 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008Acupuncture: Review & Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials
This document is from the World Health Organization. Lots of good stuff here. Its 87 pages long but well worth the time to read. Note that it states: "As mentioned previously, acupuncture analgesia works better than a placebo for most kinds of pain, and its effective rate in the treatment of chronic pain is comparable with that of morphine" Of course, this fact is old news to some yet downright frightening to others. I have _cited_ the link below: http://www.centerfortraditionalmedicine.org/research/web_articles/Acupuncture%20 -%20Review%20and%20Analysis%20of%20Reports%20on%20Controlled%20Clinical%20Trials .pdf. <snip for brevity> Objectives The objective of this publication is to provide a review and analysis of controlledclinical trials of acupuncture therapy, as reported in the current literature, with a view to strengthening and promoting the appropriate use of acupuncture inhealth care systems throughout the world. Information on the therapeuticmechanisms of acupuncture has also been incorporated. Since the methodology of clinical research on acupuncture is still under debate, itis very difficult to evaluate acupuncture practice by any generally acceptedmeasure. This review is limited to controlled clinical trials that were publishedup to 1998 (and early 1999 for some journals), in the hope that the conclusions will prove more acceptable. Such trials have only been performed for a limited number of diseases or disorders. This should not be taken to mean, however, that acupuncture treatment of diseases or disorders not mentioned here is excluded. Use of the publication: This publication is intended to facilitate research on and the evaluation and application of acupuncture. It is hoped that it will provide a useful resource for researchers, health care providers, national health authorities and the general public. It must be emphasized that the list of diseases, symptoms or conditions coveredhere is based on collected reports of clinical trials, using the descriptions given int hose reports. Only national health authorities can determine the diseases,symptoms and conditions for which acupuncture treatment can be recommended. The data in the reports analysed were not always clearly recorded. We have made every effort to interpret them accurately, in some cases maintaining the original wording in the text and summary table presented here. Research on traditional medicine, including acupuncture is by no means easy. However, researchers should be encouraged to ensure the highest possible standards ofstudy design and reporting in future research in order to improve the evidence base in this field. Dr Xiaorui Zhang, Acting Coordinator Traditional Medicine (TRM) Department of Essential Drugs and Medicines Policy (EDM) World Health Organization -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <snip> 2.1 Pain The effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia has already been established in controlled clinical studies. As mentioned previously, acupuncture analgesia works better than a placebo for most kinds of pain, and its effective rate in the treatment of chronic pain is comparable with that of morphine. In addition, numerous laboratory studies have provided further evidence of the efficacy of acupuncture's analgesic action as well as an explanation of the mechanism involved. In fact, the excellent analgesic effects of acupuncture have stimulated research on pain. Because of the side-effects of long-term drug therapy for pain and the risks of dependence, acupuncture analgesia can be regarded as the method of choice for treating many chronically painful conditions. The analgesic effect of acupuncture has also been reported for the relief of eye pain due to subconjunctival injection (14), local pain after extubation in children (15), and pain in thromboangiitis obliterans (16). <snip> On Apr 15, 4:20 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > This document is from the World Health Organization. Lots of good > stuff here. Its 87 pages long but well worth the time to read. Note [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > <snip> The one thing I can attest to, is that my friend went through a number of years in severe pain. She tried many things looking for some form of relief. But it was accupuncture that was a godsend for her! I wouldn't have believed the difference it made in her life, if I hadn't seen it! > This document is from the World Health Organization. Lots of good > stuff here. Its 87 pages long but well worth the time to read. Note [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > <snip> There were some extremely naive committee reports on acupuncture in the early days, when a lot of poor quality studies were performed, especially in China. In the twenty-odd years since this report was published there have been many hundreds of trials of acupuncture. A lot show no better performance for true acupuncture over sham acupuncture, and these are usually those of better quality. Many show that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, you still get the same, presumably largely placebo, effects. We would expect at least some "positive" trials simply from statistical flukes and the difficulties in adequately blinding in studies that involve theatrical methods and close personal contact between patient and practitioner and this has to be allowed for in any overall assessment of what the clincial data for acupuncture means. The evidence is entirely consistent with acupunture "working" via placebo effects and perhaps through being a counterirritant and distractant, as people often get sore afterwards from the needles. Nevertheless, it is possible to value any relief that acupuncture brings to patients. Just don't start thinking that ancient Chinese superstitions are being supported or you will find yourself in an argument with me and other skeptics. Here is a study showing how easily positive studies can arise entirely from experimental artefact http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/040308.htm Everyone should definitely read and ponder this. It shows how important blinding is in clinical studies, because the quite spectaular reported results of sham acupuncture in the "enhanced" group are clearly entirely due to the fact that the patients thought they were getting better treatment. PM itv e > > This document is from the World Health Organization. Lots of good > > stuff here. Its 87 pages long but well worth the time to read. Note [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > - Show quoted text - This reminds me of the Beck procedure whereby the doc would perform open heart surgery, use a meat tenderizer on the the heart, sprinkle a white powder on the tenderized heart, ( asbestos don't ya know ), and then pronounce the patient/victim better for the procedure. This is the medicine that Petey the Moron supports. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons > A lot show no better >performance for true acupuncture over sham acupuncture, and these are >usually those of better quality. http://cectic.com/133.html  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > > A lot show no better > >performance for true acupuncture over sham acupuncture, and these are > >usually those of better quality. > > http://cectic.com/133.html There have been a few experiements where sham acupuncture has shown some effects. Dr Moran mistakenly believes that this is a typical outcome. A big problem with clinical trials of acupuncture has to do with the treatment strategy (point selection, freq. of treatment, etc). Is the proper treatment the exact same for everyone with a given western medicine dx? No, of course not. Does each patient in the clinical trial get a TCM (or Oriental Medicine) differential diagnosis? Very seldom. Would Dr Moran consider any test of a western med or surgery valid if the participants were not differentially diagnosed? Would he consider it a fair trial to assume that all cancer patients have the exact same chemo therapy, the exact same dose, and the exact same regimen with no concern to their stage nor the specific type of cancer? I doubt it. Now that Stricta (http://www.stricta.info/) has been in place, improvements in reporting Want to see a well controlled, large study that shows acupuncture efficacy and greater results than sham acupuncture? A good example is the osteoarthritis study. Many others are out there and as controls and research methods improve (brain mapping under functional MRI), so has the reported efficacy. http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2004/acu-osteo/pressrelease.htm A smaller study with similar results http://www.urotoday.com/43/browse_categories/prostatitis/acupuncture_versus_sham _acupuncture_for_chronic_prostatitischronic_pelvic_pain__abstract.html Sure sham acupuncture is frequently more effective than conventional treatments as evidenced below. Where is Dr Moran's criticism of mainstream back pain treatments if they do NOT work as well as acupuncture nor sham acupuncture? Why, in 2008, does conventional medicine continue to use methods which can't do as well as ones from 2000BC that he considers to be an elaborate placebo? I think it is reasonable to say that any method