Two EXCELLENT additions to the Skeptic's Dictionary

"Complementary" Medicine.

and

"Integrative" Medicine.

Here's a particularly insightful quote: (C)ritics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are often stereotyped as lackeys for the AMA or the pharmaceutical firms.

Anyone who's read more than a single thread or two in this forum has surely seen exactly that accusation made. Heck, I've been a target of that baseless accusation a dozen times or more.


And before anyone invests another dime in chelation or acupuncture or reiki, you would do well to peruse www.skepdic.com for a critical overview of these and many other quack pseudo-remedies. Mr. Carroll has also written extensively about the professional huckster Kevin Trudeau, from whom no one should buy anything, ever.

BTW: The AMA called and wants to know where to send your check. ;-)

that acupuncture is a quack pseudo-remedy because according to them, "Although acupuncture is not a "cure- all" treatment, it is very effective in treating several diseases and conditions. Acupuncture is most effective at treating chronic pain, such as headaches, menstrual cramps and low back, neck or muscle pain." and they go on to say that there are some "3000 physicians who perform acupuncture as part of their medical practice."

Here is one that has been on their staff since 2003: http://www.clevelandclinic.org/painmanagement/eval_treat/treat_acu.htm

I guess you just can't trust those big name hospitals!

There is indeed evidence that accupuncture is somewhat effective at relieving symptoms of pain, due perhaps to release of endorphins or disruption of nerve-conductivity. That much has been tentatively documented through scientific testing.

However, the underlying premise of acupuncture--that the insertion of needles alters the flow of one's chi or prana or mana or mojo or whatever--has absolutely not been documented in any rigorous study.

That's why acupuncture, in its energy-healing incarnation, is pseudoscientific quackery.

But if the needles can be clearly demonstrated, under controlled conditions, to ammeliorate pain, then that's great. Of course, then it's no longer "alternative" medicine, either...

Now to this bit: they go on to say that there are some "3000 physicians who perform acupuncture as part of their medical practice."

Lacking empirical studies to support them, those 3,000 physicians are merely giving witness testimony (and 3,000 is a really small number, when you get right down to it). I know about a hundred people who claim to have seen ghosts--does that mean that ghosts are real? What if 1,000 people make that claim? 3,000?

If these physicians are claiming that acupuncture boosts chi flow, then they're quacks (in this regard, at least). If they're administering acupuncture for its placebo effects, then they're behaving unethically and should be censured.
But if they're claiming that acupuncture may have some beneficial effect (as I described above), then that's supported by evidence, though further study is still needed.