My 2 previous links contained studies making this point. I can get the particular links if you could not see them.
I read them, and I think they do make a good point regarding the effect of placebo. However, I don't take that as an indebtment of acupuncture, just as I don't take those studies that showed the placebo effect occuring for sham surgeries as an overall indictment of surgery itself.
And I don't know about anti depressants. The difference is that if certain anti depressants are found not to be effective, this will be verified by research and either pulled or kept depending on results. I imagine there is research into this going on now. This is more of an example of things slipping through the net rather than being a general rule.
That site you linked me too has some good articles on this subject as well. The thing about this is at this point most doctors are still prescribing anti-depressents, even though it has been proven that a placebo works just as well.
Also doctors may use the placebo effect to some extent, it was on the news over here about people going to the doctor with a cold and demanding antibiotics, which are ineffective against virus, and doctors giving them to patients.
So the placebo effect also plays a major role in modern medicine, which is why I don't see it as an indictment against acupuncture that placebo may play a role in certain uses of it.
Appologise. I ment for you only to read the article on on the page linked which was specifically an overview of studies in to accupuncture.
Don't apologise, it's an interesting site. Thanks for the link.
This was not in refference to WHO, but gave a good (IMO) discussion on the effectiveness of accupuncture.
See that's where I disagree, because the W.H.O study is the biggest one done so far on the effects of acupuncture, with the least amount of problems in the study itself. The other studies, as you have pointed out, are pretty flawed, which is why I'm speaking of the W.H.O. one. Which also showed me, who didn't believe in the efficacy of acupuncture at the time, that maybe there was something to it, because the W.H.O is a pretty reputable organization and doesn't tend to go with quackery.
But Ames, Sham accupuncture has shown that subjects who undergo sham accupunture, i.e. where neddles were stuck in at so called non-meridian points showed the same response as those undergoing regular accupuncture.
Particular studies did, yes. As I said, I think the placebo effect is powerful, and many, many modalities in health care seem to be effected by it--not just acupuncture. But the W.H.O study, which was the largest and most well funded, found this not to be the case in ALL acupuncture 'remedies'--though did find it played a role in some.
Whats more, the effect has also been shown in cases where the subject only thought they'd had a needle put in them. Is this not massive evidence in support of placebo. Is this not evidence against the chi hypothesis?
Again, to me it is evidence that the placebo plays a large role in some acupuncture therapies. The thing is, that there are other studies which say, as Barad alluded to, that some acupuncture treatments create a endorphin response in the body. The thing is, and I could very well be wrong about this, but this is what I have read on the subject, no one is quite sure as the HOW or WHY the endorphins are triggered. Placebo is one possibility, but, again, studies which controlled for the placebo found this to not always be the case.
Things need to get ever more inventive to support the chi hypothesis, when results can be explained through placebo.
I totally agree with you. I think the tradional chi hypothesis is pretty outdated at this point, and I'm glad that these modalities are being put into newer terminology. Certainly it helps me understand it better.
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."