Alternative Therapies That Really Work

[grayman]

The latest edition of Parade magazine, a supplemental to my local Sunday paper, has an article entitled: Alternative Therapies That Really Work (http://www.parade.com/health/2008/12/alternative-therapies-that-work.html).

Here are three commonly used mind-body therapies that have scientific backing and have passed the litmus test of rigorous medical inquiry.

ACUPUNCTURE
Western science reasons that the needles interact with our nervous system, triggering the release of hormonelike chemicals that affect our mood, perception of pain, and immune response.

MEDITATION
Research indicates that TM may have positive effects on blood pressure, insulin, blood sugar, and heart health.

BIOFEEDBACK
Studies show that biofeedback can help reduce symptoms in a range of maladies, including high blood pressure, chronic back pain, incontinence, tension headaches, and stress.

Note the passive voice. No citations or links to the research.

I followed the link on the page entitled: Does Acupuncture Really Work? (http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_07-09-2006/Acupuncture) Same thing. Passive voice. No citations or links to the research:

Clinical studies of acupuncture’s effectiveness over the years have yielded varied results. For example, 300 migraine patients in Germany were divided into three groups. In one, acupuncture needles were placed at the prescribed sites; the second group also was “needled,” but randomly (a procedure known as sham acupuncture). The third group received no treatment. All the needled patients underwent 12 treatment sessions, each lasting 30 minutes. The researchers found that both the real and the sham acupuncture recipients reported 50% fewer headache days, while only 15% of those untreated felt better. In this study, placement of the needles apparently made no difference.

Similarly, in another study, 43 patients with irritable bowel syndrome (which causes a variety of gastrointestinal disorders, including cramping and diarrhea) improved after both true and sham acupuncture.

There are only two replies to this article online, so far. Here's one, and remember, capitalization and extra exclamation marks always strengthen one's position:

YOU FORGOT THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE:

READ "WORLD WITHOUT CANCER: THE STORY OF VITAMIN B17" BY, G. EDWARD GRIFFIN

I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT LAETRILLE WORKS. THE MEDICAL AND RESEARCH COMMUNITY WILL NEVER ADMIT, THAT THERE IS A CANCER CURE BECAUSE OF THE $$$ THAT THEY ARE MAKING ON THEIR PATIENTS SUFFERING. IF YOU REALLY WANT A CANCER CURE, READ THIS BOOK !!! I KNOW PEOPLE, WHO WERE GIVEN UP FOR LOST, WHO WERE CURED WITH THE LAETRILLE PROTOCOL (IN A RAHWAY, N.J. CLINIC). HOW ABOUT DOING AN ARTICLE ON THAT !!!!!

Enjoy.

[Madalch]

Let me guess- your reply was the one that was deleted?

[grayman]

I haven't replied, but I wonder what Steven wrote?

[Chris Haynes]

I haven't replied, but I wonder what Steven wrote?

Do you mean this Steven?

http://genefinding.blogspot.com/2008/12/astonishingly-stupid-quack-claim-of.html

and more from someone else:
http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/update-on-parade-magazine-article-criticism-dr-liponis-responds/

[Skeptic Guy]

I live a couple of towns over from Rahway, NJ, I wonder which clinic he refers to? Funny he didn't mention it by name. I mean, think of how many lives could be saved.

[godless dave]

It should really be called "Alternative Therapies That Don't Really Work".

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That depends on the meaning of "work"... Lots of weasel words, too.

But I love the "Western science reasons..." bit :p .

[Soapy Sam]

Hairdressing.

[jmercer]

Regarding meditation - if you're looking for studies done - this site seems to have a fair amount of information:

http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/ch1.htm

You can draw your own conclusion from the results of these studies, but there's enough there to convince me that meditation may be able to influence physical body processes.

Acupuncture, on the other hand, has very little scientific support. I have to be scrupulously fair, however - the best way to test acupuncture would to be a blind (or better yet, double-blind) study. Don't quite see how a placebo could be designed or implemented, really.

Chiropracty is another alternative treatment that wasn't mentioned; however, chiropracty has been shown to relieve back pain in certain circumstances. The other claims are not substantiated by studies, though. :)

[paximperium]

Acupuncture, on the other hand, has very little scientific support. I have to be scrupulously fair, however - the best way to test acupuncture would to be a blind (or better yet, double-blind) study. Don't quite see how a placebo could be designed or implemented, really.

They are sham accupuncture needles. These needles are in a covered sheaths and designed so that even the accupuncturist does not know if the needle pierces the skin or just pokes the surface of the skin.

Most newer well designed studies use this tool.

[Jeff Corey]

...Acupuncture, on the other hand, has very little scientific support. I have to be scrupulously fair, however - the best way to test acupuncture would to be a blind (or better yet, double-blind) study. Don't quite see how a placebo could be designed or implemented, really...

Remember those trick plastic knives where the "blade" retracted into the handle?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9717924

[Zelenius]

Having benefited from some "alternative" therapies, I'm no longer so quick to dismiss as unscientific or useless all the various therapies that fall under the "alternative medicine" label, as big a skeptic as I am. In my own case, all the mainstream doctors I went to proved to be extremely unhelpful in treating a really nasty, chronic case of sinusitis that kept getting worse over the years. Due to the advice from some wonderful naturopaths and herbalists, my sinus condition is at least 98% improved and I can breath again.

That said, I have very serious misgivings about many if not most of what falls under the banner of "alternative medicine". For instance, I think homeopathy is useless and pseudo-scientific. It is potentially dangerous if a person forgoes real treatment in favor of a homeopathic one, even though the homeopathic "treatment" is almost always harmless in and of itself due to its extreme dilution(or simply not even being there). Whenever a friend or associate says they are using a homeopathic "treatment", I'm never shy about telling them what I think about it.

Acupuncture and acupressure are useless, unless you like expensive placebos which may have the added bonus of making you sick if you go to an incompetent acupuncturist who doesn't practice good hygiene. It seems there is often a correlation between how expensive an alternative treatment is, and how strong the placebo effect is. Magnet therapy and "healing crystals" were debunked ages ago. Reiki is total nonsense, and the same goes for so many other alternative treatments, which is no surprise since many are intimately connected with woo belief of some sort. Any treatment with "quantum" in it can almost always be safely dismissed as nonsense. I am pretty much in agreement with the statement that "alternative medicine is bunk" with the exception of chiropractic for lower back problems and herbalism/nutritional therapies. I suppose a good rule of thumb is that if Deepak Chopra strongly endorses it, with rare exception, it's bunk.

I have also seen the studies that show meditation may help lower blood pressure, help deal with stress and help improve concentration. Because I believe some herbal and nutritional treatments have merit, I cringe whenever I see herbalism lumped together with homeopathy. They have nothing to do with each other, and I often wish herbalism/nutritional therapies could be considered non-alternative for this reason(note: science shows some herbs have merit).

While it is very reasonable to be skeptical of most forms of "alternative medicine", since they are largely unproven, it may be extremely prejudiced to be against something just because it is considered "alternative"(which is why I sometimes prefer using a different word instead of "alternative", such as "unproven" or "unscientific") . The scientific literature does in fact support some things considered "alternative". Always consult your doctor, never be afraid to ask a lot of questions, but never forget to consult the scientific literature for any therapy, alternative or mainstream.

[fls]

Having benefited from some "alternative" therapies, I'm no longer so quick to dismiss as unscientific or useless all the various therapies that fall under the "alternative medicine" label, as big a skeptic as I am. In my own case, all the mainstream doctors I went to proved to be extremely unhelpful in treating a really nasty case of sinusitis that kept getting worse over the years. Due to the advice from some wonderful naturopaths and herbalists, my sinus condition is at least 98% improved and I can breath again.

That said, I have very serious misgivings about many if not most of what falls under the banner of "alternative medicine". For instance, I think homeopathy is useless and pseudo-scientific. It is potentially dangerous if a person forgoes real treatment in favor of a homeopathic one, even though the homeopathic "treatment" is almost always harmless in and of itself due to its extreme dilution(or simply not even being there).

Acupuncture and acupressure also seem to be nothing but a placebo. Magnet therapy and "healing crystals" were debunked ages ago. Reiki is total nonsense, and the same goes for so many other alternative treatments, which is no surprise since many are intimately connected with woo belief of some sort. Any treatment with "quantum" in it can almost always be safely dismissed as nonsense. I am pretty much in agreement with the statement that "alternative medicine is bunk" with the exception of chiropractic for lower back problems and herbalism/nutritional therapies. I suppose a good rule of thumb is that if Deepak Chopra strongly endorses it, with rare exception, it's bunk.

And yet, every alternative medicine that you dismiss as "bunk" has the same kind of evidence in support of it that you just used to decide that naturopathy and herbalism do work and should not be dismissed.

I have also seen the studies that show meditation may help lower blood pressure, help deal with stress and help improve concentration. Because I believe some herbal and nutritional treatments have merit, I cringe whenever I see herbalism lumped together with homeopathy. They have nothing to do with each other, and I often wish herbalism/nutritional therapies could be considered non-alternative for this reason(note: science shows some herbs have merit).

While it is very reasonable to be skeptical of most forms of "alternative medicine", since they are largely unproven, it may be extremely prejudiced to be against something just because it is considered "alternative"(which is why I sometimes prefer using a different word instead of "alternative", such as "unproven" or "unscientific" medicine) . The scientific literature doesn't necessarily dismiss all things "alternative". Always consult the scientific literature first, I say.

