Thu 5 Mar 2015
A Science Lesson
Posted by anaglyph under Science, Skeptical Thinking
[44] Comments
I know I said we were going to be looking at CieAura’s business practices today, but I thought instead that I might take a little detour, and think a bit about the central concepts behind what the product is offering. Specifically, we’re going to look at holograms, what they are, how they work and their relevance to any kind of biological or medical efficacy.
The first thing I’m going to assert is that the CieAura doesn’t use true holograms. I’ve never seen a CieAura ‘chip’ in reality, so I’m going off web images, but to me these look like ‘stacked’ or ‘2D/3D’ holos, which are found extensively in toys, credit and ID cards, and product design. These are just 2D layers which give the illusion of depth. They are stupidly easy to manufacture, and incredibly cheap, as we have seen. You can easily have them made to your own design.
It is vaguely possible that the CieAura holograms are what is known as Dot Matrix holos, and they are pretty much what they sound like: holograms made by specialized machines which stamp images into foil masters using a dot pattern. The process is somewhat similar to the way old-fashioned desktop printers worked. These kinds of holos are generally used when high levels of security are required, as they can encode what are called ‘shape scattered’ patterns. Electron-beam lithography makes even higher quality holograms still, and due to their very high resolution (up to a quite impressive 254,000 dots per inch) can encode all kinds of hard-to-copy detail. These last two are rather more expensive than stacked holos, but once you’ve made a master, it’s still relatively cheap to manufacture millions of clones.
Whatever the case, you should understand that what’s happening with all of these methods is that a machine is simply etching finely detailed patterns into a piece of metal, which is then used as a master to print the actual holograms onto plastic or metal foil.
Without wanting to get too technical about what a proper hologram is, and how it works, I’ll attempt a little explanation: even though light travels very fast (299792458 metres per second, in fact) it can be slowed down by materials it passes through, such as water or glass.
Here, the light bouncing off the pencil and reaching your eyes is slowed very slightly as it goes through the water in the glass, and when you compare it to the light coming off the pencil above the water, you can clearly see a discontinuity (and you can see that there is a depth-perception illusion in play – the pencil looks more magnified, and appears to be ‘elsewhere’ from where you know it to be). You will have seen this kind of effect countless times in your life; distortions in windows, raindrops on glass, the brilliance of cut gems like diamonds. If you wear spectacles, the warping of light by changing its speed is what helps correct your vision. Any transparent or semi-transparent medium can, and mostly always does, change the speed of light.
A lesser known example of the speed of light being altered is when you see an oily puddle on the road.
In this case, the rainbow effect is caused by the constituent parts of white light being bounced off the puddle at slightly different speeds – the white light of the sun is being separated into colours due to minute optical delays introduced by the oil/water mix on the road.
This changing of the speed of light as it goes through different material is called refraction (or diffraction, according to whether it’s reflected or transmitted). I’m sure you’ll already have made the link between oily rainbows and the holograms you see on credit cards, and indeed, you’re seeing exactly the same principle at work. The very cool thing about refraction/diffraction is that if you can slow light down controllably, and in just the right way, you can fool your eyes into thinking that the delay caused by what we call the refractive index of a material is not simply a colourful effect, but a function of distance. In other words, under certain conditions, and in just the right light, we can trick our eyes into seeing refractive changes as depth.
And this is exactly what a hologram does. The very small and highly organised grooves and pits on a holographic film refract the light in such a way as to give an illusion of depth – that’s what creates the hologram’s 3D effect. You will know from experience, that these little holograms work best when you have a very defined, single point light source, and when you view them from one angle. That’s simply because the refraction effect is most effective when it’s lined up exactly with a light source and your eye.
What I’m getting at here, of course, is that there is really nothing at all mystical about a hologram. Holograms are exploiting simple and extremely well understood properties of optics, and have no more magic in them than the magnetic strips on your credit card.
On the CieAura site we read that:
The holographic chips are actually small skin colored patches that are infused with specific formulas designed to balance the body when placed along energy sensitive points of the body called meridians. Some call the holographic chips and the results like “acupuncture without the needles”.
And…
The CieAura Chip technology communicates with the body through the human electromagnetic field. This is known as bio-magnetic transfer. It works similar to acupuncture.
