Is the use of Complementary/Alternative Medicine Ethical?

[Reaper]

This was something that popped into my head today as I was reading something on modern medicine in my local library. I know virtually nothing about modern medicine so as I was reading these books I was fascinated at how much scientific work was put into proving that what the medical practitioners use actually worked (or explain why such and such doesn't work)!

 

But as I was thinking about it, you hear a lot of stuff in pop media and other various sources promoting various "alternative" medicine such as prayer, acupuncture, homeopathy, etc. And in many countries, including here in the U.S., there is a wide acceptance of it by the general public. But what I'm wondering though is if the use of alternative medicine even ethical, never mind whether it should be accepted into mainstream.

 

First of all, the various "alternatives" out there are not proven, haven't been tested (or refuse to be tested), and their effectiveness is questionable at best (acupuncture, though, does at least have some scientific backing). For one, many "successes" can be explained by the placebo effect. Another thing is that despite the image that the general public has about the unconventional and alternative, there have been many cases in which people have actually died or gotten seriously hurt. And then on many levels, many of the so-called alternatives out there refuse to be brought under scientific scrutiny, while some are based on principles that are just downright physically impossible (e.g. homeopathy).

 

And yet, people use them and believe in them. A 2002 study showed that more than half (about 62%) of the U.S. population use them. Here is the link to the study: http://nccam.nih.gov/news/report.pdf. And look on at the figure 1 graph on page 4.

 

So this leads back to whether or not their use is ethical as a form of medical treatment. Given that they aren't tested, proven, or in some cases based on pseudo-scientific principles, I would have to say no, their use is not ethical, and I will go as far as saying that promoting these alternatives when there is no scientific backing is very irresponsible and a hazard to human health.

 

Now that I think about this, I wonder why I even gave credence to them years before, but then I didn't know better at the time.

 

Of course, I'm not a professional in any field of science, so I want to hear your opinions or viewpoints on them.

[swansont]

There was a blog I read recently that pointed out that "alternative" methods almost exclusively work due to the placebo effect. Which means to make them most effective, you have to lie to the patients, assuming you know they are a sham. If they knew it was the placebo effect, it would defeat the purpose.

 

Ah, here it is: http://www.dcscience.net/improbable.html#dilemma

 

It is pointed out that while acupuncture does have a physiological effect, the part about the Qi and meridians and aligning energy flow is junk.

 

So one has to consider if lying to patients in order to maximize the placebo effect is ethical. I would say only if you have exhausted all treatments that have scientific evidence supporting efficacy.

[the tree]

"Alternative" implies not getting real medicine as well. Anything that actively discourages sick people from seeing doctors is unethical as far as I can tell.

[Wormwood]

Many alternative therapies are unproven and as I have had limited exposure to them, I can't say if there is any redeeming quality. However, acupuncture has been demonstrated to be quite effective both in studies and in my life personally. In fact, in California, acupuncturists, and chiropracters are called complimentary practitioners, instead of alternative. Acupuncture is billed as a primary health care giver for insurance purposes.

 

It is pointed out that while acupuncture does have a physiological effect, the part about the Qi and meridians and aligning energy flow is junk

I don't know how much faith I would put into a source that takes only a cursory glance at something, gives a poor over view, then defines it as "gobbledygook". All of the studies I have seen, say that not only is point placement important, but that the minute physiological changes like a slight increase in WBC production and ATP, do not account for the drastic changes in health.

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10434821&dopt=Citation

 

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=1456

 

 

In medicine it is ok in some cicumstances to say that something works even if you don't know why yet (look at penicilin for example...it took 15 years I believe before they figured that one out, but it didn't stop people from administering it). Do not confuse the poetic language and concepts of the Chinese with the arbitrary semantics of the new agers. 50% of American doctors believe in acupuncture, and 40% recommend it to their patients. That is a pretty high % for a bunch of gobbledygook don't you think?

[pioneer]

Even with "real medicine studies", the placebo affect also works for many patients. Most science studies use placebo's to see relative affects. Many people are healed, simply by believing they have taken the medicine.

 

What this means is the brain plays a role in healing. Alternative medicine tries to use the natural power of the brain to heal, often using placebos. The power of suggestion, somehow gets the brain to correct some aliments, even in valid scientific studies. This would suggest that an anti-placebo affect might also occur, with the medical condition induced by the brain, due to some type of suggestive social input. Maybe the one's that get healed by the placebo affect in medical studies, may have been the ones, made ill by an anti-placebo affect within culture. The real sick people may only react to the medicine, and will not see a placebo affect.

