This is a perennial topic- I always go to the research- that and the classic books of acupuncture history are our main sources for reliable point selection, effective treatment.
The press often reports the results of new studies- e.g. fertility, migraines, etc. and then a rash of newbies flock to acupuncturists for treatment for that... it's all about belief, and people believe what the media says the studies say.
But there are a couple problems with that process-
1. the media only reports new research, and hasn't reported all of it, so the public gets a fragmented incomplete view of what science has proven about acupuncture
2. the research is often poorly designed from a research standpoint, or clinically effective acupuncturists were not consulted on which points should be tested in the studies.
For example, the now DECADE old 1996 NIH consensus statement on acupuncture is the most quoted authority on websites- the 2002 World Health Organization's review of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture not only is hardly mentioned, but has been removed from the WHO website!
And many studies for acupuncture and nausea use only P6 (the one on the wrist) and ignore ST44, another great nausea point. In fact, sometimes people given P6 throw up! It depends on the case...
And that's another problem with the research- research is designed to find general truths, but acupuncture is very flexible clinically. We know P6 and ST44 work for nausea, but choosing the right one for each patient is the key. No acupuncture research I know of has been geared to give acupuncturists the ability to choose the best points for each study participant.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar