Any value in acupuncture?

[RationalVetMed]

When people who do not carry out their own laboratory studies and field researches and systematic thinking to produce their own findings and conclusions, then it is of the utmost importance that they at least investigate most extensively and with the maximum of meticulously keen critical scrutiny the reliability of the authorities, they would present to support their opinions, and to take exception to the opinions of others.

Sorry to interrupt your flow of precise lanquage but some of us lab rats would like to know if this is still an experiment.

[yawn loudly]

Yuri

 

[I less than three logic]

3 logic, you brought up The National Council Against Health Fraud as your authority. Have you examined your authority carefully to see whether it is really national in scope, and genuinely some council. Please examine always any source before accepting it as an authority for you; otherwise you might lapse into authoritarianism instead of doing your own observation, thinking, and conclusion.

As an exercise in skeptical attitude toward peoples and groups displaying themselves as authorities and calling themselves with such description as 'national' and as 'council,' for an exercise namely, please do some serious probing into The National Council Against Health Fraud.

If you look at the NCAHF site you may notice one of these:

This is an icon showing that the site is a member of and adheres to the principles of the Health on the Net Foundation. HON is an independent organization that is used to validate or certify authority for web sites that provide health information.

About Health on the Net Foundation
HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) for medical and health Web sites
National Council Against Health Fraud

If you believe that the NCAHF site is fraudulently displaying the HONcode logo, please file a complaint with HON following the instructions here.

If you do not believe that HON has the authority to validate authority, then you may believe as you wish. I have no intention of descending turtles, and will not debate this issue with you.

 

[I less than three logic]

Here is a more accurate link to the NCAHF certificate, the other one is just a description page, sorry.

Also, after some further looking, I found that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) does not subscribe to HONcode.

It is only voluntary, but I believe it would add some credibility.

 

[yrreg]

No yawning here, please.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
3 logic, you brought up The National Council Against Health Fraud as your authority. Have you examined your authority carefully to see whether it is really national in scope, and genuinely some council. Please examine always any source before accepting it as an authority for you; otherwise you might lapse into authoritarianism instead of doing your own observation, thinking, and conclusion.​

yrreg: in a similar line to this request, please provide us with your source for the following claim in an earlier post of yours..

Originally Posted by yrreg :
Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you.​

.. and if you are able to do so, please also give us a brief synopsis of your research into the source's impartiality, breadth/scope and their authority to comment on the issue in question.

Many thanks,
Brett.

Thanks, Brett, for your polite language; for even though we are all here engaged in scientific skepticism for the sake of locating the facts, we owe it to ourselves and of course to our readers here to use polite and civil language among ourselves. Otherwise, the ratio of fire to message might just incinerate holocaustically the message if any in a post.

[Don't read this, it's for comic relief only: And those who yawn should not participate here. Hahahaha softly.]

---------------

yrreg: in a similar line to this request, please provide us with your source for the following claim in an earlier post of yours..

.. and if you are able to do so, please also give us a brief synopsis of your research into the source's impartiality, breadth/scope and their authority to comment on the issue in question.

If I understand you correctly and comprehensively, Brett -- and tell me if I am wrong or not comprehensive, you want to know what is my authority?

First, have you noticed that I have not so far brought forward an authority to support my opinions here, have I?

Then why am I talking here in JREF forum? Because I believe my opinions are reasonable enough and practical under the circumstances and conditions I express them.

So, as regards my paragraph 1 from my post #18, reproduced from my post #9, I say (and 3 logic takes exception to):

Originally Posted by Yrreg :
1. Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you.

[3 logic:]
Acupuncture is acceptable to whom and by what standards? The National Council Against Health Fraud does not consider acupuncture an acceptable option.
http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html

1. Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you.​

Honestly, tell me, Brett, do you really need an authority to say that opinion?

No, I am not dodging. I will still give that opinion to anyone coming to me with a medical complaint and asking me whether he should try acupuncture (see post #1* initiating this thread, "Any value in acupuncture?") thus:

1. Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you.​

If you insist that I have to bring forth an authority to say that kind of an opinion, then I might either take exception to your idea about bringing up an authority in the present context of my paragraph 1, or reply to you with something else -- because I don't believe that I have to produce an authority for my paragraph 1 (but I could produce an authority if I just might care to).


Yrreg

*

[10th February 2006, 05:58 AM #1
paineroo New Blood Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1 ]

----------------

I'm seeing a physiotherapist for a knee injury. While he gave me a standard set of exercises and stretches to help rebuild the knee, he also mentioned that I might want to get acupuncture to help with minor pain and swelling.

