Motor aphasia is common among patients with stroke. Acupuncture is recommended by TCM enthusiasts as a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for poststroke aphasia, but its efficacy remains uncertain.
JAMA just published a study that investigated the effects of acupuncture on language function, neurological function, and quality of life in patients with poststroke motor aphasia.
The study was designed as a multicenter, sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial. It was conducted in 3 tertiary hospitals in China from October 21, 2019, to November 13, 2021. Adult patients with poststroke motor aphasia were enrolled. Data analysis was performed from February to April 2023.
Eligible participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to manual acupuncture (MA) or sham acupuncture (SA) groups. Both groups underwent language training and conventional treatments.
The primary outcomes were the aphasia quotient (AQ) of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) and scores on the Chinese Functional Communication Profile (CFCP) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included WAB subitems, Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale, Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale–39, and Health Scale of Traditional Chinese Medicine scores at 6 weeks and 6 months after onset. All statistical analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
Among 252 randomized patients (198 men [78.6%]; mean [SD] age, 60.7 [7.5] years), 231 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (115 in the MA group and 116 in the SA group). Compared with the SA group, the MA group had significant increases in AQ (difference, 7.99 points; 95% CI, 3.42-12.55 points; P = .001) and CFCP (difference, 23.51 points; 95% CI, 11.10-35.93 points; P < .001) scores at week 6 and showed significant improvements in AQ (difference, 10.34; 95% CI, 5.75-14.93; P < .001) and CFCP (difference, 27.43; 95% CI, 14.75-40.10; P < .001) scores at the end of follow-up.
The authors concluded that in this randomized clinical trial, patients with poststroke motor
aphasia who received 6 weeks of MA compared with those who received SA demonstrated
statistically significant improvements in language function, quality of life, and neurological
impairment from week 6 of treatment to the end of follow-up at 6 months after onset.
I was asked by the SCIENCE MEDIC CENTRE to provide a short comment. This is what I stated:
Superficially, this looks like a rigorous trial. We should remember, however, that several groups, including mine, have shown that very nearly all Chinese acupuncture studies report positive results. This suggests that the reliability of these trials is less than encouraging. Moreover, the authors state that real acupuncture induced ‘de chi’, while sham acupuncture did not. This shows that the patients were not blinded and the outcomes might easily be due to a placebo response.
Here, I’d like to add two further points:
- We have learnt that the vast majority of research coming out of China is fabricated.
- I think it is lamentable that a journal of high standing is not more critical and repeatedly falls for such suspect acupuncture studies.
54 Responses to Effect of Acupuncture vs Sham Acupuncture on Patients With Poststroke Motor Aphasia A Randomized Clinical Trial
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
There is a very simple questions: “WHAT is acupuncture?” Answer: Someone sticks needles into a person.
Once we all accept this fact, let’s go one step further: Does the actor (sic!) know, what he does? Answer: Yes, he does.
Once we all accept his fact, just a little question? It is known, that horses or other animals even can calculate? Answer: You can even bet on this. But your chances are better when you know the “mechanics” behind this: The animals observe the actor and act according to his appearance, his voice, his movements, etc.
Once we all have let that sink in, let’s go back to acupuncture: Do the probands react to the behaviour of the actor (sic!)? Well, you can bet on that. So the actors, knowing, what they do, influenced the probands. Since all this directly relates to the verbal communication AND the test results, we can assume, that the test results are (by will or not) strongly influenced by the actor knowing what he does.
If you ask me, horses are more fun.
But, well, we have one ace in the sleeve: let some robot do the sticking of the needles. I am pretty sure the robot will not move a wrinkle in its face to unveil if he commits a sham.
Any volunteers?
we don’t need robots!
a simple design would be to have acupuncture experts paint the points – real and sham – on patients with frlt pens. subsequently an actor does all the needling. but they don’t like such studies – because they fear the result?
I can’t speak for all acupuncturists, but personally I don’t like such studies because they remove acupuncturists from the equation, which seem ludicrous. In a study of heart surgery, would you ask an ‘actor’ to perform the surgery? Or a massage study even? The assumption is that it’s a simple matter of poking a needle in – this is not the case.
Not an actor, but a robot!
Apparently that’s coming for certain surgical interventions.
In any case ‘those studies’ do not exist; I think there is just one.
