RE: [escepticos] RE: acupuntura alabada por los NIH...

["Aure y/o Carlos" <aureycarlos@...>]

>En este caso, los proponentes arguyen que el "pinchazo" (o la presion, en
el caso de digitopuntura) >ocupa el canal neuronal, impidiendo que el otro
dolor se perciba. Evidentemente, estas teorias distan >de explicar por que
la sennal de la aguja "gana" (a veces se invocan ciertas caracteristicas
"vibratorias" >de esta sennal un tanto esotericas).
>Por otro lado, otros estudios asocian el "pinchazo" a liberacion de
endorfinas, que podria ser otro >mecanismo del efecto analgesico.

	De acuerdo en todo. De todas maneras, desde la limitada perspectiva que
proporciona una cierta dedicación a la industria farmacéutica, ¡ tengo una
tendencia a no dar NADA de crédito a ninguna de esas explicaciones...¡ Tal
como tú dices, y admitiendo que no tengo mayores datos e información, eso
de que UN dolor sea seleccionado sobre el otro me parece bastante raro. Lo
de las endorfinas, me parece más raro. En fin, escepticismo total en el más
profundo sentido de la palabra.

	Y eso que hablas, exclusivamente, de eliminar el dolor, un problema que
evidentemente está ligado a una gran subjetividad. Si habláramos de
cualquier otra patología...más escepticismo aún si cabe.

	Saludos


	Carlos


----------
De: Planetario <planetario en cin.es>
A: escepticos en CCDIS.dis.ulpgc.es
Asunto: Re: [escepticos] RE: acupuntura alabada por los NIH...
Fecha: jueves 13 de noviembre de 1997 6:35

Dice: Aure y/o Carlos <aureycarlos en mx3.redestb.es>
>Javier, como casi siempre, de acuerdo en todo. Sólo una puntualización
(tal
>vez me hago pesado con el tema):

>
>>4-cabe concluir que el efecto no viene de la acupuntura, sino de pinchar
a
>> la gente con agujas mientras se le informa de que eso le va a
>> evitar/reducir el dolor.
>
> En realidad NO cabe concluir que el efecto "viene" de pinchar a la gente
>con agujas mientras se le informa de que eso le va a reducir el dolor.
>Piénsalo; si pinchar a la gente mientras se le informa de que eso le va a
>evitar/reducir el dolor, le evita/reduce el dolor, deberemos aceptar que
es
>un tratamiento eficaz. En ese caso, la acupuntura (no por los motivos que
>ellos dicen, sino por otros), sería un tratamiento eficaz, ya que
reduciría
>el dolor. Y eso habría que probarlo. ¿No? ;-))
>
> El que al pinchar a la gente aparezcan curaciones inexplicadas, NO
>IMPLICA, que sean debidas a los pinchazos...simplemente no sabemos a qué
>son debidas. Seguramente no son curaciones, porque previamente no existía
>enfermedad, etc.
>
> Creo que es un sorprendente error que todos cometemos con frecuencia en
>temas de medicinas alternativas. Los pinchazos, hasta que no se demuestre
>lo contrario, NO CURAN.
>
> Creo que atribuir a los pinchazos las curaciones no identificadas es lo
>mismo que atribuir a marcianos los objetos volantes no identificados... 
>

Bueno, no tanto. Hice expresa mencion a los pinchazos por aceptar algunos
resultados que se han comentado a veces como apoyo de la acupuntura. Me
referia a las teorias del "control de entrada" nervioso, de Melzack y Wall:
de manera sencilla, se refiere a que las neuronales no pueden transmitir
simultaneamente dos señales, dejando una preferencia de paso. En este caso,
los proponentes arguyen que el "pinchazo" (o la presion, en el caso de
digitopuntura) ocupa el canal neuronal, impidiendo que el otro dolor se
perciba. Evidentemente, estas teorias distan de explicar por que la sennal
de la aguja "gana" (a veces se invocan ciertas caracteristicas
"vibratorias" de esta sennal un tanto esotericas).
Por otro lado, otros estudios asocian el "pinchazo" a liberacion de
endorfinas, que podria ser otro mecanismo del efecto analgesico.
    En mi mensaje, precisamente, comentaba que carecia de informacion sobre
si (estos mecanismos) han sido comprobados frente a "puntos placebo", no
utiles segun la teoria de la acupuntura. Por eso mi sintesis breve...

Por cierto, y siguiendo con el tema, puede resultar interesante esta nota
de prensa desde el CSICOP sobre el asunto: (lo siento, en ingles...)

NIH CONFERENCE ON ACUPUNCTURE CONDEMNED
November 10, 1997
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
               Dr. Wallace Sampson 408-885-4146.
               Dr. Steve Barrett 215-437-1795 (x1177)
               Matt Nisbet  716-636-1425 (SRAM Public Relations)

Scientists and Physicians Condemn NIH Endorsement of Acupuncture
Cite Lack of Evidence and NIH Panel Bias.

