Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Health

(15,812 posts)

4. well the abstract does, and the sham group didn't work

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 06:22 PM

Jan 2012

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22156045

"The effect was specific, as NPY in Sham-EA rats was not different than observed in stress-only rats."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

First biological proof for acupuncture? [View all] Celebration Jan 2012 OP

well the abstract does, and the sham group didn't work Celebration Jan 2012 #4

Interesting. laconicsax Jan 2012 #5

not sure what you mean by "didn't work" mzteris Jan 2012 #7

the sham group had no changes, while the experimental group did Celebration Jan 2012 #8

different link: mzteris Jan 2012 #6

And because it's a different issue... laconicsax Jan 2012 #2

Indeed. HuckleB Jan 2012 #3

well, why didn't the "sham" group mzteris Jan 2012 #9

I'm surue we could all go pick and choose "studies" mzteris Jan 2012 #11

I'm sorry, I guess mzteris Jan 2012 #13

It has nothing to do with you, or with "getting you." HuckleB Jan 2012 #14

That's okay, Huck mzteris Jan 2012 #15