Probably because they couldn’t possibly claim to be testing acupuncture.
Tom: In a study of heart surgery, would you ask an ‘actor’ to perform the surgery?
Edzard: Not an actor, but a robot! Apparently that’s coming for certain surgical interventions.
Tom: Probably because they couldn’t possibly claim to be testing acupuncture.
ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE STUPID OR ARE YOU THE REAL THING?
Have you ever had acupuncture, out of interest?
Yes
This all reminds me of Emily Rosa. It is so very simple. Too simple, so that the whole fraud would blow up immediately? I wonder what Hanjo Lehmann would say.
[my bolding]
“H.Lehmann: Stellungnahme zu Bewerbern Claudia Witt,Florian Pfab,Benno Brinkhaus”
https://www.allaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=7631.0
“Akupunktur im Westen: Am Anfang war ein Scharlatan”
https://www.allaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=6391.0
🙂
Wow…if you cannot critique a study by its methodology, by its inadequate numbers, or by the source of its publication, you instead choose to go full-blown racist! WOW! You are now suggesting that anything and everything from China is false. Oh really!
Please reference one other respected source who is bold enough (or racist enough) to make a similar proclamation about “every” study from China.
I am writing the above because SOMEONE has say it…SOMEONE has to call a spade a spade.
A simple apology and a retraction might be a good first step.
oh, Dana!
1) I did not say ‘every’
2) ” the authors state that real acupuncture induced ‘de chi’, while sham acupuncture did not. This shows that the patients were not blinded and the outcomes might easily be due to a placebo response” seems to me a criticism of methodology.
No, actually, the fact that the REAL treatment group actually FELT the effect proves the basis of acupuncture treatment. THANK YOU for verifying that the acupuncture effect IS real.
Yes, Dana: acupuncture is real – but not effective!
Hmmm…and so, you candidly acknowledge that people who receive REAL acupuncture “feel it.”
And so, it is very typical of you (and your culty followers) disconnect any feeling state to your body and to any effects on the body.
It is SO interesting conversing with you because you reveal so much (of what you don’t want to admit!).
oh, dear Dana
I knew you were an expert on shaken water – and now acupuncture!
let me explain what deqi really is: it’s a sensation people feel when receiving acupuncture that is caused by suggestion or verbal/non-verbal communication by the acupuncturist. we published a study of it [I cannot find the reference any more] that showed that the phenomenon was not what TCM fans think it is.
So, in an RCT, the therapist influences verum patients to experience deqi and to achieve a positive outcome. as the equivalent does not occur in the sham group, an inter-group difference can be the result.
GOT IT?
No, I’m not surprised.
Go back to your shaken water.
Ah, Dana. It was me showing with evidence that you were spouting bullshit about acupuncture on Twitter that made you go off on an incoherent abusive rant and block me.
Do you still want to claim that acupuncture carries no risk of harm?
It is so much fun watching you spin and twist and turn your “logic.” Thanx for the dramedy, especially in the light of the fact that history (past, present, and future history) is not on your side.
I know, Dana, history is on the side of woo!
We can see this most clearly in the death rates of cancer; just look how many people get cured by homeopathy, acupuncture, etc.
Dana
History is not on our side?
Oh dear, Dana. Again thinking that your asserting something makes it fact. The opposite applies.
Given that your past and present history consists of being wrong, ignored and of no significance whatsoever I would suggest having a little look at yourself. Saying that, introspection and self-reflection are another set of basic skills that, along with reading, writing and basic comprehension, you lack significantly.
Nobody other than us pays you any attention. I think that’s why you keep posting here.
true!
and we (I) tolerate him because he makes us (me) laugh a lot.
@Edzard
Add to this that Dana himself often starts his comments with “It is so much fun watching …”, I’d say we’re all in excellent spirits here!
Maybe the link between humour and SCAM merits further investigation?
Dana is certainly not happy. On the contrary, he is sitting in front of his computer with a bright red head, biting the table with rage.
isn’t there a homeopathic remedy against foaming from the mouth?
Rabies C2000?
“sitting in front of his computer with a bright red head, biting the table with rage”
The effect of being needled by someone or something, real or imagined.
A point I’ve mentioned a few times. The thought processes needed to write and appreciate humour are very lacking in the AltMed crowd. They often try to be amusing but lack the capacity to do so. Their brains don’t function like other peoples’ do.
