Traditional Chinese "Medicine" - Acupuncture

SebBerkovich

The Irish Times today coughed up this infuriating work of Ignorance...

In which it actually equates our understanding on how Kidney's work equally to TCM's view.

Many people have a vague idea that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is based on a completely different understanding of the body than western medicine. For instance, in western medicine, the kidneys are organs that preserve the chemical balance of blood by filtering it and producing urine. In TCM, however, the kidneys store the body’s “essence” and produce marrow and manufacture blood.

It could do with perhaps a little disclaimer: "if you were to implement treatments based on TCM, you'd be murdering people"

Honestly... how do people conjure up the ignorance needed to fall for this!

Dave!

FFS

Ah, well - by week's end they'll publish a letter or article by David Robert Grimes responding to that

I'll probably write a letter too. They never publish my sh*t though Which I think is the greatest injustice of all

Dave!

Just sent my letter!

edit

If anyone cares

Sir,

Sylvia Thompson's article ("Understanding acupuncture through eastern and western medical traditions", 9th April) quotes Richard Halvorsen as saying: "I no longer believed literally what I was being taught but saw this way of explaining the body as a template on which to devise a traditional Chinese treatment." If the explanation is not literally true, then it serves only as a distraction from the literal understanding of the physical body, which has guided the medical advances we have seen since modern medical research began.

It is also amusing to see the article reference Deirdre Murphy's indignation at the bastardisation of acupuncture by its use as an "add-on" treatment rather than strict adherence to the principles of TCM. The notions of an essence, acupuncture points and meridians have no basis in science; they are entirely theoretical and unsubstantiated ideas. In reality, studies show that in blinded experiments where the subject can't see what they are being treated with, a toothpick pushing on a random location on the skin—so-called "sham" acupuncture, a tautology if ever I heard one—is just as efficacious as a needle being carefully inserted into the specific acupuncture point.

Yours, etc.,

magicbastarder

i've always understood that acupuncture does stand out in that there are effects which cannot be easily explained.

TCM is another matter - especially in that it's difficult to get TCM which lives up to the T in TCM - i think it was in ben goldacre's 'bad science' that he mentioned that most TCM remedies tested included prescription medicine - including some samples containing medicine licenced only for the use in the terminally ill.

Sarky

The human nervous system is complex and messy, and bits link to other bits for no particular reason, so you can scratch an itch on your cheek and suddenly you develop an itch on your foot. It's certainly plausible that sticking needles here and there could have useful effects on other parts of the body.

King Mob

Sarky wrote: »

The human nervous system is complex and messy, and bits link to other bits for no particular reason, so you can scratch an itch on your cheek and suddenly you develop an itch on your foot. It's certainly plausible that sticking needles here and there could have useful effects on other parts of the body.

But acupuncture works on a pre-scientific notion that there is a system of mystical energy lines running through the body and that blockages in these energy lines are what cause various diseases and aliments and these blockages can be removed by manipulating various points in this system.

However in trials, it is shown that acupuncture is just as effective if you don't use the right points and simply stick needles wherever or when you use fake needles that never actually break the skin.

Zombrex

Sarky wrote: »

The human nervous system is complex and messy, and bits link to other bits for no particular reason, so you can scratch an itch on your cheek and suddenly you develop an itch on your foot. It's certainly plausible that sticking needles here and there could have useful effects on other parts of the body.

I would rather those doing the sticking had a bit better understanding of why that was happening than ancient mystical notions.

Imagine if your doctor prescribed you a drug and then told you the way to work out how much to take each day was to measure the size of the moon in relation to Jupiter.

While you would probably say it is plausible the drug will do something, your doctors explanation of the mechanics would not fill you with a lot of confidence

Zombrex

SebBerkovich wrote: »

The Irish Times today coughed up this infuriating work of Ignorance...

In which it actually equates our understanding on how Kidney's work equally to TCM's view.



It could do with perhaps a little disclaimer: "if you were to implement treatments based on TCM, you'd be murdering people"

Honestly... how do people conjure up the ignorance needed to fall for this!

The privilege that ancient medicine gets by just sticking "eastern" or "Chinese" in front of it truly is baffling. Imagine if you said Try this remedy, it is what pig farms in 4th century Britain were rubbing on their faces to prevent small pox. People would recoil in horror.

I can't work out if this is some sort of reverse racism (we can't say they didn't know what they were doing, that would be racist), or this notion of the noble mysticism of far away lands.

Sarky

Oh I'm not defending the mystical voodoo stuff. I'm suggesting what usually happens: People happen across something that works, and associate all the wrong stuff with it. Most of the time folk remedies that actually work tend to have some reason for their working. Some mystical oriental drink might be full of antioxidants or contain bacteria that complement the gut fauna of immunocompromised people, things like that.

