Over here in North America we feel our medicine is the best possible way to treat patients...it's almost an air of cockiness. We completely dismiss other methods as hokey or phony....yet Canada's Life Expectancy is 10th and the US is 36th in the World. Who is #1? Japan. #2? Hong Kong. While those places likely practice Western Medicine, they likely also practice Eastern Medicine...and Eastern medicine has been around for over 3000 years; they've had time to figure out whether something works or doesn't work.
Before countries like Japan and China adopted scientific medicine they lagged well behind North America and Europe when it came to life expectancy.
Western Medicine has also been around for thousands of years and there is a direct link from medicine practiced by the Greeks, and even the Egyptians to what is present day medicine.
In today's world, old chinese men are more likely to take viagra then ground up tiger penis to help them get an erection because the results don't lie. There were a lot of traditional medicinal practices that have fallen out of favour in the west as well such as bloodletting, and treating the four humours, because modern medicine was found to be way more effective.
I don't understand the absolute reverence some people in the West have for anything Chinese/Japanese. Sure they had some interesting ideas, but when they went into their isolation modes a few hundred years ago, they fell behind the West in all kinds of areas. Medicine is one of them.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oil Stain For This Useful Post:
How do you measure things non-scientifically? You do understand that any kind of process by which you can make a meaningful measurement is, by definition, scientific?
There is a common misconception that there are curative effects that can't be measured or detected by science. This is utterly and completely wrong. Science might not be able to *explain* an effect, but if something *has* an effect, then statistical methods - science - can detect that effect.
It's just counting and comparing counts, really - how do you argue that counting numbers can somehow be wrong? Does 2 switch places with 4 when you're not looking?
That's funny. "2 switch places with 4" - how could that happen?! HA HA!!
Anyway, throwing in "utterly" and "completely" wrong doesn't make something true. If the means of measuring something that is not intended to operate locally but holistically with hundreds or thousands of uncontrollable elements (like within the human body,) the "counting" is fraught with errors in respect to how or what to count. There is a likelihood that the statistical evidence is meaningless or inconclusive - which is the result that most of these related studies end up at.
Many scientific discoveries were enabled by tools and means invented or developed over the last few decades. Our inability to detect and measure at a more gross level in the past did not mean that what was unmeasurable at that point in time did not exist. The possibility of something existing but not measurable exists. Microscopic organisms didn't materialize with the advent of the microscope.
So, if you don't currently have the means to count statistical evidence or measure detectable causes, it does not mean that that which you are attempting to count or measure does not exist or occur. A lot of people (most, likely) prefer to only believe in what is scientifically proven; others will seek to build their own personal anecdotal evidence (which may or may not align with the scientific results.)
It's mildly annoying to have the science purists tell people with solid anecdotal evidence (beyond the overused "placebo effect") that they did not or could not have experienced what they most obviously experienced.
Before countries like Japan and China adopted scientific medicine they lagged well behind North America and Europe when it came to life expectancy.
Western Medicine has also been around for thousands of years and there is a direct link from medicine practiced by the Greeks, and even the Egyptians to what is present day medicine.
In today's world, old chinese men are more likely to take viagra then ground up tiger penis to help them get an erection because the results don't lie. There were a lot of traditional medicinal practices that have fallen out of favour in the west as well such as bloodletting, and treating the four humours, because modern medicine was found to be way more effective.
I don't understand the absolute reverence some people in the West have for anything Chinese/Japanese. Sure they had some interesting ideas, but when they went into their isolation modes a few hundred years ago, they fell behind the West in all kinds of areas. Medicine is one of them.
These were techniques of "modern medicine" used since ancient Greece and Hippocrates to the 1800's.
These were techniques of "modern medicine" used since ancient Greece and Hippocrates to the 1800's.
Right, when life expectancy was what 40yrs? Modern Medicine is what we've been introduced to since the last 100-200yrs depending on your definition of when that is.
Just because the words ancient, traditional are in the words doesn't give them much credit especially when your talking about quality of life and health.
