Former castleva
09-27-2003, 03:45 PM
"Health Check".An old article dealing with alternative medicine.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999217
As points of interest to point out are;
"Some complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is effective, according to a 15-month inquiry in the UK, but governments should pay for rigorous research so that the beneficial and useless approaches can be separated. "
"...While there was good evidence that acupuncture and herbal medicine were effective,..."
and-("the report dismissed crystal therapy and iridology as lacking any credible evidence.")
"More controversially, traditional Chinese medicine was also judged to have no merit. ".
Interesting enough?
"Any therapy seeking official approval must show it is better than a placebo, Walton says. But proving exactly how a CAM product works may not be necessary."
...
""Evidence of safety and efficacy is paramount. If these exist, it is not always necessary to explain the mechanisms of action," he says."
Safety-"CAM therapies often have fewer side effects and fewer apparent risks.".Which can be true.While "" But Lord Robert Winston of Hammersmith Hospital, London warned that "people might feel better with CAM therapy, when there is an underlying disease that is not being treated."".
My argument;
It is important to note how it is said that "But proving exactly how a CAM product works may not be necessary." and "it is not always necessary to explain the mechanisms of action," he says".Some of the therapies reported as ineffective included crystal therapy (http://www.crystal-therapy.com/) & iridology (http://www.iridology.gr/).
What I take as a connection between these two methods.Iridology is more of a diagnostic tool (http://www.mather.infomedia.com/reality/irischart.gif) with little original treatment of itīs own.Crystal therapy,also,could be considered a passive form of "treatment" or prevention of-.
Both of these would probably be considered "safe" ("Evidence of safety and efficacy is paramount.")."Efficacy" is another matter.There seems to be no doubt that they could not "work" by placebo effect of course.Skeptical breakdown;
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/iridology.html
http://skepdic.com/crystals.html
Where is it that such methods (no comments on herbal medicine) give way to acupuncture?
As far as skeptic side goes,one can suggest;
-placebo effect.
-counter-irritation
-spontaneous remission
and so on.
As even the practitioners might state,acupuncture is cabable of producing a notable physiological reaction.
"*****ing for Endorphins
When acupuncture needles ***** nerve endings, the body reacts with a release of endorphins, according to the June American Journal of Physiology. The study found that blood pressure artificially raised in 12 cats was reduced using acupuncture. But when the drug naloxone, which blocks endorphin nerve cells, was put into the cats' bloodstream, acupuncture had no effect. " (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E47A1-9B46-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=2)
Which is what we ought to expect.
It can be argued that while the therapies mentioned above may not be among them,there are methods that would include more active approaches to varying conditions,homeopathy for example (but at closer examination,the method would run to difficulties in terms of triggering a measurable/comparable reaction).
Where some of ineffective or useless therapies fall,acupuncture takes the cake by providing additional stimulus,besides placebo&few other causes,acupuncture offers a deal of counter-irritation.
Some claims;
"The list of conditions which Acupuncture can treat successfully is extensive. In the West, Acupuncture is mainly associated with pain management. Certainly, Acupuncture is most effective for all kinds of pain" (http://www.compassionatedragon.com/acupuncture.html)
"Clearly works to treat a number of conditions, including nausea from chemotherapy, surgery and pregnancy, and pain after surgery (including dental surgery). " (http://www.thehealthpages.com/articles/ar-acupn.html)
The validity of these claims is debatable,but well enough would they seem to correlate with certain expectations.
For example;
dental pain;
No-http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/painpag/Acutrev/Other/AP027.html
Yes-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9617000&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000
Yes-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10326816&dopt=AbstracNo-
No-
http://www.medical-acupuncture.co.uk/journal/1998nov/two.shtml
Conclusion:
If we were to expect that the method works by placebo&other factors,with considerable importance given to counter-irritation (rather than mechanisms originally offered by the therapy itself),we should not be left amazed.
It is not very surprising either,that acupuncture gets a lot of itīs support when it comes to treating "pains&aches" of varying kinds,with a possible short-term relief kicking in.What also supports the theory,is that for a positive trial,you are likely to find a negative one for balance (as above).At agreement with my expectations is to read that "acupuncture proved superior to placebo in...",considering the facts presented above (acupuncture may produce "indirect" effects that may be counted as beneficial,besides pure placebo).While sham treatment may occasionally pop up as equal.
