Trick or Treatment 713
brothke writes "The recent collapse of financial companies occurred in part because their operations were
run like a black box. For
many years, alternative medicine has similarly operated in the shadows with
its own set of black boxes. In Trick or Treatment: The
Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine, Simon Singh and
Edzard Ernst, MD, break open that box, and show with devastating clarity and
accuracy, that the box is for the most part empty." Keep reading for the rest of Ben's review.
I first encountered co-author Simon Singh at the
2005 RSA
Conference. In his
presentation, he included a demonstration of the human brains unique
capability for pattern matching when specific patterns are expected, and used
Led Zeppelins Stairway to Heaven as an
example. Stairway has long been rumored to have
subliminal satanic messages. When played backwards,
it is impossible to decipher any message. But when
the message is known in advance, one can then hear
the message imploring the listener to go to Satans tool shed.
Once Singh put the subliminal lyrics on the overhead, the
subliminal message was now clear, not due to a subliminal message, rather via
pattern matching.
| Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine | |
| author | Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst |
| pages | 352 |
| publisher | W. W. Norton |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | Ben Rothke |
| ISBN | 978-0393066616 |
| summary | Peels away the fallacies of acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic and herbal medicine |
While no reasonable person can believe in Stairways subliminal lyrics, far too many people do believe in equally implausible things in the realm of alternative medicine. In the book, the authors tackle four main areas: acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic and herbal medicine. The books conclusion is that acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic are essentially worthless, while herbal medicine has limited value.
Chapter 1 starts with an overview of evidence-based medicine (EBM), of which the authors are staunch believers. EBM applies evidence gained via the scientific method and assesses the quality of the evidence relevant to the risks and benefits of the treatments. The foundation of EBM is the systematic review of evidence for particular treatments via mainly randomized controlled trials. In the chapter, the authors reiterate the concept that the plural of anecdote is not data. Acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic have plenty of first-person anecdotes, but a lack of controlled studies with real data to back up their spurious claims.
EBM shows that homeopathy and other bogus cures are of no value, yet the public is oblivious to those facts. In a piece I wrote on this topic, New York News Radio" The voice of bad science, its shows that cheap radio advertising (with its mishmash of pseudo-scientific claims) combined with a public that is ignorant of basic scientific facts, creates a perfect storm for the continuation of homeopathy and other bogus cures.
A recurring theme the book stresses is that acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic and other alternative therapies are scientifically impossible, and often will violate fundamental scientific principles. A perfect example of this implausibility is with homeopathy. Contrary to what common sense and basic science, in homeopathy, a solution that is more diluted is considered stronger and as having a higher potency. The issue is that the end result is a product that is so diluted, that its contents when in solid form is pure sugar, and when in liquid form; 100% H20. When a homeopathic liquid is in its most diluted state, there is not a single molecule of the active ingredient. Therein lays the scientific implausibility of homeopathy.
Chapter 1 also asks one of the books fundamental questions: how do you determine the truth? The authors answer that it is via the scientific method. This is determined only after strict and careful analysis of a clinical study, of which the most effective is double-blind and randomized.
In chapter 3, the book jokingly notes that since homeopathic liquid remedies are so diluted that they contain only water; their only use would be for dehydration. And since homeopathy is based on the fact that the strength of a remedy is based on its dilution, one could conceivably overdose on a homeopathic remedy by forgetting to take a dose.
The chapter concludes with perhaps the strongest indictment against homeopathy; namely its content. If one looks at the content of oscillococcinum, a homeopathic alternative marketed to relieve influenza-like symptoms, the packaging states that each gram of medication contains 0.85 grams of sucrose and 0.15 grams of lactose. Sucrose and lactose are simply forms of sugar, of which oscillococcinum is nothing more than am expensive sugar pill.
In chapter 4, the authors write that while homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo, the added danger with it is that patients will often forgo real medications to take a homeopathic one. It reports of a study in Britain, which demonstrated that the most benign alternative medicine can become dangerous if the therapist who administers it advises a patient not to follow an effective conventional medical treatment. The study demonstrated that alternative medical practitioners often recommend homeopathic remedies for malaria, and ignore proven conventional medicines. Such an approach can often mean a death sentence for the person taking the homeopathic remedy.
Chapter 5 deals with herbal medicine. The chapter is somewhat different in that the previous chapters about acupuncture, homeopathy and chiropractic showed them to be useless, herbal medicine does have value. The book notes that herbal medicine has been embraced by science to a far greater extent than acupuncture, homeopathy and chiropractics. The chapter lists over 30 herbal medicines and their levels of efficacy. An irony of herbal medicine is that some exotic ones, such as those with tiger bone or rhino horn are pushing the species to the brink of extinction, due to their level of popularity in certain parts of the world.
Chapter 5 concludes with on why smart people believe such odd things? Alternative medicine has failed to deliver the health benefits that it claims, so why are millions of patients wasting their money and risking their lives by turning towards a snake-oil industry? The authors provide numerous reasons for this, from the concepts such as natural, traditional and holistic, to attacks on the scientific method by the alternative medical community and more.
The appendix is a rapid guide to alternative therapies and lists over 30 new treatments with their benefits and potential dangers. The appendix gives single page summaries of the plethora other alternative therapies, from ear candles, colonic irrigation, reiki, to leech therapy and more. The authors write that most of these are bogus, many violate fundamental laws of sciences, and but a few have real, but limited value.
Alternative medicine operates in the shadows, blithely touting that their products have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, and that they are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. While these products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease; consumers nonetheless spends billions of dollars per year on unproven supplements. Consumers can be quite fickle. On one side they are furious at the SEC for their lack of oversight around Madoff Investments Securities. Yet when the FDA requires products use their disclaimer of how ineffective the item is, consumers will throw billions of dollars on ineffective products.
Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine is an incredibly important and eye-opening book. While Singh is a physicist and Ernst a medical doctor, the book is written in a clear and compelling style, avoids technical jargon, and sticks to the facts. In the spirit of the scientific method, the authors scrutinize alternative and complementary cures and the results show that the snake oil is still selling.
Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
You can purchase Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews — to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
But I *know* alternative medicine is real!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But I *know* alternative medicine is real!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Critics say the box is empty, but it simply appears that way because we do not have the scientific instruments available to measure the esoteric energies therein. If you become attuned to these forces, you will know the truth.
(that was meant as sarcasm, but it is scary how much it sounds like I am drinking their flavor of kool-aid)
Like the gremlins under my desk, I believe strongly in the scientific method ;)
Re:But I *know* alternative medicine is real!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Exploitations? (Score:4, Funny)
Essentially taking money from people who want to believe.
I find it ironic that this book seeks to take money from people who _don't_ want to believe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is equally stupid as foregoing proven alternative treatment and getting out the antibiotics for simple stuff.
Frankly, with all the quacks I have met that had an actual doctor title...
The only thing I'll have doctors treat nowadays is the heavy stuff. Broken bones, cancers... you know, the stuff that makes you either move funnily or die rather quickly and painfully. I'm not the type to treat blood poisoning with a herb or two.
But I will state this: I am going to treat simple infections by means of pers
Re:Exploitations? (Score:5, Funny)
> Remember, guys, for doctors, your symptoms are a matter of trial and error.
> The usual way to treat people is to go through every medication until you find
> one that helps
Um, no.
First you insult the black guy. Then you belittle the white guy and make crude remarks toward the hot chick. If you're in season 4, you also insult the brown guy whilst proclaiming his genius.
Then you hold a "differential diagnosis" and write stuff on the white board.
Finally, you pop some pills, call the patient a liar, piss off your boss, annoy your only friend, and only THEN do you start trial-and-error treatment.
Geez. Don't you people know ANYTHING about medicine?
Re:Exploitations? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, but in the fourth season your boss does a strip dance (man, she's hot), so it's all good.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe that's the case in a profit-oriented system like in the USA. Other countries have evil socialist healthcare systems that mean that doctors have no incentive whatsoever to prescribe the most expensive treatment or to prolong your treatment unnecessarily, so they concentrate on doing their job properly instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, guys, for doctors, your symptoms are a matter of trial and error. The usual way to treat people is to go through every medication until you find one that helps.
Which is why when traditional medicine fails, people say "it was the wrong cure", but when an alternative method fail people say "it's the method which is ineffective". And there is such a strong bias against alternative medicine it's dismissed as either placebo effect or wrong diagnosis. (Which is kind of grotesque when you consider that with traditional medicine wrong diagnosis is usually the cause of problems, not the solution.)
Re:Exploitations? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well yes, if it fails again and again, of course people are going to say it's ineffective.
Re:Exploitations? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, a quack defending quackery, what a surprise. Creation scientists cite studies too.
You make a good point that much of modern medicine is also messed up however, largely IMO due to fear of liability for skipping a test or treatment that is quite probably unecessary.
The placebo study for surgery (as presented frequently on /.) is total crap however. With a burst appendix, a placebo means you're dead. Similar results for gunshot wounds, or pretty much any internal bleeeding, organ failure, etc, etc.
The placebo effect is important and useful to medicine, but it won't set a broken bone, or prevent an internal infection from killing you.
I love quacks (Score:5, Informative)
This will be fun. I love quackery!
If proof == "medicine" and no proof == "alternative treatment", then why is massage [miami.edu] or acupressure [google.com] or dietary changes [webmd.com] considered alternative treatment?
How about 2+2 = chocolate milk? That's a redefinition which makes about as much sense as yours. Alternative [wikipedia.org] mean an option. You might have several alternatives that are effective treatments though one might be preferred. Alternative has nothing to do with proof or the lack thereof. You can try treatments that are not proven to work. Happens all the time and that is how medicine advances. The first time we tried penicillin there was no certainty that it would work. But the doctors did have a credible theory as to why it might work. Most drugs we try are abject failures.
Now you are using "alternative treatment" in a different sense meaning something different than the standard of care [wikipedia.org]. Massage has its uses but it doesn't cure brain cancer. Dietary changes are helpful for many things but won't set a broken bone. Suggesting that they will is quackery and anyone who promotes them as cures for problems they clearly cannot help is a criminal who should be in jail.
I do shiatsu acupressure, and I can cite studies on its effectiveness
How about citing some double blind studies from actually reputable journals ("Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine"? You HAVE to be kidding me) or even some studies that I can't shoot holes in by reading the abstracts?
And why is surgery considered "medicine"?
Because it works and actually cures people of serious problems would be my guess. Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure some smart folks might have looked into this.
Every placebo controlled study of a surgical technique has found it no better than a placebo operation.
That might just be the most ludicrous thing I've ever read on Slashdot. And that is really saying something. Apparently you'll believe anything you read no matter the source unless that source has a hint of being credible.
Re:Exploitations? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that half the medical procedures we think of as "legit" for a given condition today won't be tomorrow.
Frontal Lobotomy comes to mind...
As does the medical establishments continual flip flopping on what's healthy and what's not.
I'm not sayin that herbal medicine is better, just that "scientific" medicine has it's own issues with quackery, bad research, and disinformation, intentional or not.
This book is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
If scientific medicine was so great we'd be seeing a lot less doctoring and more curing.
If "legit" pharmaceuticals were so great, They'd learn what "standard deviation" means and stop using stats that fall within standard deviation as "proof" of efficacy.
Sure most "herbal" doctors are quacks that are FOS. But are medical doctors really that much different?
All of them, (medical and herbal) without exception, operate on incomplete and often unproven information.
-Viz
Re:Exploitations? (Score:5, Interesting)
***If "legit" pharmaceuticals were so great, They'd learn what "standard deviation" means and stop using stats that fall within standard deviation as "proof" of efficacy.***
They don't actually do that -- at least not that I've encountered. But they approach it by using an absurdly low standard of proof (p=0.05) then designing seriously flawed experiments that increase the chances of meeting that low standard. And then repeating the flawed experiments with minor variations until they get the answer they want. There are people seriously studying all this. Google John P. A. Ioannidis, a Greek researcher who has published several widely distributed papers on the low quality of research.
