Comments on: New Study, Same Old Back

By: www.fitnessbook.info » New Study, Same Old Back

www.fitnessbook.info » New Study, Same Old Back — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:10:57 +0000

[...] fred wrote a fantastic post today on “New Study, Same Old Back”Here’s ONLY a quick extractI’m the first to say that when my back hurts, I want the pain to go away in the short run, and might seek out our local acupuncturist for relief. But if I don’t also follow up with changes to my body mechanics and ergonomics at home and … [...]

By: fletch

fletch — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:44:16 +0000

I would think acupuncture is more like a drug that disables the body’s way of telling you something is wrong, rather than a cure. In fact, in the long run it could make the condition worse since you might continue to do the same things and even new things that cause the problem in the first place.

By: dale

dale — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:26:45 +0000

Well, and one badly wants to know how “sham” the sham accupuncture was. Were the points correct, and only the depth different? Who decided that 5+ mm was the correct depth? If the points were random, then what this study really demonstrates is simply that the placebo effect of accupuncture is considerably better than the real effect of whatever these Western treatments were. In fact the really interesting news is that the placebo effect of Western medicine was so much worse than that of Chinese.

Exercise fixed what was once chronic back pain, for me, so I’m with you there. Nothing else I tried ever had much impact on it.

By: Lin B

Lin B — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:19:46 +0000

Yes, this report seems so typically misleading – a quick read gives the impression that acupuncture, even badly done, is a lot more effective than “conventional therapy.” But as you say, unless we know exactly what that conventional therapy entailed, what’s the comparison worth?

We’re so overwhelmed with reports of “studies” like this that only confuse us, unless we read them skeptically, looking between the lines, and thinking as much about what’s NOT there as what is. And everytime I read something like this, I figure it’s just a matter of time until I read about another study that contradicts it.

Seems like we have to reserve judgment until the research pendulum has swung back and forth a lot – until eventually a preponderance of evidence gives a more reliable consensus?