And…
CieAura’s products operate from the infusion of Intrinsic Energy into a holographic chip. Intrinsic Energy is synonymous with subtle energy as used in other texts. Once the holographic chip is placed within an inch or so of the body, these energies communicate externally with the body’s energetic fields. The chip aids the body to move itself toward its optimum energetic state. The chips use physics as opposed to chemicals to externally communicate with the body’s intrinsic energy fields.
…Nothing enters the body. Intrinsic energy operates in the quantum physics area (smaller than an atom). As a result, there is currently no device capable of measuring the signal.
Let’s think carefully about what’s being claimed here: information recorded holographically (that is, by altering the refractive index of plastic to vary the frequencies of light travelling through it) is somehow ‘infused’ with ‘formulas’ that ‘communicate’ via ‘bio magnetic transfer’ and ‘intrinsic energy’ with the body’s ‘energetic field’. And this effect is not currently measurable with any known technology (how wonderfully convenient).
As we have seen before with ShooTag, this is nothing more than a collection of absurd and diffuse terms combined in a melange of completely meaningless waffle. Not one thing in the sentences above has even an ounce of scientific credibility. You can’t ‘infuse’ formulas into holograms like you would steep some herbs in hot water – that makes absolutely no sense. The term ‘biomagnetic transfer’ occurs nowhere in scientific literature because it’s bunk. ‘Intrinsic energy’ is a made-up term that means nothing at all. The human body has no ‘energetic field’ – that’s complete bullshit. And all this tied into acupuncture, which is a folk remedy that has virtually no credibility outside of a minute chance that it might have a barely discernable effect on pain. ((Acupuncture is difficult to test scientifically for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it’s pretty easy to tell if someone’s sticking needles into you. Nevertheless, the best science we have on it indicates that it’s ineffectual.))
It’s more than clear that all the sciencey-sounding verbage you encounter on the CieAura site is abject gibberish. It may be that Melissa Rogers is so badly educated that she really believes this baloney… but I don’t really think so. I believe that all this pseudo-mystical-sciencey stuff is smoke-and-mirrors distraction designed to deflect anyone from too-readily discerning the real purpose of CieAura.
And that purpose is what we’ll hone in on in the next instalment…
I actually read all of that. Very nicely reasoned. Have you been updating your quantum energy?
I have the CieAura BrainWave chip.
“As a result, there is currently no device capable of measuring the signal.”
Darn. Here I thought we invented Geiger Counters and Ammeters and photosensitive resistors and friggin’ ligth switches a long time ago. I guess I was wrong. Or they’re saying photons and electrons are… BIGGER THAN ATOMS MY GOODNESS SOMEONE ALERT SWEDEN BECAUSE WE GOT THE NEXT NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS RIGHT HERE!!!
This is a special signal that avoids being detected. Because quantum.
I had an aunt called Abject Gibberish.
Was she a maiden aunt?
Predictably.
Enjoying the science refresher – been a while since I was at school and really places the lie squarely into the snake oil biz.
As we shall see in the next instalment, this part of the lie is just icing on the oily cake.
Following on from what acce245 has been discussing.
If you think it is all woo – I do not care.
I was in a car accident which really screwed up my back – seems the seat belt didn’t quite work and I avoided meeting up with windscreen by gripping dashboard.
For many months after this my entire back would seize as a chain reaction of pain would work its way through all the muscles in my back – I was very fit back then too – lots weight training, aerobic exercise. Anyway, on the occasions when my back went into seizure, my physio did not wish to do any manipulation at all. Yep, you guessed it he used acupuncture. I would go into his rooms like I was walking with a steel rod up my back and could leave able to move.
Physio follow up the day after acupuncture with gentle manipulation.
Today, although I have some scaring on the LHS rhomboid – I rarely get a back seizure – unless I move/lift the wrong way.
I had no preconceptions about acupuncture, I do know my back relaxed in a far better way than with drugs.
Yes, but you see the problem there, right? Something seemed to work for you, but the science tells us quite explicitly that the level of relief you experienced is simply not showing up in (many, many) properly conducted trials.
So there are two possibilities here:
1. There is something happening here that we’re missing because it’s mired in a millennia-old superstitious belief system, or,
2. The scientific process is wrong, acupuncture works exactly how it says it does, and an irrational belief system is effecting miraculous cures in a manner that makes no sense and that we can’t understand.