Minor correction (Score:5, Informative)
"the plural of data is not anecdote"
should be
"the plural of anecdote is not data"
Re:Minor correction (Score:4, Informative)
"the plural of anecdote is not data"
Then what are the results of a survey? You understand that the scientific method allows for using surveys as data, correct?
This actually illustrates the point nicely. Surveys are NOT just a collection of anecdotes. Since each person who fills out the survey has to answer the same questions, you get (roughly) the same information from each person. In a collection of anecdotes, who knows what each person is choosing to include in his/her story and what the person is leaving out. By putting a carefully selected structure onto the information collection, you are making a "collection of anecdotes" into useful data that can be used for scientific reasoning.
you can thank Patron Saint Orrin Hatch for this (Score:5, Informative)
it was our good ol' boy Hatch who called in chits to get a law passed that puts the not-medicine hawkers beyond the reach of scientific proof and tests for safety and efficacy of their nostrums.
Re:you can thank Patron Saint Orrin Hatch for this (Score:4, Informative)
It's called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, or DSHEA. You can search for that on Google or Wikipedia. It's harder to find info linking Hatch to the law, but if you search for DSHEA and Hatch together, you'll find it.
Heavy lobbying by Congress and the makers of these drugs caused Clinton to sign the bill into law.
Re:you can thank Patron Saint Orrin Hatch for this (Score:4, Informative)
This is a bit of cynicism speaking, but also decades of career in the pharmaceutical industry.
Even if tongue of newt cured the flu, tongue of newt isn't easily patentable, being that there's millennia of prior art by newts in creating it. So there's not as much of a motive for an FDA-regulated company to go through the testing and approval process (which costs, when all the accounting is done, on the order of magnitude of a billion dollars for each novel molecule that actually becomes a commercially available product; it costs a LOT more money than you probably think to get 100 people and run a controlled study,... which in reality involves usually thousands of animals, several phases of toxicology testing, piloting production processes, and many et ceteras before those human trials even get approved,...).
Of course, if you call it a "dietary supplement" and are cagey about what claims you make for it, you aren't subject to FDA requirements for testing for purity, safety, identity or quality, let alone effectiveness and controlling for dosage, and it is many orders of magnitude cheaper to bring it to market with those considerations out of the way.
One could be much sloppier, in terms of real-world meaning, than equating "medicine vs. alternative medicine" to FDA-approved vs not FDA-approved, provided you get the implications of that FDA approval process.
We already knew this (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? Anybody with half a brain already knew that alternative medicine is a scam. I'd be much more interested in some of the evidence-based medicine exposes of mainstream medicine. Menopause replacement hormones? Oops, turns out they give women breast cancer. Low-fat diets? Gary Taubes says they may be making us fat. 3rd-generation anti-depressants? They may work for a week but also seem to cause dependence, long-term depression, and make people more suicidal than before.
Doctors aren't scientists (not very good ones anyway), even if they do plan them on TV.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We already knew this (Score:4, Informative)
I'd be much more interested in some of the evidence-based medicine exposes of mainstream medicine.
Then you might be interested in reading the article The Wholesale Sedation of America's Youth [csicop.org] in the Nov/Dec '08 issue of Skeptical Inquirer [csicop.org].
Re:We already knew this (Score:5, Funny)
You mean my holiday turkey is turning me into a lawless junkie?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tryptophan is no longer illegal in the US. You can order it online from many US-based companies. I've got some in my cupboard right now.
Re:We already knew this (Score:5, Insightful)
Evidence does not mean understanding.
We can have evidence that an effect exists without having to know what causes it.
Double blind testing is just that... seeing if just a single difference has any effect at all.
Auras are bullshit because in a blinded trials those who claim to see/feel them are incapable of detecting the difference between a human and a christmas tree.
Same with brainwaves... you can propose any other kind of new 'radiation' but unless you find a way to actually measure it (like in a double blinded test) it might as well not exist.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We already knew this (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I would consider any treatment that requires water to retain the memory of the vital essences of what amounts to less than a single molecule of whatever substance is supposed to treat the condition a scam. That's what homeopathy is.
The substance "used" in homeopathy might actually have a valid effect if actually taken. The less-than-trace amounts of it in the homeopathic "treatment" won't have an effect beyond being a placebo. By the theories of homeopathy generic ground water should be able to treat anything since it should have the memory of the vital essences of everything it has ever come in contact with which is basically everything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We simply don't understand the human body well enough to know why some things work and why others don't.
Correct, but after this the correctness of your comment ends.
The human psyche plays a significant role that pure science doesn't admit to because it can't be proven in a test scenario.
It's called the "placebo effect" and pure science has shown it many, many times, in many, many test scenarios.
We know the human body gives off energy but people refuse to accept the "auras" are possible or significant for some reason.
Define "energy". Heat? Or something else? Show some kind of evidence backed by data rather than groundless assertions of the significance of auras.
We know every brain has a distinct pattern with a general consistency to that pattern, but we refuse to believe it's anything more than electrical.
What do you propose it is then?
The author is wrong about accupuncture (Score:5, Informative)
And likely many of his other claims as well. Here's what PubMed says:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17568299?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum [nih.gov]
"Accupuncture may be an efficacious and acceptable nonexposure treatment option for PTSD. Larger trials with additional controls and methods are warranted to replicate and extend these findings."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6289567?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum [nih.gov]
"A brief characterisation is maccccde of the working principles underlying neural therapy under local anaesthesia or accupuncture. Common approaches to therapy are offered by disorders of autonomous regulation, including inflammatory processes, and by purely functional disorders.--There are many applications in gynaecology and obstetrics. A brief statistical information on lumbosacral pain is quoted as an example. Optimum performance can be expected from them, when used in combination with proven therapeutic methods. They provide a low-cost approach to reducing both the consumption of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals as well as time of morbidity."