Walk into a Chinese traditional medicine shop and walk past whale ground penis powder and all these other interesting, odd powders, liquids, etc.. And ask the sales person what to give you for stomach pains. Go to 10 different stores, expect many different responses.
Do people not think attempts have been made to test claims made by ancient herbal remedies? There's a gold mine of profit to be made if companies can figure out if these work and then go out and make money from it.
A great deal of research and money is put into finding out new uses from newly discovered plants, insects, etc from all around the world.
I don't get what is a purist by wanting to see evidence that something works, we can test to see if something has an affect beyond placebo based on statistics, double blind tests, etc. Like Photon says even if we can't explain the efficacy of it, we can see the results without understanding why.
Right, when life expectancy was what 40yrs? Modern Medicine is what we've been introduced to since the last 100-200yrs depending on your definition of when that is.
Just because the words ancient, traditional are in the words doesn't give them much credit especially when your talking about quality of life and health.
Walk into a Chinese traditional medicine shop and walk past whale ground penis powder and all these other interesting, odd powders, liquids, etc.. And ask the sales person what to give you for stomach pains. Go to 10 different stores, expect many different responses.
Do people not think attempts have been made to test claims made by ancient herbal remedies? There's a gold mine of profit to be made if companies can figure out if these work and then go out and make money from it.
A great deal of research and money is put into finding out new uses from newly discovered plants, insects, etc from all around the world.
I don't get what is a purist by wanting to see evidence that something works, we can test to see if something has an affect beyond placebo based on statistics, double blind tests, etc. Like Photon says even if we can't explain the efficacy of it, we can see the results without understanding why.
I agree with many of your points regarding profit, etc. I'm only referring to "purist" in the sense that they rule out any results beyond what a scientific study or experiment may say (and, in many cases, expounding on the summary extrapolation without understanding the means or confidence of the study itself.)
(Is "whale ground penis powder" ground by actual whales?)
I went to the Icelandic penis museum last summer, an odd/weird place run by an old fisherman who thought this was a neat side hobby to make extra money.
Anyhow he proudly displayed the massive whale penis and said the Chinese use this for virility and to help with their sex life.
I don't discount btw what people say works for them here, if anything it just makes me curious. Traditional acupuncture seems to be bunk, but these other new modern versions might work and might need some more study.
While I don't claim to have any special knowledge of acupuncture, and thus my opinion carries essentially no value, I believe that it's a perfect example of placebo.
However, I have recently been reading more about placebo and nocebo (which is the opposite of placebo, meaning that a treatment that "should" work doesn't because of a persons beliefs), and it's truly mindblowing stuff.
I mean I knew placebo can be pretty effective, but sheesh, when you look into it, there's just much more interesting stuff going on than most people realize.
Here's a short talk about placebo and nocebo to give some perspective about how truly weird it is. By Dr. Ben Goldacre, who is a pretty respected guy, and has written a pretty interesting book about (some) problems with science, quackery and media coverage of both.
It's pretty cool, but
WARNING: strong language.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
That's funny. "2 switch places with 4" - how could that happen?! HA HA!!
Anyway, throwing in "utterly" and "completely" wrong doesn't make something true. If the means of measuring something that is not intended to operate locally but holistically with hundreds or thousands of uncontrollable elements (like within the human body,) the "counting" is fraught with errors in respect to how or what to count. There is a likelihood that the statistical evidence is meaningless or inconclusive - which is the result that most of these related studies end up at.
Many scientific discoveries were enabled by tools and means invented or developed over the last few decades. Our inability to detect and measure at a more gross level in the past did not mean that what was unmeasurable at that point in time did not exist. The possibility of something existing but not measurable exists. Microscopic organisms didn't materialize with the advent of the microscope.
So, if you don't currently have the means to count statistical evidence or measure detectable causes, it does not mean that that which you are attempting to count or measure does not exist or occur. A lot of people (most, likely) prefer to only believe in what is scientifically proven; others will seek to build their own personal anecdotal evidence (which may or may not align with the scientific results.)
It's mildly annoying to have the science purists tell people with solid anecdotal evidence (beyond the overused "placebo effect") that they did not or could not have experienced what they most obviously experienced.
