B-cup *BOOB* mindlessly continued to dispute the findings of the study
he raised:
>>>>>>>> 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.

The study YOU cited suggests quite the contrary. It worked no better
than any other touch therapy placebo (e.g., random placement of needles)
in treating migraines.

> They may call it a shame,

A *SHAM*. It's also a shame in the sense that gullible, brain-dead twits
like you suppose there's something inherently beneficial and scientific
about acupuncture despite volumes of data to the contrary.

> but they were the actual points learned from years of
> experience.

Bullshit, and this study -- which YOU cited -- shows otherwise. Random
placement fared just as well as "real" acupuncture. Studies on
reflexology show the same thing -- that the benefits of massaging feet
aren't related to specific points, but rather to touch therapy.

> Random points were the only real sham.

Yet those who received "sham" treatment received greater benefit than
those who received "real" acupuncture, asshole -- 53% reduction in the
placebo group to 51% in the "real" acupuncture group. There is NO
inherent benefit in acupuncture. The same (marginally better) benefits
can be derived by random placement of needles, or by other touch
therapies like massage. Further, I showed you links to other studies
noting very similar benefits to non-touch therapies like music,
laughter, and pets.

> The study has also not been replicated,

No further study is needed: this one shows NO benefit inherent in
acupuncture. The placebo group received greater benefit. That discounts
all the bullshit peddled by acupuncturists and other charlatans.

> the mark of a good scientific study.

Every ****ing study of acupuncture has shown the same thing: that there
is nothing inherently therapeutic about it -- placebo groups tend to
receive the same benefits from fake therapies as from "real" ones.
That's true with respect to other touch therapies as well.

>> 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.

You ARE dense. And disgustingly so.

> I just disagree.

With the VERY SAME STUDY you said proves that acupuncture works. The
study showed benefit from both "real" acupuncture and sham acupuncture.
When considered with all the other studies on acupuncture, reflexology,
and other touch therapies, it shows that touch therapy has limited
benefit (and, primarily, from helping to reduce stress -- which is
important in healing).

> You have a major problem accepting different viewpoints.

I accept SCIENCE over "viewpoints" -- particularly where the science
convincingly trumps a "viewpoint" as in this particular study (which,
again, YOU cited).

> That's part of maturity,

Part of maturity is being able to distinguish between science -- such as
"NO DIFFERENCE WAS DETECTED BETWEEN THE ACUPUNCTURE AND THE SHAM
ACUPUNCTURE GROUPS" -- and twisting in the wind as you are now by saying
you disagree with those findings from the study YOU cited and believe
acupuncturists' wild claims and propaganda instead.

> It matters not that I agree you are highly intelligent,

It should matter. At least Joe and others here have noted when I'm right
and helpful in clearing up matters. You came in here with this bullshit
claim that "acupuncture works" and cited this particular study as
evidence of it. I've repeatedly shown you that (a) you got the initial
claim from Time magazine wrong, (b) that the study in question did NOT
support your claim, and (c) that your claim is in no way supportable by
any of the information from the study. This isn't about my intelligence
of my mental health -- go back and review the thread for how I initially
(and gently) prodded you in the right direction with respect to the
study in question -- it's your ****ing insolent attitude in dismissing,
and now challenging, the same study you pointed to. You are a pathetic,
bird-brained dunce.

> The empirical evidence is your continued insults.

You insult yourself when you:
- cannot properly cite which news magazine you found the study;
- cannot distinguish the issues handled in the study;
- cannot accept the *actual* findings of the study you raised; and
- challenge the *actual* findings of the study.

> I admit to having taken prescription drugs, as prescribed, and had a
> negative side effect.

They've apparently burned out your last remaining braincell. The study
YOU raised does NOT support your beliefs.

> Many Americans go into hospitals and get staff

Staph. Twit,

> or other infections which
> they did not have. Our hospitals are dangerous places.

Because of the number of sick people in them. Infectious diseases are
like that, Boob: when you localize and isolate groups of sick people,
and if they have already weakened immune systems, it's more likely more
of those people will get sicker from other diseases carried in the
isolated place.

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

All acupuncture is sham. Your own study proves it: NO DIFFERENCE WAS
DETECTED BETWEEN THE ACUPUNCTURE AND THE SHAM ACUPUNCTURE GROUPS.