There are many others outside of PubMed. And that is but one of the author's claims that actual published studies in the medical literature refute. This side-swipe skepticism is not science, it is marketing in order to sell a bullshit book. Ignore idiots like him and read peer reviewed journals and abstracts before basing your own judgment.
Re:The author is wrong about accupuncture (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. But that's a different problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Now you're arguing that an ancient Chinese model for how acupuncture works is flawed because it doesn't conform to modern medical terminology, nor does it conform to the scientific method of making predictions based on prior results.
I fully agree.
But that doesn't discount findings, it only calls into question an understanding of the underlying mechanisms behind the technique. Which ultimately means, let's do more research and find out that answer. But having a broken model is not confirmation that one's fin
Re:I agree. But that's a different problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, right, that's why skeptics are literally raking in billions of dollars selling their books and skeptic products, and their faces are familiar to all of us from their constant appearances on prime-time TV.
Oh, no, wait a minute, that's the alternative practitioners, while skepticism remains largely unprofitable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then why can't you actually provide any links to any findings? Your first link isn't a finding - it's a suggestion that further study may be warranted. Your second is to an abstract study which indicates that the alternative treatment *may* produce results - but only when combined with existing (non alternative) treatments.
Hardly ringing endorsements. More like damming with faint praise.
To modern *Western* medicine (Score:5, Interesting)
Without adding that key word "Western" in there, you're missing an important point -- the whole concept of Chi is based on a complete medical theory independent of Western medical thought. So basically yes, describing Chi flows to someone trained only in Western medicine would be about as productive as talking in Chinese to someone who only understands English. Both languages deal with information, but in radically different ways. Both may be perfectly valid, but analyzing the one from the perspective of the other is going to be an arduous affair.
The main problem I see with the book, based just on the review here, is that it lumps many different things together. What exactly do they mean by "herbal medicine"? (And what the heck is "herbal" about tiger bone or rhino horn? Those are animal products, not herbs.) "Herbal medicine" is an exceedingly broad category, and could potentially include Native American shamanistic practices, experimental hippie salad recipes, strictly controlled German and Swiss herbal pharmacopoeia, doobie brownies, and Chinese apothecary traditions all in one big indiscriminate mess.
Likewise, what is "alternative medicine" as the authors intend? It sounds from the review like they mean everything that doesn't normally happen in a Western hospital, which again is an obscenely broad over-generalization. Some things are probably completely la-la -- "oh sure, my neighbor ate nothing but oranges while standing on his head for two days and it cured his sinus cold!" -- while other things are backed by many centuries of refinement (Chi theory, yoga, etc.).
The reviewer also notes, ...alternative therapies are scientifically impossible, and often will violate fundamental scientific principles. "Scientifically impossible" suggests a misunderstanding of science -- science is about looking into things as objectively and quantifiably as possible, and deriving theories that best fit the observed phenomena. "Theoretically impossible" would certainly make sense -- but it would also imply the need for more study, and if XYZ "alternative" treatment were shown to be effective, then perhaps existing theories need modification. But that is a matter for further research, and thus lies outside the scope of this book.
Frankly, although the reviewer mentions a disdain for garbage science, such indiscriminate verbiage in the book sounds to me like a big factor in producing garbage science. Clearly defined terminology is a must for any productive hypotheses or research.
Just my two bits as a professional translator. Sloppy terminology just bugs the bejeezus out of me.
Cheers,
Re:To modern *Western* medicine (Score:4, Insightful)
Horseshit. Either Chi flows are susceptible to the scientific method - or they are not. Period.
Again, horseshit. The language of science is independent of spoken language. Either Chi theory is susceptible to analysis using 'Western' methods (controlled studies, statistics, etc...) or it isn't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some of the things chiropractors do help, but those things are also done by western trained physical therapists. Chiropracty is unfortunately encumbered with a pseudoscientific theory of 'subluxations'. They use this theory to justify chiropracty for anything from a bad back to allergies. Next time you meet a chiropractor, ask him what exactly a subluxation is and how they measure them.
While a chiropractor may be effective for your bad back, I'd rather get the same treatment from someone who actually kn
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your last paragraph is a pretty good description of the Placebo Effect.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the whole I think you're right about acupuncture. But bear in mind that PubMed doesn't say anything. PubMed indexes articles published in many journals, many of which are decidedly shoddy. Many more people do medical research than actually know how to do it properly. Also, trying to adjudicate any dispute about efficacy with a cursory look at PubMed is dangerous, not least due to publication bias, but also due to the aforementioned shoddiness of the indexed journals.
I have a question for anyone who's
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But the main point about researching any medical articles is that picking out limited data points is a terrible, terrible way to draw conclusions. Holding up a couple of papers as proof is a rather dubious method of calling "bullshit" on a position. Appraoching things that way, we have to assume th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most studies of acupuncture have been either statistically insignificant or haven't sufficiently distinguished between acupuncture's efficacy and that of a placebo. The deal with acupuncture is that 1) it's nonsense and 2) it works really well a lot of the time, because it's a placebo that almost forces you to really believe in it. Those studies which have used similarly convincing placebos instead of just, say, a sugar pill, show similar (and very positive) effects between acupuncture and the fake treatm
Chiropractic treatment worked for me (Score:4, Informative)
I had a serious fall when skiing in february. A muscle in my back was so sore that I could not tie my own shoelaces or sit down without severe pain.
After having consulted three different medical doctors who all told me to just go home and lie down and just wait for the pain to go away I consulted a chiropractic. He was able to make some of the pain disappear immediately.
So I have to say that for me at least it worked. YMMV.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all "alternatives" are created equal. I think it is reasonable to surmise that manipulation of joints and stretch and massage of muscles can help alleviate muscular and joint pain. It is less reasonable to assume that massaging a particular spot on my foot will help kidney function.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all "alternatives" are created equal. I think it is reasonable to surmise that manipulation of joints and stretch and massage of muscles can help alleviate muscular and joint pain. It is less reasonable to assume that massaging a particular spot on my foot will help kidney function.