that is consistently superior to the routine treatment offered by (modern) non-surgical orthopedists has effiacy. You may disagree with that and I'd love to hear you views on that. www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/09/24/back.pain.acupuncture.ap/index.html Fake acupuncture works nearly as well as the real thing for low back pain, and either kind performs much better than usual care. On Apr 16, 8:00 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > A lot show no better > > >performance for true acupuncture over sham acupuncture, and these are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > chemo therapy, the exact same dose, and the exact same regimen with no > concern to their stage nor the specific type of cancer? I doubt it. ... Exactly the point. As is typical when they criticize alternative medicine, there is a constant shifting of context and the easy maintenance of a double or triple standard so that all evidence comes back as insufficient or "questionable". Well now it is time to question the big pharma research on which the AUNTIES depend so heavily. Read On. I have posted today a report mentioned on NPR from the Journal of the American Medical Association, in the posting entitled "JAMA Jams MD's, Big Pharma in Jeopardy!!", which asks MD's once and for all to sever their ties with big Pharma and/or to state openly when their "RESEARCH" (SIC) has been paid for by some pharma company. The excessive influence of big Pharma and its open recognition and condemnation by a journal as prestigious as the Journal of the American Medical Association, must now be considered to cast doubt on the validity of EVERY POST by anti-alternative medicinists. Citizen Jimserac : Well now it is time to question the big pharma research on which the : AUNTIES depend so heavily. Read On. It was recently reported that anti-depressant drugs do not work nearly as well as their manufacturers had let on. It seems that the manufacturers had publicized studies that produced positive results and buried studies that produced negative results, thus skewing the reported overall effectiveness of the treatment. Assuming that you find what they what they are reported to have done as objectionable as I do, why do you not find it equally objectionable when supporters of, say, acupuncture do the same thing? For an example of one such, you need look no further than Mr. Kingoff, who loudly trumpets studies that show a beneficial effect of acupuncture, and ignores any study that shows a null or negative effect. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > It was recently reported that anti-depressant drugs do not work nearly as > well as their manufacturers had let on. It seems that the manufacturers > had publicized studies that produced positive results and buried studies > that produced negative results, thus skewing the reported overall > effectiveness of the treatment. NO!!! You don't say!!! YOU HAVE MADE POSTING AFTER POSTING ASSERTING THAT THE DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO TESTS WERE THE HOLY GRAIL, THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE, THE BE ALL AND END ALL, THE ULTIMATE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY BUT NOW... SUDDENLY IT DAWNS YOU THAT SOME OF THIS RESEARCH MAY BE SKEWED... AND MAYBE SOME NEGATIVE RESULTS WERE "BURIED" and positive results emphasized!!!!! Is that not what YOU have been accusing Homeopathic research of doing???? Suddenly YOU GET A CLUE and decide, Oh yes, it has come to my attention that "some anti-depressant drugs do not work nearly as well as their manufacturers had led on"... OH surprise!!!! Was that not what YOU have accused Homeopathy companies of doing?? WELL HALLELUJA!!!!! Schultz GETS A CLUE!!! You think after your constant nitpicking and failure to see the above points that anyone at all cares about your opinion on Acupuncture? Read my post on JAMA Jams MD's, clueboy, there may be some hope for you yet. Citizen Jimserac : YOU HAVE MADE POSTING AFTER POSTING : ASSERTING THAT THE DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO TESTS WERE THE HOLY GRAIL, THE : CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE, THE BE ALL AND END ALL, THE ULTIMATE APPEAL TO : AUTHORITY BUT NOW... SUDDENLY IT DAWNS YOU THAT SOME OF THIS RESEARCH MAY BE : SKEWED... AND MAYBE SOME NEGATIVE RESULTS WERE "BURIED" and positive : results emphasized!!!!! I think that you would be well served by taking a course in basic logic. Double-blind tests are a *necessary* condition for demonstrating the effectiveness of a proposed treatment. They are not necessarily a *sufficient* condition. My offer to explain the statistical problem to you still stands. You should also make some effort to learn the difference between a properly conducted experiment and a fraudulently conducted one. You might also devote some time to answering the question that I asked. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." : Is the proper treatment the exact same for everyone with a : given western medicine dx? No, of course not. Then I take it that you object to the protocols of the 2004 osteoarthritis study, in which each member of the experimental group was given identical treatment (as was each member of the sham acupuncture group). : http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2004/acu-osteo/pressrelease.htm I strongly recommend that you read the original paper (which is available on-line) rather than the press release. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." On Apr 16, 12:20 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > A lot show no better > >performance for true acupuncture over sham acupuncture, and these are > >usually those of better quality. > > http://cectic.com/133.html There have been a few experiements where sham acupuncture has shown some effects. Dr Moran mistakenly believes that this is a typical outcome. PM First let me say that withint the rather patchy data on the clinical effects of acupuncture there may be some genuine patient benefits. However, I think it is insane to be looking to old quasi-religious Chinese superstitions for their explanation when we have far simpler ones that are actually supported by scientific observation. The only possible rational reason for believing in chi, meridia etc would be to enhance the partitioner's "schtick" -- to provide the mystique that many patients like to take with their medicine. I do believe the apparent benefits of acupuncture can be fully explained by the passge of time, placebo effects, including possible release of endorphins. biased patient reporting, and possible effects from counterirritation or the enforced relaxation while acupunture is applied. With regard to interpreting the inconsistent evidence, this is an area of clinical research where negative results should be given more weight than positive ones. Why? Because the possible biases all favour positive results. > A big problem with clinical trials of acupuncture has to do with the treatment strategy (point selection, freq. of treatment, etc). Is the proper treatment the exact same for everyone with a given western medicine dx? No, of course not. Does each patient in the clinical trial get a TCM (or Oriental Medicine) differential diagnosis? Very seldom. >Would Dr Moran consider any test of a western med or surgery valid if the participants were not differentially diagnosed? Would he consider it a fair trial to assume that all cancer patients have the exact same chemo therapy, the exact same dose, and the exact same regimen with no concern to their stage nor the specific type of cancer? I doubt it. PM This is similar post hoc reasoning to that used by the homoepaths to explain why their methods don't work in most controlled trials. Yet the homeopaths involved in the trials expected them to work. The acupuncture studies are also performed by enthusiasts who expected to get the same spectacular results they believe they are getting in their own practices and they also cannot understand why it actually doesn't work much better than placebo. Kaptchuk (the author of the "enhanced placebo" study) is one such. He has switched the direction of his research into understanding how placebos work. Now that Stricta (http://www.stricta.info/) has been in place, improvements in reporting Want to see a well controlled, large study that shows acupuncture efficacy and greater results than sham acupuncture? A good example is the osteoarthritis study. Many others are out there and as controls and research methods improve (brain mapping under functional MRI), so has the reported efficacy. http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2004/acu-osteo/pressrelease.htm PM You say "well-controlled" . So, can you tell me whether an exit poll was performed so as to know whether patients were adequately blinded as to whether they were getting genuine or sham acupuncture? Without knowing this the study means little. The Kaptchuk study comparing sham acpuncture to "enhanced" sham acupuncture should demonstrate for you the results possible with inadequate blinding. That can result from as sinple a matter as cueing from the acupuncturist when "proper" acupuncture is performed through an unguarded "there, that will feel better". A smaller study with similar results http://www.urotoday.com/43/browse_categories/prostatitis/acupuncture_versus_sham _acupuncture_for_chronic_prostatitischronic_pelvic_pain__abstract.html PM Yes, you can perform such studies until the cows come home, and you will always get "positive" results if the patients are not adequately blinded. It is critical to have an "exit poll" asking patients whether they thought they had the real or the sham treatment. Blinding is not just a matter of having a good sham needling technique -- the demeanor and patter of the acupuncturist will count. Sure sham acupuncture is frequently more effective than conventional treatments as evidenced below. Where is Dr Moran's criticism of mainstream back pain treatments if they do NOT work as well as acupuncture nor sham acupuncture? PM But it is absolutely predictable that if you give one group of patients bog-standard care (that I freely admit is mainly using the passage of time) and give another group special treatment (whether it is massage, acupuncture, chiropractic manipulation) the patients will report better results wiht the latter even partly from trying to give the nice doctors the "right" answer.. Will it get people back to work quicker? Almost certainly not -- at least I have never seen any data that it will. Why, in 2008, does conventional medicine continue to use methods which can't do as well as ones from 2000BC that he considers to be an elaborate placebo? I think it is reasonable to say that any method that is consistently superior to the routine treatment offered by (modern) non-surgical orthopedists has effiacy. You may disagree with that and I'd love to hear you views on that. www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/09/24/back.pain.acupuncture.ap/index.html Fake acupuncture works nearly as well as the real thing for low back pain, and either kind performs much better than usual care. PM Yes, predictable results, that are at least partly an artefact of the experimental process. PM : First let me say that withint the rather patchy data on the clinical : effects of acupuncture there may be some genuine patient benefits. : However, I think it is insane to be looking to old quasi-religious Chinese : superstitions for their explanation when we have far simpler ones that are : actually supported by scientific observation. We are the chorus and we agree. We agree, we agree, we agree. : I do believe the apparent benefits of acupuncture can be fully explained by : the passge of time, placebo effects, including possible release of : endorphins. biased patient reporting, and possible effects from : counterirritation or the enforced relaxation while acupunture is applied. That is more or less what I've been saying. : With regard to interpreting the inconsistent evidence, this is an area of : clinical research where negative results should be given more weight than : positive ones. Why? Because the possible biases all favour positive : results. I wonder if anyone thought of doing a followup study to the 2004 osteoarthritis study to see if the benefits contined after cessation of the treatments. : Want to see a well controlled, large study that shows acupuncture : efficacy and greater results than sham acupuncture? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : was performed so as to know whether patients were adequately blinded as to : whether they were getting genuine or sham acupuncture? The original paper is available for free on-line (it's in the last issue of 2004 of _Annals of Internal Medicine_). : PM Yes, you can perform such studies until the cows come home, and you will : always get "positive" results if the patients are not adequately blinded. : It is critical to have an "exit poll" asking patients whether they thought : they had the real or the sham treatment. Blinding is not just a matter of : having a good sham needling technique -- the demeanor and patter of the : acupuncturist will count. One interesting result of the study was that the "WOMAC pain score" did not show any significant differences between the two groups until after 14 weeks of therapy, while the "WOMAC function score" showed significant differences after 8 weeks of therapy; but the improvement in the "WOMAC function score" in the sham group after 14 weeks was the same as that of the true acupuncture group after 8 weeks. Perhaps if they had continued the study further, the differences between the two groups would have disappeared (or perhaps not; there seemed to be a leveling off after about 14 weeks). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in the performance of the two groups on the "six-minute test" (how far the patient could walk in six minutes). : PM But it is absolutely predictable that if you give one group of patients : bog-standard care (that I freely admit is mainly using the passage of time) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : "right" answer.. Will it get people back to work quicker? Almost : certainly not -- at least I have never seen any data that it will. I think that the emphasis might well be placed on the *nice* doctor. IMHO, one of the major faults of modern medicine-for-profit is that it ignores the psychological aspect of health and attitudes toward health. If the patient feels that the therapist is "on his side," he is more motivated to feel well. My guess (and this is only a guess) is that part of the reason that "hands on" therapies, from chiropractic to faith healing, have the "positive" effects that they do -- the healer's touch affects the psychology of the patient. In the olden days, when the doctor's job was basically to hold the patient's hand as he (the patient) died, people tended not to whine about the low quality of health care, in part because the doctor tended to have a personal relationship with his patient. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "I've lost my harmonica, Albert." NO, Peter's responses are not acceptable nor is your agreement with them. First of all, the stimulation of endorphins is NOT a placebo effect - it means something real rather than imaginary happened, leading to the cessation or amelioration of pain. Second, the counter irritation theory is a rationalization NOT an explanation. Third - as always, nit picking one study, and then speculating on how long lasted the curative or beneficial effects might have been in their effects on the osteoarthritis is sour grapes. But there is SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG with both of your approaches and as a chemist you should be well aware of the common mistake of fitting the experimental data to preconceived notions. Just about everything The One True Zhen Jue says, you folks pass through your PLACEBO FILTER and then evaluate instead of evaluating the information in and of itself without your, a priori biases. And that includes NOT speculating on what might have happened AFTER the successful study and other "sour grapes" which can be used to undermine, question or otherwise disqualify a successful result. As a chemist, you are probably well aware that the full method of action of aspirin remained unknown until several years ago. Did you criticize MD's, up till then, about using a placebo or "sham" remedy? Citizen Jimserac >NO, Peter's responses are not acceptable nor is your >agreement with them. > >First of all, the stimulation of endorphins is NOT a placebo effect - >it means something real rather than imaginary happened, leading >to the cessation or amelioration of pain. The point is, is not an acupuncture effect as acupuncture is said to work. It has zero to do with meridians and Qi. You might just as well hit your thumb with a hammer, that will release endorfins as well. >Second, the counter irritation theory is a rationalization NOT an >explanation. Do you scratch when you feel an itch? What do you think you're doing then. >Third - as always, nit picking one study, and then speculating on how >long lasted the curative or beneficial effects might have been in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Did you criticize MD's, up till then, about using a placebo or >"sham" remedy? Jimmy, there is quite a widespread consensus among people who oppose quackery that sticking needles in people has an effect. The point is, does that have anything to do with meridians, TCM diagnostics and Qi or is it just the effect of sticking needles in people? There is a lot of research that indicates that you can stick the needles in random locations and still get a (positive) effect. There is also research that shows that the whole procedure works just as well if you don't even stick needles in people (retracting needles are used). In aspirin, the effects went away if fake aspirins were used. In acupuncture the effects are the same when needles are stuck in random places in stead of acupuncture points and the effects are even there when fake needles are used. Which indicates that the effects are NOT caused by the acupuncture sec. >Citizen Jimserac > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > work. It has zero to do with meridians and Qi. You might just as well > hit your thumb with a hammer, that will release endorfins as well. Give that a try next time you have a headache. Keep striking until the swelling goes down. > >Second, the counter irritation theory is a rationalization NOT an > >explanation. