The History Channel and "Ancient Technologies"

[DC]

I have no problem with "chi" as a purely metaphorical way to describe shockwaves or breathing or whatever physical effect is meant according to context. But "chi" as something metaphysical or mystical is indeed total crap.

I also dont see it as something mystical. even described as energy flow it sound to mystical to me, but to just say it is just woo is to easy.

 

[Mongrel]

How did they found out?
How is Novartis finding out how what is working to cure stuff?

Computer modelling
Animal trials
Clinical trials

 

[Cuddles]

Did it help the tiger?

Yes. The tiger was much less virile after having its wang removed.

Yes the Sham acupuncture had almost the same effect.

Which should tell you all you need to know. Pretending to do acupuncture has the same effect as actually doing aupuncture, therefore any observed effect cannot be due to acupuncture. Why are you still trying to argue in favour of acupuncture when you've just debunked it yourself?

 

[DC]

Yes. The tiger was much less virile after having its wang removed.



Which should tell you all you need to know. Pretending to do acupuncture has the same effect as actually doing aupuncture, therefore any observed effect cannot be due to acupuncture. Why are you still trying to argue in favour of acupuncture when you've just debunked it yourself?

How come that even the sham acupuncture was more effective than the other therapy?

So when there is a placebo effect, this means that the therapy is not working?

are you sure you want to claim that?

have you ever had acupuncture? or do you know someone that tryed acupuncture?

 

[DC]

"Research indicates that the more extreme the placebo treatment is in a clinical trial, the more susceptible participants are to the placebo effect, or believing that they are being helped by the sham medication or treatment," McRae and colleagues note. "This study involved brain surgery -- arguably an extreme placebo treatment. ... The results are consistent with a strong placebo effect."

is brainsurgery woo?

 

[zooterkin]

good post. indeed "Chi" was never observed afaik.

do we have a soul, was the soul ever observed?

No, and no. Do you have evidence to contradict that?

And indeed studies seem to show that the placebo effect is an important part of it (i think the same about Homeopathy). But aslong it beats our common therapy, why not?

You might want to read some of Ben Goldacre's columns (www.badscience.net). His views on the placebo effect are interesting. If the effect depends on believing that what you're given will work, is it ethical for a doctor to give someone something that won't do anything (but may help if the patient believes it will)?

And yes also the shaolin monks are not supernaturals, just humans that spend most of their time, and that is a huge lot of time, into their training.

Why is this not enough to explain what they can do?

they train the controll of their Chi, or that is what they belive they do.
If that is correct or if other elemts play a role in that, i dont know, but what they do is amazing, and is beating all the other martial art shows i ever saw.

Chi, as far as I understand it, just means breath. It may help you to visualise certain things happening in your body when learning a new technique. That doesn't mean that what you visualise is actually happening.

 

[zooterkin]

is brainsurgery woo?

I think you are confused as to what the placebo effect is. It is real, and measurable. I don't think the mechanism by which it works is yet understood. However, it is routinely allowed for in medical trials, and treatments have to perform significantly better than placebo to be useful. If procedures such as acupuncture do not perform better than placebo, then the most likely explanation is that any effect they have is due to the placebo effect.

That report on brain surgery does not suggest at all that brain surgery is woo, only that the placebo effect was observed in the trial when holes were drilled in the skull (which I'm not sure I would call 'brain surgery'). This seems a reasonable control for the actual treatment.

 

[DC]

No, and no. Do you have evidence to contradict that?

You might want to read some of Ben Goldacre's columns (www.badscience.net). His views on the placebo effect are interesting. If the effect depends on believing that what you're given will work, is it ethical for a doctor to give someone something that won't do anything (but may help if the patient believes it will)?

Why is this not enough to explain what they can do?

Chi, as far as I understand it, just means breath. It may help you to visualise certain things happening in your body when learning a new technique. That doesn't mean that what you visualise is actually happening.

There is no soul? interesting, you got anything that would proof that? I didnt claim there is a soul, nor did i claim there is no soul, im agnostic about it, but im interested in your evidence.

Is it ethical for a doctor to give you chemical medicamentations that are known to have adverse effects, can make addicted, while there is an alternative that also may work, without the adverse effects and addiction?

Chi is claimed to be an energy flow in your body, the breathing techniques are there to controll that chi.

 

[DC]

No, and no. Do you have evidence to contradict that?

You might want to read some of Ben Goldacre's columns (www.badscience.net). His views on the placebo effect are interesting. If the effect depends on believing that what you're given will work, is it ethical for a doctor to give someone something that won't do anything (but may help if the patient believes it will)?

Why is this not enough to explain what they can do?

Chi, as far as I understand it, just means breath. It may help you to visualise certain things happening in your body when learning a new technique. That doesn't mean that what you visualise is actually happening.

