Acupuncture- Real or B.S.

[TheSutterDynasty]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17080543

Pain was controlled better by acupuncture while ROM improved following physical therapy. However, patients treated by both methods had the best outcome

In other words, physio that uses acupuncture improves ROM (and consequently pain, which isn't my focus) better than physiotherapy alone.

And this search is proving more difficult than I thought. Almost all searches of acupuncture in research databases relate to the Eastern "energy flow" methods and pain management, rather than something that may help with muscle stiffness.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Over here in North America we feel our medicine is the best possible way to treat patients...it's almost an air of cockiness. We completely dismiss other methods as hokey or phony....yet Canada's Life Expectancy is 10th and the US is 36th in the World. Who is #1? Japan. #2? Hong Kong.

If by "completely dismiss" you mean "test rigorously and discard methods that don't work" then I guess you are correct.

There are two conflicting ways one can approach the world:

#1. If observation, logic, or research contradicts what I know to be true, so much the worse for observation, logic or research.

#2. I base what I think to be true on logic, observation and research.

The problem is that you think you are going by method #2, but sadly you are actually #1 all the way, as you are selecting the data that confirms your belief and ignoring the data that contradicts it.

A wise man once said: "'Alternative' medicine that works is just called 'medicine'."

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by jammies

If by "completely dismiss" you mean "test rigorously and discard methods that don't work" then I guess you are correct.

There are two conflicting ways one can approach the world:

#1. If observation, logic, or research contradicts what I know to be true, so much the worse for observation, logic or research.

#2. I base what I think to be true on logic, observation and research.

The problem is that you think you are going by method #2, but sadly you are actually #1 all the way, as you are selecting the data that confirms your belief and ignoring the data that contradicts it.

A wise man once said: "'Alternative' medicine that works is just called 'medicine'."

I really like that quote...that's good.

I'm in #2 camp but I'm starting to definitely starting to question traditional methods and am exploring other options of "healing". I wouldn't say I am ignoring the contradictory information, I am merely exploring it to see whether it works for me or not. If I feel I'm getting a benefit from those and I am improving mentally, physically, etc. then yes I will say it is working.

I have absolutely no idea if that answers anything you wrote in your post...

[jammies]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I really like that quote...that's good.
If I feel I'm getting a benefit from those and I am improving mentally, physically, etc. then yes I will say it is working.

It's counter-intuitive, but one's personal experience is one of the least accurate methods of determining the truth behind something.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by jammies

It's counter-intuitive, but one's personal experience is one of the least accurate methods of determining the truth behind something.

Now is that because a person filters the incoming information and puts a spin on the truth? Just wondering if you could expand a bit.

[EVERLAST]

it works only if the practitioner know what he/she is doing

[Ziggy Lidstrom]

I tried it a bunch, for non muscular reasons. My guy was good, but not good enough. Yet, I could see how IMS could work for muscle pain, or inflammation related issues.

I'm open to a lot of different ideas, Western, Eastern, Ayurvedic and herbal medicine. I believe with all the information available, we should consider everything. I try to be scientific and have a high degree of skepticism, but I'm open to trying things without pessimism. I distrust the pharmaceutical industry for many reasons, but still I believe in many advents of Western medicine. I will leave that for another time.

When you're experiencing pain, people will enlist some desperate measures, but I don't blame them. Acupuncture won't get you pregnant, or cure baldness or the flue virus but it can with IMS, help physical problems for many people. Thus, don't expect a clydesdale to beat seattle slew in a quarter mile. Ie. do your homework and place your bets carefully.

and that was a good back and forth TSD and Photon.

[GirlySports]

I'm not giving away any ancient Chinese secrets.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by Ziggy Lidstrom

I tried it a bunch, for non muscular reasons. My guy was good, but not good enough. Yet, I could see how IMS could work for muscle pain, or inflammation related issues.

I'm open to a lot of different ideas, Western, Eastern, Ayurvedic and herbal medicine. I believe with all the information available, we should consider everything. I try to be scientific and have a high degree of skepticism, but I'm open to trying things without pessimism. I distrust the pharmaceutical industry for many reasons, but still I believe in many advents of Western medicine. I will leave that for another time.

When you're experiencing pain, people will enlist some desperate measures, but I don't blame them. Acupuncture won't get you pregnant, or cure baldness or the flue virus but it can with IMS, help physical problems for many people. Thus, don't expect a clydesdale to beat seattle slew in a quarter mile. Ie. do your homework and place your bets carefully.

and that was a good back and forth TSD and Photon.

