Qi Spot

I set up a google alert to inform me of news regarding the topics I’m interested in, which obviously includes material I can use for this blog.  Look at the picture above.  Then hear my roar.

The very first line is from an article by the associated press in their newest obviously-big-pharma-sponsored war against natural medicine.  I’ve already blogged about how Big Pharma can present evidence anyway it wants to (http://qi-spot.com/2009/10/19/evidence-based-medicine/), how it may be rampant with (hopefully) isolated fraud (http://qi-spot.com/2009/10/24/vioxx-and-bextra-studies-allegedly-fabricated/) and others.

Now the Associated Press is starting a “series” or articles critiquing natural medicine.  So… imagine my laughter when I saw my google alert.

First line:

Acupuncture is especially hard to research. Positive studies tend to lack comparison groups that have been given a sham treatment. …

Then the very next line cites a study from Yale.  YALE.  This we’ve covered in the entry ( http://qi-spot.com/2009/10/17/lend-me-your-ears-ear-acupuncture-for-back-pain-in-pregnant-women/)

We quote again:

Ear acupuncture might offer a drug-free way to help ease pain in these women, Wang and colleagues say. They randomly assigned 159 women in the 25th to 38th week of pregnancy to receive real acupuncture, acupuncture delivered to points that would theoretically not affect pain in the pelvic or lower back area, and a control group. Every woman was also instructed to use self-care as needed, including resting, taking acetaminophen, and applying warm and cold compresses. (emphasis mine)

“…would theoretically not affect pain…” sounds like a SHAM to me.

Need I remind you of the result:

All of the 152 women who completed the two-week study reported some degree of pain reduction and improvement in their ability to function. A 30% or greater reduction in pain was reported by 81% of women in the acupuncture group, 59% of women in the sham acupuncture group and 47% of women in the control group. The difference between the sham and control groups wasn’t statistically significant.

In laymen’s terms: fake acupuncture was similar in effect to nothing.  Real acupuncture was better.  I can cite SO MANY MORE STUDIES. Just click on other researches I’ve commented on.  Check out the evidence in other cites such as those in my links.

Didn’t the AP just say “Positive studies tend to lack comparison groups that have been given a sham treatment”?  GET YOUR GLASSES FIXED ASSOCIATED PRESS!!!

Oh wait, they’re weasel wording.  “tend to”… Which means if people like me point out they’re misleading people with their statements they can always weasel their way out by saying “ah but we said ‘tend to’”.

Who’s not being scientific now?

God, there are times where I REALLY love being a western doctor.

And that explosion you heard is my sarcasm meter overloading.

Ear Acupuncture Chart (image courtesy http://www.acupunctureproducts.com

Afraid of having needles stuck in you?

The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology noted that  “ear acupuncture” works better than sham acupuncture at “fake” points and control in relieving low back and pelvic pain.

Excerpts from the text (“Ear Acupuncture Curbs Back Pain in Pregnant Women” courtesy of Reuters Health), which again is “news” to some people who don’t know that this technique has been around for hundreds of years.

In a study, women who had pressure needles held in place with tape at three acupuncture points in their ears for one week, were more likely to experience significant reductions in lower back and pelvic pain than those who had the needles placed at three “sham” points or women in a control group who didn’t get real or fake acupuncture.

Some “skeptics” justify their position about acupuncture by citing studies claiming that fake acupuncture  – real needles inserted in non acupuncture points – work seemingly just as well as those inserted into real points.  They often claim this means points are useless.  They also forget that inserting needles is better than not inserting.

Actually this proves the meridian theory is real, since Qi flows through the meridians, thus putting needles along the meridians WILL have some effect, albeit not the ideal one.  So what did the researchers do here?

They randomly assigned 159 women in the 25th to 38th week of pregnancy to receive real acupuncture, acupuncture delivered to points that would theoretically not affect pain in the pelvic or lower back area, and a control group.

For ear acupuncture, the points are more specific and there are no “lines” connecting the dots.  Therefore, you have to use the points properly or have no effect at all, even if you put stimulation in other parts of the ear.

The results:

A 30 percent or greater reduction in pain was reported by 81 percent of women in the acupuncture group, 59 percent of women in the sham acupuncture group and 47 percent of women in the control group. The difference between the sham and control groups wasn’t statistically significant.

Thirty-seven percent of women in the acupuncture group were pain-free after a week of acupuncture, compared to 22 percent in the sham group and 9 percent of the control group. Improvements in function were significantly greater among women who had real acupuncture compared to those who got the fake version or received no treatment.

So, real acupuncture works better than fake or ordinary painkillers, etc…  Okay… maybe NOW the skeptics will believe us. (I wish.)

But the pain relief didn’t persist for some; a week after the end of acupuncture treatment, 68 percent of those who received the real thing still had a 30 percent or greater reduction in pain compared to the beginning of treatment, while 32 percent in the sham acupuncture group and 18 percent of the control group sustained this level of pain reduction. There was no significant difference among the groups in the percentage remaining free of pain two weeks into the study.

So one week of real acupuncture produced more lasting relief than fake acupuncture.  Imagine if we actually continued the treatment.

The original study: <http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(09)00424-4/fulltext>

Sources:

Reuters Health.  “Ear Acupuncture Curbs Back Pain in Pregnant Women” abcnews.go.com 16 October 2009.  17 October 2009 <http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WireStory?id=8847011&page=1>
Shu-Ming Wang, Peggy DeZinno, Eric C. Lin, Haiqun Lin, James J. Yue, Michael R. Berman, Ferne Braveman, Zeev N. Kain.  “Auricular acupuncture as a treatment for pregnant women who have low back and posterior pelvic pain: a pilot study” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology September 2009 (Vol. 201, Issue 3, Pages 271.e1-271.e9) Online June 29, 2009.  17 October 2009 <http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(09)00424-4/fulltext>