Slashdot Mirror
Acupuncture May Trigger a Natural Painkiller
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.'"
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.'"
So, poking the skin with a sharp object triggers the release of painkillers by the body? I'm impressed.
Where's Cartman when you need him!
...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.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
I'd much rather have a positive effect from a placebo than from a drug that usually has nasty side-effects.
Sugapablo
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".
mice with normal adenosine function experienced a two-thirds drop in paw pain
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
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 before that salicylates had been used for centuries.
My blog
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.
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.)
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, 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 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.
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.
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; today, anyone with a basic education can point out many problems with it.
Did you even read the rest of the summary, particularly the part about existing studies that conflict with this one?
So, what you're saying is that studies that contradict this one are more important?? That they should be taken more seriously, because everybody knows "acupunture is BS" right?!
As it is, there's not a whole lot of research on acupuncture, and much of it appears to conflict each other.
They usually don't, but it looks like that due to people exaggerating the scope of the conclusions.
If you're suddenly rushing to mock skeptics ...you either don't understand how this "science" thing works at all,
No, it's the "skeptics" that don't understand how this 'science' thing works. And worse, don't know squat about the history of science.
As the example I gave in my post, most of the initial development of electromagnetism/electricity was called BS for a long time
The discovery of Helicobacter pylori and appropriate treatment also was hampered by those 'skeptics'. But it's ok I'm sure only a few people died because of that.
Also I'm sure not a lot of people died or got maimed because that thing called X-Ray is no good as a diagnosis help.
Also, it's easier to come up with results that match previous WRONG results www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm (search Millikan)
So yeah, I'm in no position to question that, sir because obviously I don't know anything about science or history of science...
how long until
To make it clear what acupuncture is: It was believed that directly massaging another person with your hands drains your energy over the long term, leading to a shorter life. The needles were introduced to eliminate the need for this contact. Also the acupuncture/qigong meridians along with the 5 phase theory are the practical result of several thousands of years of Chinese culture. P-R-A-C-T-I-C-A-L. Yes, you can call it psuedo science, but you would be ignoring the many many many instances of real people affected in real ways.
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.
Ah! You think Yoga has no basis in fact? There's some very toned and flexible hotties out there proving you wrong.
Well, ridiculous health claims (eg, treating autoimmune disorders, etc) associated with yoga are pseudo-science.
Similarly:
Chiropractic care for the treatment of back issues? Fact. Chiropractic care for the treatment of asthma? Pseudo-science.
Homeopathic treatment of dehydration? Fact. Homeopathic treatment of basically anything else? Pseudo-science.
Chiropractic care for asthma when your asthma is caused by pressure and irritation to the lungs based on your crooked ass posture: Fact.
No, it's not. It's bullshit. Show me a single study that proves chiropractic care treats asthma, and I'll show you a flawed study.
And as an aside, anyone who believes "asthma is caused by pressure and irritation to the lungs based on your crooked ass posture" has no fucking clue what asthma actually is.
Not that I ever had asthma officially
Ah. I see. So you feel you can make concrete statements about asthma treatment when you've never actually been diagnosed with it. Well, I'll definitely take your opinions seriously...
Again, you are leaping to the conclusion that skepticism against acupuncture was unwarranted
I don't think that's what he's doing. I think he's being ironic and you're missing out on it: He's saying 'skeptics' and '"skeptics"', and he's pointing out that the ones in double-quotes aren't really skeptical, they're really obtuse; they have decided that something is bullshit and nothing will ever make them stray from that position.
His mistake was using subtle irony; On the net, that's sure to get you burned.
His point is that skepticism is about having doubt, not certainty.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.)
The results of this paper are "acupuncture has a real mechanism and a real and measurable effect".
No, the results of this paper are: "Inserting needles in rats triggers adenosine production in the area of needle insertion" (and you don't need to use a needle to stimulate adenosine)
Do the other papers say "We inserted needles in rats and we measured adenosine and the nominal levels were found"??
Well?
how long until
If that is really your goal, feel free to lead by example.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!