Obama wants acupuncture

[Celebration]

http://www.healthcmi.com/index.php/acupuncturist-news-online/222-obamaacupuncturestlouis56398

Healthcare reform may include alternative medicine therapy language. In a recent town hall meeting in St. Louis, MO, President Obama joked that he could use an acupuncture treatment for a stiff back. A licensed acupuncturist noted that the National Institutes of Health and the Wold Health Organization have “discovered through their studies that alternative medicine is often more cost-effective and very effective”. The President replied, “it is pretty well documented through scientific studies that acupuncture, for example, can be very helpful in relieving certain things like migraines and other ailments — or at least as effective as more intrusive interventions”. He also discussed the challenges of integrating preventative medicine into policy making noting that the new Secretary of Health and Human Service, Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of Kansas, is charged with the task of implementing effective healthcare solutions.


In the St. Louis 4-29-09 meeting, Obama noted that policymakers are reticent to invest in preventative medicine because the political payoff is long-term and therefore does not help with immediate re-election concerns. The President further commented that “in the private sector insurance system, oftentimes insurers make the same calculation. Their attitude is, well, people change jobs enough for us to pay for the preventive medicine now when the problem may not crop up for another 20 years and they’ll be long out of our system, so we don’t want to reimburse it because it will make things more costly. That’s the logic of our health care system that we’re going to have to change”. Obama went on to state that the “recovery package put a huge amount in prevention”.

........

Great Britain recently added acupuncture into its national healthcare system. Private insurers in the US including AETNA, United Healthcare, Blue Cross, and Blue Shield offer acupuncture insurance coverage options in their policies. However, it is unclear at this stage whether or not acupuncture and alternative medicine regulation will appear in federal law. Technically, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) does not list acupuncture as a unique profession in the US Standard Occupational Classification codes. Rather, acupuncture is listed only as a modality. This technical glitch prevents acupuncture by licensed acupuncturists from inclusion into Medicare and Medicaid along with insurance coverage for federal employees. The National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) has collaborated with other national organizations to fix this omission.

Acupuncture is already practiced in several major hospitals including Cedars Sinai, UCSF, Maui Memorial, Clifton Springs, and Novato hospitals. The Harvard Medical School Osher Institute also supports the use of acupuncture and conducts ongoing studies. The advent of healthcare reform sheds light on the cost-effectiveness issue. Given the research and practical application supporting acupuncture as an effective means to control pain and treat illness, the federal government may open the door to alternative therapies in an attempt to reduce healthcare costs.

[Warpy]

1. Acupuncture is one of those few proven things

although the jury is still out as to whether one can do random dry needling or has to follow Chinese meridians.

Its use has been proven in pain control, only.

It's a bit more expensive than a week's worth of Percodan. However, it probably works a lot better in some applications, such as back strain.

[HuckleB]

7. Since you don't even have to stick the needles in... Umm. Well...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=492

I trust you to come to your own conclusions...

[Warpy]

8. Then there is the study that demonstrated dry needles

were more effective than cortisone injections for severely strained backs.

Acupuncture studies cited without medicalese: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4493011.stm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w08x882471682u78/

We know something is going on in areas of the brain involving pain perception.

[HuckleB]

9. When you stick something in the body, of course the brain will respond.

At the end of the day, I don't think that means a whole lot at this point. In any other area, we would look at such a vague "response" as a very early piece of study.

Even the BBC piece contradicts its title with this quote: "Professor Henry McQuay, professor of pain relief at the University of Oxford and member of the Bandolier group that looks at the evidence behind different medical treatments, said: "The great bulk of the randomised controlled trials to date do not provide convincing evidence of pain relief over placebo."


This piece covers a great deal of this very well: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=252

"...

