Acupuncture

[GreasyMonkey]

you obviously do not know how the scientific method and peer review work. this framework prevents subjectivity from affecting the results by producing reproducible results.

Ahh, yes, just as your much-vaunted "scientific method and peer review" gave the world the tragedy wrought by Thalidomide, as one quick example.
So why should I have any belief in a framework that is the cause of a tragedy such as this?
I trust my granny's "queer" elbow more.....

finally, go ahead and update your ignore list. this is a bit cowardly IMO, but know that i will continue to read your posts.

when i read stuff like this, it is no wonder that americans are faced with the choice between perry, bachman, bush, paul and a whole lot of other "know-nothings" and one say-one-thing-and-do-the-other.

I would never remove you from my "Must read" list - I enjoy reading the inane utterings and Mulish stubborness, making an Donkey of ones' self through ridiculous ASSumptions, such as you have made in this thread.....

 

[CoachFergie]

Ahh, yes, just as your much-vaunted "scientific method and peer review" gave the world the tragedy wrought by Thalidomide, as one quick example.
So why should I have any belief in a framework that is the cause of a tragedy such as this?

Outstanding lack of understanding about that situation and how the marketing process subverted the scientific process. While the FDA in the US had not approved Thalidomide drug companies were supplying it to Doctors for clinical testing.

 

[gregod]

Ahh, yes, just as your much-vaunted "scientific method and peer review" gave the world the tragedy wrought by Thalidomide, as one quick example.
So why should I have any belief in a framework that is the cause of a tragedy such as this?
I trust my granny's "queer" elbow more.....

....

i suggest you read a little about thalidomide.

in the interest of clarifying the discussion, could you answer a few questions? how exactly did the scientific method and peer review cause any tragedy? what exactly is your understanding of what the scientific method and peer review are? do you think your trust in your granny's elbow is a more suitable method for doctors and scientists to establish good and safe practices?

 

[elapid]

i sooooo don't believe this and i will eat my hat if you have the testicular fortitude to back this up with evidence.

On the Internet anyone can claim anything.

Basically I don't trust either of you by providing my name and details because of your actions and words in this and other threads. But I am willing to give my name and credentials to a moderator (perhaps Alpe d'Huez or RDV4ROUBAIX) and the moderator can then verify my scientific credentials and that my statement is true and correct.

 

[gregod]

Basically I don't trust either of you by providing my name and details because of your actions and words in this and other threads. But I am willing to give my name and credentials to a moderator (perhaps Alpe d'Huez or RDV4ROUBAIX) and the moderator can then verify my scientific credentials and that my statement is true and correct.

i have no problem with your suggestion as i understand the need to protect one's privacy. but what actions and words in this and other threads have i done that makes you think i would in any way do anything nefarious? i am asking seriously. i would appreciate specifics because frankly i hope i am not giving anybody on this forum the impression that i am that type of person.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

Outstanding lack of understanding about that situation and how the marketing process subverted the scientific process. While the FDA in the US had not approved Thalidomide drug companies were supplying it to Doctors for clinical testing.

Thank you, you have just proven the point that the "scientific process" can, has been, and is subverted, and therefore not the gold -standard that you have held it out to be.

Goodnight.

 

[CoachFergie]

Ahah, yes science is wrong because drug company greed was able to undermine the process.

Outstanding.

 

[gregod]

Thank you, you have just proven the point that the "scientific process" can, has been, and is subverted, and therefore not the gold -standard that you have held it out to be.

Goodnight.

is there a better process than the scientific one? can you post a link to its description and/or its results?

 

[GreasyMonkey]

i suggest you read a little about thalidomide.

in the interest of clarifying the discussion, could you answer a few questions? how exactly did the scientific method and peer review cause any tragedy? what exactly is your understanding of what the scientific method and peer review are? do you think your trust in your granny's elbow is a more suitable method for doctors and scientists to establish good and safe practices?

In previous posts, you have clearly rubbished my own experiences of the treatment being discussed (Accupuncture), with no respect or consideration, and held out that the you "know" it does not work from scientific literature.

As the drug (Thalidomide) was subject to approval by the relevant authoritiies before use, and supposedly subject to the rigours of the scientific process and peer review, it show a clear failure of the process that you are lambasting me with.
I agree that it provides a degree of protection and validation, but quite simply NO PROCESS devised or developed by mankind, and subject to the whims and erroneous behaviours of mankind should ever be seen as infallible.

I am not involved in the scientific process, but am an educated and literate human being. Being employed in the telecommunication industry I have some exposure to the peer review process, and my own experiences are such that there are many occurences of test data published in thesis' and research papers which at a later time are shown to be invalid, incorrect or fraudulent.