I was hoping that the reviewer would go into more detail on what parts of Chiropractic treatments are "snake oil". I know "common sense" and "baseless anecdote" are close buddies, but if your vertebra is pinching a nerve, something somewhere is going to hurt! If rubbing it and popping it works, it's a heck of a lot better than addictive painkillers or dangerous surgery.
But yeah, claiming that a chiropractic adjustment will prevent asthma or allergies is just silly. My chiropractor has a standard chart on the wall that includes some of those claims -- but when I mentioned it in passing, he seemed very uncomfortable with the idea.
If doctors and chiropractors would mutually respect each other's actual accomplishments and abilities, patients would be much better off. But as long as you have chiros saying they can cure *everything*, and MDs saying *they* are the only valid practitioners of the healing arts, we're stuck in the middle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Chiro works for pinched nerves in my neck usually in one treatment. A 'mainstream' MD would probably prescribe a weeks' worth of muscle relaxants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They both feel really good actually. The difference is one has a much higher chance of fucking you up to the point of death.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right, one of them is much more likely to kill you on the spot [quackwatch.org].
Wait, were you suggesting the muscle relaxants were the more dangerous approach? That's not right at all.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me (Score:5, Funny)
I had a serious fall when skiing in february. A muscle in my back was so sore that I could not tie my own shoelaces or sit down without severe pain.
After having consulted three different medical doctors who all told me to just go home and lie down and just wait for the pain to go away I consulted a chiropractic. He was able to make some of the pain disappear immediately.
So I have to say that for me at least it worked. YMMV.
My doctor, Johnny Walker, MD, can do better than that. His assistant, Jack Daniels, does a pretty good job too of relaxing muscles. Dr. Jim Beam, on the other hand, I never got along with him. And when times are hard, like now, I get it on with the Blue Nun - yeah, I'm a perv. Now, I heard of this Russian guy, Smirnoff, I think, who can do a good job too. Some folks prefer to go with a laymen with some military training. They like Captain Morgan. I don't know about the Captain. Too each his own.
Now, I have to go to my Canadian Club to relax.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A layperson _knows_ there's something wrong. It hurts! What they do not know, and what the doctor is telling
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Straight snag from Wikipedia: [ emphasis mine]
Chiropractic... emphasizes diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine, under the hypothesis that these disorders affect general health via the nervous system.[1]... Chiropractic treatment focuses on manual therapy including spinal manipulation and other joint and soft tissue manipulation, and includes exercises and health and lifestyle counseling.[4] Traditionally, it assumes that a vertebral subluxation or spinal joint dysfunction can interfere with the body's function and its innate ability to heal itself. [5]
The bold stuff is the bunk. Complete garbage. But if they just said.. "Chiropractic.. we fix back problems." I think it would be a solid medical practice. Even evidence based. There is no doubt that electro-therapy applied to muscles relaxes spasms and reduces inflammation, that manipulating a sacroiliac joint for instance, back into alignment, definitely works.
I have recurring problems with my sacroiliac joints. I walk into a chiropractor so crooked and bent I look like I have severe scoliosis, with one leg longer than the other, in severe pain. I walk out straight and tall, with soreness instead of debilitating pain. Every time.
So yeah, mostly Chiropractic is bunk. But it can fix your back, "kinks" and spasms in your neck, a "thrown out" lower back, etc.
My anecdote isn't evidence. But a physical therapist will do the same thing: http://www.sportsinjuryclinic.net/cybertherapist/back/buttocks/sacroiliac.htm [sportsinjuryclinic.net]
They just charge a lot more and don't call it Chiropractic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the most insightful post about chiropractic in this topic.
But it can fix your back, "kinks" and spasms in your neck, a "thrown out" lower back, etc.
But I would like to add that basically they fix lots of things involving the spine. They can help with carpal tunnel syndrome a bit and if your shoulders are really bad they can teach you some ways to not mess up your shoulders typing on Slashdot I mean the computer all day.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me (Score:4, Insightful)
'You've been seeing chiropractors ever since' would seem to imply that you've had ongoing back problems. Isn't it at least possible that with surgery you wouldn't have the back issues that you do?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree -- I once had pinkeye. My eye doctor told me that I would have to take eye drops for a couple of weeks before the irritation would go away, and that I might experience irritation again a year or two down the road if I continued using my eyes. Screw that! I contacted a surgeon and had him remove my eyes completely; I haven't had any eye issues since.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me (Score:5, Insightful)
A big part of the problem is that there ARE quacks in the "alternative medicine" industry. So, when people want to deride them, they find a few quacks, point them out, and say, "See! It's all hogwash!" It is no better than pointing to a pill prescribing doctor who is no better than a drug dealer, and declaring all traditional medicine a grand drug dealing scheme.
Clearly the writer of this book is at best nieve, likely just dumb, and at worst dishonest. Making the statement that Herbal remedies don't work is simply stupid. Herbal remedies are simply taking drugs. That's right. The only difference between what a doctor would give you and an equivalent herbal remedy is the source and purity of the drug. Obviously, pharmaceutical companies have created drugs that don't occur naturally, and some claimed herbal remedies don't actually have any useful drugs in them. But, the claim that herbal reminds don't work is by definition saying that "if the drug occurs naturally, it doesn't work. I can only work if it is manufacture in a lab."
The authors claim that chiropractics doesn't work is equally stupid. Chiropractics is the manipulation of bones and joints. That means that if your arm gets yanked out of it's socket, and you go to the doctor and they pop it back in, THAT IS CHIROPRACTICS; An extreme example, sure, but chiropractics none the less. The authors claim the chiropractics doesn't work is by definition saying that "if your arm gets pulled out of it's socket, popping it back in place doesn't do any good".
While the number of quacks in homeopathy is immense, vaccines are basically homeopathy. The premise being that you get the body to fight a desires by introducing the same symptoms as the disease so that the body can heal itself. At best I would say that our medicine is too primitive to really get the benefits of homeopathy. With our advances in genetics, I have no doubt that we will eventually start making artificial vaccines. Once we make a vaccine that is not a watered down version of the real disease, we will be performing homeopathy by definitions. By claiming that a vaccine that is created in a lab won't work because it is created in a lab is just as dumb as saying that a drug that occurs naturally won't work because it is naturally occurring.