There are plenty of studies showing that acupuncture works for subjective symptoms like pain and nausea. But there are several things that throw serious doubt on their findings. The results are inconsistent, with some studies finding an effect and others not. The higher quality studies are less likely to find an effect. Most of the studies are done by believers in acupuncture. Many subjects would not volunteer for an acupuncture trial unless they had a bias towards believing it might work. The acupuncture studies coming from China and other oriental countries are all positive – but then almost everything coming out of China is positive. It’s not culturally acceptable to publish negative results – researchers would lose face and their jobs. In a recent survey, “No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective.” We can’t reach a valid conclusion based on positive published studies if we don’t know about negative studies that never saw the light of day.

...

Guess what? It doesn’t matter where you put the needle. It doesn’t matter whether you use a needle at all. In the best controlled studies, only one thing mattered: whether the patients believed they were getting acupuncture. If they believed they got the real thing, they got better pain relief – whether they actually got acupuncture or not! If they got acupuncture but believed they didn’t, it was less likely to work. If they didn’t get it but believed they did, it was more likely to work.

...

Acupuncturists can rationalize with great ingenuity. In a recent study using sham acupuncture as a control, both the sham placebo acupuncture and the true acupuncture worked equally well and were better than no treatment. The obvious conclusion was that acupuncture was no better than placebo. Their conclusion was that acupuncture worked and the placebo acupuncture worked too!

...

Considering the inconsistent research results, the implausibility of qi and meridians, and the many questions that remain, all the current evidence is compatible with this hypothesis: acupuncture is nothing more than a recipe for an elaborate placebo seasoned with a soupcon of counter-irritant. That is what R. Barker Bausell concluded in his book Snake Oil Science. The world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Dr. Edzard Ernst, is more accepting of low-prior-plausibility evidence than some of us; but even he used the words “tentative” and “might” when he recently wrote, “While there is tentative evidence that acupuncture might be effective for some forms of pain relief and nausea, it fails to deliver any medical benefit in any other situations and its underlying concepts are meaningless.”

..."

---------

And a systematic review in BMJ concludes: "A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot
be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear."

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/338/jan27_2/a3115?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=ACUPUNCTURE&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT%2013



And I say and present this stuff as a health care provider who used to have no problem sending people to an acupuncturist for insomnia and other issues. I've recommended it to friends and family for pain, based on my old, sketchy readings of the literature. I can't do that anymore.

[Celebration]

10. I love it that placebo acupuncture works

I find it strange that anyone has a problem with that.

[Orrex]

11. The problem, generally speaking, is that it's unreliable and generally unpredictable

If it works when it's claimed to work, that's super. If someone wants to pursue it as a treatment option, that's super, too.

But if it's claimed that the technique works by manipulating the flow of qi or that it's based on techniques dating back for millennia, well that's just snake oil hucksterism of the worst kind. As such, many who object to it do so on the grounds that the marketing is based in outright lies and misinformation which prey on the hopes and desperation of its customers.

And if it's made out to be a more broadly effective treatment than has been experimentally demonstrated (by claiming, for instance, that it can cure sinus infections or gastrointestinal disorders), then anyone making such a claim should be barred from practicing medicine until he or she can produce experimental results in support of the claim.

[Celebration]

13. the mechanism

I am guessing this-- when sham acupuncture works as well as real acupuncture, I am guessing it is because BOTH of them cause release of endorphins. And, this is a guess again, endorphin release can be extremely helpful for a lot of conditions, including immune disorders. More research is needed in all this.

Most people can definitely "feel" acupuncture. A good many people feel it strongly. It is very pleasurable. You actually can feel sensations all over the body. People get benefits from all kinds of conditions. Mostly they don't care if it is labeled placebo, chi, endorphins, or whatever. They just like it and know it helps them.

It is pretty straightforward. They just really don't care about Medline, or blogs on science based medicine.

[HuckleB]

14. You may be far too kind.

Through the Looking Glass of Acupuncture Research
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=419

"... (Much discussion and explanation about a particular study.) ...

Scientific conclusion: null hypothesis not rejected, i.e. acupuncture does not work for IVF.