Finally,one should consider whether the method in question is worth favouring over solid,possibly easier oneīs.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999217
As points of interest to point out are;
"Some complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is effective, according to a 15-month inquiry in the UK, but governments should pay for rigorous research so that the beneficial and useless approaches can be separated. "
"...While there was good evidence that acupuncture and herbal medicine were effective,..."
and-("the report dismissed crystal therapy and iridology as lacking any credible evidence.")
"More controversially, traditional Chinese medicine was also judged to have no merit. ".
Interesting enough?
"Any therapy seeking official approval must show it is better than a placebo, Walton says. But proving exactly how a CAM product works may not be necessary."
...
""Evidence of safety and efficacy is paramount. If these exist, it is not always necessary to explain the mechanisms of action," he says."
Safety-"CAM therapies often have fewer side effects and fewer apparent risks.".Which can be true.While "" But Lord Robert Winston of Hammersmith Hospital, London warned that "people might feel better with CAM therapy, when there is an underlying disease that is not being treated."".
My argument;
It is important to note how it is said that "But proving exactly how a CAM product works may not be necessary." and "it is not always necessary to explain the mechanisms of action," he says".Some of the therapies reported as ineffective included crystal therapy (http://www.crystal-therapy.com/) & iridology (http://www.iridology.gr/).
What I take as a connection between these two methods.Iridology is more of a diagnostic tool (http://www.mather.infomedia.com/reality/irischart.gif) with little original treatment of itīs own.Crystal therapy,also,could be considered a passive form of "treatment" or prevention of-.
Both of these would probably be considered "safe" ("Evidence of safety and efficacy is paramount.")."Efficacy" is another matter.There seems to be no doubt that they could not "work" by placebo effect of course.Skeptical breakdown;
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/iridology.html
http://skepdic.com/crystals.html
Where is it that such methods (no comments on herbal medicine) give way to acupuncture?
As far as skeptic side goes,one can suggest;
-placebo effect.
-counter-irritation
-spontaneous remission
and so on.
As even the practitioners might state,acupuncture is cabable of producing a notable physiological reaction.
"*****ing for Endorphins
When acupuncture needles ***** nerve endings, the body reacts with a release of endorphins, according to the June American Journal of Physiology. The study found that blood pressure artificially raised in 12 cats was reduced using acupuncture. But when the drug naloxone, which blocks endorphin nerve cells, was put into the cats' bloodstream, acupuncture had no effect. " (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E47A1-9B46-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=2)
Which is what we ought to expect.
It can be argued that while the therapies mentioned above may not be among them,there are methods that would include more active approaches to varying conditions,homeopathy for example (but at closer examination,the method would run to difficulties in terms of triggering a measurable/comparable reaction).
Where some of ineffective or useless therapies fall,acupuncture takes the cake by providing additional stimulus,besides placebo&few other causes,acupuncture offers a deal of counter-irritation.
Some claims;
"The list of conditions which Acupuncture can treat successfully is extensive. In the West, Acupuncture is mainly associated with pain management. Certainly, Acupuncture is most effective for all kinds of pain" (http://www.compassionatedragon.com/acupuncture.html)
"Clearly works to treat a number of conditions, including nausea from chemotherapy, surgery and pregnancy, and pain after surgery (including dental surgery). " (http://www.thehealthpages.com/articles/ar-acupn.html)
The validity of these claims is debatable,but well enough would they seem to correlate with certain expectations.
For example;
dental pain;
No-http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/painpag/Acutrev/Other/AP027.html
Yes-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9617000&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000
Yes-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10326816&dopt=AbstracNo-
No-
http://www.medical-acupuncture.co.uk/journal/1998nov/two.shtml
Conclusion:
If we were to expect that the method works by placebo&other factors,with considerable importance given to counter-irritation (rather than mechanisms originally offered by the therapy itself),we should not be left amazed.
It is not very surprising either,that acupuncture gets a lot of itīs support when it comes to treating "pains&aches" of varying kinds,with a possible short-term relief kicking in.What also supports the theory,is that for a positive trial,you are likely to find a negative one for balance (as above).At agreement with my expectations is to read that "acupuncture proved superior to placebo in...",considering the facts presented above (acupuncture may produce "indirect" effects that may be counted as beneficial,besides pure placebo).While sham treatment may occasionally pop up as equal.
Finally,one should consider whether the method in question is worth favouring over solid,possibly easier oneīs.