Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
What you describe is exactly the kind of thing a review could conclude.
"There were only four conditions for which more than one systematic review reached the same conclusions, and only one of the four was positive (neck pain)."
|
Right, acupuncture in general. But for all we know the other three conditions were bunk (ie positive results for acupuncture treating migraines, the flu, etc).
Therefore it's conclusion that all acupuncture lacks efficacy is false. Muscle stiffness may be a scientifically-backed use of acupuncture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
How else do you propose that patterns of efficacy be determined, other than reviewing the literature from that point of view?
Individual studies are often very limited in their scope, can be badly designed, be a false positive, or countless other issues that could arise with a single study.
|
Yes I'm very aware of the benefits of reviews. Most reviews, however, target one claim directly, such as "glutamine aids in muscle protein anabolism after resistance training", rather than "acupuncture does what it claims". It claims many things. That's like debunking penicillin use because it doesn't cure depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
It's less "is acupuncture effective", because each review and each paper in the review being reviewed will have its own goals and criteria, it's more "does acupuncture do what it claims".
It's clear to me that it has substance, and it clearly had substance according to the anonymous referees of the journal.
|
Like I said, "is penicillin effective"? Well that depends on what you're claiming it to be effective for.