Astana used acupuncture

notfastenough wrote:

I also wonder about whether this contravenes the no-needles policy - suppose it depends on whether you side with the letter or the spirit of the law...

Or if you are looking for an excuse to explain why your riders look like pin cushions....

Both chiropracty and osteopathy are largely bunk. Their perceived effect is likely largely placebo.

From wikipedia, with some discussion and references: Vertebral subluxation, the core concept of chiropractic, is not based on solid science. A 2008 review found that with the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition
and
In general, the results of randomized, controlled clinical trials have not proven osteopathy to be an effective therapy. Reviews of scientific literature produce little evidence that osteopathic manipulation is effective for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain,[26] or for pediatric conditions.

notfastenough wrote:

I don't have a particular side to take with acupuncture, but classing a chiropractor as quackery? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that and osteopaths just seem like alternatives to physio to me.

Physio is based on a good understanding of how the human body works*. Chiro is based on a crackpot concept that everything that ails you (not just back pains- we're talking asthma, viruses, bacterial infections, diabetes, even cancers!) can be cured by spinal manipulation to get rid of "subluxations". Osteopathy is chiro that's a little bit quieter about the whole "subluxation" thing.

*not perfect by any means, of course.

Al__S wrote:

notfastenough wrote:

I don't have a particular side to take with acupuncture, but classing a chiropractor as quackery? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that and osteopaths just seem like alternatives to physio to me.

Physio is based on a good understanding of how the human body works*. Chiro is based on a crackpot concept that everything that ails you (not just back pains- we're talking asthma, viruses, bacterial infections, diabetes, even cancers!) can be cured by spinal manipulation to get rid of "subluxations". Osteopathy is chiro that's a little bit quieter about the whole "subluxation" thing.

*not perfect by any means, of course.

I saw an osteopath years ago to help with some back pain. It did sort the problem, but I suspect the manipulations would have been very similar regardless of who (Physio/chiro/osteo) I went to see.

Wrongfoot wrote:

where "needles stuck anywhere with a bit of ceremony" was contrasted with "proper acupuncture" both worked... = placebo effect

Is that really proof that it is all placebo?

Surely it would only be placebo if one group had needles put in them and one group hadn't?

Surely that study is more akin to giving one group with headaches paracetamol and the other group unnamed tablets that happened to be paracetamol, and then calling paracetamol a placebo because the majority of the recipients found their headaches lessened?

No, because acupuncture is supposed to be needles (or other stimulation) inserted in specific places they call "acupoints". In fact, it turns out that you can stick needles in anywhere and have the same effect. Indicating that the effect is caused by the expectation of benefit, and hence, is the placebo effect.

A better version of your analogy would be to give one group of people with headaches paracetamol tablets and another group of people with headaches some paracetamol cream to rub on their feet. If both groups found their headaches lessened then yes, you could call paracetamol a placebo.

edit: I should note as adamthekiwi says above, the placebo effect can be beneficial, but it's no reason to buy in to bad science. Otherwise it's a slippery slope back to charms to ward off the plague.

faceplant wrote:

No, because acupuncture is supposed to be needles (or other stimulation) inserted in specific places they call "acupoints". In fact, it turns out that you can stick needles in anywhere and have the same effect. Indicating that the effect is caused by the expectation of benefit, and hence, is the placebo effect.

But they weren't stuck in anywhere, they were stuck in to the skin of the patients. You could say that the test was a test of whether someones Qi or energy flows through their organs is bollocks, but I still remain unconvinced that acupuncture in terms of putting needles in to the skin is the hokum that the study suggests it is.

I couldn't tell you anything about acupoints to save my life, but the sensations from having needles put in to me felt very, very real. The relaxing properties afterwards were very similar to that of more illegal methods, which was a pleasant bonus.

faceplant wrote:

edit: I should note as adamthekiwi says above, the placebo effect can be beneficial, but it's no reason to buy in to bad science. Otherwise it's a slippery slope back to charms to ward off the plague.

