usual suspect wrote:

> B-cup Bob babbled:
>
>>>>> Click on the goddamn link to the JAMA site and read the abstract
>>>>> yourself.
>>
>>
>> Yes, they call it SHAM.
>
>
> Then why did you argue with me about that, dumb ass?
I disagree with their definition.
>
>>>>>>> How the **** is anyone supposed to find a *blurb* -- not a full
>>>>>>> article -- when you say it's in one magazine one day and another
>>>>>>> the next, you bumbling twit?
>>
>>
>> Are you so narrow minded
>
>
> I'm *open*-minded. I read the abstract and various mentions of the study
> you discussed in the first post of this thread. I made up my mind on the
> basis of that study that "real" acupuncture works no better than "sham"
> acupuncture, which was the conclusion of the researchers:
>
> 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 argument. I disagree with calling it sham has they used traditional
point.


> You're the one who's closed-minded because you continue to suggest the
> study found something it didn't, and that there's something inherently
> beneficial about "real" acupuncture when a fake acupuncture placebo
> group received greater benefit.

It benefited the participants.
>
>> that you can't consider that medicine practiced for 1000s of years
>> mind not be a sham.
>
Acupuncture, regardless of if you call it sham or traditional had a
statistically significant effect. Now, if you want to control or
compare it with "touch therapies" than you would have merit to your claim.
>
Much superstition exists but so does accumulated knowledge.
> Superstitious people -- such as you -- have believed myriad claims over
> "1000s of years" even when shown proof to the contrary -- such as in
> this study. Acupuncture is superstition. It has no greater benefit than
> fake acupuncture -- both have benefit as touch therapies, for stress
> reduction. Neither refocuses "chi" or anything else. They both reduce
> stress via placebo effect. This study found that there was NO DIFFERENCE
> BETWEEN THE ACUPUNCTURE AND THE SHAM ACUPUNCTURE GROUPS. Moron.
>
I'm not superstitious.
>> Traditional points had an effect.
>
>
> *Limited* effect. The placebo group -- sham acupuncture -- benefitted
> more than the "real" acupuncture group.
>

Substitute traditional with Sham.
>> That is something to consider.
>
>
> No, NOT WHEN 53% OF THE SHAM ACUPUNCTURE GROUP REPORTED THE SAME
> BENEFITS, you clueless ****ing asshole. Read the study again and stop
> glossing over the facts while you wet yourself over how old acupuncture
> is. It's a ****ing superstition and this study shows as much.
>

Not all accumulated knowledge is superstition. And I've stated that
there are false claims.

>> Random points did not.
>
>
> Bullshit:
>
> 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.
>
>> I ask you to explain, brilliant one, why traditional acupuncture points
>> had a statistically significant effect, but random points did not?
>
>
> You STILL don't comprehend that the group treated on random points
> received statistically MORE significant effect than the "real"
> acupuncture group did, do you, asshole:
>
Yes, I comprehend it. The traditional acupuncture what you call sham
(and the study) had a statistically significant effect.
> 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).... 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.

They call it SHAM, a more accurate definition would be traditional.

>
> You are SO goddamn ****ing retarded. Do you not understand that 53% is
> greater than 51%?
Not statistically significant.
>
>> Or are you too narrow minded to consider that?
>
>
> I'm open-minded enough to accept that 53% *>* 51%, asshole, and that the
> researchers concluded " NO DIFFERENCE WAS DETECTED BETWEEN THE
> ACUPUNCTURE AND THE SHAM ACUPUNCTURE GROUPS."

Conclusion - acupuncture was statistically effective. The methodology
used and little difference.

To prove your theory you would have to compare touch therapy with
acupuncture. And replicate the results.

In any case, the study would have to be replicated.