If you accept #2, then you must, by all rules of rationality, accept that any other modality that seems to do the same thing (like CieAura) is also valid, based on exactly the same kinds of anecdotal reports.
Unless we can come up with a scientific explanation for why sticking needles into someone (or even pretending to stick needles into someone) helps with pain relief we have nothing but superstition.
People get very protective of acupuncture, but it has no methodological validity if you take the time to investigate what it’s supposed to be doing – it’s as mad as homeopathy. It comes from a time when superstition and science were mashed together. We need to unmash such things and understand what’s going on.
I’ll also reiterate something I said earlier – I’ve had acupuncture twice in my life, and once was actually for back pain. It didn’t work. It had exactly no effect that I could determine. I walked in with pain, I walked out with pain. I might have gotten a little bit of relaxation out of it. At that time I also had no preconceptions about it (or, more accurately, my preconception was that it might work, otherwise I wouldn’t have elected to try it).
So as a modality it’s kind of hard to quantify. I’m not real confident of the kind of situation where a medical practitioner says – “Hey, try this. We haven’t a clue how it works, or if it works, but you may as well give it a go.” If your doctor prescribed you a drug in that way, you’d think she was an idiot.
I so much agree with much of what you are saying.
I do not think for a heart beat that acupuncture is a cure all. My experience with my TAC appointed physio over a period of one year indicates to only me that acupuncture had a distinct and noticeable effect on damaged muscles.
May be, I’ll have to file this experience under “shit I can’t fully explain” because I cannot honestly vote it down as woo.
I fully agree with your the arguments you have raised against the exploitative snake treatments & harm they do to many trusting, vulnerable people.
We’re just gonna hafta agree to disagree on this one.
I am fully aware I sound just like the UFO believers or homeopathy promoters – I am only a test case of one and it’s personal.
I do not think giving approval to acupuncture is necessarily approving all the other woo out there.
We must always remain vigilant.
I’m a bit perplexed at what you’re saying, though, to tell the truth. When you say we’ll have to agree to disagree, what are we actually disagreeing about? You say that the acupuncture experience you had relieved your pain. JR said the same. I have no reason to think either of you are just making this up, so I believe you. I’m not disagreeing about that.
But what I don’t believe is that any of what you experienced had to do with a few-thousand-year-old superstitious belief system. I’m not trying to be condescending, but I’m going to take a guess here and say that neither you nor JR really know much about how acupuncture is supposed to work. The reason I say that is that I know you are both very smart people, and you simply can’t – as a smart person – get very far into researching the supposed mechanism of acupuncture without realising just how hokey it is. But if you have looked into acupuncture, and you do agree with these strange and unlikely mechanisms, then yes, we’re definitely disagreeing about that.
There are two more things I want to reiterate from earlier: you are reporting an anecdotal success with acupuncture. I’ve reported my own anecdotal experience which had no benefit to me. In respect of the kind of therapy we’re discussing, my experience holds as much weight as yours. This surely must be puzzling for you, at the very least. I bring this up again because things like this bug the hell out of me. Why did it work so amazingly for you, but not at all for me?
The other thing I want to take up again, is what you said here:
“I do not think that giving approval to acupuncture is necessarily approving all the other woo out there.”
I will disagree on that, too. Hear me out: I have a friend who is completely convinced that she was cured of Crohn’s DIsease by homeopathy. Now I think both you and I can agree that homeopathy has no rational basis. Yet she’s presenting the same argument to me as you are: an unknown, unscientific and unlikely modality has effected a real-world medical benefit of quite some substance. What am I to make of this? By your logic, I must accept her reasoning and the modus of the cure as legitimate.
I choose a different explanation. I think that if she had Crohn’s Disease in the first place, then she was ‘cured’ of it (or relieved of the symptoms) in some other way, and the homeopathy is completely incidental. In your case, I choose to conclude that some part of the acupuncture process – perhaps the stimulation of the needles, perhaps the ritual of the whole event, maybe just an hour on a table chilling out – allowed your muscles to relax to a point where physio became advantageous. I don’t know. What I DO know is that it had nothing to do with some ancient and unlikely mechanism involving life forces, ‘energy’ and ‘blockages’.
