An interesting video from Reason.com regarding Alt-med

[channonc 466]

Let me just start by saying this is an issue with which I have personal experience. I had quite a battle with several health issues that several doctors and specialists couldn't explain or effectively treat. Once I started with regular acupuncture sessions, my pain and other symptoms slowly disappeared. I still do regular acupuncture sessions (about every 4 weeks) and find that it really helps me maintain my health.

I believe especially with acupuncture, it can be used very effectively in conjunction with traditional medicine and have met lots of people fighting cancer, looking to conceive, who have found that their bodies respond better to traditional therapies when coupled with acupuncture. And like my experience, may actually be able to treat things that traditional medicine simply can't.

All of that being said, I do believe there are quacks out there who are selling "magic potion" and have the worst of intentions. While I appreciate that there are several studies that say acupuncture isn't effective, there are also some that say it may be effective.

Acupuncture is one of those alternatives that have been shown to work, we just don't know why.

http://www.theatlant...uncture/245816/

Well it sure as hell isn't because of properly directed "chi," which is how it's supposed to function. Acupuncture researchers have yet to show consistent, statistically significant, and relevant effects in proper clinical trials. Not for lack of trying, though. Lot of money spent on it.

That's a rather bold statement that can be neither proven or disproven.

Acupuncture may have some as yet unproven medical benefit, but I can state unequivocally that the conclusion that it heals through properly aligned chi is fantasy.

And the clinical trials aspect is 100% fact.

How does one measure the chi?

[AUDub 11,147]

Let me just start by saying this is an issue with which I have personal experience. I had quite a battle with several health issues that several doctors and specialists couldn't explain or effectively treat. Once I started with regular acupuncture sessions, my pain and other symptoms slowly disappeared. I still do regular acupuncture sessions (about every 4 weeks) and find that it really helps me maintain my health.

I believe especially with acupuncture, it can be used very effectively in conjunction with traditional medicine and have met lots of people fighting cancer, looking to conceive, who have found that their bodies respond better to traditional therapies when coupled with acupuncture. And like my experience, may actually be able to treat things that traditional medicine simply can't.

All of that being said, I do believe there are quacks out there who are selling "magic potion" and have the worst of intentions. While I appreciate that there are several studies that say acupuncture isn't effective, there are also some that say it may be effective.

Acupuncture is one of those alternatives that have been shown to work, we just don't know why.

http://www.theatlant...uncture/245816/

Well it sure as hell isn't because of properly directed "chi," which is how it's supposed to function. Acupuncture researchers have yet to show consistent, statistically significant, and relevant effects in proper clinical trials. Not for lack of trying, though. Lot of money spent on it.

That's a rather bold statement that can be neither proven or disproven.

Acupuncture may have some as yet unproven medical benefit, but I can state unequivocally that the conclusion that it heals through properly aligned chi is fantasy.

And the clinical trials aspect is 100% fact.

How does one measure the chi?

The same way we quantify one's midichlorians.

[channonc 466]

Let me just start by saying this is an issue with which I have personal experience. I had quite a battle with several health issues that several doctors and specialists couldn't explain or effectively treat. Once I started with regular acupuncture sessions, my pain and other symptoms slowly disappeared. I still do regular acupuncture sessions (about every 4 weeks) and find that it really helps me maintain my health.

I believe especially with acupuncture, it can be used very effectively in conjunction with traditional medicine and have met lots of people fighting cancer, looking to conceive, who have found that their bodies respond better to traditional therapies when coupled with acupuncture. And like my experience, may actually be able to treat things that traditional medicine simply can't.

All of that being said, I do believe there are quacks out there who are selling "magic potion" and have the worst of intentions. While I appreciate that there are several studies that say acupuncture isn't effective, there are also some that say it may be effective.

Acupuncture is one of those alternatives that have been shown to work, we just don't know why.

http://www.theatlant...uncture/245816/

Well it sure as hell isn't because of properly directed "chi," which is how it's supposed to function. Acupuncture researchers have yet to show consistent, statistically significant, and relevant effects in proper clinical trials. Not for lack of trying, though. Lot of money spent on it.

