[CHA] Is AP just a Placebo, or have some Acupoints specific effects?

[Guest guest]

However, for almost 30

years, I have argued that controlled trials should avoid " Sham

Needling " , or stimulation of " non-active " points. This is because we

cannnot be certain (in advance) that the " Non-Active " points really

are that. As many on the lists have said, any stimulus anywhere

on the body can have some effects.

>>>>Phil the problem is that if you cant do better than a monkey putting in

needles why do we spend all this money on study. Just give a set of needles to

anyone that knows some anatomy (just for safely) and let them stick. The only

way is to compare sham needles to so-called active acupuncture. While i also

have a hard time believing its all just inserting needles when treating pain, as

all these studies were on pain, my belief and personal FEELING is irrelevant. I

am worried when i hear we cannot do better than sham needles, and then try to

make a case for other study methods.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

As Avants et al commented in a reply to Park et al regarding their

new placebo auricular needle:

 

" Drs Park, White, and Ernst suggest an interesting " sham needle

insertion " control for acupuncture research, one that does not

penetrate the skin. We note that a needle that does not penetrate

the skin could not properly control for " needle insertion, "

but rather for a patient's perception that a needle had been

inserted. By using a needle inserted into the helix of the auricle,

our study was able to test the differential effect of needle

placement, ie, the hypothesis that needles inserted into or near the

concha would be more effective than needles inserted into the helix

of the auricle. A sham insertion control would not allow for this

test. However, as Drs Park, White, and Ernst imply,this

hypothesismayhave been tested at the expense of complete patient

blinding, which their sham insertion device might well provide. This

is a good illustration of the trade-offs that are involved in

implementing rigorous clinical trials of procedures such as

acupuncture, and we welcome their contribution to this important

issue " .

S. Kelly Avants, et al.

 

If a placebo needle is used, then the control group would be nothing

more than nothing, a placebo. It would be difficult to justify a

credible intervention against a placebo. Also, the use of

acupuncture may include a large part of the placebo effect. To

measure acupuncture against a placebo may be the wrong way, points

may be better.

 

Attilio

 

" Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> However, for almost 30

> years, I have argued that controlled trials should avoid " Sham

> Needling " , or stimulation of " non-active " points. This is because

we

> cannnot be certain (in advance) that the " Non-Active " points

really

> are that. As many on the lists have said, any stimulus anywhere

> on the body can have some effects.

> >>>>Phil the problem is that if you cant do better than a monkey

putting in needles why do we spend all this money on study. Just

give a set of needles to anyone that knows some anatomy (just for

safely) and let them stick. The only way is to compare sham needles

to so-called active acupuncture. While i also have a hard time

believing its all just inserting needles when treating pain, as all

these studies were on pain, my belief and personal FEELING is

irrelevant. I am worried when i hear we cannot do better than sham

needles, and then try to make a case for other study methods.

> Alon

>

>