New study exposes acupuncture as pseudoscience

[Remote]

Well that is interesting.
This is the beauty of science, though.

It constantly tries to disprove itself.

 

[Remote]

Dont atheists call the power of thought pseudoscience?

Define "the power of thought" ??

 

[A$AP Ahki]

@Mephistopheles is the Victor (pun intended)

If there is no evidence for something working, the government should not support it. Not one supporter here as given a shred of evidence outside of anecdotes.

This was a scientific study of over 3 THOUSAND treatments and there was no discernible difference.

This is not a condemnation of Alternative Medicine at large, but this obvious qi-wuackery.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Acupuncture has years of successful fears, since ancient china.
That's a extremely high ratio of success stories spanning across many generations.

Proof? I'm not even saying acupuncture has no benefit ever for anyone. But this stuff about "people did it for a thousand years in China so it has to work" is piss-poor logic. That's not proof of anything. People also did bloodletting for 2,000 years.

 

[TLOL is back]

That's not entirely true, the article says there's no evidence.
That doesn't mean anything, no evidence is not proof of absence.

Acupuncture has years of successful fears, since ancient china.
That's a extremely high ratio of success stories spanning across many generations.

This means that the burden of proof is not the one with real life success stories starting from ancient times, it's on the one who says "I see no evidence of"

It doesn't seem like you understand the concept of burden of proof.

 

[OsO]

breh, pretty much all of the VALID scientific research says it's a placebo effect, why are people so offended by the idea that acupuncture doesn't work? who woulda thought traditional chinese medicine was a sham?

I already said I posted a thorough summation of over 3,000 clinical studies for over 40 years including several meta-analyses. That is hardly "some bum ass article." So what's the problem? Are you uncomfortable reading empirical data that may force you to recalibrate some of your views if you're honest with yourself?

the input versus output of me reading your article isnt in my favor, that's why im not going to read it. only your egotistical ass would equate me not wanting to read your article with me not wanting knowledge... you are a pathetic individual and truly delusional.

But since the benefit has not been reproduced repeatedly in high quality randomized trials, you would be irresponsible to recommend it to every patient because of considerations like cost, proven efficacy, and safety

So with your example of sports med, acupuncture goes in the same box of tools as taping, bracing, and massage. Definitely helpful for some people but not proven to be. Those sports practitioners you talk about will try first and second line therapies before they come to these ones

but you're describing every medical practice known to man: useful to some patients, not useful to others.

Proof? I'm not even saying acupuncture has no benefit ever for anyone. But this stuff about "people did it for a thousand years in China so it has to work" is piss-poor logic. That's not proof of anything. People also did bloodletting for 2,000 years.

once again your logic is terrible... doctors still use bloodletting in some instances dummy

instead of worrying about me reading your article, why dont you read up on acupunture and get ya knowledge up. because one of two things is happening in this thread... either people are underestimating the power of acupuncture, or underestimating the power of the mind to heal the body... which is it?

also, here's what wikipedia had to say about this so called psuedo-science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture

"Acupuncture's use for certain minor conditions has been recognized by the United States National Institutes of Health, theNational Health Service of the United Kingdom,[17] the World Health Organization,[2][18] and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.[17][19][20][21]"

thats a very impressive resume for something not proven to work

 

[Brosef]

but you're describing every medical practice known to man: useful to some patients, not useful to others.

"Acupuncture's use for certain minor conditions has been recognized by the United States National Institutes of Health, theNational Health Service of the United Kingdom,[17] the World Health Organization,[2][18] and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.[17][19][20][21]"

thats a very impressive resume for something not proven to work

It hasn't been proven to work in most conditions

It has been proven to have small benefit in certain conditions, see my earlier post on back pain

what's so hard to understand?

 

[OsO]

It hasn't been proven to work in most conditions

It has been proven to have small benefit in certain conditions, see my earlier post on back pain

what's so hard to understand?

yea i dont know whats so hard to understand either...

if something has been PROVEN to have a benefit (no matter how small), then how is it still considered a psuedo-science? psuedo-sciences are, by definition, UNPROVEN. so you're contradicting yourself.

 

[Brosef]

yea i dont know whats so hard to understand either...

if something has been PROVEN to have a benefit (no matter how small), then how is it still considered a psuedo-science? psuedo-sciences are, by definition, UNPROVEN. so you're contradicting yourself.

I don't care what you call this shytt

Just follow what scientific studies show you

And we'll all get EFFICACIOUS treatments that are SAFE

 

[OsO]

I don't care what you call this shytt

Just follow what scientific studies show you

And we'll all get EFFICACIOUS treatments that are SAFE

get flustered when confronted with the truth brehs

 

[Brosef]

get flustered when confronted with the truth brehs

Da fukk you talkin about?

I never called it pseudoscience, read my posts

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

usual posters grasping at straws

 

[OsO]

Da fukk you talkin about?

I never called it pseudoscience, read my posts

you are correct sir, you did not call it a pseudoscience. i incorrectly lumped you in with the other idiots who were calling it a pseudoscience. my fault good brotha

 

[unit321]

the concept of qi is synonymous with energy, especially the energy of the body ("life force energy").
so when you say the concept of releasing qi is garbage, but then show your support for a practice that releases pressure, you are essentially contradicting yourself.
it seems you have made a judgment on the concept of "qi" without really studying it.

definitely didnt read the article and you can keep your backhanded compliments

Qi is a not a medical term. It's a religious/philosophical term. If you have taken an Asian martial art, you are taught that you use your ki when punching, chopping, kicking, striking, etc.. This doesn't mean you mentally focus on putting your blood into your belly while performing the attack. Your blood is flowing involuntarily.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

the input versus output of me reading your article isnt in my favor, that's why im not going to read it. only your egotistical ass would equate me not wanting to read your article with me not wanting knowledge... you are a pathetic individual and truly delusional.

It's not "my article," you retard. It's a summation of 3,000 clinical studies and 40 years of medical research on acupuncture. What is not registering in your brain about that? Even if you don't read that particular article, you're not interested in reading actual medical data on acupuncture...all that article is is a statement on the collective conclusions of that data.

You are not interested in knowledge regarding acupuncture at all. That is a fact. If you were, you would actually explore the medical research and clinical trials on acupuncture,which are abundant. You won't do that because you are interested in believing things that make you feel better, like a child who believes in the tooth fairy, as opposed to knowledge for the sake of learning.

once again your logic is terrible... doctors still use bloodletting in some instances dummy

You moron.

What you still don't seem to understand is that "x has been done for x amount of years, so therefore it works" is by definition not a logical claim. That goes for acupuncture, bloodletting, gold as main currency, and everything you use this idiotic defense of. People still sacrifice animals in order to try and make crops grow or whatever, and have done so for thousands of years.

Don't talk about logic, because if you took a class on logic, they would teach your dumb ass that that is not logical. It is by definition a logical fallacy, known as "appeal to tradition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[1]

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:

• The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.
  • In actuality this may be false—the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
• The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.
  • In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue.

The opposite of an appeal to tradition is an appeal to novelty, claiming something is good because it is new.

Here's a link broken down to a level that you can understand...maybe.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Description of Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X is old or traditional
2. Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.

It should not be assumed that new things must be better than old things (see the fallacy Appeal to Novelty) any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things. The age of something does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition, assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example, if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of a group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.

Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that aged wine would be better than brand new wine, he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim.

One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time." In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.

However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its favor. The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim is old. Thus, a claim's surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistance does not warrant accepting a claim.

Examples of Appeal to Tradition

1. Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?
2. Gunthar is the father of Connan. They live on a small island and in their culture women are treated as property to be exchanged at will by men.
   Connan: "You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women's rights."
   Gunthar: "So, what is your point son?"
   Connan: "Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and should have a right to be masters of their own fate."
   Gunthar: "What a strange and new-fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. "
   Connan: "But I still think there is something wrong with it."
   Gunthar: "Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right."
   
   
3. Of course this mode of government is the best. We have had this government for over 200 years and no one has talked about changing it in all that time. So, it has got to be good.
4. A reporter is interviewing the head of a family that has been involved with a feud with another family.
   Reporter: "Mr. Hatfield, why are you still fighting it out with the Mcoys?"
   Hatfield: "Well you see young man, my father feuded with the Mcoys and his father feuded with them and so did my great grandfather."
   Reporter: "But why? What started all this?"
   Hatfield: "I don't rightly know. I'm sure it was the Mcoys who started it all, though."
   Reporter: "If you don't know why you're fighting, why don't you just stop?"
   Hatfield: "Stop? What are you crazy? This feud has been going on for generations so I'm sure there is a darn good reason why it started. So I aim to keep it going. It has got to be the right thing to do. Hand me my shooting iron boy, I see one of those Mcoy skunks sneaking in the cornfield."