Acupuncture--pros and cons

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

My father is the biggest skeptic ever but claims to have been completely healed of a chronic shoulder pain with acupuncture. He was dragged off there and went to prove it didn't work. He said after they put the needles in his nose started pouring with snot and he had some intense relaxing feeling and the pain (a wear and tear work injury) disappeared. That was about 20 years ago and it never returned.

It still sounds like a load of crap to me and as everyone I've ever spoken to who is a proponent of it seems besotted with magical thinking it's not something I'd be paying for too quickly.

 

[SmoothieX]

I'm not a fan of the idea of some quack sticking needles into me. Garbage pseudoscience at its best.

 

[Gary7]

When pharmaceutical companies produce a new drug and run drug trials, do you know what they use as a measuring stick of effectiveness? It's most often not similar drugs designed for the same purpose, but rather the placebo effect. Isn't that fascinating? Wow. The mind is that powerful. Why not train it to cure? Because that would obviate the need for a lot of drugs that contribute significantly to pharmaceutical company profits.

The mind believing that the body is receiving a cure or effective treatment will actually benefit from this. The mind is THAT powerful. There are extremes of the mind over matter as well. You see it in certain amazing feats of endurance, like someone being able to walk over hot coals without badly burning their feet, monks able to mysteriously lower their heart rate, blood pressure and raise body temperature without physical movement, and a karate practitioner able to put their hand through a solid wooden board without breaking bones. In all of these cases, intense mental concentration is involved, because the mind is the most essential ingredient to the feat.

So, what about acupuncture? How much of that is placebo effect? I don't really know. I've got a few friends who have had acupuncture treatments and reported noticeable physical improvements by it, but I've never bothered to try it myself. Anyway, it's interesting to hear about the case study that shows the location of the needles does not matter. THAT is fascinating, because the science of acupuncture is so much about location, controlling the flow of the meridians, etc.

 

[thestrangequark]

^It is interesting that you use the "science of acupuncture" and then go on to talk about meridians and precision. I sincerely hope you are using the word 'science' metaphorically. Chi, meridians, and acupuncture points are not science. That is exactly what the study I cited demonstrates. The metaphysical ideas behind traditional acupuncture are antiscience, the fact that there is a scientifically possibility for effect, and the studies like those I noted showing that there is some measurable effect (as compared to placebo), no matter where the needles are inserted is science. This is a very important distinction that needs to be made.

Another important distinction that needs to be made is that between placebo effect and treatment. Yes, placebo effect is powerful, but it doesn't cure cancer, diabetes, or the flu. The placebo effect is real and important, but it is not medicine.

 

[Gary7]

^It is interesting that you use the "science of acupuncture" and then go on to talk about meridians and precision. I sincerely hope you are using the word 'science' metaphorically. Chi, meridians, and acupuncture points are not science. That is exactly what the study I cited demonstrates. The metaphysical ideas behind traditional acupuncture are antiscience, the fact that there is a scientifically possibility for effect, and the studies like those I noted showing that there is some measurable effect (as compared to placebo), no matter where the needles are inserted is science. This is a very important distinction that needs to be made.

Another important distinction that needs to be made is that between placebo effect and treatment. Yes, placebo effect is powerful, but it doesn't cure cancer, diabetes, or the flu. The placebo effect is real and important, but it is not medicine.

Of course, chi and meridians are not scientifically proven. There is a science to the implementation of acupuncture (the devised tools and their use, the principle of affecting nerves by use of the needles, the anatomy of the human body and where to insert the needles), but it does lack scientific proof of it having a real beneficial effect. The needles do affect the nerves to some degree (blocking, diverting, or enhancing), which then has various side effects accordingly. I think that can be explained in scientific or unscientific ways.


What's interesting is that while numerology and astrology are entirely esoteric and easily discounted, acupuncture has an indisputably physical component. If it was pure quackery, people experiencing it wouldn't find any lasting benefit after the placebo effect wore off. But somehow it does something beneficial, despite being very difficult to quantify. It would be fascinating if some kind of sensory equipment could be used to detect any possible effects rather than relying upon patient testimonies.

 

[thestrangequark]

^It is interesting that you use the "science of acupuncture" and then go on to talk about meridians and precision. I sincerely hope you are using the word 'science' metaphorically. Chi, meridians, and acupuncture points are not science. That is exactly what the study I cited demonstrates. The metaphysical ideas behind traditional acupuncture are antiscience, the fact that there is a scientifically possibility for effect, and the studies like those I noted showing that there is some measurable effect (as compared to placebo), no matter where the needles are inserted is science. This is a very important distinction that needs to be made.

Another important distinction that needs to be made is that between placebo effect and treatment. Yes, placebo effect is powerful, but it doesn't cure cancer, diabetes, or the flu. The placebo effect is real and important, but it is not medicine.

