I point out below statements and insinuations that have no basis in fact: --- On Sun, 5/31/09, Gilbert Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > Some refuse to accept the effect of 'mind over body' > which the author, a neuro-scientist is presenting. >
The above statement is entirely false. None of the authors of the latest acupuncture study cited in the Newsweek article is a neuroscientist. The first author is a statistician and an epidemiologist. The last author is a professor of family medicine. Others are internists, epidemiologists, nurses, behavior biologists and biostatisticians. This paper, which I have read (which even a perceptive non-medical person like Mario would be able to understand), says nothing about "mind over body". It simply considers cases wherein people chronically complain about back pain without there being any serious medical cause for it (patients with medical causes such as cancer, spinal stenosis, etc were excluded), and concludes the following merely based on computer-assisted telephonic interviews: 1. That poking with toothpicks on the body to fool the patients that they are receiving acupuncture treatment is as effective as real acupuncture in making the patients answer certain computerized telephonic questions to indicate that they feel better. 2. That the fake poking procedure as well as real acupuncture were better than whatever else the patients were doing, which could be random things such as self-medication, taking unspecified pills prescribed by physicians belonging to unspecified disciplines and systems of medicine, physical therapy or nothing at all. 3. That it is unlikely that the benefits provided by acupuncture have anything to do with any specific mechanism claimed by Chinese medicine. Because they can be duplicated by a counterfeit poking procedure manufactured only for the purpose of this study, the effect appears to be due to nonspecific and psychological reasons. In other words, there is nothing special or unique about acupuncture. Even an astute lay person will be able to figure out the problems with this study. In addition to the reliance on self-reports through computerized telephonic interviews to assess outcomes, the lack of a proper comparison with a group of patients that is deliberately and uniformly treated with some standard form of conventional treatment should make this study inconclusive, in terms of the net effectiveness of random poking over conventional therapy for these ill-defined chronic complaints of low back pain. > > The issue becomes: Does the 'scientific doctor' prescribe > the "proven / accepted standard of care" for chronic low > backache, which provided LESS benefit (39 percent) than > acupuncture (60 percent)? This has been PROVEN by THIS > SCIENTIFIC STUDY. > This study does not do what is claimed above. As I have pointed out, the comparison group that had an outcome of 39% did not have anything to do with "proven/accepted standard of care". It consisted of a hodge-podge of individuals who had very little in common with each other in terms of the treatment they took or did not take. No uniform standard conventional treatment was provided to any group of patients in this study. > >In the practice of allopathy, often we prescribe "empirical treatment", >>which is based on teaching and experience of the practitioner (and > rightly so). > I hope the term empirical treatment is used in its right sense above, which is treatment that is based on objective observational evidence, confirmed by individual and collective experience. No competent and ethical conventional physician ever prescribes any drug that is not tested for efficacy and safety, and approved by the FDA. Indeed, in most cases (and in all cases where this is possible), no such physician ever prescribes anything that does not have a well-established scientific rationale in terms of its pharmacology. > >So I would give the same latitude to a non-allopathy doctor, (without >using >words like deception) who advice their patients what in their >opinion and >experience works, guarding their own reputation and deep > sincere desire to help a patient who has entrusted their care (life) in > >their hands. > Giving the same latitude as above requires that their medications be tested for efficacy and safety by others, and be approved by a regulatory agency for its intended use. Otherwise, the difference between the latitudes would be poles apart. Moreover, anybody can claim that in his experience something works, or that he has read it in a book written 200 or 3000 years ago. There are plenty of conventional as well as alternative quacks who deceive people in this manner. The general public ought to be made aware of this deception. Cheers, Santosh