What herbalism has in common with all other alternative methods is the way in which the users decide what to try and whether or not it works - observation in the absence of blinding and controls, forming ideas in the absence of a theoretical framework and on the basis of metaphor/analogy, plus a hearty dose of ******** (no interest in whether or not something is true or false) and self-promotion. Evidence has very little to do with whether or not it is considered alternative.

Linda

[jmercer]

They are sham accupuncture needles. These needles are in a covered sheaths and designed so that even the accupuncturist does not know if the needle pierces the skin or just pokes the surface of the skin.

Most newer well designed studies use this tool.

Cool! Thanks!

Remember those trick plastic knives where the "blade" retracted into the handle?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9717924

You know, I love the fact that science and people dedicated to it are so unrelentingly creative... with this evidence before me, I'd say acupuncture isn't on the list of things that work. :)

ETA:

The ironic thing about so-called "alternative medicine" and "alternative therapies" is that many of them are from "ye olde" beliefs, when they're not simply made up... and that medical science as it exists today is actually the true "alternative medicine" to the old "tried and true" remedies. Current medicine exists mainly because these old "remedies" just didn't work to begin with... and people started seeking better and more effective treatments. :D

[Zeuzzz]

Well, my thoughts are:

ACUPUNCTURE, maybe for some people, studies do seem to show a result. Wouldn't use it personally.

MEDITATION, definately, meditation can work in more ways than one, as long as the person doing it believes in what they are doing and isn't thinking the whole time "this is just silly" like many people do. Though how on earth it does work is beyond me.

BIOFEEDBACK, definately works, though its a long way away from people simply thinking "I will raise my blood pressure" and it happening. One of the most obvious cases of biofeedback is your heart rate, which is dependant on your thoughts, ie, if you are scared by something it will go up very quickly, or if your in a relaxed state it will stay low, and so there is obviously a case for biofeedback. I found you can slowly practise becoming aware of usually consciously hidden mechanisms inside your body and begin to controll them by practising. For example I found that by slowly becoming aware of my eye muscles that let them move independantly of each other, and practising moving them independantly by just repeating movements over and over, after while my body had become consciously aware of the muscles needed for this movement, and now I can move my eyes in some very wierd directions completely independantly of each other. Could never even go cross eyed before. Is that what biofeedback is? Becoming aware of and altering usually consciously hidden proecesses?

LAETRILE FOR CANCER, Controversial and non patenable treatment, not enough modern studies done for my liking to rule it out completely. Started a thread about this the other day. Most people think its a big pile of woo-woo.

[sthomson]

Wasn't there a study that showed that the "fake" accupuncture (where needles are placed randomly) actually had better results than "real" acupuncture? I need to start archiving these studies when I see them.

[CNY_Dave]

Wasn't there a study that showed that the "fake" accupuncture (where needles are placed randomly) actually had better results than "real" acupuncture? I need to start archiving these studies when I see them.


With that, I'm off to open a "non-invasive acupuncture center", fortune will be mine!


Dave

[paximperium]

Wasn't there a study that showed that the "fake" accupuncture (where needles are placed randomly) actually had better results than "real" acupuncture? I need to start archiving these studies when I see them.
It was within the statistical error bars so not really but then "real" acupuncture wasn't better than the sham ones either.

[GreyICE]

Meditation actually may work. First, concentrating on slowing the heart rate, regulated breathing, etc. does reduce stress and the associated problems.

Second, while a lot of the mind over matter stuff is woo, we really are capable of changing our body by thinking about it hard (witness the well-known placebo effect - you seriously do get better faster if you THINK you're getting better faster).

[JJM]

{snip} These needles are in a covered sheaths and designed so that even the accupuncturist does not know if the needle pierces the skin or just pokes the surface of the skin. {snip}Are you certain they can't tell? I find that hard to believe; I trust the reports that the subject cannot tell. However, the appearance of the needle and the experience of pushing it into the skin should make the sham needle obvious to a practiced needler. Furthermore, the puncturist need only push it on her finger nail, or try to move it laterally after "insertion," to test the needle's authenticity (or lack thereof).

Orac has a post on this http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/when_parade_goes_woo.php

He goes on a bit about silly notions held by the Parade article's author (Liponis). I am surprised Liponis took on this topic, he is plugging his latest book concerning how to live to be 150. The secret is your immune system and how it responds to what you eat...

[fls]

Meditation actually may work. First, concentrating on slowing the heart rate, regulated breathing, etc. does reduce stress and the associated problems.

Meditation and biofeedback aren't really considered alternative medicine, though.

Second, while a lot of the mind over matter stuff is woo, we really are capable of changing our body by thinking about it hard (witness the well-known placebo effect - you seriously do get better faster if you THINK you're getting better faster).

Well, you think you are getting better faster if you think you're getting better faster, anyway...can't really show any objective differences.

Linda

[GreyICE]

Well, you think you are getting better faster if you think you're getting better faster, anyway...can't really show any objective differences.

Linda
No, the placebo effect is OBJECTIVELY documented. Less symptoms reported, faster recovery times, and generally improved response. Objectively similar brain patterns have been recorded in the brains of patients given painkillers and people given placebos they were told were painkillers. The effect consistently crops up in medical trials (although the magnitude of the effect is inconsistent).

While understanding is poor, the effect itself is very objectively documented. Do you really think researchers do blind trials against placebos because they are bored?

[DC]

Accupuncture worked for me, and several others i know.

[wilsontown]

Mike Eslea (http://punkpsychologist.blogspot.com/2008/10/placebo-needles-in-acupuncture-do-they.html) had a go with the "sham" acupuncture needles, and wasn't that convinced...

[fls]

No, the placebo effect is OBJECTIVELY documented. Less symptoms reported,

This is a subjective measure - specifically, binary outcomes (symptoms present or absent) don't show a difference, but continuous outcomes (rating of symptoms on something like a visual analog scale) show a reduction for placebo vs. no treatment.

faster recovery times, and generally improved response.

That is kinda vague, but compared to 'no treatment', any kind of binary outcome (subjective or not) does not show a difference and only those outcomes that are subjective show a difference on continuous measures.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/344/21/1594

Objectively similar brain patterns have been recorded in the brains of patients given painkillers and people given placebos they were told were painkillers.

The research in this area is interesting, and so far forms the best documented physiological difference between placebo and no treatment.

The effect consistently crops up in medical trials (although the magnitude of the effect is inconsistent).

While understanding is poor, the effect itself is very objectively documented. Do you really think researchers do blind trials against placebos because they are bored?

I'm talking about the difference between placebo and no treatment. The placebo effect is a mixture of various biases and statistical effects, plus the effect of expectation. It turns out that the bulk of the effect comes from the former rather than the latter and occurs even with 'no treatment'.

Linda

[fls]

Accupuncture worked for me, and several others i know.

It should, shouldn't it? It satisfies the conditions where you'd most expect to see a response regardless of whether or not there is any specific effect - it is used after other treatments have been tried rather than as a first-line treatment, it sets up strong expectations with the air of mystery and the slightly noxious nature of the treatment, and it is used for conditions where alteration in pain (the one well-documented effect of placebo) is used as a measure of response.

Linda

[DC]

It should, shouldn't it? It satisfies the conditions where you'd most expect to see a response regardless of whether or not there is any specific effect - it is used after other treatments have been tried rather than as a first-line treatment, it sets up strong expectations with the air of mystery and the slightly noxious nature of the treatment, and it is used for conditions where alteration in pain (the one well-documented effect of placebo) is used as a measure of response.

Linda

it shoudn't when you listen to the "sceptics" on JREF.

[paximperium]

it shoudn't when you listen to the "sceptics" on JREF.
"It shouldn't when you listen to science and data from the multitude of studies from throughout the entire world."
Corrected it for you.

[DC]

"It shouldn't when you listen to science and data from the multitude of studies from throughout the entire world."
Corrected it for you.

Science and Data led to a better acceptance of accupuncture in this region.
and showed that it indeed works.

[paximperium]

Science and Data led to a better acceptance of accupuncture in this region.
and showed that it indeed works.
Sure it does:rolleyes: How about you actually pretend to provide some evidence?

PS: Oh yeah, if and when you do provide studies that supposedly "shows" acupuncture working, I would really suggest you be aware that many of the readers here actually know how to read science papers so anything less than an actually good research papers won't really fly.

[DC]

Sure it does:rolleyes: How about you actually pretend to provide some evidence?

PS: Oh yeah, if and when you do provide studies that supposedly "shows" acupuncture working, I would really suggest you be aware that many of the readers here actually know how to read science papers so anything less than an actually good research papers won't really fly.

i linked to the studies several times already in other topic in which you also answered to me........

[paximperium]

i linked to the studies several times already in other topic in which you also answered to me........
Don't remember it too well. Humor me and the lurkers.

[DC]

Don't remember it too well. Humor me and the lurkers.

no problem, it will not convince you anyway. it did convince alot experts thats far more important.

[paximperium]

no problem, it will not convince you anyway. it did convince alot experts thats far more important.
Love the insult; also an attempt to poison the well if and when others disagree with you. Anyone else pick anything else?

Experts? Don't give a rat's ass who they are. If you accept BS claims with BS evidence, they would still be wrong even if they are a professor of whatever. I could trot out my professorship and titles but I digress.

[DC]

Love the insult; also an attempt to poison the well if and when others disagree with you. Anyone else pick anything else?

Experts? Don't give a rat's ass who they are. If you accept BS claims with BS evidence, they would still be wrong even if they are a professor of whatever. I could trot out my professorship and titles but I digress.

Google for:
German Acupuncture Trial 2001-2005
or
Gerac Low backpain

that studie had the most impact here.

