Homeopathy, acupuncture...is it just a load of old..?

Question

Hi

can anyone provide me with any information, or links to information scientifically supporting or discrediting the validity of alternative therapies such as acupuncture, homeopathy. to my mind, scientific scepticism is increasingly diminishing as alternative therapies are helping people - even though scientific research ia largely inconclusive. i.e scientists are saying yes it helps manage, cure...but we're not entirely sure why and we don't have sophisticated enough methods or theories to either disprove or prove.

any info would be great.

thanks!

Answer 1

Acupuncture: It's a load of old squit based on an ancient Chinese belief that we have something called 'chi', or life-force, which can be re-directed using tiny needles (which weren't available thousands of years ago, incidentally, so I don't know where they got that from). If my life-force could be re-directed by a tiny needle or two, I'd be worried, myself - living in this age of metalwork and radiation of different types being everywhere, as  I do.

Homeopathy probably does have some merit - plants an stuff probably contain a lot more than we realize; though I don't neccessarily trust the wierdos who practice it.

I have yet to see, experience or read anything conclusive on either thing.

Acupuncture is b*****ks, though

Answer 2

I had acupuncture when I was pregnant for morning sickness...did absolutely sod all except hurt my hand where they put the last needle in.

Answer 3

Scientific Evidence for the Efficacy of Acupuncture

There was an interesting documentary on the BBC in 2006, called 'Alternative Medicine - Acupuncture', which was hosted by a Professor of Medicine at Bristol University {one of the best in the world/UK}, this involved a scientific evaluation of the therapy.

I have sourced a link from where you can download the video, although you will need bittorrent program to download:

http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Alternative-...

In the documentary it showed open heart surguries being performed in China, not so interesting on the face of it, but the patients had no [conventional] anaesthetic!, only acupuncture, a 2000 year old technique.

This baffled the Professor, and it goes on to show the history of acupuncture, as someone stated [quite ignorantly], their were no fine needles{as are today} in ancient China, at that time, however the Chinese would grind/cut rocks to produce a sharp point, similar to that of a needle.

Further, the documentery shows a full scale Randomised Clinical Trial, that was performed in the US at the University of Maryland. The research was led by Dr. Ryan Burnham.

The placebo, or Sham Acupuncture was cleverly-engineered fake needles that do not actually pierce the skin, but give the same sensation.

The results caused quite a controversy, the results showed Acupuncture works for Osteo-Arthritis by reducing pain/inflammation by upto 33% more in the real acupuncture group, compared to placebo sham acupuncture group.

This trial was followed up, and the placebo group were unaware of having had the placebo, this is a sound good scientific research on this ancient technique. This is a very convincing Trial, it has met all the criteria, sceptics are either ignorant of this study, or know of it, yet deliberately ignore it, in order to continue their sceptic belief-system.

This trial was approved by Professor Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complemetery Medicine {UK's first} at the University of Exeter. 'I am convinced acupunture works for osteo-athritis' Prof. Ernst

This trial is troubling for the scientific community, since no known mechanism of action is known. Although, the documentary went further to find a mechanism by conducting an expiriment, which they found.

When the De-Chi sensation was activated, {when the needle reacts or shakes}, this caused de-activation in certain parts of the brain, notably the limbic system, thus having a real effect, which the placebo failed to emulate. This study was looked over by Academics, Neuro-Physiologists, Professors of reputable university's, all confirming, scientists confirming, Acupuncture works for chronic pain/inflammation.

I was suprised to find, in a conventional journal, I do not recall the exact reference but I believe it was the [British] Lancet, anyway in there was a study supporting/reccommending the use of acupuncture for chemo-patients in oncology wards! to relieve nausea {an all to common side-effect of chemo- therapeutic drugs}:

chttp://www.acupunctureinmedicine.org.uk/...

A more scientific and reputable website confirming this, {for the sceptic/scientific minded} can be found here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16021...

Acupuncture has a lot to teach us about how our body's and brain works.

======================================...

What to make of Homeopathy?

Unfortunetly, homeopathy has produced no convincing scientific evidence, unlike many other therapies in Alternative Medicine, Homeopathy has been tested scientifically, evaluated and Clinical trials exist for it. However, there is not one iota of convincing scientific evidence.

More information can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/200...

The documentary can be downloaded from here:

http://www.mininova.org/tor/715395

======================================...

My Opinion

I was sceptical of Acupuncture, until fairly recently, I would say we need to look into this therapy without any bias, and leave our scientific dogma at the door, we need to look at acupuncture with a fresh pair of non-jaundiced eyes.