Any useful effects of acupuncture are probably bound up in a mess of nerve bundles, placebo effects and other such factors.

Dades

My missis used to get acupuncture years ago. She even had one of those pin things they put in your ear. Worked for her. (Though of course toothpicks might have too...)

Zombrex

King Mob wrote: »

But acupuncture works on a pre-scientific notion that there is a system of mystical energy lines running through the body and that blockages in these energy lines are what cause various diseases and aliments and these blockages can be removed by manipulating various points in this system.

However in trials, it is shown that acupuncture is just as effective if you don't use the right points and simply stick needles wherever or when you use fake needles that never actually break the skin.

Or in other words, placebo effect

Gumbi

Zombrex wrote: »

Or in other words, placebo effect

Actually, I think acupuncture has been shown to be slightly effective more than a placebo in studies.

King Mob

Gumbi wrote: »

Actually, I think acupuncture has been shown to be slightly effective more than a placebo in studies.

It's been shown to be a placebo as it is as effective whether or not the needles actually break the skin.
Some placebos are more effective than others, such as two pills are better than one and an injection are better than pills.
Acupuncture is a very effective placebo, but it's still a placebo. And it certainly isn't magic.

endacl

I went for acupuncture once. To be honest, I felt a bit of a prick...

endacl

Zombrex wrote: »

The privilege that ancient medicine gets by just sticking "eastern" or "Chinese" in front of it truly is baffling.

Absolutely. And tell somebody to keep looking even farther east to find effective remedies, until they arrive at actual medicine and they'll look at you like you've two heads.

nagirrac

There were hundreds of clinical trials run on acupuncture between the 1960s and mid 90s. I'm convinced its placebo as well, but the interesting thing is its cultural driven placebo. All the Asian studies demonstrated a positive therapeutic effect according to the studies (scientists running the research remember), while only 56% in Europe demonstrated a benefit. Because its so ingrained in their culture, at the individual level they repond better to it. Its fascinating, its actually even more fascinating how many in the West claim a benefit.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

There were hundreds of clinical trials run on acupuncture between the 1960s and mid 90s. I'm convinced its placebo as well, but the interesting thing is its cultural driven placebo. All the Asian studies demonstrated a positive therapeutic effect according to the studies (scientists running the research remember), while only 56% in Europe demonstrated a benefit. Because its so ingrained in their culture, at the individual level they repond better to it. Its fascinating, its actually even more fascinating how many in the West claim a benefit.

UI don't have the details to hand, but studies into this difference have shown that Asian studies which demonstrate the efficacy of acupuncture suffer from significant Selection Bias (during the tests themselves) and significant Publication Bias (once the tests are completed).

These two biases adequately explain the reported differences between European studies and Asian studies.

Gumbi

robindch wrote: »

UI don't have the details to hand, but studies into this difference have shown that Asian studies which demonstrate the efficacy of acupuncture suffer from significant Selection Bias (during the tests themselves) and significant Publication Bias (once the tests are completed).

These two biases adequately explain the reported differences between European studies and Asian studies.

This is true.

Turtwig

Kind of off topic here. I remember reading somewhere that the placebo was still a questionable phenomenon. If you could control variables better and employed better statistical analysis it disappears completely. What is considered placebo is in fact just a fluke of statistics and bad analysis. Anyone come across this train of thought before?


/hypocrite.

magicbastarder

where did you read that? kinda runs contrary to most of what i've read about placebos.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Kind of off topic here. I remember reading somewhere that the placebo was still a questionable phenomenon. If you could control variables better and employed better statistical analysis it disappears completely. What is considered placebo is in fact just a fluke of statistics and bad analysis. Anyone come across this train of thought before?

If anything the placebo effect is getting stronger. I have spent a fair bit of time around the Pharma industry and can confirm the attached article is pretty accurate.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

UI don't have the details to hand, but studies into this difference have shown that Asian studies which demonstrate the efficacy of acupuncture suffer from significant Selection Bias (during the tests themselves) and significant Publication Bias (once the tests are completed).

These two biases adequately explain the reported differences between European studies and Asian studies.

I won't argue the bias claim as I have not seen any data on it, but if the placebo effect is triggered by an "expectation of getting better", would you not expect that effect to be greater in a culture where there is stronger belief in the efficacy of acupuncture?

Dave!

nagirrac wrote: »

I won't argue the bias claim as I have not seen any data on it, but if the placebo effect is triggered by an "expectation of getting better", would you not expect that effect to be greater in a culture where there is stronger belief in the efficacy of acupuncture?

It's not that simple necessarily. Acupuncture is probably a mundane and common procedure in Asia, but in the context of Western society it is quite novel, and you also have the baggage of it being from an "ancient culture", which gives any treatment an extra bit of respectability for the kind of people who would indulge in this kind of thing. These factors could easily feed into any placebo effect.

