Acu-bunk-ture

[herb ox]

True, they did use anesthetics, but at drastically lower concentrations than typically used. I have a textbook on acupuncture anesthesia with this study in it.

As for the World Health Organization - see this link here for a list of 28 disorders shown thru controlled trials effectively treated by acu. MD's and other naysayers who claim TCM has no scientific evidence simply have never done a literature review with an open mind. There is plenty of evidence based medicine which supports the use of TCM.

Why is it that the WHO acknowledges CTM/TCM/Acu/Herbs as good medicine, but the FDA and other American based so-called 'medical experts' don't. For that, you'd have to do your homework - but I can tell you this - 80% of FDA employees go on to take highly paid positions for major pharmaceutical companies. Big pharma manipulates data and funding to ensure negative data about their products will never be made public.

Good science? Hardly. In my opinion, man cannot be trusted. Nature guides the way.
Now, go take your prozac while I practice my magical hooey qigong exercises!

peace

herb ox

[Doc Stier]

Simon:

A few questions for you:

1) Have you ever formally studied Oriental/Chinese Medicine at an accredited school?

2) Have you personally ever been treated with Oriental/Chinese Medicine techniques by anyone who was formally educated in the application of these modalities?

3) What exactly is the primary reason for your generally negative perspective of Oriental/Chinese Medicine?

Doc

[SimonM]

1) No.
2) Yes.
3) I have no problem with properly tested medicine regardless of point of origin. But when people try to pass off the placebo effect as real medicine. Well... that is quackery.

[Doc Stier]

Ha! Ha! What a hoot!

So, Simon, in your esteemed, but totally uneducated opinion regarding acupuncture, it works solely through a placebo effect induced via the power of positive suggestion?

That must be the reason that Veterinary Acupuncture has been the fastest growing veterinary speciality in the past 10-15 years time. After all, everyone knows how animals of all kinds are easily influenced by the power of suggestion, thereby vastly increasing their positive expectations of benefit from the acupuncture treatments. Right?

Doc

[SimonM]

All that proves is that it's popular flim-flam.

[herb ox]

Hopeless...

there must be a point we can needle on SimonM, right?

'tis true - veterinary acupuncture gets great results - there's no placebo effect in animal research, which is why they are often used for medical studies, so, SimonM, what it proves is not flim flam, rather it shows there is a documentable effect other than produced by the human mind.

The only reason MD's call placebo effect 'quackery' is because they can't profit from it. And yet, even MD's give placebo pills with high cure rates- a recent survey shows up to 50% of MD's use it. check out this link for the article. By that standard, you have to call 50% of physicians quacks. That may include your MD as well.


ox

[SimonM]

I am a strong advocate against biomedical testing of non-human animals; particularly primates.

That being said if you have some sort of documented effect (preferrably using a double-blind methodology) provided by acupuncture on animal test subjects and can point to a journal entry on the issue I'll set aside my ethical objections to the methodology and read it.

Furthermore have I EVER, even ONCE, suggested that quackery is limited to TCM/ACM/MCM exclusively?

[Doc Stier]

Simon:

I am beginning to think that your attachment to double blind study and your very dim, limited viewpoint on this topic is perhaps due to this condition.....!

[couch]

As a Registered Acupunk and Chinese medicine practitioner, I'd like to weigh in my opinion on the whole thing. (Good job by Christian so far!)

Regarding the idea of double-blind clinic trials and all that western medicine: I could care less. I see over 30 patients per week in my private practice and I would say that over 90% walk out of here after 10 weekly sessions feeling much better. From 'simple' pain to complicated medical problems, it just works and that's all I care about.

Chinese medicine is scientific in its own right - it just doesn't 'look' like western medicine and who ever said that was a bad thing? The ancient Chinese looked at the stars, moon, sun and other patterns in nature and mapped the macrocosm (the universe) on the microcosm (the human body). In the case of herbs, it doesn't get any more scientific to know that eating 3 mushrooms makes you feel better from fatigue, but 4 kills you.

So from my perspective, if it works like it does for me at such a high percentile - I could give a crap about some study on this or that to appease all the 'western' thinkers. Maybe all the 'scientists' see the world wrong? Maybe I see the world without any 'sterile coloured glasses' on and they're insane and I'm not.

Best,
Kenton

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Here's a Western Study demonstrating one of the identifiable NON-PLACEBO effects of acupuncture.

