13 ms·

>>Acupuncture should, ideally, be tested separately for effectiveness for each individual condition for which it has been proposed (like so many other forms of

>>Acupuncture should, ideally, be tested separately for effectiveness for each individual condition for which it has been proposed (like so many other forms of alternative medicine, that is a very large number). Good quality trials have not been done for all of them, but results suggest strongly that it is unlikely that acupuncture works for rheumatoid arthritis, stopping smoking, irritable bowel syndrome, or for losing weight. There is also no good reason to think it works for addictions, asthma, chronic pain, depression, insomnia, neck pain, shoulder pain or frozen shoulder, osteoarthritis of the knee, sciatica, stroke or tinnitus, and many other conditions.18<< The key part of that paragraph being "Good quality trials have not been done for all of them". It's a shame that Western science seems so intent on dismissing non-western treatments and techniques, rather than committing to running the same detailed trials that they do on profitable drugs.

pavel_lishin 9y ago
First, you're taking a god-of-the-gaps approach to acupuncture. "It hasn't been proven to be ineffective for condition X, so keep your mind open!" Second, they have run good trials on many of the conditions acupuncture claims to cure. You picked the one paragraph that might be interpreted to support your claim: > It's a shame that Western science seems so intent on dismissing non-western treatments and techniques, rather than committing to running the same detailed trials that they do on profitable drugs. So here's a few quotes that contradict you, all from the same article: > after decades of research and more than 3000 trials, acupuncture researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant. > Large multicenter clinical trials conducted in Germany7–10 and the United States11 consistently revealed that verum (or true) acupuncture and sham acupuncture treatments are no different in decreasing pain levels across multiple chronic pain disorders: migraine, tension headache, low back pain, and osteoarthritis of the knee. > Vickers et al.14 did a meta-analysis for 29 randomized controlled trials, with 17,922 patients. The patients were being treated for a variety of chronic pain conditions. The results were very similar to those of Madsen et al.12Real acupuncture was better than sham but by a tiny amount that lacked any clinical significance. There's no reason to not try acupuncture, if you've got the money for it, I guess. It's not likely to hurt you. But don't disregard other treatments. And bitch all you want about "western medicine", but if you have a heart attack, or need a kidney transplant, or break a bone - you're probably going to choose the western system.
- DougWebb 9y ago
  And bitch all you want about "western medicine", but if you have a heart attack, or need a kidney transplant, or break a bone - you're probably going to choose the western system. I think western medicine is excellent when it comes to determining specific details about many individual bits are supposed to be working, and fixing those specific things when they're broken or malfunctioning. It's not as successful when it comes to understanding how all of those specific bits fit into place as part of a larger complex system. There are too many variables and interactions, and we've only very recently had the computational power to create models of these systems, let alone understand them. Where western medicine takes a bottom-up approach, from details to system, non-western medicine usually takes a top-down approach, observing how the overall system behaves and reacts. With enough observations, it can become very good at predicting reactions, but still totally fail at being able to explain why the reactions happen. Take acupuncture: in western medicine, we know that the body has pathways and circulatory systems for blood, lymph, and other fluids, and that our cells communicate using electrical, chemical, and hormonal signals that are passed through the pathways and circuits. We know a lot about small details, like how one nerve cell uses ions to pass an electrical charge across a fluid-filled gap to the next nerve cell, but we don't really know how it all works as a whole. But it stands to reason that poking conductive needles into these pathways and using them to cause stimulation could insert signals into the system or interrupt existing signals. Western medicine can't model that, and it can't predict for sure what possible effects it can have. Without a theory, all we can do is perform random experiments in the dark and hope something noticeable happens. Chinese medicine, on the other hand, has done the random experiments over thousands of years, and has determined specific places to put the needles and how to manipulate them to get the desired effect. That's straight-up observational science. But to explain it the Chinese came up with the idea of qi as an energy that flows through the body, which is vaguely right as a very blurry view of western medicine's understanding of our nervous system and other systems, but mostly it's completely fictional. The point I'm trying to make is that different approaches to understanding can both be right and both be wrong, except they tend to be right and wrong about different parts. The top-down, systemic, wholistic approach is good for understanding the big picture and the 'what', while the bottom-up, componentized, analytical approach is good for understanding 'how'.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

First, you're taking a god-of-the-gaps approach to acupuncture. "It hasn't been proven to be ineffective for condition X, so keep your mind open!" Second, they have run good trials on many of the conditions acupuncture claims to cure. You picked the one paragraph that might be interpreted to support your claim: > It's a shame that Western science seems so intent on dismissing non-western treatments and techniques, rather than committing to running the same detailed trials that they do on profitable drugs. So here's a few quotes that contradict you, all from the same article: > after decades of research and more than 3000 trials, acupuncture researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant. > Large multicenter clinical trials conducted in Germany7–10 and the United States11 consistently revealed that verum (or true) acupuncture and sham acupuncture treatments are no different in decreasing pain levels across multiple chronic pain disorders: migraine, tension headache, low back pain, and osteoarthritis of the knee. > Vickers et al.14 did a meta-analysis for 29 randomized controlled trials, with 17,922 patients. The patients were being treated for a variety of chronic pain conditions. The results were very similar to those of Madsen et al.12Real acupuncture was better than sham but by a tiny amount that lacked any clinical significance. There's no reason to not try acupuncture, if you've got the money for it, I guess. It's not likely to hurt you. But don't disregard other treatments. And bitch all you want about "western medicine", but if you have a heart attack, or need a kidney transplant, or break a bone - you're probably going to choose the western system.

DougWebb 9y ago
And bitch all you want about "western medicine", but if you have a heart attack, or need a kidney transplant, or break a bone - you're probably going to choose the western system. I think western medicine is excellent when it comes to determining specific details about many individual bits are supposed to be working, and fixing those specific things when they're broken or malfunctioning. It's not as successful when it comes to understanding how all of those specific bits fit into place as part of a larger complex system. There are too many variables and interactions, and we've only very recently had the computational power to create models of these systems, let alone understand them. Where western medicine takes a bottom-up approach, from details to system, non-western medicine usually takes a top-down approach, observing how the overall system behaves and reacts. With enough observations, it can become very good at predicting reactions, but still totally fail at being able to explain why the reactions happen. Take acupuncture: in western medicine, we know that the body has pathways and circulatory systems for blood, lymph, and other fluids, and that our cells communicate using electrical, chemical, and hormonal signals that are passed through the pathways and circuits. We know a lot about small details, like how one nerve cell uses ions to pass an electrical charge across a fluid-filled gap to the next nerve cell, but we don't really know how it all works as a whole. But it stands to reason that poking conductive needles into these pathways and using them to cause stimulation could insert signals into the system or interrupt existing signals. Western medicine can't model that, and it can't predict for sure what possible effects it can have. Without a theory, all we can do is perform random experiments in the dark and hope something noticeable happens. Chinese medicine, on the other hand, has done the random experiments over thousands of years, and has determined specific places to put the needles and how to manipulate them to get the desired effect. That's straight-up observational science. But to explain it the Chinese came up with the idea of qi as an energy that flows through the body, which is vaguely right as a very blurry view of western medicine's understanding of our nervous system and other systems, but mostly it's completely fictional. The point I'm trying to make is that different approaches to understanding can both be right and both be wrong, except they tend to be right and wrong about different parts. The top-down, systemic, wholistic approach is good for understanding the big picture and the 'what', while the bottom-up, componentized, analytical approach is good for understanding 'how'.