F'IN Lasers how do they work?

[Cantih]

Is the procedure performed by sharks?

[Tristam]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstr...71.430451.BEv1
http://www.anesthesiaanalgesia.com/c...106/2/602.full

better peer reviewed journals? There is a lot of work thats been done w/ conventional pain management and acupuncture, its not entirely crazy holistic nonsense.

Also the WHO link you posted has a list of ailments/diseases/problems which in some cases a few clinical controlled study have proven it's usefulness in, and judging Sec 1.7 of their general considerations if the studies seem to adhere to those guidelines who cares where they come from?

edit: And before this digresses into the usual multiple page nonsense, I'm not defending all eastern medicine wholesale, nor all practicers of acupuncture, but simply making a generalization about the whole practice when there have been good studies (and plenty of shit ones) that show there could be something there, means more real studies are needed to find out what works/doesn't and for the uses where it has been found useful more study is needed to shed the stigma it currently has because of its association to faith healing nonsense.

There's no reason to study acupuncture more because there's no mechanism by which it could even work. Poking your body to do something with mystic energy flow doesn't really lend itself to scientific observation. The studies done on acupuncture fall into two groups, those who have a proper placebo control and those that do not. The ones that do not claim success despite the simple error of not including a placebo control. The ones that do control for placebo effect have never shown any benefit. This should be the end of story.

Scientific studies cost lots of money, and the ethics of continuing to subject people to dubious remedies is.... not exactly justifiable after too long.

[ZarakiKujata]

The 2 studies were <5min on google scholar and I was unaware of the BMJ stuff, I don't really care enough to turn this into a multi page argument that's gonna go nowhere.

But not really seeing why experimentation on rabbits decreases the validity of a study? Many medical studies start at mice/rabbits before being extended to humans and probably always will.

I agree with what the author of that study is saying, but I think its a bit unfair to just blindly generalize something as a hoax that has shown some research promise (and definitely needs more study one way or the other) w/ NIH involvement and in US journals alongside something entirely retarded like anti-vaccination/crystals, etc.

[Tristam]

Also, I should note that the placebo effect is a real physiological phenomenon, even if it is rooted in a psychological mechanism. So I don't tend to shit on "eastern" medicine as much because if it gives someone a placebo boost and doesn't hurt them (or rape them financially), honestly it's not really a terrible thing.

[BerenTebogo]

The 2 studies were <5min on google scholar and I was unaware of the BMJ stuff, I don't really care enough to turn this into a multi page argument that's gonna go nowhere.

But not really seeing why experimentation on rabbits decreases the validity of a study? Many medical studies start at mice/rabbits before being extended to humans and probably always will.

I agree with what the author of that study is saying, but I think its a bit unfair to just blindly generalize something as a hoax that has shown some research promise (and definitely needs more study one way or the other) w/ NIH involvement and in US journals alongside something entirely retarded like anti-vaccination/crystals, etc.

Because the study focused on quantifying the threshold of pain that rabbits exhibited.

Different rabbits.

Rabbits that can't talk, write, or otherwise quantify their pain and pain tolerance to a reasonable baseline.

The pain experienced by the different rabbits was measured against other rabbits with no possible baseline being present. Not same rabbit at different times to keep the variables the same, no, completely untestable, unverifiable, unquantifiable, quackery.

[BerenTebogo]

Also, I should note that the placebo effect is a real physiological phenomenon, even if it is rooted in a psychological mechanism. So I don't tend to shit on "eastern" medicine as much because if it gives someone a placebo boost and doesn't hurt them (or rape them financially), honestly it's not really a terrible thing.

While this is extremely true, the support of acupuncture (and other nonsense) leads people to A) waste money that would be better spent on real medicine or treatment B) denying real, necessary help for things like cancer, or AIDS, or whatever, in favor of holistic nonsense.

Basically, in some cases, it's state-sanctioned suicide that insurance covers!

It's deplorable, really.

[Tristam]

The 2 studies were <5min on google scholar and I was unaware of the BMJ stuff, I don't really care enough to turn this into a multi page argument that's gonna go nowhere.

But not really seeing why experimentation on rabbits decreases the validity of a study? Many medical studies start at mice/rabbits before being extended to humans and probably always will.

I agree with what the author of that study is saying, but I think its a bit unfair to just blindly generalize something as a hoax that has shown some research promise (and definitely needs more study one way or the other) w/ NIH involvement and in US journals alongside something entirely retarded like anti-vaccination/crystals, etc.

If something is already done on humans, going back to rodents is a huge step backwards in understanding. Many medical start at mice/rabbits to gain understanding of a biological mechanism for how something works and what the side effects are. If, at that point, we understand something of the risks associated with something and whether there's a plausible mechanism for why something would have a proposed effect, then you start to *think* about going to humans.

Continuing to study something that has no mechanism, and consistently performs as good as or worse than placebo, is a waste of time and money that is better spent elsewhere.

edit: what sath said

edit x 2: I would also argue that going back to work on rabbits would be worse because it's totally unneccessary to subject additional animals to distress. I would personally have a hard time understanding an animal care and use board approving a study of acupuncture on animals who are able to understand little more than the fact that they are being restrained and repeatedly jabbed with needles.

[Zhais]

psychological pain relief =/= fixing physiological problems

Placebo effect might be good for making people THINK the problem is gone, when it really may not be.

[Tristam]

While this is extremely true, the support of acupuncture (and other nonsense) leads people to A) waste money that would be better spent on real medicine or treatment B) denying real, necessary help for things like cancer, or AIDS, or whatever, in favor of holistic nonsense.

Basically, in some cases, it's state-sanctioned suicide that insurance covers!

It's deplorable, really.

That's very true, any non-scientific forms of treatment should only be used with conventional treatments if at all.

[BerenTebogo]

That's very true, any non-scientific forms of treatment should only be used with conventional treatments if at all.

I was reading something the other day, sorry for not being able to source but it's just an anecdote anyways, about a guy who walked out of his house and saw a lady rummaging around in his front lawn. When asked what the hell she was doing, she responded by saying she was picking certain weeds that were growing there because they were going to treat her daughter's breast cancer.

The guy was too dumbfounded to really say anything and let the lady take them, but it's things like that that just make you kinda go, "wow".

[Yuri-G]

While this is extremely true, the support of acupuncture (and other nonsense) leads people to A) waste money that would be better spent on real medicine or treatment B) denying real, necessary help for things like cancer, or AIDS, or whatever, in favor of holistic nonsense.

Basically, in some cases, it's state-sanctioned suicide that insurance covers!

It's deplorable, really.

I happen to see that as Darwinism.

[Mytiwar]

Reiki is superior anyway

[BerenTebogo]

I happen to see that as Darwinism.

It's Darwinism that makes your insurance rates higher than they need to be. Shit's covered by a lot of carriers in America and Europe.

[Max™]

I feel the urge to make a |p|l|a|c|e|b|o|s|: my anti-drug sig now, anyone else?