No one ever denies what these people experienced, they simply question the reason for the experience. Furthermore, they suggest that performing something completely unrelated will have people experience the same results at a statistically significant level. The medical field is more than happy for people to obtain benefit from harmless alternative medicine. The concern is that not all of it is harmless and that pursuing unproven therapies can delay the treatment/diagnosis of potentially harmful and curable conditions (not to mention the cost of alternative therapies). As many people have stated, once the proof is there, these therapies quickly fall under the umbrella of "modern/western medicine".
As for your comment regarding scientific discoveries and their effect on studies, the outcomes measured in many medical studies are not actually affected by scientific progress. New discoveries lend themselves to better medications/therapies, but the outcomes that are studied are usually the same, ie. pain, all-cause mortality, decrease in blood pressure, etc. There are many treatments in modern medicine that are known to work (to statistically significant degree) but for which the underlying reasoning has not been found for.
Why can't people just be satisfied with what works for them and leave it at that? If accupuncture works for you, then continue going. If you think it's a placebo, then don't go. You don't need to justify it.
Why can't people just be satisfied with what works for them and leave it at that? If accupuncture works for you, then continue going. If you think it's a placebo, then don't go. You don't need to justify it.
This is okay to the extent a particular CAM therapy is not harmful.
"Well, it probably doesn't work, but at least it's harmless." So it appears that the notion CAM is safe, whether effective or not, seems widely established. Unfortunately, it's often not true. Any therapy that has any actual influence on the body's processes will also have the potential for unintended effects, some of which may do harm. And even therapies which have no effect, such as homeopathy, can be indirectly harmful in delaying diagnosis or real treatment.
The following links and articles are resources illustrating some of the harm CAM methods can do, directly and indirectly. It is by no means comprehensive, and it certainly is not a scientific assessment of the risks and benefits of any particular therapy. The purpose is simply to make it clear that it is by no means difficult to find evidence of harm caused by almost any CAM therapy, so when we evaluate these approaches we must balance any possible benefits they have against any possible risks, regardless of the exaggerated claims for safety their proponents often make.
It doesn't. I was asking you a different question.
You quoted my question which usually means what follows the quote is a reply to what's quoted.
Do you have an answer for the question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy
Do you ever get a headache?
Do you have the scientific proof that it is a headache or do you just think it is a headache?
Sure I get headaches, and usually I don't need scientific proof of the headache no.
So I've answered the leading questions, what relevance were they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
If the means of measuring something that is not intended to operate locally but holistically with hundreds or thousands of uncontrollable elements (like within the human body,) the "counting" is fraught with errors in respect to how or what to count.
Evidence? Like a specific example where the counting was in error but the procedure/product/whatever was demonstrated to have been effective?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
There is a likelihood that the statistical evidence is meaningless or inconclusive - which is the result that most of these related studies end up at.
Just because you say there is a likelihood does not make it so, evidence please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
So, if you don't currently have the means to count statistical evidence or measure detectable causes, it does not mean that that which you are attempting to count or measure does not exist or occur.
People get better or they don't, what's so mystical about measuring that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
The possibility of something existing but not measurable exists.
Nonsense. If something exists but is not in principle measurable, then it can be ignored, because if it is not in principle measurable then it does not have an impact on anything in reality. If it is in principle measurable but not yet actually measurable because of limitations in the tools, if it has any sort of impact on reality it is still measurable by inference. History is filled with examples of things being discovered not by direct observation, but by inference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
A lot of people (most, likely) prefer to only believe in what is scientifically proven; others will seek to build their own personal anecdotal evidence (which may or may not align with the scientific results.)
So after all that you still haven't answered the question, how do you determine what's effective and what isn't?
Appealing to anecdotal evidence is just an easy way to wave one's hands and pretend something is real without having to actually show it. But I guess it's the only thing I've got when the thing I'm selling has the same effect as doing nothing at all (well almost the same effect, it has the additional effect of moving money from the patient's pocket to mine).
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
It's mildly annoying to have the science purists tell people with solid anecdotal evidence (beyond the overused "placebo effect") that they did not or could not have experienced what they most obviously experienced.
It's not scientific purists, it's just simple reason. If B follows A, you seem to be under the impression that A causes B. This is a logical fallacy and the basic flaw of anecdotal evidence. There are far too many cognitive biases having an impact on a person's experience and beliefs for anecdotal evidence to trustworthy.
Are people being abducted and anally probed by aliens? Anecdotal evidence tells us yes. Demons forcing people to commit evil acts for which they aren't responsible? Anecdotal evidence tells us yes. Has the queen and other world leaders been replaced with a race of lizard-men? Anecdotal evidence tells us yes. Can you declare yourself a free man on the land and not be subject to Canadian law? Anecdotal evidence tells us yes.
Since anecdotal evidence is all that's required, you will admit you accept all the above?
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
You quoted my question which usually means what follows the quote is a reply to what's quoted.
Do you have an answer for the question?
Sure I get headaches, and usually I don't need scientific proof of the headache no.
So I've answered the leading questions, what relevance were they?
...........
Based on some of the conversation here you don't have enough scientific evidence to actually have a headache. You only think it you have a headache. Which is just your opinion and can't be proven.
Based on some of the conversation here you don't have enough scientific evidence to actually have a headache. You only think it you have a headache. Which is just your opinion and can't be proven.
Of course pain is purely subjective. That's the whole point. Pain levels fluctuate; a person gets some form of treatment and afterwards feels better. This could either be because the person thinks he/she should feel better, because the pain lessened on its own, or because the treatment reduced pain. The only way to determine whether it was because of the treatment is to study a large number of people, some of which get the treatment and some of which only think they do (assigned at random), and comparing the changes in subjective pain reported before/after in the two groups. A person going for acupuncture or another form of treatment and claiming to feel better after is not evidence that the treatment worked.
One of my girlfriends is getting acupuncture because she has been trying to get pregnant for over 3 years now. She and her husband have tried everything, including various expensive medical procedures and they've had no luck. She thinks this will work. The power of suggestion knows no boundaries.. but I am skeptical.
Either way you slice it, she is getting poked to get pregnant.
Based on some of the conversation here you don't have enough scientific evidence to actually have a headache. You only think it you have a headache. Which is just your opinion and can't be proven.
Jibbrish.
Obviously if I'm experiencing a headache I'm experiencing a headache.
A scientific study doesn't ignore a person's experience, it depends on it, I thought that would have been painfully (badumching) obvious.
I've answered your questions, you haven't answered mine though about what energy it is that gets blocked.
The consensus of the best clinical studies on acupuncture show that there is no specific effect of sticking needles into acupuncture points. Choosing random points works just as well, as does poking the skin with toothpicks rather than penetrating the skin with a needle to elicit the alleged “de qi”.
The most parsimonious interpretation of the evidence is that the needles (i.e. acupuncture itself) are superfluous – any perceived benefit comes from the therapeutic interaction. This has been directly studied, and the evidence suggests that the way to maximize the subjective effects from the ritual of acupuncture is to enhance the interaction with the practitioner, and has nothing to do with the acupuncture itself. Acupuncture is a clear example of selling a specific procedure based entirely on non-specific effects from the therapeutic interaction – a good bedside manner and some hopeful encouragement.
Obviously if I'm experiencing a headache I'm experiencing a headache.
A scientific study doesn't ignore a person's experience, it depends on it, I thought that would have been painfully (badumching) obvious.
I've answered your questions, you haven't answered mine though about what energy it is that gets blocked.
You didn't provide the proof that you have experienced headaches. You just say you did. That is not scientific proof.
Do you notice that my answer to you is how you seem to answer alot of the questions here? Proof, give me proof. Nope, that doesn't prove anything.
But like I said before. I accept that you think like that. That is your right. So, carrry on. Oh, and if you ever have really bad back pain don't be a hipocrite and try accupuncture.
^ except it will not work because he does not beleive it works. The positive impacts of acupuncture are the fact that you believe it helps and the subsequent relaxation that goes with that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Knut For This Useful Post:
"Although the technique has been used for thousands of years, these findings help us merge what western medicine has taught us with the tradition of Chinese techniques," said the University of California's Dr John Longhurst.