Dave!

Jernal wrote: »

Kind of off topic here. I remember reading somewhere that the placebo was still a questionable phenomenon. If you could control variables better and employed better statistical analysis it disappears completely. What is considered placebo is in fact just a fluke of statistics and bad analysis. Anyone come across this train of thought before?


/hypocrite.

That argument is outlined here. I'm not sure I buy it, would need to read up more.

Knasher

Jernal wrote: »

Kind of off topic here. I remember reading somewhere that the placebo was still a questionable phenomenon. If you could control variables better and employed better statistical analysis it disappears completely. What is considered placebo is in fact just a fluke of statistics and bad analysis. Anyone come across this train of thought before?

Well considering that the placebo effect generally applies to subjective measures of health, like pain, rather than objective measures, like blood pressure, I tend to regard to regard the placebo effect as bias in the results more than anything else. Though for subjective effects it is questionable if the distinction really matters. Consider as well that the placebo effect has been observed in pets, who really shouldn't have a exception of getting better which could lead to an actual improvement, I'd definitely regard the placebo effect a bias on the part of their owners.

I just can't think of any way of eliminating that bias. You could eliminate the subjects side by experimenting on them without their knowledge or consent, possible but unethical. But I can't imagine how you would eliminate the bias on the researcher side.

Paramite Pie

Zombrex wrote: »

Or in other words, placebo effect

Placebo?? Then why did acupuncture work better than actual medication for my acne?... (I was a skeptic too:cool:)

I'd been an antibiotics for years, then referred to a dermatologist for roaccutane treatment (which has an extremely high sucess rate) which worked well for a while, then it came back and I got a second round of treatment. Someone had suggested acupuncture and I scoffed at the idea.

My acne came back once again (though maybe not quite as bad but stubborn case none the less) and I finally tried traditional Chinese medicine since I was at a loss. I took their stinky herbs (tasted gross) and let them poke me with needles once a week.

For the first month I was constantly thinking I was wasting my money but though I'd see it through.

Within 2 months my skin was glowing, not just clear from blemishes but positively glowing! Their explanations might be silly and medieval but the results are quite effective... I don't think they know how it works either:D

Gumbi

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Placebo?? Then why did acupuncture work better than actual medication for my acne?... (I was a skeptic too:cool:)

I'd been an antibiotics for years, then referred to a dermatologist for roaccutane treatment (which has an extremely high sucess rate) which worked well for a while, then it came back and I got a second round of treatment. Someone had suggested acupuncture and I scoffed at the idea.

My acne came back once again (though maybe not quite as bad) and I finally tried traditional Chinese medicine since I was at a loss. I took their stinky herbs (tasted gross) and let them poke me with needles once a week.

For the first month I was constantly thinking I was wasting my money but though I'd see it through.

Within 2 months my skin was glowing, not just clear from blemishes but positively glowing! Their explanations might be silly and medieval but the results are quite effective...:D

Err, please tell me you're being sarcastic? Assuming your story is accurate, what's to say it's not confirmation bias?

TheChizler

Gumbi wrote: »

Err, please tell me you're being sarcastic? Assuming your story is accurate, what's to say it's not confirmation bias?

Or even that you just grew out of it?...

Gumbi

TheChizler wrote: »

Or even that you just grew out of it?...

I could go on, too...

Zombrex

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Placebo?? Then why did acupuncture work better than actual medication for my acne?... (I was a skeptic too:cool:)

Who said it did?

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I'd been an antibiotics for years, then referred to a dermatologist for roaccutane treatment (which has an extremely high sucess rate) which worked well for a while, then it came back and I got a second round of treatment. Someone had suggested acupuncture and I scoffed at the idea.

My acne came back once again (though maybe not quite as bad but stubborn case none the less) and I finally tried traditional Chinese medicine since I was at a loss. I took their stinky herbs (tasted gross) and let them poke me with needles once a week.

For the first month I was constantly thinking I was wasting my money but though I'd see it through.

Within 2 months my skin was glowing, not just clear from blemishes but positively glowing! Their explanations might be silly and medieval but the results are quite effective... I don't think they know how it works either:D

Again why do you think this was the acupuncture?

Waking-Dreams

Paramite Pie, I'd invite you read up on this which will explain your testimonial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

I used to be plagued with warts on my hands as a teenager. Then a relative suggested I write some message (can’t remember what it was exactly) on a piece of paper, wrap it around a stone and bury it in the ground somewhere that I would then walk over each day. Eventually, the warts disappeared and I was convinced that method must have done it. But how could I really be sure? Maybe the warts would have disappeared had I done nothing as well...

It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking “after this, therefore because of this” but don't be fooled by it.