Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Do you suffer from chronic pain? Maybe acupuncture is just what the doctor ordered. Millions of people say that acupuncture has alleviated their suffering and boosted their bodies, but others insist that it's more rooted in belief than scientific fact. Is acupuncture really the cure for what ails you, or does it only turn you into a human pincushion?
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Those Who Question Scientific Basis Have Not Done Their Homework
What constitutes scientific basis
The number of articles in PubMed mentioning the word acupuncture has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific consensus on acupuncture. (There are almost as many articles containing the word "heroin," for example, but I doubt you would accept that as evidence of heroin's curative powers.) You say, "That doesn’t mean ALL of the articles are favorable toward acupuncture, but it demonstrates that there is a significant amount of research on the topic." Yes, fine, but what does the research say? That's what actually matters.
You criticize studies done by MDs with only 200 hours of training in acupuncture. I have two areas of questions about this. First, how much training would you say is sufficient? 200 hours seems like a long time -- what is it that can't be conveyed or learned in that length of training? On a related note, how much training does a typical acupuncturist have before starting a practice? Second, what portion of these tests were performed by doctors you consider insufficiently trained? How do their results compare to those obtained by MDs who you would consider adequately trained, or who used trained acupuncturists in their studies?
- thoughtcounts Z
September 4, 2008 11:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
200 hours doesn't even scratch the surface
I absolutely disagree with MD's with only 200 hours of training being the "definitive source of judgement" on the efficacy of acupuncture. Acupuncture, like many branches of medicine, has levels and depths of knowledge, training, experience and understanding. As well as a wide variety of styles and modalities. For example there is a vast difference between simple ear & hand acupuncture, and Classical Five-Element Acupuncture. Just as there is a difference between going to a Nurse Practioner to treat a simple cold, and going to a cardiologist for heart surgery.
My husband has both a Master's Degree in Traditional Oriental Medicine from PCOM, as well as an additional full year certification from The Institute of Classical Five-Element Acupuncture, and certification from the University of Chengdu in China, and is a Dipl. OM from NCCAOM. And a Bachelor's in Psychology. This means that he has studied "medicine" for 7+ years, and specifically studied and trained in Oriental Medicine and Acupuncture for 3+ of those years. All before being sucessfully in practice. And I wouldn't even begin to consider him an "expert". Rather there are those who have even more years of education and training and practice experience that he defers to and still learns from at the Worsley Institute.
So, for MDs, or anyone else, not fully trained and educated in all of the history, foundations, theory, and practical application of Traditional Oriental Medicine, and the wide variety of styles of Acupuncture, to just take a 200 hour course and then be allowed to make definitive judgements and be considered an expert, is ludicrous.
That would be like having a Massage Therapist, pass judgement on the efficacy of a cardiology treatment.
- Aurora September 12, 2008 8:38AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Moving the goalposts
What do we mean when we say "acupuncture"? Presumably, acupuncture is what you get when you go to see an acupuncturist. What are they doing? Somehow I doubt that every acupuncturist you can find in the phone book has a decade or more of training, or whatever is enough to be considered an expert in your eyes.
I have no problem with the idea that only trained experts can perform acupuncture correctly. I was asking for information about what it takes to be considered an expert. Clearly the better formulation of an experiment is not for a medical researcher to try to learn acupuncture hastily and then do it themselves, but rather to observe acupuncturists in the lab. I was asking about what proportion of studies involved hastily-trained MDs compared to the proportion that used trained acupuncturists, because calling out a small minority of poorly formulated studies in order to condemn the entirety of research on the topic is a very fallacious way of arguing.
- thoughtcounts Z
September 14, 2008 11:04AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Expert Requirements"
Hi Z - while it is true that not "every acupuncturist in the phone book" has the extensive decade or more of training and experience in the US, there are still plenty of those that do have the credentials I personally consider to be requirements. The very minimum would be having passed the testing and required clinicals for status as a Diplomate of T.O.M or of Acupuncture, from the NCCAOM. I also think a minimum of a Master's Degree in Oriental Medicine is important, as well as 5 years in practice, and critical peer review, and continuing education, before one is qualified to be used as an acupuncturist in a study of the efficacy of acupuncture. But those are just my personal opinions. Also, while there are not as many who would qualify here in the US, there are thousands who do in Asia, and in Europe.
The problem has never been that there aren't enough qualified acupuncturists to conduct a study, but rather that there have not been enough studies done, and done well. Much like we know very little about Women's health compared to men's because the vast majority of studies have been done on men. Until only recently we really didn't even understand the vast differences between men and women related to the most studied illness out there - Heart Disease.
Unfortunately, the very nature of "scientific medical studies" for all their posturing, is a nature of bias and blind discrimination. Which makes it a fairly easy and comfortable position for those who disparage or deny the efficacy of alternative medicines to just sit back and say "Where's the evidence? Where's the "respectable believable data", when they all know very well that there isn't much we can point to, not because it doesn't work, but because the studies don't exist yet. And they don't exist yet because no one has had the financial incentive to do the studies. Just the opposite, Western Medicine has every reason to refute, repress, and refuse to examine in an unbiased and fair manner the benefits of alternatives that take money out of their pockets. And the "Journals" that represent that powerful Bloc, have no reason to publish or support any studies that encourage competition.
And frankly, only in recent history (very recent mostly still in progress and waiting to be published) have studies been done, and are still being done. So the body of "acceptable" evidence is new, emerging, growing, and that takes TIME. And then when the studies are published those who wish to dispute our validity will still do so, just by claiming the studies are not legitimate "enough". Meanwhile, Western Medicine will continue to do harm in the name of healing, and Pharmaceutical companies will continue to claim that their medicines are "proven in clincial studies" to be effective, only to have to recall them 5 years later, and battle class-action lawsuits against those they have harmed or killed.
Since it is only these kinds of "studies" that are considered acceptable, I would have to say this whole argument of "where's the evidence" is a total farce.
Someday these people will accept that the world is round, men landed on the moon, the earth circles the sun, and acupuncture works. Until then, we will just keep healing our patients and not really caring about the detractors who have an agenda and a closed-mind.
- Aurora September 19, 2008 11:13AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Argument without basis.
Aurora wrote "My husband has ..."
Where is the reliable evidence that anything has or does actually works. Anecdote and testimonial do not count. Why argue? Just present the data ...
- JJM
September 18, 2008 3:18PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There isn't a single "Study" that you would EVER acknowledge anyway
You're determined to deny anything and everything, you don't want evidence, and you already know (as I stated above) that the bias in "science" has not allowed such studies to exist yet. The only thing "medical science" studies is ways to make more $$. If there is no money to be made by Western Medicine, then there is no funding for a study, and no study happens. We in alternative medicine are working on it now, at our own expense, our own associations and groups are funding and conducting studies. Not because we need to prove to ourselves that it works, but because without the studies we can't defend ourselves against those who not too long ago were the very ones using the leeches and bleeding people's feet. I find it hilarious that the very branch of medicine most known for using "Snake oil" and superstitions, is now attacking systems time honored and proven for 5000 years.
Here are some studies, and then you can all continue on with your petty arguing, as Im certain you won't find any of these studies meet your "rigourous demands" anyway. I'm personally way to busy with our patients to continue in these discussions of discrimination any more.
There are studies on the effectiveness of acupuncture on almost everything from cancer to HIV to allergies and gynecology on this web page for anyone who would like to see for themselves, I'm not posting all of them... http://acupuncture.com/research /#1
http://acupuncture.com/newsletters/m_sept08/res.htm
Study on Effects of Different Acupuncture Manipulation Methods at Neiguan (PC 6) on Hand Spasm in Stroke Patient
Wang LC, et al. Department of Neurology, Affiliated Hospital of Integrated Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine of Hebei University of Medical Sciences, Cangzhou 061001, China. wanglichun1976@163.com
Effect of Acupuncture at Three Acupoints of Eye on Bell’s Palsy
Zhou CD, et al. Section of Rehabilitation, Guangdong Province Hospital of Integrated Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine, Foshan 528200, China. zcd401@126.com
Here is a paper too long to paste here, so here is the citation, and here is the link for anyone who wishes to view it -
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089 /acm.1996.2.79
To cite this paper:
George Thomas Lewith, Charles Vincent. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. February 1, 1996, 2(1): 79-90. doi:10.1089/acm.1996.2.79.
Ok, I'm done here, this was a mildly amusing experience.
- Aurora September 19, 2008 11:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unreliable citations
Aurora,
There is a hierarchy of the quality of magazines/journals that is well-established. Your citations lead to the lowest quality magazines. Long experience tells me that these publications are not worth reviewing/consulting.
The question remains- can you cite "high quality" (that is, reliable) research in scientific journals concerning humans?
- JJM
September 19, 2008 12:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
200 hours
200 hours is enough time to learn the basics of theory and how to not hurt anyone by needling their internal organs. By contrast, California requires a minimum of 3000 ( three thousand ) hours of training, of which about 1000 are clinic hours spent observing and practicing the medicine, and then a very hard exam. That is just what's required to practice legally. A new graduate is about as good a practitioner of chinese medicine as you were good at driving right after you got your license: you probably won't get anyone killed, but you've got a long way to go before you could be called an expert.
- devinv
September 18, 2008 11:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exactly
Well said Devinv!
- Aurora September 19, 2008 11:52AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.