That's a rather bold statement that can be neither proven or disproven.

Acupuncture may have some as yet unproven medical benefit, but I can state unequivocally that the conclusion that it heals through properly aligned chi is fantasy.

And the clinical trials aspect is 100% fact.

How does one measure the chi?

The same way we quantify one's midichlorians.

exactly my point.

[AUDub 11,147]

Let me just start by saying this is an issue with which I have personal experience. I had quite a battle with several health issues that several doctors and specialists couldn't explain or effectively treat. Once I started with regular acupuncture sessions, my pain and other symptoms slowly disappeared. I still do regular acupuncture sessions (about every 4 weeks) and find that it really helps me maintain my health.

I believe especially with acupuncture, it can be used very effectively in conjunction with traditional medicine and have met lots of people fighting cancer, looking to conceive, who have found that their bodies respond better to traditional therapies when coupled with acupuncture. And like my experience, may actually be able to treat things that traditional medicine simply can't.

All of that being said, I do believe there are quacks out there who are selling "magic potion" and have the worst of intentions. While I appreciate that there are several studies that say acupuncture isn't effective, there are also some that say it may be effective.

Acupuncture is one of those alternatives that have been shown to work, we just don't know why.

http://www.theatlant...uncture/245816/

Well it sure as hell isn't because of properly directed "chi," which is how it's supposed to function. Acupuncture researchers have yet to show consistent, statistically significant, and relevant effects in proper clinical trials. Not for lack of trying, though. Lot of money spent on it.

That's a rather bold statement that can be neither proven or disproven.

Acupuncture may have some as yet unproven medical benefit, but I can state unequivocally that the conclusion that it heals through properly aligned chi is fantasy.

And the clinical trials aspect is 100% fact.

How does one measure the chi?

The same way we quantify one's midichlorians.

exactly my point.

You are aware that midichlorians, like chi, are fiction, right?

[Strychnine 1,802]

Let me just start by saying this is an issue with which I have personal experience. I had quite a battle with several health issues that several doctors and specialists couldn't explain or effectively treat. Once I started with regular acupuncture sessions, my pain and other symptoms slowly disappeared. I still do regular acupuncture sessions (about every 4 weeks) and find that it really helps me maintain my health.

I believe especially with acupuncture, it can be used very effectively in conjunction with traditional medicine and have met lots of people fighting cancer, looking to conceive, who have found that their bodies respond better to traditional therapies when coupled with acupuncture. And like my experience, may actually be able to treat things that traditional medicine simply can't.

All of that being said, I do believe there are quacks out there who are selling "magic potion" and have the worst of intentions. While I appreciate that there are several studies that say acupuncture isn't effective, there are also some that say it may be effective.

Acupuncture is one of those alternatives that have been shown to work, we just don't know why.

http://www.theatlant...uncture/245816/

Well it sure as hell isn't because of properly directed "chi," which is how it's supposed to function. Acupuncture researchers have yet to show consistent, statistically significant, and relevant effects in proper clinical trials. Not for lack of trying, though. Lot of money spent on it.

That's a rather bold statement that can be neither proven or disproven.

Acupuncture may have some as yet unproven medical benefit, but I can state unequivocally that the conclusion that it heals through properly aligned chi is fantasy.

And the clinical trials aspect is 100% fact.

How does one measure the chi?

The same way we quantify one's midichlorians.

exactly my point.

You are aware that midichlorians, like chi, are fiction, right?

Are you trying to tell me that Qui-Gon is not real?

[AUDub 11,147]

Are you trying to tell me that Qui-Gon is not real?

In my mind, anything Star Wars post 1997 does not count. What a way to **** up the mysticism of the Force, Lucas.

[AUDub 11,147]

Seems relevant

I learned something new

I already knew that acupuncture had failed to show significant effects in clinical trials, but this video also mentions some things about the history of acupuncture in China — it was rejected by Chinese scholars long ago, and was only revived as a tool for propaganda.