Even worse!
I have seen several times that guys who were full of humor lost it completely after becoming fans of SCAM.
‘let me explain what deqi really is: it’s a sensation people feel when receiving acupuncture that is caused by suggestion or verbal/non-verbal communication by the acupuncturist. we published a study of it [I cannot find the reference any more] that showed that the phenomenon was not what TCM fans think it is.’
If only it were as simple as ‘suggesting’ deqi to patients! I’ve treated thousands of patients, and I can tell you with certainty that 1) deqi sensations vary, they are not one thing, 2) they are not always easy to elicit; maybe there is a small subsection of patients who persuade themselves of a sensation, but most will just give simple feedback – sometimes they feel it, sometimes they don’t. I’m the same when I receive acupuncture – it’s often crystal clear when it happens. To suggest it is simply caused by verbal/non-verbal communication is way off the mark.
and I did a proper study on deqi [which unfortunately I cannot find any more] and can tell you that deqi is not a real phenomenon but relies on imagination
Sorry, that’s nonsense. I’d love to see the study if you find it, but I can assure you it is a clearly tangible thing (or set of things). Have you ever had acupuncture, out of interest?
Hi Tom! Long time since I saw you here. Then again I don’t come here as often as before. You still needling people despite all our efforts to persuade you to find something useful to do? You always seemed to be in doubt about the validity of your vocation, right?
If you’d ask me if I had tried acupuncture, I would reply that no, not that but I’ve often cut my fingers or dropped things on my toes,which has the same noxious physiological effects without the theatrical deceptive diversion.
Regarding the falsely perceived benefits of applying modern acupuncture to health related problems requiring medical evaluation and attention, did you ever read the article “Why bogus treatments seem to work” by the late Barry L. Beyerstein, psychologist? You can find it via Google. Important reading for all those who wish to know why some people think acupuncture has a real effect.
Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work
Barry L. Beyerstein
Skeptical Inquirer Volume 21, No. 5
September / October 1997
https://skepticalinquirer.org/1997/09/why-bogus-therapies-seem-to-work/
PDF file:
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1997/09/22165002/p29.pdf
Hi Björn, yes I try to avoid banging my head against walls too often these days!
‘You always seemed to be in doubt about the validity of your vocation, right?’
I have absolutely no doubt about how powerful acupuncture can be, and that it provides very real physical/emotional effects (as well as placebo effects of course). I just keep my mind as open as possible to the how and why of it all. TCM provides a useful framework, as do some of the more modern approaches – amongst it all is a powerful therapy, and I strive to find what works best.
‘I’ve often cut my fingers or dropped things on my toes,which has the same noxious physiological effects without the theatrical deceptive diversion.’
Those are accidents, which may or may not have some therapeutic benefit (I guess it’s possible to accidentally lance a boil while shaving, for example). Acupuncture is (when done properly) highly specific and deliberate.
But the argument I was making is about deqi sensations and whether they are real or imagined/suggested, and I maintain that they are very much real (even though of course people can also imagine sensations).
So you mean a controlled injury has another physiological effect than an accidental one? The problem is there is no unified system the practice of acupuncture. If you would map out all the alleged acupoints in all the different systems and practices, no spot would be spared, except the male genitalia. Wonder why? :). In controlled studies it has been demonstrated that it does not matter at all where (or whether) you pierce the skin. There is no uniform guide that tells us what place works when and for what. Reading the “literature” is like reading fairy tales, those who recorded the different acupuncture systems seem to have just made it up as they go, without any correlation to physiology, anatomy or other factual knowledge. Every alleged puncture point has many different vague descriptions of its multitude of function, some of them hilariously inane. A very useful rule in critical thinking is that if something is said to have multiple different uses that are difficult to verify, it most probably has none.
Each and every practitioner believes he knows the right way to do it “properly” and they all blindly see only results and explain away the misses, thereby fortifying their investment in belief, honour and income. This is why I recommend you read Beyerstein’s essay. It clearly describes why and how you are misled by your observations and guided in the wrong direction by your biases and cognitive dissonance.
I strongly believe you are lingering on this blog because of an ingrained and nagging doubt deep under the protective layer of cognitive dissonance. I want to try to help you escape from this burden.
