Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
In the recent issue of Newsweek it rported that both traditional and
treatment for specified migrade headaches worked compared to a placebo/ They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies were set up according to the scientific method. Acupuncture should be an area of research. Other studies have shown similar effects while practictioners have made wild claims. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
Beach Runner wrote:
> In the recent issue of Newsweek It's not on their site or in the issue I received this past week. > it rported that both traditional and > treatment for specified migrade headaches worked compared to a placebo/ Not according to the latest article I could find about migraines and acupunctu Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more pain relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. But they do get relief. That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German authors report. Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in migraine attacks. Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no treatment at all. http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 See also Newsweek's "reporting" on CAM: http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html > They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies were set > up according to the scientific method. You don't comprehend the scientific method. > Acupuncture should be an area of research. It's been thoroughly researched. Like other touch therapies, it has limited value in reducing stress and anxiety. It hasn't been show, though, to be a cure for anything. Other therapies have demonstrated a similar measure of benefit for reducing stress and improving "quality of life" for patients of various illnesses: 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 > Other studies have shown > similar effects Hogwash. The entire page below, from a pro-complementary and "alternative medicine" center, is worth reading. Here's what it says about acupunctu Of these approaches, acupuncture is the most prominent therapy to promote qi flow along the meridians. Acupuncture has been extensively studied and has been shown to be effective in treating some conditions, particularly certain forms of pain.1 However, its mechanism of action remains to be elucidated. The main threads of research on acupuncture have shown regional effects on neurotransmitter expression, but have not validated the existence of an "energy" per se. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm > while practictioners have made wild claims. That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific practice. Its effects are identical to those measured in laughter, music, and pets, as noted above; those other forms of therapy certainly don't involve being poked with needles that may be contaminated. The last issue is germane since most acupuncturists re-use needles. You won't be allowed to donate blood after you receive acupuncture unless your acupuncturist can confirm and validate he or she used sterile needles (some blood centers won't accept ANY donors who've received acupuncture). This should be of further concern you since you have a Chicken Little complex about vCJD (and normal CJD is probably more common in Florida than the rest of the country given the elderly population) -- can you sterilize prions, dummy? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
Excuse the top posting. It was made for you to be easy to find.
For your information. Time December 5,, page 63 usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> In the recent issue of Newsweek > > > It's not on their site or in the issue I received this past week. > >> it rported that both traditional and treatment for specified migrade >> headaches worked compared to a placebo/ > > > Not according to the latest article I could find about migraines and > acupunctu > Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more pain > relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. > > But they do get relief. > > That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of > the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine > acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German > authors report. > > Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients > experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each > treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in > migraine attacks. > > Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, > however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no > treatment at all. > http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 > > See also Newsweek's "reporting" on CAM: > http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html > >> They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies were >> set up according to the scientific method. > > > You don't comprehend the scientific method. > >> Acupuncture should be an area of research. > > > It's been thoroughly researched. Like other touch therapies, it has > limited value in reducing stress and anxiety. It hasn't been show, > though, to be a cure for anything. Other therapies have demonstrated a > similar measure of benefit for reducing stress and improving "quality of > life" for patients of various illnesses: > > 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 > >> Other studies have shown similar effects > > > Hogwash. The entire page below, from a pro-complementary and > "alternative medicine" center, is worth reading. Here's what it says > about acupunctu > > Of these approaches, acupuncture is the most prominent therapy > to promote qi flow along the meridians. Acupuncture has been > extensively studied and has been shown to be effective in > treating some conditions, particularly certain forms of pain.1 > However, its mechanism of action remains to be elucidated. The > main threads of research on acupuncture have shown regional > effects on neurotransmitter expression, but have not validated > the existence of an "energy" per se. > http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm > >> while practictioners have made wild claims. > > > That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific practice. Its > effects are identical to those measured in laughter, music, and pets, as > noted above; those other forms of therapy certainly don't involve being > poked with needles that may be contaminated. > > The last issue is germane since most acupuncturists re-use needles. You > won't be allowed to donate blood after you receive acupuncture unless > your acupuncturist can confirm and validate he or she used sterile > needles (some blood centers won't accept ANY donors who've received > acupuncture). This should be of further concern you since you have a > Chicken Little complex about vCJD (and normal CJD is probably more > common in Florida than the rest of the country given the elderly > population) -- can you sterilize prions, dummy? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
B-cup Bob wrote:
> Excuse the top posting. It was made for you to be easy to find. > > For your information. > > Time December 5,, page 63 It refers to the German study I cited previously: http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 Here's the BLURB from TIME (dummy): ACUPUNCTURE There is growing scientific evidence that acupuncture, a pillar of Chinese medicine, can relieve many kinds of pain, but there's no clear agreement about how it works. That was underscored by a German study of migraines: it found that inserting needles at various acupuncture points in the body relieved pain just as effectively as inserting them in the points that are supposed to affect migraines. Both therapies cut the number of episodes more than 50% over a 12-week period; a control group that did not receive either treatment continued to suffer as before. http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...134763,00.html So you ****ed it up yet again (no surprise). Let me explain it to you, eighth-wit. There were three groups. One group received "real" acupuncture. The second group received fake acupuncture. The third group was the control -- they received neither. The group receiving fake treatment had similar results as the group that received "real" acupuncture. So there is NO benefit above and beyond the placebo (fake acupuncture) effect. That means fake acupuncture is *just as beneficial* as "real" acupuncture -- or that "real" acupuncture is *just as bogus* as fake acupuncture. Take your pick. Acupuncture is only as beneficial as any other touch therapy, as I suggested before. Read the links to the abstracts about studies regarding laughter, pets, and music. Those are much safer because they don't require some nitwitted true believer to impale re-used needles into patients. > usual suspect wrote: > >> Beach Runner wrote: >> >>> In the recent issue of Newsweek >> >> >> >> It's not on their site or in the issue I received this past week. >> >>> it rported that both traditional and treatment for specified migrade >>> headaches worked compared to a placebo/ >> >> >> >> Not according to the latest article I could find about migraines and >> acupunctu > > >> Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more pain >> relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. >> >> But they do get relief. >> >> That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of >> the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine >> acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German >> authors report. >> >> Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients >> experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each >> treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in >> migraine attacks. >> >> Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, >> however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no >> treatment at all. >> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >> >> See also Newsweek's "reporting" on CAM: >> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html >> >>> They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies were >>> set up according to the scientific method. >> >> >> >> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >> >>> Acupuncture should be an area of research. >> >> >> >> It's been thoroughly researched. Like other touch therapies, it has >> limited value in reducing stress and anxiety. It hasn't been show, >> though, to be a cure for anything. Other therapies have demonstrated a >> similar measure of benefit for reducing stress and improving "quality >> of life" for patients of various illnesses: >> >> 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 >> >>> Other studies have shown similar effects >> >> >> >> Hogwash. The entire page below, from a pro-complementary and >> "alternative medicine" center, is worth reading. Here's what it says >> about acupunctu >> >> Of these approaches, acupuncture is the most prominent therapy >> to promote qi flow along the meridians. Acupuncture has been >> extensively studied and has been shown to be effective in >> treating some conditions, particularly certain forms of pain.1 >> However, its mechanism of action remains to be elucidated. The >> main threads of research on acupuncture have shown regional >> effects on neurotransmitter expression, but have not validated >> the existence of an "energy" per se. >> http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm >> >>> while practictioners have made wild claims. >> >> >> >> That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific practice. >> Its effects are identical to those measured in laughter, music, and >> pets, as noted above; those other forms of therapy certainly don't >> involve being poked with needles that may be contaminated. >> >> The last issue is germane since most acupuncturists re-use needles. >> You won't be allowed to donate blood after you receive acupuncture >> unless your acupuncturist can confirm and validate he or she used >> sterile needles (some blood centers won't accept ANY donors who've >> received acupuncture). This should be of further concern you since you >> have a Chicken Little complex about vCJD (and normal CJD is probably >> more common in Florida than the rest of the country given the elderly >> population) -- can you sterilize prions, dummy? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > B-cup Bob wrote: > >> Excuse the top posting. It was made for you to be easy to find. >> >> For your information. >> >> Time December 5,, page 63 > > > It refers to the German study I cited previously: > http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 > > Here's the BLURB from TIME (dummy): > > ACUPUNCTURE There is growing scientific evidence that > acupuncture, a pillar of Chinese medicine, can relieve many > kinds of pain, but there's no clear agreement about how it > works. That was underscored by a German study of migraines: it > found that inserting needles at various acupuncture points in > the body relieved pain just as effectively as inserting them in > the points that are supposed to affect migraines. Both therapies > cut the number of episodes more than 50% over a 12-week period; > a control group that did not receive either treatment continued > to suffer as before. > http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...134763,00.html > > So you ****ed it up yet again (no surprise). Let me explain it to you, > eighth-wit. There were three groups. One group received "real" > acupuncture. The second group received fake acupuncture. The third group > was the control -- they received neither. The group receiving fake > treatment had similar results as the group that received "real" > acupuncture. So there is NO benefit above and beyond the placebo (fake > acupuncture) effect. > > That means fake acupuncture is *just as beneficial* as "real" > acupuncture -- or that "real" acupuncture is *just as bogus* as fake > acupuncture. Take your pick. > > Acupuncture is only as beneficial as any other touch therapy, as I > suggested before. Read the links to the abstracts about studies > regarding laughter, pets, and music. Those are much safer because they > don't require some nitwitted true believer to impale re-used needles > into patients. > > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> Beach Runner wrote: >>> >>>> In the recent issue of Newsweek >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It's not on their site or in the issue I received this past week. >>> >>>> it rported that both traditional and treatment for specified migrade >>>> headaches worked compared to a placebo/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Not according to the latest article I could find about migraines and >>> acupunctu >> >> >> >>> Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more pain >>> relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. >>> >>> But they do get relief. >>> >>> That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of >>> the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine >>> acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German >>> authors report. >>> >>> Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients >>> experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each >>> treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in >>> migraine attacks. >>> >>> Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, >>> however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no >>> treatment at all. >>> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >>> >>> See also Newsweek's "reporting" on CAM: >>> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html >>> >>>> They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies were >>>> set up according to the scientific method. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >>> >>>> Acupuncture should be an area of research. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It's been thoroughly researched. Like other touch therapies, it has >>> limited value in reducing stress and anxiety. It hasn't been show, >>> though, to be a cure for anything. Other therapies have demonstrated >>> a similar measure of benefit for reducing stress and improving >>> "quality of life" for patients of various illnesses: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>>> Other studies have shown similar effects >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hogwash. The entire page below, from a pro-complementary and >>> "alternative medicine" center, is worth reading. Here's what it says >>> about acupunctu >>> >>> Of these approaches, acupuncture is the most prominent therapy >>> to promote qi flow along the meridians. Acupuncture has been >>> extensively studied and has been shown to be effective in >>> treating some conditions, particularly certain forms of pain.1 >>> However, its mechanism of action remains to be elucidated. The >>> main threads of research on acupuncture have shown regional >>> effects on neurotransmitter expression, but have not validated >>> the existence of an "energy" per se. >>> http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm >>> >>>> while practictioners have made wild claims. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific practice. >>> Its effects are identical to those measured in laughter, music, and >>> pets, as noted above; those other forms of therapy certainly don't >>> involve being poked with needles that may be contaminated. >>> >>> The last issue is germane since most acupuncturists re-use needles. >>> You won't be allowed to donate blood after you receive acupuncture >>> unless your acupuncturist can confirm and validate he or she used >>> sterile needles (some blood centers won't accept ANY donors who've >>> received acupuncture). This should be of further concern you since >>> you have a Chicken Little complex about vCJD (and normal CJD is >>> probably more common in Florida than the rest of the country given >>> the elderly population) -- can you sterilize prions, dummy? I've only seen sterile needles. Prove it. I just posted news no insults I certainly would only accept sterile needles. I've already stated vCJD is minor compared to excess meat consumption. But then we don't know the full extent due to the long gestation period. I bet many vCJD patients were labeled with other diseases. I pointed out an article from News week. I pointed it out to you since you were unable to find it. You turned it into another yet insult of me, yet Newsweek posted it as on the greatest contributions to medicine this year. Frankly, I think the jury is out. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
Beach Runner wrote: > > > usual suspect wrote: > >> B-cup Bob wrote: >> >>> Excuse the top posting. It was made for you to be easy to find. >>> >>> For your information. >>> >>> Time December 5,, page 63 >> >> >> >> It refers to the German study I cited previously: >> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >> >> Here's the BLURB from TIME (dummy): >> >> ACUPUNCTURE There is growing scientific evidence that >> acupuncture, a pillar of Chinese medicine, can relieve many >> kinds of pain, but there's no clear agreement about how it >> works. That was underscored by a German study of migraines: it >> found that inserting needles at various acupuncture points in >> the body relieved pain just as effectively as inserting them in >> the points that are supposed to affect migraines. Both therapies >> cut the number of episodes more than 50% over a 12-week period; >> a control group that did not receive either treatment continued >> to suffer as before. >> http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...134763,00.html No it meant traditional points were as effective as migraine specific points. But non specific points had no effect. Read it again. You missed the point. >> >> So you ****ed it up yet again (no surprise). No I did not. As explained above. Let me explain it to you, >> eighth-wit. There were three groups. One group received "real" >> acupuncture. The second group received fake acupuncture. The third >> group was the control -- they received neither. The group receiving >> fake treatment had similar results as the group that received "real" >> acupuncture. So there is NO benefit above and beyond the placebo (fake >> acupuncture) effect. I'm aware of placebo, fake effect. >> >> That means fake acupuncture is *just as beneficial* as "real" >> acupuncture -- or that "real" acupuncture is *just as bogus* as fake >> acupuncture. Take your pick. >> >> Acupuncture is only as beneficial as any other touch therapy, as I >> suggested before. Read the links to the abstracts about studies >> regarding laughter, pets, and music. Those are much safer because they >> don't require some nitwitted true believer to impale re-used needles >> into patients. >> Actually it wasn't according to this study. Read it again. >> >>> usual suspect wrote: >>> >>>> Beach Runner wrote: >>>> >>>>> In the recent issue of Newsweek >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's not on their site or in the issue I received this past week. >>>> >>>>> it rported that both traditional and treatment for specified >>>>> migrade headaches worked compared to a placebo. >>>> Non specific point are the placebo. You may not like it but that was the only way for the participants to be fooled. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not according to the latest article I could find about migraines and >>>> acupunctu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more pain >>>> relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. >>>> >>>> But they do get relief. >>>> >>>> That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of >>>> the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine >>>> acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German >>>> authors report. >>>> >>>> Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients >>>> experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each >>>> treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in >>>> migraine attacks. >>>> >>>> Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, >>>> however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no >>>> treatment at all. >>>> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >>>> >>>> See also Newsweek's "reporting" on CAM: >>>> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html >>>> >>>>> They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies were >>>>> set up according to the scientific method. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >>>> >>>>> Acupuncture should be an area of research. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's been thoroughly researched. Like other touch therapies, it has >>>> limited value in reducing stress and anxiety. It hasn't been show, >>>> though, to be a cure for anything. Other therapies have demonstrated >>>> a similar measure of benefit for reducing stress and improving >>>> "quality of life" for patients of various illnesses: >>>> No, it is an ancient art. Even surgery has been performed under accupuncture. It demands more research. BTW, though it doesn't meet your standards, it was listed as one of the 50 major medical breakthroughs in the last year. So scientists/jounalists disagree with you. >>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> Other studies have shown similar effects >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hogwash. The entire page below, from a pro-complementary and >>>> "alternative medicine" center, is worth reading. Here's what it says >>>> about acupunctu >>>> >>>> Of these approaches, acupuncture is the most prominent therapy >>>> to promote qi flow along the meridians. Acupuncture has been >>>> extensively studied and has been shown to be effective in >>>> treating some conditions, particularly certain forms of pain.1 >>>> However, its mechanism of action remains to be elucidated. The >>>> main threads of research on acupuncture have shown regional >>>> effects on neurotransmitter expression, but have not validated >>>> the existence of an "energy" per se. >>>> http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm >>>> >>>>> while practictioners have made wild claims. >>>> It means they don't understand it yet. Probably a lot of claims are pseudo. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific practice. >>>> Its effects are identical to those measured in laughter, music, and >>>> pets, as noted above; those other forms of therapy certainly don't >>>> involve being poked with needles that may be contaminated. >>>> >>>> The last issue is germane since most acupuncturists re-use needles. >>>> You won't be allowed to donate blood after you receive acupuncture >>>> unless your acupuncturist can confirm and validate he or she used >>>> sterile needles (some blood centers won't accept ANY donors who've >>>> received acupuncture). This should be of further concern you since >>>> you have a Chicken Little complex about vCJD (and normal CJD is >>>> probably more common in Florida than the rest of the country given >>>> the elderly population) -- can you sterilize prions, dummy? > > > I've only seen sterile needles. Prove it. I just posted news no > insults I certainly would only accept sterile needles. > > I've already stated vCJD is minor compared to excess meat consumption. > But then we don't know the full extent due to the long gestation period. > I bet many vCJD patients were labeled with other diseases. > > I pointed out an article from News week. I pointed it out to you since > you were unable to find it. You turned it into another yet insult of > me, yet Newsweek posted it as on the greatest contributions to medicine > this year. Frankly, I think the jury is out. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
Beach Runner wrote:
> > > usual suspect wrote: > >> B-cup Bob wrote: >> >>> Excuse the top posting. It was made for you to be easy to find. >>> >>> For your information. >>> >>> Time December 5,, page 63 >> >> >> >> It refers to the German study I cited previously: >> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >> >> Here's the BLURB from TIME (dummy): >> >> ACUPUNCTURE There is growing scientific evidence that >> acupuncture, a pillar of Chinese medicine, can relieve many >> kinds of pain, but there's no clear agreement about how it >> works. That was underscored by a German study of migraines: it >> found that inserting needles at various acupuncture points in >> the body relieved pain just as effectively as inserting them in >> the points that are supposed to affect migraines. Both therapies >> cut the number of episodes more than 50% over a 12-week period; >> a control group that did not receive either treatment continued >> to suffer as before. >> http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...134763,00.html >> >> So you ****ed it up yet again (no surprise). Let me explain it to you, >> eighth-wit. There were three groups. One group received "real" >> acupuncture. The second group received fake acupuncture. The third >> group was the control -- they received neither. The group receiving >> fake treatment had similar results as the group that received "real" >> acupuncture. So there is NO benefit above and beyond the placebo (fake >> acupuncture) effect. >> >> That means fake acupuncture is *just as beneficial* as "real" >> acupuncture -- or that "real" acupuncture is *just as bogus* as fake >> acupuncture. Take your pick. >> >> Acupuncture is only as beneficial as any other touch therapy, as I >> suggested before. Read the links to the abstracts about studies >> regarding laughter, pets, and music. Those are much safer because they >> don't require some nitwitted true believer to impale re-used needles >> into patients. >> >> >>> usual suspect wrote: >>> >>>> Beach Runner wrote: >>>> >>>>> In the recent issue of Newsweek >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's not on their site or in the issue I received this past week. >>>> >>>>> it rported that both traditional and treatment for specified >>>>> migrade headaches worked compared to a placebo/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not according to the latest article I could find about migraines and >>>> acupunctu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more pain >>>> relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. >>>> >>>> But they do get relief. >>>> >>>> That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of >>>> the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine >>>> acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German >>>> authors report. >>>> >>>> Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients >>>> experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each >>>> treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in >>>> migraine attacks. >>>> >>>> Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, >>>> however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no >>>> treatment at all. >>>> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >>>> >>>> See also Newsweek's "reporting" on CAM: >>>> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html >>>> >>>>> They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies were >>>>> set up according to the scientific method. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >>>> >>>>> Acupuncture should be an area of research. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's been thoroughly researched. Like other touch therapies, it has >>>> limited value in reducing stress and anxiety. It hasn't been show, >>>> though, to be a cure for anything. Other therapies have demonstrated >>>> a similar measure of benefit for reducing stress and improving >>>> "quality of life" for patients of various illnesses: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> Other studies have shown similar effects >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hogwash. The entire page below, from a pro-complementary and >>>> "alternative medicine" center, is worth reading. Here's what it says >>>> about acupunctu >>>> >>>> Of these approaches, acupuncture is the most prominent therapy >>>> to promote qi flow along the meridians. Acupuncture has been >>>> extensively studied and has been shown to be effective in >>>> treating some conditions, particularly certain forms of pain.1 >>>> However, its mechanism of action remains to be elucidated. The >>>> main threads of research on acupuncture have shown regional >>>> effects on neurotransmitter expression, but have not validated >>>> the existence of an "energy" per se. >>>> http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm >>>> >>>>> while practictioners have made wild claims. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific practice. >>>> Its effects are identical to those measured in laughter, music, and >>>> pets, as noted above; those other forms of therapy certainly don't >>>> involve being poked with needles that may be contaminated. >>>> >>>> The last issue is germane since most acupuncturists re-use needles. >>>> You won't be allowed to donate blood after you receive acupuncture >>>> unless your acupuncturist can confirm and validate he or she used >>>> sterile needles (some blood centers won't accept ANY donors who've >>>> received acupuncture). This should be of further concern you since >>>> you have a Chicken Little complex about vCJD (and normal CJD is >>>> probably more common in Florida than the rest of the country given >>>> the elderly population) -- can you sterilize prions, dummy? > > > I've only seen sterile needles. How would you know the difference? > Prove it. Red Cross: Donors who have undergone acupuncture treatments are acceptable as long as the donor can confirm that the needles used in the treatment were sterile. Donors who cannot confirm that sterile needles were used in the acupuncture treatment are deferred from donating for 12 months. http://www.redcross.org/services/bio...7_,00.html#acu Also: Is acupuncture safe? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved acupuncture needles for use by licensed practitioners in 1996. The FDA requires that sterile, nontoxic needles be used and that they be labeled for single use by qualified practitioners only. Relatively few complications from the use of acupuncture have been reported to the FDA in light of the millions of people treated each year and the number of acupuncture needles used. STILL, COMPLICATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM INADEQUATE STERILIZATION OF NEEDLES AND FROM IMPROPER DELIVERY OF TREATMENTS. Practitioners should use a new set of disposable needles taken from a sealed package for each patient and should swab treatment sites with alcohol or another disinfectant before inserting needles. When not delivered properly, acupuncture can cause serious adverse effects, including infections and punctured organs. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/#safe (my emphasis) > I just posted news You got it wrong. As usual. > I certainly would only accept sterile needles. How the **** would you know if the needles were sterile or not? > I've already stated vCJD is minor compared to excess meat consumption. Risks of vCJD, hepatitis, etc., are much greater from contact with body fluids -- i.e., needles -- than from eating meat. You'd have to eat specific parts (e.g., brain or spinal cord tissue) from an infected animal to even be at risk. Acupuncture with re-used needles is no different than sharing a hypodermic syringe with others. > But then we don't know the full extent due to the long gestation period. It's not a "gestation" period, dumb ass. It's a *window* from the period of infection to manifestation of symptoms. What we *do* know about vCJD is that there is a steep decline in reports of new cases -- which coincides with measures adopted once there was an observed problem. We also know the "epidemic" -- under 200 cases thus far -- is regionally concentrated in one region (UK). > I bet many vCJD patients were labeled with other diseases. Doubtful. Look at the chart on the following link to see the number of BSE cases reported from 1987-2000. Note that the steep decline in the new cases of vCJD, from links I've provided you previously, fit that same pattern. There is no pandemic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta.../bse_cases.stm > I pointed out an article from News week. TIME. Dumb ass. > I pointed it out to you since > you were unable to find it. I would've been able to find it had you not been inaccurate about which magazine you read it. ****. > You turned it into another yet insult of me, The fact that you continue to say Newsweek insults yourself. > yet Newsweek *TIME*! You ****ing goof. > posted it as on the greatest contributions to medicine > this year. Logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Time magazine isn't a medical journal, nor did that blurb -- not an article -- suggest it's a contribution to medicine. All it said was those who received the placebo received the same benefit as those who received "real" acupuncture. That doesn't make acupuncture appear particularly "good" -- it just shows it to be a fraud. > Frankly, I think the jury is out. Acupuncture group: benefit. Placebo group: benefit. Control group: no benefit. The jury's verdict is IN and acupuncture has *no* benefit beyond placebo effect. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
B-cup Bob wrote:
>>>> Excuse the top posting. It was made for you to be easy to find. >>>> >>>> For your information. >>>> >>>> Time December 5,, page 63 >>> >>> It refers to the German study I cited previously: >>> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >>> >>> Here's the BLURB from TIME (dummy): >>> >>> ACUPUNCTURE There is growing scientific evidence that >>> acupuncture, a pillar of Chinese medicine, can relieve many >>> kinds of pain, but there's no clear agreement about how it >>> works. That was underscored by a German study of migraines: it >>> found that inserting needles at various acupuncture points in >>> the body relieved pain just as effectively as inserting them in >>> the points that are supposed to affect migraines. Both therapies >>> cut the number of episodes more than 50% over a 12-week period; >>> a control group that did not receive either treatment continued >>> to suffer as before. >>> http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...134763,00.html > > No *YES*. The placebo group and the acupuncture group had the SAME results. There is nothing "special" about acupuncture aside from its benefits as a touch therapy. > it meant traditional points were as effective as migraine specific > points. Perhaps you should read it again after the medication wears off, dumb ass. It's a placebo effect. > But non specific points had no effect. Read it again. You > missed the point. I got the point -- you're the one who doesn't comprehend it. >>> So you ****ed it up yet again (no surprise). > > No I did not. As explained above. Yes, you did. > Let me explain it to you, > >>> eighth-wit. There were three groups. One group received "real" >>> acupuncture. The second group received fake acupuncture. The third >>> group was the control -- they received neither. The group receiving >>> fake treatment had similar results as the group that received "real" >>> acupuncture. So there is NO benefit above and beyond the placebo >>> (fake acupuncture) effect. > > I'm aware of placebo, fake effect. Then stop peddling this as "proof" of acupuncture's claims when it totally refutes them. >>> That means fake acupuncture is *just as beneficial* as "real" >>> acupuncture -- or that "real" acupuncture is *just as bogus* as fake >>> acupuncture. Take your pick. >>> >>> Acupuncture is only as beneficial as any other touch therapy, as I >>> suggested before. Read the links to the abstracts about studies >>> regarding laughter, pets, and music. Those are much safer because >>> they don't require some nitwitted true believer to impale re-used >>> needles into patients. > > Actually it wasn't according to this study. Read it again. You didn't read the study. You referred to a blurb about it in TIME magazine. Here's what another site says about it: Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more pain relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. NOTE TO DUMMY: *SHAM* TREATMENT. But they do get relief. That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German authors report. Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in migraine attacks. Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, NOTE TO DUMMY: *MOCK* TREATMENT. however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no treatment at all. http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 Note the methodology given in the above link: For the new study, Linde and his colleagues randomly assigned 302 migraine patients to receive acupuncture, sham acupuncture or placement on a "waiting list" for acupuncture. The real and bogus acupuncture treatments consisted of 12 30-minute sessions administered over an eight-week period by specially trained physicians. In the sham procedure, needles were placed at non-acupuncture points. Patients on the waiting list served as the control group. Nine to 12 weeks after a baseline assessment, patients in the acupuncture and sham treatment groups experienced a similar reduction in the average number of days that they suffered moderate or severe headaches. Furthermore, The findings, published in the May 4 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, seem to leave acupuncture's usefulness for migraine relief *open to interpretation*. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement. It was a placebo effect. The placebo group -- receiving FAKE, SHAM, BOGUS acupuncture -- fared just as well as the "real" acupuncture group. Acupuncture is complete bullshit, a waste of time and money. It can also be dangerous: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved acupuncture needles for use by licensed practitioners in 1996. The FDA requires that sterile, nontoxic needles be used and that they be labeled for single use by qualified practitioners only. Relatively few complications from the use of acupuncture have been reported to the FDA in light of the millions of people treated each year and the number of acupuncture needles used. STILL, COMPLICATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM INADEQUATE STERILIZATION OF NEEDLES AND FROM IMPROPER DELIVERY OF TREATMENTS. Practitioners should use a new set of disposable needles taken from a sealed package for each patient and should swab treatment sites with alcohol or another disinfectant before inserting needles. When not delivered properly, acupuncture can cause serious adverse effects, including infections and punctured organs. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/#safe (my emphasis) >>>> usual suspect wrote: >>>> >>>>> Beach Runner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In the recent issue of Newsweek >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not on their site or in the issue I received this past week. >>>>> >>>>>> it rported that both traditional and treatment for specified >>>>>> migrade headaches worked compared to a placebo. >>>>> > > Non specific point are the placebo. 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 specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 after randomization. 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 > You may not like it but that was the > only way for the participants to be fooled. Both the placebo (SHAM) and "real" acupuncture groups were "fooled." Acupuncture's benefits are placebo effect. The researchers concluded, "Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing migraine headaches..." >>>>> Not according to the latest article I could find about migraines >>>>> and acupunctu >>>> >>>>> Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more >>>>> pain relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. >>>>> >>>>> But they do get relief. >>>>> >>>>> That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of >>>>> the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine >>>>> acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German >>>>> authors report. >>>>> >>>>> Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients >>>>> experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each >>>>> treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in >>>>> migraine attacks. >>>>> >>>>> Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, >>>>> however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no >>>>> treatment at all. >>>>> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >>>>> >>>>> See also Newsweek's "reporting" on CAM: >>>>> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html >>>>> >>>>>> They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies >>>>>> were set up according to the scientific method. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >>>>> >>>>>> Acupuncture should be an area of research. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's been thoroughly researched. Like other touch therapies, it has >>>>> limited value in reducing stress and anxiety. It hasn't been show, >>>>> though, to be a cure for anything. Other therapies have >>>>> demonstrated a similar measure of benefit for reducing stress and >>>>> improving "quality of life" for patients of various illnesses: > > No, it is an ancient art. It's a con, as established by the reserachers in that study. > Even surgery has been performed under > accupuncture. I've conceded it has value as a touch therapy. I don't think, though, touch therapy is a suitable substitute for appropriate anasthesia. > It demands more research. Why? The study you boasted about shows a placebo effect -- consistent with other touch therapies. > BTW, though it doesn't meet > your standards, It doesn't meet *scientific* standards. > it was listed as one of the 50 major medical > breakthroughs in the last year. In a popular news magazine -- not by a scientific or medical journal. > So scientists/jounalists disagree with > you. *False*, and logical fallacy of appealing to authority -- Time magazine is not the arbiter of science or truth. The study's authors concluded: Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing migraine headaches although both interventions were more effective than a waiting list control. >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>> Other studies have shown similar effects >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hogwash. The entire page below, from a pro-complementary and >>>>> "alternative medicine" center, is worth reading. Here's what it >>>>> says about acupunctu >>>>> >>>>> Of these approaches, acupuncture is the most prominent therapy >>>>> to promote qi flow along the meridians. Acupuncture has been >>>>> extensively studied and has been shown to be effective in >>>>> treating some conditions, particularly certain forms of pain.1 >>>>> However, its mechanism of action remains to be elucidated. The >>>>> main threads of research on acupuncture have shown regional >>>>> effects on neurotransmitter expression, but have not validated >>>>> the existence of an "energy" per se. >>>>> http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm >>>>> >>>>>> while practictioners have made wild claims. >>>>> > > It means they don't understand it yet. Probably a lot of claims are > pseudo. All of yours are. >>>>> That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific practice. >>>>> Its effects are identical to those measured in laughter, music, and >>>>> pets, as noted above; those other forms of therapy certainly don't >>>>> involve being poked with needles that may be contaminated. >>>>> >>>>> The last issue is germane since most acupuncturists re-use needles. >>>>> You won't be allowed to donate blood after you receive acupuncture >>>>> unless your acupuncturist can confirm and validate he or she used >>>>> sterile needles (some blood centers won't accept ANY donors who've >>>>> received acupuncture). This should be of further concern you since >>>>> you have a Chicken Little complex about vCJD (and normal CJD is >>>>> probably more common in Florida than the rest of the country given >>>>> the elderly population) -- can you sterilize prions, dummy? >> >> I've only seen sterile needles. Prove it. I just posted news no >> insults I certainly would only accept sterile needles. >> >> I've already stated vCJD is minor compared to excess meat consumption. >> But then we don't know the full extent due to the long gestation >> period. I bet many vCJD patients were labeled with other diseases. >> >> I pointed out an article from News week. I pointed it out to you >> since you were unable to find it. You turned it into another yet >> insult of me, yet Newsweek posted it as on the greatest contributions >> to medicine this year. Frankly, I think the jury is out. Still haven't figured out how NOT to respond to your own posts, have you. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > B-cup Bob wrote: > >>>>> Excuse the top posting. It was made for you to be easy to find. >>>>> >>>>> For your information. >>>>> >>>>> Time December 5,, page 63 >>>> >>>> >>>> It refers to the German study I cited previously: >>>> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >>>> >>>> Here's the BLURB from TIME (dummy): >>>> >>>> ACUPUNCTURE There is growing scientific evidence that >>>> acupuncture, a pillar of Chinese medicine, can relieve many >>>> kinds of pain, but there's no clear agreement about how it >>>> works. That was underscored by a German study of migraines: it >>>> found that inserting needles at various acupuncture points in >>>> the body relieved pain just as effectively as inserting them in >>>> the points that are supposed to affect migraines. Both therapies >>>> cut the number of episodes more than 50% over a 12-week period; >>>> a control group that did not receive either treatment continued >>>> to suffer as before. >>>> http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...134763,00.html >> >> >> No > > > *YES*. The placebo group and the acupuncture group had the SAME results. > There is nothing "special" about acupuncture aside from its benefits as > a touch therapy. > >> it meant traditional points were as effective as migraine specific >> points. > > > Perhaps you should read it again after the medication wears off, dumb > ass. It's a placebo effect. > >> But non specific points had no effect. Read it again. You missed the >> point. > > > I got the point -- you're the one who doesn't comprehend it. > >>>> So you ****ed it up yet again (no surprise). >> >> >> No I did not. As explained above. > > > Yes, you did. > >> Let me explain it to you, >> >>>> eighth-wit. There were three groups. One group received "real" >>>> acupuncture. The second group received fake acupuncture. The third >>>> group was the control -- they received neither. The group receiving >>>> fake treatment had similar results as the group that received "real" >>>> acupuncture. So there is NO benefit above and beyond the placebo >>>> (fake acupuncture) effect. >> >> That's not accurate. The groups that both had effect used either traditional acupuncture placement, or ones specialized for migraines. Just needles regardless of placement had no effect. THAT was the placebo. Read the article again, or if others wish to, verify what I wrote is the truth. Incidentally, you couldn't find it, and out of the kindness of my heart I posted where it was. A polite person would say thank you. >> I'm aware of placebo, fake effect. > > > Then stop peddling this as "proof" of acupuncture's claims when it > totally refutes them. > >>>> That means fake acupuncture is *just as beneficial* as "real" >>>> acupuncture -- or that "real" acupuncture is *just as bogus* as fake >>>> acupuncture. Take your pick. >>>> Your opinion. >>>> Acupuncture is only as beneficial as any other touch therapy, as I >>>> suggested before. Read the links to the abstracts about studies >>>> regarding laughter, pets, and music. Those are much safer because >>>> they don't require some nitwitted true believer to impale re-used >>>> needles into patients. >> >> >> Actually it wasn't according to this study. Read it again. > > > You didn't read the study. You referred to a blurb about it in TIME > magazine. Here's what another site says about it: > > Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more pain > relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. > > NOTE TO DUMMY: *SHAM* TREATMENT. > > > But they do get relief. > > That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of > the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine > acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German > authors report. > > Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients > experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each > treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in > migraine attacks. > > Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, > > NOTE TO DUMMY: *MOCK* TREATMENT. > > however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no > treatment at all. > http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 > > > Note the methodology given in the above link: > For the new study, Linde and his colleagues randomly assigned > 302 migraine patients to receive acupuncture, sham acupuncture > or placement on a "waiting list" for acupuncture. > > The real and bogus acupuncture treatments consisted of 12 > 30-minute sessions administered over an eight-week period by > specially trained physicians. In the sham procedure, needles > were placed at non-acupuncture points. Patients on the waiting > list served as the control group. > > Nine to 12 weeks after a baseline assessment, patients in the > acupuncture and sham treatment groups experienced a similar > reduction in the average number of days that they suffered > moderate or severe headaches. > > Furthermore, > > The findings, published in the May 4 issue of the Journal of the > American Medical Association, seem to leave acupuncture's > usefulness for migraine relief *open to interpretation*. > > That's not exactly a ringing endorsement. It was a placebo effect. The > placebo group -- receiving FAKE, SHAM, BOGUS acupuncture -- fared just > as well as the "real" acupuncture group. Acupuncture is complete > bullshit, a waste of time and money. It can also be dangerous: > > The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved acupuncture > needles for use by licensed practitioners in 1996. The FDA > requires that sterile, nontoxic needles be used and that they be > labeled for single use by qualified practitioners only. > > Relatively few complications from the use of acupuncture have > been reported to the FDA in light of the millions of people > treated each year and the number of acupuncture needles used. > STILL, COMPLICATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM INADEQUATE STERILIZATION > OF NEEDLES AND FROM IMPROPER DELIVERY OF TREATMENTS. > Practitioners should use a new set of disposable needles taken > from a sealed package for each patient and should swab treatment > sites with alcohol or another disinfectant before inserting > needles. When not delivered properly, acupuncture can cause > serious adverse effects, including infections and punctured > organs. > http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/#safe > (my emphasis) > >>>>> usual suspect wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Beach Runner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In the recent issue of Newsweek >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not on their site or in the issue I received this past week. >>>>>> >>>>>>> it rported that both traditional and treatment for specified >>>>>>> migrade headaches worked compared to a placebo. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> Non specific point are the placebo. > > > 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 > specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient > over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks > before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 > after randomization. > > 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 > >> You may not like it but that was the only way for the participants to >> be fooled. > > > Both the placebo (SHAM) and "real" acupuncture groups were "fooled." > Acupuncture's benefits are placebo effect. The researchers concluded, > "Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing > migraine headaches..." > >>>>>> Not according to the latest article I could find about migraines >>>>>> and acupunctu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more >>>>>> pain relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. >>>>>> >>>>>> But they do get relief. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of >>>>>> the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine >>>>>> acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German >>>>>> authors report. >>>>>> >>>>>> Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients >>>>>> experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each >>>>>> treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in >>>>>> migraine attacks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, >>>>>> however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no >>>>>> treatment at all. >>>>>> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >>>>>> >>>>>> See also Newsweek's "reporting" on CAM: >>>>>> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html >>>>>> >>>>>>> They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies >>>>>>> were set up according to the scientific method. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Acupuncture should be an area of research. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's been thoroughly researched. Like other touch therapies, it >>>>>> has limited value in reducing stress and anxiety. It hasn't been >>>>>> show, though, to be a cure for anything. Other therapies have >>>>>> demonstrated a similar measure of benefit for reducing stress and >>>>>> improving "quality of life" for patients of various illnesses: >> >> >> No, it is an ancient art. > > > It's a con, as established by the reserachers in that study. > >> Even surgery has been performed under accupuncture. > > > I've conceded it has value as a touch therapy. I don't think, though, > touch therapy is a suitable substitute for appropriate anasthesia. > >> It demands more research. > > > Why? The study you boasted about shows a placebo effect -- consistent > with other touch therapies. > >> BTW, though it doesn't meet your standards, > > > It doesn't meet *scientific* standards. > >> it was listed as one of the 50 major medical breakthroughs in the last >> year. > > > In a popular news magazine -- not by a scientific or medical journal. > >> So scientists/jounalists disagree with you. > > > *False*, and logical fallacy of appealing to authority -- Time magazine > is not the arbiter of science or truth. The study's authors concluded: > > Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in > reducing migraine headaches although both interventions were > more effective than a waiting list control. > > >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>> Other studies have shown similar effects >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hogwash. The entire page below, from a pro-complementary and >>>>>> "alternative medicine" center, is worth reading. Here's what it >>>>>> says about acupunctu >>>>>> >>>>>> Of these approaches, acupuncture is the most prominent therapy >>>>>> to promote qi flow along the meridians. Acupuncture has been >>>>>> extensively studied and has been shown to be effective in >>>>>> treating some conditions, particularly certain forms of pain.1 >>>>>> However, its mechanism of action remains to be elucidated. The >>>>>> main threads of research on acupuncture have shown regional >>>>>> effects on neurotransmitter expression, but have not validated >>>>>> the existence of an "energy" per se. >>>>>> http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm >>>>>> >>>>>>> while practictioners have made wild claims. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> It means they don't understand it yet. Probably a lot of claims are >> pseudo. > > > All of yours are. > >>>>>> That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific >>>>>> practice. Its effects are identical to those measured in laughter, >>>>>> music, and pets, as noted above; those other forms of therapy >>>>>> certainly don't involve being poked with needles that may be >>>>>> contaminated. >>>>>> >>>>>> The last issue is germane since most acupuncturists re-use >>>>>> needles. You won't be allowed to donate blood after you receive >>>>>> acupuncture unless your acupuncturist can confirm and validate he >>>>>> or she used sterile needles (some blood centers won't accept ANY >>>>>> donors who've received acupuncture). This should be of further >>>>>> concern you since you have a Chicken Little complex about vCJD >>>>>> (and normal CJD is probably more common in Florida than the rest >>>>>> of the country given the elderly population) -- can you sterilize >>>>>> prions, dummy? >>> >>> >>> I've only seen sterile needles. Prove it. I just posted news no >>> insults I certainly would only accept sterile needles. >>> >>> I've already stated vCJD is minor compared to excess meat consumption. >>> But then we don't know the full extent due to the long gestation >>> period. I bet many vCJD patients were labeled with other diseases. >>> >>> I pointed out an article from News week. I pointed it out to you >>> since you were unable to find it. You turned it into another yet >>> insult of me, yet Newsweek posted it as on the greatest contributions >>> to medicine this year. Frankly, I think the jury is out. > > > Still haven't figured out how NOT to respond to your own posts, have you. Well, according to News week it was one of the medical discoveries of the year. I invite other's to read the page specified for accuracy. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> >> >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> B-cup Bob wrote: >>> >>>> Excuse the top posting. It was made for you to be easy to find. >>>> >>>> For your information. >>>> >>>> Time December 5,, page 63 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It refers to the German study I cited previously: >>> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >>> >>> Here's the BLURB from TIME (dummy): >>> >>> ACUPUNCTURE There is growing scientific evidence that >>> acupuncture, a pillar of Chinese medicine, can relieve many >>> kinds of pain, but there's no clear agreement about how it >>> works. That was underscored by a German study of migraines: it >>> found that inserting needles at various acupuncture points in >>> the body relieved pain just as effectively as inserting them in >>> the points that are supposed to affect migraines. Both therapies >>> cut the number of episodes more than 50% over a 12-week period; >>> a control group that did not receive either treatment continued >>> to suffer as before. >>> http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...134763,00.html >>> >>> So you ****ed it up yet again (no surprise). Let me explain it to >>> you, eighth-wit. There were three groups. One group received "real" >>> acupuncture. The second group received fake acupuncture. The third >>> group was the control -- they received neither. The group receiving >>> fake treatment had similar results as the group that received "real" >>> acupuncture. So there is NO benefit above and beyond the placebo >>> (fake acupuncture) effect. >>> >>> That means fake acupuncture is *just as beneficial* as "real" >>> acupuncture -- or that "real" acupuncture is *just as bogus* as fake >>> acupuncture. Take your pick. >>> It means that traditional acupuncture points were as effective. Random placement was ineffective. >>> Acupuncture is only as beneficial as any other touch therapy, as I >>> suggested before. Read the links to the abstracts about studies >>> regarding laughter, pets, and music. Those are much safer because >>> they don't require some nitwitted true believer to impale re-used >>> needles into patients. >>> >>> >>>> usual suspect wrote: >>>> >>>>> Beach Runner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In the recent issue of Newsweek >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not on their site or in the issue I received this past week. >>>>> >>>>>> it rported that both traditional and treatment for specified >>>>>> migrade headaches worked compared to a placebo/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not according to the latest article I could find about migraines >>>>> and acupunctu >>>> >>>> I referred to the article article you were unable to find. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Migraine headache sufferers who use acupuncture get no more >>>>> pain relief than those who undergo a sham treatment. >>>>> >>>>> But they do get relief. >>>>> >>>>> That is the result of a randomized, multi-center trial, one of >>>>> the largest and most rigorous studies yet to examine >>>>> acupuncture's effectiveness for migraine, the study's German >>>>> authors report. >>>>> >>>>> Both treatments reduced the number of days that patients >>>>> experienced moderate to severe pain, with more than half of each >>>>> treatment group reporting at least a 50 percent reduction in >>>>> migraine attacks. >>>>> >>>>> Whether patients received real acupuncture or a mock procedure, >>>>> however, their outcomes were better than those receiving no >>>>> treatment at all. >>>>> http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/new...p?docID=525507 >>>>> >>>>> See also Newsweek's "reporting" on CAM: >>>>> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html >>>>> >>>>>> They don't know why but the results defied chance, the studies >>>>>> were set up according to the scientific method. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. I understand the scientific method. >>>>> >>>>>> Acupuncture should be an area of research. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's been thoroughly researched. Like other touch therapies, it has >>>>> limited value in reducing stress and anxiety. It hasn't been show, >>>>> though, to be a cure for anything. Other therapies have >>>>> demonstrated a similar measure of benefit for reducing stress and >>>>> improving "quality of life" for patients of various illnesses: >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>> Other studies have shown similar effects >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hogwash. The entire page below, from a pro-complementary and >>>>> "alternative medicine" center, is worth reading. Here's what it >>>>> says about acupunctu >>>>> >>>>> Of these approaches, acupuncture is the most prominent therapy >>>>> to promote qi flow along the meridians. Acupuncture has been >>>>> extensively studied and has been shown to be effective in >>>>> treating some conditions, particularly certain forms of pain.1 >>>>> However, its mechanism of action remains to be elucidated. The >>>>> main threads of research on acupuncture have shown regional >>>>> effects on neurotransmitter expression, but have not validated >>>>> the existence of an "energy" per se. >>>>> http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm >>>>> >>>>>> while practictioners have made wild claims. >>>>> I agree practitioners make wild claims. Pain studies are more interesting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific practice. >>>>> Its effects are identical to those measured in laughter, music, and >>>>> pets, as noted above; those other forms of therapy certainly don't >>>>> involve being poked with needles that may be contaminated. >>>>> The scientific method can certainly be applied to studies. >>>>> The last issue is germane since most acupuncturists re-use needles. >>>>> You won't be allowed to donate blood after you receive acupuncture >>>>> unless your acupuncturist can confirm and validate he or she used >>>>> sterile needles (some blood centers won't accept ANY donors who've >>>>> received acupuncture). This should be of further concern you since >>>>> you have a Chicken Little complex about vCJD (and normal CJD is >>>>> probably more common in Florida than the rest of the country given >>>>> the elderly population) -- can you sterilize prions, dummy? >> >> >> >> I've only seen sterile needles. > > > How would you know the difference? > >> Prove it. > > > Red Cross: > Donors who have undergone acupuncture treatments are acceptable > as long as the donor can confirm that the needles used in the > treatment were sterile. Donors who cannot confirm that sterile > needles were used in the acupuncture treatment are deferred from > donating for 12 months. > http://www.redcross.org/services/bio...7_,00.html#acu > > Also: > Is acupuncture safe? > The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved acupuncture > needles for use by licensed practitioners in 1996. The FDA > requires that sterile, nontoxic needles be used and that they be > labeled for single use by qualified practitioners only. I would only use FDA needles and on muscle spasms, where I have found they helped. > > Relatively few complications from the use of acupuncture have > been reported to the FDA in light of the millions of people > treated each year and the number of acupuncture needles used. > STILL, COMPLICATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM INADEQUATE STERILIZATION > OF NEEDLES AND FROM IMPROPER DELIVERY OF TREATMENTS. May I remind you that medical treatment is the 6th leading case of illness? > Practitioners should use a new set of disposable needles taken > from a sealed package for each patient and should swab treatment > sites with alcohol or another disinfectant before inserting > needles. When not delivered properly, acupuncture can cause > serious adverse effects, including infections and punctured > organs. Proper training is essential. We don't understand it, yet we have observed operations performed under acupuncture. Obviously we need more training. > http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/#safe > (my emphasis) > >> I just posted news > > > You got it wrong. As usual. > >> I certainly would only accept sterile needles. > > > How the **** would you know if the needles were sterile or not? FDA regulations. > >> I've already stated vCJD is minor compared to excess meat consumption. > > > Risks of vCJD, hepatitis, etc., are much greater from contact with body > fluids -- i.e., needles -- than from eating meat. You'd have to eat > specific parts (e.g., brain or spinal cord tissue) from an infected > animal to even be at risk. Acupuncture with re-used needles is no > different than sharing a hypodermic syringe with others. > >> But then we don't know the full extent due to the long gestation period. > > > It's not a "gestation" period, dumb ass. It's a *window* from the period > of infection to manifestation of symptoms. What we *do* know about vCJD > is that there is a steep decline in reports of new cases -- which > coincides with measures adopted once there was an observed problem. We > also know the "epidemic" -- under 200 cases thus far -- is regionally > concentrated in one region (UK). > >> I bet many vCJD patients were labeled with other diseases. > > > Doubtful. Look at the chart on the following link to see the number of > BSE cases reported from 1987-2000. Note that the steep decline in the > new cases of vCJD, from links I've provided you previously, fit that > same pattern. There is no pandemic. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta.../bse_cases.stm > > >> I pointed out an article from News week. > > > TIME. Dumb ass. > >> I pointed it out to you since you were unable to find it. > > > I would've been able to find it had you not been inaccurate about which > magazine you read it. ****. > >> You turned it into another yet insult of me, > > > The fact that you continue to say Newsweek insults yourself. > >> yet Newsweek > > > *TIME*! You ****ing goof. > OK, I was i the hospital last week. A 1/2 day procedures turned into a week. I'm glad, as a condition from when I was 5 caused scar tissue which grew for 45 years, it was discovered after all these years. Guess the doctor when I was 5 should have taken me to a hospital. It was a medical mistakes. I was out of it this week, as any normal person would have been. Major surgery. It should have been done right when I was 5 or fixed when I much younger. If I mixed the magazines I apologize. That week I was out of it for a good reason. >> posted it as on the greatest contributions to medicine this year. > > > Logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Time magazine isn't a medical > journal, nor did that blurb -- not an article -- suggest it's a > contribution to medicine. All it said was those who received the placebo > received the same benefit as those who received "real" acupuncture. That > doesn't make acupuncture appear particularly "good" -- it just shows it > to be a fraud. It was listed as one of the top 50 findings. I agree more research is necessary. > >> Frankly, I think the jury is out. Not yet. It an area for research, but enough was shown to justify further research. > > > Acupuncture group: benefit. > Placebo group: benefit. > Control group: no benefit. > > The jury's verdict is IN and acupuncture has *no* benefit beyond placebo > effect. In that study it reduced migraines using traditional or specialized points. Of course, like all scientific studies, they must be replicated. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