[paximperium]

Ahhh, the GERAC Trial.
Here is the article: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/17/1892

Here is the quick low down on the trial since I read it when it came out and it has been torn apart by just about everyone.

1)Change in apriori hypothesis.
2)Selection bias: Patients recruited to use acupuncture are way more likely to be acupuncture believers.
3)Arbitrary use of inclusion-exclusion criteria ie. more selection bias: The physicians who were the acupuncture study recruiters selected the participants.
3)No real placebo: Sham acupuncture actually needles the skin-so there is an actual physiological effect and is not inert. It is not placebo.
4)Single blinding: The acupuncturist was not blinded to sham vs "real". This leads to bias.
5)No statistical differences between sham vs. "real" acupuncture.

So the best study you have is a trial that shows NO difference between sham and "real" acupuncture?

[DC]

Ahhh, the GERAC Trial.
Here is the article: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/17/1892

Here is the quick low down on the trial since I read it when it came out and it has been torn apart by just about everyone.

1)Change in apriori hypothesis:
2)Selection bias: Patients recruited to use acupuncture are way more likely to be acupuncture believers.
3)Arbitrary use of inclusion-exclusion criteria ie. more selection bias: The physicians who were the acupuncture study recruiters selected the participants.
3)No real placebo: Sham acupuncture actually needles the skin-so there is an actual physiological effect and is not inert. It is not placebo.
4)Single blinding: The acupuncturist was not blinded to sham vs "real". This leads to bias.
5)No statistical differences between sham vs. "real" acupuncture.

about everyone ripped it appart lol, yeah dream on :)
not here.

strange that thehealth insurance companys didnt point out those flaws , now they have to pay for a treathment that is not working according to you.

who ripped it apart scientifically? not handwaving ot away, thats not science :D

and how come that even the not working accupuncture and not working sham accupuncture did alot better than the conventional threatment?
because the patients belived in woo? or because the woo needler was not blinded? how did he influence the result? so the study is actually a huge scamm but only a few self procleimed sceptics claim it to be flawed, and those that are impacted with it, that now have to pay for the woo needles did not spot those flaws?

strange.

[paximperium]

about everyone ripped it appart lol, yeah dream on :)
not here.
Since apparently you don't read any medical journals, your statement is less than useless.

strange that thehealth insurance companys didnt point out those flaws , now they have to pay for a treathment that is not working according to you.Who's the one doing the handwaving? Argumentum ad insurance? That's a new one.
How about because it is popular and cheap?
Why spend more on an actual real treatment when you can spend it on cheap popular ones?

who ripped it apart scientifically? not handwaving ot away, thats not science :DSo you don't understand how analysis of studies are done?
You don't understand that critical flaws in this study makes this study's findings unreliable and conclusion invalid?

and how come that even the not working accupuncture and not working sham accupuncture did alot better than the conventional threatment? Actual needling vs. non-needling. You tell me where's the placebo.

because the patients belived in woo? or because the woo needler was not blinded? how did he influence the result? Don't know. It may have influenced to results either way. We do not know since this study has this flaw.

so the study is actually a huge scamm but only a few self procleimed sceptics claim it to be flawed, and those that are impacted with it, that now have to pay for the woo needles did not spot those flaws?
strange. Your strawman shows your inherent bias and your ignorance of academic research. All studies have flaws and biases is subtle and often not due to fraud. It is often just due to bad study design. This study is one of the better studies out there on acupuncture and it doesn't work any better then blindly sticking people with needles.

These flaws were seen by just about everyone who knows what they are reading. Go look up the multitude of criticisms of this studies in other journals. Read the opinion piece of this study and the host of letters to the editor in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Your ignorance about the criticims of this study is telling about you and nothing about the validity of the criticisms.

The issue I have with this study is how the authors attempt to spin it to a positive study. Otherwise it is well designed study that shows that acupuncture works no better than sham acupuncture. As negative a study as they come.

[DC]

Why spend more on an actual real treatment when you can spend it on cheap popular ones?

LOL when it is not working like you claim, then the people would come back and demand a real wokring threatment. so they would have to pay double.
why on earth dont they pay for wonderhealers?

I did read about it in medical journals also my doctor did, thats how i first heard of it.

you claim that it is an invalid conclusion. Others say it isnt. My Doctor didnt say that.

it worked alot lot better than the traditional threadment for chronic low backpain.
so yes i think it is a possitive studie.

so you claim to spot some flaws, but you are not able to explain how the supposed flaws did influence the studie. OK :)

Handwaving noticed.

thanks

[paximperium]

LOL when it is not working like you claim, then the people would come back and demand a real wokring threatment. so they would have to pay double.
More lack of understanding of how insurance companies work.
Example: Insurance company spends $100 x4 for low back pain over 1 year Vs. the $2000 for a real treatment. They just delayed paying $2000 for an entire year and spent less during that time period.

Fiscally, tell me which is better? Which looks better in the bottomline? $2000 spent now or later?

why on earth dont they pay for wonderhealers?
They do. It's called "alternative" medicine.

I did read about it in medical journals also my doctor did, thats how i first heard of it.
you claim that it is an invalid conclusion. Others say it isnt. My Doctor didnt say that.
So what? There is no he said/she said when it comes to science. It is not an opinion, it is what the evidence shows. Your ignorance and blatant bias about the evidence is not an excuse.

it worked alot lot better than the traditional threadment for chronic low backpain.
so yes i think it is a possitive studie.
If you think randomly needling is the same as acupuncture why the hell call it acupuncture and not call it random needling? No chi or meridian points BS.

You do realize that plain needling without the acupuncture BS is being studied as pain controlled method?

so you claim to spot some flaws, but you are not able to explain how the supposed flaws did influence the studie. OK :)

Handwaving noticed.
I do not make things up. I will not arbitrarily indulge in speculation on scientific topics since I do not know how the flaws could have affected to outcome. The flaws could as easily have hidden real evidence that shows that acupuncture works.

Unlike certain individuals I am open to good evidence and the continued poor results of acupuncture continues to be disappointing.

[DC]

More lack of understanding of how insurance companies work.
Example: Insurance company spends $100 x4 for low back pain over 1 year Vs. the $2000 for a real treatment. They just delayed paying $2000 for an entire year and spent less during that time period.

Fiscally, tell me which is better? Which looks better in the bottomline? $2000 spent now or later?

They do. It's called "alternative" medicine.

So what? There is no he said/she said when it comes to science. It is not an opinion, it is what the evidence shows. Your ignorance and blatant bias about the evidence is not an excuse.

If you think randomly needling is the same as acupuncture why the hell call it acupuncture and not call it random needling? No chi or meridian points BS.

You do realize that plain needling without the acupuncture BS is being studied as pain controlled method?

I do not make things up. I will not arbitrarily indulge in speculation on scientific topics since I do not know how the flaws could have affected to outcome. The flaws could as easily have hidden real evidence that shows that acupuncture works.

Unlike certain individuals I am open to good evidence and the continued poor results of acupuncture continues to be disappointing.

so paying for Accupuncture and then next year ALSO paying for the real threatment is better?

to experts around here it is an accepted studie. maybe they dont have asmuch knowledge into science like you have.

so because the sham accupuncture did show the same results as the real accupuncture, we can ingnore the fact that both did alot lot better than the traditional threatment?

[DC]

and when its not working, how come at the University of Jena it worked with patients after a anesthesia? that is taken as scientific avidence that it is not only a placebo effect.

how was Prof. Litscher able to prove via MRI's that Accupuncture is working? and in those 2 studies the placebo needling didnt work.

are they all scammers? charlatans?

[fls]

it shoudn't when you listen to the "sceptics" on JREF.

As far as I can tell, the 'sceptics' say the same thing that I just said - its action is indistinguishable from using a placebo.

Linda

[paximperium]

so paying for Accupuncture and then next year ALSO paying for the real threatment is better?
No. That is the point, it is NOT better. It is a complete and utter waste of time, money and resources. Cut out the acupuncture junk and jump straight to the real treatment.

to experts around here it is an accepted studie. maybe they dont have asmuch knowledge into science like you have.
If they accept this study as evidence for acupuncture than I have absolutely no problem stating that I definitely know more about evidence based medicine and medical research than they do.

so because the sham accupuncture did show the same results as the real accupuncture, we can ingnore the fact that both did alot lot better than the traditional threatment?
So you're now backsliding from your original claim? So now it's not that "Acupuncture works" but "Needling is better than conventional treatments?"
Apparently you don't read:

If you think randomly needling is the same as acupuncture why the hell call it acupuncture and not call it random needling? No chi or meridian points BS.

You do realize that plain needling without the acupuncture BS is being studied as pain controlled method?

If it works, I would use it. Until then I don't blindly accept useless treatments. I have something called ethics.

and when its not working, how come at the University of Jena it worked with patients after a anesthesia? that is taken as scientific avidence that it is not only a placebo effect.
Who cares. Stop using your Argument from Authority BS. If some hospital uses animal sacrifices am I suppose to be impressed.
Post the study and then we can talk.

how was Prof. Litscher able to prove via MRI's that Accupuncture is working? and in those 2 studies the placebo needling didnt work.
Post the study.

are they all scammers? charlatans?
No. No one claiming that except for you.

I see YOUR problem. You seem to take ANY form of criticism as some form of personal attack. It isn't.

Making mistakes is part of medical research. Sometimes those mistakes are not even considered or recognized by the author. That is what peer review is for. I have been at the receiving end of a paper presentation before and you know what? My paper got better because I changed it.

If a researcher is blinded by their dogma and refuses to listen to valid criticisms of their research, then they are definitely charlatans.