I’d like to add one further thing: I’ve advanced the idea that psychological setting can be a very powerful influence on pain. We even know that scientifically. And yet no-one here seems to want to accept that as a legitimate explanation for the things acupuncture is supposed to achieve. I’m curious as to why that is. It seems to me that an external and unlikely superstitious mechanism is WAY less plausible than something we already know to have powerful effects on physiology. Is there something distasteful about accepting that your psychological state was a big player in your pain relief? Do you prefer it to be a strange and arcane ritual? I’m not being snarky, I just don’t understand the defense that acupuncture seems to get from people such as yourself who would be very quick to put the boot into homeopathy or reiki or somesuch.
I understand your skepticism.
However, I simply cannot rule out that pressure applied on the musculature system by needle provided relaxation for my back muscles – I am not a very suggestible person at all. Nor do I blithely dismiss something because it does not fit our current understanding of the human body.
I did not go in for the treatment believing in acupuncture – I had no preconceptions, I do not believe that acupuncture worked as a type of placebo either. I would not recommend acupuncture for anything other than direct relaxation of muscles – I do not claim it to be a cure-all.
I would rather be able to use acupuncture than take Valium which is what I have to do now.
I’m pretty sure you still don’t understand what I’m getting at here. I completely believe you when you say it works for you. I’m not skeptical about that at all. If you say it works, then I have no reason at all to think you’re imagining that. If you’re saying it’s ‘pressure applied to the musculature system’, I have no dispute with that – that sounds plausible and reasonable. Maybe it is. We could get science on that.
What I am completely skeptical about is the woo underlying acupuncture, and all kinds of weird claims made by acupuncturists. Seriously, go read up on acupuncture, and come back and tell me that the supposed mechanism it works under is actually acceptable to you.
Your reply also carries an implication that because you’re not ‘blithely dismissing something because it does not fit our current understanding of the human body’, then I am. If so, then you’re characterising my stance incorrectly. I’m dismissing the woo, that’s for certain, but I’m not doing it blithely – I’ve done a lot of reading about acupuncture and the beliefs of Chinese medicine. My very considered opinion from many years worth of inquiry is that they makes no more sense than the supposed mechanisms of homeopathy.
If anything I’m super curious about stories like yours. How is it working? Why does it work for you and not me?
“If anything I’m super curious about stories like yours. How is it working? Why does it work for you and not me?”
I don’t know. Didn’t work for my mother either.
My experience was over a long enough period for me to assess the effects on myself. A test case of one (two to include JR) does not make for a workable theory. I know that. I also know I cannot dismiss my experience – while I am not a scientist, I believe I take an objective approach… sigh I don’t know, maybe it depends on the type of injury.
There is a wealth of claims about the relaxation achieved by acupuncture – if you care to look.
We need to eliminate the ‘woo’ factor and see what we have left.
I agree there is an entire ‘suspicion’ of claims made about acupuncture and this snake oil needs to be removed first.
Scientists have managed to successfully test the benefits of meditation. I do not see that testing acupuncture should be any more difficult with a sufficient number of people for test and control groups.
The thing is that acupuncture has been tested. Many, many times. Unlike meditation, the results of good testing over many years now are unequivocally unpromising (as I said in the footnotes to the article): the best that you can hope for is an indication of mild effect in the area of analgesia (and that is well within the realms of experimental error). It’s not a persuasive case, as far as science is concerned. Here’s the link again:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-doesnt-work/
I know very well the anecdotal claims about the effectiveness of acupuncture for pain and relaxation. I’ve heard much more remarkable stories than yours. The problem is that I’ve heard those same kinds of stories from users of homeopathy, iridology, reiki and others. If you care to look, you can easily find the same kinds of stories from CieAura users too:
“my grandmother had a stroke and wasn’t all there so i got her some of these energy strips and she was like back to her old self I’ve never seen anything like it” ~from an Amazon review
Anecdotal endorsement is somewhat problematic, as I’m sure you will agree. How do we iron out subjectivity, vested interest, bad observation and just outright lying? We use science.
There will be a completely rational reason why the process of acupuncture appeared to work for JR and yourself. It may even be a process we don’t know about right now. But if we figure it out, it will make sense, very much unlike the way it is explained to us by the ancient Chinese.
I very much doubt the traditional explanation of acupuncture all seems very woo to me – ‘meridians’, yin/yang. accupoint and the rest does sound sciencey, but not remotely scientific ;-)
I do know that I have not given a very comprehensive detailed report on my experience – nor do I feel particularly motivated to do so.
I do know that applying pressure on nerve endings has an effect on relaxing muscles – I do not know how.