Although, don't you think we shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of medical treatments just because they are old or seemingly old fashioned? Isn't there an increase in the number of doctors using leeches again?

farrell wrote:

But they weren't stuck in anywhere, they were stuck in to the skin of the patients. You could say that the test was a test of whether someones Qi or energy flows through their organs is bollocks, but I still remain unconvinced that acupuncture in terms of putting needles in to the skin is the hokum that the study suggests it is.

I couldn't tell you anything about acupoints to save my life, but the sensations from having needles put in to me felt very, very real. The relaxing properties afterwards were very similar to that of more illegal methods, which was a pleasant bonus.

Again though, acupuncture performed "properly" requires the needles be inserted into very specific areas. The fact that the same effect could be achieved from inserting needles randomly indicates that the practice is a nonsense. Unless you're arguing that we should just insert needles randomly and call it acupuncture? Who knows, maybe that's what some of them do.

Your experience is a perfect illustration of the placebo effect. You received some kind of treatment, which you hoped or expected would relax you. However, it is no different to the doctor effect, or sugar pill, or people claiming miraculous cures due to homeopathy. The effects may be real, but the causes are absolutely due to the placebo effect or other changes, not the claimed treatments.

Quote:

Although, don't you think we shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of medical treatments just because they are old or seemingly old fashioned? Isn't there an increase in the number of doctors using leeches again?

The reason that we should resist these types of treatments, despite their potentially beneficial (placebo) effects, is that they are essentially frauds that lead people to false hope, and often take people's money. Sometimes people get better, but other times people rely on these false treatments for conditions that can be treated with modern medicine, which can result in deterioration in health, or even death. There's no baby in the bathwater, it's just water.

faceplant wrote:

Your experience is a perfect illustration of the placebo effect. You received some kind of treatment, which you hoped or expected would relax you.

Actually, I had no hopes or expectations about the acupuncture, if I had have known that it was going to happen I would have dismissed it as utter nonsense. It's not something I would have signed up for. However, my first thoughts on this bout of acupuncture matched my first words, which were "what the fuck are you doing?" as I looked down at a number of needles in my achilles and leg.

Al__S wrote:

It's quackery, pure and simple. Even supposedly "scientific" Garmin-Sharp employ a chiropractor. So much quackery and magical thinking going on.

Having used acupuncture and been treated by the NHS with it in the past I'd strongly disagree with calling acupuncture "quackery".

I am more willing to be proved wrong and hold my hands up to it just being a placebo effect if you can point me in the direction of such evidence?

farrell wrote:

Al__S wrote:

It's quackery, pure and simple. Even supposedly "scientific" Garmin-Sharp employ a chiropractor. So much quackery and magical thinking going on.

Having used acupuncture and been treated by the NHS with it in the past I'd strongly disagree with calling acupuncture "quackery".

I am more willing to be proved wrong and hold my hands up to it just being a placebo effect if you can point me in the direction of such evidence?

410 meta studies here showing no measurable effect http://www.cochrane.org/search/reviews/acupuncture

jason.timothy.jones wrote:

Farrell wrote:

I am more willing to be proved wrong and hold my hands up to it just being a placebo effect if you can point me in the direction of such evidence?

410 meta studies here showing no measurable effect http://www.cochrane.org/search/reviews/acupuncture

That's hardly irrefutable evidence, that's a merely link to a list of 412 studies relating to acupuncture, for a multitude of different reasons. Reasons which include, from a quick glance:

Acupuncture for induction of labour,
Acupuncture for mumps in children,
Acupuncture for people with autism spectrum disorders
Acupuncture and assisted conception

So even if those studies/reviews showed that there was absolute zero value in acupuncture for those treatments (and I don't even know if that is the case as I've not had the time to read them), you'd be comparing apples and oranges.

The first study I found that is related was Acupuncture for neck pain, which appears to conclude:

Quote:

Individuals with chronic neck pain who received acupuncture reported, on average, better pain relief immediately after treatment and in the short-term than those who received sham treatments. Individuals with chronic neck pain with symptoms radiating to the arms who received acupuncture reported, on average, better pain relief in the short-term

So even though you condescended people about Cochrane reviews whilst comparing acupunture to having tattoos, it appears that that even they are inconclusive, although still leading to the positive for acupuncture for that particular study.

