http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-register.html
Health Secretary Andy Burnham said he was ''minded to legislate'' so all practitioners supplying unlicensed medicines had to register with the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC).
Further talks would be held with the Council, professional bodies and devolved governments before a decision is made on changing the law.
Fears have been raised about the lack of regulation around herbal and Chinese medicine, which is often sold via high street shops, online and in private clinics.
A consultation was held last year to gather opinions on the issue.
Mr Burnham said: ''Emerging evidence clearly demonstrates that the public needs better protection, but in a way that is measured and does not place unreasonable extra burdens on practitioners.
Mr Burnham also announced a pilot scheme for treating back pain sufferers with complementary and alternative medicine on the NHS in England.
Evidence suggests the therapies improve the wellbeing of patients and cut down NHS costs because people need fewer appointments.
This might not be the best thread, but a new study seems to support acupuncture as a pain-killer in mice. ?
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/...l/nn.2562.html
It is beyond me, I'm afraid, but I know we have members who will be able to understand it.
Last edited by bindeweede; 31st May 2010 at 12:15 AM. Reason: better choice of words.
Pain-racked mice all over the world will no doubt be celebrating today.
Curious, the paper is a little beyond me. I skimmed it but come back little the wiser. Questions that spring to mind are how are medians found in mice? Does this experiment attempt to validate the idea of medians or does is suggest that sticking a needle into some general area might be helpful.
Me too - where's Pebble?Originally Posted by Matt
Questions that strike me:
They seem to be measuring the level of a chemical, adenosine, rather than a pain level. I think this is called a surrogate and is generally frowned upon in testing.
They used acupuncture needles on mice - this would surely cause them some pain - they are large and mice are comparatively small. As I understand it the release of adenosine is a reaction to pain so it could be that the adenosine was released due to the pain of sticking the needles in rather than any other reason.
Also, I'm just guessing, but I would think that acupuncturists and their followers might be the kind of people who object to using animals for testing drugs. Ironic if they pointed to this rather cruel sounding piece of research to back up their claims wouldn't it?
ETA:
http://www.alternativevet.org/animal_experiments.htmIn natural medicine, whether homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal medicine or other therapy, there is no need to perform animal experiments or vivisection. The Alternative Veterinary Medicine Centre cannot join in or support any research that involves such practices. We have, in fact, turned down opportunities for becoming involved with high-profile research, on these grounds alone.
and:
http://www.hanclinic.co.uk/TCM combines techniques like acupuncture, massage, hot cupping, and moxabustion (burning wormwood on acupuncture needles) with the use of Herbal Remedies; dietary guidelines; and exercise routines that can be used for self-help.
As an effective and cost-efficient way of delivering a comprehensive range of medical services, Chinese Medicine offers a comprehensive healthcare service. Apart from the major modalities of acupuncture and herbalism, it also offers Qigong classes and therapy, and even the services of a Feng Shui practitioner. Ideally, these services would be available alongside other complementary therapies in partnership with the conventional western medical approaches.
Why Choose Chinese Medicine?
No appointment needed
No exactly same treatment. We understand you are unique and provide you the tailored treatment, which is most suitable for yourself.
No animal-testing. Chinese medicine has been perfected throughout thousands of years using clinical testing on humans, not animals
keeping a low profile.
This is a fairly standard way of assessing the pathways involved in pain. So alot of it makes sense, defining adenosine as an analgesic, showing that A1 receptor deficient mice fail to respond to adenosine mimics and showing that the effects are prolonged by blocking adenosine metabolism inhibitors.
Where I am unclear is that the production seems very localised, yet they are claiming that central pain reception is reduced, but the site of pain adminstration (sciatic or paw) seems rather remote from the site of adenosine production.
The Zusanli point is from acutuncture, whether one could really isolate such a point in a mouse rahter than the general area is up for debate.
So problems:
* Numbers of mice per experiment very small, so statistics are questionable
* Unblinded experiments - the observer decides whether the reactions fit with their preconceptions.
* Need to explain why local adenosine production would affect nerve signals from entire leg - this is claimed but not explained. It would require demonstrating that the adenosine levels were either blocking all afferent signals by interrupting nerve conduction from the paw, or there was diffusion of the adenosine widely within the leg (unlikely given half life)
* Even this would not explain impact on sciatic pain.
I think these experiments would have to be repeated by other researchers, ideally with blinding of the observer. For this to be true, we need the adenosine production to not merely be local but throughout the entire leg, which at first glance seems unlikely.
Pebble, I wonder if you have come across this, from Steven Novella.
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2015Conclusion
Finally, it has to be emphasized that this study says nothing about acupuncture itself, except for providing a possible mechanism for a non-specific local response. The term “acupuncture”, in fact, is becoming increasingly problematic and is confusing the scientific literature, not to mention the public. What is acupuncture? If we use the term broadly enough to mean any use of needles, with or without electrical stimulation, at any points, with or without skin penetration, etc. then the term is too broad to be useful. If we use the term narrowly – to mean sticking needles to a certain depth in specific acupuncture points that work through a novel mechanism specific to those locations, then we can say, based upon extensive research, that “acupuncture” does not work and its proposed underlying mechanisms are nothing more than pre-scientific superstition.
This study is an excellent example of the mischief caused by confusing the non-specific use of the term “acupuncture” with its more traditional use. Research involving acupuncture in its vaguest sense is used to promote “acupuncture” in the traditional sense. This is highly deceptive and scientifically sloppy.
The researchers of this current study could have used other controls to see if the effect they discovered is in any way specific to any acupuncture variables. For example – they could have used a non-acupuncture point as a control, or other forms of mechanical pain production that do not involve needles. I suspect any local pain production or mechanical trauma beyond a certain threshold would result in the same adenosine response – which certainly seems like a non-specific mechanism to modulate pain.
Because they did not do this they did not actually research “acupuncture”. The description of this research in the published paper and in the press should have been as I discussed in the opening of this post. Instead genuinely interesting research that may lead to novel pain treatments is being diverted as propaganda for an ancient superstition.
Thanks, had not seen that.
I think that is too negative. Certainly the article could have been presented in less emotive terms, but this misses the point. Here we have a plausible mechanism for pain relief associated with acupunture. Cosiderable additional work would have to be done to address whether such mechanisms explain even the pain relief cliamed in this paper, let alone that in the popular press - but it is a starting point. I absolutely agree that any mechanism of inducing local pain might have been just as effective, and this might lead to alternate stimuli for local adenosine production that have nothing to do with acupuncture but are more effective and reliable.
I think the methodology of the article is flawed, so it may turn out that others cannot replicate the findings, but as a mechanism of explaining transient local pain relief this makes sense - but this gets me no where near accepting acupunture 'points' etc.
I have nothing of real import to add so this post is simply to impart a couple of links to acupuncture research which those interested in the subject may wish to read.
I remember reading some time ago an article titled something along the lines of 'sham acupuncture no different from acupuncture' but, alas, it has become lost in my library of unsorted bookmarks. What I did come across are these:
Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups
ACUPUNCTURE: REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF REPORTS ON CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS
skb
skb
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks