acupuncture versus electro-acupuncture: Occam’s Razor

It irks me when I see headlines like, “For Women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, Acupuncture and Exercise May Bring Relief, Reduce Risks”, as seen here in this article.

When you click the article, you’re greeted with, “Exercise and electro-acupuncture treatments can reduce sympathetic nerve activity in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), according to a new study.”

Electro-acupuncture and acupuncture are two entirely different things. There are countless studies documenting the positive effects of applying electric currents to bodily tissues. The mechanism of action in this study is the “electro” part, rather than the “acupuncture” part. But, people may read the headline of the study or even the article itself and come to the conclusion that acupuncture may be effective. In the article, they interchange the words “electro-acupuncture” with “acupuncture” freely, using the word “electro-acupuncture” and “acupuncture” 8 times each.

If electrical therapy (given via a TENS unit or other non-invasive modality) is equally as effective and an electro-acupuncture therapy, then electro-acupuncture therapy is unethical, as it puts a participant at unnecessary risk of complications. I did an Article First, Pubmed and Academic Search Primer search for studies comparing electro-acupuncture therapy to some type of non-invasive electrical therapy.

I found no comparisons.

I think Occam’s Razor applies here. If 1 + 1 = 2, and 1 + 1 + X = 2, where X has potential side effects (such as punctured lungs, paraplegia, subarachnoid hemorrhage, infection, endocarditis, and so on), then applying X to participants is unethical and unnecessary.

One of the arguments against “western medicine” is that people often are “forced to undergo expensive and unnecessary procedures”. Clearly, that argument can be turned around and aimed at alternative medicine practitioners just as easily.