That's hardly the same as magic anti-bear rocks now is it?

farrell wrote:

jason.timothy.jones wrote:

Farrell wrote:

I am more willing to be proved wrong and hold my hands up to it just being a placebo effect if you can point me in the direction of such evidence?

410 meta studies here showing no measurable effect http://www.cochrane.org/search/reviews/acupuncture

That's hardly irrefutable evidence, that's a merely link to a list of 412 studies relating to acupuncture, for a multitude of different reasons. Reasons which include, from a quick glance:

Acupuncture for induction of labour,
Acupuncture for mumps in children,
Acupuncture for people with autism spectrum disorders
Acupuncture and assisted conception

So even if those studies/reviews showed that there was absolute zero value in acupuncture for those treatments (and I don't even know if that is the case as I've not had the time to read them), you'd be comparing apples and oranges.

The first study I found that is related was Acupuncture for neck pain, which appears to conclude:

Quote:

Individuals with chronic neck pain who received acupuncture reported, on average, better pain relief immediately after treatment and in the short-term than those who received sham treatments. Individuals with chronic neck pain with symptoms radiating to the arms who received acupuncture reported, on average, better pain relief in the short-term

So even though you condescended people about Cochrane reviews whilst comparing acupunture to having tattoos, it appears that that even they are inconclusive, although still leading to the positive for acupuncture for that particular study.

That's hardly the same as magic anti-bear rocks now is it?

it actually is irrefutable evidence, these are not studies, they are meta analysis of ALL the available research, this is not cheery picked information from a part of a study, how can you even say that without reading the research, or understanding what inconclusive or significantly significant actually mean in scientific terms. I can find thousands of pages of information that 'proves' acupuncture works, but until it has been through the peer review process or compared to other similar results and then duplicated, it is worthless.

I can write a paper that (using someone else's post) shows drinking a bottle of scotch cures the common cold, I have the appropriate qualifications, and the contacts to have this published, it wont go into a reputable journal, I will have to pay a small fee, and dodge the peer review process, but it will be published, and if I am a true scum bag I will send it to the print media as a press release first.

If you don't believe this is what happens read Bad Science and Bad Pharma, its all in there and all backed up by actually experts in medicine and science, not just some guy with a blog on the internet

jason.timothy.jones wrote:

it actually is irrefutable evidence, these are not studies, they are meta analysis of ALL the available research, this is not cheery picked information from a part of a study, how can you even say that without reading the research

Have you read it all? I very much doubt you have even clicked on the link because its just a list of summaries of studies.

I'm sure that by shoehorning in technical sounding language you're making yourself feel very intelligent, but all you've really done is gone to the Cochrane website and searched for the word "Acupuncture" and provided a link to the search result.

Using your logic, I can prove that Ghosts exist:
http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/ghosts

and also magic:
http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/magic

farrell wrote:

jason.timothy.jones wrote:

it actually is irrefutable evidence, these are not studies, they are meta analysis of ALL the available research, this is not cheery picked information from a part of a study, how can you even say that without reading the research

Have you read it all? I very much doubt you have even clicked on the link because its just a list of summaries of studies.

Actually, yes I have, I am in the middle of writing a thesis on the dangers of misrepresenting or misinterpreting research. I have read more research information than most practicing MD's

Sooo, ummm there is that

jason.timothy.jones wrote:

To be honest i'm not to sure what your agenda is, but you seem to like to form an argument out of misrepresenting what others have said, go ahead for all I care, i shall be ignoring you

I have no agenda. I have an open mind. I'm not extolling the virtues of anything to anyone or trying to sell anything. I've just asked for this evidence that acupuncture is quackery they everyone seems to have.

The two things that have been posted are:

A study where one group was given acupuncture in specific locations and the second was given acupuncture is non-specific locations. The patients reported an improvement in their back pain. My reasoning is that the patients still had needles put in them. Surely the test should have that been one group has acupuncture, one group doesn't?