[Zelenius]

And yet, every alternative medicine that you dismiss as "bunk" has the same kind of evidence in support of it that you just used to decide that naturopathy and herbalism do work and should not be dismissed.Linda

This is exactly the point I was making about the "lumping" together of some helpful, proven, "alternative" therapies with the unproven, woo-based therapies. I don't think it should be necessary to prove that all treatments from herbalism and naturopathy work all the time to make a point that some of the therapies coming from these types of medicine are effective at least some of the time(that is the only point I am trying to make). If we were to hold conventional medicine to such a standard, it would effectively disprove virtually all of conventional medicine.

There is much evidence for the efficacy of certain herbs and some nutritional therapies. These come from scientific and herbal journals from all around the world, although Germany seems to be number one in herbal research. Of course, some herbs and nutrients once thought useful have proven to be useless or dangerous(the same goes for many conventional prescription drugs). Many therapies still used by herbalists or naturopaths are still ridiculous, useless and even dangerous, but here is a small sampling of the ones that work:

Garlic's anti-microbial, anti-bacterial and anti-viral effects - http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/mdd/v05/i04/html/04news4.html

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/garlic.htm

and "American Botanical Council. New Research Supports Garlic's Role in Arresting and Reversing Arteriosclerosis. www. Herbalgram.org, the e-newsletter of the American Botanical Council, April 29, 2005."

In Japan, an extract of rice brain mixed with 3 types of mushrooms called MGN-3 is considered a very potent immune booster, with much science to back it. It is often given as a prescription for cancer in Japan -

http://www.cancertutor.org/Cancer/MGN3.html

http://www.biobran.org/research.html

Gamma-tocotrienol(a sub-type of vitamin E) and resveratrol(found in wine and grapes) and their anti-cancer effects - http://www.vrp.com/articles.aspx?ProdID=art2461&zTYPE=2

Coumarin(a natural chemical found in cinnamon) and anti-cancer effects - http://www.springerlink.com/content/n70v72t00570437q/ (please note: many studies demonstrate that coumarin may cause liver damage)

Vitamin D may boost immunity - http://www.physorg.com/news98445106.html

Co-Q10 - "Internationally, there have been at least nine placebo controlled studies on the treatment of heart disease with CoQ10:two in Japan,two in the United States, two in Italy, two in Germany, and one in Sweden (17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25). All nine of these studies have confirmed the effectiveness of CoQ10 as well as its remarkable safety. There have now been eight international symposia on the biomedical and clinical aspects of CoQ10 (from 1976 through 1993 (26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33)). These eight symposia comprised over 300 papers presented by approximately 200 different physicians and scientists from 18 different countries. The majority of these scientific papers were Japanese (34%), with American (26%), Italian (20%) and the remaining 20% from Sweden, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, Australia, Austria, France, India, Korea, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, USSR, and Finland. The majority of the clinical studies concerned the treatment of heart disease and were remarkably consistent in their conclusions: that treatment with CoQ10 significantly improved heart muscle function while producing no adverse effects or drug interactions. " - http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/coenzyme-q10-heart-disease.html

There is a ton of information on the usefulness of herbs here - http://www.herbs.org/ and here - http://abc.herbalgram.org/site/PageServer

Type in some of our most common herbs and spices like "ginger", "garlic", "cinnamon", "mint" and the scientific studies pop up. Many if not most are placebo-controlled.

This is why I think lumping herbalism and naturopathy together with homeopathy, crystal healing, acupuncture, faith healing, astrology-based healing, and other unproven, useless therapies is wrong. No such evidence exists in support of these types of "healing". Blanket statements and miscategorization on these matters aren't very helpful at arriving at the truth. And no I am not against conventional medicine, I'm very in favor of it. Rather, I just think some "alternative" therapies have merit and just because something is considered "alternative" should not automatically mean it is quackery or totally unproven.

What herbalism has in common with all other alternative methods is the way in which the users decide what to try and whether or not it works - observation in the absence of blinding and controls, forming ideas in the absence of a theoretical framework and on the basis of metaphor/analogy, plus a hearty dose of ******** (no interest in whether or not something is true or false) and self-promotion. Evidence has very little to do with whether or not it is considered alternative.
Linda

The scientific knowledge, intelligence, or manner in which people decide to use herbs or nutrients and how it may be similar to how people use unproven or useless therapies has nothing to do with whether or not science has validated the use of certain herbs or nutrients for certain conditions(It should go without saying that people should use them in the proper manner. If used the wrong way they can be rendered useless or dangerous). Nor should patients receiving any therapy, whether it is a conventional therapy or alternative therapy have to understand everything about the science and scientific theoretical framework of how it works in the same rigorous scientific depth that their doctor understands it, before receiving the therapy or for the therapy to be effective.

If this were the case, 99% of the population wouldn't qualify for prescription drug therapy. Of course it is great if patients want to learn as much science as possible to better understand their problem and how certain medicines may help them. How much better off we would all be if more patients did this. In all therapies, mainstream or alternative, feedback from patients is extremely important.

You also make the claim that there is a hearty dose of ***** or "BS" belief involved I suppose when it comes to taking herbal remedies. If a person taking a conventional prescription drug for a condition has some "BS" beliefs about the drug and how it works, does this mean they should stop taking it(assuming they are safely consuming it), or does this only apply to "alternative" herbal/nutritional therapies? Just curious...

[Chris Haynes]

...
LAETRILE FOR CANCER, Controversial and non patenable treatment, not enough modern studies done for my liking to rule it out completely. Started a thread about this the other day. Most people think its a big pile of woo-woo.

Because the studies done in the 1970s determined it was a steaming pile of bovine excrement. Why beat a dead horse (in this case a stinking cow patty)?

More information:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Laetrile.asp?sitearea=ETO

Plus the history (look for the name "Krebs" when researching laetrile):
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

and a reprint of a 1976 FDA publication (once upon a time their site had a great oral history of their dealings with Krebs and others, but it has disappeared):
http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org/alt/laetrile1.shtml

Laetrile is right up there with pushing coffee up your bum as an effective cancer treatment (see http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=298 ).

[fls]

This is exactly the point I was making about the "lumping" together of some helpful, proven, "alternative" therapies with the unproven, woo-based therapies. I don't think it should be necessary to prove that all treatments from herbalism and naturopathy work all the time to make a point that some of the therapies coming from these types of medicine are effective at least some of the time(that is the only point I am trying to make). If we were to hold conventional medicine to such a standard, it would effectively disprove virtually all of conventional medicine.

And the point that I was making is that your means of finding a therapy effective - "it worked for me" - is useless. All therapies, even those you personally consider useless, can be found to be 'effective' by that standard. You need to ask yourself why you are so willing to dismiss homeopathy, when someone could easily come here and claim, just as sincerely as you did, that homeopathy was responsible for the 98% improvement in their sinusitis. Why is your story useful, while theirs is worthless?

In a way, conventional medicine is held to the standard that all treatments work all the time. That's what makes it not 'alternative'.

There is much evidence for the efficacy of certain herbs and some nutritional therapies. These come from scientific and herbal journals from all around the world, although Germany seems to be number one in herbal research. Of course, some herbs and nutrients once thought useful have proven to be useless or dangerous(the same goes for many conventional prescription drugs).

Garlic's anti-microbial, anti-bacterial and anti-viral effects - http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/mdd/v05/i04/html/04news4.html

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/garlic.htm

and "American Botanical Council. New Research Supports Garlic's Role in Arresting and Reversing Arteriosclerosis. www. Herbalgram.org, the e-newsletter of the American Botanical Council, April 29, 2005."

In Japan, an extract of rice brain mixed with 3 types of mushrooms called MGN-3 is considered a very potent immune booster, with much science to back it. It is often given as a prescription for cancer in Japan -

http://www.cancertutor.org/Cancer/MGN3.html

http://www.biobran.org/research.html

Gamma-tocotrienol(a sub-type of vitamin E) and resveratrol(found in wine and grapes) and their anti-cancer effects - http://www.vrp.com/articles.aspx?ProdID=art2461&zTYPE=2

Coumarin(a natural chemical found in cinnamon) and anti-cancer effects - http://www.springerlink.com/content/n70v72t00570437q/ (please note: many studies demonstrate that coumarin may cause liver damage)

Vitamin D may boost immunity - http://www.physorg.com/news98445106.html

Co-Q10 - "Internationally, there have been at least nine placebo controlled studies on the treatment of heart disease with CoQ10:two in Japan,two in the United States, two in Italy, two in Germany, and one in Sweden (17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25). All nine of these studies have confirmed the effectiveness of CoQ10 as well as its remarkable safety. There have now been eight international symposia on the biomedical and clinical aspects of CoQ10 (from 1976 through 1993 (26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33)). These eight symposia comprised over 300 papers presented by approximately 200 different physicians and scientists from 18 different countries. The majority of these scientific papers were Japanese (34%), with American (26%), Italian (20%) and the remaining 20% from Sweden, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, Australia, Austria, France, India, Korea, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, USSR, and Finland. The majority of the clinical studies concerned the treatment of heart disease and were remarkably consistent in their conclusions: that treatment with CoQ10 significantly improved heart muscle function while producing no adverse effects or drug interactions. " - http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/coenzyme-q10-heart-disease.html

There is a ton of information on the usefulness of herbs here - http://www.herbs.org/ and here - http://abc.herbalgram.org/site/PageServer

Type in some of our most common herbs and spices like "ginger", "garlic", "cinnamon", "mint" and the scientific studies pop up. Many if not most are placebo-controlled.