Alternative universe CAM conclusion: “Placebo acupuncture may not be inert.”

...

So even if you try to put the best face on acupuncture research (and why would you, unless you had an ideological bias), all you can say is that there is some effect from the ritual of acupuncture, but it does not matter where you put the needles or if the needles pierce the skin or not. But that pretty much kills any claims for the traditional interpretation of acupuncture or any claims for a specific physiological effect from acupuncture. The needles, it seems, are irrelevant – and what is acupuncture without the needles. It’s relaxation, and maybe some gentle palpation.

Acupuncture does not work for IVF, and in my opinion for anything else. If it were a drug it would not get past the FDA. In the world of science-based medicine, it should be discarded as a failed approach. But it survives in the alternate universe of CAM.

..."


Note: I would love to be proved wrong about acupuncture, but, at this point, the more I dig into it, the more I find that there is less to it.

[Celebration]

15. you really need to send all these blog posts

to Harvard, to educate them.....

http://cme.med.harvard.edu/index.asp?SECTION=CLASSES&ID=00302317

[HuckleB]

18. It's funny how you reduce studies to "blog posts" in order to suit your propaganda.

We are all aware of the CAM infiltration into academia, despite the different standards of scientific expectations.

[Celebration]

27. It's funny how you use opinion of blog posts

to filter the interpretation of the studies, and then not expect that to be pointed out.

Also funny that Harvard is charging thousands of dollars per person for MDs to learn acupuncture. I'm sure it is because they haven't read your favored blogs.

Why don't you send them to Harvard?

[HuckleB]

29. "Blog posts" by researchers and MDs.

They offer opinions based on the basics of research. In other words they look at what's expected of a researcher, and they explore if those expectations were met. It's funny how you ignore that. They point out that the studies were performed by people interested in pushing an agenda, and point out the manipulation of the information to push that agenda. Anyone who cares about decent science can look at what the studies and the posts I've brought to the thread show. In this case, they show a study with flaws, and even more flawed conclusions. You don't want the conclusions to be flawed, because your preconceived notions desperately want those flawed conclusions to be correct.

I wish they were correct. Believe me. But that does not make them so.

PS --

Do you not understand that medical schools have had such courses for years, and MDs who want to make a buck off the scam can then do it. But if an MD only needs such a course, why does an acupuncturist need so much schooling just to do acupuncture? Do you understand that such courses do not prove that acupuncture works? They are simply offered courses. Money is to be made on all sides, and we all might want to be more suspicious of that.

[Celebration]

32. Now you are saying

Harvard promotes scams.

Okaaaaaay.

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

34. Do you think it's the only unproven therapy taught at Harvard or other medical schools?

:shrug:

And why do you appear to be incapable of actually discussing the content of any of these studies? Why the pointless red herring?

[Celebration]

36. are you telling me

That they teach things other than science based medicine?

Golly gee whiz, wonder why? They obviously are not reading the right blogs.

[HuckleB]

38. Yes, I am. So do nursing schools.

Apparently you think that justifies something or another. I think it's something that health care professionals need to address, and many of us attempt to address each day.

[Celebration]

39. yeah, you need to get BUSY

Send them the blogs!

[HuckleB]

40. Thanks for confirming that you have no interest in actual discussion.

I'm still waiting for you to offer one post that shows any understanding of any study. It's clear that you have no understanding of the issues at hand, of medical school, nursing school, or any other matter. It also appears that you lack the curiosity necessary to learn anything about the subjects at hand. You'd rather play games with meaningless red herrings. Is that all that proponents of "alternative medicine" can offer?

Bye.

[Celebration]

42. Thank GOD!!

The Bye has come.

[HuckleB]

46. I'm BACK!

Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

And the science still hasn't gone away. Acupuncture still appears to be no better than placebo.

[Celebration]

47. according to your favorite blog..............

Not Obama, not Harvard.