The comments on the video are amazing. A lot of people don’t like the guy’s beard, but there is also this sentiment I’ve heard many times before:

"Your are such a jerk. You are making fun about thousands of people who just believe in something. Is that so wrong ? Even if its just placebo, who cares ? Just let people be happy. They arent hurt by acupuncture, so just let them do what they want. Because of these videos I dont wanna follow this channel anymore."

Spoken like someone who really doesn’t care about the truth at all. Note that the speaker isn’t taking away anyone’s acupuncture needles…he’s merely saying the facts, that acupuncture is junk science.

[channonc 466]

Let me just start by saying this is an issue with which I have personal experience. I had quite a battle with several health issues that several doctors and specialists couldn't explain or effectively treat. Once I started with regular acupuncture sessions, my pain and other symptoms slowly disappeared. I still do regular acupuncture sessions (about every 4 weeks) and find that it really helps me maintain my health.

I believe especially with acupuncture, it can be used very effectively in conjunction with traditional medicine and have met lots of people fighting cancer, looking to conceive, who have found that their bodies respond better to traditional therapies when coupled with acupuncture. And like my experience, may actually be able to treat things that traditional medicine simply can't.

All of that being said, I do believe there are quacks out there who are selling "magic potion" and have the worst of intentions. While I appreciate that there are several studies that say acupuncture isn't effective, there are also some that say it may be effective.

Acupuncture is one of those alternatives that have been shown to work, we just don't know why.

http://www.theatlant...uncture/245816/

Well it sure as hell isn't because of properly directed "chi," which is how it's supposed to function. Acupuncture researchers have yet to show consistent, statistically significant, and relevant effects in proper clinical trials. Not for lack of trying, though. Lot of money spent on it.

That's a rather bold statement that can be neither proven or disproven.

Acupuncture may have some as yet unproven medical benefit, but I can state unequivocally that the conclusion that it heals through properly aligned chi is fantasy.

And the clinical trials aspect is 100% fact.

How does one measure the chi?

The same way we quantify one's midichlorians.

exactly my point.

You are aware that midichlorians, like chi, are fiction, right?

Yes, of course.

I think we may be talking past each other. Your original point is that there is no study that proves that acupunture properly moves the chi. To which I said that it was a bold statement considering that it couldn't be proven or disproven given that you can't measure the chi.

There's no science that proves the chi exists to be moved, but none that disproves it either. Much like the concept of heaven and hell. You either believe in it or you don't, but there's no science that can effectively prove or disprove it's existence.

[channonc 466]

Ben, re: post 32 (not going to quote it and take up that much space), there are lots of studies that suggest acupuncture does provide pain relief. For me, it provided tremendous relief that even a prescription medication couldn't provide me. I also believe that acupuncture allows your body to become relaxed which I believe does help envoke the relaxation response and allows your body to begin to heal. This does not mean that I think acupuncture alone can cure cancer or something like that. However, I do think that acupuncture can be effective in relieving pain and discomfort from cancer treatments which in effect make those treatments more effective.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Are you trying to tell me that Qui-Gon is not real?

In my mind, anything Star Wars post 1997 does not count. What a way to **** up the mysticism of the Force, Lucas.

Agreed.

[AUDub 11,147]

Ben, re: post 32 (not going to quote it and take up that much space), there are lots of studies that suggest acupuncture does provide pain relief. For me, it provided tremendous relief that even a prescription medication couldn't provide me. I also believe that acupuncture allows your body to become relaxed which I believe does help envoke the relaxation response and allows your body to begin to heal. This does not mean that I think acupuncture alone can cure cancer or something like that. However, I do think that acupuncture can be effective in relieving pain and discomfort from cancer treatments which in effect make those treatments more effective.

Here's a direct response to that paper from Stevan Novella at SBM:

A recent meta-analysis of acupuncture studies for chronic pain by Vickers et al is getting a great deal of press. The authors’ conclusions are:

Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable referral option. Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo. However, these differences are relatively modest, suggesting that factors in addition to the specific effects of needling are important contributors to the therapeutic effects of acupuncture.

