Excuse me?

Doesn’t regulation start with research?

No. Precede, perhaps, not start with. And produces as well, but that’s a nuance I’m not sure this conversation can handle!

So my tax dollars are going to research that nobody actually uses to shut down this nonsense, and the mere fact that NCCAM exists and “officially” explains what these therapies are is used as promotional material for the charlatans.

That would be bad. I’m not sure where anyone has documented that this happens.

What is so hard, after $1.4 billion dollars, for the National Institutes of Health to simply state “it is our conclusion based on the science and the research to date that Reiki energy healing offers no benefit beyond placebo, that the treatment should not make medical claims without proof of efficacy, and that public funds will no longer be allocated to Reiki.”

I see what you did there. You linked a number that has been thrown around, 1.4 billion, with a specific treatment (or whatever it is) called “Reiki” and made it seem like the NIH has spent 1.4 billion on that one thing, and then you made them look silly for that.

Did you check the funding criteria for the upcoming years? Is Reiki still fundable? Can you cite the expenditures on Reiki to date instead of making this up, and can you cite the research that shows that it is stupid and useless?

Do you understand what I’m asking for and why?

And the same with homeopathic dilutions… And acupuncture benefits that you pay hundreds of dollars for from a “trained” Chinese practitioner can just as easily be derived from some random person with a box of toothpicks.

The original database won’t load for me now. How much did you find that they spent on homeopathic dilutions last year? I didn’t notice that. The string “homeopath” does not appear in the article you cite. I was thinking none, but I could be wrong. It would be crazy.

Thanks for the link. While the spirit of your argument is admirable, it is old, been done, we’ve been there for a very long time. Your argument is full of stuff you can’t prove or did not back up and some of it is just plain wrong. What separates your argument about the woo from the woo itself in terms of skeptical thinking? A little, but not much. You are spewing (respewing?) received knowledge.

Thank you for finally sort of grudgingly admitting that the NIH really should DO something with the $1.4 trillion in research it has done, and that the same organization whose website is filled with health recommendations to protect consumers should also perhaps have something to say about CAM modalities that are nothing more than placebo and theater.

Greg said: “But I really am talking about regulation, as others are as well in this discussion. Taking homeopathic “medicines” of the market does not happen because a web site says they are useless. It happens because the FDA takes them off the market.”

Doesn’t regulation start with research? Hasn’t the research been done? A 9-year-old girl proved that energy healers don’t work. Yet here we are, years into NCCAM funding, and companies like California Reiki are quoting NCCAM in their promotional ads for “distance Reiki”. They’re using the fact that NCCAM “recognizes” Reiki as a complimentary therapy.

So my tax dollars are going to research that nobody actually uses to shut down this nonsense, and the mere fact that NCCAM exists and “officially” explains what these therapies are is used as promotional material for the charlatans.

What is so hard, after $1.4 billion dollars, for the National Institutes of Health to simply state “it is our conclusion based on the science and the research to date that Reiki energy healing offers no benefit beyond placebo, that the treatment should not make medical claims without proof of efficacy, and that public funds will no longer be allocated to Reiki.”

And the same with homeopathic dilutions… And acupuncture benefits that you pay hundreds of dollars for from a “trained” Chinese practitioner can just as easily be derived from some random person with a box of toothpicks.

Why are we funding this research if accomplishes nothing but lending legitimacy to shams and placebos?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-nccam-overview-20111211,0,3391775.story?page=1

There are far too many chemicals introduced into daily life, and remediation for the negative environmental effects caused by many of these chemicals cannot keep up with their generation.

Incidently, I developed chronic hives after receiving a Kenalog shot (with dyes/additives removed) for a foot injury. I tried everything medicinal and alternative. Milk Thistle was the only thing that helped me control the hives.

I’m not making an argument about acupuncture. I’m asking questions about how studies are interpreted.

Yes, yes, yes, NIH/NCCAM is more involved in “guiding” the public than i was thinking it was. But I really am talking about regulation, as others are as well in this discussion. Taking homeopathic “medicines” of the market does not happen because a web site says they are useless. It happens because the FDA takes them off the market.