 

With the huge free market push for medical care how much anti-placebo affects are we creating, so we can peddle product to correct it? Someone should go through a bunch of medicine studies and see how many people are healed with the placebo, to determine socially created sickness. If it is high enough, maybe we need to buffer the BT Barnum affect of medicine.

 

A good study to do, if the medical community and the govenment would cooperate, is make up a condition, such as a new skin rash. We then push it in the media, and see how many people will create the symptoms. I am sure the medical community wishes to do no harm. This might open up the debate as to how we should go about spreading sicknesses.

 

There are real sickness, but because of the placebo affect, there appears to be a brain affect that can sometimes cure some ailments. This suggests that the brain can do the opposite, in some cases, i.e., anti-placebo, where sickness is created using the power of suggestion.

[Wormwood]

^^^In case you didn't notice, the first link I posted compared their results to a placebo (which in these studies is usually 3-5mm away from the actual point). The patients didn't know which point was the real P6. How do you rationalize that?

[Glider]

I would agree with Lockheed, for these resasons:

Given that they aren't tested, proven, or in some cases based on pseudo-scientific principles, I would have to say no, their use is not ethical, and I will go as far as saying that promoting these alternatives when there is no scientific backing is very irresponsible and a hazard to human health.

 

The hazard doesn't always come from the therapies themselves. Even if the 'therapy' is completely harmless, if it's being applied to someone who's genuinely sick, then in effect, they're being denied effective treatment.

[gcol]

It is asked whether alternative medicines and treatment is ethical. Ethics are a system of rules of conduct or duty. I now ask by which set of ethical rules are you judging alternative medicine?

The medical industry at large is hardly likely to espouse a set of regulatory rules dressed up as ethics which provides a level playing field for a competing system.

 

The real question is whether any alternative system is helpful, beneficial and safe compared with an establishment system. It can be argued that neither system is completely safe and foolproof.

 

One can merely discuss their relative merits. I do not think ethics, in its broad meaning, really come into it.

[swansont]

I don't know how much faith I would put into a source that takes only a cursory glance at something, gives a poor over view, then defines it as "gobbledygook". All of the studies I have seen, say that not only is point placement important, but that the minute physiological changes like a slight increase in WBC production and ATP, do not account for the drastic changes in health.

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10434821&dopt=Citation

 

http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=1456

 

 

In medicine it is ok in some cicumstances to say that something works even if you don't know why yet (look at penicilin for example...it took 15 years I believe before they figured that one out, but it didn't stop people from administering it). Do not confuse the poetic language and concepts of the Chinese with the arbitrary semantics of the new agers. 50% of American doctors believe in acupuncture, and 40% recommend it to their patients. That is a pretty high % for a bunch of gobbledygook don't you think?

 

I think you need to go back and reread some things.

 

"Certainly the act of pushing needles into to your body elicits real physiological responses."

 

The contention is not that sticking needles into someone's body doesn't do anything. It's that the concept of Qi and meridians that's the gobbledygook. Where is the evidence that those concepts are legitimate? The success of acupuncture isn't sufficient to demonstrate that — you need to independently measure the Qi somehow. Your second link actually supports the blog's/my point

 

"Scientists have discovered that many acupuncture meridians are located over our major neural pathways. Stimulation, such as acupuncture or acupressure, can activate the underlying nerve ?bers—speci?cally, our ?nely myelinated and unmyelinated sensory nerve ?bers. This leads to heightened activity in certain regions of the brain, including the hypothalamus, midbrain, and medulla.2 Experiments using low-frequency, low-intensity electroacupuncture suggest that this stimulation triggers the release of naturally occurring opioids—our body’s own powerful painkillers—including endorphins and enkephalins, and possibly also nociceptin. "

 

i.e. there's a mainstream explanation for why acupuncture works.

 

It's like people finding that chewing on willow bark makes headaches and fevers go away, and having them postulate that it drives demons from their body. They've discovered aspirin, and it has nothing to do with demons.

[Revenged]

The hazard doesn't always come from the therapies themselves. Even if the 'therapy' is completely harmless, if it's being applied to someone who's genuinely sick, then in effect, they're being denied effective treatment.

 

This doesn't happen in the NHS... GPs only refer people to the homeopathic hospital here in london if they've done the standard treatments and it didn't work and there's nothing more they can do for them... most people have things like IBS, chronic fatigue, anxiety, allergy and the GPs have nothing more they can do for them... and I think most consultations are private referals...