My assumption is that the process (in the medial research fields) is similarly at risk of flawed or incorrect information being presented as "fact", and hence my scepticism with your claim of KNOWING that a treatment does not work, when you appear to have never undergone the treatment.
If you have any understanding of the subjective nature of pain, then you should clearly understand that such blanket statements such as yours that you KNOW accupuncture does not work is false and misleading.

If you understand the peer review process so well as you imply, then I expect you would be able to understand and admit it's flaws and potential to be expolited by unscrupulous individuals or companies.

 

[gregod]

@greasymonkey

well written. i will endeavor to address your points.

In previous posts, you have clearly rubbished my own experiences of the treatment being discussed (Accupuncture), with no respect or consideration, and held out that the you "know" it does not work from scientific literature.

yes, i rubbished your experiences (my misspelling and all!) because anecdote is not evidence.

As the drug (Thalidomide) was subject to approval by the relevant authoritiies before use, and supposedly subject to the rigours of the scientific process and peer review, it show a clear failure of the process that you are lambasting me with.
I agree that it provides a degree of protection and validation, but quite simply NO PROCESS devised or developed by mankind, and subject to the whims and erroneous behaviours of mankind should ever be seen as infallible.

i know all too well that it is not perfect, but like churchill said about democracy, it it the worst system there is except for all of the others that have been tried. thalidomide was and still is a useful drug. the forces that led to its off-label usage in pregnancy had nothing to do with the scientific process. but ultimately it was science that stopped its use on pregnant women.

I am not involved in the scientific process, but am an educated and literate human being. Being employed in the telecommunication industry I have some exposure to the peer review process, and my own experiences are such that there are many occurences of test data published in thesis' and research papers which at a later time are shown to be invalid, incorrect or fraudulent.

and they are shown to be invalid, incorrect or fraudulent because the results are not reproducible which is the heart of the scientific method.

My assumption is that the process (in the medial research fields) is similarly at risk of flawed or incorrect information being presented as "fact", ...

it is, but when an experiment is reproducible by anyone and is in fact reproduced many times by many different scientists, i feel comfortable calling this a fact.

...and hence my scepticism with your claim of KNOWING that a treatment does not work, when you appear to have never undergone the treatment.
If you have any understanding of the subjective nature of pain, then you should clearly understand that such blanket statements such as yours that you KNOW accupuncture does not work is false and misleading.

i have never affirmed nor denied having tried acupuncture. my experience is irrelevant as stated above about anecdote. pain is subjective, but numerous blinded, randomized, controlled, reproducible studies have shown acupuncture does not work. there are zero blinded, randomized, controlled reproducible studies that show acupuncture works.

If you understand the peer review process so well as you imply, then I expect you would be able to understand and admit it's flaws and potential to be expolited by unscrupulous individuals or companies.

the scientific method and peer review system are not necessarily flawed as when they are practiced correctly they work well. however, humans are subject to cognitive biases, vanity and greed. these however can circumvent (rather than exploit) the safety systems built in to these processes.

 

[elapid]

i have no problem with your suggestion as i understand the need to protect one's privacy. but what actions and words in this and other threads have i done that makes you think i would in any way do anything nefarious? i am asking seriously. i would appreciate specifics because frankly i hope i am not giving anybody on this forum the impression that i am that type of person.

Fair point in regards to you. I personally don't think you are being objective, but that's just my opinion. However, I will certainly state that I do not think you are being nefarious. I do have significant concerns with CF because of his troll-like behaviour in this and other threads.

 

[elapid]

One would only receive a ban for making off topic posts, trolling or baiting others.

I have to respond to this one ... well said. We're all looking at you now, CF!

 

[CoachFergie]

I have to respond to this one ... well said. We're all looking at you now, CF!

Well gee, apologies for sparing people from...

Having to perform gym based strength training.

Having to use short cranks.

Having to pedal in circles.

And other assorted nonsense based on others commercial interests or personal experiences. If it makes you feel better I have been given a warning for taking a little too much pleasure in trashing some peoples claims. If you feel I have crossed the lines the there is a report post option. I used it myself this morning.

 

[elapid]

Well gee, apologies for sparing people from...

Having to perform gym based strength training.

Having to use short cranks.

Having to pedal in circles.

And other assorted nonsense based on others commercial interests or personal experiences. If it makes you feel better I have been given a warning for taking a little too much pleasure in trashing some peoples claims. If you feel I have crossed the lines the there is a report post option. I used it myself this morning.