Dr. Bruce Pomeranz is an MD, Professor, CM at McGill University, PhD at Harvard in 1967, Assistant Professor at M.I.T. 1966-1968, Professor of Zoology and Physiology at University of Toronto since 1968.

Taken from "Basics of Acupuncture" (Stux, Berman, Pomeranz; Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2003)

Evidence for Endorphins in Acupuncture Analgesia (Pages 16-17)

The other early naloxone* study was by Pomeranz and Chiu(1) In awake mice; they used the mouse squeak latency paradigm and gave EA [Electro-Acupuncture] at LI.4. Numerous control groups were used in this latter experiment in an attempt to pick out some of the possible artifacts. Each group received one of the following treatments: EA alone, EA plus saline, EA plus i.v. naloxone, Sham EA in a non-acupuncture point, naloxone alone, saline alone, or no treatment at all (just handling, restraint, and repeated pain testing.) The results were unequivocal; naloxone completely blocked AA; sham EA produced no effect; and naloxone alone produced very little hyperalgesia (not enough to explain reduction of AA by subtraction.) Moreover, the results in mice and in humans indicated, first, that AA was not a psychological effect and secondly, that AA was truly blocked by naloxone. In a later study, Cheng and Pomeranz(2) produced a dose-response curve for naloxone and found that increasing doses produced increasing blockade.

*Naloxone is an endorphin antagonist. Researchers were able to identify endorphin production as one of the mechanisms for acupuncture analgesia by showing that naloxone blocks AA. Furthermore, it was discovered that Naloxone only prevents AA from initiating, and does not negate AA that has already been administered.

Note: The first Naloxone treatment implied by the first sentence was done on humans.

(1)Pomeranz, B, Chiu D (1976) Naloxone blocks acupuncture analgesia and causes hyperalgesia: endorphin is implicated. Life Sci 19: 1757-1762

(2)Cheng R, Pomeranz B (1979) Electroacupuncture analgesia is mediated by stereospecific opiate receptors and is reversed by antagonists of type 1 receptors. Life Sci 26: 631-639

[Xiao3 Meng4]

So from my perspective, if it works like it does for me at such a high percentile - I could give a crap about some study on this or that to appease all the 'western' thinkers.

I find that with acupuncture, success rates are very much related to the practitioner, which makes it hard to establish generalized research guidelines. At best, Researchers can pick out and identify specific actions, but I doubt anyone will ever come up with a good picture of how acupuncture capitalizes on those specific actions in concert. Oh, wait, someone already did... it's called CHINESE MEDICINE.

Kudos on having happy clients.

[couch]

I find that with acupuncture, success rates are very much related to the practitioner, which makes it hard to establish generalized research guidelines. At best, Researchers can pick out and identify specific actions, but I doubt anyone will ever come up with a good picture of how acupuncture capitalizes on those specific actions in concert. Oh, wait, someone already did... it's called CHINESE MEDICINE.

Kudos on having happy clients.

I think that all types of medicines have blind spots, however, there is more than meets the eye out there, right? Something unquantifiable, if you will. There are many people running around, trying to smash two atoms together - trying to find the secret to life...and it won't happen. We're not supposed to find it all out. It's supposed to be the great mystery and we have to learn to accept that.

I agree that many results are practitioner dependent, too. What I also find absolutely fascinating is that I can treat a person with TCM, someone else can use 5-element, someone else can use Kikko-style and another could use Japanese meridian therapy...and we could all achieve the same results!!! So what's really going on here? Intention? Are all equally scientific methods in their own right? Is it practitioner dependent?

Very cool, in the least.

How's your weather in NB? It snows and then rains here...third time this winter we've gone from -17 to +9 in two days. No wonder everyone is coming in complaining of W-C and W-H!!!

[herb ox]

ahh... Intention!

... now we're getting somewhere!

Some have postulated why so-called 'sham' acupuncture works as well in some situations as real acupuncture - the intent of the person administering the acupuncture determines the result.

cheers

herb ox

[Xiao3 Meng4]

I agree that many results are practitioner dependent, too. What I also find absolutely fascinating is that I can treat a person with TCM, someone else can use 5-element, someone else can use Kikko-style and another could use Japanese meridian therapy...and we could all achieve the same results!!! So what's really going on here? Intention? Are all equally scientific methods in their own right? Is it practitioner dependent?

I agree that intention is important and vital.

HOWEVER

For intention to be effective, it must be integrated with reality.