While I don't know much about the specific details of acupuncture, it is not a huge stretch to believe that manipulation of the nervous system can have profound effects on a persons health. "Traditional" medicine uses hormones regularly. We know that your nervous system can instruct your body to produce particular hormones. So, while, I have not looked heavily acupuncture, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that it is scientifically impossible.
Success relies on our tendency to get well or die (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, your chiropractor is little more than a highly paid masseur/se.
Dear Ben (Rothke) (Score:3, Insightful)
For the love of God, please: learn to use punctuation and better sentence structure. I tried making it through your review -- I really did. But this review, as well as your "New York News Radio: The voice of bad science" are so rife with incorrect usage that the message becomes blurred and incoherent. Just one example of many:
"Contrary to what common sense and basic science, in homeopathy, a solution that is more diluted is considered stronger and as having a higher potency."
What? Oh! I just realized: if I remove "what", the sentence suddenly makes sense. (No, I'm not being sarcastic or ironic.) Perhaps a careful proofreading is what you require, though your utter lack of possessive apostrophes implies that is probably not the case.
Bottom line: you've got good stuff to say. Please learn how to better say it.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Strongly agree. I had to re-read and consciously parse way too many sentences. The two missing possessive apostrophes right in the second sentence really kick things off with a bang, and it doesn't get better. There are several sentences where it is clear that you wrote one thing, changed your mind, and then didn't re-read the result, but left a word dangling from the first version. Poor grammar and sentence structure in a run-of-the-mill /. post is one thing, but this is supposed to be a finished (professi
although I agree (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of standard medicine doesn't really pass the test of evidence-based medicine either, in the sense that specific advocated treatments have been validated experimentally when applied to specific, observable conditions. That's one reason EBM is still relatively controversial: many standard surgical and medical practices are based on rational inferences from facts we're pretty sure of, but have never themselves been validated.
To take a really simple example, look at how dermatologists treat moles. There isn't very good experimental data on mole prognosis. An EBM approach would say something like: given specific observed features of this mole, data tells us it has an x% chance of turning into a melanoma within Y years. You would probably need computer models to aggregate the various features that could contribute to or against it being at risk. Dermatologists don't generally have this information at hand (if it exists at all), but instead make more subjective judgment calls, based on some high-level knowledge of risk factors (which may or may not have ever been validated experimentally themselves).
I should add that it is improving (Score:3, Informative)
Especially in areas where there's some specific push to use evidence-based medicine, its adoption is increasing and leading slowly to changes in clinical practice, as long-established assumptions have turned out not to be supportable by evidence.
One of the more notable examples is the significant decrease in use of antibiotics for many bacterial maladies, which has been driven by an initiative to experimentally validate allegedly positive uses of antibiotics, and stop prescribing them if evidence of positiv
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's very easy to find blind spots in any science.
Simply ask a doctor to explain why inflammation happens or ask a physicist where G comes from.
Any scientific person who is unwilling to say "I don't know" once in a while is not as scientific as they should be.
As for determining whether moles will turn into cancer... there are particular chemicals given off by cancerous cells, and melanoma's "scent" has been mapped (after years of looking at moles and the chemicals which are present in the ones that do and d
it's not so much that there are blind spots (Score:3, Informative)
It's that the entire premise this book's authors are coming from---that standard medicine is about evidence-based medicine---is not really universally accepted in standard medicine. Its acceptance is growing, but EBM as an explicit aim was only introduced in the early 1990s, and was initially seen as basically a crusade by a bunch of ivory-tower lab scientists who didn't understand the subjective complexity of real-world clinical practice. It's only from the late 1990s or so seen increasing acceptance in af
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of standard medicine doesn't really pass the test of evidence-based medicine either
I suspect that this is part of why people are turning to homeopathy, chiropractic, etc. If the medical community ignores their own scientific evidence, then people don't see alternative medicine as being much different.
I think that in some cases, the scientific evidence seems counter intuitive, so it is ignored. And in some cases doctors have been doing something one way for years and convincing them to change is difficult. (Can you imagine being told that some procedure you have been doing for 20 years
oscillococcinum (Score:3, Informative)
Um, it does contain both .85 grams of sucrose and .15 grams of lactose, but those are only the "inactive" ingredients. The supposedly active ingredients are "200CK Anas barbariae hepatis," or heart and liver of the Muscovy duck. Whatever that is. I'm not saying I think it works (though they do have clinical data showing some benefit over placebo), but that the reviewer is wrong that it's ONLY a sugar pill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that there is none of this ingredient physically present in the medicine. At some point (supposedly), some small quantity of this ingredient was mixed with greater and greater and greater quantities of inactive dilutants until you'd be lucky to find a single molecule of it in a swimming pool full of the stuff.
That's how homeopathy is supposed to work. By the memory of the water or whatever was in contact with the "active" ingredient.
Re:oscillococcinum (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is that 1 gram contains .85g sucrose and .15g lactose. In base 10, .85 + .15 = 1.0, therefore the entire 1g contains nothing but sugar. Where is the "Anas barbaria hepatis" to fit?
Re:oscillococcinum (Score:5, Informative)
The key point you've glossed over is the measurement "200CK". How much is 200CK? It means that the substance has undergone 200 100-to-1 dilutions. That means that the concentration has been reduced from full strength by a factor of 100^200. Yes, that's right---10^400. According to this article [wikipedia.org] in Wikipedia, the number of observable atoms in the observable universe is approximately 10^80. Clearly, you will be the luckiest person alive, 10^40 or so times over, if even one atom of the active ingredient is left in your sugar pill.
Self Deception and bias (Score:5, Interesting)
In the mean time, I simply have utterly given up, I think we would need 3 or 4 generation of basic scientific education from the 1st grade onward to change the trend. The way it is now, people as a whole will never be able to recognize homeopathy for the pathetic scam it is. Even if you rub their nose in it.