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > of research that indicates that you can stick the needles in random > locations and still get a (positive) effect. Try it and see how that works. Let me know when you do it successfully. > There is also research > that shows that the whole procedure works just as well if you don't > even stick needles in people (retracting needles are used). There is far more research that shows the opposite. And, almost all studies of acupuncture for back or neck pain vs conventional treatment show acupuncture beating the conventional treatment and the placebo effect. Often, conventional medicine fails to equal placebo. Isn't it a shame that mainstream treatments fair so poorly? Even Dr Moran admitted that he found conventional treatments for back pain seriously lacking and agreed that they often are not as good as placebo. Heck, that is pretty much the basis for his very limited endorsement of using acupuncture, the fact it outperforms conventional treatments and has lower risks. In > aspirin, the effects went away if fake aspirins were used. In > acupuncture the effects are the same when needles are stuck in random > places in stead of acupuncture points and the effects are even there > when fake needles are used. Which indicates that the effects are NOT > caused by the acupuncture sec. So, when aspirin works, it, too is a placebo. Very nice, Martin. > >Citizen Jimserac- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Give that a try next time you have a headache. Keep striking until >the swelling goes down. It will distract from the headache. And it will release endorfins. That was the point. >> >Second, the counter irritation theory is a rationalization NOT an >> >explanation. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Try it and see how that works. Let me know when you do it >successfully. I'm afraid that using a placebo on yourself won't work, the same way you can't tickle yourself. >> There is also research >> that shows that the whole procedure works just as well if you don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >show acupuncture beating the conventional treatment and the placebo >effect. Often, conventional medicine fails to equal placebo. Doing nothing at all is usually the best advice. > Isn't it a shame that mainstream treatments fair so poorly? Even Dr Moran >admitted that he found conventional treatments for back pain seriously >lacking and agreed that they often are not as good as placebo. Heck, >that is pretty much the basis for his very limited endorsement of >using acupuncture, the fact it outperforms conventional treatments and >has lower risks. Well, when it comes to eliciting a placebo response, acupuncture is one of the better forms of quackery out there. If you'd only get rid of the needles, it would almost be completely without risk. Research is all pointing in the same direction, whatever it is that acupuncture does, it's not about meridians, it's not about acupuncture points, it's not about Qi and it's not even about the needles. > In >> aspirin, the effects went away if fake aspirins were used. In [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So, when aspirin works, it, too is a placebo. Very nice, Martin. This is what I find fascinating about the type of true believers that you seem to belong to. They are perfectly reasonable and rational, until the subject is whatever they truly believe in. Then somehow a switch inside their brain is flicked and they're off into Woowoo-land. It's like watching a Jekyll and Hide transformation. Fascinating. >> >Citizen Jimserac- Hide quoted text - > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:11:56 -0700 (PDT), The One True Zhen Jue > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It will distract from the headache. And it will release endorfins. > That was the point. If you think that the point of treating a headache, or any other form of pain, is to create a greater, enduring pain, then you're an idiot. But, you are welcome to practice your theory on yourself. See if it actually relieves the initial headache as opposed to add a bigger pain to a largely empty cranium. > >> >Second, the counter irritation theory is a rationalization NOT an > >> >explanation. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I'm afraid that using a placebo on yourself won't work, the same way > you can't tickle yourself. This is an interested statement. You are alleging that it is impossible to use a placebo on oneself. Have you been hanging out with Jan Drew? > >> There is also research > >> that shows that the whole procedure works just as well if you don't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Doing nothing at all is usually the best advice. That may have worked for you in regard to your education, but that doesn't work in medicine. As a race, humans have advanced to the point where we can & should treat serious back pain. Somewhere between the wheel and space travel, we reached that level of sophistication. Otherwise, for what technological milestone should wait until we can address this medical condition? > > Isn't it a shame that mainstream treatments fair so poorly? Even Dr Moran > >admitted that he found conventional treatments for back pain seriously [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > does, it's not about meridians, it's not about acupuncture points, > it's not about Qi and it's not even about the needles. Interesting. When acupuncture consistently outperforms mainstream medicine, which can't equal placebo, you call it a placebo. When it outperforms placebo, you call it a better form of placebo. By your logic, a new antibiotic that works on a strain of MRSA where others fail would also be considered a better placebo. > > In > >> aspirin, the effects went away if fake aspirins were used. In [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > switch inside their brain is flicked and they're off into Woowoo-land. > It's like watching a Jekyll and Hide transformation. Fascinating. You are the one having problems with logic. Only a small % of acupuncture trials have shown comparable results between "control" and "real" acupuncture. You make the false assertion that is typical of acupuncture trials and you do so without any basis. Show me a meta- analysis that indicates over 10% of the trials have that result. In the absence of that, you're just blowing smoke. > >> >Citizen Jimserac- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >If you think that the point of treating a headache, or any other form >of pain, is to create a greater, enduring pain, then you're an idiot. The point was that releasing endorfins is not quite an acupuncture effect. >But, you are welcome to practice your theory on yourself. See if it >actually relieves the initial headache as opposed to add a bigger pain [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >This is an interested statement. You are alleging that it is >impossible to use a placebo on oneself. I said I'm afraid it won't work. If you fully know it's a placebo, will the placebo effect still be there? I don't think so, but I don't think there is much research into that. > Have you been hanging out with Jan Drew? Heavens no! >> >> There is also research >> >> that shows that the whole procedure works just as well if you don't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >sophistication. Otherwise, for what technological milestone should >wait until we can address this medical condition? Oh, painkillers will releave the pain, while the problem goes away on its own. >> > Isn't it a shame that mainstream treatments fair so poorly? Even Dr Moran >> >admitted that he found conventional treatments for back pain seriously [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Interesting. When acupuncture consistently outperforms mainstream >medicine, which can't equal placebo, you call it a placebo. That's where your opinion and the facts differ. > When it outperforms placebo, you call it a better form of placebo. If it only did that. I'm afraid you're letting your imagination get the better of you here. > By your logic, a new antibiotic that works on a strain of MRSA where others >fail would also be considered a better placebo. Since I'm not using that logic, why do you bring it up? >> > In >> >> aspirin, the effects went away if fake aspirins were used. In [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >analysis that indicates over 10% of the trials have that result. In >the absence of that, you're just blowing smoke. I've seen the 'quality' of pro acupuncture research. Like the one about IVF and one on arthritis of the knee. The IVF one is bloody farce. Anyone who takes that seriously should be locked up in a mental hospital for his own protection. The arthritis one was bad, very bad. So many subjects dropped out of the research that it was virtually useless, but it was still touted as being good research. It was pathetic. The rest I've read was about as awful. No blinding, no proper control (if any at all). All research that is properly blinded (as well as possible with acupuncture), has proper controls etc points in the same direction - you might just as well have a nice cup of tea and a good talk with your patients and leave the needles out of it, it'll have the same result. :> There is also research :> that shows that the whole procedure works just as well if you don't :> even stick needles in people (retracting needles are used). : : There is far more research that shows the opposite. Does this mean that you are finallly going to get around to commenting on the list of references that I posted? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > >CitizenJimserac OK OK I understand your position, it is quite clear. I submit that there are two fundamental conceptual errors in the stated position: 1. Relating all data and research to a preconceived "placebo" conceptual filter. 2. Confusing modern acupuncture with ancient theories of the pre- scientfic era in which it was discovered and developed. With regards to #2, imagine how silly it would be if every time a discussion of modern medicine arose, I started to criticize it based on things written in Hipporcrates, Galen and other ancient writers. Imagine if I prefaced every discovery in modern physics with a criticism based on the phlogiston theory of fire. I understand things such as meridians and qi remain controversial and the subject of long standing research. The research that I will mention (as soon as I can get to the damned thing) will illustrate this. If, however, meridians and qi are not your cup of tea, then proceed to neurological theory and more modern approaches favored by the www.medicalacupuncture.com folks - their research stuff is impressive. The constant dismissal of acupuncture effects that you yourself admit exist and then this business of insulting qualified practitioners and researchers with this quackery stuff, is just a continuation of the anti-alternative close minded mindset in which every little thing, known and unknown, that does not fit into the pre-formed concrete forms carefully supplied by the media, pharmaceutical industry and other self interested organzations is blithely and unthinkingly dismissed. This approach, I submit, is unscientifc and substitutes mental stereotypes for real thinking. It is a switch which shuts off real thinking in the evaluation of new and novel phenomena which require the deepest and sharpest observations and analyses, rather than contemptuous dismissal, to expose their nature. Citizen Jimserac > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac Jim, I would call that a "thinking man's" analysis. You argue well. What I see is that Marty is purposely debating the mechanics of method and that Andy is compliant. By remaining true to the equivalence of principle they have erected, neither is forced to resolve the debate. Is this an accident? Each of them appears to be arguing two separate points, one on the merits of clinical data, the other on the merits of *other* clinical data. In other words, they are really debating the *same* point in a completely reductionist manner. You have rightly noted this yourself. In applying the same argument to acupuncture that might be applied to anything else, they have created more straw men than could be extinguished by a parade of professors. Again, is this an accident? I personally don't afford Andy the respect that you have because I do not believe he has a holistic bone in his body, but I respect you for your goodwill toward him. In my view, a discussion of placebo is more a discussion about medicine that any other single topic in the study of human health. Probably most (by far) of the "positive" effects attributed to prescription drugs is due to this effect than to their chemical actions (just not the side effects.) Holistic thinkers innately understand the power of the body/mind connection and see the fallacy of identifying placebo as nothing more than a disqualifier. By contrast, conventional thinkers worry that it might be even more true than they understand (which it is) and therefore the need to anchor any discussion of treatment to the mechanics of reductionism. As far as acupuncture is concerned, my position is that it works mostly because of the intent of a practicioner to see it work, although I feel that meridians and Qi describe (to some extent) the reality of our body/mind connection and that needles may actually tap into this. For me, it's important to see that *any* natural method used to alleviate suffering without harmful side effects is superior to *any* invasive or chemically *unnatural* (non-nutritive) method that puts a patient at risk. Thanks for listening. PB > On Apr 19, 8:20 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > > PB Thanks! Your comments are very astute and very well stated. I hope EVERYONE reads them and considers carefully the deep implications of what you have said. Thanks Again, Citizen Jimserac > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > Imagine if I prefaced every discovery in modern physics with a > criticism based on the phlogiston theory of fire. Imagine if some claimed that yoga is a placebo because there is no "prana". > I understand things such as meridians and qi remain controversial and > the subject of long standing research. The research that I will [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Apr 19, 8:20 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - Yes, exactly. CJ >> > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac >> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >Imagine if some claimed that yoga is a placebo because there is no >"prana". Yoga isn't even a placebo. It's stretching and relaxation and has zero effect beyond just plain stretching and relaxing. Oh, and the social interaction with other people might help you feel good/ better if you do it in a group. But you're right, there is no such thing as prana. BTW, what are your claims that yoga can do? Can it cure anything? >> I understand things such as meridians and qi remain controversial and >> the subject of long standing research. The research that I will [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:14:43 -0700 (PDT), The One True Zhen Jue > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > Yoga isn't even a placebo. It's stretching and relaxation and has zero > effect beyond just plain stretching and relaxing. Really? It has no effect on muscle tone, muscle mass, nor balance? Are you sure you haven't been taking lessons from Jan Drew? Oh, and the social > interaction with other people might help you feel good/ better if you > do it in a group. But you're right, there is no such thing as prana. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > >Really? It has no effect on muscle tone, muscle mass, nor balance? Isn't that what plain, good old, western, non-yoga stretching does? If you really want to get results in that area, try ballet. That has none of the mumbo jumbo and better results. Although I must admit that the lack of tutu's in yoga is a plus. >Are you sure you haven't been taking lessons from Jan Drew? > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:15:28 -0700 (PDT), The One True Zhen Jue > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > of the mumbo jumbo and better results. Although I must admit that the > lack of tutu's in yoga is a plus. According to your logic, it can't do anything because "prana" does not exist. It is just a placebo. Ballet may have similar, possibly greater benefits, but where are the double blinded experiments? How can you be sure that "sham" ballet doesn't have equal or superior benefits to "true" ballet? How can you be sure that the benefits aren't simply due to the belief that the dance instructor cares about their progress? According to your declaration, hitting yourself with a hammer relieves headaches by creating a distraction. I hope you take every opportunity to put that into practice. Make sure you don't skip a dose. According to your view of Chinese history, acupuncturists didn't use non-meridian points until modern experiments involving "sham" acupuncture. Sun Si Miao was the first known person to write about the use of non-meridian points, called "Ah Shi" points. He was born in the Chui Dynasty (581-618), That is about 1400 years earlier than the experiments you misrepresent. Lets see if you can end your losing streak by documenting your assertion that most experiments involving "sham" acupuncture show it equally efficacious compared with true acupuncture. Without such, we'll rightly assume your total lack of basis indicatives that you are the true believer . >Are you sure you haven't been taking lessons from Jan Drew? > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:14:43 -0700 (PDT), The One True Zhen Jue [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] >According to your logic, it can't do anything because "prana" does not >exist. It is just a placebo. How come a obviously normally functional person like you is incapable of comprehending things when it comes to their favorite delusion? According to me (and my logic), if yoga does anything, it has nothing to do with prana. You can dispense with the mumbo-jumbo. Just as if acupuncture does anything, it has nothing to do with meridians and Qi. Since sticking needles in people or not doesn't even seem to make a diference, just being nice and listening to them is enough. No mumbo-jumbo. >Ballet may have similar, possibly greater benefits, but where are the >double blinded experiments? How can you be sure that "sham" ballet >doesn't have equal or superior benefits to "true" ballet? How can you >be sure that the benefits aren't simply due to the belief that the >dance instructor cares about their progress? Do you have any clue about how the world around you works? Apparently not. You haven't complained yet that there is no double blind research that shows that using a firehose actually puts out fires, but I wouldn't put such stupidity past you. >According to your declaration, hitting yourself with a hammer relieves >headaches by creating a distraction. Yes, it does! I admit the side-effect is about as bad as the original headache so I wouldn't recommend it, but yes, that's how it works. Did you know that drowning yourself will also cure you of any and all healthproblems? > I hope you take every opportunity to put that into practice. > Make sure you don't skip a dose. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >in the Chui Dynasty (581-618), That is about 1400 years earlier than >the experiments you misrepresent. So he already knew that you can stick the needles just about anywhere. And you still don't get it, after over 1400 years? My, it's even worse than I thought. >Lets see if you can end your losing streak by documenting your >assertion that most experiments involving "sham" acupuncture show it >equally efficacious compared with true acupuncture. Without such, >we'll rightly assume your total lack of basis indicatives that you are >the true believer. If I do, will you admit that you were wrong? Will you stop being an acupuncturist? Will you refund each and every one of your patients and apologize to them? Or will you simply rationalize it away and continue with what you have so heavily invested in? Adn what about this: http://www.clinicalpain.com/pt/re/clnjpain/abstract.00002508-200803000-00005.htm ;jsessionid=LTSQPFL3knJ3Gsm6Zp6qCqZBVHrPnWspw2FSNDV0HsTBXv6xbVx1!-859253161!1811 95629!8091!-1 This shows that sham acupuncture does better than real acupuncture!!! >>Are you sure you haven't been taking lessons from Jan Drew? >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> >> >> Citizen Jimserac- Hide quoted text - Mouse select, drag, CUT! Convoluted rationalizations, whining, cajoling and implorings deleted. Citizen Jimserac >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >1. Relating all data and research to a preconceived "placebo" >conceptual filter. You think trying to figure out if a treatment is better than doing nothing is a bad thing? >2. Confusing modern acupuncture with ancient theories of the pre- >scientfic era in which it was discovered and developed. 'modern acupuncture'? What's modern is that acupuncturists today have 'discovered' there are many, many more 'acupuncture points' than the ancient chinese thought there were. In other words, they've discovered that you can stick the needles at any (safe) random place and still have the same effect. >With regards to #2, imagine how silly it would be if every time a >discussion of modern medicine arose, I started to criticize it based >on things written in Hipporcrates, Galen and other ancient writers. Yes, it would be silly, since modern medicine has changed. We dropped humors and the idea that blood just sloshes around for instance. The basics of acupuncture are still the same - acupuncture points, meridians and Qi that simply don't exist. Tongue and pulse diagnosis that have no basis in reality, proof of that being the fact that TCM practioners never come up with the same diagnosis for the same patient. >Imagine if I prefaced every discovery in modern physics with a >criticism based on the phlogiston theory of fire. The problem is that 'discoveries' in acupuncture are based on the equivalent of the phlogiston theory. Oh sure, they've tried to modernize it by claiming that acupuncture points are on important nerve points (they're not) and that it works by triggering endorfin release (it doesn't), but since these modernizations are false as well, what's left? >I understand things such as meridians and qi remain controversial and >the subject of long standing research. They're not controversial, they're non-existent. >The research that I will >mention (as soon as I can get to the damned thing) will illustrate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >approaches favored by the www.medicalacupuncture.com folks - their >research stuff is impressive. I'm not seeing any research on that site, at least none accessible for non-members. Are you a member? That would explain your attitude. And please, research into acupuncture is about as valid as research into the mating habit of leprechauns. And impresses me just as much. >The constant dismissal of acupuncture effects that you yourself admit >exist I'll repeat it slowly for you again: sticking in needles into people while at the same time giving them attention has an effect, but that has zero to do with acupuncture. I categorically deny that *acupuncture* effects exist. You get the same results by waving crystals over people, laying of hands, giving them water (homeopathy), bathing them in colored light, dressing up like a shaman and chant over people, putting a magnet where it hurts (even a fake magnet), just pressing acupuncture points in stead of using needles, just waving your hands over the acupuncture points, even by just thinking about people and thereby changing their quantum matrix etc etc etc. > and then this business of insulting qualified practitioners and >researchers with this quackery stuff If people don't like to be called quacks, maybe they should stop practicing quackery in stead of complaining they feel offended. >, is just a continuation of the >anti-alternative close minded mindset in which every little thing, >known and unknown, that does not fit into the pre-formed concrete >forms carefully supplied by the media, pharmaceutical industry and >other self interested organzations is blithely and unthinkingly >dismissed. I don't dismiss things because they don't fit into whatever, I dismiss things because there isn't a shred of evidence it works as advertised. I really don't care what form something comes in or where it's from. Just show evidence it works. >This approach, I submit, is unscientifc and substitutes mental > stereotypes for real thinking. Jim, how long have you been investigating alt-med? I've done it Jim. I've seen it walk like a duck, I've heard it quack like a duck, I've disected it and saw the intestines of a duck. I've even done DNA tests that said it's a duck. And now you come along telling me that I'm unscientific and closedminded and what have you for calling a duck a duck without thinking. You don't even ask how I've come to my conclusions. You just have yours ready without ever checking the facts. Which is very typical for an altie. > It is a switch which >shuts off real thinking in the evaluation of new and novel phenomena Acupuncture isn't new and novel. It was BS a few thousand years ago and it still is. >which require the deepest and sharpest observations and analyses, 'Require the deepest and sharpest observations'? Jim, a casual glance at this stuff should be enough to tell you it's bullshit. >rather than contemptuous dismissal, to expose their nature. > >Citizen Jimserac The repetition of your fallacies will NOT, unfortunately, somehow infinitesimally increase their worth nor somehow validate the unsound character of the presumptuous anti-Acupuncture opinions you have belabored, unsuccessfully. Please note that the site I mentioned was incorrect - it should be www.medicalacupuncuture.org (click on the sample issue, go to the bottom of the screen and click on "search". You can then search past issues for quite interesting articles. DO IT. I will refer you to the list of references regarding the scientific bases of Acupuncture, the REALITY OF THE MERIDIANS and the physical and scientific proof of the existence of the Acupuncture EXACTLY where the ancient Chinese said they were - NO mysterious "qi" needed. I shall reference this FULLY scientific research, hopefully for the last time, and urge YOU to look up and read the references before again spouting your prejudicial and emotional feelings demonstrating a COMPLETE lack of knowledge of even the veriest fundamentals of Acupuncture (and probably other alternative medicine modalities). I understand your well meaning attempts at keeping people from using what you consider sham or false systems, but you know where the road paved with good intentions leads. What follows are the research articles from just ONE (1, UNO, odin, ein, une) technical paper on the mechanisms of Acupuncture by a fully qualified researcher and M.D. You will, I hope note titles such as "Characterization of human skin conductance at acupuncture points". Experientia. 1995;51:328-33 1. and "Differences in electrical skin conductivity between acupuncture points and adjacent skin areas" and related titles. I refer you to the original article for the full bibliography. Happy reading! References from the Article: MECHANISM OF ACUPUNCTURE - BEYOND NEUROHUMORAL THEORY* Charles Shang, MD *Lecture at the 1999 Annual Symposium of the American Academy of Medical Acupuncture which appeared in the journal Medical Acupuncture A Journal For Physicians By Physicians Fall 1999 / Wiinter 2000- Volume 11 / Number 2 at this link: http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol11_2/conduct.html REFERENCES 1. World Health Organization. A proposed standard international acupuncture nomenclature: report of a WHO scientific group. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1991. 2. Pomeranz B. Scientific basis of acupuncture. In: Stux G, ed. Basics of Acupuncture. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1997:30-32. 3. Comunetti A, Laage S, SchiessI N, Kistler A. Characterisation of human skin conductance at acupuncture points. Experientia. 1995;51:328-33 1. 4. Bergsman 0, Wooley-Hart A. Differences in electrical skin conductivity between acupuncture points and adjacent skin areas. Am J Acupuncture. 1973;1:27-32. 5. Wensel LO. Acupuncture in Medical Practice. Reston, Va: Reston Publishing; 1980:128. 6. Nakatani Y, Yamashita K. Ryodoraku Acupuncture. Osaka, Japan: Ryodoraku Research Institute; 1977. 7. Reichmanis M. Electroacupuncture. In: Marino AA, ed. Modem Bioelectricity. New York, NY: Dekker; 1988:762-765. 8. Eory A. In-vivo skin respiration (C02) measurements in the acupuncture loci. Acupunct Electrother Res. 1984;9:217-223. 9. Mashanskii VF, Markov IuV, Shpunt VKh, Li SE, Mirkin AS. Topography of the gap junctions in human skin and their possible role in the nonneural transmission of information. Arkh Anat Gistol Embriol. 1983;84:53-60. 10. Cui H-M. Meridian system: specialized embryonic epithelial conduction system. Shanghai J Acupuncture. 1988;3:44-45. 11. Fan JY. The role of gap junctions in determining skin conductance and their possible relationship to acupuncture points and meridians. Am J Acupuncture. 1990;18:163-170. 12. Zheng JY, Fan JY, Zhang YJ, Guo Y, Xu TP. Further evidence for the role of gap junctions in acupoint information transfer. Am J Acupuncture. 1996;24: 291-296. 13. Zhang D, Fu W, Wang S, Wei Z, Wang F. Chen Tzu Yen Chin [in Chinese]. Acupuncture Res. 1996;21:63-67. 14. Bowsher D. Mechanisms of acupuncture. In: Filshie J, White A, eds. Medical Acupuncture. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone; 1998:69-80. 15. Chiang CY, Chang CT. Peripheral afferent pathway for acupuncture analgesia. Sci Sin. 1973;16:210-217. 16. Liu Z. Meridian pharmacology research [in Chinese]. Jinluo Luntan Meridian Forum. 1998;5:1-4. 17. A preliminary investigation of the mechanism of anti-pain and counter-injury effects of the acupuncture anaesthesia. Sci Sin. 1976;19:529-556. 18. Chang HC, Xie YK, Wen YY, Zhang SY, Qu JH, Lu WJ. Further investigation on the hypothesis of meridian-cortex-viscera interrelationship. Am J Chin Med. 1983; 11:5-13. 19. Cho ZH, Chung SC, Jones JP, et al. New findings of the correlation between acupoints and corresponding brain cortices using functional MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:2670-2673. 20. Pomeranz B, Chiu D. Naloxone blockade of acupuncture: endorphin implicated. Life Sci. 1976; 19:1757-1762. 21. Mayer DJ, Price DD, Rafii A. Antagonism of acupuncture analgesia in man by the narcotic antagonist naloxone. Brain Res. 1977; 121:368-372. 22. Takeshige C, Tanaka M, Sato T, Hishida F. Mechanism of individual variation in effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia based on animal experiment. Eur J Pain. 1990; 11: 109-113. 23. Melzack R, Stillwell DM, Fox EJ. Trigger points and acupuncture points for pain: correlations and implications. Pain. 1977;3:3-23. 24. Ulett GA. Beyond Yin and Yang: How Acupuncture Really Works. St Louis, Mo: Warren H. Green Inc; 1992. 25. Mann F. A new system of acupuncture. In: Filshie J, White A, eds. Medical Acupuncture. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone; 1998:63. 26. Pearson P An Introduction to Acupuncture. Norwell, Mass: MTP Press; 1987:75. 27. Vickers AJ. Can acupuncture have specific effects on health? a systematic review of acupuncture antiemesis trials. J R Soc Med. 1996;89:303-311. 28. Altman S. Techniques and instrumentation. Probl Vet Med. 1992;4:66-87. 29. Hornstein OP. Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome: a challenge for dermatologists to participate in the field of oral medicine. J Dermatol. 1997;24:281-296. 30. Li Y, Tougas G, Chiverton SG, Hunt RH. The effect of acupuncture on gastrointestinal function and disorders. Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;87:1372-1381. 31. Holden C. Acupuncture: stuck on the fringe. Science. 1994;264:770. 32. Moritz Carneiro NM, Li SM. Acupuncture technique. Lancet. 1995;345:1577. 33. Shiraishi T, Once M, Kojima T, Sameshima Y, Kageyama T. Effects of auricular stimulation on feeding-related hypothalamic neuronal activity in normal and obese rats. Brain Res Bull. 1995;36:141-148. 34. Marwick C. Acceptance of some acupuncture applications. JAMA. 1997;278: 1725-1727. 35. Christensen BV, luhl IU, Vilbek H, Bulow HH, Dreijer NC, Rasmussen HE Acupuncture treatment of severe knee osteoarthrosis: a long-tenn study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1992;36:519-525. 36. Appiah R, Hiller S, Caspary L, Alexander K, Creutzig A. Treatment of primary Raynaud's syndrome with traditional Chinese acupuncture. J Intern Med. 1997;241:119-124. 37. Shang C. Singular point, organizing center and acupuncture point. Am J Chin Med. 1989; 17:119-127. 38. Jaffe LF. Electrophoresis along cell membranes. Nature. 1977;265:600-602. 39. Winfree AT. The Geometry of Biological Time. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1980:71. 40. Cohen D, Palti Y, Cuffin BN, Schmid SJ. Magnetic fields produced by steady currents in the body. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980;77:1447-145 1. 41. Vinogradev IM, et al. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. Norwell, Mass: Kluver Academic; 1992;8:276, 346. 42. Erickson CA. Morphogenesis of the neural crest. In: Browder LW, ed. Developmental Biology. New York, NY: Plenum; 1985;2:528. 43. McGinnis ME, Variable JW Jr. Voltage gradients in newt limb stumps. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1986;210:231-238. 44. Cooper MS, Schliwa M. Transmembrane Ca2+ fluxes in the forward and reversed galvanotaxis of fish epidermal cells. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1986;210: 311-318. 45. Nuccitelli R. The involvement of transcellular ion currents and electric fields in pattern formation. In: Malacinski GM, ed. Pattern Formation. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1984. 46. McCaig CD. Spinal neurite reabsorption and regrowth in vitro depend on the polarity of an applied electric field. Development. 1987; 100:31-4 1. 47. Chen LB. Fluorescent labeling of mitochondria. Methods Cell Biol. 1989;29: 103-123. 48. Wiley LM, Nuccitelli R. Detection of transcellular currents and effect of an imposed electric field on mouse blastomeres. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1986;210: 197-204. 49. Marsh G, Beams HW. Electrical control of morphogenesis in regenerating Dugesia tigrina. J Cell Comp Physiol. 1952;39:191. 50. Kolega J. The cellular basis of epithelial morphogenesis. In: Browder LW, ed. Developmental Biology. New York, NY: Plenum; 1985;2:112-116. Citizen JImserac >The repetition of your fallacies will NOT, unfortunately, somehow >infinitesimally increase their worth nor somehow validate the unsound [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I will refer you to the list of references regarding the scientific >bases of Acupuncture, the REALITY OF THE MERIDIANS Have you ever heard of James Randi? 1 million bucks if you can demonstrate the existance of meridians. Bye now, and thanks for playing. > and the physical >and scientific proof of the existence of the Acupuncture EXACTLY where [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >ONE (1, UNO, odin, ein, une) technical paper on the mechanisms of >Acupuncture by a fully qualified researcher and M.D. You still don't seem to be able to understand that even fully qualified researchers (whatever that means btw) can be totally and utterly wrong. Look up what N-rays are will you. >You will, I hope note titles such >as "Characterization of human skin conductance at acupuncture points". [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >MECHANISM OF ACUPUNCTURE - BEYOND NEUROHUMORAL THEORY* Here we go again, putting the cart before the horse. There are no acupuncture effects. None. Nada. Zip. So there is no need to postulate any mechanism. >Charles Shang, MD >*Lecture at the 1999 Annual Symposium of the American Academy of [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > >Citizen JImserac Just by looking at the titles I can tell you that much of the research on your list has nothing to do with acupuncture. Which is very typical of quackery, like acupuncture. You're back to Randi again? The magician and "professional" debunker? The "Amazing" Randi? The chap with the "million" dollar challenge that nobody will ever collect for anything? And you discount ALL the research cited? All of it? The thermographic imaging? MRI's? electrical changes at the points? Conversation on this topic terminated. It would seem that when the science turns against them, it is the aunties that must run to magic and superstition. Citizen Jimserac : You're back to Randi again? : The magician and "professional" debunker? : The "Amazing" Randi? : The chap with the "million" dollar challenge that nobody will ever collect : for anything? Have you actually read the conditions of the million dollar challenge? (That's a yes-or-no question, so it shouldn't take you too much time to answer it.) ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In article <5ba814c4-5ed7-431f-aeeb-1b067ed6e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (That's a yes-or-no question, so it shouldn't take you too much time > to answer it.) " Have YOU read them? Did you read the part where Randi himself decides if he will accept the challenge or not? Citizen Jimserac >> In article <5ba814c4-5ed7-431f-aeeb-1b067ed6e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac You mean the part were he refuses to accept challenges from the mentally ill who might put themselves in danger? "I can stop a bullit with the power of my mind, but only if it's fired directly at my head". That sort of thing. Stop making excuses and just do it. I asked and acupuncture can apply for the challenge. You say you can scientifically demonstrate the existence of meridians. A million bucks says you can't. >>> In article <5ba814c4-5ed7-431f-aeeb-1b067ed6e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >for the challenge. You say you can scientifically demonstrate the >existence of meridians. A million bucks says you can't. It would win the Australian Skeptics' $100,000 prize as well. But only if the proper procedures were followed: 1. Say exactly what it is that you are going to prove. 2. Agree on a test protocol which will produce an unambiguous yes or no result which requires observation only, not judgment. 3. Do it. 4. Bank the money. So come on, Jim - we want to give you the money. SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:15:24 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > for the challenge. You say you can scientifically demonstrate the > existence of meridians. A million bucks says you can't. Well hell, how about cancer surgery or antibiotics. Have THEY applied? I bet they can't win either. Don't you get it? NOBODY will win Randi's challenge - it is a PUBLICITY STUNT designed for SUCKERS. If this is your "standard" for science than you have poor standards indeed. Citizen Jimserac > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:15:24 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac Martin and standards are much like oxy and moron, but more like "moron" and thus a lot like Marty. >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:15:24 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Well hell, how about cancer surgery or antibiotics. >Have THEY applied? I bet they can't win either. And you'd be right. Read the rules, heck, read the name: paranormal challenge. Neither of those 2 are paranormal. >Don't you get it? NOBODY will win Randi's challenge - it >is a PUBLICITY STUNT designed for SUCKERS. Oh shut up with the excuses already. Just do it. But I know why you won't even try, you just know you can't do it. >If this is your "standard" for science than you have poor >standards indeed. > >Citizen Jimserac : Stop making excuses and just do it. I asked and acupuncture can apply : for the challenge. You say you can scientifically demonstrate the : existence of meridians. A million bucks says you can't. Actually, in 2007, Randi changed the qualifications because he was getting so many applications from total lunatics. Now, in order to be eligible for the test, the applicant must have a "media presence" and must produce a signed document from an academic who confirms that the applicant has demonstrated the claimed powers. It shouldn't be too difficult to find an acupuncturist who meets the conditions. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" :> In article <5ba814c4-5ed7-431f-aeeb-1b067ed6e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: :> : You're back to Randi again? :> : The magician and "professional" debunker? :> : The "Amazing" Randi? :> : The chap with the "million" dollar challenge that nobody will ever collect :> : for anything? :> Have you actually read the conditions of the million dollar challenge? :> (That's a yes-or-no question, so it shouldn't take you too much time :> to answer it.) : Have YOU read them? Yes, I have. : Did you read the part where Randi himself decides : if he will accept the challenge or not? The rules can be found at http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-application.html. Which of the 16 contains a statement that Randi decides if he will accept the challenge or not? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In article <ba62611a-6694-41fc-a71a-7cf24383d...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > :> In article <5ba814c4-5ed7-431f-aeeb-1b067ed6e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." Ah!!! I see the rules have CHANGED, eh? Poor Randi or one of his legal experts must have plugged some holes that might have actually required him to pay out the money. from the website you listed: "This became effective on Sunday, April 1st, 2007, replacing the previous version of the Application; the nature of the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge in regard to those to who may now apply, has now changed substantially.]" Citizen Jimserac :> The rules can be found at :> http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-application.html :> Which of the 16 contains a statement that Randi decides if he will accept :> the challenge or not? : Ah!!! I see the rules have CHANGED, eh? In other words, you had not read the rules. : Poor Randi or one of his legal experts must have plugged : some holes that might have actually required him : to pay out the money. What part of the rules make it possible for him not to pay the money if a claimant meets the requirements? : "This became effective on Sunday, April 1st, 2007, replacing the : previous version of the Application; the nature of the One Million : Dollar Paranormal Challenge in regard to those to who may now apply, : has now changed substantially.]" I described the change in the rules in a separate post. The change was that now, in order to apply for the money, one must (a) have a "media presence" and (b) present a statement from an academic confirming that the applicant has the claimed ability. What part of that would prevent a person with a paranormal ability from being able to collect the money? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > In article <bd3b64a4-fd2f-4e08-853e-2ece2f7a3...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." > -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ Hey, you like the guy so much, why don't you abandon your laboratory work and simply go for the challenge? After all, maybe you don't need peer reviewed scientific journals any more - just meet the great Randi's standards, or whatever he calls them, and you've got instant fame. In case of a failed experiment, you could advertise that it "almost met the Randi experimental criterion" or "might have been" a shot at the challenge!! Great science or the complete perversion of scientific research - I leave it to your scientific brain to figure out which. I predict your scientifc peers will NOT be impressed. As you might expect, NEITHER ARE WE. Citizen Jimserac > Hey, you like the guy so much, why don't you abandon your > laboratory work and simply go for the challenge? After all, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac Schultzie is an excellent candidate for winning a prize from Randi. If Schultzie says something in quotes, you can be sure he said it first! He also makes logic and reason vanish into thin air faster you can say "fraudian slip!" I mean, faster than he will admit to *making* one. (He's probably quoting accurately this time, though, in a brilliant display of trickery designed to enthrall us with his unforgettable "Contortions of a Diseased Mind." Right, Schultzie? > On Apr 23, 8:57 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > a brilliant display of trickery designed to enthrall us with his > unforgettable "Contortions of a Diseased Mind." Right, Schultzie? I think he is sincere and really believes his own nonsense. First he shrinks his brain down to the level of a molecule in a test tube, then, anything that does not jive with the view "down there", LIKE HUMAN LIFE, he attacks. Citizen Jimserac :> : "This became effective on Sunday, April 1st, 2007, replacing the :> : previous version of the Application; the nature of the One Million :> : Dollar Paranormal Challenge in regard to those to who may now apply, :> : has now changed substantially.]" :> I described the change in the rules in a separate post. The change was :> that now, in order to apply for the money, one must (a) have a "media :> presence" and (b) present a statement from an academic confirming that :> the applicant has the claimed ability. What part of that would prevent :> a person with a paranormal ability from being able to collect the money? : Hey, you like the guy so much, why don't you abandon your laboratory : work and simply go for the challenge? After all, : maybe you don't need peer reviewed scientific journals any : more - just meet the great Randi's standards, or whatever : he calls them, and you've got instant fame. Do you really *enjoy* making a fool of yourself? I have never claimed any paranormal abilities, so therefore I am by definition ineligible for the $1 million prize for demonstrating paranormal abilities. Take my advice -- as you have demonstrated that you are completely clueless about Randi's challenge, the best thing that you can do the next time the subject comes up is *don't do anything*. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University --- |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message