News reports generally reflect this conclusion – acupuncture works, but mostly (although not entirely) through placebo effect, but that’s OK.

I took a close look at the study and find that the authors display considerable pro-acupuncture bias in their analysis and discussion. They clearly want acupuncture to work. That aside, the data are simply not compelling, and the authors, in my opinion, grossly overcall the results, which are compatible with the conclusion that there are no specific effects to acupuncture beyond placebo.

The meta-analysis looked at 29 randomized clinical trials of acupuncture in back pain, neck pain, headache, and osteoarthritis, involving both sham and no-acupuncture controls. The differences between acupuncture and no-acupuncture were large, reflecting an absolute reduction in pain of about a 30% (50% relative reduction). However, the authors acknowledge:

Because the comparisons between acupuncture and no-acupuncture cannot be blinded, both performance and response bias are possible.

In other words – the unblinded comparison between acupuncture and no acupuncture is entirely overwhelmed by bias and completely useless. The no acupuncture control groups involved patients continuing to receive usual care (whatever they were already receiving that was not effective, or sometimes just being told not to get acupuncture). This was not a comparison to any specific medical intervention. In other words, the subjects were aware they were receiving no treatment.

It is curious that the authors would even bother to include such an analysis, but they reveal their purpose in their discussion:

Even though on average these effects are small, the clinical decision made by physicians and patients is not between true and sham acupuncture but between a referral to an acupuncturist or avoiding such a referral.

This is the agenda of acupuncture proponents – to use the non-specific effect of receiving an intervention to promote the use of acupuncture. If a study shows no significant difference between true and sham acupuncture, then they argue that this placebo effect is enough to justify treatment. If the study (or in this case a meta-analysis) shows a small difference, then they use that small difference to justify the conclusion that acupuncture is real (even though the specific effects are negligible) and then use the large non-specific effects to justify the treatment.

Either way, proponents are inappropriately leveraging placebo effects (which are largely biases) to promote a treatment that has an effect size that is very small and, in my opinion, overlaps with no effect at all.

The authors make much of the small effect difference in their meta-analysis between true and sham acupuncture. They summarize their results by saying, if the no intervention group has a pain of 60%, then true acupuncture reduces it to 30% and sham acupuncture to 35%. While this difference was statistically significant in this meta-analysis, it is highly dubious to claim that the 5% difference is clinically significant, or even perceptible. To me this is no difference at all.

The primary difference between my opinion of this data and the authors’, however, is that the authors are quick to conclude that because their data was statistically significant that means there is a real physiological effect (if modest) to acupuncture. This conclusion, however, reflects probable bias, but certain naivete with regards to the reliability of clinical trials. This level of difference is within the noise of clinical trials, which are simply not precise enough to detect such a small difference.

The authors acknowledge:

Similarly, while we considered the risk of bias of unblinding low in most studies comparing acupuncture and sham acupuncture, health care providers obviously were aware of the treatment provided, and, as such, a certain degree of bias of our effect estimate for specific effects cannot be entirely ruled out.

This is the understatement of the paper – a certain degree of bias cannot be ruled out. What the last century of clinical research has clearly shown is that a significant amount of bias is guaranteed. All it takes is a little bias, innocent exploitation of researcher degrees of freedom, and you have your 5%.

The authors acknowledge that there are a couple of studies that are outliers – those by Vas et.al. had effect sizes 5 times that of the average. When you remove these studies the effects are still significant. There is also researcher bias in that the larger the study the smaller the effect size, but when you remove small studies the effects are still significant. They also argue that unpublished studies (publication bias) would be unlikely to cause their results.

However – when you add the effects from outliers, small studies, and publication bias all together I wonder what the total effect is on the data (not even including the fact that it is a certainty the data is polluted in the false positive direction by researcher degrees of freedom). The performance of a meta-analysis introduces yet another layer of potential bias or distortion in the methods of the meta-anslysis itself – how are studies chosen for inclusion, for example, and all the researcher degrees of freedom that apply to any study.

