http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4
Basically they found that traditional acupuncture led people to report fewer problems "in dysfunction but not in symptoms" for back pain. Interestingly, the same results were found by 'tricking' people into thinking they were getting acupuncture using toothpicks.
Hmmm, anyone 'round these parts heard tell of something called a placebo effect?
As a side note, I have little tolerance for anyone, particularly med students, who give any shred of support to this sort of junk. While it might seem harmless enough the fact is that it supports and gives credence to an ever-growing anti-Western-medicine culture, a culture of snake-oil salesmen that ensnares the most gullible and often elderly individuals into thinking they can do things like treat cancer with a handful of herbs. The results can be fatal, and have been so in my personal experience.
An interesting study, for sure, though your conclusion regarding the placebo effect represents only one of two possible explanations for the results of the study, as described by the paper's authors:
"However, both real and sham acupuncture appear superior to usual care. Possible explanations for these findings include the following: (1) superficial acupuncture point stimulation directly stimulates physiological processes that ultimately lead to improved pain and function, or (2) participants' improved functioning resulted from nonspecific effects such as therapist conviction, patient enthusiasm, or receiving a treatment believed to be helpful."
Indeed, they correctly point out an unresolved methodological issue in current acupuncture research:
"The appropriateness of using minimal, superficial, or sham control groups in trials of acupuncture remains controversial.
28 In fact, the use of blunt needles that did not penetrate the skin was described 2000 years ago in the classic book on acupuncture needling.
29 A study using functional magnetic resonance imaging found that superficial and deep needling of an acupuncture point elicited similar blood oxygen level–dependent responses.
30 Another study demonstrated that lightly touching the skin can stimulate mechanoreceptors that induce emotional and hormonal reactions, which in turn alleviate the affective component of pain.
31 This could explain why trials evaluating acupuncture for pain have failed to find that real acupuncture is superior to sham or superficial control treatments and raises questions about whether sham treatments truly serve as inactive controls."
The shortened version of this perspective is to say that superficial stimulation of the skin is not an inert intervention (a requirement for something to be considered a placebo), and apparently has some specific effects similar to skin penetration acupuncture.
Secondly, the authors' conclusion that individualized, standardized and simulated (cutaneous stimulation) acupuncture are equivalent in their effects is not novel, but is useful to see reconfirmed.
Finally, as for your reference to herbs and your own personal tragic experiences, I'm sorry to hear that and indeed herbal formulations carry much more risk of harm than does acupuncture in the hands of a trained practitioner. But please consider that these are independent modalities, and indictment of one does not imply culpability of the other.
