pearl wrote:
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
>
wrote:
>
>
>>>Those last two sentences are contradictory.
>>
>>No, shev, they aren't. Palliative benefits from touch therapies like
>>massage (back, feet, whatever) may make it easier to live with
>>migraines, but they don't cure migraines.
>
>
> Altern Ther Health Med. 1999 May;5(3):57-65.

That's hardly The Lancet or JAMA.

> Comment in: Altern Ther Health Med. 1999 May;5(3):39-40.
> An exploratory study of reflexological treatment for headache.
> Launso L, Brendstrup E, Arnberg S.
> Department of Social Pharmacy, Royal Danish School of Pharmacy,
> Copenhagen, Denmark.
>
> CONTEXT: Headache is the most frequently reported symptom among
> Danish adults, and studies in various European countries indicate migraine
> headache prevalence rates similar to those in Denmark. OBJECTIVE: An
> exploratory study of reflexological treatment for headache was conducted
> from 1993 to 1994 to examine which patients with headache underwent a
> course of reflexological treatment, why patients sought reflexological
> treatment, what previous experience patients had with medication for
> headache, and what outcomes patients experienced from reflexological
> treatment. DESIGN: Prospective and exploratory study using random
> sampling and the following data collection methods: headache diaries,
> registration schemes for practitioners, questionnaires, and qualitative
> interviews.

Self-reporting and paper-pushing. This, like the others you've pasted
in, is not a double blind study. Here are some abstracts of double blind
studies about reflexology and its ******* cousin acupressu

Many asthma patients seek alternative or adjunctive therapies. One such
modality is reflexology, whereby finger pressure is applied to certain
parts of the body. The aim of the study was to examine the popular claim
that reflexology treatment benefits bronchial asthma. Ten weeks of
active or simulated (placebo) reflexology given by an experienced
reflexologist, were compared in an otherwise blind, controlled trial of
20+20 outpatients with asthma. Objective lung function tests (peak flow
morning and evening, and weekly spirometry at the clinic) did not
change. Subjective scores (describing symptoms, beta2-inhalations and
quality of life) and also bronchial sensitivity to histamine improved on
both regimens, but no differences were found between groups receiving
active or placebo reflexology. However, a trend in favour of reflexology
became significant when a supplementary analysis of symptom diaries was
carried out. It was accompanied by a significant pattern compatible with
subconscious unblinding, in that patients tended to guess which
treatment they had been receiving. No evidence was found that
reflexology has a specific effect on asthma beyond placebo influence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


Nausea and vomiting are major adverse effects during spinal anesthesia
for cesarean delivery. Stimulation of the P6 (Neiguan) acupoint is a
traditional Chinese acupuncture technique used for effective antiemetic
purposes. In this study, we evaluated the antiemetic effect of P6
acupressure in parturients during spinal anesthesia for cesarean
delivery. In a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, 110
parturients scheduled for elective cesarean delivery were enrolled in
the study. Thirty minutes before initiation of spinal anesthesia,
parturients were randomized to acupressure bands or placebo bands
bilaterally on the P6 acupoint and nausea and vomiting were observed
over the study period. There were no statistically significant
differences in maternal characteristics. Incidence rates for
intraoperative nausea were 64% (acupressure group) and 71% (control
group) (P = 0.416), with an incidence of intraoperative vomiting of 22%
(acupressure group) and 27% (control group) (P = 0.506). The results
suggest that prophylactic use of acupressure bands bilaterally on the P6
acupoint failed to prevent nausea and vomiting during spinal anesthesia
for cesarean delivery.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

<...>
> CONCLUSIONS: Reflexological treatment seems to improve patients'
> general well-being,

Neither a quantitative measure nor assessment.

> energy level,

Not quantitated.

> ability to interpret their own body signals,

This is not therapeutic.

> and ability to understand the reasons for headache.

This is not therapeutic. NOW PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEXT PART, YOU ****ING
IDIOT:

> However, these
> relationships may be due to other factors in the treatment environment.

That's what a double blind study can help weed out: see the two such
abstracts I cited above.

> Additional studies are necessary to determine the proximate cause of
> reflexology's therapeutic benefits.

Additional study would show that reflexology is a sham.