Thank you for the suggestion. I don't believe we discussed any of the above because this is a thread about the OP wanting to know of people's experience with acupuncture. Yet you:

- Derailed this thread by criticizing the OP and others about their desire to know of the opinions and experiences of others (#10, #30, #57, #72)
- Ask for scientific evidence without providing any of your own (#18, #37)
- Deride the scientific literature for all your usual reasons without providing any support (#21, #72)
- Further derail this thread by asking for scientific evidence for PMs, interval training and crank length in a thread about acupuncture (#23, #86)
- Being deliberately inflammatory by asking me to criticize your coaching methods (#26) when I specifically said "I am not questioning your techniques or abilities as a coach" (#25)
- Accusing me of bias when I have shown no bias or lack of objectivity (#34), merely just pointing out people, and especially you, can use the scientific literature to support your own opinion and/or agenda whatever this may be
- Deliberately misreading the literature to suit your own purposes (#39, #56)
- Being inflammatory by stating that I have not read the literature (#41) when I obviously have by providing an accurate summary of the cited papers (#33, #52, #54)
- Being deliberately inflammatory by accusing me of cherry-picking (#51) despite stating that I cited the 12 most recent meta-analyses and stating that 3 of these did not find clinically and/or significant relevant results (#33)

Troll on CF!

 

[CoachFergie]

Wow, wish I had the time to write long rants like that.

I suddenly feel better about my life

 

[Rip:30]

haven't done a complete review of the lit, but obviously the jury is still out. and it will probably will be for a long time. a few papers pointing one way or another does not necessarily mean anything conclusive in biology. give me a break. we can't even decide what serum cholesterol levels mean after how much NIH $ has been thrown at it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811909005904

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4128/version/1

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v13/n7/full/nn.2562.html

 

[Rip:30]

Migraine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19160193

In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis was considered promising but insufficient. Now, with 12 additional trials, there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care. There is no evidence for an effect of 'true' acupuncture over sham interventions, though this is difficult to interpret, as exact point location could be of limited importance. Available studies suggest that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects. Acupuncture should be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment.

let me finish that quote for you:
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis was considered promising but insufficient. Now, with 12 additional trials, there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care. There is no evidence for an effect of 'true' acupuncture over sham interventions, though this is difficult to interpret, as exact point location could be of limited importance. Available studies suggest that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects. Acupuncture should be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment.

 

[CoachFergie]

Let me know when you get through the 80 other reviews on the subject at Cochrane.

 

[Rip:30]

Let me know when you get through the 80 other reviews on the subject at Cochrane.

no need to read all the reviews. the answer is they don't really know yet, and neither do you or i.

 

[CoachFergie]

no need to read all the reviews. the answer is they don't really know yet, and neither do you or i.

Yup, pretty much. Think I will pop an aspirin in the meanwhile!

 

[Rip:30]

i'll cop to laziness, because i have neither the time nor inclination to teach you about science, but i stand by the criticism that you don't understand what you are reading.

coach and i have not manipulated or cherry-picked anything. when we speak of research we are talking about direct, controlled, blinded studies. research like this shows no evidence of the efficacy of acupuncture. you.

Did you read beyond the abstract of your link?

Here's a good quote from the discussion:

"Qualitative analysis indicated that beliefs about treatment veracity and confidence in outcomes were reciprocally linked, and this appears to affect how patients self-report treatment outcomes, leading to a greater risk of demonstrating type II errors. This suggests that the process of interpreting RCT data is complex and contextual."

That really speaks to the heart of the matter. It's not like the perception of pain in the brain is something that can be easily objectively measured... Despite you and CF criticizing peoples anecdotal evidence, most of the studies to date including this one rely on nothing more than collections of anecdotes--reports of pain and pain relief. These are good first pass studies but shouldn't be interpreted as some kind of yes or no answers, which the authors of the papers of course recognize.

 

[CoachFergie]

Although not the quite the same asking someone about their acupuncture experience as part of a RCT and someone seeking opinions on acupuncture on a cycling fitness forum. Without structure you will get all manner of responses.

Makes me glad that on the bike we have a power meter to give an objective measure of work.

 

[Rip:30]

yeah PMs are great for that reason, and yet I still find it difficult to untangle the effects that cause changes in fitness. there's definitely some potential placebo/expectation mental stuff involved there. LOL.

 

[Boeing]

I leave my acupressure appointments happy every time

 

[elapid]

Let me know when you get through the 80 other reviews on the subject at Cochrane.

Yet again, you don't get the point.

I have no bias or opinion in regards to acupuncture. May be you don't either.

But what I have repeatedly stated is that the scientific literature can be used to support your own agenda and/or opinion, no matter what the subject. You and Gregod say that there is no scientific proof for acupuncture, and I produce 8 of 12 of the most recent meta-analyses showing a significant effect. You can then produce any number of other studies showing that it doesn't. And on and on it goes.

We can do this for any subject you chose. So asking for scientific literature to support the utility of one thing or another, whether it be acupuncture or weight training for cycling, can be as futile as asking for personal opinions. You (and I) use the scientific literature to assert our own opinions. Fault can be found in any paper and you in particular use that fault, no matter how unrelated or benign that fault may be, to negate the findings of that paper if it doesn't fit in with your opinion and/or agenda.