 

Homeopathic treatments are also given out in pharmacies... Cost about 4 quid for 30 sugar tablets but I didn't see any harm in them selling placebos... I certainly wouldn't call it unethical...

 

As for the homeopathic hosptial they employ doctors and they also carry out the standard tests (bloods, X-ray, scans...etc.) to ensure there is no underlying problem that needs to be treated at a real hospital...

 

I agree in the 'alternative' world it can be dangerous and there are a lot of crazy people around the world that claim they can cure cancer, AIDS and they get people to stop medical treatments... but this isn't what happens when alternative medicine is incooporated into medical practice... It is what happen when it isn't incooporated into medical practice...

 

To the original poster... I would say it is more of a question on best use of money - not ethics...

[Glider]

It is asked whether alternative medicines and treatment is ethical. Ethics are a system of rules of conduct or duty. I now ask by which set of ethical rules are you judging alternative medicine?

The medical industry at large is hardly likely to espouse a set of regulatory rules dressed up as ethics which provides a level playing field for a competing system.

 

The real question is whether any alternative system is helpful, beneficial and safe compared with an establishment system. It can be argued that neither system is completely safe and foolproof.

 

One can merely discuss their relative merits. I do not think ethics, in its broad meaning, really come into it.

I think if you take three basic proinciples: 1) Do no harm. 2) Ease suffering. 3) Preserve life (which you pretty much covered in your second paragraph), then practitioners probably do have to ask question that many currently don't. Have the substances I prescribe been through phase I trials for safety/side effects etc.? (remember the deaths from St. John's Wort?). Is the treatment I use actually effective/will it really ease suffering (do some good)? Is it the belief that this treatment is effective (when it may not be), denying somebody a treatment of more certain efficacy? If these questions aren't being asked by alternative therapists, I think there's an ethical issue.

 

 

This doesn't happen in the NHS... GPs only refer people to the homeopathic hospital here in london if they've done the standard treatments and it didn't work and there's nothing more they can do for them...

Yes. I was referring more to those people who seek alternative therapies first, as opposed to those who get referred.

[Reaper]

It is asked whether alternative medicines and treatment is ethical. Ethics are a system of rules of conduct or duty. I now ask by which set of ethical rules are you judging alternative medicine?

The medical industry at large is hardly likely to espouse a set of regulatory rules dressed up as ethics which provides a level playing field for a competing system.

 

The real question is whether any alternative system is helpful, beneficial and safe compared with an establishment system. It can be argued that neither system is completely safe and foolproof.

 

One can merely discuss their relative merits. I do not think ethics, in its broad meaning, really come into it.

 

and

 

To the original poster... I would say it is more of a question on best use of money - not ethics...

 

I most certainly disagree and will say that this has a lot to do with ethics. The whole point of medicine and other forms of medical sciences is to help sick people get better. Since it involves the treatment of people' date=' proper ethics are a must. Since you are trying to improve people's health, you want to make sure that it is done correctly and safely. Money, of course, is always an going issue, but making sure that people get proper treatment is essential and in my opinion is top priority.

 

This doesn't happen in the NHS... GPs only refer people to the homeopathic hospital here in london if they've done the standard treatments and it didn't work and there's nothing more they can do for them... most people have things like IBS, chronic fatigue, anxiety, allergy and the GPs have nothing more they can do for them... and I think most consultations are private referals...

 

Homeopathic treatments are also given out in pharmacies... Cost about 4 quid for 30 sugar tablets but I didn't see any harm in them selling placebos... I certainly wouldn't call it unethical...

 

As for the homeopathic hosptial they employ doctors and they also carry out the standard tests (bloods, X-ray, scans...etc.) to ensure there is no underlying problem that needs to be treated at a real hospital...

 

But then you have to ask yourself if giving up on patients and forcing them to seek some crackpot, pseudo-scientific "medical" practice is ethical. First off, when (real) doctors say that they can't do anything more, what they really mean is that can't do anything more without risking serious harm to the patient. Second, most good doctors will not make any promises because they might be misleading. They never tell you that such and such treatment will work 100% of the time. And if there are any problems with the treatment, that is why they tell you to either notify the doctor or, if you really want to, go see another one.

 

The placebo effect does not necessarily mean that their chronic medical conditions (disease or otherwise) just simply goes away. While the use of the placebo effect may be helpful in some cases, standard treatments should not instantly cease.

 

Of course, if the placebo effect is used in conjunction with standard treatments, then it's ok, which might be what you mean.