I know what the placebo effect is. Sure i dont know the mechanism behind it. afaik noone really knows yet. But i find it a very interesting effect. You only have to belive you get something that helps you, it may be watter, hit on leather several thousand times and mixed with more wather, and you belive it helps, the chance is there that it indeed will help, while it has actually no effect we know of, it helped.

 

[zooterkin]

There is no soul? interesting, you got anything that would proof that? I didnt claim there is a soul, nor did i claim there is no soul, im agnostic about it, but im interested in your evidence.

Why would I need evidence that something doesn't exist? If it does exist, then it should be pretty easy to prove I'm wrong.

If you don't believe the soul exists, why did you bring it up in relation to chi?

Is it ethical for a doctor to give you chemical medicamentations that are known to have adverse effects, can make addicted, while there is an alternative that also may work, without the adverse effects and addiction?

Of course not. Is there such an alternative, and is it known to be as effective as the medicine with side-effects? What exactly do you mean by 'may work'?

 

[Cuddles]

How come that even the sham acupuncture was more effective than the other therapy?

In this case, as has already been pointed out, the "other therapy" was not any kind of conventional therapy, it was simply a straw man invented solely for this test. I don't find anything at all surprising about the idea that administering steroids in the wrong could be worse than not doing anything. There are plenty of other possible reasons as well, the most likely being a poorly conducted trial and researcher bias. As Dancing David has already explained, this was certainly a poorly conducted trial, and has apparently not been replicated.

The whole reason placebo controlled trials, and indeed pretty much all modern medicine, was invented is because people noticed that sometimes doing nothing, or pretending to do something, had a better outcome than actual treatement. This is not anything vaguely new, and does not show that pretending to give someone a pretend treatment is effective.

So when there is a placebo effect, this means that the therapy is not working?

are you sure you want to claim that?

Of course not. Please do not lie about my posts.

have you ever had acupuncture? or do you know someone that tryed acupuncture?

Irrelevant.

 

[DC]

Why would I need evidence that something doesn't exist? If it does exist, then it should be pretty easy to prove I'm wrong.

If you don't believe the soul exists, why did you bring it up in relation to chi?

Of course not. Is there such an alternative, and is it known to be as effective as the medicine with side-effects? What exactly do you mean by 'may work'?

i didnt say i dont belive in a soul, i dont know it, maybe there is one, maybe not. Im agnostic about it. Absence of evidence is not evidence for me.

In switzerland and Germany, Acupuncture is considered such an alternative, also in switzerland there are cases where homeopathic aka water, is considered an alternative. Dont get me wrong, not to cure cancer or aids or whatever some spiritual healers and homeopathic freaks claim to be able to cure. its about things like alergys, beeing sleepless, headache etc.

I am happy my doctor does not only know about the modern medicine, i am happy he is openminded enough to have himself informed about alternatives also. Do you find that unethical? especially considering he is not promising anything, he just sugest that you should try that or that alternative, and when it works as well, then we stay at that solution.

 

[DC]

In this case, as has already been pointed out, the "other therapy" was not any kind of conventional therapy, it was simply a straw man invented solely for this test. I don't find anything at all surprising about the idea that administering steroids in the wrong could be worse than not doing anything. There are plenty of other possible reasons as well, the most likely being a poorly conducted trial and researcher bias. As Dancing David has already explained, this was certainly a poorly conducted trial, and has apparently not been replicated.

The whole reason placebo controlled trials, and indeed pretty much all modern medicine, was invented is because people noticed that sometimes doing nothing, or pretending to do something, had a better outcome than actual treatement. This is not anything vaguely new, and does not show that pretending to give someone a pretend treatment is effective.



Of course not. Please do not lie about my posts.



Irrelevant.

so, what is the conventional therapy in Germany for low back pain?
How come you as a layman are able to spot such extreme flaws in that studiem while the experts in Germany did accept that studie? How come non of the healt insurance companys did point out those strawmans etc?
why did they fall for that woo, when even layman like you, that did not even have acupuncture, can spot all those flaws and the fact that it is woo?

Are German doctors all woo doctors? Why are they all fooled by such a flawed studie?

Acupuncture is still considered an alternative treatment for low back pain in the U.S., but this is no longer the case in Germany. Based on findings from the newly reported study, it is now covered by state health insurance.

Closeminded JREFers or Woo doctors in Germany and Switzerland?

 

[zooterkin]

In switzerland and Germany, Acupuncture is considered such an alternative, also in switzerland there are cases where homeopathic aka water, is considered an alternative. Dont get me wrong, not to cure cancer or aids or whatever some spiritual healers and homeopathic freaks claim to be able to cure. its about things like alergys, beeing sleepless, headache etc.

So, where is the evidence that the effect of these 'treatments' is anything other than placebo? Even if they did work (and there's no evidence that they do), that still doesn't mean they work the way their proponents claim.