May I leave it there please?
Have spent more than my daily allotted energy on this – I would be way more prolific if not for MS. If I really thought acupuncture was a cure all – I would’ve tried it for MS, but I don’t. So there.
Another nail in the coffin of acupuncture: Not only does it not matter whether you penetrate with a needle or poke with a toothpick, and not only does it not matter where you do the needling or poking, it also apparently doesn’t matter whether you do any of it actually on the person’s body at all. You just have to trick the person’s mind into thinking you are needling part of their body.
Behold: Phantom Acupuncture
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/phantom-acupuncture/
Please, lets just let the poor Norwegian Blue rest in peace.
Yes, I saw that. Fascinating study. There is a lot to be learned here, we just need to discover what it is that’s going on.
The most generous take away regarding acupuncture for subjective conditions or outcomes (We can pretty much completely rule it or any remote variation out for Objective conditions/ outcomes like asthma, etc) would seem to me to be that the invasive and not risk free practice of penetrating with a needle does not present an acceptable risk / benefit ratio when compared to apparently equally effective sham alternatives, and I think I’m being pretty generous here.
It’s interesting that you mention asthma. You’ll recall I wrote earlier about my two visits to an acupuncturist back in my twenties. One was for back pain, as I said, and the other was for asthma. It seemed like an odd thing to me – going to someone to have needles stuck in you to treat a breathing problem, but I had a very good (and fairly sensible) friend who’d apparently had quite some relief from his asthma with acupuncture. So I gave it a go. It had no noticeable effect for me.
Over the years, though, I’ve come to the conclusion (for various reasons) that my own asthma does have a psychological component (which is fairly weird, I think, but the story for how I reached this conclusion is a little long to go into here). So I wonder if my friend’s asthma success with acupuncture was in the nature of somehow activating a psychological process (I don’t want to call it a placebo, because that’s the wrong use of the word for this result).
I suspect that many of these folk modalities might be doing something like this. It would explain, for example, why something completely non-physiological – like reiki or ‘phantom’ acupuncture – could elicit physical results.
The difficulty with this kind of modality, of course, is that you apparently need to believe that it works to get the effect. This raises many complex questions.
But the main rational take away has to be that if we could figure out how the brain is able to do this, we could actually start using it empirically rather than in the scattergun ‘alternative’ approaches which are unreliable, inconsistent, and, worst of all, bound up in all manner of idiocy that allows other non-helpful crap under the door.
I mentioned asthma specifically because there was a study done a while back that purported to show acupuncture and other sham treatments were effective in treating asthma attacks, but the positive effects were generally in subjective responses (how the subjects felt), but the objective measures regarding lung function showed it was significantly inferior to standard treatment with albuterol. An interesting side take away is that there was SOME detectable increase in objective measures with all sham treatments.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/asthma-placebo-and-how-not-to-kill-your-patients/
It’s an interesting read. For me, the subjective response thing is quite weird. I mean, I know when I’m having an asthma episode and I don’t feel it’s something I could ‘think’ felt better. I mean, shades perhaps, but it’s not like I could ever assess that as being anywhere near the effect of albuterol, or the prednisone-based preventer that I use.
My friend who had the acupuncture was using it as a prophylactic approach, and swore that it cut down his episodes dramatically. My belief is that there was a psychological component to his symptoms, as I am certain there is to mine.
To clarify, I think you are saying that you believe there to be a psychological component to (at least some)objective symptoms of asthma(and not just subjective symptoms), is that what you are saying?
Replying to Karl.
You appear to have a false cause fallacy.
What the rev is saying is that, for whatever reason, because the mind *thinks* there should be some effect, it causes something like symptoms of a cure.
So, the mind thinks there should be an effect on, say, lung capacity, and forces the body to act in accordance with it, stifling the cough reaction until further in the process of breathing, let’s say, giving the impression of larger lung capacity. That’s just an example. It’s not necessarily what’s going on.
The important part is that the psychological component explains, and accounts for, much more than trying to explain the actual physical stimulus of a needle on skin does.
Ergo, Ockham’s Razor. 1) The brain thinks there should be an effect and acts thus.
2) Mystical waves from needles touching one’s back make everything better.
3) Needles elicit some sort of physical contact that makes things better in your body that EVERY OTHER PHYSICAL CONTACT in your life does not.