So your argument is that sham acupuncture (such as used in the GERAC trial) counts as acupuncture instead of as placebo?

“but I still think regulation is the issue, and NIH doesn’t seem to be a regulatory agency.”

The question you were responding to:

“It is well within the NIH’s responsibility and operating parameters to take those tax dollars and do for CAM what it does for diet, exercise and many other areas of health – take a stand and go on record. Is it unreasonable to request some official NIH recommendations in return for our billion dollars?”

RickK wasn’t asking the NIH to ban or regulate anything, he was asking for recommendations like this:

http://www.nia.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Publications/ExerciseGuide/

NIH took a stand and went on record for exercise. NCCAM can do the same for debunked alt meds. And as a matter of fact, under NCCAM’s strategic objectives for 2011-2015:

Strategy 5.1: Provide reliable, objective, and evidence-based information to help the public make informed decisions about CAM.
…
NCCAM seeks to provide an objective voice to help the public and providers make informed health care decisions

NCCAM is tasked with doing just that.

I didn’t say that and I don’t happen to think that.

I think you’ll agree that it’s prudent to be as cautious about a claim that something is disproven as with a claim that something is proven. The absence of a main effect in a given study is not the same as ‘proof the main effect does not exist’.

There’s no shortage of clinical studies for acupuncture, although you can judge for yourself the quality. Below is a sampling from a decidedly pro-acupuncture site–

(from : http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/acu_info/articles/acupuncture_bibliography.html#OVERVIEW ARTICLES)

Fan, Y. and Yang, Z.; Acupuncture treatment of side-effects of chemotherapy. Inter J Clin Acup 2000. Vol.11[1], p.23.

Grass, G. W.; Reversal of chemotherapy-induced myelosupression with electroacupuncture. Med Acup 2003. Vol.15[1], p.35-39.

Guerra, M. del C.; Acupuncture for refractory cases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Med Acup 2004. Vol.16[1], p.40-42.

Li, H. and et al; Clinical study on acupuncture treatment of side reactions of radiotherapy and chemotherapy for malignant tumor. World J Acup-Moxi 1998. Vol.8[2], p.8-12.

*************

Health claims generally require a healthy dose of skepticism, not just those arising from the realm of alternative and complimentary treatments– plenty of prescription pharmaceuticals are on the market with scant evidence of benefit, and research showing harmful effects are routinely suppressed by drug manufacturers, e.g., Cox-2 inhibitors:

(from: http://fsi.stanford.edu/news/cox2_inhibitors_were_prescribed_for_millions_who_didnt_need_them_study_finds_20050128)

” …problems associated with COX-2 inhibitors should serve as a cautionary tale about the growing trend of turning custom-fit medications into one-size-fits-all remedies. The researchers attribute the overuse of the drugs to several non-clinical factors that have spurred sales of other drugs as well – including heavy marketing and the tendency of patients and physicians to assume newer medicines are better.

“This phenomenon is not limited to COX-2 inhibitors,” Stafford said, noting that it also happened with drugs for hypertension, diabetes and some infections. ‘There are a number of instances where use has expanded beyond the narrow clinical situations in which the drugs are most effective and cost-effective.’

The medical profession has a term for expanding the use of a drug beyond its intended target population: “therapeutic creep.” In the case of COX-2s, not only does this expansion mean that millions of people paid more for a drug without reaping a substantial medical benefit, but it now appears they unnecessarily exposed themselves to the risk of heart problems, Stafford said.

COX-2 inhibitors have been at the center of a controversy since last September when Vioxx was pulled from the market after clinical trials showed that it posed significant risks of heart attacks. Similar findings were also recently reported for Celebrex, although it is still available.

What makes the widespread use of COX-2s so troubling, Stafford said, is that they aren’t any more effective at controlling pain than NSAIDs.”
***********

The upshot for me is to try and be an informed tax payer and consumer, and not discount a remedy out of hand because it is ‘traditional’ or ‘alternative’.

Pharmaceutical companies and ‘mainstream (allopathic) medicine’ have a long history of dubious treatments, and a strong profit incentive to discredit alternatives.

So I want my tax dollars funding basic research into treatments that for profit insitutions won’t study.