B-cup Bob wrote:
> It means that traditional acupuncture points were as effective. Random > placement was ineffective. Bullshit, you ****ing imbecile. From the study's abstract: Interventions Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list control. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture were administered by specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 after randomization.... 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 What part of "Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing migraine headaches" do you not comprehend? > I referred to the article article you were unable to find. 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? >>>>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. > > I understand the scientific method. No, you do not, nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between a blurb about a study and the study itself. The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > I agree practitioners make wild claims. So do you, asshole. >>>>>> That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific >>>>>> practice. Its effects are identical to those measured in laughter, >>>>>> music, and pets, as noted above; those other forms of therapy >>>>>> certainly don't involve being poked with needles that may be >>>>>> contaminated. > > The scientific method can certainly be applied to studies. And when the scientific method was applied to the question of the benefits of acupuncture in treating migraines, the study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." There was only a placebo effect -- just as one would expect in any other touch therapy. >>> I've only seen sterile needles. >> >> How would you know the difference? >> >>> Prove it. >> >> Red Cross: >> Donors who have undergone acupuncture treatments are acceptable >> as long as the donor can confirm that the needles used in the >> treatment were sterile. Donors who cannot confirm that sterile >> needles were used in the acupuncture treatment are deferred from >> donating for 12 months. >> http://www.redcross.org/services/bio...7_,00.html#acu >> >> Also: >> Is acupuncture safe? >> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved acupuncture >> needles for use by licensed practitioners in 1996. The FDA >> requires that sterile, nontoxic needles be used and that they be >> labeled for single use by qualified practitioners only. > > I would only use FDA needles What kind would your *acupuncturist* use? >> Relatively few complications from the use of acupuncture have >> been reported to the FDA in light of the millions of people >> treated each year and the number of acupuncture needles used. >> STILL, COMPLICATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM INADEQUATE STERILIZATION >> OF NEEDLES AND FROM IMPROPER DELIVERY OF TREATMENTS. > > May I remind you that No. The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." >> Practitioners should use a new set of disposable needles taken >> from a sealed package for each patient and should swab treatment >> sites with alcohol or another disinfectant before inserting >> needles. When not delivered properly, acupuncture can cause >> serious adverse effects, including infections and punctured >> organs. > > Proper training is essential. Not when the study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > We don't understand it, We do, too: the study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." >> http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/#safe >> (my emphasis) >> >>> I just posted news >> >> You got it wrong. As usual. >> >>> I certainly would only accept sterile needles. >> >> How the **** would you know if the needles were sterile or not? > > FDA regulations. Which aren't followed widely, dumb ass: STILL, COMPLICATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM INADEQUATE STERILIZATION OF NEEDLES AND FROM IMPROPER DELIVERY OF TREATMENTS. >>> You turned it into another yet insult of me, >> >> The fact that you continue to say Newsweek insults yourself. >> >>> yet Newsweek >> >> *TIME*! You ****ing goof. > > OK, I was i the hospital last week. I'm surprised they've let you out. Are they monitoring your lithium and Haldol? >>> posted it as on the greatest contributions to medicine this year. >> >> Logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Time magazine isn't a >> medical journal, nor did that blurb -- not an article -- suggest it's >> a contribution to medicine. All it said was those who received the >> placebo received the same benefit as those who received "real" >> acupuncture. That doesn't make acupuncture appear particularly "good" >> -- it just shows it to be a fraud. > > It was listed The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > I agree more research is necessary. No, it's a waste of time and resources. Acupuncture has been debunked in every sound study in which it's been tested. This study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." >>> Frankly, I think the jury is out. > > Not yet. Why the **** do you keep replying to yourself? > It an area for research, but enough was shown to justify > further research. How?! The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." >> Acupuncture group: benefit. >> Placebo group: benefit. Control group: no benefit. >> >> The jury's verdict is IN and acupuncture has *no* benefit beyond >> placebo effect. > > In that study it reduced migraines using traditional or specialized > points. Proving PLACEBO EFFECT, asswipe. The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > Of course, like all scientific studies, The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." Get that through your lone, flickering braincell. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
B-cup Bob wrote:
>> 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 >> specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient >> over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks >> before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 >> after randomization. >> >> 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 >> >>> You may not like it but that was the only way for the participants to >>> be fooled. >> >> Both the placebo (SHAM) and "real" acupuncture groups were "fooled." >> Acupuncture's benefits are placebo effect. The researchers concluded, >> "Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing >> migraine headaches..." >> >>> BTW, though it doesn't meet your standards, >> >> It doesn't meet *scientific* standards. >> >>> it was listed as one of the 50 major medical breakthroughs in the >>> last year. >> >> In a popular news magazine -- not by a scientific or medical journal. >> >> Still haven't figured out how NOT to respond to your own posts, have you. > > Well, according to News week According to the study's authors, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > I invite other's to read the page specified for accuracy. I invite you to lay off posting until you comprehend what *Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture* actually means. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > B-cup Bob wrote: > >>> 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, but rather the use of traditional points. random points had no effect. Proof, no, scientific methods require the methods and procedures be replicated with the same results. >>> specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient >>> over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks >>> before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 >>> after randomization. >>> >>> 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, it was no more effective than than random insertion of needles. >>>> You may not like it but that was the only way for the participants >>>> to be fooled. >>> People do fake operations all the time in the name of science. >>> >>> Both the placebo (SHAM) and "real" acupuncture groups were "fooled." >>> Acupuncture's benefits are placebo effect. The researchers concluded, >>> "Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing >>> migraine headaches..." >>> No, it was no more effective than using the traditional points. >>>> BTW, though it doesn't meet your standards, >>> >>> >>> It doesn't meet *scientific* standards. >>> >>>> it was listed as one of the 50 major medical breakthroughs in the >>>> last year. >>> >>> >>> In a popular news magazine -- not by a scientific or medical journal. >>> True. Still it was listed. >>> Still haven't figured out how NOT to respond to your own posts, have >>> you. >> >> >> Well, according to News week > > > According to the study's authors, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* > *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > Do I have to say the same thing? Traditional points are effective by themselves. Random points were ineffective. >> I invite other's to read the page specified for accuracy. > > > I invite you to lay off posting until you comprehend what *Acupuncture* > *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture* actually means. I'll let other's judge for themselves. This does not mean that accupunctuncture is a cure all and false claims have been made. We don't know much about it, except the results have amazed doctors. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > B-cup Bob wrote: > >> It means that traditional acupuncture points were as effective. Random >> placement was ineffective. > > > Bullshit, you ****ing imbecile. From the study's abstract: > > Interventions Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list > control. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture were administered by > specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient > over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks > before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 > after randomization.... > > 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 > I don't call it a sham when they used traditional acupuncture points. No results were reported with random insertions. S scientific study requires the procedures can be reproduced with similar results. > What part of "Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in > reducing migraine headaches" do you not comprehend? > >> I referred to the article article you were unable to find. > > > 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? > It was a report on the study. I'd like to see the study. >>>>>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >> >> >> I understand the scientific method. > > > No, you do not, nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between a > blurb about a study and the study itself. The study's authors concluded, > "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." I understand it is a report of a scientific study. It doesn't say it was reproduced, a key component. > >> I agree practitioners make wild claims. > > > So do you, asshole. > Does it make the little boy happy to use insults. >>>>>>> That's the whole problem with it -- it's NOT a scientific >>>>>>> practice. Its effects are identical to those measured in >>>>>>> laughter, music, and pets, as noted above; those other forms of >>>>>>> therapy certainly don't involve being poked with needles that may >>>>>>> be contaminated. They come in sealed containers, deposed of in Sharps containers. Could an unscrupulous dealer cheat? Yes. So could an unscrupulous hypodermic dealer. I think it highly unlikely. >> >> >> The scientific method can certainly be applied to studies. > > > And when the scientific method was applied to the question of the > benefits of acupuncture in treating migraines, the study's authors > concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* > *acupuncture*." There was only a placebo effect -- just as one would > expect in any other touch therapy. > >>>> I've only seen sterile needles. >>> >>> >>> How would you know the difference? Sealed, and listed as use once and dispose. >>> >>>> Prove it. >>> >>> >>> Red Cross: >>> Donors who have undergone acupuncture treatments are acceptable >>> as long as the donor can confirm that the needles used in the >>> treatment were sterile. Donors who cannot confirm that sterile >>> needles were used in the acupuncture treatment are deferred from >>> donating for 12 months. >>> http://www.redcross.org/services/bio...7_,00.html#acu >>> Prove the last hypodermic needle used on you wasn't a shame. >>> Also: >>> Is acupuncture safe? >>> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved acupuncture >>> needles for use by licensed practitioners in 1996. The FDA >>> requires that sterile, nontoxic needles be used and that they be >>> labeled for single use by qualified practitioners only. >> Of course medicine is not safe. Hospitals are very dangerous. IN Finland they reviewed procedures and reduced infection rates by 99%. >> >> I would only use FDA needles > > > What kind would your *acupuncturist* use? I haven't seen one in years. The only real damage done to me was by doctors. > >>> Relatively few complications from the use of acupuncture have >>> been reported to the FDA in light of the millions of people >>> treated each year and the number of acupuncture needles used. >>> STILL, COMPLICATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM INADEQUATE STERILIZATION >>> OF NEEDLES AND FROM IMPROPER DELIVERY OF TREATMENTS. >> >> >> May I remind you that > > > No. The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* > *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > >>> Practitioners should use a new set of disposable needles taken >>> from a sealed package for each patient and should swab treatment >>> sites with alcohol or another disinfectant before inserting >>> needles. When not delivered properly, acupuncture can cause >>> serious adverse effects, including infections and punctured >>> organs. >> >> >> Proper training is essential. > > > Not when the study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* > *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > >> We don't understand it, > > > We