See, now you're doing just what homepaths and the reiki masters do. You use a hodge podge of inadequate and unrelated information in order to make the case that your particular brand of alternative medicine is valid. What I don't understand is, if you can do it and it's 'okay', then why isn't it okay when they do it?

This is why I think lumping herbalism and naturopathy together with homeopathy, crystal healing, faith healing, astrology-based healing, and other unproven, useless therapies is wrong. No such evidence exists in support of these types of "healing".

Of course it does. Have you never sat in on a homeopathy thread here? We've got 'evidence' just like yours coming out of our ears.

Blanket statements and miscategorization on these matters aren't very helpful at arriving at the truth. And no I am not against conventional medicine, I'm very in favor of it. Rather, I just think some "alternative" therapies have merit and just because something is considered "alternative" should not automatically mean it is quackery or totally unproven.

But as I said before, what makes something alternative is not whether or not it may have merit, but the methods by which people think one can arrive at the truth, or whether or not they are even interested in the truth.

The manner in which people decide to use herbs or nutrients and how it may be similar to how people use unproven or useless therapies has nothing to do with whether or not science backs the use of certain herbs or nutrients. Nor should patients receiving any therapy, whether it is a conventional therapy or alternative therapy have to understand everything about the science and scientific theoretical framework of how it works in the same rigorous scientific depth that their doctor understands it, before receiving the therapy or for the therapy to be effective.

If this were the case, 99% of the population wouldn't qualify for prescription drug therapy. Of course it is great if patients want to learn as much science as possible to better understand their problem and how certain medicines may help them. How much better off we would all be if more patients did this. In all therapies, mainstream or alternative, feedback from patients is extremely important.

The methods I listed were with respect to how the body of knowledge for a particular therapy was built including by those with expertise.

You also make the claim that there is a hearty dose of ***** or "BS" belief involved I suppose when it comes to taking herbal remedies. If a person taking a conventional prescription drug for a condition has some "BS" beliefs about the drug and how it works, does this mean they should stop taking it(assuming they are safely consuming it), or does this only apply to "alternative" herbal/nutritional therapies? Just curious...

I didn't say BS beliefs. The BS is on the part of the practitioners - those who use that particular system. It involves an unconcern for the truth, deliberate or not.

I'm trying to tease out just what it is that makes a therapy 'alternative'. It clearly isn't the possible merit. Since the majority of our medicines have a natural source, it is reasonable to consider that hidden among the hundreds or thousands of remedies suggested by herbalists lies a few gems. The difference, as far as I can tell, is in whether or not those gems can be found. Using the "it worked for me" standard will find that they are all 'gems'.

Linda

[Uncayimmy]

In a way, conventional medicine is held to the standard that all treatments work all the time. That's what makes it not 'alternative'.

Really? I don't think I agree with how that's phrased. Even so, I don't think it's a good way to differentiate conventional versus alternative medicine.

In my mind conventional medicine is subjected to controlled studies to determine if there's a statistically significant effect. Alternative therapies aren't.

[DC]

No. That is the point, it is NOT better. It is a complete and utter waste of time, money and resources. Cut out the acupuncture junk and jump straight to the real treatment.

If they accept this study as evidence for acupuncture than I have absolutely no problem stating that I definitely know more about evidence based medicine and medical research than they do.

So you're now backsliding from your original claim? So now it's not that "Acupuncture works" but "Needling is better than conventional treatments?"
Apparently you don't read:

If it works, I would use it. Until then I don't blindly accept useless treatments. I have something called ethics.


Who cares. Stop using your Argument from Authority BS. If some hospital uses animal sacrifices am I suppose to be impressed.
Post the study and then we can talk.

Post the study.

No. No one claiming that except for you.

I see YOUR problem. You seem to take ANY form of criticism as some form of personal attack. It isn't.

Making mistakes is part of medical research. Sometimes those mistakes are not even considered or recognized by the author. That is what peer review is for. I have been at the receiving end of a paper presentation before and you know what? My paper got better because I changed it.

If a researcher is blinded by their dogma and refuses to listen to valid criticisms of their research, then they are definitely charlatans.

http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/reprint/98/1/141.pdf

http://medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol16_1/article5.html

[Uncayimmy]

The study at http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/reprint/98/1/141.pdf said, "There were no significant differences between groups for demographic or clinical data."

That's kind of an interesting statement considering there were just two groups of 8 people studied.

[paximperium]

http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/reprint/98/1/141.pdf

http://medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol16_1/article5.html
*Face-palm*
Acupuncture Decreases Somatosensory Evoked Potential Amplitudes to Noxious Stimuli in Anesthetized Volunteers
SSEP uses electrical pulses to determine nerve activation. It is useful in detemining analgesia and anesthesia. They then used "electrical needle acupuncture" on a nerve.

I frankly can't believe this study was ever approved. No one notice this flaw? The flaw where if you ELECTRICALLY STIMULATE A NERVE perhaps, just perhaps, the nerve's electrical potential will change?

I'm not going to even bother with issues with sample size(fine for a pilot study), why the hell they decided on electrical stimulation vs. plain acupuncture without nerve stimulation etc.

Basically what we have is a study that shows nerve stimulation works...guess what?
Oh yeah, we have something that works. It is called NERVE STIMULATORS:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081009162741.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081009162741.htm)

Why bother with the acupuncture BS and not go to the thing that actually works?

I'll get to the second paper in a bit.

[DC]

*Face-palm*
Acupuncture Decreases Somatosensory Evoked Potential Amplitudes to Noxious Stimuli in Anesthetized Volunteers
SSEP uses electrical pulses to determine nerve activation. It is useful in detemining analgesia and anesthesia. They then used "electrical needle acupuncture" on a nerve.

I frankly can't believe this study was ever approved. No one notice this flaw? The flaw where if you ELECTRICALLY STIMULATE A NERVE perhaps, just perhaps, the nerve's electrical potential will change?

I'm not going to even bother with issues with sample size(fine for a pilot study), why the hell they decided on electrical stimulation vs. plain acupuncture without nerve stimulation etc.

Basically what we have is a study that shows nerve stimulation works...guess what?
Oh yeah, we have something that works. It is called NERVE STIMULATORS:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081009162741.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081009162741.htm)

Why bother with the acupuncture BS and not go to the thing that actually works?

I'll get to the second paper in a bit.


and what about the people where the traditional treathment did not work?
the real thing, like you call it, doesnt work for everyone.
and those people can find help in Accupuncture.

[DC]

*Face-palm*
Acupuncture Decreases Somatosensory Evoked Potential Amplitudes to Noxious Stimuli in Anesthetized Volunteers
SSEP uses electrical pulses to determine nerve activation. It is useful in detemining analgesia and anesthesia. They then used "electrical needle acupuncture" on a nerve.

I frankly can't believe this study was ever approved. No one notice this flaw? The flaw where if you ELECTRICALLY STIMULATE A NERVE perhaps, just perhaps, the nerve's electrical potential will change?

I'm not going to even bother with issues with sample size(fine for a pilot study), why the hell they decided on electrical stimulation vs. plain acupuncture without nerve stimulation etc.

Basically what we have is a study that shows nerve stimulation works...guess what?
Oh yeah, we have something that works. It is called NERVE STIMULATORS:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081009162741.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081009162741.htm)

Why bother with the acupuncture BS and not go to the thing that actually works?

I'll get to the second paper in a bit.



and from your link

The study measured the effectiveness of nerve stimulation in six patients

[six7s]

Regarding meditation - if you're looking for studies done - this site seems to have a fair amount of information:

http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/ch1.htm

You can draw your own conclusion from the results of these studies, but there's enough there to convince me that meditation may be able to influence physical body processes.As can a dawn-breaker

"Aha!", says the wooist, "yet fornication merely externalises the need and passes responsibility to another party" (or summat like that)

"Perhaps" says the realist "meditation is for those too weird to get laid - even by another wooist - and too hung up to wank"

YMMV

[fls]

Really? I don't think I agree with how that's phrased. Even so, I don't think it's a good way to differentiate conventional versus alternative medicine.

In conventional medicine, treatments are discarded if they do not demonstrate efficacy. When's the last time an alternative treatment was discarded by its practitioners/users?

In my mind conventional medicine is subjected to controlled studies to determine if there's a statistically significant effect. Alternative therapies aren't.

That's what I'm trying to get at - that the approach to gathering information is different, not that it's not possible to find equivalent amounts of evidence for one kind of treatment vs. another.

Linda

[paximperium]

and what about the people where the traditional treathment did not work?
the real thing, like you call it, doesnt work for everyone.
Then it doesn't work and we keep looking for something better.

and those people can find help in Accupuncture.
So says you but not the data.

[paximperium]

and from your link
What about a study with 6 patients?

[DC]

Then it doesn't work and we keep looking for something better.

So says you but not the data.

yes my doctor looked for something "better" and he send me to accupuncture, and it worked.
I dont say replace our treathment with accupuncture.

for me it helped with my backpain, placebo or not, it helped.

also for alot others it worked well.

[DC]

What about a study with 6 patients?

sample size?

you pointed out the sample size of the studie i linked to, it was only 16 patients.

and now you link to a studie that only involved 6 patients........

bias?

[DC]

Then it doesn't work and we keep looking for something better.

So says you but not the data.


the data says

At 6 months, response rate was 47.6% in the verum acupuncture group, 44.2% in the sham acupuncture group, and 27.4% in the conventional therapy group.

also the data says it. you can ignore it aslong you want.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/17/1892

[paximperium]

sample size?

you pointed out the sample size of the studie i linked to, it was only 16 patients.

and now you link to a studie that only involved 6 patients........

bias?And my study is a pilot study as well that was the first google example that plain old nerve stimulation has a known physiologic effect.

