Stick it to the Taxpayers

SuperstringTheory said:
Every study that has accounted for placebo effects and compared it against sham acupunctire. Sham acupuncture (where they just randomly stick you with needles) is just as effect five if the patient is unaware that they are not receiving "real" acupicture.
Click to expand...

LMAO...

1) You obviously haven't read the links I provided
2) What you also tend to see in those studies is that even the SHAM acupuncture beats traditional western practices.

So tell us, if the SHAM beats traditional western practices... what does that say about traditional western practices?

Scientists quickly rush in with excuse after excuse as to why the SHAM beats western practices. Amazing what happens when something goes against what one is taught to believe.
 
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-acupuncture-work-or-not/

The above demonstrates what you mentioned...

Let’s first look at this study, which was a German study of acupuncture for back pain. Dr. Heinz Endres studied 1,100 randomized patients with three treatment arms. The first received standard therapy – massage, anti-inflammatories, and heating pads. The second received acupuncture, and the third received sham acupuncture where the needles were inserted but not deeply, and not manipulated, and not in traditional acupuncture points. The study found 47% improvement in the acupuncture group, 44% in the sham acupuncture, and 27% in the standard therapy group after 6 months.
Click to expand...

Shows no significant difference between acupuncture and the sham... yet both hammer 'standard therapy'. The article then goes on to try and explain away why standard therapy did so poorly.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Right, because you are immune to the placebo effect. Only stupid people experience the placebo effect. /sarcasm. This is why anecdotal evidence is useless.

What is western about my opinion is the reliance on the scientific method. If you can prove the benefits of acupuncture or any other eastern/new age nonsense that I would be all for it.
Click to expand...

From SF's first article:

They found that traditional acupuncture worked better than a placebo.

In fact, in conditions such as arthritis and chronic headache, acupuncture was twice as effective as the drugs and exercise recommended by most doctors, according to the analysis published in the authoritative Archives of Internal Medicine.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...y-does-work-So-IS-truth-it.html#ixzz2KblVCnzh
 
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-acupuncture-work-or-not/

The above demonstrates what you mentioned...

Let’s first look at this study, which was a German study of acupuncture for back pain. Dr. Heinz Endres studied 1,100 randomized patients with three treatment arms. The first received standard therapy – massage, anti-inflammatories, and heating pads. The second received acupuncture, and the third received sham acupuncture where the needles were inserted but not deeply, and not manipulated, and not in traditional acupuncture points. The study found 47% improvement in the acupuncture group, 44% in the sham acupuncture, and 27% in the standard therapy group after 6 months.
Click to expand...

Shows no significant difference between acupuncture and the sham... yet both hammer 'standard therapy'. The article then goes on to try and explain away why standard therapy did so poorly.
 
It seems that there are studies, using the scientific method, that prove that it is more effective than placebos, which underscores that it isn't the "placebo effect"...

It seems to be effective. I can't see why we should ignore those studies because Stringtheory seems to want to believe nothing of the sort...
 
Damocles said:
It seems that there are studies, using the scientific method, that prove that it is more effective than placebos, which underscores that it isn't the "placebo effect"...

It seems to be effective. I can't see why we should ignore those studies because Stringtheory seems to want to believe nothing of the sort...
Click to expand...

There is no reason to ignore them. Those that do are similar to the AGW fear mongers who refuse anything that goes against their current belief system.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO...

1) You obviously haven't read the links I provided
2) What you also tend to see in those studies is that even the SHAM acupuncture beats traditional western practices.

So tell us, if the SHAM beats traditional western practices... what does that say about traditional western practices?

Scientists quickly rush in with excuse after excuse as to why the SHAM beats western practices. Amazing what happens when something goes against what one is taught to believe.
Click to expand...

No, I am not going to fall for your usual techniques of throwing as much shit as possible and then complaining that not every piece received a response. You use the same useless argument techniques that conspriacy theorist use. You will need to be a little more concise.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO...

1) You obviously haven't read the links I provided
2) What you also tend to see in those studies is that even the SHAM acupuncture beats traditional western practices.

So tell us, if the SHAM beats traditional western practices... what does that say about traditional western practices?

Scientists quickly rush in with excuse after excuse as to why the SHAM beats western practices. Amazing what happens when something goes against what one is taught to believe.
Click to expand...

And number 2 is where you show that you are not at all serious or just don't understand the results of the research. Idiotic true believers use the effects of the sham acupuncture as proof of the benefits of acupuncture. NOOOOO!!!!

They prove that there is no science involved in acupuncture.

Why should we bother with any licenising or training of the acupuncturist? Just let anybody stick you with needles and believe in the magic.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
No, I am not going to fall for your usual techniques of throwing as much shit as possible and then complaining that not every piece received a response. You use the same useless argument techniques that conspriacy theorist use. You will need to be a little more concise.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... try reading the first link, as I stated, the articles all reference the same study. I just provided a variety of sources discussing the study in case you were anything like Dung and immediately dismissed certain sources.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
And number 2 is where you show that you are not at all serious or just don't understand the results of the research. Idiotic true believers use the effects of the sham acupuncture as proof of the benefits of acupuncture. NOOOOO!!!!
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I said it shows. What it does show is that standard methods are bunk. They cannot even beat 'magical' methods. Which goes to show the body is far more resilient than people like you give it credit for. Just because you don't understand why acupuncture works, you dismiss it. Instead you prefer drugs that are shown to be less effective than what you call 'magic'.

