Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

Acupuncture May Trigger a Natural Painkiller 215

Posted by kdawson
from the just-pull-the-thorn dept.
Pickens writes "USNWR is reporting that the needle pricks involved in acupuncture may help relieve pain by triggering the natural painkilling chemical adenosine. There are also indications that acupuncture's effectiveness can be enhanced by coupling the process with a well-known cancer drug — deoxycoformycin — that maintains adenosine levels longer than usual. Dr. Maiken Nedergaard of the University of Rochester Medical Center and her colleagues administered half-hour acupuncture treatments to a group of mice with paw discomfort. The investigators found adenosine levels in tissue near the needle insertion points was 24 times greater after treatment, and those mice with normal adenosine function experienced a two-thirds drop in paw pain. By contrast, mice that were genetically engineered to have no adenosine function gained no benefit from the treatment." Read below for some acupuncture skepticism engendered by other recent studies.

However, many remain skeptical of acupuncture claims. Ed Tong writes in Discover Magazine that previous clinical trials have used sophisticated methods to measure the benefits of acupuncture, including 'sham needles' (where the needle's point retracts back into the shaft like the blade of a movie knife) to determine if the benefits of acupuncture are really only due to the placebo effect. 'Last year, one such trial (which was widely misreported) found that acupuncture does help to relieve chronic back pain and outperformed "usual care". However, it didn't matter whether the needles actually pierce the skin [paper here with annoying interstitial], because sham needles were just as effective,' writes Tong. 'Nor did it matter where the needles were placed, contrary to what acupuncturists would have us believe.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Acupuncture May Trigger a Natural Painkiller

Comments Filter:
  • Impressive (Score:3, Funny)

    by chocapix (1595613) on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:29AM (#32406018)
    So, poking the skin with a sharp object triggers the release of painkillers by the body? I'm impressed.
    • by EdZ (755139)
      And more importantly, you can easily trick the body into releasing painkillers by making the brain think it's receiving/about to receive a painful stimulus. The chakra points (or chi/ki/whatever) nonsense may be total bunk, but the placebo effect here is measurable, and could potentially be exploited in actual medicine if it's effects can be reliable induced. A reduced requirement for painkillers could be of use in 3rd world countries where aid supplies may not always be available.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by hedwards (940851)
        They're not bunk, I'm not sure how else one would explain my tendency to jump when somebody behind me is about to put their hand palm down on my shoulder. Strikes me as just as reasonable an explanation as any of the other possible ones.
    • by JamesP (688957)

      So, poking the skin with a sharp object triggers the release of painkillers by the body?
      I'm impressed.

      Yes, but please let's keep homeopatic on this one ok.

      Don't try this with a sword, it won't be better than a needle.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Where's Cartman when you need him!

  • At least we know what the point is now.
  • An apt reminder... (Score:5, Informative)

    by TuringTest (533084) on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:34AM (#32406040) Journal

    ...for those trying to defend the scientific method saying that a pseudoscience "cannot possibly work" because "there aren't any known methods through which it could operate".

    The way to disprove a non-effect is by showing it indistinguishable from chance. Not by declaring that we can't think of any possible explanations.

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:46AM (#32406110) Homepage

      Anybody who follows the scientific method knows at least one mechanism for acupuncture, ie. placebo, and I don't think many would shake their heads in abject disbelief if you say "irritating some part the body will produce natural pain killers". The skepticism will appear if you start saying "it matters where you stick the needles" and stuff like that.

      Real "pseudoscience" is stuff like astrology, water divining, channeling the dead, perpetual motion, expensive HiFi tweaks, etc.

      • by ChromeAeonium (1026952) on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:22AM (#32406338)

        The skepticism will appear if you start saying "it matters where you stick the needles" and stuff like that.

        Apparently, there is at least one study [scienceblogs.com] that showed sticking them at random was actually better, or at least statistically the same, as the whole qi line thing. It is sad that this thing will be twisted and misrepresented by the alternative medicine quacks and used as a 'Nya nya we told ya so,' to skeptics who already suspected that the body does release pain killers when poked full of multiple small holes.

        When it comes to alternative medicine, pretty much any skeptic knows that there are three main ones which may have some merit (even if not enough to justify mainstream usage): chiropractic, because it actively affects the spine, naturopathy/herbal, because plants contain active ingredients, and acupuncture, because it actively affects the skin. What skeptics want is robust evidence indicating that these things work better that other traditional techniques, and those have simply not materialized, and until they do, color me skeptical about acupuncture as a whole, even if there is some method to the madness.

        • by Sique (173459)

          There has been a large study (about 150,000 participants) about the effectiveness of acupuncture as a painkiller, and it came out quite positive for acupuncture vs. traditional painkillers. But as you mentioned -- poking anywhere on your skin without taking care of meridians and qi lines has about the same effect as following the acupuncture rules.

        • I got a trade of service years ago with a chiropractor, do web services for treatment. I'm now a believer in chiropractic services as part of good health. Not the 'Chiropratic is all you need' line of thought tho. This particular chiropractor uses the activator, basically a hand held device that gives little jabs. It's truly amazing to go in with a headcold, get a few little jabs, and instantly be able to breath clearly.
      • by hedwards (940851)
        Sigh, acupuncture is more or less just a training system for this stuff. With enough study a person can do it completely on their own using just the power of their mind. The reason why they use needles is that it's really the only way that anybody has found to show people where those places that need stimulation are.

        The suggestion that this somehow makes acupuncture pseudoscience or not worthwhile is an idiotic conclusion to make. You don't hear people saying that sort of thing about Tylenol or most of t
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by peragrin (659227)

        the thing is I have seen water divining work. The guy used a dowsing rod and found 4 wells for my neighbors, and 2 for my family. He even tracked the water from our neighbors well to our own. later geologists came through and mapped the entire area too. That old man was off by maybe 5%

        How it works i can't answer, but I did witness it working. He was wrong once, and with that, he as off by 10 feet in depth. (he said 20' and in reality it was 30')

        • Re:Water Divining (Score:4, Informative)

          by nullchar (446050) on Monday May 31, 2010 @11:22AM (#32407366)

          Uh, that's because most water tables are large, so if you are above one, you can pretty much poke a well anywhere and find water. Of course the depth of each well may vary depending on substrate and which water table you actually hit. Also, the rate of available water (to pump or even if naturally pressurized) depends on the water table you strike.

          Sorry man, you fell for the scam. (He may have "witched" past wells in the larger area and has studied the underlying aquifers. Every well drilled to depth and through various substrate will inform him. Shit, he may be a Geology drop-out.)

          • It may not be fraudulent. He or she may be actually picking up clues, from experience, that a local farmer may not notice. Plant growth is certainly a useful indicator: layout of rock and hills may indicate where water from upstream or uphill is likely to channel into a particularly effective and reliable aquifer, effectively funneled by the underlying rock. That sort of expertise takes actual travel and study and practice that a local resident wouldn't have until pretty recently in history, so a traveling

        • by Joce640k (829181) on Monday May 31, 2010 @12:52PM (#32408262) Homepage

          Water divining has been debunked many, many times. In randomized tests nobody can do it.

          http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034# [google.com]
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY [youtube.com]

          Fast: You can dig almost anywhere on Earth and find water, it's just a question of depth (keep on digging there until it appears).

    • by Eudial (590661)

      Because acupuncture has been poked and prodded so extensively by skeptics (pun not intended), there is now a great deal of evidence for it's effectiveness. Which is very much the scientific way: By resisting new ideas until there is undeniable evidence for them, we get a very strong protection against ideas that are wrong.

      • by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:07AM (#32406240)

        Except that most of the best evidence shows that the "chi energy", the use of needles rather than pressure, and the use of it for treatment of body parts that are nowhere near the needle are complete nonsense. So scienctific testing shows that even the stopped clock of the magical thinking surrounding acupuncture can be right twice a day, and can even predict now what that twice a day will be.

        I once spent a long, sad hour with an MD who tried to tell me that acupuncture worked because the nerves it stimulates are faster than pain nerves. I tried to explain to her the concepts of phase delays: if the pain came first by more than a matter of milliseconds, the pain signal was already present in the upstream nerve junctions or in the brain, and it doesn't matter how "swift" the signal is from the acupuncture needle, so the explanation is nonsensical.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I tried to explain to her the concepts of phase delays

          Note to the younger Slashdotters: Don't do this. The ladies really don't care.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Only, this is not acupuncture. This is just piercing the skin with needles and then twisting them to see if you get a response. There are plenty of known methods through which that could operate.

      Acupuncture on the other hand supposes that the body has "meridians" and "acupuncture points" which you put needles into to manipulate the health of the body or parts of the body.

      To this notion I will still say that "there aren't any known methods through which it could operate."

    • Mechanism is often lacking even in regular science, especially in medicine. Biochemistry and physiology are complicated, and we often have only a vague idea (if that) about what makes a particular drug work.

      But mechanism isn't a necessary part. What is necessary is that something have measurable, demonstrable, repeatable effects. If you don't have that, you've got nothing. And this is especially important in medicine, where wishful thinking is extremely easy; people will fool themselves into thinking so

    • by gad_zuki! (70830)

      >...for those trying to defend the scientific method saying that a pseudoscience "cannot possibly work" because "there aren't any known methods through which it could operate".

      What? Skepticism isn't based on your little strawman. Its based on evidence. So, here's one study that was well thought out and well executed that might point to some kind of effect that isn't placebo. Great. Without this level of proof skepticism is 100% warranted, and is still warranted until we can see some replication of result

    • by mrmeval (662166)

      Pseudo science is just that a fake. If there is a result to an act but we cannot explain it so what? Why do you need to spew some garbage to 'explain' it. Just define what is happening and test it until you have defined it's actions so you can go about applying it to real world problems. Hell we've done that with the transistor and so many other things. Who argues about how a water wheel works when it works? Later and in some cases centuries later we figure it out.

      I pissed of a Ufer nut who claimed that a s

  • by sugapablo (600023) on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:37AM (#32406062) Homepage
    I'd much rather have a positive effect from a placebo than from a drug that usually has nasty side-effects.
    • by Takichi (1053302) on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:55AM (#32406168)
      Except that you can not only get benefits, but also nasty side-effects from placebos.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by arb phd slp (1144717)

      I'd much rather have a positive effect from a placebo than from a drug that usually has nasty side-effects.

      I've wondered about this. If there is an actual placebo effect, we're drastically underutilizing it in the practice of medicine. As a result, there's a whole snake-oil industry overcharging for it and misleading people about it.

      • by Xenna (37238) on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:05AM (#32406232)

        Hah, but that's the paradox!

        You can't have a placebo-effect unless you claim that the therapy actually works in itself.
        You can't claim that a non-working therapy works unless you a a liar.
        The placebo effect works better if the treatment is costly (in terms of money or discomfort - pain from needles)

        So the placebo industry can only exist if they mislead and overcharge.
        It's not a bug it's a feature!

        X.

        • by hedwards (940851)
          It's not, you just don't call it a placebo when the person knows about it. It's a relatively common way of treating things like migraines, back pain, explosive temper and a large number of mental illnesses. It's a misconception that to make use of that effect that you can't know about it, you just don't call it a placebo when you're doing it purposely. It's sort of like why hypnosis does such a great job for pain relief even though it tends to do a lousy job of treating other things.
          • by nullchar (446050)

            That's exactly what Xenna said: you must claim that the therapy works in order to have the placebo effect.

            If the acupuncturist said, "What I'm about to perform with these needles won't directly cause you pain relief (and I may not even prick your skin), but as long as you believe it works you may feel better", they might not get a lot of repeat customers.

        • by TheLink (130905)
          > You can't have a placebo-effect unless you claim that the therapy actually works in itself.
          > You can't claim that a non-working therapy works unless you a a liar.

          You miss the point. For many conditions a placebo is not a nonworking therapy. So if it works you're not a liar. And placebo treatments do work 30-40% of the time for certain problems. You're only a liar if you make claims about the treatment that aren't true.

          Many drugs/procedures only work well for some people and some cases.

          So for a noncr
          • by Xenna (37238)

            > You can't have a placebo-effect unless you claim that the therapy actually works in itself.
            > You can't claim that a non-working therapy works unless you a a liar.

            You miss the point. For many conditions a placebo is not a nonworking therapy. So if it works you're not a liar. And placebo treatments do work 30-40% of the time for certain problems. You're only a liar if you make claims about the treatment that aren't true.

            Mmm, yes, that's exactly my point. Thank you for pointing that out ;)

            The drug companies probably hate the placebo effect - a fair number of their candidate drugs can barely beat it in trials :).

            Again you seem to mean the opposite. If the drugs aren't doing better than placebo's, they are placebo's!

      • I'd much rather have a positive effect from a placebo than from a drug that usually has nasty side-effects.

        I've wondered about this. If there is an actual placebo effect, we're drastically underutilizing it in the practice of medicine. As a result, there's a whole snake-oil industry overcharging for it and misleading people about it.