As for Homeopathy, I am personally not convinced of any therapeutic effect, beyond the placebo effect. Unlike closed-minded sceptics I have studied my father's {who is a homeopath} literature on Homeopathy, I find that alot of emphasis is added on the 'Homeopathic Consultation' and how you must instill in the mind of the patient that this remedy/'medicine' will work for them, to me this confirms this therapy works by the placebo effect. Samuel Heinemann {father/founder of Homeopathy} may just have found the power of the human mind, the placebo effect, which is recognised by scientists everywhere.

Having said that, unlike like hardened sceptics {who insult, ridicule and condemn homeopathy/homeopaths}; I have no quarrels or discontent with people using/practicing homeopathy, Why?

Firstly, homeopathic remedies are very very cheap, the homeopathic consultation is very friendly, caring and in itself is a type of counselling therapy {some people really need to blow of steam once in a while, and may have no other outlet}; just knowing someone cares to ask such question as 'How stressed are you', 'How much sleep do you get', eating habits, listing the symptoms, problems at home, work, relationships, all this is very helpful.

Conventional medicine [Allopaths] and Homeopathy have a  common ground, both agree that homeopathy is completely safe, with no side-effects.

And who cares if a patient is healed/cured by the placebo effect or by a 10 page chemical pharmacological mechanism of an expensive pharmaceutical drug, they achieve the same outcome: Relieving suffering from the patient.

The word 'patient'  means one who is suffering.

Personally, homeopathy has never worked for me, whether it be acne, headaches or any other ailment, however I have to say it has worked for my mum's migraine headaches, and has reduced the intensity and frequency of the migraine attacks, it is now a seldom occurance. My dad swears by Arnica, and a handful of other homeopathic remedies as being truly efficacous, reaping the most observable benefit to the patient,  which he claims to have observed from patients'.

Homeopathy should be used as complementery medicine, not alternative medicine, the former being in conjuction with other alt. or conventional therapies, and the later being homeopathy solely on its own. Homeopathy as alternative medicine is dangerous when it comes to chronic degenerative diseases like Cancer, Heart Disease, HIV, ect. These disease should always be used in conjunction with other more efficacious Alternative medicine therapies, like Gerson Therapy, Bob Beck Protocol, Rife Technology, Orthomolecular Medicine, ect. and/or conventional medicine.

Maybe, I am completely, wrong, homeopaths' do claim it does not work for everybody, I will readily let go of this scepticism if evidence is provided to the contorary.

However what bothers me, is when Homeopath's use the argument that water has a memory, claimed by the famous French scientist Dr. Jacques Benveniste {of the National Institute of Medical Research} and confirmed and 'verified' by Professor Madeleine Ennis, of Queen's University, Belfast Ireland.

This is very controversal, and rejected by mainstream science/medicine, however one must think, why would Dr. Benveniste put his neck on the line, sabotage his reputation, and some say the chance of winning a Noble Prize, What did he have to gain by this?...nothing, he had everything to lose.

Even if water has a memory, the theory that 'like cures like' is not solved, indeed in some cases this is true, like pollen is used to treats hayfever {used by conventional medicine and homeopathy}, however such a basic theory cannot be generalised for every illness/ailment, syndrome or disease.

Homeopathy is very popular is Europe, in fact the most poular alternative medicine therapy in Europe, it is also used by the British Royal Family, and Celebrities like British Footabller David Beckham, to overcome a foot injury.

Hope this helps.

Answer 4

For every 10 people you find that have had success with homeopathy or acupuncture, you're sure to find 10 people that have had no success.  However, you have no idea if they followed directions completely or did everything they were supposed to.  You are doing the right thing by researching for yourself and here is a good site to try for some great information   http://www.doingverywell.com   Stay informed!

Answer 5

The manufacturers of convectional medication make millions from selling drugs; many of these drugs have horrific side effects. Nevertheless, they have so called trials and many of the side effects are brushed under the carpet. The government turns a "blind eye" because; they gain from the taxes. Allopathic drugs are expensive and homoeopathy is not.

Think about this, who would pay for homoeopathic trials. Remedies are cheap and there is no-one who could gain financially from trials. Who would gain if the remedies were proven? Unlike drugs companies homoeopaths are not looking just for financial gain. Homoeopaths care. They cannot always provide an instant cure, however they will persevere until they find a remedy without side effects. Not all of the statistics are available on the side effects of allopathic medication, however we all know that thousands die every year, or suffer long term health problems.