Scientific Method (Score:5, Insightful)
The authors provide numerous reasons for this, from the concepts such as natural, traditional and holistic, to attacks on the scientific method by the alternative medical community and more.
This _really_ makes me angry. When I talk to someone about homeopathy, they always tell me about how "alopathy" doesn't work on prevention and how all those "chemicals" do bad things for your health.
I think they don't relate the studies saying "don't eat too much fat, it's bad for your heart" and "don't smoke, you bastard, or your lungs will collapse" with prevention. I don't know why.
I don't have a problem with people getting cured by placebos. But I do want them to notice that, if they have TB, it's the "oh-my-god-they're-so-bad" antibiotics that will probably save them.
Painting with a very broad brush (Score:5, Insightful)
While some Chiropractors are trying to sell people on "Blue Light Therapy" and other stuff, others do help patients who are in great pain. Ask anyone who has been helped with Sciatica that occurred after a lumbar disc problem whether they would prefer to go back and have surgery, rather than the solution they got from the chiropractor. Or maybe the person who had a pinched nerve in their neck causing total numbness to shoot down their arm and pain in their shoulder. When the Chiropractor fixes this issue, do we disregard the results because we believe Chiropractic to be quackery?
Meanwhile, we'll have all the kooks out here proclaiming that Vitamin C or Zinc don't help with colds, and whatever you do, don't drink cranberry juice to help you with a UTI.
I've seen plenty of quackery. Many people in the Alternative medicine field are insane. But that doesn't mean that every treatment that is not released by a pharmaceutical or approved by a certified M.D. is useless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My recollection differs from the book (Score:5, Interesting)
I looked into these things at various points when I was feeling bored. My recollection is that
- The placebo effect is a real effect, and can make you feel better, especially if you are more invested in the outcome (either financially (spend $$$$) or socially (there are doubters but you *know* it works); simply wanting to be better for health reasons is less useful).
- Homeopathy is useless except as a placebo (but one could argue that generating belief in homeopathy is the best way to deliver the placebo effect because you don't have to give the person anything but water).
- Chiropractors on average do not generate an improved outcome for their patients (possibly beyond a short initial time when the patient feels worked on) on *average*, but there exist some chiropractors who perform at well above chance on helping people with certain types of problem. It was unclear to me at the time whether this was due to the mechanical manipulations or to the placebo effect.
- Acupuncture has mixed success, but can have reliable if small-on-average effects on certain types of problem. I am pretty sure that there was a control group here, so this is above and beyond what one gets from the placebo effect.
- Herbal medicine runs the entire spectrum from harmful through better than established commercial drugs for some things. Knowing which is which is difficult if you listen to the people who like herbal medicine.
- Commercial drugs usually (but not always) work well on average, but insufficient attention is paid to whether they give small benefits to everyone or large benefits to only a small subgroup, and they very often have long-term side effects that are insufficiently characterized. Using older products it therefore more safe than using new exciting ones.
But I'm afraid I don't have references for any of these vague recollections. Perhaps someone knows of studies to the contrary (or which support these tentative beliefs)?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From my experience (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who has dealt with depression and anxiety: 9-10 of meditation, exercise and healthy eating have helped far more than my doctors singular advice to take 3 different medications for over a year.
I've dealt with more than a few doctors who seem more interested in, to borrow a phrase, treating the illness and not the patient. I really do think that our drugs are over prescribed. In emergencies, no doubt would I want the latest and greatest; but for every day living your average person probably doesn't need a medicine cabinet full of prescriptions.
I'm as skeptical as the next guy when it comes to "alternative" medicine and down right dismissive of religious quackery from which of it stems. Conversely I can't help but feel there is a disconnect between modern medicine and patient care. There is more to being a doctor than telling people "Take two of these and call me in the morning.". A school of thought I immediately align authors of books like this to.
I haven't started it yet, but I am looking forward to cracking open this book [amazon.com] as well as digging deeper into Zen & the Brain [amazon.com]. Both also written by MD's.
Re:Herbal medicine has limited value (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Herbal medicine has limited value (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup it's obvious to any reasonable scientific person that it's the corporate logo stamped on the pill that confers the magic powers.
Well what that assures you is that the pill will dissolve correctly and the dosage and freshness will not vary beyond certain bounds. Delivery of medicine at high does means those factors are non-trivial.
Now I think most alternative medicine is bunk. But the concept that if something is toxic in large doses that a small dose might have medicinal effects is not crazy at all. It is crazy to assume that is a good rule of thumb, but anything that has a strong influence on your body probably is worth consider
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But the concept that if something is toxic in large doses that a small dose might have medicinal effects is not crazy at all.
The author of TFR (in addition to apparently having run out of apostrophes) forgot to mention the other lynchpin that marks homeopathy as a fraud.
It's not just the dilution aspect. It's that the substances are chosen based on their ability to cause similar symptoms to what they're supposed to treat. Because the less you use of the substance, the less it causes those symptoms. Therefor
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat after me: The plural of anecdote is NOT data.
I'm so tired of this crap (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that there are a lot of quacks that are in it for the money, but when I was in China my friend with a slipped disk was having some serious back pains and went to a doctor of Chinese medicine. After a fire-cupping and drinking herbal teas for a week he helt much better.
Not again...
"I know about the placebo effect, but it worked for me!"
"Censorship is a dangerous tool for the powerful to have, but we need to filter the Internet so we can catch those spammers and traders of music and child porn!"
"Those Mormons and Scientologists are crazy, but MY religion deserves respect!"
Hypocrites. You're just as bad as those you decry.
"Yeah, all those OTHER forms of woo [wiktionary.org] are bunk, but MY pet woo is for real!"
Re:Herbal medicine has limited value (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, drug companies don't tend to release actively harmful substances with no medicinal value. They also tend to document how to use them safely and control of side effects, and avoiding harmful interactions.
Stuff that comes from plants has no such restrictions.
