Acupuncture 'deactivates brain'

That’s the headline from this BBC report. Unfortunately the brains being deactivated are clearly those of BBC reporters writing about acupuncture. To see what I mean, read this (all bold is mine):

Acupuncture works by deactivating the area of the brain governing pain, a TV show will claim.

Tuesday's programme - the first of three on complementary medicine - will show researchers carrying out brain scans on people having acupuncture.

The BBC Two show will also feature heart surgery done using acupuncture instead of a general anaesthetic.

Wow, really? Acupuncture instead of a general anesthetic.  I thought all these surgeries in China supposedly done using acupuncture and not general anesthetics were actually shown to have been performed using anesthetics (ie there was more involved than acupuncture). Could the BBC have found some surgery that really was performed using acupuncture only? Er, actually no, because the very next sentence reads:

The patient is conscious during the operation in China, but she was given sedatives and a local anaesthetic.

Well if the patient was given sedatives and a local anesthetic, the surgery was not done using acupuncture was it? Sheesh.

Still, the research seems to have come up with some interesting data. Volunteers had “deep needling”: needles inserted 1cm into the back of the hand. A control group had needles placed only 1mm deep. During these two procedures, the volunteers underwent brain scans to see what effect there was in the brain. They found that the superficial needling resulted in activation of the motor areas of the cortex, a normal reaction to pain. However, the deep needling deactivated a part of the brain, specifically the limbic system. This was surprising because it is usually suggested that acupuncture activates the brain – usually the part that produces endorphins.

Of course, there is no suggestion that this result is due to the balancing of yin and yang by releasing blocked qi in one of the specific 2,000 acupuncture points of the body. In fact, there is no evidence from this study that it matters where the needles are placed, and other studies have shown it makes no difference where they are placed as long as the person receiving the acupuncture believes the needles are being placed in the special magic positions. There is still no reason to suppose that there is any value in the detailed training acupuncturists have to complete to learn where to stick the needles, or that there is any value in most acupuncture treatments at all.

Or to quote Professor Tony Wildsmith, a pain relief expert at the University of Dundee:

The thing about acupuncture is that it does not work on everyone. It is more likely to be effective if you believe it.

I think it is a psychological manipulation technique, a distraction. We are not going to get to the stage where this could be used instead of a general anaesthetic.

Still, if independently confirmed, this is useful data. One day, when we understand what if anything acupuncture really does, we might be able to obtain some of its benefits without all the mystical nonsense about qi.  Maybe.

Comments

[pvandck]

The BBC are very fond of the inverted commas/quotation marks device to absolve themselves from any responsibility when writing misleading headlines. Something along the lines of "'Cure For Cancer Found', says study". Then you have to read right to the end of the article only to find the study was an opinion poll of astrologers, or some other such garbage. They do it all the time to sensationalise what is, essentially, a non-story. Remember the Homeopathy "study" that turned out to be the results of a questionnaire published in a press release? So next time you see a headline claim enclosed in single inverted commas you know what's coming next - a bit of tabloid pseudoscience written by a humanities graduate who believes (1) there is such a thing as Phlogisten and (2) that Harry Potter is a scientist.

[Rene]

Good post, however, I think that your first example, "The BBC Two show will also feature heart surgery done using acupuncture instead of a general anaesthetic" is a semantic issue in which you've misunderstood a clinical definition. "General" anesthesia is one where the patient is completely *knocked out.* So, understanding that, the first two sentences you point out are actually correct, and the BBC is not, apparently, as dim as you suggest. Just a thought.

[Rene]

Good post, however, I think that your first example, "The BBC Two show will also feature heart surgery done using acupuncture instead of a general anaesthetic" is a semantic issue in which you've misunderstood a clinical definition. "General" anesthesia is one where the patient is completely *knocked out.* So, understanding that, the first two sentences you point out are actually correct, and the BBC is not, apparently, as dim as you suggest. Just a thought. (At least not in the context of this post.)

[Annoyed sceptic]

I have just watched this programme and had to comment somewhere. I was disturbed by the uncritical assumption that the points where the needles were placed were important.

During the brain scanning experiment only one point was studied, a 'known pressure point'. No-one even questioned the underlying assumption that this point was significant. Surely there should have been a sham where the needle was placed in a 'known non-pressure point' or similar. Acupuncture seems to be based on the flow of chi, and nowhere was this tested.

I was really disappointed with the programme. The presenter kept saying she was sceptical, but seemed to be overly impressed with anecdotal evidence. It seemed to be pandering to that mass of people (including those i watched this with) who believe this crap.

(Thanks for letting me vent!)

[James Orpin]

One thing that annoyed me about the experiment was they didn't use a proper control. They compared superficial needling to deep needling with de chi - which means putting the needle in and wiggling it around until the test subject feels it - hardly a 'blind' procedure. They then concluded that de chi was having an effect. For a proper control the deep needling should have been indistingusihable from the superficial.

Rene
He is correct to to critise the phrase "using acupuncture instead of a general anaesthetic". They did not perform the operation with acupuncture, they performed it with sedatives (unamed), local anaesthetic and acupuncture.

[Diathermic]

Hello Skeptico, nice analysis. Way, way off of the subject, I have a question for you. Do you have any double-blind placebo-controlled studies about how to prove this comment of yours; “Everyone I meet seems to believe in some irrational nonsense, no one can ever back up their beliefs with evidence, and yet they view me as the one with the problem.”
Can you show me the math and science as to how you are the one who is not the believer in “irrational nonsense”? And can you prove this “fact” to me through data, science and studies?

[BronzeDog]

1. Sorry, Diathermic, he said "seems". That clearly labels it as an unscientific study, and only an impression. I don't see him claiming any level of confidence or certainty. He's not claiming it as fact.

2. I'm sure Skeptico is freely willing to admit that he might have irrational beliefs. He doesn't claim perfection. I'm willing to admit the same, and I don't claim perfection, either. My mind is open to the possibility of me being mistaken. That's why I'm always willing to listen to contradicting data. If you've got it, present it.

[Skeptico]

Diathermic:

Yes it is way off topic. I will answer your off topic question this one time though.

I have never said anything has to be “proved”, only that there should be evidence to back up claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and this claim of mine, which was obviously a little bit of hyperbole, was not extraordinary. Get over it.

Now for a warning to you. This is not your playground. If you want to make reasonable comments disagreeing with what I have posted, you are welcome to do so. But this is not the forum to play what you fondly believe are clever games, pushing your anti-science agenda. Stick to the topic of the post or I will delete your comments and install moderation again. Don’t be a jerk.

If that doesn’t work for you, get your own blog.

[Diathermic]

Hey Skeptico and Bronze… thanks for the comments… no problem… I do not wish to cause problems here… I enjoy Skeptico’s commentary as well as all of the debate…The same for Bronze… I am glad to see people thinking in a critical way… Skeptico, just as a side note, I am not trying to push an unscientific agenda… I love science… You could say I practice naturopathic genomic medicine, or better yet, naturopathic nutrigenomic medicine… Hey guys, don’t roll your eyes.. haaaa… Stay Cool.. Thanks for the comments :)From now on, i will stick to the topic...
Peace
Diathermic