And BTW, there is no such thing as placebo ‘effects’. By definition placebo does not have an effect, it wouldn’t be a placebo if it did.
What you think are effects is the “got better anyway” phenomenon.
@Tom
Special sensations can be elicited in people without anything ‘real’ happening – something that I discovered by accident well over 40 years ago when messing around with my classmates.
I found that if I held the sharp point of a pair of compasses quite close to someone’s forehead, they would very often report feeling a kind of jarring, almost tickling sensation. It turned out that this worked best with a sharp pointed object with a bit of mass to it – needles didn’t work nearly as well as those compasses.
So what was this? Some sort of energy flow, perhaps even the elusive qi? A disturbance in the body’s biofield? Something happening to the anja chakra?
Nope, none of those things at all. It was just the brain’s reaction to a close threat, creating the sensation based on visual information. If the test subject closed their eyes, they would feel nothing at all any more when approached with a sharp object. And this is just one example of one type of odd sensation. Everyone occasionally experiences sensations that have no actual cause outside the brain; they’re made up by the brain, even though they can feel very real and convincing.
This is very likely related to the sensations reported by patients (and often also practitioners) receiving reiki, therapeutic touch and, yes, acupuncture treatments. The sensations are quite real to the ones experiencing them, but have nothing to do with qi or ‘energy'(*) or biofields or chakras or meridians etc. – all things that don’t exist and don’t work (except as a placebo, of course). This includes acupuncture. People expect special things to happen – so the brain obliges.
*: Apart of course from the electric energy associated with the occasional real stimulation of a nerve – after all, more or less randomly poking needles in people is bound to hit a nerve every now and then.
‘So what was this? Some sort of energy flow, perhaps even the elusive qi? A disturbance in the body’s biofield? Something happening to the anja chakra? Nope, none of those things at all. It was just the brain’s reaction to a close threat, creating the sensation based on visual information.’
Who knows, maybe that’s they are one and the same?
‘Apart of course from the electric energy associated with the occasional real stimulation of a nerve – after all, more or less randomly poking needles in people is bound to hit a nerve every now and then.’
Again, maybe they are one and the same? For example, the famous ‘nausea point’ P-6 lies directly above the median nerve, and the electrical sensation often elicited when needling it is a type of deqi. Maybe all deqi sensations are some kind of nervous system stimulaiton? If that were true, to me it wouldn’t invalidate the concept of qi; it’s just a different framework of understanding.
@Tom
Let’s just say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of qi. Even after hundreds of years, no physician or scientist or, for that matter, acupuncturist, has been able to demonstrate its presence in even the most tentative manner. It is far more plausible that the effects you describe and which are ascribed to qi are simply artefacts of our brain, than that there is some mysterious mechanism at play eliciting strong responses without being detectable in any objective way.
Also note that we can detect even the most minute amounts of known forms of energy – e.g. electromagnetic and chemical energy. We can measure in exquisite detail what happens when e.g. a nerve cell is triggered, and we can even receive coherent information from a spacecraft literally billions of miles away, sent with a transmitter only slightly more powerful than the average cell phone (something that even still boggles my mind, being a biomedical electronics engineer).
All of which will prompt anyone with a scientific mindset to assume that qi does not exist until proven otherwise.
However I appreciate that you likely invested a lot in your belief in acupuncture, TCM(*) and related things, so I can’t blame you for fiercely defending it – your Web site (**) suggests that it is a very important part of your life. So for that reason alone, it is extremely unlikely that you will consider the possibility that it is in fact all just a theatrical placebo treatment without any clinical effect.
*: Maybe it is enlightening to realize that ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine’ and acupuncture as practised today were in fact mostly made up in the 1950’s, when Mao’s modernization of China’s woefully inadequate (not to say brutally medieval) healthcare was seriously hampered by a shortage of properly educated doctors. If you want to know what Traditional Chinese Medicine (and acupuncture) was really like, I can recommend the book 30 Years in Moukden by Scottish physician Dugald Christie, who worked in China for half his life, around the turn of the 20th century. For instance the recommended acupuncture treatment for children with convulsions (probably epilepsy) consisted of sticking needles under the fingernails. And no, not those very fine filiform needles that you use, but rather more crude jobs, size leather needle and up.