Re:Herbal medicine has limited value (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the new "social anxiety disorder"
That's right: if you are an introvert and/or feel shy in new situations, you have a treatable (profitable) "disorder." Hell, I can treat that for $5.00. Go drink a beer or a glass of wine. I'll only charge $15.00 for the consultation. Don't worry, the bill will be coming in the mail.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Coming in the mail is one of the few offenses that will get you fired from the Post Office.
Re:Herbal medicine has limited value (Score:5, Informative)
Cognitive behavior therapy and gradual exposure to social situations actually helps much more. Finding an environment you can trust, especially a group environment, goes a long way.
I think a lot of psychological "disorders" are BS... but as someone who is 31, stays at home all the time (including blowing off what few friends I do have), refuses to go to stores and whatnot during hours typical people do, still gets so anxious that I shake when talking to an interesting woman, and can't even call up a utility company to make changes to my account because I'm afraid of the rejection that I'm "certain" to face, yeah... all encompassing anxiety is a real issue and I can trace it's development and growing prevalence in my life going back to when I was 7. I spent almost two years in a constant state of suicidal depression and if you think alcohol is going to make that better, you're very mistaken. I refuse to take pills for it because they just seem to delay dealing with the problems rather than actually solve them.
Anyways, I realize you were trying to be glib... but for people with real underlying problems, alcohol isn't the answer. For someone fairly normal with just a bit of stage fright, sure, but not for the person that can't deal with life as it is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have either of you Avoidant Personality Disorder sufferers looked into or tried "Constructive Living"? It is based on Morita and Naikan Japanese therapies and seems to really help some people. I've found just listening to the tapes insightful and useful although I don't (that I know of) suffer from any serious disorders (although I been told that my excessive use of parens (a bad habit from writing too much scheme) is really annoying (perhaps someone can coin a creative name for that)).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I mean, drug companies don't tend to release actively harmful substances with no medicinal value."
OMG, thanks you, I nearly pissed myself from laughter at that.
Don't forget the 'call your doctor immediately if you have an erection that lasts more than 4 hours'.
I hope the doctor is hawt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) You will lose weight when you excrete shit.
2) If the stuff you take that makes you shit also changes your intestinal flora, it could affect your "efficiency" of converting food into body fat.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/could-friendly-bacteria-hold-the-key-to-weight-control-457625.html [independent.co.uk]
Last summer a team headed by Professor Jeffrey Gordon at Washington University's Centre for Genome Sciences managed to narrow the strains responsible for the fat storage down to t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being stupid about interactions between medicine that you take is largely self-correcting behavior, much like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I would feel no need to intervene.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You mean all those alkaloids that are the basis of most of the precription drug industry."
Of course yes: they are of limited value in an herbal treatment and acquire full value once doses are understood and stablished in detail and those alkaloids are purified and dosified on their best absorbable way.
But then, once you take an herbal treatment and study, purify and dosify properly it is an herbal treatment no more but what the authors call an Evidence Based Treatment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But then, once you take an herbal treatment and study, purify and dosify properly it is an herbal treatment no more but what the authors call an Evidence Based Treatment.
In my opinion one of the best outcomes of all the attention 'alternative medicine' has gotten in recent years/decades is that medical science has actually started to look closer at it and evaluate which of it is actually based on something real. For a long time (I'd wager the date was in the 50s when modern manufactured pharmaceuticals loo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The active ingredient in willow bark is salicylic acid. The active ingredient in Aspirin is, and always has been acetylsalicylic acid.
Yes, yes. Details. Aspirin was discovered through deliberate experiments on salicilin to create a more easily usable drug and rediscovered years later in an attempt to find something useful to do with plant dye wastes. Though it's not exactly the same chemical found naturally in willow bark, it's clearly the safe end result of an attempt to use willow bark's properties in medicine.
+1, Pedantry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Acupuncure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but does it have to do with instigating endorphine release, or does it have to do with "energy" or "chi" mumbo jumbo? If it's the former, which would be more scientific, just go to a body piercer. Not only will you get a natural high, you'll have some nice jewelry when you're done. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The studies in question use several different control groups, including 'sham accupuncture' (i.e. sticking needles randomly), massage, laying in the prone possition, and sugar pills. Usually, the sham accupuncture is shown to have nearly the same effects as 'true accupuncture', which would seem to indicate that being stuck with needles to the problem muscles is the important part. More recently, studies using fMRIs have shown that 'dry needling thearapy' (the research euphamism for accupuncture) temporari
Re:It isn't all a trick (Score:4, Informative)
The military also invested millions in remote viewing.
Re:It isn't all a trick (Score:5, Interesting)
Because german health insurers made a very big double blind test (314,000 probants) with three settings: 1. acupuncture, 2. something that looked like acupuncture but was in fact lots of handwaving and poking people with needles, and 3. traditional painkillers.
Acupuncture helped about 82 percent of all people where it was applied and relieved chronic pain. Traditional painkillers only helped about 25 percent. So acupuncture looks like the sure winner, right?
And now comes the big surprise: Handwaving and poking people with needles proved to be about as efficient as acupuncture: 81 percent of all people to whom it was applied reported it relieved their pain.
So it looks as if acupuncture is an effective painkiller, but not for the reasons stated. It seems that we need to know more about the actual mechanisms and effects of acupuncture.
For reference here [charite.de] the (german) report about the study.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So it looks as if acupuncture is an effective painkiller, but not for the reasons stated.
Because once you've had someone stab you with dozens of needles, whatever pain you were experiencing doesn't seem so bad by comparison.
I often do the same thing. When someone complains about a headache, I kick em in the junk, and the headache no longer bothers them. I can't get anyone to pay me for that, though. Maybe if I use some crystals or invoke eastern mysticism somehow I can start getting paid for administerin
Re:It isn't all a trick (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like the placebo effect of acupuncture outweighed the placebo+drug effect of traditional painkillers. Seems the painkillers are the real scam here.
Re:What is the Selection Criteria? (Score:4, Funny)
We need a way to exploit lethal gullibility prior to the propagation of those genes into the gene pool.
I know, we'll market a homeopathic contraceptive! ... oh wait