That’s what he is saying. I realize you’re simply trying to simplify the issue, but oversimplification is another fallacy.
Similarly, the Rev is also saying that the symptoms typically measured do indeed have some psychological component.
Accupuncture has yet to unbreak a leg, for example.
To stop the thread from becoming too nested I’ll restart it:
Karl, for reasons that remain mysterious to me, I believe that physiological effects of asthma can be regulated psychologically. I’ll tell the story.
I grew up with mild asthma. It was always manageable, which is a good thing because this was pre-albuterol (at least in any cheap mass produced form). I only recall one very serious asthma episode as a child, and that was an allergic reaction to some new carpet in the house of an uncle where I was staying with my family.
In any case, I had mild but manageable asthma through my teens and into my twenties. I was eventually prescribed an inhaler, which I carried with me but used infrequently. So infrequently that the inhaler would sometimes lose its propellant before it ran out of the drug.
Anyway, by my late twenties I’d virtually forgotten I even had asthma. I used to swim a lot at Bondi beach, and on one particular day, I was out on the point as usual. There is a strong rip here, but anyone who frequents Bondi knows the rip and what it does. This day was quite rough and stormy, and I found myself in the rip, being pulled out past the rocks (I should add here that I am very shortsighted, so when I’m swimming I can’t really see very far). Anyway, very quickly I started to get thrown around by the rough sea, it was coming over my head and I realised I was actually in trouble. And then, quite unbelievably, I started into a full-blown asthma attack. It was terrifying. I really thought that if one more wave came over my head I was gone. I struggled my way to the rocks, way out on the point, and very fortunately for me, a life guard had seen me and raced out along the rocks. He pulled my out of the water and realised what was happening. Very fortunately there is a pharmacy on the north point so he got me there and the pharmacist recognised what was happening and ripped out some Ventolin and got it to me. Albuterol is really close to a miracle of modern medicine – within minutes I was totally fine. Dripping wet and cold and slightly embarrassed, but not dying in the ocean.
Here’s the thing. From that day onward, my asthma has been chronic. It’s managed, but it’s far worse than I ever had it as a child. Now, it’s very hard for me to put this down to a physiological cause. I guess it’s possible that some salt water got in my lungs and I reacted to it, or that the heavy breathing started it off or something but my gut feeling was that it was the fear of drowning that triggered it.
And so that’s why I think there’s a psychological component. In addition, I’ve done a lot of reading on this aspect of asthma and discovered stories of it being controlled by hypnosis and also turned off or on by episodes of intense emotion. All anecdotal of course, but because of my own experience, I do wonder if there’s some substance to it.
Not to be contrary, but my case is somehow quite the opposite.
When I was young, I would have asthma attacks regularly. I wouldn’t know it was such a problem, but waking in the middle of the night with a blue complexion was more than enough to convince my godparents that asthma was quite the concern. Regularly I would also have bronchial spasms, for no apparent cause other than that my lungs simply hated me.
The occurrence of such effects had nothing to do with such psychological effects, but regularly occurred independent of my life nonetheless. I am young enough that albuterol was the inhaler of choice, and it worked wonderfully. My parents were smokers, and after I moved out of their house to live with my grandma, my asthma and nosebleeds stopped nearly instantly. I am nearly positive smoking has a significant effect, with the caveat that I am now a smoker and haven’t had an attack. Odd indeed.
Anyway. I am willing to accept that stress could have played a part in that. I think, however, that stress was definitely not the deciding factor then, either. So again, while it is anecdotal, I think it has something to do with age. I think psychological effects can play into it, but in the case of asthma, biological construction over time is perhaps the largest contributor. Yours developed negatively, mine positively.
Also, I haven’t ever had acupuncture. It was merest conjecture in the first part, was all I was saying. Certainly I don’t think it can cure anything apart from psychological ailments.
acce245
Since when where there claims that acupuncture could mend a broken leg? Very much a straw thrown in for not much progress but weak attempt at including this method as just being another bit of woo.
Most discussion has favoured the psychological effect on pain, when that is only a fraction of the picture of how a patient presents.
