Acupuncture

They're not. Nobody claimed otherwise.

Nobody cares about that.

Well to you it doesn't. You haven't had any of my experiences.

This thread isn't a scientific study, so not everything here has to be "data". If experiences are left out, the thread becomes a very poor, second hand substitute for the actual research and data. If I wanted to read opinions, I'd go read the summaries of the clinical acupuncture trials that have the evidence right there next to them.

Here's the problem with your argument:

It's like if 100 people told me they love chocolate. It makes them feel better.

I could tell you, for sure, I know a lot of people who like chocolate.

Science cannot help you counter me with that assertion. We've left the realm of science, we are talking about experience.

Now, replace chocolate with acupuncture.

Voila.

See what I did there? I substituted chocolate for acupuncture, and proved you wrong.

:karate:

 

No, but I was healed by a homeopath who clearly knew what he was doing.

Do you see the difference in standards, and the extremity of dismissing the entirely of CAM (a huge enormous MULTI BILLION DOLLAR medical establishment) based on a handful of recent studies that often point in different directions?

Here's the thing. Everyone in this thread has displayed their bias. We all have it.

Mine is pretty small, in the direction of a healing effect, based on both research and personal observations. However small the possible effect, millions of people swear by this treatment and don't care about the "science" part of things. If millions of people swore by leeching humours, we'd still be doing it. They don't, it's a red herring.

Some of you have extreme bias towards the positive or negative. I am clearly in the middle leaning "yes".

Those who have strong bias towards the positive are people who have directly experienced healing through acupuncture.

Those who have extreme bias towards the negative either have negative personal experiences, or believe CAM research exists to prove a negative, that "CAM doesn't work", and they support that assertion with? URLs, blogs, and the existence of poorly supported studies.

Poorly performed studies do not produce accurate data (in either the positive or negative), so I'm not sure why you'd ever rely on them to try to disprove anything...unless you are a blogger and need to generate controversy, or have an funding agenda. But now I am theorizing...who knows what their agenda is.

 

Logic is, The central nervous system has evolved to respond to chemicals and compounds in chocolate.

Chocolate comes from beans!!

Needles come from rocks.

Is the central nervous system designed to respond to little needle pokes?

That's CAM research, that is.

 

I don't like to make conclusions based on unsettled science.

Propositional logic dictates that attempting to draw a negative conclusion based on the entire spectrum of research is flawed if you don't include both evidence for and against. A number of folks so far have done exactly this, essentially argumentum ad ignorantiam in conclusion of the negative.

The problem is that when the dust settles and statistical anomalies are noted and bad studies are questioned and better studies are prepared, guess what. Still new studies coming out in the positive. They will only get better (in quality, mind you...not talking about results for/against), and as they do, the needle will swing some more in the right direction. This is how peer review works and anyone here claiming to know otherwise, step forward.

When the science is settled, maybe I'll come to a real conclusion, until then I recommend acupuncture to anybody because of word-of-mouth. As I've pointed out, I've never, ever had it performed on me. So I am middle-ground objective with a slight lean towards positive.

I don't base that decision on the science, I shouldn't, it's all over the place right now and needs more research. Critical thinking? This is really what it looks like.

It does not look like the article supporting complete defunding of CAM research, or the website that said "drowing in pool = acupuncture doesn't work = legions of people hurt and killed by acupuncture". So much bias.

I base my recommendation off past experience, like I do a million other things, like checking my rear view mirror. I don't need science to inform me why that seems to work, either. I rely on the experiences of millions.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEbsKs6IiUc"]Muppet Labs - She Blinded Me With Science (music video) - YouTube[/ame]

 

What are you even saying anymore?

And needles don't come from rocks, they come from elements that form veins in rocks under certain conditions that are harvested, melted, combined and shaped into needles.

Your post sounded like:

If 1+1=2, then obviously 2+2=-44/17+2 and that's why water is made out of wood!

 

I'm pointing out the heavy biases of some of the folks here through humor, especially the dude who said I wasn't thinking critically. If anything, I am way too critical.

Thanks for the geology break down, though. I like to keep it simple.

Notice, I didn't include the process from bean -> chocolate either.

See the part above about humor.

Hot debate in here, eh folks? Almost like a Climate Change thread.

Who is surprised? Not I, said the blind man.

 

<---------------- the humor

O
-- <---------me
^

Guess it was over my head that time.

 

You know when I sit down every morning with my breakfast cereal, coffee, and critical thinking, I never know where the day will take me. Science, logic, math, kung fu.

Here's what I know for sure: if I were to tell everyone I know who thinks acupuncture healed them that they are just being stupid or not thinking clearly, I'd have very few friends. They look at the science and go "eh, it worked for me, leave me alone, I've got stuff to do now that I'm feeling better".

Now, replace acupuncture with anything else, especially chocolate.

It's really weird and there is lot of chemical and anatomical stuff going on, but somehow, chocolate appears to make people feel better, as if it was medicine. Well sure, this is why before chocolate was invented, the components were used in herbal medicines back to the beginning of recorded history. They didn't need science to explain why it worked, they used their experiences and passed the knowledge on because it was useful.

Chocolate heals? Proof of God right there. Like beer, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. Another strange brew.

 

Haha, I think you'll find that while MAP is great for many things, conservative expression of skepticism is not one of them. The vocal majority here love an "alternative healing" topic, and it's not because they want to share information to further their knowledge of data trends. Unfortunately most tend to lump everything even remotely considered "alternative" under the same consideration, new data isn't often read, and terms like "no effect greater than placebo" are sprinkled liberally, regardless of appropriateness. And inevitably anything "alternative" is compared to faith healing and homeopathy.

