massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Don't Throw Out Acupuncture Just Yet!!!
Research is proving that Acupuncture is Curing Chronic Sinus Congestion.
See details at http://www.healthcmi.com
And according to the World Health Organization (WHO), acupuncture is a safe and effective treatment for the following conditions:
- Lungs - Some bronchial asthmas.
- Ears, Nose, and Throat - Toothaches, pain after tooth extraction, ear aches, sinus inflammation, nasal inflammation or dryness.
- Eyes - Central retina and conjunctiva inflammation, nearsightedness (in children), and some cataracts.
- Stomach and Intestines - Digestive tract problems, hiccups, inflammation of the stomach, chronic duodenal ulcers, inflammation of the colon, constipation, diarrhea, dysentery caused by certain bacteria.
- Nerves - Headaches, migraines, some facial paralyses and nerve pain, post-stroke weakness, nerve ending inflammation, and sciatica.
- Muscles - Tennis elbow, frozen shoulder, lower back pain, osteoarthritis, knee pain, sprains and strains.
- Miscellaneous - Incontinence (including bed wetting) and many gynecological problems.
Views: 386
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on
-
You are right, they may Vlad. But they may also see this as another groups opinion of how things should be and decide to rely on the World Health Organization (WHO), who acknowledges acupuncture is a safe and effective treatment. More research is needed either way.
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
But you said that you agreed with Gordon - Gordon wrote that acupuncture didn't need any more validation. What I think you mean is that you only agree with part of what he said - so long as the clients are happy, then that's OK. But in that case, what's the point in doing research at all?
Are you really saying "More research is needed to show that acupuncture works the way it is claimed to work."?
Or are you saying that the amount of research on it is so pitiful, that it deserves more research dollars thrown at it.
If anyone wants a little comparison here: if you go on to google scholar and type in acupuncture, you'll get hits numbering 250,000 (top right will show it). Massage therapy gets 92,000.
Go on to NCCAM and see how many more trials are thrown at it over massage.
Acupuncture 56
Massage 21
I could probably go and try to dive into how much tax payers money has been thrown at it over massage, but I can't be bothered looking it up.
"More research is needed" is heard often, written often and read often. It would be much more productive if people wrote/heard/read the question "Is more research needed?" and then went about that discussion.
-
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on
-
"More research is needed" is heard often, written often and read often. It would be much more productive if people wrote/heard/read the question "Is more research needed?" and then went about that discussion.
Yes, one component of research literacy is recognizing when there's already enough high-quality information to reasonably base a decision on.
Scientific knowledge is always provisional and contingent--that means that it is never 100% certain, and it can always be revised at a future date if new validated knowledge warrants it. If we had to wait for 100% certainty, we'd never get there. At some point, though, there is enough percent certainty to proceed--we don't wait forever, always saying we need more research.
If you haven't read the article that Vlad linked to yet, I invite you to. It is only one page--a very quick read. Some notable points are:
1) The title is:
Treatment of 85 Cases with Chronic Rhinitis by Acupuncture
but the article actually talks more about moxibustion and bloodletting than acupuncture, yet acupuncture gets the credit for the "cures".
2) The author states:
Patients with chronic rhinitis may not respond well to medications.
but does not distinguish among allergic rhinitis and the various kinds of non-allergic rhinitis. So it could be that s/he tested them at a different time of year, when allergies were not so bad, and thus detected an improvement. Because s/he doesn't say what steps s/he took to avoid such an error, we have no information that s/he didn't fall into this or another cognitive trap.
3)
3.2 Treatment result
After two courses of treatment, 61 cases obtained recovery, 21 cases obtained a marked effect and 3 cases had no effect. The total effective rate was 96.5%.
The author does not say how s/he knows how many of those would have gotten better without intervention, either due to vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature = the body's immune system) or the underlying condition running its course. S/he also does not say how s/he corrected for placebo effects, attention effects, or chance. S/he just says that if it occurred after the treatment, it was due to the treatment.
There's no point in doing more "studies" like this one; it's cheaper and easier just to make your mind up about the result you want and just go around saying that that's true. More studies like this are a waste of time and money that could be used to promote the things about massage that we know do work--turning validated research into practice and teaching in the community, for example.