Of course, chi and meridians are not scientifically proven. There is a science to the implementation of acupuncture (the devised tools and their use, the principle of affecting nerves by use of the needles, the anatomy of the human body and where to insert the needles), but it does lack scientific proof of it having a real beneficial effect. The needles do affect the nerves to some degree (blocking, diverting, or enhancing), which then has various side effects accordingly. I think that can be explained in scientific or unscientific ways.


What's interesting is that while numerology and astrology are entirely esoteric and easily discounted, acupuncture has an indisputably physical component. If it was pure quackery, people experiencing it wouldn't find any lasting benefit after the placebo effect wore off. But somehow it does something beneficial, despite being very difficult to quantify. It would be fascinating if some kind of sensory equipment could be used to detect any possible effects rather than relying upon patient testimonies.

Oh thank goodness. I sincerely apologize if it was just me misinterpreting your post but it initially came off, to me, to be equating acupuncture with science. I think it is vitally important when discussing "alternative medicine" to use the word 'science' very precisely to mean only actual science. I definitely use the word metaphorically myself in other contexts, but because most people in my country don't even fully understand what science is, and because so many people really don't understand why pseudoscience in the realm of medicine is so dangerous, I feel very strongly that precise use of the word is a must.

I think you are right that the needle penetrating the muscle shows that there is an indisputable theory of mechanism, and so it would be unscientific and close-minded to dismiss the therapeutic possibilities of inserting needles. However, any science involved in acupuncture was only stumbled upon by the practitioners, and in no way a part of the development or active use of either the philosophy or the practice of acupuncture.

 

[Gary7]

It's ok. I wouldn't be surprised if you are a scientist by profession given how passionate you are about the correct usage of the word. You really feel that most people in the USA don't fully understand what science is? Or, is it really most of the people you've met? I know that it's a bit of a joke with how deficient our educational system is, enough to even create a show like "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" But I would agree that in my experience most people who subscribe to metaphysical beliefs tend to not understand what science really is.

From what I've learned, acupuncture seems to be a system that was developed gradually over time driven by empirical evidence rather than derived scientific theories. Not much different from ayurvedic medicine. There is a medical science to how herbs affect the body (some pharmaceuticals are made from processed herbs), but discovering their properties and how best to combine them was mostly through trial and error. I think with acupuncture, they probably began to find a "pattern" of sorts with patient responses to specific needle locations and then ultimately attributed them to a "meridian" internal energy system.

 

[thestrangequark]

It's ok. It's clear you are a scientist by profession given how passionate you are about the correct usage of the word.

Actually, I'm an editor and developer of math and science content for educational publishing. But I do have two science degrees and am hoping to someday pursue a third.

You really feel that most people in the USA don't fully understand what science is? Or, is it really most of the people you've met? I know that it's a bit of a joke with how deficient our educational system is, enough to even create a show like "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" But I would agree that in my experience most people who subscribe to metaphysical beliefs tend to not understand what science really is.

Oh, I don't just feel it, I know it. Approximately 28% of Americans are scientifically literate, so, yeah, most Americans don't fully understand what science is.

From what I've learned, acupuncture seems to be a system that was developed gradually over time driven by empirical evidence rather than derived scientific theories.

There was no empirical evidence in the development of acupuncture. There was observation and misinterpretation of evidence (Basically, 80% of all disease and injury will get better on its own whether or not it's treated -- which means that over centuries acupuncturists would have had an 80% success rate, and that's pretty darn good! One can easily see how people could misinterpret the evidence as effect when there was none), but 'empirical evidence,' like 'science,' is a specific term, and acupuncture is pre-scientific.

Not much different from ayurvedic medicine.

Which is also non-scientific. Though it is now being studied, the evidence is too preliminary to know whether or not it is of any real medicinal value.

There is a medical science to how herbs affect the body (some pharmaceuticals are made from processed herbs),

Actually, most pharmaceuticals are derived from natural products. And you've touched upon another very serious issue in the discussion of "alternative medicine," and that is the fact that so many people do not realize that herbs are drugs. If it has a pharmacological effect, it's a drug.

but discovering their properties and how best to combine them was mostly through trial and error.

Kinda sorta. Willow bark was almost certainly discovered to be medicinal by trial and error. The modern usage and dosage of aspirin was determined through the scientific method, which, while at the heart of it is trial and error, is much more sophisticated than just simply chewing on this tree or that to see which best relieves your headache. There is a big difference between taking a tablet filled with ground foxglove from a naturopath and taking a dose of digitalis prescribed by your doctor.

I think with acupuncture, they probably began to find a "pattern" of sorts with patient responses to specific needle locations and then ultimately attributed them to a "meridian" internal energy system.

This is a possibility, though it doesn't qualify as any kind of science. It has two fundamental aspects of science: observation and the development of hypothesis, but that's it.

