usual suspect wrote:
> B-cup Bob wrote:
>
>>> BOGUS, SHAM, FAKE acupuncture treatments. Read the study. Here's what
>>> the abstract says:
>>>
>>> Interventions Acupuncture, *sham acupuncture*, or waiting list
>>> control. Acupuncture and *sham acupuncture* were administered by



Not sham, but rather the use of traditional points.

random points had no effect.

Proof, no, scientific methods require the methods and procedures be
replicated with the same results.
>>> specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient
>>> over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks
>>> before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24
>>> after randomization.
>>>
>>> Conclusion Acupuncture was no more effective than *sham*
>>> acupuncture in reducing migraine headaches although both
>>> interventions were more effective than a waiting list control.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/9u76y
>>>
No, it was no more effective than than random insertion of needles.
>>>> You may not like it but that was the only way for the participants
>>>> to be fooled.
>>>
People do fake operations all the time in the name of science.
>>>
>>> Both the placebo (SHAM) and "real" acupuncture groups were "fooled."
>>> Acupuncture's benefits are placebo effect. The researchers concluded,
>>> "Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing
>>> migraine headaches..."
>>>
No, it was no more effective than using the traditional points.
>>>> BTW, though it doesn't meet your standards,
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't meet *scientific* standards.
>>>
>>>> it was listed as one of the 50 major medical breakthroughs in the
>>>> last year.
>>>
>>>
>>> In a popular news magazine -- not by a scientific or medical journal.
>>>
True. Still it was listed.
>>> Still haven't figured out how NOT to respond to your own posts, have
>>> you.
>>
>>
>> Well, according to News week
>
>
> According to the study's authors, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more*
> *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*."
>

Do I have to say the same thing? Traditional points are effective by
themselves. Random points were ineffective.
>> I invite other's to read the page specified for accuracy.
>
>
> I invite you to lay off posting until you comprehend what *Acupuncture*
> *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture* actually means.
I'll let other's judge for themselves.


This does not mean that accupunctuncture is a cure all and false claims
have been made. We don't know much about it, except the results have
amazed doctors.