-
-
I think there will be further research all the way around. I personally don't see the need, but as long as the few pushing for nothing but EBP work and keep challenging the validity of these modalities, it will take place.
With the little amount of people actually asking for proof, I kinda agree with you... what's the need for all this research. I think this may be affecting the low amount of people donating funds for research. More and higher quality research needs to take place to prove effectiveness either way. IMO, it is a good sign that over 800 hospitals in America are involving Reiki in their treatment programs. I look forward to hearing the results of their work.
Research is being done and will continue, whether some feel it is needed or not. I am glad some are researching instead of questioning. My point is, don't throw out anything based on what a few are saying about anything.
-
-
"With the little amount of people actually asking for proof, I kinda agree with you... what's the need for all this research."
You misunderstand my point. There is clearly a need for research to determine what's effective and what's not, and how our practices should evolve in response to new knowledge. The clients want it, healthcare professionals want it, and many MTs want it as well.
I'm just saying if it's not going to be done right, doing it half-assedly is worse than not doing it at all. Neither doing it wrong nor refusing to do it at all addresses the need, but studies like the one cited actively promote false certainty. It does not demonstrate the validity of acupuncture the way it claims to, but by the time the information gets out, very few people actually go back and see how weak it is. Only the false certainty gets disseminated, and people end up making decisions based on bad information.
"My point is, don't throw out anything based on what a few are saying about anything."
Is there any point at which you would actually advocate throwing out something based on new validated information? For example, should we still be teaching that massage removes toxins from muscles?
Mike Hinkle said:I think there will be further research all the way around. I personally don't see the need, but as long as the few pushing for nothing but EBP work and keep challenging the validity of these modalities, it will take place.
With the little amount of people actually asking for proof, I kinda agree with you... what's the need for all this research. I think this may be affecting the low amount of people donating funds for research. More and higher quality research needs to take place to prove effectiveness either way. IMO, it is a good sign that over 800 hospitals in America are involving Reiki in their treatment programs. I look forward to hearing the results of their work.
Research is being done and will continue, whether some feel it is needed or not. I am glad some are researching instead of questioning. My point is, don't throw out anything based on what a few are saying about anything.
-
-
What new knowledge. I am offering new knowledge based on research I found that shows more positiveness that negative. You apparently are challenging it's methodology to say it isn't viable. Acupuncture helped stop lower back pain I had for over 23 years. I need no further research, but when any research is favorable about it, the same group challenges their findings and do nothing to show otherwise other that what they wish to cite.
It's a circle. Like I said, I am looking forward to seeing the research as opposed to the questions.
The following would be answered after seeing repetitive research and I sure have't seen that yet.
"Is there any point at which you would actually advocate throwing out something based on new validated information? For example, should we still be teaching that massage removes toxins from muscles?"
-
-
I am offering new knowledge based on research I found that shows more positiveness that negative.
Many people that know nothing about how to interpret research would look at what was written on that site and say "Yay - looks good".
Most massage therapists probably would say that and most of Joe Public probably would too.
But if anyone were to invest some time into educating themselves on research literacy and methods, as soon as they looked at that they would probably say "What a croc".
Also, as Ravensara pointed out - the actual study is different from what the commentary is on the CE site. That isn't uncommon. It shows that when you read something on a website and it says "research shows...", you need to go look at the study to make sure they're correct. Why should people do that? Because otherwise you can have the wool pulled over your eyes. In fact, if you don't look at the full text, it's possible to have an abstract that doesn't reflect the findings in the study.
As for those evidenced based people telling us all what to do? I don't think they're telling us anything other than "please educate yourself on the scientific method and come to your own conclusions".
I understand why people want to believe that everything works the way we've been told. Why don't people ask themselves why they were never taught about the scientific method and why the phrase "experimental purism" has that word "purism" in it? Is it right that people should just reject it if they've never been taught the basics?
Anyone that has invested some time in learning the basics would know why that that paper is junk.
When a paper is brought up, it shouldn't be looked at as if it's attached to someone - just because you posted a link to it doesn't mean that it's attached to you in any way. What should be happening is that we should be looking at the study and asking ourselves if it's even worth reading past the first paragraph. Posting studies like this is actually a great way to learn. I wish people would do it more often. So, this is a good thing really.
