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.