This study was way too small and poorly conducted to be meaningful and scientifficly useful. It was not properly controlled. The six people who were in the control group should have had positive and supportive contact with staff, but not the treatment. It is well known that a caring provider can elicit the placebo effect. From looking at the study, I think that the positive results could have been caused by the placebo effect and not the CAM treatment provided. This study involved techniques, such as chiropractic care, that are considered to be dubious/questionable. For a good critique of chiropractic care and its questionable practices, see www.chirobase.org Accupuncture's principles are based on pseudoscientiffic thinking. Even though this site is under construction acuwatch.org has good information as to why accupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine are controversial. Medicine, particulary that paid by insurers (that means you and I) MUST be based on science, not superstition or tradition. People who make claims have the responsibility to prove the validity of their claims. The more a claim differs from established scientiffic knowlege, the stronger and more convincing the proof must be. Shame on Brigham and Womens' Hospital! Shame on Harvard Medical School!

There are a lot of questionable medical practices out there. Just because a group at a respected teaching hospital is promoting CAM does not mean that it is safe or appropriate. Hospitals are looking for ways to make money. Some will offer questionable treatments, because someone on the medical staff believes that these treatments do no real harm (sometimes erroniously) and that there are people who want them and are willing to pay for them out-of-pocket. Before pursuing any form of CAM, check it out on skeptical web sites, such as www.quackwatch.com and its' affiliates. Questionable medical practices can harm. I know!

If the patients feel better, report better results and less pain, is this not the desired outcome? If such outcomes are consistently achieved with meaningful statistical validity, who is to say the treatment is invalid? Too often traditional medicine is focussed on the malady, and not the well-being of the patient.