here, I cite from the abstract of a recent Edzard Ernst lead-authored review of acupuncture from the journal Pain [see 001., below]:
001. Pain reports in the abstract for "Acupuncture: Does it Alleviate Pain and are There Serious Risks? A review of Reviews" (Volume 152, Issue 4 , Pages 755-764, April 2011):
"acupuncture is commonly used for pain control, but doubts about its effectiveness and safety remain. This review was aimed at critically evaluating systematic reviews of acupuncture as a treatment of pain and at summarizing reports of serious adverse effects published since 2000 [...in sum] numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain. Serious adverse effects continue to be reported [...such as] pneumothorax and infections [...and] fatalities."
Note: and that is the state of the science regarding acupuncture efficacy and safety particularly in terms of something it is supposed to be GOOD at. I've wondered a lot about these Masters Degrees in Science that LAcs have: a science label marketing a system of belief based on prescientific or even science-refuted ideations about how the body works, and what comprises the world we live in. I've wondered about the amount of charity that sCAM receives in terms of its commerce and in terms of its educational self-categorization. A lot of people are being misled by false claims regarding acupuncture's efficacy, safety and science context: claims which have truly now been schwacked.
1 comment:
Hope your site will welcome a comment from an L.Ac.
Imagine an experiment to test the following statement,"Aspirin is good for headaches."
If this experiment were designed in the same manner as many mainstream acupuncture studies, the experiment could very likely have a "verum" arm using half a baby aspirin, twice a week on adult patients complaining of "headache".
Naturally one would immediately point out that
1. No differential diagnosis of the headaches.
2. Ludicrous dosage
No matter how many studies following this hypothetical approach, very little would be added to the state of knowledge about the effect of aspirin.
I feel that the mainstream studies have committed a similar logic error.
Read the published studies. Then look at how acupuncturists actually practice and you will rarely find a professional grade acupuncture diagnosis and treatment plan.
For example a recent Swedish study looking at post cancer treatment nausea. The authors used only one point and the same point for hundreds of patients. In america this would be unethical for an L.Ac. to do.
Thanks in advance for posting!
Post a Comment