[YT2095]

Complementary, then yes, why not, a little herbal tea with your proper meds never hurt anyone.

 

Alternative, then no, just NO.

[Revenged]

Of course, if the placebo effect is used in conjunction with standard treatments, then it's ok, which might be what you mean.

 

Yes... That's what I mean...

 

I most certainly disagree and will say that this has a lot to do with ethics. The whole point of medicine and other forms of medical sciences is to help sick people get better. Since it involves the treatment of people, proper ethics are a must. Since you are trying to improve people's health, you want to make sure that it is done correctly and safely. Money, of course, is always an going issue, but making sure that people get proper treatment is essential and in my opinion is top priority.

 

It is an issue with money... Particularly in the UK where the health service is in a major financial crisis... Where maternity services and accident emergency are being theatened to be cut at many hospitals - including my local hospital - the NHS goes and spends 20 million pounds on refunishing the Royal homeopathic hospital.... I think they got their priorities wrong!...

 

If you are saying that it is wrong (i.e. unethical) that money is spend on homeopathic remidies when they can be spend on anti-cancer drugs (which aren't being funded by the NHS) then I will agree with you...

 

But I don't think that is unethical to use homeopathy as a method of giving placebo medicines to people...

[Wormwood]

I think you need to go back and reread some things.

 

Certainly the act of pushing needles into to your body elicits real physiological responses

I know. That's why I then said:

 

...but that the minute physiological changes like a slight increase in WBC production and ATP' date=' do not account for the drastic changes in health[/quote']

 

Endorphins and white blood cells don't account for why someone who is infertile would suddenly be fertile. I understand what you are going for; in some circumstances, like pain, endorphins could totally account for the change. However, in circumstances like infertility, facial paralysis, insomnia, etc etc, those physiological changes can not account for the changes in health that occur.

Also, I believe if it an actual acupuncture point, the increase in WBC and ATP is systemic, while non points are only localized. I will see if I can find a source for that later today or in the morning at the latest.

 

 

Where is the evidence that those concepts are legitimate?

I don't know. Where was the evidence of CMB before there were instruments to detect it? Circumstantial evidence. I have no idea why it works, that's why I can't say how it does not work yet.

 

Also, some things about the concepts are lost in translation. Having your "energies balanced" is nothing more than a body being homeostatic. "Fire" in you liver isn't a literal fire, and might not even be your literal liver. "Fire" is poetic language for the characteristics of fire; heat, rapid movement, inflammation. If I say your lung has a yin qi deficiency, I would also be saying that your lungs don't have enough moisture. Until you understand the terms to even know what the specific gobbledygook is, it seems short sighted to write it off as something else we have virtually no proof for.

 

I am not defending the notion of magic energy, I am just pointing out first that the concepts don't translate very well so they sound more ridiculous to western ears, and second that we really aren't in a position yet to say why acupuncture works as well as it does. You are not the first person to draw a correlation between acupuncture and endorphins and ATP. However, there are still questions that traditional answers don't satisfy hence the continued research. Maybe qi is real, and maybe it isn't. I think I would need a PhD in acupuncture just to be able to understand the concepts well enough to make that call. I have studied qi in martial arts for about 10 years, and I still don't feel like I have the concept completely nailed down in western terms.

I know you are a smart person, I am familiar with some of your postings, and if we were discussing physics or chemistry or something along those lines I would certainly concede that you are probably correct, but in this one area I feel confident that you are wrong to be so dismissive. To just dismiss this as a placebo effect or the result of minute physiological changes, seems very short sighted to me.

 

I will say one thing that acupuncturists have over most doctors, and that is non invasive diagnostics that are pretty darn accurate. Some practitioners are so good they can tell you all about your health from just looking at you and checking various pulse points. I mean detailed and specific things about your health. I was a little creeped out

 

It's like people finding that chewing on willow bark makes headaches and fevers go away, and having them postulate that it drives demons from their body. They've discovered aspirin, and it has nothing to do with demons.

You're right; and if people's poetic language referred to headaches and fever as "demons", then they would be correct too right?

This just raises another interesting point. Chinese herbalism. It is based on the same intuitive poetic philosophy, and it has proven also quite effective. For example, if part of the plant resembles a heart, it is thought to benefit the heart in some way. Through this poetic view, they discovered numerous medicines that we use in the west. From things that are traditionally thought of as herbal, like ginko, to pharmaceuticals that are simply concentrates of the active ingredient from herbal meds like ephedrine. Oddly ephedrine the medicinal concentrate can be lethal, while in it's natural form ephedra is virtually harmless. Maybe there is something to their methods, and maybe there isn't, but they certainly figured an inordinate amount of coincidental knowledge if they were just going on thousands of years of placebo effects.