Edit. Scorpio. I will explain to my dogs and the children who have successful homoeopathic treatment, about the placebo effect.

Answer 6

Well its good that scientist are finally coming around to, "we know it works but can't explain how"

There are still a lot that say "we can't understand how therefore it cannot exist and everyone who belives it is deluded /stupid/ a fraud/ etc."

The "scientific" model for testing isn't very scientific at all. it's reductionist trying to exclude all other factors except what is being tested. This is impossible so the actual model is very flawed.

The "scientific" community is waking up to having to acknowledge this and is looking at multifactorial and also not tryign to explain everything and just accepting the current knowledge is limited and cannot explain everything or prove disprove the existance of everything.

Now thats real Science!

Answer 7

There are three web-sites that may give you some help.

www.mercola.com, www.natural.news.com, and www.hacres.com.

Answer 8

Hi,

You sound sincere, as well as intelligent, so I took the time to provide a long answer, with information you probably won't find elsewhere. I've been a homeopath for almost 30 years, helping both animals and people, traveling from deep in the world of conventional medicine, to eventually arrive at the door of my homeopathic college after homeopathy was the first conventional or alternative healing modality to bring me from a bedridden state of health, to fully functional and - for the past 27 years - drug-free.

You are correct in your thinking. The current model of scientific research is largely inconclusive; although, quantum physicists know otherwise. The saying "Actions speak louder than words" can also be applied to efficacy in healing.

The best link for conventionally accepted homeopathic research is: http://www.homeopathic.com/. This is the website of Dana Ullman, homeopath, author and owner of Homeopathic Educational Services. Mr. Ullman has both a personal and professional interest in homeopathic research. While homeopathy does not fit into standard medical research models, he understands that it's necessary in order to address scientific skepticism. His website offers links to free articles, including those on research: http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/by_c...

It's not that we don't have sophisticated enough methods or theories to prove or disprove; rather, we are talking apples and oranges. The problems between conventional medicine and alternative medicine are due to their contrasting philosophies. Conventional medicine tends to be suppressive, and alternative medicine tends to be curative. They are doing opposite things, moving in opposite directions.

I'll summarize these ideas below*.  It is important to remember that these lists are comparisons of philosophies, not of practitioners. In the end, the practice of medicine depends upon the view of the practitioner. Some conventional practitioners practice more in line with the terms under alternative medicine. Conversely, some alternative practitioners practice more in line with the terms under conventional medicine.

Alternative Medicine

1. Energetic

2. All symptoms considered

3. Useful for chronic condition, although in the correct context is very helpful in acute disease also

4. Holistic

5. Connectedness

6. Transformative

7. Labor intensive, uses natural remedies

8. Curative

9. Gives responsibility to the person

10. Not state supported (UK, most U.S. states)

11. Cheap (this is distorted by the fact that state support is not available here)

12. Disease is merely a term applied to a group of symptoms

13. Disease will change if symptoms change

14. Symptoms are result of energetic imbalance

15. Symptoms are useful, positive, force for change

16. Health is a balance of energies and freedom from limitation

17. Cure is balance of energetic disharmony

Conventional Medicine

1. Physical

2. Emphasis on physical symptoms

3. Useful for crisis intervention, life-threatening situations

4. Separatist

5. Disconnectedness

6. Eliminative

7. Reliant on technology, chemicals

8. Suppressive

9. Gives responsibility to the disease (and hence to the doctor)

10. State supported

11. Expensive (in the UK, due to the National Health Service, citizens have the mistaken idea that health care is free)

12. Disease is independently existent entity

13. Disease is fixed state - you have it or you do not

14. Symptoms are caused by disease

15. Symptoms are unpleasant, negative, to be got rid of

16. Health is the absence of symptoms

17. Cure is removal of symptoms

* Comparison excerpted from "The Manual of Conventional Medicine for Alternative Practitioners" by Stephen Gascoigne (although I think the new edition is entitled "The Clinical Medicine Guide: A Holistic Perspective." His website has a free PDF download link on the chapter for Children's Health. http://www.drgascoigne.com/index.html

Healing is simple. Our world complicates it.

I hope this information serves to support you in what sounds like an intuitive knowledge.

Very worthy question. Take care.

Answer 9

There may be no

scientific evidence.  If you asked a 70 year old Chinese acupuncturist about it I am sure he/she would be very puzzled by your question based on his experience treating people for 50 years or so.

There are lots of studies available on homeopathy and generally homeopaths are content that their approach does benefit their patients.

The rationalist approach to human knowledge is a product of the 18th century influence of Descartes.  Human experience has shown that there is "more there there" than humans will ever be able to fathom.

Scientifice studies of alternative medicine are difficult to come by larger because of economics.  The studies are extremely expensive to set up and carry out. Almost all of the studies are short-term and financed by drug companies for economic reasons.

Every day it seems we have new information on drugs, vaccines, etc. currently on the market which have deleterious results for humans.

Cholesterol drugs for eight year olds?  The vaccine to prevent cervical cancer being given to 10-12 year old girls?  The manufacturers would LOVE for those to be widely used - they stand to make billions in profit.  The acupuncturists, homepaths, Reikie practitioners etc. continue to do their work and help people.

Answer 10

Here's a good one:

http://www.quackwatch.org/

Also, it helps to remember the words of Marcello Truzzi:

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded."

Answer 11

definitely not. accu has a histroy of over 2500 years. and

reflexology is in the same line...

http://www.healthy-step.com

Answer 12

There are a lot of interesting premises and assumptions in your question.  Truthfully, the answers you will get tend to break down into the following categories

People who have a vested interest in the allopathic system: It cannot possibly work in anyway whatsoever, and you're illogical if you think it does.

People who discovered it on their own: It's really cool and amazing and I love it.

Other people: I'm really not sure what to believe but it seems interesting.  Could you give me proof?

All of that seems reasonable, but there's one big problem that stacks the odds against homeopathy/accupuncture.  Essentially that is that testing them in double blind fashions is really difficult.  There are a few reasons for this:

1) RTCs are really expensive, and homeopathy/accupuncture simply do not have a way to pay for it like giant drug companies.

2) Accupuncture and homeopathy are "artistic' forms of medicine which requires the doctor to use their intuition creativity and knownledge to prescribe a treatment, rather than just following a standard formula of industry reccomended pharacuticals.  As such, it's easy enough to know to give 10 people a drug, and 10 not a drug (to conduct a study), but to scientifically evaluate either homeopathy or accupnucture, it requires a practicioner who's skilled in it to take part in the experiment, rather than standard research scientists "blankly copying what the treatment is supposed to be."  I know from my own personal experience that the efficacy of both treatments is hugely dependent on the skill of the doctor, so if you have a bad doctor run the trials, you will not have amazing results.

3) Going with 3, both these treatments, especially accupunture are prone to confounding variables which prevent them from being able as easy to study in RTC settings.

4) Medicine essentially has a bias of "if we cannot explain the mechanism of how this works, then it does not work", whereas many other systems have a mechanism of 'we don't really care why this works, we just use it because it does."

That's essentially the difference between theoretical and clinical medicine, and the reason why in China there was a policy that doctors only got paid once they treated their patients (and the doctor's made a living off it), whereas in the Western Allopathic Model, it's very common for billions to be spent on research and exhorbant hospital fees (for sound evidence based practices), only for the patients to never be healed and go bankrupt.

Since our current model cannot explain why these treatments work, they are hence disregarded.

5) There is an institutional bias against allowing cheap alternative therapies (for economic reasons).  The simplest way I can explain this, is that as recent as 10 years ago (before a variety of law suits cleared to stop it), it was quite common for immigrant Chinese who lived in china town and practiced acupuncture on other people living there to have their clinics raided at gun point by swat teams and have everything confiscated.  This might seem a bit unbelievable, but I've met quite a few people it's happened to.  Fortunately, things are better now, but the desire to quash other methods hasn't dissapeared.

At the end of the day, given how things are, the best option is probably just to see a conventional doctor and an accupuncturist/homeopath (both of whom you heard positive recommendations for), and see how good a job each one does at curing your problem.  It would be really nice if decent evidence existed, but at some point when you sift through the data (like I have), it just starts to get frustrating since so much of it is contradictory (due to the problems I outlined previously).  That said, I did get you some useful information!

Hope that helps;

Here is a good example of a pro accupuncture scientific study:

http://www.who.int/bookorders/anglais/de...

(summary is here: http://www.acupuncture-schools.us/nation...

I personally think much more could be established with accupuncture than what they did there, but the Western Model of Medicine simply is incompatible with studying Eastern Models (and claims it's incompatibility is a result of the alternate system being flawed, rather than a short coming on it's part).

Alternatively, here's the classic (shoddily done) source used to discredit accupuncture that was paid for by the AMA, along with a rebuttal of what it's false;

http://quackwatchinfo.blogspot.com/

Answer 13

go to this website and do your own researching

naturalnews.com