Would you like me to show you studies of the vagal nerve stimulators and other nerve stimulators used in back pain?

[DC]

And my study is a pilot study as well that was the first google example that plain old nerve stimulation has a known physiologic effect.

Would you like me to show you studies of the vagal nerve stimulators and other nerve stimulators used in back pain?

sure why not

[paximperium]

the data says



also the data says it. you can ignore it aslong you want.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/17/1892
Your dishonesty is telling.

Please very clearly state and present where I have ever stated that sham acupuncture has no effect.

I have stated that acupuncture is no better than sham acupuncture. The data supports my conclusion and invalidates your blind dogma. You can ignore it as long as you want.

[DC]

Your dishonesty is telling.

Please very clearly state and present where I have ever stated that sham acupuncture has no effect.

I have stated that acupuncture is no better than sham acupuncture. The data supports my conclusion and invalidates your blind dogma. You can ignore it as long as you want.

how do you explain this?
27.4% in the conventional therapy group

[paximperium]

Have fun:
Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Low Back Pain
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/9/818

Vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy: a review
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WWW-45BCRB6-26&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4ce0ca2f95937ce9bfec479d41277c0f

[paximperium]

how do you explain this?
27.4% in the conventional therapy group
Explain what?
That sticking needles into patient's has a better effect than not sticking needles?

[DC]

Have fun:
Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Low Back Pain
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/9/818



Vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy: a review
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WWW-45BCRB6-26&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4ce0ca2f95937ce9bfec479d41277c0f

how come it was not double-blinded?

[DC]

Explain what?
That sticking needles into patient's has a better effect than not sticking needles?

that Accupuncture and Sham accupuncture did perform alot better than traditional treathment.

[paximperium]

how come it was not double-blinded?
Great question. It is because there is no way to do so.

The nature of the electrical (tapping) sensations precluded our ability to perform the treatments in a double-blind fashion. In an attempt to minimize investigator bias, all patient assessments were performed by individuals not involved in administering the therapies. To avoid prejudicing patients in favor of PENS therapy, the sham treatment was described to the patients as an acupuncturelike therapy. Since the needles for the sham-PENS treatments were placed in a dermatomal montage rather than at specific acupoints, it would be inappropriate to conclude that classic Chinese acupuncture is of no benefit in this patient population.

[paximperium]

that Accupuncture and Sham accupuncture did perform alot better than traditional treathment.
I completely agree and therefore we should look into needling as a potential useful modality for the treatment of pain.

Dump the acupunture "meridian" and "chi" mumbo-jumbo and figure out the most effective needling techniques using proper studies instead of tradition.

[fls]

how do you explain this?
27.4% in the conventional therapy group

What I always found interesting about that study was that the response rate to the three treatments was the same - i.e. the conventional therapy group responded just as well as the acupuncture group while the treatment was being given:

"232 (59.9%) in the verum group, 209 (54.3%) in the sham group, and 192 (52.5%) in the conventional group"..."experienced a 10% to 50% reduction in pain intensity (Von Korff Chronic Pain Grade Scale)."

What's also interesting is that the results, in the conventional medicine group in particular are very sensitive to how the outcome measurement was formed. For example, depending upon your specific criteria, the success rate in the conventional group can be reported as 57.6% or as 27.4%.

Linda

[paximperium]

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/content/vol167/issue17/images/medium/ioi70115t6.gif
Here is the primary table from the GERAC trial results that fls was talking about.

[DC]

Great question. It is because there is no way to do so.

:)

but the accupuncteur shall be blinded?

[DC]

I completely agree and therefore we should look into needling as a potential useful modality for the treatment of pain.

Dump the acupunture "meridian" and "chi" mumbo-jumbo and figure out the most effective needling techniques using proper studies instead of tradition.

sure thats a good idea.

would be great instead of yelling woo, research and improve it.

But its not like you can stick the needles wherever you want to get the effect you want. Other studies showed that. there are points that show significant more influence than random needling.

[DC]

What I always found interesting about that study was that the response rate to the three treatments was the same - i.e. the conventional therapy group responded just as well as the acupuncture group while the treatment was being given:

"232 (59.9%) in the verum group, 209 (54.3%) in the sham group, and 192 (52.5%) in the conventional group"..."experienced a 10% to 50% reduction in pain intensity (Von Korff Chronic Pain Grade Scale)."

What's also interesting is that the results, in the conventional medicine group in particular are very sensitive to how the outcome measurement was formed. For example, depending upon your specific criteria, the success rate in the conventional group can be reported as 57.6% or as 27.4%.

Linda

how do you come to the 57.6?

[fls]

how do you come to the 57.6?

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/17/1892

Table 5.

It's the number you get if you measure response in the way that it is usually measured. The 27.4% is further down, when you start excluding people who would usually be included in the response rate.

Linda

[DC]

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/17/1892

Table 5.

It's the number you get if you measure response in the way that it is usually measured. The 27.4% is further down, when you start excluding people who would usually be included in the response rate.

Linda

Interesting point. dunno if true.
But none of the related Letters or articles is pointing out that flaw, when true its not a flaw but a manipulation of the result.

[fls]

Interesting point. dunno if true.
But none of the related Letters or articles is pointing out that flaw, when true its not a flaw but a manipulation of the result.

Yes. And you fell for their manipulation - you seem willing to repeat the 27.4% as though it represents the actual response rate.

I don't know if it matters whether every flaw is mentioned. The study doesn't really tell us anything new, so it doesn't really matter if the conclusions are valid. It still doesn't tell us whether acupuncture is any different from placebo.

Linda

[DC]

Yes. And you fell for their manipulation - you seem willing to repeat the 27.4% as though it represents the actual response rate.

I don't know if it matters whether every flaw is mentioned. The study doesn't really tell us anything new, so it doesn't really matter if the conclusions are valid. It still doesn't tell us whether acupuncture is any different from placebo.

Linda

im not sure if it is manipulated.
the studie had a huge impact around here.
what also accupuncturists themself point out is indeed that the studie has a flaw, the sham accupuncture was not well designed and point to other studies that had better designed sham accupuncture and there was a real diffrence.

But i have not enough knowledge into studies and science to see those flaw you pointed out, i am dependend on peer reviewed journals, not accupuncture journals, medical journals. and they didnt point out such a thing as manipulated results.

not even in the letters in response to articles, which included critiques, noone pointed out that manipulation.

[fls]

im not sure if it is manipulated.
the studie had a huge impact around here.
what also accupuncturists themself point out is indeed that the studie has a flaw, the sham accupuncture was not well designed and point to other studies that had better designed sham accupuncture and there was a real diffrence.

The extent to which differences are found between sham and real acupuncture is the same as the extent to which they are perceived as the same - i.e. the better designed the sham acupuncture, the fewer differences that are found.

But i have not enough knowledge into studies and science to see those flaw you pointed out, i am dependend on peer reviewed journals, not accupuncture journals, medical journals. and they didnt point out such a thing as manipulated results.

not even in the letters in response to articles, which included critiques, noone pointed out that manipulation.

Cool. You learned something new by participating in this thread, then.

I think the main flaw (as did those sending in critiques), though, is that it still doesn't show whether acupuncture 'works' as anything other than a placebo.

Linda

[Prometheus]

Mike Eslea (http://punkpsychologist.blogspot.com/2008/10/placebo-needles-in-acupuncture-do-they.html) had a go with the "sham" acupuncture needles, and wasn't that convinced...

Back when I was a full-blown woo and living in Korea, I received acupuncture treatments twice a week for nearly a year, in an attempt to alleviate chronic back pain. The needles were not just inserted and removed; rather they were left in place for up to 20 minutes, and periodically twisted, or jiggled back and forth. Also, the acupuncturist questioned me during insertion of each needle, and would sometimes adjust the angle, twist or relocate the needle depending on my responses. He said this was important because the location and depth of acupuncture points vary from person to person, and incorrectly placed needles will feel different to the patient. I don't see how the placebo needles described in that link could mimic this experience.

[Uncayimmy]

In conventional medicine, treatments are discarded if they do not demonstrate efficacy.

With that I agree. I took issue with the "work all the time" parts of of your statement. Many conventional medicines only work just well enough in just enough people to justify their continued use. And like you said, when conventional medicine is mistaken and it doesn't work, they drop it. It was your phrasing that bothered me. Now I understand what you meant.

When's the last time an alternative treatment was discarded by its practitioners/users?

They're not using snails and puppy dog tails nearly as much as they used to.

That's what I'm trying to get at - that the approach to gathering information is different, not that it's not possible to find equivalent amounts of evidence for one kind of treatment vs. another.

We're in agreement.

[Rolfe]

You know, while I have great admiration for the posters who participate in the forum despite English not being their native language, I have to wonder about a poster who persistently and repeatedly mis-spells words like "acupuncture" and even "study", despite lots of posts being visible where these words are correctly spelled.

Still, it's nice to see the Dictator now explaining how things are "around here". Certainly after the organic farming thread, where he persistently posted in outraged terms about atrocities alleged to have occurred in the USA, without apparently realising that none of the practices complained about were actually in use in Switzerland.

In that thread we were subjected to a whole lot of statements which turned out to be no more than his opinion about how things ought to be, and had no relation at all to how things actually were. I'd like some more reassurance that this time is different, but I'm not seeing it.

He says acupuncture is accepted as scientific "round here". Well, I tend to translate that into he thinks it's scientific and he knows a couple of other guys who think so too.