I am happy my doctor does not only know about the modern medicine, i am happy he is openminded enough to have himself informed about alternatives also. Do you find that unethical? especially considering he is not promising anything, he just sugest that you should try that or that alternative, and when it works as well, then we stay at that solution.

I repeat my suggestion for you to read some of Ben Goldacre's columns, such as this one about the placebo effect. Click on "placebo" on the left of that page to find more articles.

 

[DC]

So, where is the evidence that the effect of these 'treatments' is anything other than placebo? Even if they did work (and there's no evidence that they do), that still doesn't mean they work the way their proponents claim.

Experts seem to accept that large german studie. And alot of people experiance an improvement from acupuncture. Why ever that may be.

I repeat my suggestion for you to read some of Ben Goldacre's columns, such as this one about the placebo effect. Click on "placebo" on the left of that page to find more articles.

I am reading it already, it is very interesting till now. I even like alot of it. especially his interesting question about that effect and why pills work less effective after several years of beeing used.

 

[Gene L]

Experts seem to accept that large german studie. And alot of people experiance an improvement from acupuncture. Why ever that may be.



I am reading it already, it is very interesting till now. I even like alot of it. especially his interesting question about that effect and why pills work less effective after several years of beeing used.

The reason it works when it works is because a lot of ailments acupuncture "helps" are psychosomatic. Lower back pain, for example...it's hard to separate the actual pain from imagined pain. If the mind can generate love, hate, fear, etc, it follows that it can generate and create pain, and this artificial pain can be cured by artificial means. Such as acupuncture.

As for proving the soul doesn't exist, it's impossible to prove a negative. It is quite possible to prove that water (for example) exists, since it is provable by lots of means, including common sense. There is simply no proof of a soul, which is the whole point of religion...you have to accept certain concepts on belief without proof. In philosophy, this is called "faith."

And that's fine. It is faith that allows acupuncture to work for you. I seriously doubt it would work for me.

 

[Galaxie]

Experts seem to accept that large german studie.

Which experts?

And alot of people experiance an improvement from acupuncture. Why ever that may be.

The study you posted shows that the improvement was due to the placebo effect. For acupunture to be a legitimate treatment, it has to perform better than the placebo effect.

 

[DC]

The reason it works when it works is because a lot of ailments acupuncture "helps" are psychosomatic. Lower back pain, for example...it's hard to separate the actual pain from imagined pain. If the mind can generate love, hate, fear, etc, it follows that it can generate and create pain, and this artificial pain can be cured by artificial means. Such as acupuncture.

As for proving the soul doesn't exist, it's impossible to prove a negative. It is quite possible to prove that water (for example) exists, since it is provable by lots of means, including common sense. There is simply no proof of a soul, which is the whole point of religion...you have to accept certain concepts on belief without proof. In philosophy, this is called "faith."

And that's fine. It is faith that allows acupuncture to work for you. I seriously doubt it would work for me.

no i dont have to.
i am one of that humans that are able to say, i dont know, and stay agnostic about it.

Funny is that the JREF laymans seem to know it is only a pacebo effect while they dont know the datails of the studie.
While experts are further studieng acupuncture. Sure they are all amazed by the fact that the sham acupuncture did so well. Another studie showed the same, a studie about Migraine. also there the common treathment was beaten by acupuncture and also the sham acupuncture.
But for them it was no evidence it is not working, they are investigationg it more, they think it could be possible that the points where the needles have to be sticked are alot larger than thought, they are planning further studies.

im not so sure that it will not work for you.
read intersting things on Bad Science.
http://www.leecrandallparkmd.net/researchpages/placebo1.html
even when you know it is a placebo, the placebo can work.

 

[DC]

Which experts?



The study you posted shows that the improvement was due to the placebo effect. For acupunture to be a legitimate treatment, it has to perform better than the placebo effect.

the studie was initiated by several health insurance companys. Because alot people asked for acupuncture to be paid by them, they didnt want to pay it, because there was no evidence to show that acupuncture works.
after the studie, they started to pay for acupuncture, because now the had evidence that acupuncture is working better than the normal therapy.

strange enough for them the studies are not evidence that it is not working, for them it is evidence that acupuncture is working alot better than our chemical solutions with painkillers etc. they do not exclude placebo effect, they investigate it further. Who knows, maybe the whole mechanic behind acupuncture is triggering the placebo effect. But aslong it works better than our other solutions, i have no problem with it.


Also the WHO has a detailed list where acupuncture can be used safely.
http://www.atcae.org/mitglieder/seiten/download/2.pdf

 

[Dancing David]

And your high quality studies had all those requerements?

Wow, do you know hot to discuss research or what? I know there is a language barrier here but seriously, that is called irrelevant. If you look at a study, you need to look at the methodology and then look for confounding factors to the alleged effect.


That is standard in science, unless you are one of tehse people who just looks for data that supports the premise and then doesn't examine it.

Your question shows you are out of the loop. Whatever.