B-cup Bob is STILL babbling:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Then stop deluding yourself (and so utterly unpersuasively suggesting
>> to others) that this study showed benefits of acupuncture when the
>> placebo group received GREATER benefit. Acupuncture was *no* *more*
>> *effective* than sham acupuncture.
>
> I disagree that using traditional points should be called "Sham"
> acupuncture.

That's what it was.

> And it was effective.

Placebo effect, dummy.

> A simple google search shows many AMA and research organizations
> researching acupuncture.

AMA doesn't carry out research, dumb ass.

> You're dismissal in this case is simply stupid.

I've only repeated what the study said AND concluded. There was no
difference between the two groups -- just between them and the control
group that received no sham or "real" treatment.

> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/acupuncture
>
> is but one example.

From it:
Acupuncture is used to treat a wide range of illnesses and
ailments; however, it is mainly used to control pain, including
cancer pain....

The aim of most acupuncture clinical observation and clinical
trials in cancer patients has been to evaluate the effects of
acupuncture on symptom management.

That gets to its benefits as a *touch therapy*, not to it working as a
cure. I've already conceded that touch therapies have value in reducing
stress and the effects of stress on both sick and healthy people. But
touch therapies like reflexology, massage, and acupuncture do NOT have
curative powers as the superstitious true-believers in them claim. I
gave you links to other therapies which have similar results to those:
music, laughter, and pets. You probably didn't click on those links, but
they're to studies that show the same KIND of benefit as was reported in
the study you lied about finding in Time magazine or as is typically
reported in other studies. That's important in improving a patient's
quality of life, but it doesn't cure cancer, migraines, etc.

Here are those links again. Tell me how acupuncture is qualitatively
diffrerent, especially with respect to the study you trotted out as
"proof" it "works" (when the researchers noted that the placebo group
received greater benefit than the "real" acupuncture group, dumb ass).

LAUGHTER
http://tinyurl.com/e2mn
http://tinyurl.com/e2mv

MUSIC
http://tinyurl.com/e2nb
http://tinyurl.com/e2nf

ANIMALS/PETS
http://tinyurl.com/e2nn
http://tinyurl.com/e2ns