 

Complementary, then yes, why not, a little herbal tea with your proper meds never hurt anyone.

Well not really. The combination of pharmaceuticals and some herbal medicines is counter indicated and can be dangerous or even fatal. You would need to talk to a licensed herbalist, or preferably a western doctor that is trained in chinese medicine, if you are mixing actual herbal teas. If you are just taking a capsule there isn't really enough of the herb in there to really matter.

[pioneer]

If you look at the evolution of the immune systems of animals, this occurs due to exposure. Some animals build up a natural resistance and the one that don't expire. Medicine is useful ,as long as culture stays fixed and organized. But if there was a sudden loss of culture, the alternative medicine people may have a selective advantage, in that their placebos resulted in their body's own immune system keeping up with nature.

 

Here is something I could never understand. The price of medical care has risen drastically. If the medical state of the art was improving health, shouldn't the amount of medical care actually be falling with time? If an auto maker introduced a new model, and every year the maintanence cost increased, one would assume that they were adding defects. If they were making improvements the cost of maintanence should be falling. The only thing increasing is life expectancy, but medical defects are rising. We are more dependant that ever, on medical mechanics to keep us going.

[iNow]

In all honesty, chi is just short-hand for some complex combination of things. There are nerve bundles, and there is movement between them. There is movement of blood and oxygen. It is some combination of all of these things which is chi.

 

During my study of kung fu, we were taught about pressure points, meridians, and striking sequences that really do some serious damage. I've been the unfortunate victim of strikes to these places, and know how long lasting the effects of a blow can be (one of my favorites was liver 13, also lung 1 and nine, or bladder 1). We were also taught about ways to focus our strikes, and demolish our opponents by "pulling" energy from the ground below our feet. We called this all chi.

 

Now, I've studied neuroanatomy, and I know a bit about circulation and the the pulmonary system, but none of these on their own adequately describe or define the idea of "chi" as used in the arts (both martial and medical).

 

Where one has to be careful is when these patchouli burning, crystal wearing, magnet selling idiots try to take advantage of others due to this lack of clear and consistent definition of what it is.

 

 

I have "felt" chi, but recognize that this "movement" or "flow" of "energy" is not consistently testable using current techniques. I also recognize how extemely ethereal (and, exploited) the concept truly it is.

 

Center to dantian, breath in for six through the nose, push to chi hai, hold for 3, breath out for 6 through the teeth. Repeat and you will be hot and dripping with sweat.

 

Namaste.

[swansont]

Here is something I could never understand. The price of medical care has risen drastically. If the medical state of the art was improving health, shouldn't the amount of medical care actually be falling with time? If an auto maker introduced a new model, and every year the maintanence cost increased, one would assume that they were adding defects. If they were making improvements the cost of maintanence should be falling. The only thing increasing is life expectancy, but medical defects are rising. We are more dependant that ever, on medical mechanics to keep us going.

 

Problems can be more effectively treated by medicine than in the past, and more problems can be treated overall.

 

Living longer generally introduces more medical problems, and lifestyle has been trending towards "unhealthy" for many people (e.g. the obesity epidemic).

 

Malpractice insurance costs a lot of money.

 

Your analogy fails because you haven't addressed the new features that have been added to the car; one with a navigational system, power windows, an alarm system and autostart is going to cost more than one without.

[insane_alien]

Your analogy fails because you haven't addressed the new features that have been added to the car; one with a navigational system, power windows, an alarm system and autostart is going to cost more than one without.

 

also, more things to go wrong and more things the maintenance people need to know to be able to fix the problems. mechanics no longer have to just deal with the 'nuts and bolts' of the car, they also have to deal with a quite complex electrical system.

[JohnB]

Complementary, then yes, why not, a little herbal tea with your proper meds never hurt anyone.

 

Alternative, then no, just NO.

There lies the difference, I think. If I went to my complementary practitioner with say, severe abdominal pains his first question would be "Why are you here?" Shortly followed by "Get to the doctor now."

 

He accepts and operates on the principle that there are some things that western medicine is better at and some things eastern is better at. Any "alternative" practitioner that automatically pooh poohs accepted medical practice is almost certainly a con artist.

