Unbelievable: The medications, acupuncture and placebo have the same effect!
Today on Repubblica.it is an article on 'acupuncture in which it is claimed that the results of recent research (meta-analysis of scientific literature) have shown that acupuncture is "just a placebo effect." I invite you to read the article:
http://www.repubblica.it/2009/01/sezioni/scienze/agopuntura/agopuntura/agopuntura.html?ref=hpspr1
What follows is the comment I posted to the website of the Republic:
I read the comments and I imagine that there will be others. Journalists can sometimes manipulate information even when the facts show more or less correctly! Let me explain: The most "shocking" in research, if you really want, is NOT the proximity between acupuncture and placebo but, AS JOURNALIST SAYS THE SAME:
"The surprising result was that all reported benefits from treatment, comparable to those obtained by analgesics or other medicines to lessen the pain"
So, dear Enrico Franceschini, if the placebo effect is better than drugs, because we do not study the placebo effect rather than spending money on laborious chemical synthesis? Ask yourself a little 'this, instead of giving the title to his article "Acupuncture, only the placebo effect, the technique ridimensianata China" which is misleading
Imagine how it would change the article with this title: "Unbelievable: The medications, acupuncture and placebo have the same effect!"
The problem here, beyond the blindness of certain scientific circles and the statements of some doctors, particularly the responsibility of the media and the journalists who influence the masses with titles and opinions developed ad hoc. Unfortunately it is only the case of the Republic, this, as Reuters reports it also in a similar way:
http://it.notizie.yahoo.com/4/20090121/tso-oitlr-agopuntura-aghi-89ec962.html
Perhaps it was the statements of Dr. Linde to elicit this kind of report about the article, maybe not, but in any case, the journalists should have a minimum of intellectual independence to understand what is the important point of research, which is never indicated except incidentally, but NEVER IN TITLE:
The results showed that people treated for more than eight weeks with acupuncture had fewer episodes of headaches than those who were only treated with painkillers.
As for the migraines, the needles were more effective than drugs, but also the simulated treatments gave good results, the researchers said.
We could discuss at length the way in scientific research have been selected acupuncture points, the way in which the checks were made or the preparation of researchers on the subject (acupuncture) who want to study (and therefore should know). But I want them to discuss it more, if possible, the placebo effect, and not just the "sugar pill containing no medicine," which mentions Franceschini.
If you take a look to the sources, which consist of an article of 2009, and probably one of the 2001 Cochrane same, we note that in the meta-analysis of 2001 indicates that in studies in which acupuncture was compared with the DRUGS, the first approach was more effective than the second. I quote:
2001
"In the four trials in Which Compared to acupuncture was proven to Prophylactic drug treatment, Patients receiving acupuncture Tended to report more improvement and fewer side effects"
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001218.html
"The reduction of analgesic use was similar in Patients
Prophylactic drug treatment and receiving acupuncture, but
Several windows for time, results for the response, the migraine attacks,
migraine days and statistically significant in intensity Were Favour
of the acupuncture groups. "
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001218/pdf_fs.html
I could not read the entire meta-analysis of 2009, but already in the abstract ( http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab007587.html ) refers NO MORE 'to pharmaceutical treatments (proven Prophylactic drug treatment) in the abstract as of 2001, but only to a more generic "basic care" (basic cares) with painkillers (such as acupuncture compared to shows, however, is more effective)
One last point about the article of the Republic:
The article generalizes a partial result, therefore, commits a logical fallacy: the fact that a search has been observed that acupuncture "true" (and here we would have to be discussed) did not differ significantly from acupuncture "false" in the IF Headache does not mean it's true IN ANY EVENT, as alleged in the article. If you want scientific rigor in distinguishing between different approaches to medicine, it also respects the disclosure. To do at home: study logical fallacies, the news reporting it is full.
Category: East and West , Various on: January 22nd, 2009
What do you think?