Файл: Medical_Myths_Lies_and_Half-Truths_guidebook.pdf

63

has evolved quite nicely. There are several kinds of controls that are used 
in high quality research. These controls include sham acupuncture and 
placebo acupuncture. 

The results of this research are very informative. Sham acupuncture studies 
have shown that it doesn’t seem to matter where the acupuncture needles 

are placed. Placebo acupuncture shows 
that it doesn’t matter whether

you 

stick the needles at all—the needles 
don’t have to be stuck through the 
skin in order to get the same effect. 
An example of this is a 2009 large 
back pain study published in the 

Archives of Internal Medicine

. That 

study compared individualized acupuncture, cookbook acupuncture, and 
placebo acupuncture. All 3 groups had exactly the same response. It doesn’t 
matter where you stick the needles, and it doesn’t matter whether you stick
the needles.

What does this mean? How do we interpret this research? It means that 
the perceived bene

¿

 ts come from the other aspects of acupuncture, not 

sticking needles into speci

¿

 c locations. Some of these effects may be 

placebo effects—the expectation of bene

¿

 t, the desire for bene

¿

 t.  They 

may also be nonspeci

¿

 c effects from the ritual that surrounds acupuncture. 

While receiving acupuncture, you may be lying down on a table for 30 to 
60 minutes. There may be pleasant music playing in the background. The 
acupuncturist may palpate the acupuncture points, maybe even providing a 
little massage. There’s the positive interaction with a therapeutic person. All 
of these contribute to having a perceived bene

¿

 t, especially for subjective 

symptoms like pain. 

There have been many systematic reviews of clinical trials for acupuncture. 
Reviews of acupuncture for back pain, in vitro fertilization, chemotherapy 
side effects, and addiction have all been completely negative. They conclude 
that either it doesn’t work at all or for some indications. There’s no evidence 
to show that it works, but there hasn’t been enough research to completely 
close the door. The one exception to this is nausea. There is weak evidence 

Acupuncture is one of 
the most studied of the 
alternative modalities.

64

Lecture 17: Myths about 

Acupuncture’

s Past and Bene

¿

 ts

for a mild effect in treating nausea. But, again, this is preliminary evidence 
that is not yet de

¿

 nitive. 

Ŷ

Eckman, 

In the Footsteps of the Yellow Emperor

. 

Kavoussi, “Astrology with Needles.” 

Science-Based Medicine

 (blog), Archive for the “Acupuncture” Category. 

Taub, “Acupuncture.” 

1. 

How have the concept and practice of acupuncture changed over 
the centuries?

2. 

Can modern science provide a plausible mechanism for the alleged 
effects of acupuncture?

3. 

What does the clinical evidence tell us about the effectiveness 
of acupuncture?

    Suggested Reading

    Questions to Consider

65

Myths about Magnets, Microwaves, Cell Phones 

Lecture 18

For centuries, magnets have fascinated people. This has contributed 
to widespread use in many dubious devices and also fraudulent 
health claims. At the same time, magnetism and electromagnetism are 
legitimate, real forces of nature that are biologically effective and are 
used in legitimate scienti

¿

 c research.

E

lectromagnetism is a fundamental force of nature. In essence, we 
are all electromagnetic creatures: The processes and chemical 
reactions that all living cells use to carry out the processes of life 

are electromagnetic at their core. Therefore, it is no wonder that the 
connection between healing and magnetism is as old as knowledge of 
magnets themselves. But this has also led to many myths about healing
and magnetism. 

Magnetic 

¿

 elds are involved with biology in that cells use electrical currents 

as part of their basic functions. The nervous system is essentially an electrical 
system. It is true that focused, powerful, dynamic magnetic 

¿

 elds can alter 

brain function. In fact, we use a device called a transcranial magnetic 
stimulation with diagnostic and therapeutic effects. For example, this device 
uses a dynamic magnet—which uses an alternating magnetic 

¿

 eld—at a very 

speci

¿

 c frequency or different frequencies to turn on or off certain parts of 

the brain. 