>>>We cannot possibly discuss all the neurological disorders which can be mistaken as psychiatric in this short article: we have picked out an illustrative assortment to convey the broad approach we recommend. Throughout the text, you will encounter the words neurological, psychological, and psychiatric enclosed in “scare quotesâ€. This is to emphasise that, although brain disorders are often carved up into these subcategories for practical or heuristic purposes, these distinctions are often tenuous. <<<
From "Neurological syndromes which can be mistaken for psychiatric conditions"
http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/76/suppl_1/i31.full
The question at hand is not whether or not the symptoms are psychological – that’s the straw man.
The question is whether or not acupuncture quantitatively effects the symptoms at hand.
The use of a broken leg was to demonstrate a condition which is, as best to my knowledge, not a psychological condition.
Thus, the formal logic follows in this way:
Broken legs are not a psychological problem. Acupuncture logically then does not treat them. In the same way, in controlled studies, acupuncture shows exactly the same efficacy treating virtually every other condition. Ergo, acupuncture is equally effective in the treatment of pain, broken legs, and so on.
However, this still misses the bigger point – that the onus is upon the one making a POSITIVE claim, to present evidence in favor of it. Evidence is not presented here in favor of such a conclusion.
Similarly, your quote stands, because you are correct in that neurological syndromes and psychiatric disorders are indeed two separate issues, and the distinctions are indeed sometimes tenuous, but that’s because lots of things overlap. This is true of lots of biology and chemistry. ‘Chemistry’ istelf is a tenuous title because all ‘Chemistry’ is a form of physics, and you can draw the line in various places to illustrate the differences between them, and it’s helpful to think of them differently in different situations. Note that this doesn’t diminish the role of whatever it is you’re talking about in relation to the other thing.
Cancer is a good analogy here, because cancer isn’t just one thing, and it’s equally tenuous what counts as one. It doesn’t change the fact that there are cells in your body mutating in a way that’s detrimental to you – it just changes what you call it in different contexts.
Sure, it’s reasonable to suggest that there’s one or more psychological components to asthma and asthma attacks, and that therefore psychological approaches could help manage asthma by managing those psychological components.
It’s also seems reasonable to assume that some components of asthma are likely not psychological and that psychological approaches would be of limited, little, or no objective value for those components.
I think it’s important to distinguish between those psychological components objectively affecting asthma and subjective assessments of condition, as in, -Objective measures of my lung function are not significantly improved, but I think the acupuncture helped, so I will skip the inhaler and continue on with my hike.
Now maybe thinking you feel better actually results in a psychological improvement in objective measures, in which case, great, but if not, just thinking you are better without any objective improvement could be dangerous.
BillJoe7 made on comment over at Neurologica that nicely sums my take on so called placebo effects:
“- Is the placebo effect powerful enough to be worth harnessing?
My understanding is that it is weak, unreliable, transient and limited in scope.â€
Well, I completely agree with that Karl. I don’t want it to seem like I was saying that asthma was a psychological condition, only that in my case it seems to have a psychological component which does have a manifest physiological effect. That in itself is interesting and worthy of investigation (and there is actual proper research that indicates some psychological influence in asthma), is all.
But of course, there is no disputing that if you are under asthma stress, the best course of action is to grab your puffer and put yourself out of harm’s way. Absolutely no question.
My point in bringing it up is just to illustrate the idea that even though acupuncture (or whatever alt modality you care to look at) has scant science behind it, it may have access on a very broad scale to psychological mechanisms that are poorly understood. That is not to say that we could ever corral that into a useful prophylaxis. It may well be that such benefits – as you say – are weak, unreliable and transient and completely unharnessable in any meaningful way (I suspect that is in fact the case). The thing that interests me in this is not the idea that there is some kind of miraculous brain-powered medical miracle waiting to be found, but rather that if such a mechanism exists, it would be useful to understand it in some rational way, as it does help explain why so many alt modalities seem to work sporadically for numerous people.
I will nail my colours to the mast here and say that I pretty much don’t believe in the placebo effect as anything other than an artefact of experimental process. I’m more aligned with Steve Novella in that respect. I certainly don’t think that – if you take a homeopathic substance, say – any kind of magical effect is deployed to have physical effects, even if those effects are weak. My personal view is that the effects reported as placebo are always so small, that they can easily be accounted for by other factors.
I wrote about my views on the Placebo Effect here, if you missed it.
I think you and I are pretty much on the same page.
I guess I’m too used to engaging in discussions online with people not as aligned with my position such that I tend to endeavor to clarify the nuances of each side’s positions as much as possible so as to leave as little ambiguity as possible.