Rolfe.

[Miss_Kitt]

Perusing this thread, I thought it worth mentioning that "low back pain" is one of the most common complaints that has no great treatments. For some people, mild exercises help; electrostim may help; icing may help; anti-inflammatory and/or pain drugs may help. But many people experience some back pain, and it eventually gets better for most of them--me included--with time. I have made a few lifestyle adjustments--changing the height of my computer chair and using a cushion while driving to change the angle of my legs when I sit for long periods of time--but mostly it just got better.

Back pain, like colds and recurrent headaches, is a great thing for a placebo or CAM treatment to 'work' on because (in most, not all, cases) it is self-limiting and the symptoms are only measurable subjectively. In such circumstances, either distraction or believing you will get better is likely to influence your perception of efficacy.

I like to use what we call "Girl-o'-mine" (pun on calomine) where I snuggle up with my daughter for 20 minutes when she's going to sleep. That seems to be as good for my back as anything: I listen to her breathing, and I look at her beloved face, and I don't do or think about much anything except that I love her so much, and there she is, loving and trusting me with her whole perfect heart. Girl-o'-mine is great for "curing" aches and pains, I suspect because it involves taking some time to focus on all that's great in my life.

The self-limiting nature of most low back pain is also important in the question of Why Would Insurers Pay for This? If your options are, pay for 4 acupuncture treatments, which will let enough time elapse for natural healing to occur, vs paying for conventional physical therapy for thousands of dollars, by all means, pay for acupuncture. Even if only a quarter of the patients are 'cured' by using this instead of the more expensive conventional treatment, you've saved a lot of money. And you don't have to worry about lawsuits from those who think they are being deprived of access to a therapy that will help them.

Just my thoughts, MK

[Zelenius]

And the point that I was making is that your means of finding a therapy effective - "it worked for me" - is useless. All therapies, even those you personally consider useless, can be found to be 'effective' by that standard. You need to ask yourself why you are so willing to dismiss homeopathy, when someone could easily come here and claim, just as sincerely as you did, that homeopathy was responsible for the 98% improvement in their sinusitis. Why is your story useful, while theirs is worthless?

You are certainly right about this. People who claim to have had their condition improved by homeopathy or other quackery say this all the time. I've met with and argued with many. It is possible I did not make my points clearly enough, which I will cover below.

See, now you're doing just what homepaths and the reiki masters do. You use a hodge podge of inadequate and unrelated information in order to make the case that your particular brand of alternative medicine is valid. What I don't understand is, if you can do it and it's 'okay', then why isn't it okay when they do it?

The reason I believe it is "okay" when I do it, compared to when homeopaths, reiki masters or other quacks and frauds do it is that I actually have scientific evidence for the efficacy of what I used. One only has to look through the National Library of Medicine - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ to find many studies on the efficacy of various herbs and nutrients for a variety of conditions. Much of the evidence has been peer-reviewed and subjected to randomized, placebo-controlled study, hardly "inadequate" as you say. Homeopaths can never cite any relevant scientific evidence in their favor, and it seems they may not even understand the placebo effect. Sure they have the occasional fluke that they report, but they consistently bury studies that show no positive results. Upon peer-review, homeopathy always fails(some people I know who've gone to homeopaths tell me that scientific, placebo-controlled studies aren't necessary or that the peer review method is useless - this is scary).

Furthermore, I am not endorsing any particular brand of alternative medicine, just a few things that are kind of "alternative" and were suggested by "alternative" practitioners. All I said was I found the advice of a naturopath and herbalist useful for my condition, whereas the conventional doctor's treatments were utterly useless. I did not say naturopathy and herbalism are generally effective or they have my ringing endorsement. Nor did I try to imply that conventional medicine is useless; in fact I believe the opposite. In fact, I never see the naturopath or herbalist anymore and prefer conventional doctors for virtually everything, although I almost never see them since I'm in excellent health. Most alternative medicine is just useless; indeed, I agree with almost everything you have said, except for your comparing my evidence to the "evidence" provided by homeopaths or their patients or reiki masters. I'm not trying to suggest people adopt a less scientific way of looking at things, or to replace their medical doctors with naturopaths or herbalists.

As for the "alternative" treatments that practically cured my sinusitis:

Warm nasal rinse with a saline solution using the neti pot method(did this every day for 2 months, then once a week for a few months after). I did not take any pharmaceutical drugs or prescribed antibiotics during this period, or for 2 years before using this therapy. Well done scientific studies suggest it is efficacious -
http://www.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?AID=1355
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200003/000020000399A0921815.php
http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/reprint/49/2/168
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/lwwgateway/landingpage.htm;jsessionid=JQcdJGvQV6bQqkC534KtGTp Wbnx81VP7HfQ2v1BlLJfy127Jfy2d!-2112048807!181195629!8091!-1?issn=0023-852X&volume=110&issue=7&spage=1189
This method seems to be gaining winder acceptance in conventional medicine as a treatment for sinusitis, colds and allergies to the point that maybe some people will claim it is no longer "alternative". Although other cultures had pretty much the same technique, it has been especially popular in India for a very long time(which doesn't prove anything about it's usefulness).

Besides this, I ate a lot of raw garlic. It is no longer controversial to say garlic has medicinal, anti-microbial properties. Science backs this up, and I provided sources for this and other studies in a previous post.

I also used oregano oil for my sinus condition. It is still preliminary, but science suggests it may be as powerful as prescription antibiotics - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/10/011011065609.htm and
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi6.html
It is very potent taste-wise and if anyone wants to try it, be very careful since it burns the mouth. Upon placing one drop on the tongue, it clears out the sinuses in an instant(please, no one try this without consulting a doctor first). There may be over 100 different natural chemical constituents in oregano oil, but the one that is of the most interest to science is carvacrol - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T7K-42HFWX2-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=be906006026ad42791794eaf6535ad24. The "synergistic" effects between the carvacrol(thought to be anti-microbial) and other chemicals may explain its potency, and this synergism is something usually not encountered in most conventional drugs. As a skeptic, I was quite surprised by how effective the oregano oil was. Some sites are pushing oregano oil as a cure-all and claim it cures many diseases and boosts energy. This is dishonest, overblown and unwarranted by what we currently know about oregano oil. I'm almost embarrassed to say it helped me due to all the hype and nonsense out there about it. Maybe in the future, we can invent drugs that exploit the synergistic effects of natural plant chemicals in combination(as they occur in nature), rather than just one isolated active principle. Zelenius' very crude, "scientific", personal "study" - Only one drop of oregano oil is needed to kill an earthworm(this doesn't count as "science", but it is interesting).

A lot more research needs to be done on oregano oil. Unlike homeopathy or reiki, pharmaceutical companies show an interest in the study of plants, herbalism and ethnobotany, just to extract those few "gems" you referred to(obviously, many, if not most effective drugs are derived from chemicals that come from plants or synthetics based on chemicals that come from plants). Researchers who take a scientific approach to herbalism/botany and the constituents of plants may share data with those scientists trying to invent pharmaceutical drugs and vice versa. Taxol was one recent child of such an arrangement. Pharmaceutical companies are particularly interested in the anti-cancer compounds in broccoli -http://www.pharmagateway.net/ArticlePage.aspx?DOI=10.1007/s11095-008-9734-9

Of course it does. Have you never sat in on a homeopathy thread here? We've got 'evidence' just like yours coming out of our ears.

I am still new here, but I read through some. I find it disturbing that these "doctors" are practicing. Again, evidence cited above, my evidence is not like what homeopaths cite from biased, non-peer-reviewed, unscientific sources. My sources come from peer-reviewed journals or unbiased sources. Truly, just like you, I find it disturbing how if some treatment has been shown to be ineffective, just about all alternative practitioners don't want to do away with it. This is arguably the biggest difference between conventional and alternative medicine.


But as I said before, what makes something alternative is not whether or not it may have merit, but the methods by which people think one can arrive at the truth, or whether or not they are even interested in the truth.

You are right to point this out. Since it is based on an over growing body of scientific knowledge, conventional medicine is self-correcting, unlike alternative which is mostly nonsense.

I'm trying to tease out just what it is that makes a therapy 'alternative'. It clearly isn't the possible merit. Since the majority of our medicines have a natural source, it is reasonable to consider that hidden among the hundreds or thousands of remedies suggested by herbalists lies a few gems. The difference, as far as I can tell, is in whether or not those gems can be found. Using the "it worked for me" standard will find that they are all 'gems'.

It's hard to give a perfect, exacting definition of "alternative". To me, "alternative" as in "alternative medicine" is synonymous with "unconventional", "unproven", "useless", "generally not subjected to the rigors of science", and/or "superstition-based medicine". I think it should be pointed out that when it comes to herbalism, there is some overlap between conventional practice and alternative practice, unlike all other "alternative" practices, especially in Europe. Indeed, this is why in Japan about 70% of physicians prescribe herbal remedies for their patients, and these herbal treatments are generally subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2001/aug/08kenner.html. The same goes for Germany, where 80% of physicians prescribe herbs for their patients - http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/sep99-cover1.html
This probably surprises many American medical doctors, who seldom ever suggest their patients take herbs. In France, French medical doctors also prescribe herbs, but I can't find the percentage. This is generally true of the European Union.