And lastly, this is probably the best article I found. I would encourage everyone to read this article if they've been following this thread.
A Doctor whose mission it has been to go out and disprove Acupuncture...and failed. Basically this is a Western skeptic based doctor who set out to disprove acupuncture and wound up finding evidence that it does in fact work.
Let me make myself clear. I think there are two ways of being a scientist or even a modern person. There's the empirical approach, which is trial and error: Does it work? If it works, then I'll use it. In alternative medicine you see this in spades. If chicken soup works, use it. You don't have to have a theory about chicken soup. Then there's the theoretical approach. To me, those are the two ways of handling yourself. If acupuncture works, then use it; it doesn't matter whether it works through chi or endorphins.
Modern medicine has gone down the theoretical route and alternative medicine has stayed closer to the empirical route. My favorite example to help explain the dichotomy is this: A cook will use spices - salt, pepper, cumin - and he will mix them in certain proportions and taste them. If it tastes good, he will use it next time, but there's no theory of spices. You don't have to know which nerves in your tongue are affected by which spice in what proportion. You do it empirically. The theoretical approach is the other one. And we could do it. We know which nerves cumin affects, we know which nerves salt affects, and we could work out an equation for which ones are the best, but we wouldn't end up cooking for another thousand years until we figured it out.
Quote:
AT: Because that's theory as opposed to the phenomenon? Pomeranz: That's exactly right. In the ancient textbooks of acupuncture, they found 11 meridians. But because of the zodiac, they had to have 12 meridians. Do you follow me? Everything they did was to make it fit. Everyone needs an explanation. Nevertheless, we cook without a theory, we marry without one, we do incredibly intuitive things in our fives, but we think we have to have an explanation for everything. We think we must understand the world to control it. Instead, what we should do with our lives is be empirical: use trial and error.
Now, there is good empirical science and bad empirical science. Clinical controlled trials are good empirical science. Acupuncture has been shown to work based on clinically controlled trials.
Photon, he does touch on the concept of "chi" or energy and has said he cannot find evidence to prove its existence. That being said, he also touches on evidence based understanding, trial and error, empirical evidence, etc.
You didn't provide the proof that you have experienced headaches. You just say you did. That is not scientific proof.
Well if we really want we could do brain scans and blood tests to see when I have a headache to confirm that I am in fact experiencing pain and am exhibiting all the physiological changes that happen.
However that's not really necessary, all we need to assume is that I'm not lying. And in a study of pain, people who lie will be one of the factors they'll have to account for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy
Do you notice that my answer to you is how you seem to answer alot of the questions here? Proof, give me proof. Nope, that doesn't prove anything.
You're committing the fallacy of false equivalence here. An individual reporting a headache is not equivalent to determining if a treatment for headaches is effective.
And you are also incorrect, I do not "answer alot of the questions" here with requests for evidence. Answering a question with a request for evidence is usually nonsensical. When I ask for evidence it is usually in response to a specific claim, a statement that is put forward as true.
A discussion has to be grounded in understanding and agreement at some level.
I cannot prove you exist. However I will agree that you exist and operate from that. Likewise if someone makes a claim to support their conclusion, and I do not think the claim is valid, I will ask to have the claim supported.
I can say all acupuncture practitioners are scam artists intentionally lying to make money. I can also say that all the people who say they've gotten better from acupuncture are doing so because they were paid to do so by the practitioner to increase their business. I can even give anecdotal evidence to support my claim.
So now you've got a choice. Will you accept my claim that all acupuncture practitioners are scam artists? If so, why? If not, why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy
But like I said before. I accept that you think like that. That is your right. So, carrry on.
Except that as shown above how you think I think isn't really how I think, you've taken how I respond to some things and have falsely applied it to other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy
Oh, and if you ever have really bad back pain don't be a hipocrite and try accupuncture.
Why would I when it's shown to have some risk associated with it and be no better than taking a sugar pill?
Modern Medicine is what we've been introduced to since the last 100-200yrs depending on your definition of when that is. 
