FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
OK, there was recently a study done, and they compared four group of people. One group got professional acupuncture, one got amateur "cookbook" acupuncture, one got sham acupuncture (using toothpicks that merely simulated the feel of acupuncture and didn't actually pierce the skin), and a group that just got standard care. ALL groups receive standard care, but the acupuncture groups received the different flavors of real and fake acupuncture on top.
What were the results? Exactly as expected. The acupuncture groups all performed equally. Yes, that's right, real acupuncture worked no better than fake acupuncture. But they all performed slightly better than the group that JUST received standard care. The rational conclusion would be that the elaborate acupuncture procedure was merely acting as a placebo, and so couldn't be taken seriously as medical treatment.
So a title like:
Acupunture proven to be no better than placebo at treating back pain
Would be appropriate.
Well what does the 'mainstream' media give us? Ever single source?
Even 'fake' acupuncture helps back pain
Acupressure works too
People suffering from chronic low back pain who received acupuncture treatments fared better than those receiving only conventional care, according to a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Interestingly, the study also showed that people receiving simulated acupuncture-toothpicks were used instead of needles--also fared better than those receiving conventional care.
What gives?
Researchers wish they knew. But western-style clinical trials (initially designed to test drugs) still can't explain how acupuncture actually works. What is known is that both acupuncture and sham acupuncutre has been shown to elicit a positive effect.
"This adds to the growing body of evidence that there is something meaningful taking place during acupuncture treatments outside of actual needling," said Dr. Josephine P. Briggs, director of the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine. "Future research is needed to delve deeper into what is evoking these responses."
Here's more detail on the clinical trial, from a NCCAM press release:
"This trial enrolled 638 adults with chronic low back pain who had never had acupuncture and who had rated the "bothersomeness" of their pain as at least a 3 on a 0-to-10 scale.
The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: individualized acupuncture, involving a customized prescription for acupuncture points from a diagnostician; standardized acupuncture, using a single prescription for acupuncture points that experts consider generally effective for chronic low back pain; simulated acupuncture, which mimics needle acupuncture but does not involve actual penetration of the skin; or usual care, which is standard medical care.
The patients assigned to any of the three acupuncture groups (individualized, standardized, or simulated) were treated twice weekly for three weeks, and then weekly for four weeks. At 8, 26, and 52 weeks, researchers measured back-related dysfunction and how much symptoms bothered participants.
The researchers found that at eight weeks the individualized, standardized, and simulated acupuncture groups all improved their dysfunction scores significantly more than the group receiving usual care. These benefits persisted for one year, though diminished over time.
However, there was no significant difference between the groups receiving the needle and simulated forms of acupuncture. Thus, while acupuncture was found effective in treating low back pain, neither tailoring acupuncture needle sites to an individual patient nor penetrating the skin appears to be important for receiving therapeutic benefit."
What were the results? Exactly as expected. The acupuncture groups all performed equally. Yes, that's right, real acupuncture worked no better than fake acupuncture. But they all performed slightly better than the group that JUST received standard care. The rational conclusion would be that the elaborate acupuncture procedure was merely acting as a placebo, and so couldn't be taken seriously as medical treatment.
So a title like:
Acupunture proven to be no better than placebo at treating back pain
Would be appropriate.
Well what does the 'mainstream' media give us? Ever single source?
Even 'fake' acupuncture helps back pain
Acupressure works too
People suffering from chronic low back pain who received acupuncture treatments fared better than those receiving only conventional care, according to a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Interestingly, the study also showed that people receiving simulated acupuncture-toothpicks were used instead of needles--also fared better than those receiving conventional care.
What gives?
Researchers wish they knew. But western-style clinical trials (initially designed to test drugs) still can't explain how acupuncture actually works. What is known is that both acupuncture and sham acupuncutre has been shown to elicit a positive effect.
"This adds to the growing body of evidence that there is something meaningful taking place during acupuncture treatments outside of actual needling," said Dr. Josephine P. Briggs, director of the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine. "Future research is needed to delve deeper into what is evoking these responses."
Here's more detail on the clinical trial, from a NCCAM press release:
"This trial enrolled 638 adults with chronic low back pain who had never had acupuncture and who had rated the "bothersomeness" of their pain as at least a 3 on a 0-to-10 scale.
The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: individualized acupuncture, involving a customized prescription for acupuncture points from a diagnostician; standardized acupuncture, using a single prescription for acupuncture points that experts consider generally effective for chronic low back pain; simulated acupuncture, which mimics needle acupuncture but does not involve actual penetration of the skin; or usual care, which is standard medical care.
The patients assigned to any of the three acupuncture groups (individualized, standardized, or simulated) were treated twice weekly for three weeks, and then weekly for four weeks. At 8, 26, and 52 weeks, researchers measured back-related dysfunction and how much symptoms bothered participants.
The researchers found that at eight weeks the individualized, standardized, and simulated acupuncture groups all improved their dysfunction scores significantly more than the group receiving usual care. These benefits persisted for one year, though diminished over time.
However, there was no significant difference between the groups receiving the needle and simulated forms of acupuncture. Thus, while acupuncture was found effective in treating low back pain, neither tailoring acupuncture needle sites to an individual patient nor penetrating the skin appears to be important for receiving therapeutic benefit."