Unfortunately in Europe, some medical doctors may prescribe homeopathic remedies and this cost is often covered by the government. There is a movement for doing away with this, since homeopathic treatments don't demonstrate any efficacy. I hope this movement wins.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I am not endorsing Ayurvedic or traditional Chinese medicine herbal practices. Some of the herbs they use may be useful(don't know the numbers exactly, maybe by a factor of 1 in 10, or 1 in 100), but these traditions are founded on woo beliefs that science has long ago debunked. My main point was that some herbs or nutrients/plant-based chemicals have efficacy(not ALL herbs or "herbalism always works!"), as revealed by scientific studies. My other point was, even though I am generally in strong agreement with it, is that some skeptics may be a bit too harsh in dismissing all things "alternative", although considering the fraud and quacks and useless therapies in the "alternative" field, it's easy to understand why. A few gems may be overlooked due to this harshness.

For anyone reading this: Please see your doctor first before trying any of these sinus/cold remedies.

Zelenius

[fls]

The reason I believe it is "okay" when I do it, compared to when homeopaths, reiki masters or other quacks and frauds do it is that I actually have scientific evidence for the efficacy of what I used. One only has to look through the National Library of Medicine - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ to find many studies on the efficacy of various herbs and nutrients for a variety of conditions. Much of the evidence has been peer-reviewed and subjected to randomized, placebo-controlled study, hardly "inadequate" as you say.

There are only a handful of herbs that have demonstrated efficacy through adequate randomized, placebo-controlled study - ginkgo and claudication and Alzheimer's, horse chestnut and venous insufficiency, saw palmetto and BPH (questionable), St. John's wort and depression.

Homeopaths can never cite any relevant scientific evidence in their favor, and it seems they may not even understand the placebo effect.

I have been involved in several conversations with homeopaths, as well as reading articles written by homeopaths, and they frequently cite relevant scientific evidence in their favour.

Sure they have the occasional fluke that they report, but they consistently bury studies that show no positive results. Upon peer-review, homeopathy always fails(some people I know who've gone to homeopaths tell me that scientific, placebo-controlled studies aren't necessary or that the peer review method is useless - this is scary).

I have seen homeopathic studies that pass peer-review.

Furthermore, I am not endorsing any particular brand of alternative medicine, just a few things that are kind of "alternative" and were suggested by "alternative" practitioners. All I said was I found the advice of a naturopath and herbalist useful for my condition, whereas the conventional doctor's treatments were utterly useless. I did not say naturopathy and herbalism are generally effective or they have my ringing endorsement. Most alternative medicine is just useless; indeed, I agree with almost everything you have said, except for your comparing me to people touting homeopaths or reiki masters. I'm not trying to suggest people use an unscientific method to look at things or examine evidence.

Besides this, I ate a lot of raw garlic. It is no longer controversial to say garlic has medicinal, anti-microbial properties. Science backs this up.

Yes. The same kind of science that backs up the use of homeopathy.

I also used oregano oil for my sinus condition. It is still preliminary, but science suggests it may be as powerful as prescription antibiotics - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/10/011011065609.htm and
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi6.html

Yes. The same kind of science that backs up the use of homeopathy.

I read through some, yes. I find it disturbing that these "doctors" are practicing. Again, evidence cited above, my evidence is not like what homeopaths cite from biased, non-peer-reviewed, unscientific sources. My sources come from peer-reviewed journals or unbiased sources.

The evidence you cited for your treatments is just the same as the evidence that homeopaths cite for their treatments. Unless you don't consider the BMJ a peer-reviewed journal.

To me, "alternative" as in "alternative medicine" is synonymous with "unconventional", "unproven", "useless", "generally not subjected to the rigors of science", and/or "superstition-based medicine". I think it should be pointed out that when it comes to herbalism, there is some overlap between conventional practice and alternative practice, unlike all other "alternative" practices, especially in Europe. Indeed, this is why in Japan about 70% of physicians prescribe herbal remedies for their patients, and these herbal treatments are generally subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2001/aug/08kenner.html. The same goes for Germany, where 80% of physicians prescribe herbs for their patients - http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/sep99-cover1.html
This probably surprises many American medical doctors, who seldom ever suggest their patients take herbs. In France, French medical doctors also prescribe herbs, but I can't find the percentage. This is generally true of the European Union.

American physicians tend to practise evidence-based-medicine which means that they tend not to recommend treatments that do not have evidence of efficacy. They also tend to have a different definition of "rigorous scientific scrutiny" than you.

Unfortunately in Europe, some medical doctors may prescribe homeopathic remedies and this cost is often covered by the government. There is a movement for doing away with this, since homeopathic treatments don't demonstrate any efficacy. I hope this movement wins.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I am not endorsing Ayurvedic or traditional Chinese medicine herbal practices. Some of the herbs they use may be useful(don't know the numbers exactly, maybe by a factor of 1 in 10, or 1 in 100), but these traditions are founded on woo beliefs that science has long ago debunked. My main point was that some herbs or nutrients/plant-based chemicals have efficacy(not ALL herbs or "herbalism always works!"), as revealed by scientific studies. My other point was, even though I am generally in strong agreement with it, is that some skeptics may be a bit too harsh in dismissing all things "alternative", although considering the fraud and quacks and useless therapies in the "alternative" field, it's easy to understand why. A few gems may be overlooked due to this harshness.

For anyone reading this: Please see your doctor first before trying any of these sinus/cold remedies.

Zelenius

I appreciate that you value the use of scientific study. I simply don't understand why you criticize homeopathy, but endorse other treatments with an equivalent level of evidentiary support.

Linda

[six7s]

Is it not reasonable to say the following?:
if/when a specific treatment can consistently 'pass' peer review and the (presumably) associated 'repeat' testings, it ceases to be regarded as 'alternative'

If not, why not?

[fls]

Is it not reasonable to say the following?:
if/when a specific treatment can consistently 'pass' peer review and the (presumably) associated 'repeat' testings, it ceases to be regarded as 'alternative'

If not, why not?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but there are many treatments that have yet to 'pass' peer review and repeat testings that are not considered alternative to begin with. Examples include new therapies in development, new uses for established therapies, novel/serendipitous discoveries, etc.

Linda

[JJM]

{snip} The reason I believe it is "okay" when I do it, compared to when homeopaths, reiki masters or other quacks and frauds do it is that I actually have scientific evidence for the efficacy of what I used. One only has to look through the National Library of Medicine - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ to find many studies on the efficacy of various herbs and nutrients for a variety of conditions.First, you should know that the NLM, and NIH, provide bogus information because Congress requires them to do so. Go to www.quackwatch.org and search for NCCAM.

Second, many publications on so-called alternative medicine that claim to be peer reviewed are not properly reviewed because the referees are quacks, themselves. So, if you don't know how to interpret results, you are easily misled. Books by R. Barker Bausell "Snake Oil Science" and Ben Goldacre "Bad Science" may give you some idea of what constitutes proper research. In addition, peer-review is just the first step in acceptance of data and conclusions; when a paper is released to the wider community others may detect flaws.

Also, with natural products (and homeopathy) there is a possibility of fraud due to addition of drugs to the preps. Unpublished work has found as much as 1/3 of OTC homeopathic products are adulterated.

Much of the evidence has been peer-reviewed and subjected to randomized, placebo-controlled study, hardly "inadequate" as you say.So, know you know that "peer-reviewed" articles can be inadequate.

{snip} As for the "alternative" treatments that practically cured my sinusitis: Anecdotes are not helpful.

{snip} Besides this, I ate a lot of raw garlic. It is no longer controversial to say garlic has medicinal, anti-microbial properties. Science backs this up, and I provided sources for this and other studies in a previous post.

I also used oregano oil for my sinus condition. It is still preliminary, but science suggests it may be as powerful as prescription antibiotics - {snipI looked at a few of your sources, none (that I saw) was a clinical study. I saw you referred to news reports, which are not good sources.

BTW, finding antimicrobial activity in natural products is commonplace. Of the tens (or hundreds) of thousands such compounds found in the lab, only a few dozen have proved to be clinically effective.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Whether or not a particular therapy "works" depends on what a patient expects from it. I.e. some people may truly be satisfied simply being kept entertained while nature takes its course.

[six7s]

I'm not sure what you're getting at hereI'll be the first to admit that it wasn't my most well developed idea... but it was just a question, prompted by you mentioning St. John's wort (something I first heard of from out-and-out woos) as having "demonstrated efficacy through adequate randomized, placebo-controlled study"

I guess I was 'getting at' the notion that orthodox medicine is not a closed shop; if/when a substance - even one initially trialled by quacks - is genuinely proven to be effective, it will be accepted as 'mainstream'

Re-reading the last few posts, I see the phrase 'evidence-based-medicine', which says in three words what I only began to allude to in a dozen or more...

For a moment or three I felt compelled to apologise for chipping in with my naive ponderings... but, on the understanding that alleviating ignorance is a primary goal of this forum, I haven't... yet ;)

[fls]

I'll be the first to admit that it wasn't my most well developed idea... but it was just a question, prompted by you mentioning St. John's wort (something I first heard of from out-and-out woos) as having "demonstrated efficacy through adequate randomized, placebo-controlled study"

I guess I was 'getting at' the notion that orthodox medicine is not a closed shop; if/when a substance - even one initially trialled by quacks - is genuinely proven to be effective, it will be accepted as 'mainstream'

Yeah. There's nothing like evidence to get us to do an about-face.

Re-reading the last few posts, I see the phrase 'evidence-based-medicine', which says in three words what I only began to allude to in a dozen or more...

For a moment or three I felt compelled to apologise for chipping in with my naive ponderings... but, on the understanding that alleviating ignorance is a primary goal of this forum, I haven't... yet ;)

I don't think there's any need to apologize. My comment wasn't made to chastize you, but rather to serve as an excuse if it turned out (as it did) that I guessed wrong.

Linda