And the link you provided, which was a simply a list of reviews of studies. When I went through the list (that you provided) and found a review relating to neck pain (chosen because that was more relevant in a conversation regarding back pain than autism or trying to conceive) it showed acupuncture in a positive light in terms of pain relief. Remember, you provided the link so it was your evidence, so it strikes me as odd that you would provide that as proof it doesn't work.

jason.timothy.jones wrote:

Actually, yes I have, I am in the middle of writing a thesis on the dangers of misrepresenting or misinterpreting research. I have read more research information than most practicing MD's

Sooo, ummm there is that

You've read every single one of those 412 reviews that you linked? If so, why didn't you notice that a huge chunk of them had nothing to do with back pain? Some are nothing to do with pain at all. Some show acupuncture in a positive light, as far as proof that acupuncture as a treatment for back pain is hogwash that doesn't seem to make sense.

I do hope that your arguments in your thesis are better and more clearly presented than your arguments here.

Again, I have no agenda or vested interest in acupuncture (or any other complementary/alternative treatments for that matter), I'm just interested to see this, if any, evidence that the acupuncture I felt worked for me was in fact the product of my own mind.

I fear we are going round in circles though so I'll just wish you the best of luck with your studies and leave it at that.

jason.timothy.jones wrote:

If you don't believe this is what happens read Bad Science and Bad Pharma, its all in there and all backed up by actually experts in medicine and science, not just some guy with a blog on the internet

So, if I don't believe you then I must be listening to "some guy with a blog on the internet", but you must be correct because you've referenced some guy who is a columnist for the Guardian?

By the way, I've attended Ben Goldacre giving a lecture on Bad Pharma and read a lot of his work so I'm not really intending to besmirch or discredit his or anyone else's work.

farrell wrote:

jason.timothy.jones wrote:

If you don't believe this is what happens read Bad Science and Bad Pharma, its all in there and all backed up by actually experts in medicine and science, not just some guy with a blog on the internet

So, if I don't believe you then I must be listening to "some guy with a blog on the internet", but you must be correct because you've referenced some guy who is a columnist for the Guardian?

By the way, I've attended Ben Goldacre giving a lecture on Bad Pharma and read a lot of his work so I'm not really intending to besmirch or discredit his or anyone else's work.

I am not asking you to believe me, am am asking you to look at the facts you can take my words and twist them out of context any way that you like, it does not prove anything, except for the fact that you wont let scientific and medically proven research sway your fixed ideas.

Also, just for your information, as much as Dr Goldacre does write for the Guardian, he is actually a Research Fellow in Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. I think he deserves a little more respect than being called some guy who is a columnist.

To be honest i'm not to sure what your agenda is, but you seem to like to form an argument out of misrepresenting what others have said, go ahead for all I care, i shall be ignoring you

Al__S wrote:

It's quackery, pure and simple. Even supposedly "scientific" Garmin-Sharp employ a chiropractor. So much quackery and magical thinking going on.

Many years ago I suffered dreadfully with a slipped disc. The medics solution of physio and mind blowing painkillers didn't do much, but a Chiropractor sorted me out. I still go 3 times a year for 'maintenance'. On one of my recent visits I had a stiff neck that just wouldn't go away. Chiro sorted it out. Works for some.

Al__S wrote:

It's quackery, pure and simple. Even supposedly "scientific" Garmin-Sharp employ a chiropractor. So much quackery and magical thinking going on.

My teacher taught me this:

If you don't know something, it's simply more than you know.

My master taught me:

To say "I don't know" is half of knowledge.

You can't possible know everything, so perhaps you have no experience of acupuncture. If you do, let's hear it. If not let me share my experience with you.

I was very fit when I was young, training all the time, like crazy. I can't remember how, but my index finger started being very cold and I couldn't bend it properly, whereas the others were OK.
I went to see the doctor, he gave me some cream. It didn't work after weeks. Someone recommended me to see an acupuncturist. It was back to normal in days.

Not all are good though, and it can't treat everything.

The human body is quite complex. Now doctors are talking of circadian rhythms and perhaps giving medicine when the body is most able to use it properly to increase the effectiveness of it. This was well known in Chinese medicine a good thousand years ago.

I could tell you things that your mind would reject simply because you cannot perceive them. Does that make them not true?