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 -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Precisely. Also, even if you accept that 18% figure as accurate (and I don't), adding acupuncture and other CAM to conventional medicine would make the figure EVEN WORSE.
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.