»

[droid]

The NHS uses it for acute pain,i don't think sticking needles randomly into your body would have the same effect,might be wrong though.My physio calls the points trigger points,nothing to do with TCM but works on the same principle...i.e.blood flow.

[Le Stu]

Originally Posted by nullmouse

Note that this review only looks at studies from China (who may have a national pride stake in acupuncture working) and none adhered to an RCT design (meaning patients were neither randomly assigned into groups or controlled appropriately). The authors reflect this in their conclusions. Note though, that the reported success rate in these studies is "78.95% to 100%". The old rule of thumb about "if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is" springs to mind - But keeping an objective mind, this would appear superficially promising. To be 100% sure, proper studies would need to be performed that both randomised the patients in to groups and made sure half of them received fake treatment. If, under those conditions, they still got such high success then everyone would be on to a winner. At the moment, all the studies they review are just comparing doing something to doing nothing, which can't tell us if the treatment is anything more than placebo...

Yeah that does sound a little bit too good to be true and you're right about TCM being a newly installed national treasure in China so politics may be a factor. Anyway, cheers for the info and I've found the site now so I'll quit being so lazy

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Originally Posted by droid

If the NHS are practicing acupuncture then it must have some scientific value!TCM is not just about acupuncture.My practitioner has a degree in physics and is a very intelligent man,if he can't help you,he won't take money off you for the sake of it.

The NHS is not infallible. Acupuncture does have scientific value,but only as a placebo.
Also I know many people who have a degree and yet believe in utter nonsense.
There is no shame in ignorance though.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

If I may be slighty tangential:

EUS - Homeopathy Project

This is the one that gets me fumin'.

[Tubthumper]

Originally Posted by droid

The NHS uses it for acute pain,i don't think sticking needles randomly into your body would have the same effect,might be wrong though.My physio calls the points trigger points,nothing to do with TCM but works on the same principle...i.e.blood flow.

Give me £50 per session and we'll test it out.

[Alkaline]

Who's up for a good, old fashioned blood-letting. The leeches are ready!

[Le Stu]

Originally Posted by TheTickingTime-Bomb

The NHS is not infallible. Acupuncture does have scientific value,but only as a placebo.
Also I know many people who have a degree and yet believe in utter nonsense.
There is no shame in ignorance though.

Oh come on, you can't claim acupuncture is purely down to the placebo effect. An absence of hard data to support the efficacy of acupuncture treatments hardly constitutes proof that it is merely a placebo.

I blame that Richard Dawkins, I really do...

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Originally Posted by Le Stu

Oh come on, you can't claim acupuncture is purely down to the placebo effect. An absence of hard data to support the efficacy of acupuncture treatments hardly constitutes proof that it is merely a placebo.

I blame that Richard Dawkins, I really do...

The absence of hard data simply proves that it should not be assimilated into our medical system. Also, the five phases theory of acupuncture along with the idea of "Qi" simply don't fit in to the crossword puzzle of evidence that constitute our current biomedical understanding of the human body.

If there is some desirable effect in the practice, then it certainly isn't in these antiquated concepts. However I have not seen any evidence at all to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it achieves anything more than the placebo effect.

Quite how Dicky Dawk comes into this I'm not at all sure.

[Le Stu]

Originally Posted by TheTickingTime-Bomb

The absence of hard data simply proves that it should not be assimilated into our medical system. Also, the five phases theory of acupuncture along with the idea of "Qi" simply don't fit in to the crossword puzzle of evidence that constitute our current biomedical understanding of the human body.

If there is some desirable effect in the practice, then it certainly isn't in these antiquated concepts. However I have not seen any evidence at all to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it achieves anything more than the placebo effect.

Quite how Dicky Dawk comes into this I'm not at all sure.

He uses the same arguments, that an absence of proof is a proof of absence. It's an infantile argument.

I suggest you look at the video I posted of the young Buddhist fellow getting repeatedly kicked in the nuts. Not because it proves Qi exists but because it's fucking awesome

[droid]

Originally Posted by TheTickingTime-Bomb

The absence of hard data simply proves that it should not be assimilated into our medical system. Also, the five phases theory of acupuncture along with the idea of "Qi" simply don't fit in to the crossword puzzle of evidence that constitute our current biomedical understanding of the human body.

If there is some desirable effect in the practice, then it certainly isn't in these antiquated concepts. However I have not seen any evidence at all to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it achieves anything more than the placebo effect.

Quite how Dicky Dawk comes into this I'm not at all sure.

So what you are saying is the NHS are wasting money and resources on an "antiquated concept" that clearly works for some people..Conventional medicine only works for some people,but is this justified because it has been clinically tested to produce hard data?I have seen TCM work first hand,what is your experience of it?Furthermore is UCLH wasting millions on alternative therapies..http://www.uclh.nhs.uk/Our+hospitals...c+Hospital.htm and The Gerson Institute - Alternative Cancer Treatment