|
NoSz4 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
@blade - its not brainwash its just bogus.
blade0817 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Rank is a clown, I am having the time of my life picking on him - the way he picks on us. He is unfortunately a true representation of western doctors today that still try to degreed TCM for the simple reason of covering their own weakness of not being able to show any evidence of how acupuncture works. The proofs are there all around the world and the success rates are high. Western med. has no explanation for it however so like rank they revert to the only explanation: acupuncture is brainwash
blade0817 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Hey Rank, I just read this tonight in an article: On Dec. 2009, after a rigorous 3-year accreditation process, the Academy of Oriental Medicine of Austin has been granted regional accreditation from the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and schools. The accreditation means that courses taken at this Academy will be eligible for transfer to any other regional schools and can be applied toward a doctoral level at any medical schools!TCM advances; Rank is losing! :)
blade0817 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Also a study conducted in 2006 in Australia has concluded that while mistakes in acupuncture are extremely rare, they are twice as likely to be from those completing short trainings programs - such as doctors taking 'crash courses' - then practitioners completing the lengthy legitimate Traditional Chinese Medicine schools. So you are twice as likely to have medical malpractice done on you from a conventional practitioner than those graduating from a TCM school. This is a fact from studies.
StarvingForTruth (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
And then, say the incidence rose 10 fold again, from 60 to 600. In a medium sized city, that's still a very small percentage of the population - but to focus on that as the basis on which to evaluate the significance of the spread, would be to miss the point of the emerging threat entirely.And this is the mistake you just made by playing games with terminology you don't seem to fully grasp - or, which you intentionally misuse in a dishonest fashion, just to shore up your opinion.
StarvingForTruth (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
@rank101 you're mangling the use of the term 'statistically significant' - which is a term used to evaluate meaningful effect of a cause. furthermore, you swap apples for oranges when you shifted the discussion from the percent growth of a field, to the percent of a population who utilizes the field.ie, if a city saw a 10 fold increase over the year in the incidence of pertussis - say, from 3 cases to 30, i assure you that epidemiologists would not dismiss it as statistically insignificant.
StarvingForTruth (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
It's pure hubris to posit that because we can not identify a mechanism, it must be bunk. completely illogical.wasn't that long ago people thought disease was spontaneously generated. didn't mean we couldn't treat anything - just that we weren't as effective.who knows? with the positive outcome data piling up for acupuncture, it may direct the search for the next undiscovered mechanism. surely we can't think we know all there is to know now... that would be absurd.
StarvingForTruth (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I mean, human beings knew a very long time ago that having sex was what led to babies ... but it wasn't until fairly recently that we understood the mechanism. if i weren't exhausted right now, id conjure up a few other examples.... shoot - ancient Mesopotamians managed to build a battery... i doubt they knew much about subatomic particles. who knows what they posited as a mechanism? but they got results.
StarvingForTruth (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
In those respects, they are light years ahead of western medicine with respect to the use of evidence in the determination of treatments. they take data on EVERYTHING (or at least they try).another thing we have in common is that like acupuncturists, they don't REALLY know the mechanism that accounts for the changes that are observable. The use of the term "qi" ends the discussion for many people, but it need not. If it's a faulty construct, so be it. That doesn't preclude efficacy...
StarvingForTruth (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
..but there is the problem of the 'placebo' standard, which at the end of the day, is impossible with acupuncture.we'd be wise to look to the behavioral sciences for more appropriate models. behaviorism is a respected science by now, ant they too have no way of using placebos. you can't fake a behavioral plan.but, they use data, and they use it well, to achieve demonstrable results - such as what we find in CBT, or the use of ABA in the education of kids with autism. |