You also ignore the study I posted that shows there IS a statistical difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. You then run away from reading the articles discussing the study. Instead you post more of your tantrums.

They prove that there is no science involved in acupuncture.

Why should we bother with any licenising or training of the acupuncturist? Just let anybody stick you with needles and believe in the magic.
Click to expand...

Again, the above simply shows you fear the unknown and/or are unwilling to read anything that dares show that Eastern practices may be superior to Western.
 
Damocles said:
It seems that there are studies, using the scientific method, that prove that it is more effective than placebos, which underscores that it isn't the "placebo effect"...

It seems to be effective. I can't see why we should ignore those studies because Stringtheory seems to want to believe nothing of the sort...
Click to expand...

Because you are wrong. It does not show more benefits than a placebo effect. There is no science involved at all in acupuncture. There is absolutely no proof that twirling the needles has any effect, that the meridian map is established or any of the nonsense about chi. You can have any idiot stick you with needles and as long as you believe it will be as effective as being stuck by a trained acupunturist it will be.

Further, there have been studies (Linkoping) that have shown that the person does not even have to stuck with a needle. In that study they applied pressure with a needle that retracted. The control group showed the same effects as those receiving actual accupuncture.

You can't count the effect to the control group as proof of your "science." That's just the sort of shady, junk science, bullshit that true believers and conspiracy whackos use to "prove" their points.
 
In a review of 29 previous well-designed studies, which together looked at almost 18,000 patients, researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center found that acupuncture does, indeed, work for treating four chronic pain conditions: back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache and shoulder pain.


Even "placebo" acupuncture, where the practitioner only pretends to place the needle or places the needle in a random site, is effective at relieving pain, though true acupuncture works better.


The review was published Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.


In the analysis, the researchers determined that 50 percent of true acupuncture patients experienced pain relief -- in other words, pain levels that were cut in half. Only 42 percent of sham acupuncture patients and 30 percent of patients who had no acupuncture at all experienced similar pain relief.


The researchers said it is better and more precise than previous reviews because of the high quality standard that was required by the study authors.


"In general, we were interested in acupuncture because clearly it's very controversial," said Dr. Andrew Vickers, the primary author of the study. "It comes from and involves ideas that aren't found in conventional books of anatomy and physiology."
Click to expand...

from the abc article on the study
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Because you are wrong. It does not show more benefits than a placebo effect. There is no science involved at all in acupuncture. There is absolutely no proof that twirling the needles has any effect, that the meridian map is established or any of the nonsense about chi. You can have any idiot stick you with needles and as long as you believe it will be as effective as being stuck by a trained acupunturist it will be.

Further, there have been studies (Linkoping) that have shown that the person does not even have to stuck with a needle. In that study they applied pressure with a needle that retracted. The control group showed the same effects as those receiving actual accupuncture.

You can't count the effect to the control group as proof of your "science." That's just the sort of shady, junk science, bullshit that true believers and conspiracy whackos use to "prove" their points.
Click to expand...


So you will continue to ignore the most recent (and most comprehensive) study because it dispells your ignorance above?
 
Superfreak said:
No, that is not what I said it shows. What it does show is that standard methods are bunk. They cannot even beat 'magical' methods. Which goes to show the body is far more resilient than people like you give it credit for. Just because you don't understand why acupuncture works, you dismiss it. Instead you prefer drugs that are shown to be less effective than what you call 'magic'.

You also ignore the study I posted that shows there IS a statistical difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. You then run away from reading the articles discussing the study. Instead you post more of your tantrums.



Again, the above simply shows you fear the unknown and/or are unwilling to read anything that dares show that Eastern practices may be superior to Western.
Click to expand...

No, it does not prove that about the standard methods. That was not the point of the study at all. You don't understand how science works.

Which study shows a difference between the sham and real? Like I said, I am not going to chase every piece of shit and misinterpreted study you throw at the wall.
 
No, if you were not such a true believer you would know that meta analyses are suspect. There is a publication bias and many other problems. This one included studies with and without a sham acupuncture control group. None of the studies were double blind, meaning that the reserchers bias could have played a roll. The reported changes in pain (a highly subjective standard) were only -5 on a scale of 100 between the sham and real acupuncture. That is not clinically significant. Your best proof is pretty worthless.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
No, if you were not such a true believer you would know that meta analyses are suspect. There is a publication bias and many other problems. This one included studies with and without a sham acupuncture control group. None of the studies were double blind, meaning that the reserchers bias could have played a roll. The reported changes in pain (a highly subjective standard) were only -5 on a scale of 100 between the sham and real acupuncture. That is not clinically significant. Your best proof is pretty worthless.
Click to expand...

LMAO... and you have NO proof that it is ineffective. You simply chant 'it be voodoo' and run away from discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top