Conclusion

The Vickers acupuncture meta-analysis, despite the authors’ claims, does not reveal anything new about the acupuncture literature, and does not provide support for use of acupuncture as a legitimate medical intervention. The data show that there is a large difference in outcome when an unblinded comparison is made between treatment and no treatment – an unsurprising result that is of no clinical relevance and says nothing about acupuncture itself.

The comparison between true acupuncture and sham acupuncture shows only a small difference, which is likely not clinically significant or perceptible. More importantly, this small difference is well within the degree of bias and noise that are inherent to clinical trials. Researcher bias, publication bias, outlying effects, and researcher degrees of freedom are more than enough to explain such a small difference. In other words – this data is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis, even if we don’t consider the high implausibility of acupuncture.

Further, meta-analysis itself is an imperfect tool that often does not predict the results of large, rigorous, definitive clinical trials. The best acupuncture trials, those that are well-blinded and include placebo acupuncture, show no specific effects.

It's one of my favorite blogs along with Respectful Insolence, also authored by an MD.

[channonc 466]

Again, I go back to can't be proven, but can't be disproven. I know for me it worked, and my MD specialist agreed that I wouldn't have gotten the same results going with traditional medicine in this case as there was no diagnosis even though labs and such were coming back abnormal. My pain was through the roof and my body was rejecting lots of different foods.

I believe acupuncture helps with the relaxation response necessary to allow your body to help heal. My favorite book on this topic was "Mind Over Medicine" by Lissa Rankin, MD who saw how working in a lot of these methods into her own traditional practice began to really help some of her patients.

This more effectively explains what I believe to be true about studying acupuncture.

[AUDub 11,147]

Again, I go back to can't be proven, but can't be disproven. I know for me it worked, and my MD specialist agreed that I wouldn't have gotten the same results going with traditional medicine in this case as there was no diagnosis even though labs and such were coming back abnormal. My pain was through the roof and my body was rejecting lots of different foods.

I believe acupuncture helps with the relaxation response necessary to allow your body to help heal. My favorite book on this topic was "Mind Over Medicine" by Lissa Rankin, MD who saw how working in a lot of these methods into her own traditional practice began to really help some of her patients.

This more effectively explains what I believe to be true about studying acupuncture.

Clinical research can never prove that an intervention has zero effect, so clinical research by default assumes the null hypothesis, that the treatment does not work, and the burden of proof lies with demonstrating evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

What I mean is, given what I've gleaned on your views, there is absolutely no proof that will cause you to reject your beliefs on the matter.

You have your anecdotal evidence but no clinical studies, on which impressive amounts of taxpayer money has been and continue to be spent, capable of rejecting the null hypothesis. After decades of research and more than 3000 trials, researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant.

Basically, acupuncture does not work. Giving someone a tic tac and telling them it's medicine is just as effective a means to cure their headache as acupuncture would be for any given ailment it supposedly treats.

Given your apparent views on how clinical research functions, we could just as easily be discussing trepanation, reiki, ear candling, the four humors and miasmas. By your standard, they can't be disproven either.

And keep in mind on the personal experience canard, anecdote != data.

[AUDub 11,147]

Tangentially related to the topic.

An alternative medicine conference has ended in chaos in Germany after dozens of delegates took a LSD-like drug and started suffering from hallucinations.

Broadcaster NDR described the 29 men and women “staggering around, rolling in a meadow, talking gibberish and suffering severe cramps”.

The group of "Heilpraktikers" was discovered at the hotel where they held their conference in the town of Handeloh, south of Hamburg, on Friday.

More than 150 medical staff, ambulances and police descended on the scene and took the raving delegates to hospital.

The patients, aged between 24 and 56, were found suffering from delusions, breathing problems, racing hearts and cramps, with some in a serious condition, Deutsche Welle reported.

Tests on their blood and urine revealed they had all taken hallucinogenic drug 2C-E, which is known as Aquarust in Germany and has been illegal there since the end of last year.

Yowza. 2C-E. That was one of Shulgin's big ones. Very small dose, very easy to OD.