I don't think you and I have interacted much on the board yet, so I just want to qualify this post by stating that nothing I've written should be taken as offense against you...my mom recently reminded me that sometimes my enthusiasm for an issue will get the best of me, and that can come off as being dismissive, when that's not at all how I feel.

 

[Gary7]

There was no empirical evidence in the development of acupuncture. There was observation and misinterpretation of evidence (Basically, 80% of all disease and injury will get better on its own whether or not it's treated -- which means that over centuries acupuncturists would have had an 80% success rate, and that's pretty darn good! One can easily see how people could misinterpret the evidence as effect when there was none), but 'empirical evidence,' like 'science,' is a specific term, and acupuncture is pre-scientific. Which is also non-scientific.

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. If this wasn't done with acupuncture, they'd never have any consistent data to formulate a practice behind it. Was there any kind of thorough analysis or was it over generalized hypotheses based on those observations? More than likely it was independently formed hypotheses, but curiously enough they coalesced into the same general ideas. If there was nothing to it, there wouldn't have been any way to formulate a standardized practice around it. But anyway, I don't want to get into splitting hairs over terminology. Bottom line I agree, in it's entirety acupuncture is not a science.

Actually, most pharmaceuticals are derived from natural products. And you've touched upon another very serious issue in the discussion of "alternative medicine," and that is the fact that so many people do not realize that herbs are drugs. If it has a pharmacological effect, it's a drug.

I think for the most part, the "natural herb" approach uses a much less concentrated form of herbs over the pharmaceutical highly processed approach, so generally it's not as risky (unless you manage to find intensely concentrated extracts and purposefully exceed recommended dosage, which is very expensive to do). But people can misuse it by making combinations with unknown consequences and create other problems for themselves.

I don't think you and I have interacted much on the board yet, so I just want to qualify this post by stating that nothing I've written should be taken as offense against you...my mom recently reminded me that sometimes my enthusiasm for an issue will get the best of me, and that can come off as being dismissive, when that's not at all how I feel.

We have interacted before, a couple of years ago I think. I once made an avatar for you.

Anyway, no offense taken. Everybody has different levels of patience with debate and you seem to have a very deep reserve for it. I find the quote reply interleaving in posts on the BBS rather daunting when they run for more than half a page so I'm more apt to tip my hat rather than keep up the fight.

 

[thestrangequark]

There was no empirical evidence in the development of acupuncture. There was observation and misinterpretation of evidence (Basically, 80% of all disease and injury will get better on its own whether or not it's treated -- which means that over centuries acupuncturists would have had an 80% success rate, and that's pretty darn good! One can easily see how people could misinterpret the evidence as effect when there was none), but 'empirical evidence,' like 'science,' is a specific term, and acupuncture is pre-scientific. Which is also non-scientific.

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. If this wasn't done with acupuncture, they'd never have any consistent data to formulate a practice behind it. Was there any kind of thorough analysis or was it over generalized hypotheses based on those observations? More than likely it was independently formed hypotheses, but curiously enough they coalesced into the same general ideas. If there was nothing to it, there wouldn't have been any way to formulate a standardized practice around it. But anyway, I don't want to get into splitting hairs over terminology. Bottom line I agree, in it's entirety acupuncture is not a science.

I guess I just see it differently. If they were not subjecting their evidence to scientific reasoning, it was not empirical, but simply anecdotal.

Actually, most pharmaceuticals are derived from natural products. And you've touched upon another very serious issue in the discussion of "alternative medicine," and that is the fact that so many people do not realize that herbs are drugs. If it has a pharmacological effect, it's a drug.

I think for the most part, the "natural herb" approach uses a much less concentrated form of herbs over the pharmaceutical highly processed approach, so generally it's not as risky (unless you manage to find intensely concentrated extracts and purposefully exceed recommended dosage, which is very expensive to do). But people can misuse it by making combinations with unknown consequences and create other problems for themselves.

On the contrary, the natural herb approach is far more dangerous for several reasons. Firstly, despite seeming counter intuitive, it is easier to overdose on a drug in its natural form than in its processed form. When you take a pill from your pharmacist you know what dose you're getting. When you take a "natural herb" you don't know how much of what you are getting. In your typical bottle of herbal "medicine" dosage can vary by more than 150% from pill to pill. Then there is the whole issue of people not recognizing that these things are drugs, they can interact with other drugs, and they can be just as harmful as other drugs. Of course, if you are getting what they say you're getting, which brings me to another issue: since herbal remedies are held to the same standards as dietary supplements, instead of to the standards of drugs (as they should be), there is much greater opportunities for false advertising -- legally, herbal drug sellers can make pretty much any claim they want about their product ("It improves this! Promotes that! And Enhances these!) as long as they don't claim outright that it cures a specific disease.