This is an important new device in neuroscience research because activating 
or inhibiting parts of the brain allows us to 

¿

 gure out what those parts of 

the brain do. It’s important to recognize that medical devices that use 
electromagnetic 

¿

 elds are largely dynamic magnets. They are not only fairly 

powerful, but they also involve a rapidly alternating polarity or strength with 
a certain frequency. Most of the magnetic devices on the market, however, 
are static magnetic 

¿

 elds. Static magnetic 

¿

 elds do not cause any change 

in conduction. They do not induce an electrical current and are essentially 
biologically inert. 

66

Lecture 18: Myths about Magnets, Microwaves, Cell Phones

What are the proposed mechanisms for typical magnetic healing devices that 
are on the market? One claim is that these magnetic 

¿

 elds will attract the iron 

in your blood. But this is not plausible: The form of iron in your hemoglobin 
is not ferromagnetic; it does not respond to a magnetic 

¿

 eld. Other claims 

include increase in immune activity 
or decrease in immune activity, to 
reduce in

À

 ammation. Neither of these 

has been supported by research. 

It’s interesting to note, to put this 
into perspective, that we routinely 
expose patients to very powerful 
magnetic 

¿

 elds. Magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) is a technology we 
use to look inside the brain or other 
parts of the body. Patients go inside 

a very large and powerful magnet, somewhere between 2 to 4 Tesla. This 
is literally millions of times more powerful than the magnetic devices you 
can buy at the drugstore. Over years of using MRI scans and studying them 
quite extensively, we have found that putting someone in a powerful static 
magnetic 

¿

 eld doesn’t have any biological effects beyond the ones that we’re 

exploiting to create the images. 

What about negative biological effects of electromagnetism? In the 1980s, 
several studies suggested a possible link between power lines and the 
electromagnetic 

¿

 elds that they generate and leukemia. Power lines do 

generate magnetic 

¿

 elds. However, in the wake of these preliminary studies, 

larger epidemiological studies failed to show any correlation. The concerns 
were essentially laid to rest by larger, better studies, but with this type of 
evidence, a small correlation can never be completely ruled out. 

What about microwaves; do they pose a threat to us or the food that we eat? 
Microwaves are simply a frequency of electromagnetic waves that are in the 
microwave frequency. While microwaves do alter the chemical composition 
of food, they do so in a way that’s really no different from just cooking food, 
so there are no speci

¿

 c concerns about that.

Using cell phones for a 
short period of time, less 
than 10 to 15 years, has not 
demonstrated increased 
association with brain tumors 
or other health risks.

67

But there is the concern about radiation leakage from the microwaves 
themselves. If microwaves are properly constructed, any radiation leakage 
is insigni

¿

 cant and poses no health risk. The only risk would be from 

having a faulty microwave oven: one that was not well constructed—which 
regulations should prevent from happening—or one that is failing in some 
way. However, it is true that you shouldn’t stand immediately next to a 
microwave while it’s operating. Doing that very brie

À

 y is 

¿

 ne. But because 

there may be a small amount of radiation close to the microwave, you 
shouldn’t stand next to it for long periods of time. 

Cell phones present another source of radiation, an increasingly ubiquitous 
form of exposure to nonionizing radiation. After all, we often hold cell 
phones close to our heads. Is it possible that our brains are getting exposed 
to this nonionizing radiation and 
this may cause an increased risk of 
cancer or other health problems? 

The plausibility of this claim 
is actually quite low in that the 
electromagnetic 

¿

 elds produced by 

cell phones are very weak. Also, it 
is nonionizing radiation, which has a 
very weak effect on biological tissue. 
Ionizing radiation, like the kind you 
would get from radioactivity, does 
cause DNA and other types of cell 
damage. This question of whether 
there any health risks from cell 
phones has been studied for years. At present, what we can say is that there is 
no clear-cut risk from using cell phones. Using cell phones for a short period 
of time, less than 10 to 15 years, has not demonstrated increased association 
with brain tumors or other health risks. 

However, the literature is still a bit mixed and not de

¿

 nitive for long-

term exposure: that greater than 15 years or in children who begin to have 
exposure to cell phones at a young age. There still may be a reason for a 
small amount of caution there. 

Ŷ

Microwaves do not alter the 
chemical composition of food any 
more than cooking does.

© iStockphoto/Thinkstock.