Just a little update on my last post.
As I suspected, Science-Based Medicine and Dr. Novella picked up the slack on the primary study cited by the NewScientist article I recently criticized. The first part of Dr. Novella’s post deals with the paper that claimed acupuncture provided a neuroprotective effect and aided recovery (in a rat model) from induced spinal injury, and he came to similar conclusions regarding the media reporting:
The bottom line with this study is that it provides weak evidence for a very extraordinary claim. It is of no practical use unless and until it is independently replicated with proper blinding. If you believe what you read in the media, however, you would be led to the conclusion that spinal injured patients could be made to walk again simply by sticking needles into magical locations on their body.
He also discusses another recent study plagued by related issues and echoes the fact that electroacupuncture cannot be considered true acupuncture:
Further, this study mixed acupuncture with “electroacupuncture.” I strongly maintain that there is no such thing as “electroacupunture” – it is, rather, the application of transcutaneous electrical stimulation through an acupuncture needle. This is no more acupuncture than the application of morphine through a hollow acupuncture needle should be considered acupuncture.
I highly recommend reading the full text of Dr. Novella’s post on this. Naturally, he provides a much deeper insight into the issues at hand than I do.
Tags: acupuncture, complimentary and alternative medicine, electroacupuncture, Journalism, Medicine, Science & Medicine, science writing, science-based medicine, skepticism, Steven Novella, traditional Chinese medicine