[HuckleB]

49. Let's see if you have an ounce of intellectual honest.

Read this BLOG post, which includes references to a full systematic review of the spectrum of studies done on hot flashes and acupuncture.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3314

Now, will you offer that information on the board where you pushed your single study? Will you let the pals that you've run to in order to rec that preliminary piece know the reality of the science? Or are you just a hack, who must run from reality and pretend it doesn't exist?

This is a test for you. What kind of a person are you?

[HuckleB]

48. According to the full spectrum of studies published.

Game over.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/338/jan27_2/a3115

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=371

[Celebration]

51. ho hum

Another blog reference, and a study that doesn't like the idea that sham acupuncture actually helps pain. Again, the fact that acupuncture has a very large placebo effect should be viewed as a PLUS, not something evil.

[HuckleB]

52. Thanks for the continued dishonesty.

Since when is BMJ a blog? And why do you ignore the studies linked on that blog?

I've come across some dishonest people in my life, but you're starting to take the cake.

[Celebration]

53. so now you can't read?

You put a blog reference in the post I responded to. You also posted a study that from BMJ that gripes about the large placebo effect of acupuncture, which I noted. There is no reason to be unhappy about a large acupuncture placebo effect. There is a reason to celebrate it.

[HuckleB]

54. And in the blog reference were links to studies.

But, I already told you that, and you chose to respond as if I hadn't done that. Of course, if you had an ounce of curiosity in you, you would have found that out for yourself. Instead, you prove that you lack curiosity about the world, and that you lack any ability to challenge yourself, or increase your knowledge base. All you are doing is screaming and yelling. You have yet to show any honesty in this or any other discussion. Do you have an honest bone in you? Seriously.

Do you?

:shrug:

[Celebration]

55. I've pretty much had it

with your useless blogs. You could have linked studies.

Blogs are fine, but here's a hint: their spin is editorial, not science, and should not be characterized as anything other than editorial. If you would acknowledge them as opinion, I wouldn't have so much problem with them.

[HuckleB]

56. Your excuses are weak.

You and I both know it. I've pointed out your repeated lack of honesty, and you apparently can't be shaken from your devotion to it.

Your blind faith is more important to you than the real world.

That's all you've shown anyone.

[Celebration]

57. in the real world

Harvard trains medical doctors to become acupuncturists.

So, good luck with your agenda.

:sarcasm:

[HuckleB]

58. That's funny.

Nice tantrum.

[HuckleB]

12. .

http://cectic.com/133.html

[HuckleB]

50. An easy explanation for you.

http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/insane-reporting-on-acupuncture-trials/

[Sanity Claws]

22. That study showed that acupuncture, real or feigned, was better than

usual (i.e. Western) treatment. That is the real outcome of the study.

This is a quote:
RESULTS: At 8 weeks, mean dysfunction scores for the individualized, standardized, and simulated acupuncture groups improved by 4.4, 4.5, and 4.4 points, respectively, compared with 2.1 points for those receiving usual care (P < .001). Participants receiving real or simulated acupuncture were more likely than those receiving usual care to experience clinically meaningful improvements on the dysfunction scale (60% vs 39%; P < .001). Symptoms improved by 1.6 to 1.9 points in the treatment groups compared with 0.7 points in the usual care group (P < .001). After 1 year, participants in the treatment groups were more likely than those receiving usual care to experience clinically meaningful improvements in dysfunction (59% to 65% vs 50%, respectively; P = .02) but not in symptoms (P > .05).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19433697?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This just shows that we don't understand how or why Acupuncture works but it sure is more effective than western medicine.
I know what I'll go with.

[HuckleB]

23. Read the piece I posted, and then read this.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/another_acupuncture_study_misinterpreted.php

That study makes a claim that really doesn't wash because it's comparing three sets of blinded treatments (that all somehow had equal results) with an unblinded treatment. That's not something that's a viable comparison. The reasons are explained at length in the original piece, which I suspect you did not read. I am offering a second explanation, just for the heck of it.