-
-
I see your point on one hand but then I look at the same people saying these things aren't true. I look back and see the WHO saying it does.... some will decide maybe it isn't a crock. Without the evidence ... it'll stay, as it is. It may not reach some research standards, that we didn't set to begin with. We did not accept all these premises. I accept this (WHO)Organizations research as opposed to your opinion that it doesn't reach (should be) standards, as this time is presenting. In 10 years new research protocols will make those you favor now laughable. Research from these institutions is "junk" now.
I accepted the theory that more should be educated about research basics. I remember you speaking about starting to learn the basics. And you were on the WMF research group, I think at first. Few therapists care. They are not being asked by clients for research or proof.
And few are attending classes about it. Research conferences are poorly attended. Research needs a shot in the arm. Those wanting it to grow can not force it upon those not knowing the basics. A lot of the rejection is the way it is explained and handled and through most so far, I have not seen many jump to learn those basics. Modailities do not need to go away. NCCAM says 0.5 percent of the adult clients and 0.2 children received energy work in 2007.
If basics could be taught, in school, it may take hold. If not, it needs to be made fun and interesting. But until the public starts to ask for it, most therapists won't take it unless forced to.
-
-
I see your point on one hand but then I look at the same people saying these things aren't true. I look back and see the WHO saying it does.... some will decide maybe it isn't a crock
I'm not referring to what WHO states about acupuncture. I'm referring to that one study. I'm not even saying that acupuncture overall is a crock. But I know enough to identify when a study is a crock - and at the same time I know one study doesn't say it all.
There have been well run studies on it - it might be interesting to throw a well run one up and discuss it.
Without the evidence ... it'll stay, as it is.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If the purpose of research is to build a body of evidence to show that everything works the way we believe it to work, then we shouldn't be doing any research at all. Also, would people regard 10,000 case studies, each carrying a smidgen of evidence as a LOT of evidence from the cumulative value of the smidgens with each study? If so - read that wee free ebook I gave the link to earlier. It's only a wee book, but it might be a light bulb one for some therapists.
I've my own opinions on the "not taught in schools" issue. Most teachers and school administrators aren't taught the importance of it. They have no idea the impact that it can make on a practice because they haven't witnessed it themselves - and that's through no fault of their own. It's what they were taught and I'm sure most think "Many of my students do well, why should I change?". They don't realize that by withholding the skill to be able to integrate research findings into therapists' work, that they are actually preventing them from reaching their full potential. That's not just research literacy - it's an iterative process. Research literacy is only the first step.
You keep going back to referencing energy work, but this discussion isn't about energy work. I think that topic is beat. There is something I'll add to it though. People get their knickers twisted over energy work - they don't get their knickers twisted over the fact that there's a huge hole in most therapist's education - they're not taught how to find, interpret, critique and integrate research. They should be angry about that. If they were educated in it, this board would be a lot more fun. We could throw up a study and say "Let's look at this puppy - what's it's strengths and weaknesses? Is it so flawed it's laughable? Or is it good? Does it have an impact on our practices? ". That would be cool. I'd be much more active on this site if that were the case.
If you say that most therapists won't do something unless the public asks for it? We're THAT driven by market forces? So therapists would never be bothered to be informed by research unless our clients demand it? That's depressing.
What if the public has the expectation of the truth? Is science not the best tool we have for finding it, or do we go with tradition or what our teachers tell us or what we see in our practices every day? Or is it all of the above?
Also, should learning research literacy be fun? I think a good teacher can make any topic fun. Of course, it could also be made unbelievably boring and then the teachers would have an excuse to throw things at their sleeping students - like rotten cabbages and eggs and stuff.
-
-
"I am offering new knowledge based on research I found that shows more positiveness that negative. You apparently are challenging it's methodology to say it isn't viable."
I am saying that this study contains no new knowledge. There is no connection in it to the minimum amount of work that someone would have to do to establish cause and effect. The study comes down to "after people with rhinitis had acupuncture, bloodletting, and moxibustion, they got better, Therefore, acupuncture cures rhinitis."
If that is the only standard for knowledge, then anything goes. My landlady's cat was begging for food yesterday, but she's on a strict diet, so I didn't give her anything. The cat shot me a look from the utter depths of feline contempt, and later that day I had a bike accident.
If you don't do anything else to determine cause and effect than establish that Event B came after Event A, then you also have to accept that the cat's dirty look caused me to wipe out on my bike. That does not count as knowledge.
Now if they had said "Here's an interesting thing-a series of 85 people with rhinitis who all appear to have gotten better after a course of treatment with acupuncture, blood-letting, and moxibustion. Perhaps there is a hypothesis here that can serve as the basis of a well-defined study in future", then no one would be objecting. Science is nuanced, provisional, and contingent, and if the study had reflected that, then it would have been fine. But it didn't--it fell into the traps of, among others, binary and mechanistic thinking, and post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this").
"It's a circle. Like I said, I am looking forward to seeing the research as opposed to the questions."
You can go to that link right now; it's a 1-page very quick read, and you can see that the situation is exactly as I describe it.
"The following would be answered after seeing repetitive research and I sure have't seen that yet.
"Is there any point at which you would actually advocate throwing out something based on new validated information? For example, should we still be teaching that massage removes toxins from muscles?""
Give me a reasonable baseline--by which I mean one grounded in the nature of the problem, not just a made-up number--for how much replicated research would convince you, and don't move the goalposts afterwards, and I bet I can provide that.
Mike Hinkle said:
What new knowledge. I am offering new knowledge based on research I found that shows more positiveness that negative. You apparently are challenging it's methodology to say it isn't viable. Acupuncture helped stop lower back pain I had for over 23 years. I need no further research, but when any research is favorable about it, the same group challenges their findings and do nothing to show otherwise other that what they wish to cite.
It's a circle. Like I said, I am looking forward to seeing the research as opposed to the questions.
The following would be answered after seeing repetitive research and I sure have't seen that yet.
"Is there any point at which you would actually advocate throwing out something based on new validated information? For example, should we still be teaching that massage removes toxins from muscles?"
-
-
"It may not reach some research standards, that we didn't set to begin with. We did not accept all these premises."
What would research standards that you set look like? What premises do you not accept? Science operates on the premise that the natural world follows patterns that are, to some degree, able to be understood and predicted. Do you accept this as a first principle, or are we already in disagreement?
"I accept this (WHO)Organizations research as opposed to your opinion that it doesn't reach (should be) standards, as this time is presenting. In 10 years new research protocols will make those you favor now laughable. Research from these institutions is "junk" now."
If it were just my opinion and nothing more, then you might be right about that, as opinions shift with the political winds. But research protocols aren't going to do a 180 within 10 years, and this is why: it all builds on what went before. As we get better at understanding the world around us, we become part of a network of knowledge and the community that develops it. That network gets stronger with time, and it's not going to totally reverse itself, although it will nip and tuck here and there as it learns with more accuracy.
It's a romantic media trope that a lone researcher working in a basement lab has a "Eureka!" moment that upsets all of established science that went before. Even quantum mechanics doesn't cause planes flying on Newtonian principles to suddenly fall out of the sky, like Wile E. Coyote looking down after running off a cliff and falling only when he realizes it. The reality of science is that it is a highly collaborative endeavor, and its success, when it succeeds, is due to sticking to the principles that minimize bias--not opening the door to more uncertainty, bias, and lack of rigor. The next 10 years isn't going to change that.
"I accepted the theory that more should be educated about research basics. I remember you speaking about starting to learn the basics. And you were on the WMF research group, I think at first. Few therapists care. They are not being asked by clients for research or proof.
And few are attending classes about it. Research conferences are poorly attended. Research needs a shot in the arm."
I disagree that few therapists care. Classes on research literacy at AMTA conferences and MTF conferences I've attended have been full. The Fascia Research Conference always sells out in advance. My continuing education classes have had as many as 50 people in a session.
The CIM conference in Seattle had more than 400 people. That may be what you are calling "poorly attended", but I think that--given that most people are not trained directly in research, nor have an economic incentive to use it directly--that it's the tip of the iceberg in interest. Most of the attendees had to take time out of their practices and travel to Seattle on their own dime to learn about research, because with a very few exceptions, they don't get paid for learning about research.
Given those constraints, I don't see it as poorly attended; I see the lack of financial reinforcement as preventing a lot more interested people from coming.
