Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sadly, while plausible, its not the case. It been done using the "wrong"
> places, and even using needles are fake, and don't cause any sort of
> puncture at all. In fact, the only thing that seems to effect outcomes,
> based on the experiments done by one person, who used to be an advocate
> of it, until he started wondering why the hell the multitude of
> acupressure methods neither agree with each other, or the acupuncture
> chart, is if the explanation "sounds" plausible to the patient, and the
> practitioner appears to believe it themselves. Mostly the later. If you
> stick someone in the room to do the procedure that pretends to think its
> all BS, and who won't provide any facts, details, or explanation, the
> result is complete failure.

Have any links to those studies, I would love to see it in print and be
able to pass it around to others.

Still, how is that not a placebo? Patient is told it will work, patient
believes that practitioner is sincere, patient feels better. It may not
have a standard medical explanation other than placebo effect, but if it
makes the patient feel better then it works. There was some similar data
in JAMA or another medical journal that showed placebos were just as
effective, if not more, as prescription anti-depressants in treating
mild to moderate depression and anxiety. And if the placebo makes them
feel better, why now let them use it?

> Also, its a failed premise since the body doesn't react with pain to such needles,
and any "localize" changes, from damage, do not generate release of the bodies pain
killers, or other changes that are supposed to be part of how it works. 

The brain does react to things you convince it will happen. See flinch
responses, phantom pain and mirror-box treatment.

Post a reply to this message