadminister a placebo agent to an acupuncture

trial (and as i havequoted from Kaptchuk, the same holds true of any modality

where touchis a portion of the treatment, which distorts the data from

theoutset). This included needles that appeared to penetrate,

retractableneedles, etc. An insertion of a needle is simply not a placebo,

period. Further, there are studies that demonstrate that so called " acu-points "

(which the Japanese, Master Tong practitioners ANDFrench-Vietnamese

practitioners would correctly argue againstgeographically) were more effective

than the non-agreed upon " sham " points. But, again this research continues to

demonstrate that L.Ac.'s as aprofession are not strident enough with research,

ie. there isvirtually nothing coming out of America whatsoever. We have not met

asa profession to agree upon the proper parameters for trials, untilthis is done

ALL research is not only suspect, but in my mind

worthless.Tymothy " establishment_man " <establishment_man wrote:>> Tymothy,>

> Thanks for your thoughtful response. Now, allow me to flame you - > (or at

least the ideas that you have presented).> > " the real question is: what is a

sham point and how we do we > correctly define a proper placebo? To that end,

how do we define > what a " true " acupoint is...... " > > This is a very important

distinction in terms of acupuncture > research. > > A sham point is a

non-defined, non-acupuncture location. A random > spot on the body, if you will.

Whereas a " true " acupuncture point > (for the purpose of research) would be a

defined location with pre-> defined clinical applications.> > Why is this

distinction important? > > While, acupuncturists may be inclined to argue that

ANY place where > a needle is inserted will exert some systemic healing action,

and > therefore insertion of needles anywhere can reasonably be defined as >

acupuncture.> > However, in clinical trials, if sham acupuncture (i.e. insertion

of > needles into random sites) performs as well as actual acupuncture, > then

it begs the question: " Why bother studying acupuncture theory, > location, etc.

at all? " > > Why not just stick needles into people at random to cure their >

ailments?> > " what truly is healing? To say that someone has the pain removed >

from their knee is objectively seen to some degree, but you will > notice that

all Biomedicine focuses itself on treatment, generally > prolonged continual

administration of a modifying substance. This, > however is rarely provocative

of healing. This is my work, and the > work of many on this list. No trial can

properly demonstrate this> phenomenon....... " > > This proposition seems

logically flawed to me. If " no trial can > properly demonstrate " the

effectiveness of the therapy one offers, > then how will we validate its

effectiveness (or non-effectiveness)?> > " On a more personal note, the needle is

nothing, save but an > extension of my compassion. The only thing that matters

in this life > is proper communication, within ourselves, eachother and the >

Creative Force, simple as that. " > > Well, I will liberally grant your last

point; it is a simple view > indeed. The problem is that it has no basis in

reality.> > If the needle is nothing, why bother with all of the training, >

memorization, education, etc?> > Why not just gaze lovingly at and

compassionately at the ailing > person's knee, or spine, or uterus?

Tymothy......are you serious?> > As for " the Creative Force " that you speak of,

I don't even want to > try to tackle that one. I certainly haven't encoutered

any medical > references such a force in either CM or WM, so I do not see any >

relevance to such a thing in a discussion of medicine.> > Sorry to be a dick

about it, Tym. But if CM is ultimately just the > final resting to which we each

affix our own mamby pamby ideations > of healing, then the intelligence and

wisdom of actual CM is just > watered down and eventually lost altogether. What

prevails in its > absence is a diluted hodge-podge of mysticism and new age

c-r-a-p. > > And unfortunately (but rightly so), this is how the more >

conservative elements of both the medical establishment and > society at large

come to define .> > How can that possibly benefit our field? > >

EM> > > > > In Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 " >

<jellyphish@> wrote:> >> > EM,> > Apologies for taking so long to answer you,

was on extended > holiday.> > To answer your question, i would say that the real

question is: > what> > is a sham point and how we do we correctly define a

proper > placebo? To> > that end, how do we define what a " true " acupoint is, in