**: Where I found a button marked ‘Become a patient’, which can be interpreted in several humorous ways …
It doesn’t look like you’ve even read my previous messages. Where am I advocating for ‘the existence of qi’ in a measurable sense? I suggested TCM/qi etc. are a useful framework of understanding, and that deqi could in fact be a function of the nervous system. If you have any genuine interest in the area, you could look into the work of Poney Chiang for example, who has researched the classical acupuncture texts as well as the latest neuro-anatomy and comes to interesting conclusions. Like me, he has a deep respect for the classical texts, but overlays this understanding with a more modern one.
I have read parts of Christie’s text, as well as many, many other texts about ancient and modern acupuncture. I still have a lot to learn, of course.
Richard Rasker wrote:
Back of a fag packet explanation…
NASA Deep Space Network, Voyager 2 as of January 2024
Distance 𝒓 ≈ 20.3 billion km = 20.3E12 m.
The isotropic attenuation 𝑨𝗶 of the signal at distance 𝒓 is:
• 𝑨𝗶 = 10 log(4 π 𝒓²) ≈ 277 dB𝗶
Downlink from Voyager 2 to Earth station:
• X band 8.42 GHz, 𝝺≈0.0356 m
• bit rate 160 bit/s
Earth station parabolic dish antenna(s); either a 70 m dish or an array of the 35 m dishes:
• 𝑮 is the antenna isotopic gain
• 𝑮 = (π 𝒅 / 𝝺)² × aperture efficiency, typically 0.55 – 0.70.
• 𝑮 is circa 72 dB𝗶
• power received
86 zW (zeptowatt);
86E−21 W
−161 dBm
• equivalent isotropic power reaching Earth
−161 − 𝑮 = −233 dBm𝗶
Voyager 2 required transmitter effective isotopic radiated power:
• EIRP = 𝑨𝗶 + −233 dBm𝗶 = 44 dBm𝗶
• EIRP = 25 watts, but the required transmitter power is low due to the isotropic gain of the spacecraft’s parabolic dish antenna.
Okay so far, but we haven’t checked that the signal-to-noise ratio is sufficient.
The Johnson–Nyquist noise power estimate:
• 𝑵 = 𝒌ʙ⋅𝑻⋅𝑩 watt
• 𝒌ʙ ≈ 1.38E−23 J⋅K⁻¹
• 𝑻 10 kelvin cryogenically cooled receiver
• 𝑩 160 Hz channel bandwidth
• −166 dBm, rx power is −161 dBm
• SNR 5 dB
Wikipedia articles
• NASA Deep Space Network
• Effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP)
• Parabolic antenna, Gain
• Johnson–Nyquist noise
Tom: In a study of heart surgery, would you ask an ‘actor’ to perform the surgery?
Edzard: Not an actor, but a robot! Apparently that’s coming for certain surgical interventions.
Tom: Probably because they couldn’t possibly claim to be testing acupuncture.
ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE STUPID OR ARE YOU THE REAL THING?
How unnecessarily rude! That was a quick plunge into ad hominem. My response ‘Probably because they couldn’t possibly claim to be testing acupuncture’ was to your statement ‘In any case ‘those studies’ do not exist; I think there is just one.’.
it was a question
see “?”
Tom Kennedy wrote:
“ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE STUPID OR ARE YOU THE REAL THING?
How unnecessarily rude! That was a quick plunge into ad hominem.”
QUOTE
ad hominem
It isn’t actually an ad hom argument unless you’re using the assertion that he’s a fecking eejit as the basis for your assertion that he’s wrong. Here you have clearly based your conclusion that he’s a fecking eejit on the evidence that he himself has posted.
Ad hom: “You’re wrong because you’re a fecking eejit.”
Not ad hom: “You’re wrong and you’re a fecking eejit.”
Also not ad hom: “You’re a fecking eejit because you’re wrong.”
— Mojo
END of QUOTE
Whether it was technically ad hominem or not, it was still unnecessarily rude IMHO. Also the basis for the ALL CAPS rant was wrong, as my statement was based on a different post. Not that I’m calling anyone a fecking eejit…
Perhaps if you let us know what, precisely, you are attempting to achieve by commenting (I use the term loosely) here on Professor Ernst’s blog — for so many years — then we might be able to help you.
However, it appears that the essence of your long-term posting behaviour is to discredit, to a greater or lesser extent, those who disagree with you; whether on the subject of acupuncture or anything else on which you decide to comment. Instead of addressing the content of what has been said to you, you criticize the person, their style, even complaining about their use of ALL CAPS.
Another of your ‘techniques’ is to avoid answering pertinent questions. Examples:
● Björn Geir on Wednesday 26 April 2017 at 11:23
https://edzardernst.com/2013/03/alternative-practitioners-treat-the-root-causes-of-disease/#comment-89688
● Frank Odds on Wednesday 26 April 2017 at 13:40
https://edzardernst.com/2013/03/alternative-practitioners-treat-the-root-causes-of-disease/#comment-89692
I’m sorry you feel that Pete, but I think it’s grossly unfair. I’ve always made a genuine effort to engage and share my thoughts and experiences in a polite and constructive way, making specific points about content and very rarely getting dragged into the weeds of name-calling despite a lot of provocation. I haven’t responded to every single comment, because sooner or later it gets boring.
Tom Kennedy wrote: “I haven’t responded to every single comment, because sooner or later it gets boring.”
Whereas I wrote: Another of your ‘techniques’ is to avoid answering PERTINENT questions. Examples:
● Björn Geir on Wednesday 26 April 2017 at 11:23
https://edzardernst.com/2013/03/alternative-practitioners-treat-the-root-causes-of-disease/#comment-89688
● Frank Odds on Wednesday 26 April 2017 at 13:40
https://edzardernst.com/2013/03/alternative-practitioners-treat-the-root-causes-of-disease/#comment-89692
pertinent [adjective]:
relevant or applicable to a particular matter; apposite.
@pete you are referring to discussions from 7 years ago. Apologies if I didn’t respond to everything at the time but i’m not going back to that now. I have never deliberately avoided pertinent questions, but I have a busy life and have to ration my time.
Tom Kennedy,
Perhaps if you let us know what, precisely, you are attempting to achieve by commenting (I use the term loosely) here on Professor Ernst’s blog — for so many years — then we might be able to help you.
If you do not address that then don’t act surprised if you are assumed to be trolling.
‘Perhaps if you let us know what, precisely, you are attempting to achieve by commenting (I use the term loosely) here on Professor Ernst’s blog — for so many years — then we might be able to help you.’
I’m not asking for help, I’m trying to add some balance to the discussion by sharing my experience in the area. I don’t know why that upsets you? I am in no way ‘trolling’. I understood the idea to be a free exchange of views as it is an open comment section, but you seem to be saying nobody should disrespect the Professor by expressing disagreement?
Tom Kennedy,
You wrote: “I understood the idea to be a free exchange of views as it is an open comment section, but you seem to be saying nobody should disrespect the Professor by expressing disagreement?”
I am neither saying nor implying that “nobody should disrespect the Professor by expressing disagreement”. Saying/implying that would, I think, be committing the fallacy:
And if you use your personal experience as evidence of something (e.g. deqi sensations), you would probably be the perpetrator of an ipsedixitism:
E.g., you wrote: “But the argument I was making is about deqi sensations and whether they are real or imagined/suggested, and I maintain that they are very much real”.
As to your “I understood the idea to be a free exchange of views as it is an open comment section”
I have pointed out just two PERTINENT comments that you have avoided addressing. They are as pertinent today as they were when written, so your pseudo-excuses are quite pathetic, and snide:
• “I haven’t responded to every single comment, because sooner or later it gets boring”
• “@pete you are referring to discussions from 7 years ago. Apologies if I didn’t respond to everything at the time but i’m not going back to that now”
snide [adjective]: derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.
You wrote: “I’m trying to add some balance to the discussion by sharing my experience in the area.”
@Pete I don’t think the accusation of ipsedixitism is entirely fair. Before I said ‘the argument I was making is about deqi sensations and whether they are real or imagined/suggested, and I maintain that they are very much real’, I had already outlined my position and reasoning regarding. Granted, this was based on personal experience and that of my patients, but it wasn’t fished out of the air. For a more scientific discussion, here’s a starting point (section 5):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705793/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20deqi%2C%20which%20literally%20means,prognosis%20of%20disease%20%5B1%5D.
This is also interesting:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2016.00462/full#:~:text=We%20found%20significant%20differences%20in,differ%20from%20the%20acute%20pain
Although far from definitive, it seems to suggest fairly repeatable patterns of deqi sensation propagation, which is consistent with my experience. Many, many patients report similar patterns of propagation, regardless of whether they’ve had any acupuncture before, or have any prior knowledge of traditional meridian pathways.
‘I have pointed out just two PERTINENT comments that you have avoided addressing.’
I will give you another excuse – sometimes my responses are either moderated away, or vanish into the ether for unknown technical reasons (I don’t know which). This happened twice yesterday when I tried to reply to Bjorn for some reason. I can’t remember whether this was the case for the posts you refer to from 7 years ago, but I don’t feel inclined to read through them all again now, partly because I could easily have changed my opinions since then. If you want to reframe the questions in relation to the current topic I will do my best to respond.
I’m sorry you find my comments to be snide. I’m human, and sometimes get annoyed and respond accordingly. I found the following comment of yours to be quite snide, to be honest. Like your rather patronising use of dictionary definitions, it felt designed to provoke:
‘Perhaps if you let us know what, precisely, you are attempting to achieve by commenting (I use the term loosely) here on Professor Ernst’s blog — for so many years — then we might be able to help you.’
As for the Dara O’Brian quote, I might argue that in the context of this blog post, I’m more the ‘guy from NASA’ than the ‘Barry’. I’ve spent roughly 20 years studying, practicing, and receiving acupuncture – do you not think I should have a say?
Tom Kennedy,
You wrote:
“@Pete I don’t think the accusation of ipsedixitism is entirely fair… Granted, [my statement about deqi sensations] was based on personal experience and that of my patients, but it wasn’t fished out of the air.”
I did not accuse you. I specifically used the logical form:
IF P THEN probably Q
when I wrote:
“if you use your personal experience as evidence of something (e.g. deqi sensations), you would probably be the perpetrator of an ipsedixitism”. Perhaps the following example is sufficiently clear.
IF
• Pete uses his personal experience
• as evidence of something
THEN
• Pete
• would probably be
• the perpetrator of
• an ipsedixitism
Suppose that I wrote:
“The argument I was making, is about alien abductions, and whether they are real or imagined/suggested, and I maintain that they are very much real.”
That statement is probably an ipsedixitism; even when there exists evidence to support my claim that “they are very much real”. Because, my preceding clause “I maintain that” is an appeal to myself as the primary/only source of evidence, in that particular statement. I should, instead, have deferred to the independent sources, in order to avoid commenting an ipsedixitism. The clause “I maintain that” come across as dogmatism.
NB nowhere have I claimed that “deqi sensations” are real, imagined, or non-existent. Indeed, for each of those three positions, I have read papers that support the position. I have no personal opinion because, with my background in applied science, personal opinions, my own and everyone else’s, are irrelevant; and they are even less interesting than watching paint dry.
You wrote:
“I’m sorry you find my comments to be snide. I’m human, and sometimes get annoyed and respond accordingly. I found the following comment of yours to be quite snide, to be honest. Like your rather patronising use of dictionary definitions, it felt designed to provoke”
It wasn’t designed to provoke (see my final paragraph).
The reason I provide a definition of some of the words I use is simply because these words have multiple meanings. By providing my intended meaning, I preempt the commentators who:
• are duplicitous, and/or
• delight in semantic filibustering, and/or
• deploy argumentum ad dictionarium
Good discussion requires utmost clarity; particularly discussions that include field-specific terms. And particularly discussion conducted via blog comments rather than in person.
You wrote:
“I will give you another excuse… partly because I could easily have changed my opinions since then”
I have observed from at least 10 years of your commenting on this blog that your position on certain things has changed, which I think is commendable. In fact, I’m reasonably sure that if we met in person, we might have some good-quality and thoroughly enjoyable conversations.
Best regards,
Pete
@Pete
‘Good discussion requires utmost clarity; particularly discussions that include field-specific terms. And particularly discussion conducted via blog comments rather than in person.’
Absolutely agreed – things quickly descend into pointless tit for tat otherwise. Sorry if I misunderstood your use of definitions.
‘I’m reasonably sure that if we met in person, we might have some good-quality and thoroughly enjoyable conversations.’
Also agreed. I’ve had that feeling about others here at times too. A pub would certainly be a better forum for an enjoyable conversation than a comment section.