Yes, they are researching CAM, but it also seems to be available to cancer patients who aren't part of a study.
Clinical Services
Through a center grant sponsored by the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, prominent Johns Hopkins physicians and researchers can study a plethora of CAM modalities. Visit our links to ongoing studies, education and training, and special announcements about upcoming seminars and pilot funding.
For Acupuncture and CAM Research, please contact:
Sanghoon Lee, KMD, PhD, LAc
Phone: 410-502-2466 / Fax: 410-502-3624
Email: slee204@jhmi.edu
Sure looks like research to me.
I've just placed a call to Dr. Lee at Johns Hopkins.
When he calls me back, I'll let you know what he says.
And vice versa. Dueling studies don't give us a concrete answer. The average person can only take the information, good and bad, gleaned from studies that seem to fit their need to make their decision.
You're ignoring a critical piece of the puzzle.
The OVERWHELMING majority of studies find acupuncture no more effective than placebo.
That makes the decision a helluva lot easier.
Can we trust the results of the studies done by these premier hospitals?
Well, I would agree that we can trust their research.
Problem is, PD, the majority of the studies coming out of these institutions do not support acupuncture's claims.
I won't include a list of the relevant studies (I know how much you hate those!).
mayoclinic.com writes:
* Red flag words. The advertisements or promotional materials usually include words such as "satisfaction guaranteed," "miracle cure" or "new discovery." If the product were in fact a cure, it would be widely reported in the media and your doctor would recommend it.
* Pseudomedical jargon. Though terms such as "purify," "detoxify" and "energize" may sound impressive and may even have an element of truth, they're generally used to cover up a lack of scientific proof. Watch out for these words.
* Cure-alls. The manufacturer claims that the product can treat a wide range of symptoms, or cure or prevent a number of diseases. No single product can do all this.
* Anecdotal evidence. Testimonials are no substitute for solid scientific documentation. If the product is scientifically sound, the manufacturer will promote the scientific evidence. If you have to search all over the Web site for this evidence or you can't find any evidence at all to back up the manufacturer's claims, be wary of the information.
* False accusations. The manufacturer of the product accuses the government or a medical profession of suppressing important information about the product's benefits. Neither the government nor any medical profession has any reason to withhold information that could help people.
In the past 2 weeks, each of these "red flags" has popped up in this thread.
So when we are told or it is implied that medical doctors or scientists who go against the mainstream have just gone stupid (or something to that effect), our trust in those who are supposed to have the knowledge becomes shaky.
You've made this assertion several times.
Let's take Dr. Pauling as an example.
Dr. Pauling's work continued until his death in 1994.
Analysis of a hyperdeformed band of 152(66)Dy86 on the basis of a structure with two revolving clusters, each with a previously unrecognized two-tiered structure.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Feb 1;91(3):897-9.
This work was published in a premier journal,
The Procedures of the National Academy of Sciences.
It stood up to scrutiny.
Most of Dr. Pauling's work on vitamin C (the reason Dr. Pauling's credibility is called into question), however, was published in the research equivalent of a zine.
A proposition: megadoses of vitamin C are valuable in the treatment of cancer.
Nutr Rev. 1986 Jan;44(1):28-32.
The vitamin C studies that were published in recognized journals were only tangentially related to his megadoes vitamin C claims.
Criteria for the validity of clinical trials of treatments of cohorts of cancer patients based on the Hardin Jones principle.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Sep;86(18):6835-7.
Ask yourself this question: Dr. Pauling's peers felt his work was worth publishing. So why did they "censor" (not publish) most of his vitamin C papers (and only his vitamin C papers)?
Unless one is a Conspiracy Theorist Extraordinaire, the answer is obvious.
The dilemma for the average person in this debate is that people who are supposed to have the knowledge don't always agree.
It's not surprising that the "average person" is confused. From what I've seen in this thread, the "average person" visits alterna-sites loaded with pseudoscience.
Anyone truly interested in the story of vitamin C megadoses (or acupuncture or any other hinky "treatment") can easily look up the relevant literature.
Pubmed isn't a secret, you know.
Even a cursory examination of the evidence reveals the scientific consensus (no support for any of the above).
That's why we turn to personal testimony. We do realize that what works for one person doesn't necessarily work or work the same for another. Personal testimony, especially from someone we trust, is closer to home.
No. Folks who turn to anecdotal "evidence" don't realize that "what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another".
Lindalou and Buz are prime examples.
Studies can help to see through selling techniques, but studies don't always address the naturopathic ideas, which deal with giving the body what it needs to heal itself.
There's a damn good reason "naturopathic" ideas aren't addressed in the literature.
Naturopathy is bullshit.
Complementary and alternative medical treatment of breast cancer: a survey of licensed North American naturopathic physicians.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2002 Sep-Oct;8(5):68-70; 72-5.
The most common general CAM therapies used were dietary counseling (94%), botanical medicines (88%), antioxidants (84%), and supplemental nutrition (84%). The most common specific treatments were vitamin C (39%), coenzyme Q-10 (34%), and Hoxsey formula (29%).
HOXSEY???
1/3 of these unfortunate souls got HOXSEY???
This is why we can't adopt a "live and let live" attitude re: naturopathic quacks.
™ Version 4.2