usual suspect wrote:
> 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.

Those were the results.
>
> 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.
>
I never said it did. There are false claims.
> 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).

They called it placebo, but it was genuine acupuncture, regardless of
them calling it sham.

Do a controlled replicated study replicating it these other therapies.


>
> 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