do, too: the study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* > *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > >>> http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/#safe >>> (my emphasis) >>> >>>> I just posted news >>> >>> >>> You got it wrong. As usual. >>> >>>> I certainly would only accept sterile needles. >>> >>> >>> How the **** would you know if the needles were sterile or not? >> >> >> FDA regulations. > > > Which aren't followed widely, dumb ass: > STILL, COMPLICATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM INADEQUATE STERILIZATION > OF NEEDLES AND FROM IMPROPER DELIVERY OF TREATMENTS. > >>>> You turned it into another yet insult of me, >>> >>> >>> The fact that you continue to say Newsweek insults yourself. >>> >>>> yet Newsweek >>> >>> >>> *TIME*! You ****ing goof. Fine Time >> >> >> OK, I was i the hospital last week. > > > I'm surprised they've let you out. Are they monitoring your lithium and > Haldol? No. Do they monitor yours? I don't engage in anti-social behavior like you. > >>>> posted it as on the greatest contributions to medicine this year. >>> >>> >>> Logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Time magazine isn't a >>> medical journal, nor did that blurb -- not an article -- suggest it's >>> a contribution to medicine. All it said was those who received the >>> placebo received the same benefit as those who received "real" >>> acupuncture. That doesn't make acupuncture appear particularly "good" >>> -- it just shows it to be a fraud. >> >> >> It was listed > > > The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* > *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > >> I agree more research is necessary. > > > No, it's a waste of time and resources. Acupuncture has been debunked in > every sound study in which it's been tested. This study's authors > concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* > *acupuncture*." > >>>> Frankly, I think the jury is out. >> >> >> Not yet. > > > Why the **** do you keep replying to yourself? > >> It an area for research, but enough was shown to justify further >> research. > > > How?! The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* > *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > >>> Acupuncture group: benefit. >>> Placebo group: benefit. Control group: no benefit. >>> >>> The jury's verdict is IN and acupuncture has *no* benefit beyond >>> placebo effect. >> >> >> In that study it reduced migraines using traditional or specialized >> points. > > > Proving PLACEBO EFFECT, asswipe. The study's authors concluded, > "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." > >> Of course, like all scientific studies, > > > The study's authors concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* > *effective* *than* *sham* *acupuncture*." Get that through your lone, > flickering braincell. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
B-cup Bob babbled:
>>> It means that traditional acupuncture points were as effective. Random >>> placement was ineffective. >> >> Bullshit, you ****ing imbecile. From the study's abstract: >> >> Interventions Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list >> control. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture were administered by >> specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient >> over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks >> before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 >> after randomization.... >> >> 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 > > I don't call it a sham Hello, *moron*. Click on the tinyurl link above. It will take you to the abstract for the study in question at the JAMA site (the study was published in JAMA). The two above paragraphs (interventions, conclusions) are *direct quotes* from this particular study's abstract. The assessment that the placebo group was given "sham" acupuncture is NOT mine, it's the characterization of the *researchers* themselves. Are you *really* this ****ing stupid? Shit. > when they used traditional acupuncture points. Click on the goddamn link to the JAMA site and read the abstract yourself. > No results were reported with random insertions. Again from the ****ing abstract, which I *have* read and quoted and which you still *haven't* despite all the times I've quoted it and linked to it for your benefit. Retard. From the results section in the abstract: 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). What part of "No difference was detected between the acupuncture and the sham acupuncture groups" do you still not comprehend, bumbling Boob? > S scientific study > requires the procedures can be reproduced with similar results. This one showed NO difference between fake (placebo) group and the group that received "real" acupuncture. There's NO need to keep testing for placebo effects, dumb ass. >> 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? > > It was a report on the study. It was a one-paragraph blurb. It read more like something a supposed "journalist" lifted from a press release without any familiarity about the subject (which is far too common in this age of reporters whose college studies were in journalism rather than the subjects they cover). It was not a report, nor should it have been in anything called a "breakthrough" unless it was an expose of pseudoscience and bogus treatements. > I'd like to see the study. Then why the **** have you not yet clicked on the link to the abstract? >>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >>> >>> I understand the scientific method. >> >> No, you do not, nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between a >> blurb about a study and the study itself. The study's authors >> concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* >> *acupuncture*." > > I understand it is a report A blurb is not a report. Nitwit. >>> I agree practitioners make wild claims. >> >> So do you, asshole. > > Does it make the little boy happy to use insults. I'll be happy when you finally read the goddamn abstract (linked above and repeatedly) which supports everything I've written and contradicts everything you've written. That way, once again, you can be the big boy and admit you got it completely wrong. > The only real damage done to me was by doctors. Did they drop you on your head when you were a baby? How many times? >>> OK, I was i the hospital last week. >> >> I'm surprised they've let you out. Are they monitoring your lithium >> and Haldol? > > No. They should. Carefully. Very, very carefully. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
B-cup *BOOB* wrote:
>>>> 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 Klaus Linde, MD; Andrea Streng, PhD; et al... Context Acupuncture is widely used to prevent migraine attacks, but the available evidence of its benefit is scarce. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture and with no acupuncture in patients with migraine.... Conclusion Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing migraine headaches although both interventions were more effective than a waiting list control.... Click on the link above for the rest of the abstract. > We don't know much about it, We know that it has a placebo effect: the placebo -- SHAM acupuncture -- group received the same benefits as the "real" acupuncture group. > except the results have amazed doctors. According to whom? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > B-cup *BOOB* wrote: > >>>>> 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. I believe that the years of traditional points may have been effective, and the conclusion wrong. This is strengthened by the fact that random points had no effect. > Klaus Linde, MD; Andrea Streng, PhD; et al... > > Context Acupuncture is widely used to prevent migraine attacks, but the > available evidence of its benefit is scarce. > > Objective To investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture compared with > sham acupuncture and with no acupuncture in patients with migraine.... > > Conclusion Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in > reducing migraine headaches although both interventions were more > effective than a waiting list control.... > > Click on the link above for the rest of the abstract. > >> We don't know much about it, > > > We know that it has a placebo effect: the placebo -- SHAM acupuncture -- > group received the same benefits as the "real" acupuncture group. > >> except the results have amazed doctors. > > > According to whom? Doctors visiting China watching operations performed with just acupuncture. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
B-cup *BOOB* wrote:
>>>>>> 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%): 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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > B-cup *BOOB* wrote: > >>>>>>> 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. They may call it a shame, but they were the actual points learned from years of experience. Random points were the only real sham. The study has also not been replicated, the mark of a good scientific study. > 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. I just disagree. You have a major problem accepting different viewpoints. That's part of maturity, which you appear to lack. It matters not that I agree you are highly intelligent, you still clearly have psychological problems. The empirical evidence is your continued insults. I admit to having taken prescription drugs, as prescribed, and had a negative side effect. It says don't operate cars or heavy machinery. Not a keyboard. Clearly I was the victim of a prescribed medicine. Which has a much higher rate of problems. Many Americans go into hospitals and get staff or other infections which they did not have. Our hospitals are dangerous places. Much more dangerous than most therapies. Finland reversed it. We could too. I suggest that you color your perception with all the SHAM acupuncturists that clearly exist. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > B-cup Bob babbled: > >>>> It means that traditional acupuncture points were as effective. Random >>>> placement was ineffective. >>> >>> >>> Bullshit, you ****ing imbecile. From the study's abstract: >>> >>> Interventions Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list >>> control. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture were administered by >>> specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient >>> over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks >>> before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 >>> after randomization.... >>> >>> 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 As stated, I disagree with calling traditional acupuncture treatments a sham. I read the actual study, thanks for pointing it out. I just disagree with some terminology. >> >> >> I don't call it a sham > > > Hello, *moron*. Click on the tinyurl link above. It will take you to the > abstract for the study in question at the JAMA site (the study was > published in JAMA). The two above paragraphs (interventions, > conclusions) are *direct quotes* from this particular study's abstract. > The assessment that the placebo group was given "sham" acupuncture is > NOT mine, it's the characterization of the *researchers* themselves. > > Are you *really* this ****ing stupid? Shit. > >> when they used traditional acupuncture points. > > > Click on the goddamn link to the JAMA site and read the abstract yourself. > >> No results were reported with random insertions. > > > Again from the ****ing abstract, which I *have* read and quoted and > which you still *haven't* despite all the times I've quoted it and > linked to it for your benefit. Retard. From the results section in the > abstract: > > 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). > > What part of "No difference was detected between the acupuncture and the > sham acupuncture groups" do you still not comprehend, bumbling Boob? > >> S scientific study requires the procedures can be reproduced with >> similar results. > > > This one showed NO difference between fake (placebo) group and the group > that received "real" acupuncture. There's NO need to keep testing for > placebo effects, dumb ass. > >>> 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? >> >> >> It was a report on the study. > > > It was a one-paragraph blurb. It read more like something a supposed > "journalist" lifted from a press release without any familiarity about > the subject (which is far too common in this age of reporters whose > college studies were in journalism rather than the subjects they cover). > It was not a report, nor should it have been in anything called a > "breakthrough" unless it was an expose of pseudoscience and bogus > treatements. > >> I'd like to see the study. > > > Then why the **** have you not yet clicked on the link to the abstract? > >>>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand the scientific method. >>> >>> >>> No, you do not, nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between >>> a blurb about a study and the study itself. The study's authors >>> concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* *sham* >>> *acupuncture*." >> >> >> I understand it is a report > > > A blurb is not a report. Nitwit. > >>>> I agree practitioners make wild claims. >>> >>> >>> So do you, asshole. >> >> >> Does it make the little boy happy to use insults. > > > I'll be happy when you finally read the goddamn abstract (linked above > and repeatedly) which supports everything I've written and contradicts > everything you've written. That way, once again, you can be the big boy > and admit you got it completely wrong. > >> The only real damage done to me was by doctors. > > > Did they drop you on your head when you were a baby? How many times? > >>>> OK, I was i the hospital last week. >>> >>> >>> I'm surprised they've let you out. Are they monitoring your lithium >>> and Haldol? >> >> >> No. > > > They should. Carefully. Very, very carefully. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
B-cup Bob babbled:
>>>>> It means that traditional acupuncture points were as effective. >>>>> Random >>>>> placement was ineffective. >>>> >>>> Bullshit, you ****ing imbecile. From the study's abstract: >>>> >>>> Interventions Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list >>>> control. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture were administered by >>>> specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient >>>> over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks >>>> before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 >>>> after randomization.... >>>> >>>> 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 > > As stated, I disagree with calling traditional acupuncture treatments a > sham. The study showed no difference between "sham" and "traditional" acupuncture. That's because "traditional" acupuncture is a sham. Its only benefit is as a touch therapy, to help reduce stress. It has no curative powers by restoring or refocusing "chi." > I read the actual study, You likely only read the *abstract*, not the full study. > thanks for pointing it out. I just > disagree with some terminology. The terminology is appropriate -- one group received "real" acupuncture and the placebo group received sham, fake, faux, etc., treatment. The placebo group actually reported greater benefit. So much for the benefits of readjusting all their "chi," huh. >>> I don't call it a sham >> >> Hello, *moron*. Click on the tinyurl link above. It will take you to >> the abstract for the study in question at the JAMA site (the study was >> published in JAMA). The two above paragraphs (interventions, >> conclusions) are *direct quotes* from this particular study's >> abstract. The assessment that the placebo group was given "sham" >> acupuncture is NOT mine, it's the characterization of the >> *researchers* themselves. >> >> Are you *really* this ****ing stupid? Shit. You are. >>> when they used traditional acupuncture points. >> >> Click on the goddamn link to the JAMA site and read the abstract >> yourself. >> >>> No results were reported with random insertions. >> >> Again from the ****ing abstract, which I *have* read and quoted and >> which you still *haven't* despite all the times I've quoted it and >> linked to it for your benefit. Retard. From the results section in the >> abstract: >> >> 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). >> >> What part of "No difference was detected between the acupuncture and >> the sham acupuncture groups" do you still not comprehend, bumbling Boob? >> >>> S scientific study requires the procedures can be reproduced with >>> similar results. >> >> >> >> This one showed NO difference between fake (placebo) group and the >> group that received "real" acupuncture. There's NO need to keep >> testing for placebo effects, dumb ass. >> >>>> 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? >>> >>> >>> >>> It was a report on the study. >> >> >> >> It was a one-paragraph blurb. It read more like something a supposed >> "journalist" lifted from a press release without any familiarity about >> the subject (which is far too common in this age of reporters whose >> college studies were in journalism rather than the subjects they >> cover). It was not a report, nor should it have been in anything >> called a "breakthrough" unless it was an expose of pseudoscience and >> bogus treatements. >> >>> I'd like to see the study. >> >> >> >> Then why the **** have you not yet clicked on the link to the abstract? >> >>>>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the scientific method. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I understand the scientific method. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, you do not, nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between >>>> a blurb about a study and the study itself. The study's authors >>>> concluded, "*Acupuncture* *was* *no* *more* *effective* *than* >>>> *sham* *acupuncture*." >>> >>> >>> >>> I understand it is a report >> >> >> >> A blurb is not a report. Nitwit. >> >>>>> I agree practitioners make wild claims. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So do you, asshole. >>> >>> >>> >>> Does it make the little boy happy to use insults. >> >> >> >> I'll be happy when you finally read the goddamn abstract (linked above >> and repeatedly) which supports everything I've written and contradicts >> everything you've written. That way, once again, you can be the big >> boy and admit you got it completely wrong. >> >>> The only real damage done to me was by doctors. >> >> >> >> Did they drop you on your head when you were a baby? How many times? >> >>>>> OK, I was i the hospital last week. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm surprised they've let you out. Are they monitoring your lithium >>>> and Haldol? >>> >>> >>> >>> No. >> >> >> >> They should. Carefully. Very, very carefully. Surprised they'd even let you loose like that. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > B-cup Bob babbled: > >>>>>> It means that traditional acupuncture points were as effective. >>>>>> Random >>>>>> placement was ineffective. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit, you ****ing imbecile. From the study's abstract: >>>>> >>>>> Interventions Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list >>>>> control. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture were administered by >>>>> specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient >>>>> over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks >>>>> before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 >>>>> after randomization.... >>>>> >>>>> 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 >> >> >> As stated, I disagree with calling traditional acupuncture treatments >> a sham. > > > The study showed no difference between "sham" and "traditional" > acupuncture. That's because "traditional" acupuncture is a sham. Its > only benefit is as a touch therapy, to help reduce stress. It has no > curative powers by restoring or refocusing "chi." > >> I read the actual study, > > > You likely only read the *abstract*, not the full study. I read the study in Jama. > >> thanks for pointing it out. I just disagree with some terminology. > > > The terminology is appropriate -- one group received "real" acupuncture > and the placebo group received sham, fake, faux, etc., treatment. The > placebo group actually reported greater benefit. So much for the > benefits of readjusting all their "chi," huh. > >>>> I don't call it a sham >>> >>> >>> Hello, *moron*. Click on the tinyurl link above. It will take you to >>> the abstract for the study in question at the JAMA site (the study >>> was published in JAMA). The two above paragraphs (interventions, >>> conclusions) are *direct quotes* from this particular study's >>> abstract. The assessment that the placebo group was given "sham" >>> acupuncture is NOT mine, it's the characterization of the >>> *researchers* themselves. >>> >>> Are you *really* this ****ing stupid? Shit. > > > You are. > >>>> when they used traditional acupuncture points. >>> >>> >>> Click on the goddamn link to the JAMA site and read the abstract >>> yourself. >>> Yes, they call it SHAM. >>>> No results were reported with random insertions. >>> >>> >>> Again from the ****ing abstract, which I *have* read and quoted and >>> which you still *haven't* despite all the times I've quoted it and >>> linked to it for your benefit. Retard. From the results section in >>> the abstract: >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> What part of "No difference was detected between the acupuncture and >>> the sham acupuncture groups" do you still not comprehend, bumbling Boob? >>> >>>> S scientific study requires the procedures can be reproduced with >>>> similar results. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This one showed NO difference between fake (placebo) group and the >>> group that received "real" acupuncture. There's NO need to keep >>> testing for placebo effects, dumb ass. >>> >>>>> 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 that you can't consider that medicine practiced for 1000s of years mind not be a sham. Traditional points had an effect. That is something to consider. Random points did not. I ask you to explain, brilliant one, why traditional acupuncture points had a statistically significant effect, but random points did not? Or are you too narrow minded to consider that? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
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? >>>>>> 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 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. > that you can't consider that medicine practiced > for 1000s of years mind not be a sham. 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. > Traditional points had an effect. *Limited* effect. The placebo group -- sham acupuncture -- benefitted more than the "real" acupuncture group. > 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. > 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: 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. You are SO goddamn ****ing retarded. Do you not understand that 53% is greater than 51%? > 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." |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
B-cup Bob babbled:
>>> 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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
usual suspect wrote: > B-cup Bob babbled: > >>>> 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. It was traditional use. And it was effective. A simple google search shows many AMA and research organizations researching acupuncture. You're dismissal in this case is simply stupid. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/acupuncture is but one example. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
Beach Runner wrote: > > > 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 >>>>> The Sham was traditional acupuncture. I agree that there are many many false claims about acupuncture. The study did not compare touch therapies. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Replace Sham, read the article and they used traditional points, just not one's specified for migraines. >>> >>> I disagree that using traditional points should be called "Sham" >>> acupuncture. >> >> >> >> That's what it was. >> They were traditional acupuncture points, not random insertions. >>> 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. OK AMA supported groups. >> >>> 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.... >> Yes, pain and nauseous. Why leave that out. >> 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). > You would be responsible to quantify the differences through clinical comparison, in replicated studies. > > 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 Bob |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Acccpuncture
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 site offered NOTHING about specific tests or results. It gave generalities which support what I've been saying: that acupuncture has benefit only as a touch therapy -- relative to placebo effect. >> 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. Made by the superstitious sorts who think acupuncture "works" or has some validity because it's been practiced for thousands of years. However, when acupuncture has been put through the scrutiny of a double blind study (like the one you offered as proof it works) it's only shown a placebo effect. That's what your own study showed. There were three groups. One group received "real" acupuncture, a placebo group received sham acupuncture treatment, and a control group received neither. The "real" and sham acupuncture groups had almost identical benefits -- and, in fact, the placebo group actually showed more benefit. If there were any validity to acupuncture, the test group ("real" acupuncture) should've received significantly *greater* benefit than both the control (no treatment) or the placebo (sham treatment). The problem for acupuncturists and true believers is that both placebo (53% relief) and test (51%) groups benefited the same. The placebo effect (placebo, translating from Latin as "I shall please", is also known as non-specific effects and the subject-expectancy effect) is the phenomenon that a patient's symptoms can be alleviated by an otherwise ineffective treatment, since the individual expects or believes that it will work. Some people consider this to be a remarkable aspect of human physiology; others consider it to be an illusion arising from the way medical experiments were conducted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect >> 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, Because it was a placebo, dumb ass. It was *sham* treatment. The "real" treatment was marginally less effective than the bogus treatment -- WHICH IS NOT WHAT SHOULD'VE BEEN OBSERVED IF THERE WERE ANY VALIDITY TO ACUPUNCTURE. IF THERE WERE *ANY* VALIDITY TO IT, THE TEST GROUP WOULD'VE REPORTED A *SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER* AMOUNT OF RELIEF FROM MIGRAINES THAN BOTH CONTROL AND PLACEBO GROUPS. BUT IT DIDN'T -- IT FARED SLIGHTLY *WORSE* THAN THE PLACEBO GROUP. YOU INCOMPETENT DODDERING JACKASS. > Do a controlled replicated study replicating it these other therapies. This *was* a controlled study. It concluded that there were *no differences* in relieving migraines between the placebo and test groups. The evidence continues to mount that acupuncture is a sham; the relief came from placebo effect, much as is the case with other touch therapies as I've already noted. In a study of a specific touch therapy on burn patients paid for by the Department of Defense and conducted at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, researchers likewise found no significant difference between placebo and test groups and noted: The greatest lesson learned from this process is that the inclusion of a true control group in addition to a sham and treatment group is required because a strong placebo effect occurs from the special attention given to patients in the 'sham' treatment. [cited in:] http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/tt2.html There is no need for wasting more money on superstitions like acupuncture, reflexology, astrology, numerology, etc. Touch therapies have some benefit, but those benefits are chalked up to placebo effect. >> 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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|