It seems as though many alternative practitioners view intention as the be-all, end-all of medicine. "As long as your intent is clear, then you'll be successful" is an oft-repeated mantra. I'm not suggesting anyone on this thread has repeated such a claim, I'm just addressing the idea that many practitioners do have this viewpoint. A good portion of my class held this perception while I was in school.

To those that follow such a train of thought, I urge you to try your hands at flint-knapping (the making of stone tools with other stone tools.)

If, as is claimed, intent is all you need, then it should be a simple matter to knap a blade out of stone, as long as your intentions are clear and focused.

Nuh-uh. Doesn't work that way. The intention may be clear, but without an understanding of the tools and medium involved, you'll be lucky to knap something into an egg shape, if that. More likely, the stone you're trying to shape will break in an unexpected way, or the tools you're using will break instead.

Intention, however, is very powerful in the sense that if my intention is strong enough, I will find or devise the tools necessary to knap my stone. They say necessity is the mother of invention... and necessity and intention are like conjoined twins.

With intention, I can persevere and learn the nature of stone, and the relationship my tools have with it. Once having learned it's nature (how to identify its cracks, its weak spots, its strong spots, etc,) I am able to pick and choose where to start, where to finish, what pieces to remove and how, and what pieces to leave behind. As such, 3 cavemen with 3 different tools and 3 different stones, when asked to knap identical blades, will all go about it in a different way yet achieve very similar results.

Likewise, in Medicine, a practitioner's intention can guide them towards the tools and understanding they need. What I think is key, though, is that TOOLS AND UNDERSTANDING ARE NEEDED FOR INTENTION TO MANIFEST. Whereas a flinknapper must understand their tools and the nature (diagnosis) of their stone, a medical practitioner must understand their tools - be it massage, needles, herbs or drugs - and the nature (diagnosis) of their patient. With this understanding, a practitioner is able manifest their intention and pick their treatment methods appropriately. The end result is an effect which matches the practitioner's intention. With intention only, and no tools, no understanding of the nature of their patient, and no understanding of the relationship between their tools and their patient, who knows what will happen!? Iatrogenic disease, anyone?

So, if you ever come across a healer who claims that what they do works because of their intention alone, beware! Bewaaaare! And ask what exactly it is that they mean. If they start explaining it as being separate from anything ("Like, I just send good vibes through the needles and you get better, dude") then run away. If they see intention as linked to something real (ie not supernatural,) then you're good to go.

How's your weather in NB? It snows and then rains here...third time this winter we've gone from -17 to +9 in two days. No wonder everyone is coming in complaining of W-C and W-H!!!

The weather's been about the same... lots of wind, lots of precipitation, but the temperature's swinging wildly here to. We went from +12C to -18C overnight this past weekend, and it's been like that a bunch of times already.

[Reverend Tap]

Here's the sum total of my personal experience with acupuncture, which I think may be relevant.

I have been getting drastically sick once every five months for a couple years now. When I say once every five months, I mean it; five months of totally nothing, one full day of horrible sicky, the next day I feel fine and the process repeats. I've forgotten the precise number of days the intervals have been but it's almost been clockwork. Each and every time, the one day's been bad enough to land me in the ER, and each and every time, I've been treated symptomatically, given a bunch of tests, and sent out the door with a shrug. This at a facility that's been getting "Top 100" status for several years, as well as seeing an outside specialist. So, I figured I had nothing to lose by trying the local TCM clinic. I'm not gonna say the practitioner cured it; he didn't, and indeed was as perplexed by it as all the people I've seen have been. But he did give a tentative assessment and had me do one acupuncture session. One needle each in the wrists, feet, ankles, and one in the sternum. Felt really bizarre, but having gotten tattoos I'm familiar with the crazy things nerves do in such situations.

Now, the reason I mention it when the problem I went in for was unsolved (and I will say that I had no particular expectations either way going in, just figured it was something else I could try), is that it seems to have cured my night sweats. For years, right up until the night before I went in to the clinic, I had problems with dehydration due to my sweating buckets while sleeping, but it was something I was so used to, I don't recall even mentioning it during the interview. Immediately after that session, bam. Not sweating at night anymore (well, not unless I'm actually overheating anyhow). Nothing significant changed in my lifestyle at the same time, and anyway the night sweating had persisted through several massive lifestyle changes over the years.

I know anecdotal evidence is sketchy at best scientifically speaking, but I don't think my situation exactly lends itself to shouting "placebo" when the apparent side-effect was something I wasn't even thinking about. Hell, I wasn't even the one who noticed the change; my wife did, since suddenly that night I didn't seem to be melting anymore.

Take it as you will.