26 Sep 2014, 8:50 am
01 Oct 2014, 5:10 am
01 Oct 2014, 6:01 am
01 Oct 2014, 6:39 am
tern wrote:
Like the article states this lady's findings have not been peer reviewed yet. In that sense science has become a religion. If the organized collection that is the establishment of science rejects her calculations they will be dismissed.
Take medicine. Chinese herbal medicine is dismissed as folklore yet it is that same folklore that provided the basis for lab work that lead to the development of the next malaria drug back in the late 90's. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/194160.stm
Quote:
Artemisinin is isolated from the plant Artemisia annua, sweet wormwood, a herb employed in Chinese traditional medicine. It can now also be produced using genetically engineered yeast.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisinin
So much for genetic engineering
Quote:
Clinical evidence for artemisinin resistance in southeast Asia was first reported in 2008,[36] and was subsequently confirmed by a detailed study from western Cambodia.[37] Resistance in neighbouring Thailand was reported in 2012,[38] and in Northern Cambodia, Vietnam and Eastern Myanmar in 2014.[39][40] Emerging resistance was reported in Southern Laos, central Myanmar and North-Eastern Cambodia in 2014.[39][40] The parasite's kelch gene on chromosome 13 appears to be a reliable molecular marker for clinical resistance in Cambodia.[41]
In April 2011, the WHO stated that resistance to the most effective antimalarial drug, artemisinin, could unravel national (India) malaria control programs, which have achieved significant progress in the last decade. WHO advocates the rational use of antimalarial drugs and acknowledges the crucial role of community health workers in reducing malaria in the region http://www.wrongplanet.net/forum-posting.html
In April 2011, the WHO stated that resistance to the most effective antimalarial drug, artemisinin, could unravel national (India) malaria control programs, which have achieved significant progress in the last decade. WHO advocates the rational use of antimalarial drugs and acknowledges the crucial role of community health workers in reducing malaria in the region http://www.wrongplanet.net/forum-posting.html
Science knows better...
Sure
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
01 Oct 2014, 6:01 pm
guzzle wrote:
tern wrote:
Take medicine. Chinese herbal medicine is dismissed as folklore yet it is that same folklore that provided the basis for lab work that lead to the development of the next malaria drug back in the late 90's.
Science knows better...
Sure
Oh dear can you not see the contradiction in your statement.
The issue with TCM and other traditional modalities is one of testing, and once tested the various compounds are related to their modern equivalents for efficacy. No reasonable person would look at herbal medicine and call it folklore until the active constituents had been tested. As we speak acupuncture is now being regarded as objectively efficacious, a recent study showed it was significantly better than placebo at pain management.
What is regarded as nonsense is spiritual/mystical claptrap. Or the use of exotic penis's to help male virility etc.
You may dismiss the use of evidence and experiment to sort out the effective and safe from the useless and dangerous when it comes to ancient medicine, I for one am very glad that this is the case. Why dont you go and get yourself bled and maybe take some white hellebore.
01 Oct 2014, 7:42 pm
DentArthurDent wrote:
The issue with TCM and other traditional modalities is one of testing, and once tested the various compounds are related to their modern equivalents for efficacy. No reasonable person would look at herbal medicine and call it folklore until the active constituents had been tested. As we speak acupuncture is now being regarded as objectively efficacious, a recent study showed it was significantly better than placebo at pain management.
And this is where science behaves like a religion...
Acupuncture has been effectively used for couple of thousand years now.
But the organized collection of beliefs that is Western medicine dictates that acupuncture has to be proven by their methods before it is considered to be something that has clinical value.
Acupuncture has been regarded as objectively efficacious for much longer than as you were speaking. The WHO list of conditions for which its effectiveness has been clinically confirmed goes back more than 10 years. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2 ... 545437.pdf
Quote:
What is regarded as nonsense is spiritual/mystical claptrap. Or the use of exotic penis's to help male virility etc.
You may dismiss the use of evidence and experiment to sort out the effective and safe from the useless and dangerous when it comes to ancient medicine, I for one am very glad that this is the case. Why dont you go and get yourself bled and maybe take some white hellebore.
You may dismiss the use of evidence and experiment to sort out the effective and safe from the useless and dangerous when it comes to ancient medicine, I for one am very glad that this is the case. Why dont you go and get yourself bled and maybe take some white hellebore.
Trust you to bring penisses into it.
The use of certain animal ingredients in Chinese herbal medicine has been a source of cognitive dissonance for more than 20 years. I've learned to live with.
Quote:
You may dismiss the use of evidence and experiment to sort out the effective and safe from the useless and dangerous when it comes to ancient medicine, I for one am very glad that this is the case. Why dont you go and get yourself bled and maybe take some white hellebore.
And this is where you start spouting your religious righteousness. You'll be getting DSM out next
Pathetic...