LOL!

You've pretty much just summarized every single "Traditional Healing" topic on MAP ever. Most of MAP made up their minds about this stuff years ago after casually browsing other people's opinions on a small sample of data and only post here to validate those established beliefs. There is also a sense of righteousness here at saving people from wasting time, money, and hope exploring alternative treatments sold by potential snake oil salesmen. Ironically, these same people usually strongly endorse popular prescription treatments for non life threatening ailments that are FAR more likely to kill a patient than any alternative treatments being "debunked" here, certainly the ones whose only effect is placebo.

I like you. You should stick around. Not just because of the entertainment value in the controversy you'll generate either, but because this forum needs people willing to express an informed opinion on new data who accept academic validation when it exists. Most won't do that.

 

I can sum it thusly, the simplest logic I can come up with, for the process by which most people make a conclusion about acupuncture:

"Does acupuncture work?"

(Googles "does acupuncture work?")

About 16,400,000 results (in 0.49 seconds)

Praise Science!!!

(Now let me find a link that supports my bias!)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fx_I4piqpY"]South Park - evil sea otter - YouTube[/ame]

 

Silly little experiment: Let's say these first 8 of these 16.4M results are legitimate sources. Note that I am including both negative and positive sources in that assumption, so there is no bias.

75% (6/8) support the positive conclusion, acupuncture heals, research ongoing.

Why do only 25% of the top 8 results over a span of 16.4M results, indicate the negative? One of those 2 negative supporting results was just posted here as a rebuttal acupuncture's effectiveness, and the author of that result supports complete defunding of CAM research, which would indicate a bias so extreme he just might be a lobbyist of some sort.

If you want to use that source to support the negative, you need to take into account the other 6 that support the positive.

So, someone with no medical or scientific experience whatsoever is faced with the dilemma "75% or 12,300,000 of Google hits probably say ACUPUNCTURE TRUE, while 25% or 4,100,000 probably indicate ACUPUNCTURE FALSE".

Medical science may not yet have proven or disprove acupuncture, but believe it or not, fuzzy logic (google's logic) indicates the positive.

So, what I have just done here with our data is pretty basic arithmetic. Using the first Google result? Insufficient sample size. Increasing to 8, it flipped. Can you flip it again?

 

It equates with a collection of human knowledge, running a powerful search algorithm. It is a knowledge engine, one of humanity's greatest scientific and engineering feats.

Its sole purpose is to provide a list of possible answers simple or complex regular patterns, based on far, far more than Facebook's input.
Pre-Facebook input, even. Stuff that zero people are "trending" makes its way into Google's search rankings, too.

All I did was take small statistical sample of this virtual megacomputer's results and came back with a truth value somewhere around positive.

Simple, but fuzzy logic.

If I increase the sample size from 8 to 1000, and find that it's still 75% positive, does that mean it's because the 750 results are all trending on Facebook? That doesn't make sense.

And, none of the positive sources in the 8 have been falsified by any other research I'm familiar with (except by one opinion piece at a site whose website motto indicates they are a site for "controversial" stories.

 

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=knowledge&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=gullible&rls=en

Pretty sure there is.

 

I just pulled a sample and none of the positive results in the sample (75% of the total) have been refuted by peer review.

Google represents the largest public database with a search engine feature available to mankind.

So, for fuzzy logic problems as well as meta-analysis of scientific findings (positive or negative), Google is quite effective.

So medical science is unsettled, but the information science is pretty clear on the subject of acupuncture. Acupuncture is closer to true than false.

If you can counter this with search results from a non-google source, please do.

 

Fixed that for you. Because by your original argument that I'm just gullible, if I'm gullible, so are all those doctors at NIH who agree with my position.

If research is ongoing, why all the "ACUPUNCTURE FALSE" conclusions here?

They Googled "does acupuncture work" and posted the first result, which a heavily biased opinion article at "SBM", written by professional Skeptic, on a "controversy site". In addition he appears to be a neurologist who thinks his opinion is too important to be peer reviewed itself, and so he published this article online instead of in a journal, where the big boys play (and where the CAM studies are subjected to intense scrutiny).

If he loves science so much why does the STANDARD PEER REVIEW PROCESS not work for him? He's too busy on this website and appearing on Penn and Teller shows...making $$$ by promoting a conclusion that medical science...doesn't support to the extent he would like. And because it's easy to write a hit piece, throw in some arguments about statistics, and paint his "opponents" as mere fools.

Note the first statement is an opinion based on his reasoning and informed by his bias as a "known" skeptic...NOT original research performed by the author, published in a journal.

Oh and he is clearly part of a lobby, based on his overall activities. A doctor publishing medical opinions online and actually trying to persuade decisions about medical funding? Clear agenda there....

So, are all of those OTHER scientists and medical practitioners gullible too?

Are they all quacks over there at the National Institute of Health, Steven Novella? You've got the "real" science?

If so why are we letting organizations like the NIH make decisions about other medical stuff?

Aren't we supposed to trust doctors??????

Can we only trust Steven Novella for our Google hits on acupuncture????????????

What a logical dilemma you've created. I am just pointing it out.

 

The use of bolding, random capitalisation and excess punctuation marks, smacks of desperation.

The thing with opinions, is that they don't have to be peer-reviewed to be valid. If a blogger can validly criticise a piece of research that was posted on here in favour of acupuncture, then why is it an issue to link to it?

The main reason bloggers do this is so that ordinary people who don't necessarily have access to journal articles, or indeed, your critical thinking faculties, have the abililty to refute nonsense dressed up as valid science when it is thrust upon them.