biomedical> > terms, if that is necessary at all, i am not personally interested

> in> > what Allopaths think of my work. As a great teacher of mine once > said>

> " do you not ask the snakes what it is like to fly. " > > > > Until these two

considerations are properly discussed throughout > the> > professional

community, and up until they most certainly have not,> > then all research is

highly suspect and the data should be > questioned.> > > > Lastly, what truly is

healing? To say that someone has the pain> > removed from their knee is

objectively seen to some degree, but you> > will notice that all Biomedicine

focuses itself on treatment,> > generally prolonged continual administration of

a modifying > substance.> > This, however is rarely provocative of healing. This

is my work, > and> > the work of many on this list. No trial can properly

demonstrate > this> > phenomenon, and yet it is the only true medicine, all

others are> > merely as to paraphrase Hippocrates distracting so that nature

can> > exert her cure.> > > > On a more personal note, the needle is nothing,

save but an > extension> > of my compassion. The only thing that matters in this

life is > proper> > communication, within ourselves, eachother and the Creative

Force,> > simple as that.> > > > Regards, Tymothy> > > > (PS. Thea Elijah gave a

great talk some years ago titled " Perrineal> > Medicine, " which i could not give

justice to, but profound in its> > implications.)> > > > >> > > Tymothy,> > > >

> > Opponents to acupuncture would argue that if a sham acupuncture > point > >

> does (as you have said) produce a systemmic effect, then why > study > > >

acupuncture at all?> > > > > > If random needle sticking exerts a systemmic

effect comparable > to > > > traditional acupuncture, then why not just poke

needles into > bodies > > > at random? > > > > > > EM> > > > > > > > > > > > ---

In > Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 " > > >

<jellyphish@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Establishment man,> > > > Having a degree

wherein i studied statistical analysis i am > well > > > aware> > > > of the

requirements for a clinical trial. > > > > The use of term " placebo " in a

clinical trial for acupuncture > is> > > > actually incorrect, as the definition

is simply the effect of > an > > > INERT> > > > ingredient (primarily

pharmacogolic, as again, a double blind > trial> > > > can not rule out human

interaction and therefore can not > control for> > > > all variables, this alone

makes the trials suspect and > therefore the> > > > data questionable as any

decent researcher would tell you). As> > > > application of needles in

non-acupoint sites is known to cause > a> > > > systemic reaction, it can not be

a control because it is not > fails > > > the> > > > defintion of placebo. > > >

> I hope this makes it clear, it is really simple science. The > only> > > >

placebo in such trials is the perception of insertion by the > patient> > > >

without actual penetration.> > > > It should be also be stated that the success

rate was > generally > > > around> > > > 50% (in the recent trials). Any monkey

shoving a needle into > someone> > > > will get 50%, my goodness, any first year

intern at a TCM > school is> > > > getting these kinds of results, and this is

the experimental> > > > (statistical term) data? That's just poor acupuncture.>

> > > Tymothy> > > > > > > > --- In

Chinese Medicine ,> > > > " establishment_man "

<establishment_man@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Tymothy,> > > > > > > > > > The

point of sham acupuncture in clinical trials is to > introduce > > > a > > > > >

placebo. Usually in drug trials, there are three groups:> > > > > > > > > >

Control - Nothing> > > > > Placebo - Nothing that " seems " like something> > > >

> Real - The actual substance (or in this case - procedure) > being > > > given>

> > > > > > > > > Such studies should also be double blinded, where neither >

the > > > doctor > > > > > nor the patient knows whether or not they are getting

a Real > > > thing > > > > > or the placebo.> > > > > > > > > > So, I think the

" sham " idea is perfectly valid. However, it > is > > > very > > > > > tricky to

excecute.> > > > > > > > > > I am looking for strong, compelling evidence that

points to > the > > > > > clinical efficacy of acupuncture in veterinary

acupuncture.> > > > > > > > > > Anyone?> > > > > > > > > > EM> > > > > > > > > >

-- In > Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 " > > > > >

<jellyphish@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > The question is whether " true "

