Sticking needles in someoneâs body is not a placebo therapy, or at least not an effective one, argue two letters in todayâs issue of Archives of Internal Medicine. From personal experience Iâd argue that the critics got this call right.
NEEDLED At least for research trials in Western patients, acupuncture may be one therapy for which a true placebo may not exist. iStockphoto
Last year, a paper in
Archives
described findings from a randomized, multicenter program to treat chronic lower back pain. In it, Michael Haake of the University of Regensburg, in Bad Abbach, and his colleagues administered conventional therapy (drugs, physical therapy, and exercise) to one-third of their nearly 1,200 volunteers. The remaining patients got 30-minute acupuncture sessions, generally twice a week for five weeks. Of these, half of the patients were punctured at sites suspected of being useful, and the rest received needles at other spots on their bodies.
Science News headlines, in your inbox
Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your email inbox every Thursday.
Thank you for signing up!
There was a problem signing you up.
Interestingly, comparable shares of each acupuncture group â roughly 45 percent â reported decreased back pain for at least six months after their sessions ended. That success rate was almost twice as high as for the group getting conventional therapy. The authors concluded: âThe underlying mechanism may be a kind of superplacebo effect produced by placebo and all nonspecific factors working together.â
Subscribe to Science News
Get great science journalism, from the most trusted source, delivered to your doorstep.
Critics from the University of Notre Dame Australia make some interesting points in their
Archives
letter today. âIt is highly likely,â they say, âthat conventional therapy had already failed in most of this population.â Otherwise, why would they have taken part? Itâs therefore also unlikely they would have responded to conventional treatment in the German trial. By contrast, the Australian team says, acupunctureâs novelty for most Europeans would be expected âto lead to a strong placebo response.â
Indeed, because both the ostensibly therapeutic and sham acupuncture sites proved equally beneficial, these researchers conclude that âa reasonable interpretation of this result is that acupuncture is not effective beyond a placebo effect.â For the German team to have made the opposite interpretation the focus of its paper âis both misleading and unscientific,â the UNDA researchers contend.
Writing in a second letter, researchers from the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil, offer a different spin. Because the sham acupuncture sites were as beneficial as the test sites, they constituted âneither an inert nor innocuous procedureâ â which is what a placebo should be.
The latter is something I learned the hard way.
Iâm a long-time migraine sufferer and four years ago my neurologist offered me a chance to enroll in an acupuncture trial at GeorgeWashingtonUniversity. Three times a week for eight weeks I showed up to be stuck with longish needles in my feet and hands by a traditional Chinese acupuncturist. (During the trial, I was not allowed to speak with him; then again, Iâm not sure whether he spoke English very fluently.) Neither the physicians nor the volunteers knew until after the trial who was getting needles inserted in the test versus the sham sites.
As it turned out, I got the sham sites.
I also got pain. Lots of it. For whatever reason, about 10 minutes into my 30- or 40-minute treatment, Iâd develop throbbing pain deep within my right upper arm. The discomfort eventually became intense by the time each session finished. And that throbbing didnât disappear for another 90 minutes or so. Which made riding home on a crowded subway car challenging, since I couldnât lift that arm to hold onto the grab bar (or hold my bags in that arm if I tried to grab the stabilizing bar with my other hand).
My doctor offered to let me drop out of the trial. But I was doing this for science. And if it reduced the frequency of my headaches, it would have been a small price to pay. In fact, I still got roughly 80 headaches a year after the trial, the same rate I had before it â and that I experience still.
As the Brazilian team points out, such a test procedure is hardly inert. Itâs more like comparing effects of a cancer drug to a heart drug in a cholesterol trial. So I, like the Brazilian clinicians, would argue sham acupuncture is no placebo.
And Haakeâs team, too, now concedes âsham acupuncture is not a placeboâ in a reply they offer to their critics. Itâs possible, they write, that whatever nerves were stimulated by inserting needles at the test sites were also inadvertently stimulated by the presence of needles at the sham sites. Moveover, the German team adds, âeven a placebo effect is associated with real biochemical process in the brain, which blur the boundaries between a ârealâ treatment with specific action mechanisms and a placebo treatment without such âspecificâ mechanisms.â
Hmmm⊠What the German study and the one I participated in would both seem to point out is that there may be some treatments for which a true placebo is unavailable.
To celebrate our centennial, we have made our entire archive available for free. But quality journalism comes at a price. Support the next century of science journalism. Subscribe to Science News for as little as $2.99 a month.