        Expensive placebos work better, and expensive wines taste better. Asking for more money is not overcharging, it's upping the placebo dosage :\

    • by xlation (228159) * on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:17AM (#32406310)

      It's bad when Jenny McCarthy and Oprah use "success" from the placebo effect to cast doubt on science-based medicine. This doubt helps other scam artists sell expensive water to a patient who could be cured by real medicine.

    • by nospam007 (722110) *

      Better not to read about its worthlessness then, isn't it?

    • by jfengel (409917)

      The placebo effect is real but less reliable than drugs. It does some good, but not all that much good, usually only a few percent.

      And they rely on your belief that they are real drugs. If you were a good medical consumer you'd research your drugs before taking them, and you'd run into "this is just a sugar pill" pretty fast.

      Every medical study controls for the placebo effect. If a drug doesn't work better than placebo, they don't sell it.

      Often, the placebo test is also used as a control for "no interven

    • I'd actually like to see more research done on the placebo effect itself. :-) Seems useful.
  • Now that I have your attention bear with me...

    It's one thing to say "this is BS"

    It's another to say "we don't know how this may work, thus it doesn't mean that it works BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T"

    There are skeptics and there are "skeptics". "skeptics" make their first reaction to everything "this is BS"

    "Look, arteries may not have air inside them after all" "this is BS"
    "hey maybe interactions between charged particles can be abstracted by using 'a field'" "this is BS"

    It's ok to be skeptic, just kee

    • by Spatial (1235392)
      This is BS.
    • There are skeptics and there are "skeptics"

      This is BS!

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Exactly. There are many things that like acupuncture that have been used medicinally for centuries. Just because we may not, at the time, understand any underlying mechanisms doesn't mean that they don't work; it just means that we don't understand the underlying mechanisms and therefore, have no proof that it works or does anything. But saying that is very different from saying that same thing doesn't work at all.

      For example, we didn't understand the underlying mechanism for aspirin until 1971, but befo

      • by JamesP (688957)

        For example, we didn't understand the underlying mechanism for aspirin until 1971, but before that salicylates had been used for centuries.

        Exactly! Thank you!

      • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:09AM (#32406262) Homepage

        There are many things that like acupuncture that have been used medicinally for centuries.

        Just because something is old, doesn't mean it works. There are plenty of old treatments that are either useless or even harmful. Which is why testing is the important part, you can't trust anecdotes, even if they have a long tradition.

        Just because we may not, at the time, understand any underlying mechanisms doesn't mean that they don't work;

        The issue isn't so much that we don't understand the underlying mechanism, but that we don't even have a clear indication that it works in the first place and you don't need to understand the workings of something to do the testing for its effectiveness.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Virak (897071)

        This isn't even a problem of not understanding the mechanisms, it's a problem of not having solid evidence that it even works. Again, see the latter part of the summary which is about existing studies that have come to the conclusion that it doesn't work at all (is reading even the summary too much to ask for on Slashdot? I guess it is). "People have been using it since a very long time ago" is not proper evidence as to its efficacy. Bloodletting was in use for centuries too, by many different peoples; toda

      • "There are many things that like acupuncture that have been used medicinally for centuries."

        Like mercury.

    • by ascari (1400977) on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:07AM (#32406244)

      And it's one thing to say "adenosine is released locally by needle pricks". And another to say that there are mysterious "meridians" that run through the body and connects your pinky toe to your heart, and your left butt cheek to your kidney or whatever, and that you can cure all kinds of diseases in those "connected" organs by poking the exactly right spots with needles.

      Yep, that's what at the root of accupuncture theory in TCM, not random pin poking. And this experiments doesn't even attempt to explain what's going on there. So while I'm absolutely not saying that TCM is wrong, I am saying that this experiment says very little if anything about traditional accupuncture the way it's been practiced for 4000 years. It's just a feeble attempt at quickly saying "this is NOT BS".

      So we still don't know how this works or indeed if it works, we only knows some mice produce adenosine locally under certain conditions. Accupuncture if it works as claimed would have to be much deeper, this hardly penetrates the surface. (Pardon the pun.)

      • by Belial6 (794905)

        And it's one thing to say "adenosine is released locally by needle pricks". And another to say that there are mysterious "meridians" that run through the body and connects your pinky toe to your heart, and your left butt cheek to your kidney or whatever, and that you can cure all kinds of diseases in those "connected" organs by poking the exactly right spots with needles.

