Also I read a study that counted upwards of 300 000 deaths from properly prescribed medications in a ten year period I beleive it was 1995 to 2005. Considering you can count deaths from acupuncture on your hand my logic places acupuncture as a better first option considering the risk alone. Am I wrong?

Yes, your conclusion is wrong. This is because “considering the risk alone” is inappropriate. We must consider both the risk and the benefit, as the acceptable level of risk depends on how much benefit will be gained from taking the risk. As an extreme example, a 50% chance of death is entirely unacceptable if the benefit is minor pain relief, but acceptable if the benefit is avoiding a 100% chance of death.

Accordingly, we also must consider the benefits of medication (large) and the benefits of acupuncture (none beyond placebo convincingly demonstrated, and well-demonstrated to not be large).

Therefore, we see that the benefits of medication are larger than the risks, and therefore condone the use of pharmaceuticals. (This is of course a massive simplification, as each individual medication must be evaluated – and for each individual using it. But for our purposes here, it will suffice.) However, the risks of acupuncture (small but non-zero) are larger than the benefits (zero) and hence we cannot condone the use of acupuncture.

Though I am familiar with the theory that acupuncture meridians are related to connective tissue planes or fascia, I am unaware of any proof for that theory. Further, wouldn’t a better approach be to abandon the historical acupuncture meridians and points, or at best test them to see if there are any specific associations? Rather than defending traditional practice, a science-based approach involves testing and discarding the useless parts – like diagnosis, qi, meridians and herbs.

The cost of acupuncture is a pure drain on the economy and individuals if it is ineffective. If acupuncture is a pure placebo, it’s questionable whether it’s worth reimbursing through insurance schemes and it’s definitely not worth spending a large amount of time and money on it. If acupuncture is as cheap as $5 for a brief treatment (which is all that is supported now considering it’s effects are short-term at best), that’s fine. But if it involves a lengthy consultation, a long treatment, and is accompanied by denigration of real (i.e. proven) medicine it is not worth the cost.

In addition, your invocation of a false dilemma (i.e. if drugs cause harm, acupuncture works) raises questions about your true understanding of medicine, science and the application of skepticism. No authors here believe drugs are without risks or that pharmaceutical firms are angels, and there are many posts on this subject. They merely apply the same standards for CAM – which generally lacks evidence of being effective beyond placebo. I question any treatment that is marketed with minimal evidence of efficacy, under the rubric “it’s safer than drugs so it must work”. You wouldn’t support a new drug that was supported by little more than Pfizer’s CEO saying “this is based on a thousand years of history and in my experience it works really well” – why should the same standard not apply to acupuncture.

I understand that as a (probable) acupuncturist, you want to believe and you have a strong economic motivation to find it effective (i.e. the conflict of interest you find so abhorent in Big Pharma). However painful it might be, from an ethical (and certainly a scientific) perspective, it is worth questioning the true efficacy of your profession rather than blindly and blandly accepting the rhetoric and inaccurate claims spoon-fed to the world about acupuncture. May I suggest you switch to a lower-cost, lower-risk model involving sympathy, guide tubes and toothpicks rather than elaborate prescientific diagnoses and skin-penetrating needles? You might be surprised that you can offer the same benefits with less risk. And if you are careful in recording the results, you might be able to publish and contribute to the scientific discourse rather than attacking it with double-standards.

Neither does doing nothing, when nothing needs to be done. How is it better than that?

I apologize for my perspectives on pharmaceuticals I work in detox so I see quite a few fresh faces every week addicted to pills they were given by their doctor and pharmacist. They took them as prescribed and now they need more resources to get off them. Up to a year for benzos this is very expensive for everyone. Nor T does this lead me to see antidepressants as very safe. Useful but safe that is a stretch but better than being depressed they are over prescribed and this is clear and evidence based.

Also I read a study that counted upwards of 300 000 deaths from properly prescribed medications in a ten year period I beleive it was 1995 to 2005. Considering you can count deaths from acupuncture on your hand my logic places acupuncture as a better first option considering the risk alone. Am I wrong?

Trying a harmless and very well documented as effective doesn’t it make sense to have it part of the system. If it avoids the risk of harm from medication and they are harmful and the safety is only statistical like driving. Acupucture you can be 100% sure with today’s standards no harm will come. The first premise of medicine is “Do No Harm.”

So Acupuncture can save the system money and to use it safely people need to see their MD and their acupuncturist. The result will be less over prescription less unnecessary surgeries. Considering a surgery at a basic cost is $10 000 or more that is about 200 acupuncture treatments. My guess is at least one of those 200 would benefit enough to realize they don not need a surgery even if it was placebo. This is guess work but with numbers so large if you hit 200 golf balls one of them will be on the fairway just by distribution logic.

So when you look at the big picture it only makes sense to save money by using a safe technique in conjunction with medical supervision and tests. The best thing for acupuncture is for it to be included as a CAM because it saves money and statistically it does not kill or harm at all.

There are a few techniques that involve meridian theory that I still see working quite well. These involve palpation as well. The best understanding of acupuncture by most medical doctors who practice is that it is actually stimulating the fascia which is found to contain a high concentration of nerve endings and is responsible for our ability to touch our nose with our eyes closed. This is bringing new light to how the early folk understanding came about.

I think the traditional theory might also be a bit much as well. And yes an number of emperors banned acupuncture but all where because the acupuncturist would not listen. The most historic was Hua tuo who treated an enemy soldier while working as the emperors main physician. All the acupuncturists who knew him were ordered to be beheaded. It was not because the emperor thought it didn’t work but more anyone who was an acupuncturist had one of Hua tuo’s books or so it seemed and would be deemed guilty by association.

There are a number of responses that occur during acupuncture and the client has a right to stop treatment at any time. This means if you do not get results quickly then they will and do stop coming. Some do get great results in fact many. Also realize most people are like yourselves they think it is bunk and do not want to try unless it is a last resort only. Usually after trying drugs surgery and physio to no avail. It saves money for many for the cost of acupuncture is far cheaper than seeing a specialist again who has already stated they will just have to continue with their pain meds and wait for it to get bad enough for surgury.

I want to share this article and I invite criticism.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/acupuncture-provides-true-pain-relief-in-study/?smid=fb-share

Thanks for reminding us that you think we are either idiots or immoral a-holes.

Remember, it’s not an either-or proposition.

Science? more like old fashioned prejudice about another belief system.

You mean, like the Chinese government banning the practice of acupuncture in the 17th century?

I love the pharmaceutical industry how they double blindly in random fashion seem to get away with all those side effects with a profit.

I was under the impression that acupuncturists also charged for their services, at sufficient levels to surpass their fixed costs, thus achieving what most people would call “a profit”. The only “double” I see in your comments is a double standard – drugs must be proven safe and effective before being used, meanwhile acupuncture proponents are asking for a free pass on criticism or an evidence base. That seems like hypocrisy.

“Your all double blind. Do you think all we do is just insert the needle and then pray. I guess the redness around the needle the light sweating and other skin changes are placebo. Also I like that you have to add in the elaborate placebo. At least it is better than just an M&M. Thanks for reminding us that you think we are either idiots or immoral a-holes. I love the pharmaceutical industry how they double blindly in random fashion seem to get away with all those side effects with a profit…Science? more like old fashioned prejudice about another belief system. Seems like acupuncture is not much different than black people in the 50′s.”

You may recognise yourself in this article:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/some-feedback-on-organic-farming/

Seriously, as a person of Chinese ethnicity, I find the Western reading of “Traditional Chinese Medicine,” acupuncture, “Ayurvedic medicine” and acupressure completely offensive, Orientalist (see Edward Said’s definition of the word) and essentialist. When I say Western reading, I am not referring to Western medicine, but the interpretation Western practitioners of those CAMs have of their practices.

And just an FYI, RH, the Ming emperors actually banned acupuncture. And they are considered among the most intellectually inclined dynasties.

As I understand it..it’s call ‘acupressure’ now… and how it relates to acupuncture..it’s along that line suppose. I know I’ve heard it’s oriental healing originally. But, isn’t it possible that one nerve in the foot affects something in the bronchial area..being connected, and so perhaps there is something to it? Anyway, that’s all I know, and have to say on the subject

Science-Based Medicine » Can we finally just say that acupuncture is nothing more than an elaborate placebo?…

I don’t recall ever having seen a meta-analysis that expressed its results in that manner.

In other words, the meta-analyzer has been racking his brains for a way to make favorable sense of the data. If that is so, the question is: how many more methods he has tried in the seclusion of his office? Maybe it a case of ‘If you torture the data long enough, they will confess’ ascribed to Ronald Coase (Coase supposedly said ‘it will’ rather than ‘they will’).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase