usual suspect wrote:

> 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%):
>


I would argue that the use of traditional acupuncture works. They may
call it a shame, but they were the actual points learned from years of
experience.


Random points were the only real sham.

The study has also not been replicated, the mark of a good scientific study.
> 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.

Hardly. I just disagree. You have a major problem accepting different
viewpoints. That's part of maturity, which you appear to lack. It
matters not that I agree you are highly intelligent, you still clearly
have psychological problems. The empirical evidence is your continued
insults.

I admit to having taken prescription drugs, as prescribed, and had a
negative side effect. It says don't operate cars or heavy machinery.
Not a keyboard. Clearly I was the victim of a prescribed medicine.
Which has a much higher rate of problems.

Many Americans go into hospitals and get staff or other infections which
they did not have. Our hospitals are dangerous places. Much more
dangerous than most therapies. Finland reversed it. We could too.



I suggest that you color your perception with all the SHAM
acupuncturists that clearly exist.