        And it's one thing to say "adenosine is released locally by needle pricks". And another to say that there are mysterious "meridians" that run through the body and connects your pinky toe to your heart, and your left butt cheek to your kidney or whatever, and that you can cure all kinds of diseases in those "connected" organs by poking the exactly right spots with needles.

        That's part of the problem. It really isn't. We know scientifically that there are lines through the body that connect parts of the body. We call them nerves. One of the big problems is that when someone sees an effect, they try to find an explanation. Sometimes the explanation is that the effect is from wishful thinking, sometimes it is that they only think there was an effect, sometimes the explanation is a good rational guess.

        When there is a real effect, and it isn't from a placebo, the scientifi

    • by ChromeAeonium (1026952) on Monday May 31, 2010 @09:08AM (#32406248)

      There are skeptics and there are "skeptics". "skeptics" make their first reaction to everything "this is BS"

      That's a load of crap. Skeptics make their first reaction to anything for which there is not sufficient evidence present "this is BS." That's a critical difference. As far as I know, acupuncture has not been exceptionally good at proving itself. It is based on the flow of some qi or whatever and claims to have all sorts of healing properties, neither of which have been proven in the least, and that is something to be rightfully skeptical about. If you make an extraordinary claim, I require extraordinary evidence. Plenty of new theories and ideas are accepted by skeptical types (for example, this was new [sciencemag.org], but there was no skeptic backlash, because it was a reasonable claim with reasonable evidence); just because some old time quackery is rejected doesn't mean skeptics are closed minded, that's just a way to distract form a lack of evidence. Medical skeptics have long admitted that minor injuries like sticking needles into yourself may trigger some pain-killer response, and this new thing, if indeed true, confirms that, not the validity of acupuncture. In fact, another study once showed that fake acupuncture [scienceblogs.com] outperformed 'real' acupuncture. It's not about simply denying everything, it is about denying everything until a reasonable amount of evidence exists to support it.

      You know, homeopathy used to 'work' too, back when mercury was a medicine, because it didn't do anything whereas medicine killed you, which may be why it is still around. Chiropractic, originally claimed to cure all sorts of things, has the same affects as a good massage. Do they get vindicated too now? Sometimes things get lucky, or traditions are held for some reason, and maybe acupuncture is one of them due to this effect, but there is still no reason to not be skeptical about redirecting your qi or whatnot, or its ability to outperform any modern science based pain killing methods (I'd go with a good hit o' weed myself, but that's a different debate). It's good to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

      • by JamesP (688957)

        There are skeptics and there are "skeptics". "skeptics" make their first reaction to everything "this is BS"

        That's a load of crap. Skeptics make their first reaction to anything for which there is not sufficient evidence present "this is BS." That's a critical difference.

        Problem n.1: Very few things have 'sufficient evidence' at first. That's the point of research. But then people go "there's not enough evidence so this is BS and I'm not going to research this" GOTO 10

        Problem n.2. Define "sufficient evidence". Sometimes "sufficient evidence" looks like "overwhelming evidence so I'm changing my opinion to save face"

        What I'm questioning is "calling BS" when the answer should be "let's research, wait for more tests before taking a stance". And I'm not even saying that about ac

        • Problem n.1: Very few things have 'sufficient evidence' at first. That's the point of research. But then people go "there's not enough evidence so this is BS and I'm not going to research this" GOTO 10

          Problem n.2. Define "sufficient evidence". Sometimes "sufficient evidence" looks like "overwhelming evidence so I'm changing my opinion to save face"

          Yeah, but they should at least have something going for them first. There are tons of new things [wikipedia.org] being worked on. Those weren't simply chosen at random, people start working on those fields because there is some reason to think they will yield results. The sufficient evidence is either fitting with models or predictions or well reasoned hypotheses or early testing or something. And sure, there are things out there that don't have sufficient yet but are perfectly valid. Tomorrow we might discover that o

          • by JamesP (688957)

            To paraphrase Sagan, 'They laughed at Einstein, ect., but they also laughed at Bozo' and there are a lot more Bozos than Einsteins, so it is preposterous to think that every stupid little thing should be investigated.

            Oh, of course, It's not only a matter of 'may be interesting to investigate' but resources are limited, and grants are limited, etc. So yeah, we shouldn't investigate everything...

            Discovered qi or chakra or whatever flowing through the body? That's new, then it's time to reopen acupuncture. Got a well designed study indicating superior results? Same thing. But until then, no amount of accusations of being closed minded is a substitute for good proof.