AMHERST, N.Y.--  Leading physicians and scientists, all editors of the
Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine(SRAM), dispute the National
Institute of Health's(NIH) endorsement of acupuncture as a treatment for
pain
and other conditions.   "Acupuncture is an unproven treatment.  The best
studies of acupuncture show that it is no more effective than
placebos(inactive treatments.)  The NIH panel was conceived in all
likelihood
with an agenda to promote the acceptance of acupuncture by the public,
press,
insurance plans, HMOs and Federal and state medical plans," says Dr.
Wallace
Sampson, M.D., Editor of SRAM and Clinical Professor of Medicine at
Stanford
University.
On November 6, the NIH Consensus Development Conference concluded that
"there is sufficient evidence... of acupuncture's value to expand its use
into conventional medicine and to encourage further studies of its
physiology
and clinical value."  The panel also suggested that the federal government
and insurance companies expand coverage of acupuncture to allow more people
access to treatment.
The NIH Consensus panel is the offspring of the NIH's Office of Alternative
Medicine(OAM.) The OAM was started by the NIH in 1992 to evaluate
alternative
treatments and to provide information on unconventional health-care
services.
But since its formation, it has come under harsh criticism for its bias.  
"
The 'consensus' was a consensus of proponents, not a consensus of valid
scientific opinion. The presentation of acupuncture for the conditions
suggested by the conference is classic pseudoscience. It showed the
promoters
as ideologically motivated instead of scientifically objective," says
Sampson.
"It is outrageous to suggest that insurance premiums rise in order to
provide for acupuncture visits.  These conclusions do not fit with science,
rather they reflect the bias of the NIH panelists who were selected by a
planning committee dominated by acupuncture proponents," says Dr. Stephen
Barrett,M.D., Contributing Editor to SRAM and head of Quackwatch, Inc.
Answers to the reported success of acupuncture can be found in human
psychology. "Perceived effects of acupuncture are probably due to a
combination of expectation, suggestion, counter-irritation, conditioning,
and
other psychological mechanisms" says Barrett.  The confounding influence of
these psychological mechanisms create a number of experimental difficulties
in accurately evaluating acupuncture's effectiveness.  Few studies have
satisfied control requirements, leaving supportive scientific evidence
insufficient or non-existent.
"It is easy to reach a consensus when dissenters are systematically
excluded
from the discussion.  At this point I would have to say that the consensus
report is seriously flawed because contrary and cautionary voices were not
heard," says Barry Beyerstein, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at Simon
Fraser
University, British Columbia.
Traditionally acupuncture has been based on the premise that there are
patterns of energy flow (QI) through the body that are essential for
health.
Disruptions of this flow are believed to be responsible for disease.  The
acupuncturist can supposedly correct imbalances of flow at identifiable
points close to the skin.  However, despite considerable efforts to
understand the anatomy and physiology of the "acupuncture points," the
definition and characterization of these points remains controversial. 
Even
more elusive is the scientific basis of some of the key traditional Eastern
medical concepts such as the circulation of Qi, the meridian system, and
the
five phases theory, which are difficult to reconcile with contemporary
biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the
evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture.
Concludes Sampson: "The report states that 'the data in support of
acupuncture are as strong as those for many accepted Western (sic) medical
therapies.'  The 'consensus' stretches the point to unacceptable
conclusion.
When consensus conferences are held at the NIH on controversial methods
with
as little evidence for them that acupuncture has, the usual scientific
response is to recommend against use of those methods, not to approve and
adopt them."
**To read the National Council Against Health Fraud's position paper on
acupuncture, visit the Quackwatch Inc. webpage at
http:/www.quackwatch.com/acuhtml.**

The SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, is the only peer-reviewed
medical journal in the world devoted to the scientific evaluation of
alternative medical claims.  The review publishes original research,
critiques published studies, reviews available evidence for claims, and
discusses the methods and principles of valid research.  Topics covered in
the current issue include homeopathy, therapeutic
touch, the alleged anticancer cure hydrazine sulfate, chelation therapy,
Deepak Chopra's claims regarding quantum healing, alternative medicine
proponent Andrew Weil, and more.  The journal is published by Prometheus
Books, Amherst, N.Y.
To Subscribe to the Review call 1-800-421-0351.
---------------------------
-----------------------------------
planetario de pamplona
Sancho Ramirez, s/n
E-31008 Pamplona (Spain)
Web: http://pamplonetario.base.org
Email: planetario en cin.es
Phone: (34) (9)48-262628
Fax: (34) (9)48 261919
----------