Acupuncture is a Pre-Scientific Superstition
Proponents often cite acupuncture's ancient heritage as a virtue, but I see it as a vice. Acupuncture was developed in a pre-scientific culture, before anything significant was understand about biology, the normal functioning of the human body, or disease pathology. The healing practices of the time were part of what is called philosophy-based medicine, to be distinguished from modern science-based medicine. Philosophy-based systems began with a set of ideas about health and illness and based their treatments on those ideas. The underlying assumptions and the practices derived from them were never subjected to controlled observation or anything that can reasonably be called a scientific process.
An example from Western culture of philosophy-based medicine was the humoral theory - the notion that health was the result of the four bodily humors being in proper balance while illness reflected one or more humors being out of balance. Treatments therefore sought to increase or decrease one or more of the humors (such as the practice of blood-letting) to re-establish balance. The humoral theory survived for several thousand years in Western societies, perpetuated by culture and the power of deception inherent in anecdotal evidence.
Acupuncture is based upon the Eastern philosophy of chi (also spelled qi), which is their name for the supposed life force or vital energy that animates living things. In Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) chi flows through pathways in the body known as meridians. Illness results from the flow of chi through the meridians being blocked, or by the two types of chi (yin and yang) being out of balance. Acupuncture is the practice of placing thin needles at acupuncture points, which are said to coincide with points at which meridians cross, to improve the flow and restore the balance of chi.
There is no more reason to believe in the reality of chi than there is in the four humors, or in the effectiveness of acupuncture than the effectiveness of blood letting.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Ah, but there is reason to expect results from acupuncture!
The acupuncture points are in most instance the very same spots that are Triggerpoints in Mtofascial pain disease or tender points in Fibromyalgia.
I have had the experience of getting relief from the ravaging pain of the knotted up muscle fibers affected with the flaring of a "trigger point".
With these trigger points it is often possible to self treat by applying pressure to the flared up spot.
unfortunately they are likely to redevelop in a few hours, making self treatment ability desirable.
My first experience with acupuncture was treatment of a flared up left scapula with a few trpt. One of the practitioners needles was definitely in one of the affected spots, which felt a bit sore, but not with the usual excruciating pain that often develops in these eschemic areas. The whole affected area improved that day snd I had a month remission from the Myofascial pain.
When I had an appointment for treating myofascial pains in another area at another time I did not experience much relief. The Acupuncturist had embarked upon pursuing possible causes of these ischemic occurrences rather than pain relief.
With this chromic disease I have also used the services of some physical therapists trained in trigger point release. Some degree of pain relief resulted but the trigger points would re-form in 3 or 4 hours.
I have switched to therapists trained in J Barnes Myofascial relief. There approach often leaves the trigger points untouched but instead explorrd the myofascial system of the body seeking causes for the trigger point flareup,
I have had some remissions up to 4 months following a treatment or two or three.
It has been necessary to self treat trigger points as they happen to develop.
It would not surprise me that if I were to absorb the expense of having a series of acupuncture procedures done to purse "cause" - this might be successful.
Also I believe the acupuncturist was able to improve an ankle condition for me.
Hal 84
And yet willow bark tea was also a "Pre-Scientific Superstition." Science-based medicine is still an embarrassingly pragmatic operation, and we do not truly understand why many of our accepted treatments work, especially in the area of pain perception. I'd love to hear a scientific explanation of why anesthesia works. We use it because it does work, and it is scientifically proven to work, but we don't always know why. It is accurate to say that acupuncture has not held up in scientific trials, but don't argue against it on the basis that its proponents don't know how it works.
Every time a physician gets on the high horse about how great our knowledge is, and then gets proven even slightly wrong, it undercuts the public trust in both medicine and science. You suffer from a lack of humility while standing at the edge of a sea of undiscovered knowledge.
Our knowledge evolves and that's fine - knowledge in science that is. In TCM, knowledge does not evolve but adheres to outdated philosophies of chi etc.
Mr. Hammond, your argument is off topic. Other things that are proven to work have no bearing on acupuncture.
The acupuncturist's task, here, is quite simple- cite high-quality research published in high-quality medical journals that support the use of acupuncture for any ailment. That does not prove "acupuncture works," except in the case of that particular ailment; but it is a start. (Take note that a single publication, even if it stands up to scrutiny, is rarely convincing.)
What physicians feel or think is also irrelevant. What is known is all that counts, and there is no experimental support for the use of acupuncture.
In fact acupuncture was originally a form of bloodletting – the “needles” were really lances and the acupuncture points locations over veins to be opened. Chi, or the Chinese concept of the life force, was believed to be partly in the blood, and blood letting could be used to free the flow of chi. This was closely related to the Galenic concept of using bloodletting to free the flow of static blood in the tissue. For more information, visit http://phlebotomycoursesinfo.com
Won't you acknowledge that there is a strong prejudice on the part of western medicine against TCM? I remember how even as late as ten years ago, "traditional" herbal medicines were a laughing stock by many physicians, but today have gained some semblance of acceptance. It seems to me that it took a long time before the medical establishment allowed for "high-quality research published in high-quality medical journals" to be produced on the topic of some 'traditional' herbal remedies, therefore why is it a surprise that few have yet to emerge on acupuncture?
I too wish to see such studies on acupuncture. However, I also recognize that the western medical establishment is slow to change, inflexible when it comes to differing paradigms, and holds deep prejudices against notions that fall outside of its predefined realm.
We can talk about the scientific method all day, but we all know that there are a myriad of competing interests in the medical establishment the prevent it from being an altruistic pursuit of science; interests that often exclude traditional herbal treatments, nutrition as the best form of prevention, and TCM, in part because they all don't utilize the latest and greatest medical surgeries or wonder drugs. Is it any surprise why it's difficult for a drastically different medical perspective to even be given the chance to prove itself under the standards predefined by the western medical establishment?
You can call me Adam, or Dr. Hammond, and I did not attempt any proof of acupuncture. My point is that your lack of humility is damaging to our side, the side of rational thought.
I do mean Dr. Novella's arrogance, not yours. I did not find the JJM post arrogant, nor damaging to the side of rational thought.