 

Whether I go to my GP or the complementary practitioner first depends on what I think is possibly wrong. Infection, trauma or disease it's the GP, muscular or skeletal the CP. It doesn't have to be all one way or the other.

[swansont]

I know you are a smart person, I am familiar with some of your postings, and if we were discussing physics or chemistry or something along those lines I would certainly concede that you are probably correct, but in this one area I feel confident that you are wrong to be so dismissive. To just dismiss this as a placebo effect or the result of minute physiological changes, seems very short sighted to me.

 

At no point have I dismissed this as the placebo effect. I have not said that acupuncture doesn't work. What I have said is that the practitioners' explanation of how it works is mumbo-jumbo. And the burden of proof is upon them to demonstrate that those concepts are valid.

 

Most people in scientifically literate scieties don't accept the notion of disease being caused by demonic possession or evil spirits or the like. This, conceptually, doesn't seem any different. So, absent any kind of conclusive evidence that the explanation is correct, I won't accept it. I will assume that a standard medical explanation exists, if only the medical profession would systematically study the phenomenon.

 

 

I have "felt" chi, but recognize that this "movement" or "flow" of "energy" is not consistently testable using current techniques. I also recognize how extemely ethereal (and, exploited) the concept truly it is.

 

If you can't somehow measure it, from a scientific point of view, it's crap.

[iNow]

If you can't somehow measure it, from a scientific point of view, it's crap.

Agreed. A gentleman at the University of Toronto named Bruce Pomeranz has extensively studied the endorphin side of this work in accupuncture which is tremendously well understood. This article also references the work of someone named Zhang-He Cho who has studied this using fMRI:

 

http://discovermagazine.com/1998/sep/needlesnerves1504

 

What those researchers have been able to measure is a flow of acupuncture-induced endorphins. According to neuroscientist Bruce Pomeranz, of the University of Toronto, numerous studies over the past 20 years have shown that inserting needles into acupoints stimulates nerves in the underlying muscles. That stimulation, researchers believe, sends impulses up the spinal cord to a relatively primitive part of the brain known as the limbic system, as well as to the midbrain and the pituitary gland. Somehow that signaling leads to the release of endorphins and monoamines, chemicals that block pain signals in the spinal cord and the brain. The result: A well-documented generalized "acupuncture analgesia."

 

Cho strapped student volunteers into an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) machine. While standard MRI provides static cross-sectional pictures of structures in the body, functional MRI goes further to reveal how those structures are working. It measures minute changes in the amount of oxygen carried in the blood, which is presumably a rough measure of glucose uptake by various tissues and thus a good indicator of which tissues are active; the results can be viewed as colorful fmri brain activation maps.

 

Cho first stimulated the eyes of the volunteers through traditional means: he flashed a light in front of them. The resulting images, as expected, showed a concentration of color-an increase in activity-in the visual cortex, the portion of the brain that is known to be involved in eye function. Then Cho had an acupuncturist stimulate the acupoint VA1. In one person after another, the very same region of the brain-the visual cortex-lit up on the fMRI image.

 

As odd as it seemed, sticking a needle into someone's foot had the very same effect as shining a light in someone's eyes. And this was not the generalized analgesic effect, produced by the primitive limbic system, that was seen in the pain studies; this was a function-specific response occurring in the brain's cortex, the area responsible for such sophisticated functions as speech and hearing, memory and intellect. Moreover, the magnitude of brain activity seen on acupuncture stimulation was nearly as strong as that elicited by the flash of light.

 

"It was very exciting," recalls Cho. "I never thought anything would happen, but it's very clear that stimulating the acupuncture point triggers activity in the visual cortex." To eliminate the possibility of a placebo effect, Cho also stimulated a nonacupoint, in the big toe. There was no response in the visual cortex.

 

More in the article...

 

 

My own experience, I contend, was myself intentionally (mentally/psychologically etc.) activating these same brain regions and areas to release chemicals and stimulate a neural response. Much like convincing yourself you are in fatal danger can stimulate a physiological response just as if you truly were in danger, I consciously drew on systems which act this way all of the time while training.

 

 

All this said, I suggest that much of it can be measured, and that's not crap.

 

...but a lot of it is.

[qlue]

Informed consent is a basic human right for any patient. It is the option of a patient to accept, refuse or opt for an alternative therapy. I would expect any medical practitioner to advice his/her patient to avoid dubious or unproven treatment.

As for me, I use honey as medicine. Medical scientists have only recently begun serious investigation into its healing power, yet its been around for centuries.