No surprise. IVF & acupuncture? Doesn't work (but how could it?): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2681194?redirect=true&utm_source=STAT+Newsletters&utm_campaign=d212c12457-MR&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8cab1d7961-d212c12457-116322369 … "#acupuncture vs sham acupuncture at the time of ovarian stimulation & embryo transfer resulted in no significant difference in live birth rates." @gorskon @EdzardErnst @skepticpedi
-
-
It’s important to be consistent in how we talk about studies. No single study is ever a definitive. Communicating one study as truth is how we got vaccine phobia. That regimen of acupuncture did not work for that outcome in that population. Null hypothesis not rejected.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @usnehal @CaulfieldTim and
IVF itself is a lot of hocus pocus. There are constant individualized changes to treatment regimens, trial of error, “n of 1” interpretation of past cycles in the individual. Little is evidence-based. Let’s not use different standards for trust in IVF vs acupuncture.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Well, let's mix in scientific plausibility (life force energy flowing through meridians) and all the other studies that suggest acupuncture largely placebo theatre... (another recent eg http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013010/full …), skepticism seems justified. And onus on those claiming benefit...
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @CaulfieldTim @EdzardErnst and
Exactly right ! Biological plausibility based on current state of scientific knowledge not ancient “wisdom” or pseudoscience postulates. Think of the $ wasted on implausible Zamboni Rx for MS
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @drdavebrooks @CaulfieldTim and
Well, to be devil’s advocate, there was a time that the world being round or landing on the moon seemed “implausible.” In an age of loss of faith in science, valid concerns about peer-review or industry influence or profit motive, scientists need to cultivate more humility.
7 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @usnehal @drdavebrooks and
There was a time when we thought there was a life force energy running through meridians, there was four humours, that earth was the centre of the universe, etc... So, yes, knowledge moves forward. Let's not go backwards.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @CaulfieldTim @usnehal and
Agree, there are many problems with knowledge production process (holding a workshop on point tomorrow!). What is needed is better science, trustworthy/independent sources of information, etc., not an embrace of more questionable therapies.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @CaulfieldTim @drdavebrooks and
Much “standard” allopathic medicine is not based on valid(ated), credible, high quality evidence. Some has significant harm. “But according to a new BMJ study, only 18 percent of clinical recommendations are based on high-quality evidence.” http://www.clinical-innovation.com/topics/analytics-quality/only-18-clinical-recommendations-are-evidence-based …
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Even if accurate (and the figure has been disputed as way too low) it would STILL be way better than anything in CAM. Basically you appear to be saying that because EBM is imperfect it's OK to embrace rank pseudoscience and quackery.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.