02 Oct 2014, 1:45 am
02 Oct 2014, 2:05 am
02 Oct 2014, 8:55 am
Narrator wrote:
And science isn't acting like a religion. If it were to act like a religion, it would deny acupuncture as heretical medicine.
In the case of acupuncture, rather than rely on subjective anecdotal evidence, science uses empirical evidence.
In the case of acupuncture, rather than rely on subjective anecdotal evidence, science uses empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence (by definition) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence[/quote]
Acupuncture has its roots in 5-element theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Xing but it HAD to be standardized to comply with The Scientific Method to get any credibility in the West with as a result there are two types of Chinese meds now. Personally I prefer the old way but that probably because most of my discomforts are somatic in nature. And that after 30-odd years I can not help but see the mind/body connection as so much more then just a neurochemical variable.
Even Tai Chi has been subjected to clinical trials to satisfy the rational minds that constitute science.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3023169/
Science is acting like a bully.
Science doesn't just use empirical evidence. It will only accept empirical evidence that complies with The Scientific Method.
Quote:
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
Peer reviews, western rationalism and classification with further taxonomic ranking in humans labelled according to DSM standards if they deviate from the 'norm'.
Like I said, my main gripe is with medical science and how they claim that their methods can ever objectively validate my experiences
Quote:
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ratio ... mpiricism/
Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ratio ... mpiricism/
02 Oct 2014, 11:02 am
02 Oct 2014, 5:34 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
guzzle wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
The issue with TCM and other traditional modalities is one of testing, and once tested the various compounds are related to their modern equivalents for efficacy. No reasonable person would look at herbal medicine and call it folklore until the active constituents had been tested. As we speak acupuncture is now being regarded as objectively efficacious, a recent study showed it was significantly better than placebo at pain management.
And this is where science behaves like a religion...
Acupuncture has been effectively used for couple of thousand years now.
But the organized collection of beliefs that is Western medicine dictates that acupuncture has to be proven by their methods before it is considered to be something that has clinical value.
Acupuncture has been regarded as objectively efficacious for much longer than as you were speaking. The WHO list of conditions for which its effectiveness has been clinically confirmed goes back more than 10 years. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2 ... 545437.pdf
That isn't how religious behave.
Acupuncture is risky, just like many other medicines, so just like other medicines we need to test if it actually works or people will die unnecessarily. We also need to compare it to other medicines, otherwise, again, people will die unnecessarily.
Acupunctures supposed mechanism of action is incredible, which means it needs particular care.
Again, why treat Chinese medicine any differently to any other medicine? We've done randomised, controlled, blinded studies on all other forms of medicine (even the ones which "worked for a long time", like blood letting). If that counts as a religion, then take me to church.
Here, incidentally, is the best data on acupuncture's efficacy: http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/detai ... ience.html
I have no personal interest in acupuncture but clinical trials will only tell you so much.
Google will tell you though that a hell of a lot more people die through secondary hospital infections than through the wrong insertion of needles (most acupuncture deaths are due to piercing of lungs). Testing and comparing doesn't help in the fight against the likes of MRSA. And I have never read of the practices of acupuncture being responsible for the spread of any bacteria to the point it manages to become endemic outside it's original environment
Quote:
MRSA began as a hospital-acquired infection, but has developed limited endemic status and is now sometimes community-acquired. The terms HA-MRSA (healthcare-associated MRSA) and CA-MRSA (community-associated MRSA) reflect this distinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrsa
Blood letting is still used you know. Only now they use leeches
02 Oct 2014, 5:36 pm
Spiderpig wrote:
The image of the Sun projected onto your fovea is bright enough to burn it, causing permanent loss of vision, especially if your pupil isn?t as contracted as it would normally be (e.g., during a partial or annular solar eclipse).
Or if the sun is setting and you stare at it for long enough.
Did that as a teen and saw stars for hours afterwards
Found out later I was lucky I didn't damage my eyes
03 Oct 2014, 3:53 pm
03 Oct 2014, 3:54 pm
guzzle wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
The image of the Sun projected onto your fovea is bright enough to burn it, causing permanent loss of vision, especially if your pupil isn?t as contracted as it would normally be (e.g., during a partial or annular solar eclipse).
Or if the sun is setting and you stare at it for long enough.
Did that as a teen and saw stars for hours afterwards
Found out later I was lucky I didn't damage my eyes
Only the UV portion of the spectrum can damage your eyes.
03 Oct 2014, 3:57 pm
03 Oct 2014, 5:32 pm
AspE wrote:
guzzle wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
The image of the Sun projected onto your fovea is bright enough to burn it, causing permanent loss of vision, especially if your pupil isn?t as contracted as it would normally be (e.g., during a partial or annular solar eclipse).
Or if the sun is setting and you stare at it for long enough.
Did that as a teen and saw stars for hours afterwards
Found out later I was lucky I didn't damage my eyes
Only the UV portion of the spectrum can damage your eyes.
So what. Same difference. Bottom line is that your sight gets screwed. Them didn't have fancy sunglasses when I was a teen