I don't think you and I have interacted much on the board yet, so I just want to qualify this post by stating that nothing I've written should be taken as offense against you...my mom recently reminded me that sometimes my enthusiasm for an issue will get the best of me, and that can come off as being dismissive, when that's not at all how I feel.

We have interacted before, a couple of years ago I think. I once made an avatar for you.

Anyway, no offense taken. Everybody has different levels of patience with debate and you seem to have a very deep reserve for it. I find the quote reply interleaving in posts on the BBS rather daunting when they run for more than half a page so I'm more apt to tip my hat rather than keep up the fight.

Yes! And I tried to use the animated av, but couldn't figure out how to post a gif as an ave, then forgot to ask! How does one do that, by the way? Sorry, I'm terrible with names!
I just enjoy the chance to discuss these things. It is not always easy to find people irl who have the interest. I do have almost superhuman patience, though, I'll admit that...I couldn't have been a teacher without it!

 

[Gary7]

On the contrary, the natural herb approach is far more dangerous for several reasons. Firstly, despite seeming counter intuitive, it is easier to overdose on a drug in its natural form than in its processed form. When you take a pill from your pharmacist you know what dose you're getting. When you take a "natural herb" you don't know how much of what you are getting. In your typical bottle of herbal "medicine" dosage can vary by more than 150% from pill to pill. Then there is the whole issue of people not recognizing that these things are drugs, they can interact with other drugs, and they can be just as harmful as other drugs.

I'm not as good debating through this mechanism as I am in person. I have to admit that my saying "natural herbs" without further qualification is ambiguous. I meant to say that there are a lot of herbs that have some medicinal properties, but they are very subtle when compared to pharmaceutical equivalents. Exceeding the recommended dosage for a good many of them will do little to the body, as they will be flushed out with the course of digestion. But, on the other hand, there are some that WILL have a significant effect with likely ill side effects. So, I don't dispute what you say, but I think it depends upon the specific herb. I don't mean to split hairs here, but feel that both of our arguments are correct depending upon the herb in question.

Yes! And I tried to use the animated av, but couldn't figure out how to post a gif as an ave, then forgot to ask! How does one do that, by the way? Sorry, I'm terrible with names!

Actually, to use it as an avatar do the following: First, right mouse click on the image and save it to your Pictures folder (or whichever folder you prefer). Then in the TBBS "edit avatar" page look down at "Option 2 - Upload Image From Your Computer" and click on the "Choose File" button to select an image from your hard drive. It doesn't matter that it is an animated GIF. The file selection will take it, just so long it is within the image dimension, file size, and file type requirements (GIF, JPG, PNG). Then click "Save" to commit the change.

I just enjoy the chance to discuss these things. It is not always easy to find people irl who have the interest. I do have almost superhuman patience, though, I'll admit that...I couldn't have been a teacher without it!

I enjoy it too, especially when the debate causes learning to happen... That's part of what makes life fun, learning new things and applying it to your life.

 

[thestrangequark]

I'm not as good debating through this mechanism as I am in person. I have to admit that my saying "natural herbs" without further qualification is ambiguous. I meant to say that there are a lot of herbs that have some medicinal properties, but they are very subtle when compared to pharmaceutical equivalents. Exceeding the recommended dosage for a good many of them will do little to the body, as they will be flushed out with the course of digestion. But, on the other hand, there are some that WILL have a significant effect with likely ill side effects. So, I don't dispute what you say, but I think it depends upon the specific herb. I don't mean to split hairs here, but feel that both of our arguments are correct depending upon the herb in question.

I'd agree with that. Though I stil feel that it is better to isolate the active ingredient in an herb and develop that into a pharmaceutical rather than to just crush it up and hope you get a good dosage, and also hope that no other part of the plant is poisonous!

Yes! And I tried to use the animated av, but couldn't figure out how to post a gif as an ave, then forgot to ask! How does one do that, by the way? Sorry, I'm terrible with names!

Actually, to use it as an avatar do the following: First, right mouse click on the image and save it to your Pictures folder (or whichever folder you prefer). Then in the TBBS "edit avatar" page look down at "Option 2 - Upload Image From Your Computer" and click on the "Choose File" button to select an image from your hard drive. It doesn't matter that it is an animated GIF. The file selection will take it, just so long it is within the image dimension, file size, and file type requirements (GIF, JPG, PNG). Then click "Save" to commit the change.

Would you look at that, it worked. You know what I think I did wrong last time was not right-clicking, but dragging and dropping to save. I recall when I tried to save the gif to my computer it was only saving a single frame.

I just enjoy the chance to discuss these things. It is not always easy to find people irl who have the interest. I do have almost superhuman patience, though, I'll admit that...I couldn't have been a teacher without it!

I enjoy it too, especially when the debate causes learning to happen... That's part of what makes life fun, learning new things and applying it to your life.

Indeed!