Whoo-boy! As you can see from the photo above (poor kid!) the loons are having a party!It seems there was a widely reported German study that claimed acupuncture works for low-back pain. Not surprisingly, even medical sites were pumping it, making my crazy "Student of the Occult" ex-wife's words ("We're in the hospitals - we're getting legit - you'd better 'get it' before it's too late!") positively prescient. Unfortunately, the reports are also a crock - and the results of the study are the best argument against acupuncture yet. Follow me, Kids:
According to the researchers from Ruhr-University Bochum, fake or "sham" acupuncture worked just as well as "true" acupuncture. Here's exactly what they said:
"The superiority of both forms of acupuncture suggests a common underlying mechanism that may act on pain generation, transmission of pain signals, or processing of pain signals by the central nervous system and that is stronger than the action mechanism of conventional therapy."
But, since true acupuncture supposedly works by placing needles in specific places - along routes called "meridians" - to effect your (highly superstitious) "chi", then getting a positive response from placing needles just any ol' where proves there are no meridians or chi to be effected. Sticking needles in a person - anywhere - will produce a response. It's just like hitting yourself in the foot to relieve a headache. TMR's conclusion - which isn't likely to change anytime soon:
Acupuncture is for idiots.
This is also further proof the media, especially the BBC, is totally lame - and totally gullible - when it comes to stories on alternative medicine and NewAge beliefs. You might as well do like Brian Eno said and stick a needle in a camel`s eye:
Firstly, this is not a pro-acupuncture study response, however, if you are going to bag out acupuncture based on such a study then perhaps obtaining some knowledge may assist you in this process.
ReplyDeleteEssentially "true" and "false" acupuncture are not definitive terms for acupuncture by any means. If they mean "true" by needling along a channel and false by needling outside of a channel then this still does not define the process or medicine that acupuncture belongs to. Unfortunately all this does is provide a weak, negative or inconclusive study.
There are multiple "styles" of acupuncture. By style i mean it may be acupuncture based on the classical (Jing) texts (for instance the Huangdi Neijing - which if you wish to have any basis for criticizing acupuncture you need to read and study first, preferably under a teacher), it may be based on the Wei or commentary texts, or it may be based on the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) post communist reform. Furthermore, one could base the sticking of needles into the skin on western medicine such as "dry needling" as used by physiotherapists.
So essentially "true" acupuncture is more likely related to classical acupuncture, however, this is not what is discussed or used in this study. In this study acupuncture is not used. This is the same as physiotherapists or medical doctors using acupuncture needles, sticking them in "points" and calling themselves acupuncturists or say they are performing "dry needling". It is a false and unfounded representation. This often leads to weak studies and idiotic, poorly-researched comments such as yours.
Furthermore, calling acupuncture or Chinese medicine new age shows your true ignorance. Chinese medicine has a strongly defined history (stronger than that of modern medicine) which has at least 2500 years of clinical experience and clinical evidence of its well developed and practical science. It has been and continues to be practiced throughout the world since the early 16th Century.
Do your homework.
You've been "studying" the equivalent of the different kinds of lent that could gather in your belly button. I've done my homework and acupuncture is being replaced in China for medicine - what your kind calls "Western Medicine" - leaving only you folks who swallowed the anti-Western line, carping like fish about your "beliefs", and/or your all-important "studies".
ReplyDeleteThere are more than enough places acupuncture can be validated - starting with James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge - but it always fails. So what are you defending - or attempting to defend - and, more important to my own "studies", why? What do you care if acupuncture is false? Or if I knock it? Haven't you ever wondered why you have such an emotional investment in what is essentially supposed to be a medical treatment? Do you have an emotional investment in Tylenol?
Basically, you're a cultist now. You've joined the rest in a silly belief and can't admit it - that's why you must defend it. You need help. I suggest contacting a cult specialist. Oh wait:
You just did.
Take care,
CMC
in some cultures this practice is soo good to obtain excellent health results, for example when a person suffer a cardiac problem, blood pressure problem, inclusive people who can't sleep well end happy and with sweet dreams.
ReplyDelete