acupuncture is better > > > than " sham " , > > > > > the> > > > > > question is

this, is sham a proper control? The answer is > > > simply > > > > > no. I> > >

> > > won't go into all the sorted details, but the function of > a > > > > >

control is> > > > > > to see what happens when " nothing " is offered, the fact >

that we > > > > > know> > > > > > that there is a systemic response immediately

negates the > use > > > of > > > > > these> > > > > > " sham " points. Next, TCM

is not the only point selection > model > > > to> > > > > > choose from. Lastly

and most importantly, it is not > possible in> > > > > > Natural Science to

objectively quantify work between > > > individuals, > > > > > if> > > > > > it

were than manual therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, and > > > every > > > > >

other> > > > > > modality that has touch and communication as its central > > >

component> > > > > > would have pages of peer reviewed material. > > > > > > My

humble opinion is that a proper control must be > devised, the > > > > > law of>

> > > > > only double blind analysis must be put away and the > ability to > > >

> > actual> > > > > > connect with another person must be taken into account in

> the > > > > > trials.> > > > > > Until then, i will rely on what i've seen

which is that > points > > > do > > > > > not> > > > > > of themselves do

anything. To assume such is not > Acupuncture.> > > > > > Tymothy> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

Chinese Medicine ,> > > > > > " establishment_man "

<establishment_man@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > People on another group

that I belong to claim that > > > acupuncture > > > > > does > > > > > > > not

perform significantly better than a placebo in > randomized > > > > > trials.> >

> > > > > (i.e. the outcomes of sham acupuncture nearly equal the > > > > >

performance of > > > > > > > actual acupuncture). The natural conclusion is: >

Acupuncture > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > really work, but just triggers a

placebo effect.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the ways I like to refute the

" Acupuncture works > by > > > way > > > > > of the > > > > > > > placebo effect "

argument is by citing the clinical > > > effectiveness > > > > > of > > > > > >

> veterinary acupuncture. Most people agree that animals > such > > > as > > > >

> cows, > > > > > > > horses and pigs are relatively immune to the complex > > >

> > psychological > > > > > > > processes taht comprise the " placebo effect. " > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone here point me to some good research data or >

> > clinical > > > > > trials > > > > > > > describing the success of

acupuncture in the treatment > of > > > > > livestock to > > > > > > > help me

support this line of debate?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > EM> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mark,

 

That is a fair observation.

 

It is not a patent disregard. It is a justified skepticism. I deal

with a lot of doctors and skeptics and critics of TCM.

 

I am largely parroting the criticisms that they have lodged, but

having listened to such criticisms of acupuncture and TCM for so many

years, I have come to agree with most of them.

 

Why should we continue to advertise clinical effects that have not

been sufficiently scrutinized? Why should Chinese " medicine " be given

a free pass with regard to both the scientific process and the FDA?

 

I think that it should be squeezed hard to find out what is and is

not valid about TCM. If it is as good as advertised - why should we

as acupuncturists fear the scrutiny?

 

And I do not think that I should be regarded as a TCM heretic for

demanding that this medicine stand up to the test of scientific

scrutiny.

 

EM

 

 

Chinese Medicine , " Mark Milotay "

<mark wrote:

>

> EM,

>

> You seem to have a patent disregard for TCM. I am curious to know

why

> you are on this list, if you hold these views?

>

> Respectfully yours,

>

> Mark

>

> On Jan 18, 2008 9:18 AM, establishment_man <establishment_man

wrote:

> > Nam,

> >

> > I will have to respectfully disagree with many of your

statements.

> >

> > First among them, that Acupuncture is a Science. I think that I

am

> > using a stricter definition of the term - one that includes

> > adequately controlled studies in large samples, that have

consistent

> > repeatability, and have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

> >

> > When acupuncture can repeatedly and consistently meet that

standard,

> > I will say that " Acupuncture Is a Science, " but not until.

