B-cup *BOOB* 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,
>>
>> Read the ****ing abstract, you idiot: http://tinyurl.com/9u76y
>>
>> JAMA: Vol. 293 No. 17, May 4, 2005
>> Acupuncture for Patients With Migraine
>> A Randomized Controlled Trial
>
> Thank you for the article.

It's not an article, asswipe, it's the abstract for *the study* to which
your "article" (blurb) referred.

> I believe that the years of traditional
> points may have been effective,

No. The effect of "traditional" points was shown to be no more effective
than random sham points (actually, the sham group fared slightly better
than the "real" acupuncture group). That shows acupuncture is *bunk* and
that its usefulness is limited as a touch therapy -- like massage, etc.,
and like some therapies (relaxing music, pets, and laughter; links
already in the thread) which don't require physical touch.

> and the conclusion wrong.

Now you're saying that Time magazine ****ed up AND the researchers did,
too. What a stupid old coot you are. The group receiving sham treatment
did marginally BETTER than the group receiving "real" acupuncture.

> This is strengthened

No. There is no case here, asshole, except that acupuncture is of no
more benefit for migraines than being pricked with pins in random spots;
and in this study, the latter group (random sham treatment) fared better
than the former ("real" acupuncture).

> by the fact that random points had no effect.

Read it again, you drug-addled prick, and tell me why the group
receiving sham treatment at random points fared *better* than the "real"
acupuncture group (53% to 51%):

Results Between baseline and weeks 9 to 12, the mean (SD)
number of days with headache of moderate or severe intensity
decreased by 2.2 (2.7) days from a baseline of 5.2 (2.5) days in
the acupuncture group compared with a decrease to 2.2 (2.7) days
from a baseline of 5.0 (2.4) days in the sham acupuncture group,
and by 0.8 (2.0) days from a baseline if 5.4 (3.0) days in the
waiting list group. NO DIFFERENCE WAS DETECTED BETWEEN THE
ACUPUNCTURE AND THE SHAM ACUPUNCTURE GROUPS (0.0 days, 95%
confidence interval, –0.7 to 0.7 days; P = .96) while there was
a difference between the acupuncture group compared with the
waiting list group (1.4 days; 95% confidence interval; 0.8-2.1
days; P<.001). THE PROPORTION OF RESPONDERS (REDUCTION IN
HEADACHE DAYS BY AT LEAST 50%) WAS 51% IN THE ACUPUNCTURE GROUP,
53% IN THE SHAM ACUPUNCTURE GROUP, AND 15% IN THE WAITING LIST
GROUP.

You are SO ****ing dense.