            That's the idea! Cheers.

      • There are skeptics and there are "skeptics". "skeptics" make their first reaction to everything "this is BS"

        That's a load of crap. Skeptics make their first reaction to anything for which there is not sufficient evidence present "this is BS." That's a critical difference.

        You missed the fact that he talks about skeptics and "skeptics". Notice the ". He put double-quotes to indicate irony, and that went right over your head.
        He was wrong to attempt subtle irony on the internet, that's a recipe for misunderstanding, but you were nonetheless wrong for missing his irony and flaming him for something you misunderstood.

        Now kiss and make up.

  • by seyyah (986027) on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:44AM (#32406104)

    Dr. Maiken Nedergaard of the University of Rochester Medical Center and her colleagues administered half-hour acupuncture treatments to a group of mice with paw discomfort.

    Family-friendly euphemism for "with their paws hacked off by the grad students".

  • by foobsr (693224) on Monday May 31, 2010 @08:49AM (#32406136) Homepage Journal
    after wondering how they measure

    mice with normal adenosine function experienced a two-thirds drop in paw pain

    CC.

  • Similar pains in different people are triggered by different energetic imbalances. Oriental medicine has five elements, five rhythms that run through a person: Water, Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal (Air). Each meridian has characteristics of one of the elements.

    But westerners who study acupuncture try to use the same points in their trials, when the study should be designed to address the individual's specific imbalances.

    I've met a few mystics in the last few years, and my experience says that people who "scoff"

  • by stein.dagostini (1676452) on Monday May 31, 2010 @10:11AM (#32406664)
    I was too a very skeptical person, until I got a hormonal production disorder (I really don know its name in english, maybe later i can find a translation) that Western medicine said was impossible to cure and had to be countered with massive doses of neutralization of hormone medicines that would basically cripple me completely forever. I gave a shot and tried acupuncture since even death was better than those side effects. In 2 months the disorder was completely under control without any changes in my life but acupunture. The exams shown a reduction on the hormone production of more than 70%. I tough, ok that must be coincidence... stoped the treatment. Few months later the issue was back. Restarted the treatment and 1 month later was all under control again.... Even the doctors said to me, forget western medicie and stick to what is working. Since then I tried acupuncture for a lot of things, including issues that western medicine never was able to cure me like allergic reactions etc. I am still quite skeptical about almost everything, but I was faced with undeniable evidence that it has some VERY interesting results. People should spend less time trying to proof its or its not BS and more time trying to understand how to make people life better! And I pity the poor should that had the same diagnostics as me and went for the western "fully scientific" treatment. Medicine should be about saving people and making them feel better! Not about having reason about anything! Fool is the one that speaks without having real experience about it. Fool is the one that condems others to suffering just because the better path doe snot match his own beliefs. That is basically the same thing as religious fundamentalist.
    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday May 31, 2010 @12:39PM (#32408142) Journal

      In 2 months the disorder was completely under control without any changes in my life but acupunture.

      Your anecdotal evidence is fantastic.
      Now lets find 100 other people with the same positive outcome and figure out why acupuncture is working for all of you.

      People should spend less time trying to proof its or its not BS and more time trying to understand how to make people life better!

      ::facepalm::
      I'm glad your life is better, but many of us are not happy having gaps in our knowledge and filling in the blank with "magic" or "it works".
      If acupuncture works so well, understanding why/how is critical for having it turned into a mainstream treatment.

      • Now lets find 100 other people with the same positive outcome and figure out why acupuncture is working for all of you.

        Or find some people who have had multiple doctors shrug their shoulders at, who have received reliable, repeatable relief from acupuncture, and just be grateful that there was something that provided a solution when western medicine failed them. Or you can present your argument to these people and see if it provides them relief.

        I'm glad your life is better, but many of us are not happy having gaps in our knowledge and filling in the blank with "magic" or "it works".

        Many people who have gotten relief would trade that kind of unhappiness for relief from the physical symptoms they experienced. It works well in some cases, and for those people, u

    • Poe's Law rears it's head once again.

      In case people actually took that seriously, fisrt off, there is no such thing as 'western' medicine. That's a load of crap to try to act as if there are two valid forms of treatment. There aren't. There is scientifically proven medicine, and medicine that has not been proven/has been disproven. And that part about not trying to prove stuff, that's either great parody or bad logic. Anything that works, works. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. If a treatm

He's dead, Jim.

Working...