I would be very surprised if they took it intentionally.

[channonc 466]

Again, I go back to can't be proven, but can't be disproven. I know for me it worked, and my MD specialist agreed that I wouldn't have gotten the same results going with traditional medicine in this case as there was no diagnosis even though labs and such were coming back abnormal. My pain was through the roof and my body was rejecting lots of different foods.

I believe acupuncture helps with the relaxation response necessary to allow your body to help heal. My favorite book on this topic was "Mind Over Medicine" by Lissa Rankin, MD who saw how working in a lot of these methods into her own traditional practice began to really help some of her patients.

This more effectively explains what I believe to be true about studying acupuncture.

Clinical research can never prove that an intervention has zero effect, so clinical research by default assumes the null hypothesis, that the treatment does not work, and the burden of proof lies with demonstrating evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

What I mean is, given what I've gleaned on your views, there is absolutely no proof that will cause you to reject your beliefs on the matter.

You have your anecdotal evidence but no clinical studies, on which impressive amounts of taxpayer money has been and continue to be spent, capable of rejecting the null hypothesis. After decades of research and more than 3000 trials, researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant.

Basically, acupuncture does not work. Giving someone a tic tac and telling them it's medicine is just as effective a means to cure their headache as acupuncture would be for any given ailment it supposedly treats.

Given your apparent views on how clinical research functions, we could just as easily be discussing trepanation, reiki, ear candling, the four humors and miasmas. By your standard, they can't be disproven either.

And keep in mind on the personal experience canard, anecdote != data.

Sorry for the long response time... actually had work to do!

Look, I stated up front that my experience, was in fact, just my experience. But in shaping my own beliefs and what's best for me, I will go off of my experience over a clinical study any day. It worked for me, and I have my MD's backing on that as well. While I completely respect your right to your own opinion, you are right about my thoughts on this subject. Nothing will convince me that this didn't work FOR ME. I am making no other judgements on whether or not it WILL work for someone else, other than to say, unlike other alternative treatments, this one has very little risk, and would in no way interfere with traditional treatments (medications, etc.) so if you try it and it doesn't work, move on.

One thing I will say that I am sure we can agree on, is that this stuff really does need to be regulated so that people aren't flat out ripped off. Especially when it comes to anything invasive, and/or vitamin and herbal supplements. Some of those are dangerous if used incorrectly and without FDA regulation, it is way too easy for these things to be misused. I also know that some supplements and herbs negatively react with certain medications, but warning labels are not required for most of these things.

All in all though, I think we should just agree to disagree on this one.

[AUDub 11,147]

Sorry for the long response time... actually had work to do!

Look, I stated up front that my experience, was in fact, just my experience. But in shaping my own beliefs and what's best for me, I will go off of my experience over a clinical study any day. It worked for me, and I have my MD's backing on that as well. While I completely respect your right to your own opinion, you are right about my thoughts on this subject. Nothing will convince me that this didn't work FOR ME. I am making no other judgements on whether or not it WILL work for someone else, other than to say, unlike other alternative treatments, this one has very little risk, and would in no way interfere with traditional treatments (medications, etc.) so if you try it and it doesn't work, move on.

One thing I will say that I am sure we can agree on, is that this stuff really does need to be regulated so that people aren't flat out ripped off. Especially when it comes to anything invasive, and/or vitamin and herbal supplements. Some of those are dangerous if used incorrectly and without FDA regulation, it is way too easy for these things to be misused. I also know that some supplements and herbs negatively react with certain medications, but warning labels are not required for most of these things.

All in all though, I think we should just agree to disagree on this one.

My objection is with the copious quantities of taxpayer money spent trying to prove Alt-Med's efficacy while failing at every turn and the possibility that gullible people will reject researched and verified medical intervention in favor of the charlatans shilling this stuff. It has happened. People have died needlessly.

As the old saying goes, there's no such thing as alternative medicine. If it actually works, we simply call it medicine, and working in healthcare for the vast majority of my adult life has shaped my views on the matter tremendously.