You summed up my thoughts but much better than myself....thank you.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Over here in North America we feel our medicine is the best possible way to treat patients...it's almost an air of cockiness. We completely dismiss other methods as hokey or phony....yet Canada's Life Expectancy is 10th and the US is 36th in the World. Who is #1? Japan. #2? Hong Kong. While those places likely practice Western Medicine, they likely also practice Eastern Medicine...and Eastern medicine has been around for over 3000 years; they've had time to figure out whether something works or doesn't work.

As humans we have a very difficult understanding of things we can't explain so we obviously dismiss them as irrelevant or ridiculous. It's this short-sided viewpoint which completely limits our ability to see anything beyond what is absolute and matter-a-fact.

Confounding variable: Diet

[zuluking]

Scientific studies are only as effective as the controls they have to isolate what they're trying to measure. Alternative health modalities tend to be holistic in nature and are meant to address entire body and all the variables associated. Is it more challenging to measure scientifically? Absolutely. Do we need to measure things scientifically in order to prove efficacy? No.

[photon]

How do you determine efficacy then? Guess? Or just assume it's effective?

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Confounding variable: Diet

Definitely a variable...but not the only one. Way too simplified a statement.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Scientific studies are only as effective as the controls they have to isolate what they're trying to measure. Alternative health modalities tend to be holistic in nature and are meant to address entire body and all the variables associated. Is it more challenging to measure scientifically? Absolutely. Do we need to measure things scientifically in order to prove efficacy? No.

I think the "holistic nature" of alternative treatments is a myth; almost all of them are gross oversimplifications that use the same approach regardless of what the problem is (whether it be poking holes in people to adjust mystic energies, diluting a bad thing to the point there isn't a single molecule and believing it will cure a disease, or trying to make the body less acidic). I agree that a holistic treatment is more difficult to asses, but none of the common alternative modalities are holistic.

A holistic approach would involve overall health and lifestyle improvements, including diet/exercise, and treating any medical conditions by looking at the specific causes of the condition and using an appropriate treatment to address that cause (or, if the cause cannot be treated, at least mitigating the symptoms). You know, kind of like so-called conventional medicine when done by a competent practitioner.

I also disagree with your last sentence - measuring things scientifically is the only way we can prove efficacy. Everything else is just anecdote and indistinguishable from placebo effects.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

How do you determine efficacy then? Guess? Or just assume it's effective?

Do you ever get a headache?

Do you have the scientific proof that it is a headache or do you just think it is a headache?

[photon]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Do you ever get a headache?

Do you have the scientific proof that it is a headache or do you just think it is a headache?

How does that answer the question?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Definitely a variable...but not the only one. Way too simplified a statement.

No. Over simplifying would be the act of concluding causality from coincidental observations.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Now is that because a person filters the incoming information and puts a spin on the truth? Just wondering if you could expand a bit.

More like you cannot trust your senses or memory before you even get to your biases. The narrative of consciousness is an illusion created by your mind filling in details and gaps, which is further degraded on recollection; then we generalize from the particular after applying some confirmation bias, and form our theory of self-reality from it. Needless to say, this doesn't promote much in the way of accurate reflection of the world.

I personally think that the only thing grounding most minds in an approximation of reality is that humans are selected by evolution to understand it for survival's sake, and that there is a normalizing feedback effect from other approximating minds around us (although this feedback sometimes instead causes worse disconnects from reality when a bad idea becomes consensus).

Originally Posted by zuluking

Do we need to measure things scientifically in order to prove efficacy? No.

How do you measure things non-scientifically? You do understand that any kind of process by which you can make a meaningful measurement is, by definition, scientific?

There is a common misconception that there are curative effects that can't be measured or detected by science. This is utterly and completely wrong. Science might not be able to *explain* an effect, but if something *has* an effect, then statistical methods - science - can detect that effect.

It's just counting and comparing counts, really - how do you argue that counting numbers can somehow be wrong? Does 2 switch places with 4 when you're not looking?

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Definitely a variable...but not the only one. Way too simplified a statement.

That's funny, you could say the same for this:

Originally Posted by simmer2

Canada's Life Expectancy is 10th and the US is 36th in the World. Who is #1? Japan. #2? Hong Kong. While those places likely practice Western Medicine, they likely also practice Eastern Medicine...and Eastern medicine has been around for over 3000 years; they've had time to figure out whether something works or doesn't work.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

How does that answer the question?

It doesn't. I was asking you a different question.