If you don't want to read the full pieces, here's the summary from one of the responses on science based medicine piece:

"Actually, this study is an even better piece of evidence that any effect from acupuncture is due to nonspecific placebo effects than Steve argues. The reason? There was no restriction on “usual care” among the acupuncture groups. Thus, the three acupuncture groups were getting their version of acupuncture or sham acupuncture added to their usual care, the same usual care given to the “usual care” group. Given such an experimental design, I would have been shocked if the acupuncture groups didn’t show superiority to the “usual treatment” arm. Such a result was exactly expected based on the expected placebo effect from being in one of the acupuncture arms of the study."

[Richard D]

2. I volunteer!

I've got 26 years experience.

Oh, wait. He doesn't want it personally. Good plan to include it though. I've saved many people from surgery for a few hundred dollars worth of treatment vs. tens of thousands for the surgery.

[NV Whino]

3. I hope he takes the "joke" out of it

Acupuncture works. During my recent health disaster I was fortunate to fall into the hands of a doctor who believes in and practices acupuncture in addition to western medicine. Instant pain relief.

Many years ago I totally lost my voice due to a paralyzed vocal cord. The ENT wanted a CAT scan. It cost $$$ and I had no insurance. I went to an acupuncturist and had my voice back within 6 weeks at less than half the cost of the CAT scan, which would have done nothing to cure the problem and probably provided no useful information.

[Bobbieo]

4. It helped me to quit smoking some 20 years ago.

[murielm99]

5. That works? n/t

[HuckleB]

6. There is no scientifc basis for such a claim.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16437420?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=5

[Sanity Claws]

16. That study said

"methodological problems mean that no firm conclusions can be drawn. Further research using frequent or continuous stimulation is justified."

That it has not yet been proved scientifically is not the same as saying it is useless or proved ineffective.

[HuckleB]

19. You can't prove a negative.

The point is there is no scientific basis for claiming that it works. One can always claim that more research is needed. Well, most studies do make that claim, because that's how science works. At this point, it should be considered fraud to claim that acupuncture can treat smoking cessation, however.

[Sanity Claws]

20. That's true generally

However, with medical issues, one can prove that a particular therapy is no more effective than nothing or that it is actually deleterious.

I have not seen anything like that for acupuncture.

[HuckleB]

21. And your point?

Fraud is fraud.

[Sanity Claws]

24. Pretending not to understand what I said is

not a substitute for a response.
Whatever.

[HuckleB]

26. Your post could be taken many ways.

It's very generalized and vague, and doesn't seem to get to a definite point.

:shrug:

[Sanity Claws]

17. Glad to hear it

Here's one study that it indicates that acupuncture provides relief for chronic pain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20070551?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=3

[HuckleB]

25. Why Non-Scientists Should Not Direct Scientific Efforts: Senator Harkin’s Misguided Beliefs Exposed

"In this video, Senator Tom Harkin describes the impetus behind the creation of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). Harkin suggests that he single-handedly introduced legislation in 1992 that created the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This office paved the way for an entire new branch of research at NIH devoted to exploring the potential validity of non-science based medical practices such as homeopathy, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, energy healing, meditation and more. He introduced the legislation because a friend of his experienced a substantial health improvement after trying one of these non-science based therapies. Essentially, an entire branch of the NIH was founded on an anecdote.

What’s worse is that after a decade of careful analysis of these alternative therapies, science has shown that not a single one of them appears to be efficacious beyond placebo. One would think that Senator Harkin would be embarrassed by the colossal waste of tax payer resources spent on this pet project of his. But no, instead he chastises the scientists who did the research, saying that they had failed to do their job of “validating” the therapeutic modalities. Wow. I guess he was never interested in finding out the truth about what works and what doesn’t - because when objective analysis reveals that these modalities don’t work, then the science must be flawed."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Will Quackery Be Legislated By The Senate? Better Call Your Senator
http://getbetterhealth.com/will-quackery-be-legislated-by-the-senate-better-call-your-senator/2009.11.19


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Senate Healthcare Bill Amendment Allocates Your Tax Dollars To Quacks
http://getbetterhealth.com/senate-healthcare-bill-amendment-allocates-your-tax-dollars-to-quacks/2009.07.28


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Healthcare Reform Bills Legitimize Quackery
http://getbetterhealth.com/healthcare-reform-bills-legitimize-quackery/2009.11.30


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Celebration]

28. And this is in response to the OP

Exactly HOW?

