Comments on: Obama’s Health Initiative – Acupuncture for Migraine

By: snazzy1

snazzy1 — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:16:37 +0000

Sorry, didn’t include link to the study here;
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/9/858?lookupType=volpage&vol=169&fp=858&view=short

By: snazzy1

snazzy1 — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:10:59 +0000

I am not a believer in acupuncture but according to the news sham acupuncture works just as good as real acupuncture and both work better than conventional therapy. Today is May11, 2009 just look at the news today from the L.A Times to Reuters, so what gives???

By: sonic

sonic — Mon, 11 May 2009 11:07:49 +0000

The conclusion that acupuncture does not work does not coincide with the evidence presented.

From the 2009 Cocrane review:

“Four trials compared acupuncture to proven prophylactic drug treatment. Overall in these trials acupuncture was associated with slightly better outcomes and fewer adverse effects than prophylactic drug treatment.”

This implies that acupuncture is a safe and effective treatment compared to the “proven” prophylactic drug treatment.

A drug company could go to the FDA with a study that showed their treatment to be better than the existing proven treatment and get approval based on that fact.

The conclusion that it is possible that the exact placement of the needles may not be as important as thought, does not invalidate the therapy.

Just because there might be a mistake in exactly how something works does not invalidate that it does work. The studies quoted would indicate that acupuncture works as well as or better than any other current therapy.

There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the therapy did not work better than any existing therapy and better than doing nothing.

The fact that something works better than the proven therapy means that it works.

To conclude otherwise is to misread the evidence as presented.

By: Esattezza

Esattezza — Sat, 09 May 2009 03:40:55 +0000

Thanks tmac, I hadn’t realized the links did not remain in the post from the original email.

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:22:09 +0000

Re:Esattezza’s post ,the link to the OSTP Blog site is: http://blog.ostp.gov/
There aren’t as many comments as I would have expected, so if some of you interested scientists or others want your voices heard on these issues, now is your chance. It’s easy to complain after the fact, but it’s better to speak out when you have a chance.

By: gavino

gavino — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:44:53 +0000

I wrote about my dismay over my congressperson's support for the Federal Acupuncture Coverage Act of 2009 on Tuesday on my blog. Bottom line for me:

Maybe acupuncture is the most effective-for-the-money treatment for (say) lower back pain for people who really, truly believe that thousands of years of traditional Chinese medicine can't possibly be wrong. I think they should be free to spend money on whatever treatment works best (or whatever treatment they think works best) for them, but we need a health care system that exposes them to the costs of their decisions; when faced with a decision between paying $100 for a visit to an acupuncturist or spending $10 for a bottle of pain pills, they might decide that the needles aren't such a good idea after all.

By: kvsherry

kvsherry — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:05:26 +0000

What it looks like Obama did was the old trick of rephrasing the question back to the guy. He was asked “…knowing that the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization has discovered through their studies that alternative medicine often is more cost-effective and very effective…” would CAM have a place?

The first part of his answer just automatically assumes the premise of the question. This is where he went wrong. One word could have fixed this. “IF”…So I think IF it is pretty well documented…That would have placated the questioner (a politicians job) and not made him sound like he was endorsing accupuncture or speaking with knowledge of the subject.

By: eiskrystal

eiskrystal — Fri, 08 May 2009 07:29:52 +0000

I would ask why our health must be cost effective.

Generally good speech, very politician-like.

By: empiricalgod2

empiricalgod2 — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:12:11 +0000

Thanks for that # Esattezza

By: Esattezza

Esattezza — Fri, 08 May 2009 01:00:46 +0000

Some relevant information from a ScienceDebate2008 mailing list email:

Barack Obama pledged to Science Debate that he would “restore the science integrity of government and restore transparency of decision-making…” He has referred to this pledge several times since, most recently in his speech to the National Academies of Science. On March 9, the president formally asked the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to make recommendations on how the executive branch can meet this pledge.

The OSTP has opened a public comment period regarding this directive, giving you the opportunity to share your thoughts on what the next steps should be. Comments are due by Wednesday, May 13.

The OSTP is looking for recommendations on the six issues President Obama identified in his memo:

hiring and keeping qualified scientists
defining new policies to ensure integrity
using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review
disclosing scientific findings
ensuring that principles of scientific integrity are being adhered to
adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections

The OSTP is accepting comments via email and through their blog.