"Those wanting it to grow can not force it upon those not knowing the basics. A lot of the rejection is the way it is explained and handled and through most so far, I have not seen many jump to learn those basics."
I agree that the basics are not generally taught in a way that meets the needs of either teachers or students, and that that needs to change radically. But that is a matter of pedagogical techniques, not a reflection on the validity of the content.
"Modailities do not need to go away."
Here, I think, is the crux of our disagreement. You are practicing apologetics, rather than science, and the two absolutely cannot be integrated or reconciled.
By "apologetics", I mean that you have already reached the conclusion that all modalities' healthcare claims should be accepted uncritically, no matter what the evidence says, and that you will choose studies that support your position, and ignore the ones that don't.
If you are going to do that, then I agree we could save a metric boatload of money by dispensing with efforts to teach research literacy. If we're going to practice apologetics instead, then why commit a lot of resources to research?
The scientific approach would be to go where the evidence takes us. If, in light of better and more accurate knowledge, some modalities are shown not to be effective, then--rather than continuing to prop them up--we can shift those resources to those modalities that are shown to be effective, thus boosting their reach to the community, when they are practiced *as a healthcare profession*.
This does not mean that people who were trained in those modalities are stupid, or evil, or anything like that--this site really has a tendency to put words in my mouth, and I want to be very clear on what I am and am not saying.
It also doesn't mean that you can't continue to practice those modalities as a service with clients as consenting adults. It just means that if you make very specific healthcare claims that the evidence doesn't back up, then that's not what healthcare professional ethics are about.
So I think that if we want to become a profession, we have to have an honest dialogue about what that really means, and whether we are prepared to take those steps, with all their consequences. And if we are not prepared to do so, I think we should own that.
I also think that the constant bickering over particular studies and modalities, and the personal insults and attacks, are symptoms of that unaddressed need to deal with the real issues here.
Mike Hinkle said:I see your point on one hand but then I look at the same people saying these things aren't true. I look back and see the WHO saying it does.... some will decide maybe it isn't a crock. Without the evidence ... it'll stay, as it is. It may not reach some research standards, that we didn't set to begin with. We did not accept all these premises. I accept this (WHO)Organizations research as opposed to your opinion that it doesn't reach (should be) standards, as this time is presenting. In 10 years new research protocols will make those you favor now laughable. Research from these institutions is "junk" now.
I accepted the theory that more should be educated about research basics. I remember you speaking about starting to learn the basics. And you were on the WMF research group, I think at first. Few therapists care. They are not being asked by clients for research or proof.
And few are attending classes about it. Research conferences are poorly attended. Research needs a shot in the arm. Those wanting it to grow can not force it upon those not knowing the basics. A lot of the rejection is the way it is explained and handled and through most so far, I have not seen many jump to learn those basics. Modailities do not need to go away. NCCAM says 0.5 percent of the adult clients and 0.2 children received energy work in 2007.
If basics could be taught, in school, it may take hold. If not, it needs to be made fun and interesting. But until the public starts to ask for it, most therapists won't take it unless forced to.
-
-
I think therapists are using the information taught them in schools. If you want them to accurately represent the science you want then you need to go to the schools and start there. Therapists are going to repeat what they were taught by their teachers. Most do not even take continuing education classes and will continue to give out the info that is available to them.
It seems there is personal influence being used here. You said there is no methodology used in Acupuncture at all. I see such a discourse from the World Health Organization telling me it is safe and effective and you basically saying it is not.
I do not believe therapists should change their claims based on your claims. As I stated above it is a miniscule amount of therapists that would even be making these claims. If a therapist is misrepresenting anything their association can take action because of their ethics laws. There is nothing to stop anyone from making these claims anyway. How would you know it or be able to stop it? The key is to teach them in school so they are promoting correct information.
The bickering about modalities has come about by a researcher naming 10 modalities he personally wants quashed and done away with. He has said so on numerous sites and through discussions. As long as this intent is obvious I will argue, bicker and continue to make sure they aren't.
I have seen Swedish massage done hundreds of different ways, it is still effective. I have seen acupuncture approached in many ways, it was still effective. Are some better than others? Let's find out, not quash the service. Because researchers can not explain something doesn't mean we do away with it. Nor should they be trying to.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
