Guest guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 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/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 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 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 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 > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2008 Report Share Posted January 2, 2008 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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 > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.