Didn't I just read where you chastised someone to start their own thread rather than completely changing the subject?

You are off on some tangent about the NCCAM. You seem a bit obsessed.

:shrug:

[HuckleB]

30. These all address the possible entry of CAM into the health care reform.

The first piece brings up the lack of research success for CAM (and the incredible amount of money that's been wasted to that end), and that is followed by pieces on legislative attempts to get CAM into HCR... (so we can waste even more money).

How does that not address the OP?

-----

Oh, you simply took a quick look at the headline for the first one, without reading it, and then didn't even bother to read the other headlines, much less the content of the other articles.

:rofl:

-----

[Celebration]

31. it's about

the possibility of acupuncture being part of a health care program, and Obama's response to a question about it.

It is not a post about the history of NCCAM.

Have you sent your favored blog to Harvard yet?

[HuckleB]

33. WOW!

You didn't even read my post before you responded, much less go back and take a look at the first post that you are attempting to disparage with nonsense.

Amazing.

BTW, your little Harvard gambit is actually a true red herring.

:rofl:

[Celebration]

35. not at all

you stated

"Do you not understand that medical schools have had such courses for years, and MDs who want to make a buck off the scam can then do it."

I'm sure Harvard would be interested in knowing that their courses teach MDs to make a buck off the scam. It could ruin their reputation.

Edited to add:

Since now you have posted your obligatory "red herring" post, I suggest that you might want the "Bye" one now.............

[HuckleB]

37. That discussion is above.

So you really want to keep posting nothing but red herrings after you falsely accused me of posting a red herring?

Again...

WOW!

What is your game? Is it to keep people from reading the content of my original response? Your continued wild responses seem to have no purpose.

:rofl:

[Celebration]

41. "red herring"

I just wonder if you have made it through an entire health thread without using that phrase.

That was the red herring I was talking about!

Now I am waiting for the "Bye".

Honestly, it is really a trip reading your posts in all these threads--first a blog posting claiming that a blog opinion is scientific proof, then an accusation of a red herring, and then a "Bye". It is a bit repetitive.

[HuckleB]

43. More of the same "blah blah blah" nothing.

The only "trip" is the complete lack of intellectual honesty, and the complete lack of curiosity that you display. It's no wonder you despise science so much. Sorry, but the black and white world of imaginary cures that you desire does not exist. Actual discussion includes being honest, capable, and curious, but you seem to care nothing for any of those attributes. You frequently post responses without reading the posts to which you're supposed to be responding. And you offer repeated red herrings. When I point that out, you find that to be a worthy topic of more pointless posting. Yet I can't see where you are offering any actual discussion on the topic at hand. Today you chose to use a dishonest rant about blog posts so you could deny something that any honest individual can see. Apparently, that's just your "trip."

[Celebration]

44. sooooo predictable

blog
red herring
bye

I love science. But I don't take blog posts as gospel. I don't have anything against blogs posted in the Health Forum at all, just don't try to pass off opinion as science, please. That seems to be your forte.

If it is a red herring to point out that Harvard trains doctors in acupuncture, then so be it. I don't totally trust Harvard, or anyone for that matter, but I will take their opinion over a blog post any day of the week.

[HuckleB]

45. The only thing that is predictible is your lack of honesty.

:eyes:

And you don't give a rip about science. If you did, you would discuss it honestly, with actual curiosity, not just play BS games. I'm truly tired of your dishonesty on this thread.