TechSkeptic sent me this article that I find it hard to believe isn’t from The Onion - Military tries 'battlefield' acupuncture to ease pain:
The technique is proving so successful that the Air Force will begin teaching "battlefield acupuncture" early next year to physicians deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, senior officials will announce tomorrow.
[…]
Using tiny needles that barely penetrate the skin of a patient's ear, Air Force doctors here say they can interrupt pain signals going to the brain.
Their experience over several years indicates the technique developed by Col. Richard Niemtzow, an Air Force physician, can relieve even unbearable pain for days at a time.
And I thought this cartoon was a joke.
Perhaps it was. But it’s not anymore. This military doctor is apparently claiming he can interrupt pain signals going to the brain for days at a time. And he is relying on "experience over several years" - presumably because actual studies suggest that acupuncture is nothing more than a highly elaborate placebo. For example:
Steven Novella here, here, here, here and here.
Our troops deserve better. For example, only treatments that have been shown to work.
[Note: cartoon from DC's IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.]
Dec 15 - Edited to add:
Two more blog posts today from Orac and Novella:
Skeptical Battlegrounds: Part III - Alternative Medicine
Taking woo in the military to a whole new level: Deploying acupuncturists to Iraq
Does acupuncture not make heavy use of extra gubbins like soothing music, aromas etc to assist in relaxing the recipient and so make them more open to experiencing a positive result?
Be kind of lacking on a battlefield under fire.
I personally would prefer the traditional field dressings, IV lines and drugs then move on to the next wounded soldier instead of mucking about with needles and mysticism.
Posted by: Darthcynic | December 12, 2008 at 08:55 AM
And here I thought combat acupuncture was stuff like precisely thrown bo-shuriken into chakra points. You know, like that Haku guy in Naruto.
Of course, that doesn't work either. Especially if you have, you know, a gun.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | December 12, 2008 at 09:29 AM
Interesting! Maybe there is something to this afterall. I mean the military is claiming that they can interupt pain signals with acupuncture is probably not a lie! I don't think these soldiers are playing along. Either it works or it doesn't.
Posted by: Elie | December 12, 2008 at 10:12 AM
I never thought the problem was whether or not acupuncture "worked", but the bogus explanations as to how, like chi flow and all that claptrap. It should be pretty easy to determine whether it is an effective treatment for trauma under field conditions. If it is, use it. I'd just be interested in how they determined that it was effective. I didn't see any references to studies.
Posted by: Yojimbo | December 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Right, because the military would never invest in things that didn't work and would certainly never get anything wrong.
Ever had much contact with the military Elie?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 12, 2008 at 12:55 PM
this is as silly as saying "they are going to ride on unicorns when charging on enemy armies".
I wonder who lobbied or pushed political influence and power to get the idea approved. why don't they train soldiers on how to use the force then?. or maby give them a scroll with the spell "level 1 cure" so they can learn it.
gee, I bet casting "cure all" or using the force to heal works as wonderfully as acupunture, right?.
now seriously, this is a dangerous precedent, in the collective mind of society, is like "the government say it's true!, see?, so astrology, talking to the dead, and the secret are true too!".
Posted by: Pelger | December 12, 2008 at 08:55 PM
When I saw the phrase "battlefield acupuncture", I thought, "Don't the poor bastards have enough holes in them already?"
Posted by: Nemo | December 13, 2008 at 09:52 AM
Elie:
Having the military involved is no guarantee it works. For example, they spent $20 million on Stargate Project before realizing that "Psi" doesn't work. But as far as I know, no injured military personnel suffered directly because of Stargate.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM
It's placebo, but placebos still work.
Posted by: billy | December 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I don't think you understand what "placebo" means. Educate yourself.
Posted by: Tom Foss | December 14, 2008 at 02:15 PM
It is pretty clear that acupuncture works to alleviate pain. Of course it doesn't work because of energy fields or balance chi or other BS. Haven't seen evidence that it works for stuff other than pain. But, you can block the effects of acupuncture using opiate antagonists done in a blinded fashion. That is pretty good evidence it works for pain. It must somehow release endorphins.
Of course placebo is something very different. Placebo is very interesting. It is very powerful. In placebo controlled studies in Parkinson's disease, the group getting placebo always shows clinical benefit. If you do f-dopa PET scans, looking at the dopamine content in the brain, the dopamine content in the brain is increased for about 6 months! That is pretty amazing. Somehow, the patient thinking that he was getting an active dopamine agent, is able to increase the dopamine content in the brain and get benefit.
This is a link to a similar study (sorry, new here and don't know if there is a better way to post links):
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:wsYI1GblBxkJ:www.sjsu.edu/faculty/gerstman/StatPrimer/delaFeunte-Fernandez.pdf+placebo+dopa+PET+scan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us&client=safari
Posted by: sgrill | December 22, 2008 at 07:32 PM
sgril:
The problem is that acupuncture doesn’t really deliver for the kinds of serious injuries they might see in action. My responses to your specific points follow.
Read the links I put at the bottom of the post. They show it doesn’t work better than sham acupuncture – ie it’s placebo. And even then it’s minimal. Hardly enough for battlefield injuries.
No, evidence it works for pain would be some actual evidence that it actually works for pain.
I don’t know about “must”. It is possible, although I’m not aware of any studies that have shown that. But again, hardly what I’d want if I was seriously injured.
Please take a read of Orac today - Battlefield acupuncture revisited: Only the thinnest of gruel will do – it explains in more detail why this is such a bad idea. In summary – once you stop requiring real evidence something works, you’ll believe in anything. Just read the drivel this Air force doc believes in. I believe we all deserve better but our troops in battle especially so.
btw, if you need to format anything such as hyperlinks, please take a look at How To Format Comments – I hope that will be of some help.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 22, 2008 at 09:01 PM
How in the world did sgrill manage to get his comment to go across the entire screen and get partially covered by the sidebars?
Posted by: King of Ferrets | December 22, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Doesn't look that way in my browser - looks perfectly normal. What browser are you using?
Posted by: Skeptico | December 22, 2008 at 09:35 PM
Firefox, but it just popped up and said that it needs to update. I'll see how it looks post-update.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | December 22, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Just updated and it still doesn't look right. I think it's because of the URL he stuck in it.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | December 22, 2008 at 10:34 PM
So sorry about the formatting. It looks bad on my computer too. I'll read the instructions on how to post links.
I think the problem with using sham needling as a control technique is that it makes the assumption that there is something special about the sites they usually needle. There are numerous randomized controlled studies supporting benefit for pain conditions and some use a sham where the needle is only minimally inserted and the patients are unable to say whether they had "real" acupuncture. But I suspect there is simply not a perfect control experiment to do. There are many fields where there are not perfect controls. For example, in Parkinson's Disease (my field), we know that deep brain stimulation works. However there is no perfect control to test it since doing a sham surgery where a needle is inserted in a person's brain to simulate the surgery, will give significant benefit because the trauma from the needle actually gives benefit.
We wont get anywhere in medicine if we only practice based on perfectly designed studies. Sometimes, doing the "perfect" study is not possible for ethical reasons.
Now don't get me wrong. It is simply crazy to use acupuncture in a battle field situation expect perhaps if no analgesics are available. Then who cares if it is a placebo effect or not. Also, I never have referred patients for acupuncture because the standard treatments I use in my patients work so well.
I am surprised you are not convinced with the studies using opiate antagonists.
Again, sorry about the last post making things look weird.
Posted by: sgrill | December 23, 2008 at 06:53 PM