> >

> > Secondly, just because something has a long history, a

specialized

> > nomenclature, and a rich past filled with documentation and

peopled

> > with respected elders does not make it true. Think of Ptolemy

and the

> > Catholic Church - both of whom enjoyed great respect from their

> > contemperaries and held broad authority. But, scietifically -

they

> > just turned out to be dead wrong!

> >

> > Whoops.

> >

> > So, I think the " It's really old so it must be true " argument is

> > patently unreliable. So is the " How could billions of people

possibly

> > be wrong " argument for that matter.

> >

> > The ONLY argument that will ultimately silence the critics is the

> > properly controlled, consistently repeated, adequate sample sized

> > argument.

> >

> > And isn't that the way it should be?

> >

> > EM

> >

> > --- In

Chinese Medicine , " dr_namnguyen58 "

> >

> >

> > <dr_namnguyen58@> wrote:

> > >

> > > EM,

> > > I think most of us and or with others are considering

Acupuncture

> > > is not a science, but something else, may be an art or some

kinds of

> > > occult or religion.

> > > To me, I think Acupuncture is a science just as WM, not an

exact

> > > science. WM has always changed and developed something new

> > constantly,

> > > for this, it is recognized as a superior science of all.

> > > Science means knowledge. This knowledge is based on theory ,

> > > experiment, work, experience,and results, then recorded.

> > > I have studied and done research on Acupuncture and herbology

my

> > > own to disregard OM as science , but I could not. There is one

> > thing I

> > > had known, the theory or the reasoning behind the Acupuncture

and

> > > Herbology are fixed. I believe sometimes I may call it a "

law " .

> > This

> > > is a science and it has been recorded years ago, with dated,

and

> > named

> > > of famous acupuncturists and herbologists. There are books,

stories

> > > and cases studies and still we are to disbelieve it to be a

> > science. I

> > > do not understand all people, but I think there is a reason

for it

> > not

> > > to be in a science. It is politics.

> > > There is a sad thing, non-profit, non-organization, and or no

one

> > > to support us to do researching, for this we, OM , is left

behind

> > our

> > > younger brother, WM. We are aging with time.

> > > We have not developed any new things or ideas within hundred of

> > > years -except some toys such as machines or equipments, all we

have

> > > done is to study and bring the old wisdom out into practice.

But

> > there

> > > are many of us have not learned nor mastered the whole truth

but

> > only

> > > partial, this is why we all see randomly results as we wish,

not a

> > > perfect one.

> > > Like a language, such as words comes into being, replicated or

> > > reproduced, it will remain. If not, they are being forgotten

and

> > died,

> > > we called them " dead language " .

> > > How can we expect something as Acupuncture or herbology remain

in

> > > existence if they are not growing nor reproducing something

fruitful

> > > to go along with or competing with our brother, WM? For

> > reincarnation,

> > > we should do something to make it alive " re-energize "

instead of

> > > insulting it or exterminate it.

> > >

> > >

> > > Nam Nguyen

> > >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

EM,

The term 'unproven medical procedure' is the height of arrogance

in the medical profession, since 70% or more mainstream medical

treatments are not evidence based or proven.

 

 

On Jan 18, 2008, at 9:01 AM, establishment_man wrote:

 

> Tymothy,

>

> I think that we agree that most acupuncture research is indeed

> suspect. But, taking the part of the Devil's Advocate; isn't it

> possible that we are acting irresponsibly by practicing an unproven

> medical procedure? In the absence of adequate research (something

> that we both agree exists) there is no way to validate what

> acupuncture is and is not, what it does and does not do. Without such

> validation, are we not all complicit in promoting a therapy that is

> questionable at best, possibly worthless, and at worst even harmful?

>

> EM

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

To me if the word placebo does not apply (who cares), then may be we should say

a monkey can do as well as lic practitioner, that is the point of doing a sham

treatment study. Does acup points make the difference. The bigger problem is

that when a study such as this fails the headline is " acupuncture " failed not

this protocol failed. We need to get this message out. To defend an outcome were

" real " did not do better than sham is ridiculous and only makes us look stupid

and rigid in belief regardless of evidence.