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:

  1. Lungs - Some bronchial asthmas.
  2. Ears, Nose, and Throat - Toothaches, pain after tooth extraction, ear aches, sinus inflammation, nasal inflammation or dryness.
  3. Eyes - Central retina and conjunctiva inflammation, nearsightedness (in children), and some cataracts.
  4. 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.
  5. Nerves - Headaches, migraines, some facial paralyses and nerve pain, post-stroke weakness, nerve ending inflammation, and sciatica.
  6. Muscles - Tennis elbow, frozen shoulder, lower back pain, osteoarthritis, knee pain, sprains and strains.
  7. Miscellaneous - Incontinence (including bed wetting) and many gynecological problems.

Views: 387

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Vlad on April 29, 2011 at 6:08pm

Hi Mike,

I think you're referring to this on that site:

http://www.healthcmi.com/index.php/acupuncturist-news-online/347-ac...

 

And here is a bit of an expansion on that on the research paper it is referring to:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h62738164l1g8651/

 

Just out of interest - does anyone have any comment on the study?

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on April 29, 2011 at 6:27pm

That's it. I'm just glad to see some researchers making the effort to research enery modalities.

http://www.massage-research.com/blog/?p=712

 

I still would like to see quality testing. Many say the research being used and shared to this point are not high quality studies. Follow through needs to take place. Otherwise, we will use what we have. I am waiting for these to take place.  

Permalink Reply by Vlad on April 29, 2011 at 6:45pm

So are you saying that there are no *high quality* studies done on acupuncture?

Are you saying that the one on that website in your original post is of *high quality*?

What is meant by *high quality*?  Are you referring to the level of rigor?

 

The blog you listed is interesting, but that's not referring to the study you listed.  I would like to know what people think of that study.

 

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on April 29, 2011 at 7:15pm

I am relaying Jain and Mills formed an opinion after reviewing 66 clinical studies that the work overall was of average quality- in scientific terms.

Others have expressed likewise feelings. If they need to be of higher quality, so be it. I am glad to see the effort.

 

So far, as the Sinus/Acu. research. Sounds fine to me. Would love to see follow up research back it up and then move on to more studies/research.

Permalink Reply by Vlad on April 29, 2011 at 8:12pm

So you'd rather see NCCAM fund an acupuncture study over one on massage?

Or do you want them to fund research in both areas?  If so, what % of their funding should go to one over the other?

I know you want research done on all types of massage, but you seem to be now expanding that to all types of CAM.

Thanks for giving your opinion of the study, though.

I'd still like to hear what others think of it.  I'm not asking people to comment on the efficacy or effectiveness of acupuncture in general, I want to know what people think of the methodology  - or even what they thought of the description of it on the continuing education site.

 

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on April 29, 2011 at 8:47pm

No, I started this thread to highlight that all medical modalities need to be further researched. Some have expressed desire to have some massage and medical related modalities quashed, without further studies. These researchers (Jain and Mills) seem to have found enough to cite the need for further and higher quality studies involving acupuncture. And yes I would like to see research for all modalities.

 

So far as methodology, it is a lot like Swedish Massage. Almost everyone will do it differently as there are so many instructors and each are taught differentlyand use different approaches. The one's getting the highest accolades for their work have been trained in China or the Eastern Methods. And because of this patients are cautioned to study the varied methods and approaches before deciding which therapist to use.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Gordon J. Wallis on April 30, 2011 at 1:04am
Hmm......Well there  are acupuncturists, and there are acupuncturists... You can get the attorneys I get, or you can get the ones OJ Simpson gets....There is a difference.   So who are you studying makes a difference...As a massage therapist, Ive cured people that no one else has..Including acupuncturists, chiropractors, physical therapists, medical doctors and so on. However,at the same time..Ive massage people that wanted their money back...Validating acupuncture scientifically would be a very hard thing to do....  I dont think it needs to be validated any more...Its been around for a long long time...I think our minds, and belief systems play too big a part as to validating anything..  My opinion only.
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on April 30, 2011 at 2:22am

"I want to know what people think of the methodology  - or even what they thought of the description of it on the continuing education site."

 

Well, that's easy--there is no methodology there. If the rhinitis symptoms cleared up, it was attributed to acupuncture.

 

There was no attempt made to distinguish real treatment effects from:

* the body healing itself through the immune system;

* the natural course of the underlying diseases (they're conflating a lot of different conditions together by simply using rhinitis as a criterion) coming to an end on their own);

* the placebo effect;

* attention effects;

* the patients' desire to please the acupuncturists;

* sheer chance.

 

They're going through the motions and using the trappings of "science", but there is absolutely no real connection to the scientific method there.

 

The blog post takes the overstated effects of the article, and overstates them even more ("cures").

 

Since you asked :).



Vlad said:

So you'd rather see NCCAM fund an acupuncture study over one on massage?

Or do you want them to fund research in both areas?  If so, what % of their funding should go to one over the other?

I know you want research done on all types of massage, but you seem to be now expanding that to all types of CAM.

Thanks for giving your opinion of the study, though.

I'd still like to hear what others think of it.  I'm not asking people to comment on the efficacy or effectiveness of acupuncture in general, I want to know what people think of the methodology  - or even what they thought of the description of it on the continuing education site.

 

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on April 30, 2011 at 1:00pm
Thanks Gordon, I agree. As long as clients keep getting positive results, they will keep going.
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on April 30, 2011 at 3:02pm
I'm confused.  If its popularity and longevity are proof that it works, what purpose the research serve?
Permalink Reply by Vlad on April 30, 2011 at 3:05pm

Hmm......Well there  are acupuncturists, and there are acupuncturists... You can get the attorneys I get, or you can get the ones OJ Simpson gets....There is a difference.   So who are you studying makes a difference...As a massage therapist, Ive cured people that no one else has..Including acupuncturists, chiropractors, physical therapists, medical doctors and so on. However,at the same time..Ive massage people that wanted their money back...Validating acupuncture scientifically would be a very hard thing to do....  I dont think it needs to be validated any more...Its been around for a long long time...I think our minds, and belief systems play too big a part as to validating anything..  My opinion only.

So when you say that you don't think it needs to be validated any more, are you saying that there's no need for more research on it?  Also, when you say "who you are studying counts" I take it you mean that the competency of the person doing the treatment counts and not who the treatment is given?  Also, I think that your comparison to how you view your work isn't that far removed from the paper referred to and that is:

    client x has condition y  -> CAM/modality/whatever is given (could be a sequence of treatments) -> client no longer has condition y

THEREFORE

  CAM/modality/whatever is given *cured* condition y

(this isn't how I view it by the way, but I'm trying to understand how others view it)

 

If this is repeated multiple times then there is nothing wrong with stating that out of a certain number of cases, if 96% no longer has condition y, then that is good *proof* that it worked.

Permalink Reply by Vlad on April 30, 2011 at 3:18pm

 

If anyone is looking at this and is a little confused, I recommend that you read the following free eBook:

http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/tt-downloads.html

 

Also helpful isthis chapter from Grant Rich's book

Both are easy reads.

 

After you've read them, you might look at that "research" on acupuncture in a different light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2024   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!