(10-05-13) Acupuncture stimulates multiple brain regions, affecting a wide scope of pain dimensions

by PF Louis

(NaturalNews) It's odd that studies are being done to "prove" certain medical
arts have positive effects even after they've proven beneficial over centuries.
This seems to be the case with Traditional Chinese Medicine's (TCM) and its
most widely practiced methodology, acupuncture.

A meta-analysis is an overarching analysis of several clinical or laboratory
study results with a similar purpose or theme to determine the validity of a
basic thread or foundation.

The Kyung Hee University Acupuncture and Meridian Science Research Center in
Seoul, Korea published the following study in March of 2013: "Inserting needles
into the body: a meta-analysis of brain activity associated with acupuncture
needle stimulation."

The researchers used 28 brain magnetic resonance image (MRI) studies from 51
acupuncture experiments and compared them with MRI studies from tactile
stimulation experiments. The theme was pain and how needle stimulation affected
the brain's pain centers.

Their meta-analysis result was "....better understanding of acupuncture needle
stimulation and its effects on specific activity changes in different brain
regions as well as its relationship to the multiple dimensions of pain. Future
studies can build on this meta-analysis and will help to elucidate the
clinically relevant therapeutic effects of acupuncture."

Does testing a 2500-plus year proven medical art make sense?
Interesting that this meta/analysis comes from a culture that has been steeped
in TCM since it was absorbed from China in 560 AD. By now they know it works,
right? It has repeatedly demonstrated its efficacy for pain relief with
anesthetic applications during major surgery.

So what would a meridian research center in Korea be doing with a study to
prove acupuncture's efficacy for handling pain with MRI technology in a western
medical style comparison study do a meta-analysis and end it with a "future
studies" phrase?

That's a commonly used conservative phrase to invite more research funds
and/or give others a chance to shoot down the results and maintain their
monopoly. But it may all be necessary to give acupuncture a real shot at
opening up the insurance industry's purses for a very inexpensive medical
approach.

Acupuncture sessions cost from $50 to $100 each, and generally they are spaced
apart by a few days or more with ten to 20 sessions, sometimes less, to achieve
desired results from an existing malady. Those rates are comparable to normal
allopathic doctor's office visits without any procedures.

There are acupuncture colleges that offer supervised student rates at a third
of that cost, but it's not the same as having a practitioner handle your case.
When you use an acupuncture school for treatments, you're there for the
students' benefit.

Either insurance companies are stupid, or they're beholden to Big Pharma, the
FDA, and the AMA, otherwise known as the medical mafia.

They insist on a battery of double blind placebo peer reviewed studies to
confirm efficacy on a much less expensive medical approach while accepting
bogus reviews on extremely expensive therapies that often don't work well and
render worsening side effects.

The major problem with doing studies to confirm acupuncture's efficacy is that
it's based on a totally different paradigm than western allopathic medicine.
The foundations are very different, yet western research continues to compare
apples with oranges rather than understand and accept apples.

Currently, chiropractors and acupuncturists are struggling in a few key states
to gain acceptance from the health insurance industry. Four states -
California, New Mexico, Washington, and Maryland are offering acupuncture
insurance coverage on some specific ailments. It appears that Alaska and Nevada
will be next.

In order to convince insurance companies that cheaper can be better, TCM has
to be translated into western allopathic terms. As long as the medical mafia
considers empirical observation anecdotal and not "scientific," the studies to
validate what's known to work will continue.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.vitasearch.com/get-clp-summary/40579

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23395475

http://www.nationalreview.com

News

---

In evidenza

"L'informazione presente nel sito serve a migliorare, e non a sostituire, il rapporto medico-paziente."

Per coloro che hanno problemi di salute si consiglia di consultare sempre il proprio medico curante.