h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Does anyone accept the challenge of writing an Entry on How does acupuncture work?

Me.

Placebo effect.

The End.

Do I win a t-shirt?

SoRB

Ooh, for an encore:

"How does astrology work?" - It doesn't.

"How can Uri Geller bend spoons with just his mind?" - he can't.

"How fast can fairies fly?" - fairies don't exist, dumbass.

SoRB

Slightly more seriously, I can certainly accept the challenge of writing an entry about how people CLAIM it works. Just as long as it's clear that all talk of chi, life force and meridians etc. is nonsense designed to fool the gullible and prey on the vulnerable.

Still want the entry written?

SoRB

Assuming a yes... "I accept the challenge".

SoRB

Oh God.

Actually, in fairness, if we expect you to write a *balanced* entry on this subject, you could argue that the proposed title too readily makes the assumption that acupuncture does indeed work. Mind you, there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that it does; not least the fact that it's been practised all over a great swathe of Asia for a long, long time - 2,500 years or so. (Natural selection would have weeded it out by then, we reckon, if it hadn't have produced results.)

However, let's call the entry 'Acupuncture'. It better be good SORB - we'll be looking for holes in this.

"Mind you, there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that it does [work]; not least the fact that it's been practised all over a great swathe of Asia for a long, long time - 2,500 years or so. (Natural selection would have weeded it out by then, we reckon, if it hadn't have produced results.)"

You could say exactly the same thing about astrology, except that's even more widespread and we KNOW it's garbage... right?

Same goes for prayer for that matter...

SoRB

SORB, to repeat we'd like a *balanced* entry, taking on board a range of views. We don't want a ranty opinion piece. This is not the Daily Mail. You're one of our better writers - we know you can do it.

SoRB and I have had our differences in the past, but on this occasion we're in complete agreement. Making the assumption that it does work and that there's a documentable explanation for it, and then asking a Researcher to write an entry based on that assumption is not a good standpoint to start from if we're looking to build a Guide that can be taken seriously and thought of as accurate by its readers, whether they be members or not.

Acupunture does work...as a placebo and has done for 2500 years in Asia...

There are also other reasons why it works which are subtely placeboic which can be explained in the piece.

It is difficult to 'take on a broad range of views' and be balanced when the answer is 'it's placeboic' and any other explanation is incorrect and out-of-date. All one can do is say in the introduction: there are a number of mooted reasons why acupunture works...here are some of them...now here is why it REALLY works...to the extent that it does.

The placebo effect has only been known about for a relatively short period of time and is little understood or not at all heard of by people who have had no proper education therefore the explanations from 1000's of years ago still persist.

The other question is: is it a bad thing? much like homeopathy...well, no as long as you are just treating placeboic-treatable ailments and not bowel cancer.

Ey Gosho, we hear you but we did actually point out and correct our initial error in post 6.

There is no way to write a "balanced" article on the subject.

If I said "Write a balanced article on baby sacrifice and how good it is for the season's crops", could you do it?


There was a study done on acupuncture a few years ago... a full out scientific study. It was double blind. It had groups that received acupuncture, groups that received pain killers, groups that received placebo pain killers, groups that received "placebo" acupuncture (they poked spots supposedly unrelated to their symptoms) and groups that received no treatment at all.

Pro-acupuncture groups actually cite this study. It scientifically proved that a patient receiving acupuncture gets a benefit. Their pain is decreased. What they omit is that three of the groups received the same amount of pain reduction: the acupuncture group, the "placebo" acupuncture group, and the placebo pain reliever group. The study concluded that taking an active role of ANY kind helped to reduce pain but not as much as actually taking pain killers.


Sometimes one side of a "balanced" argument is actually just WRONG. (See creation vs. evolution, the environment, homeopathy, spiritualists, phrenology, numerology, the second hand smoke debate (second hand smoke is NOT the killer it is reported to be no matter how offensive it is) and many many other topics.)

> "to repeat we'd like a *balanced* entry"

Balance is *not* about giving equal time, space or credence to falsehoods - no matter how traditional they are or how many gullible fools believe them. That's where the BBC and others go wrong all too often. True balance would be about giving precisely the correct measure according to merit.

Acupuncture may or may not work, granted. And yes, there will have been tests carried out that show it to be no more than a placebo effect. On the other hand, however, it is interesting to note that some forms of acupuncture for certain treatments have been endorsed by The World Health Organisation. The British Medical Journal and The Lancet have also published scientific papers showing the efficacy of acupuncture in certain trials as a treatment beyond the placebo effect. Surely, not all gullible fools? And certainly grounds at least for a sensible, *balanced* entry on the subject.

Alright... SoRB, write the entry and end it with this phrase for balance.

"However, there is a large and growing portion of the public who are scientifically ignorant and wish to remain so. These people 'believe' in acupuncture and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. You can usually find them hanging out around revival tents, crystal sellers and chiropractors' offices."

The WHO were taken in by the bogus claims for echinacea. They are not reliable checkers of fact. Meanwhile, the BMJ represents the interests of its members (not patients) - some of whom are not merely gullible fools but are the active conman promoters of quack remedies. Dishonesty is big business. Not a good start for "balance" unless you do mean the dishonest version of that.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=12083
http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1692382005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2586207.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3256026.stm

Funny... the echinacea business seemed pretty aboveboard to me.

Besides, one can have too much faith in the fickle god of science as well, who recalls drugs, redefines 'healthy' every 8 years (particularly in what's good to eat), and ignores studies that disprove his own theories... like that big "heart healthy" study that ended a year ago and was declared a failure because it didn't prove that eating right led to health.

In other words, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I don't see why one can't write an entry describing the methods of acupuncture and explaining that it hasn't stood up to much research.

I'll do it.

Yes... there have been many "scientific" studies that have later proved to be in error or blatantly bias.


But here's something to keep in mind. There is absolutely NO scientific basis for acupuncture. There is a spiritual basis for it. It supposedly effects your "chi"... Chi is a mystical entity. You can test acupuncture scientifically as was done in the study I mentioned above.

But you can't defend acupuncture scientifically because it is mystical B.S.

Count Zero< the second hand smoke debate (second hand smoke is NOT the killer it is reported to be no matter how offensive it is>

Slight thread creep: Case Notes on Radio 4 tonight was about lung cancer. The 'expert' said over 50 trials have shwon that passive smoking does kill and 1000 people in the UK die from it per year.

Are you aying 1000 people isn't a lot or is the data you have got saying less?



Back on thread:

As has been mentioned above I wouldn't take it on face value that the WHO are for acupuncture.