My initial reaction was to respond that I'd prefer to stick with traditional treatments (i.e. those that work .) However, I think I remember reading somewhere in JREF about a study that showed that, while mock acupuncture and real acupuncture both produce roughly the same results, they do produce some result (beyond simple placebo effect) for localized pain. The theory was something to do with the fact that they body could release antibiotics and pain-relieving chemicals in response to being jabbed with the needles. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

My question is whether this means that acupuncture does have some value as a medical treatment? If so, what are the moral considerations of utilizing this somewhat legitimate medical treatment from someone whose business makes money by claiming that they can also cure colds, stress, cancer, mummy curses, etc?

In the meantime, I'm doing my exercises and stretches.

Thanks,
Paineroo

 

[yrreg]

Authorities and authorities and authorities...

Here is a more accurate link to the NCAHF certificate, the other one is just a description page, sorry.

Also, after some further looking, I found that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) does not subscribe to HONcode.

It is only voluntary, but I believe it would add some credibility.

I am trying to free you, 3 logic, from the authority mindset.

Anyway, are you of the conviction that the National Council Against Health Fraud is a more weighty authority than the National Institutes of Health?
--------------

As a scientific skeptic you (and I assume you are one) should do better than bring in authority and then authority to support the authority of your authority and then more authorities in a chain of authorities to support your words, which I think is not the routine of a good scientific skeptic.


Yrreg

 

[TV's Frank]

Because, to use the old cliché, I am not prepared to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Well, if it's a cliche, it's one I've never heard before! I'll have to start using it...

 

[Xin]

I think we should perhaps start a new thread discussing how to argue a point using techniques such as ad homenin arguments and baiting. We can use a few of yreg's posts as excellent examples. Keeping in mind of course that [This is an experiment]
[raucous laghter: ha ha ha ha ha]

 

[I less than three logic]

I am trying to free you, 3 logic, from the authority mindset.

I assume your position is that no studies are accurate unless you perform them yourself or they agree with what you already believe.

You claimed, “Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical conditions”. Which you later stated was your opinion, I see. However, you phrased it as a fact, and failed to provide evidence to support it. I presented the paper from the NCAHF, a site independently certified to be a trustworthy source of medical information, because it disagreed with your statement. At best, you’ve produced only anecdotes to support your claims. You constantly dodge the topic, and obsess over the imaginary rules people are to use when addressing you.

Anyway, are you of the conviction that the National Council Against Health Fraud is a more weighty authority than the National Institutes of Health?

No, NIH may provide plenty of trustworthy health information, but their paper on acupuncture is flawed. It offers only biased opinions favoring acupuncture where there is no or insufficient evidence to do so, and uses word play to distort the benefits of acupuncture by discrediting observations in the control groups.
http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997Acupuncture107html.htm

Response Rate.
As with other types of interventions, some individuals are poor responders to specific acupuncture protocols. Both animal and human laboratory and clinical experience suggest that the majority of subjects respond to acupuncture, with a minority not responding. Some of the clinical research outcomes, however, suggest that a larger percentage may not respond. The reason for this paradox is unclear and may reflect the current state of the research.

“Laboratory and clinical experience” just means anecdotes about what people say they’ve seen in such a setting. This is a clever way of phrasing it though. However, anecdotes are not evidence. When they looked at the data from controlled studies they noticed the majority didn’t respond. Then they attempt to discredit the research, which is their only form of actual evidence.

Sham Acupuncture.
A commonly used control group is sham acupuncture, using techniques that are not intended to stimulate known acupuncture points. However, there is disagreement on correct needle placement. Also, particularly in the studies on pain, sham acupuncture often seems to have either intermediate effects between the placebo and 'real' acupuncture points or effects similar to those of the 'real' acupuncture points. Placement of a needle in any position elicits a biological response that complicates the interpretation of studies involving sham acupuncture. Thus, there is substantial controversy over the use of sham acupuncture in control groups. This may be less of a problem in studies not involving pain.

Here they attempt to discredit sham acupuncture as a control group by saying: “Placement of a needle in any position elicits a biological response that complicates the interpretation of studies involving sham acupuncture.” This seems self-defeating. If there is no difference between ‘real’ acupuncture and sham acupuncture then all that stuff about Qi, meridians, and acupuncture points is false. The real benefit is from just sticking needles in people, doesn’t seem to matter where. Also without Qi or acupuncture points, you no longer have acupuncture; you just have puncture. If you want to study the medical benefits of sticking needles in people that’s fine by me, but it doesn’t have anything to do with acupuncture or “Chinese medicine”. (BTW, you still haven’t provided a definition for this term yet.)

As I have said before, I’ve already wasted enough time on this. I’ll just continue to overpay for conventional scientific medicine due to my annoying demand for evidence. If you have no moral objections to advocating acupuncture as an acceptable option for medical conditions without evidence to support it, then by all means do so.

You may be pleased to know that you will not be on my ignore list forever. I’ll remove you as soon as there is conclusive evidence that Qi exists.

 

[curi0us]

The randomized clinical trial at the University of Maryland followed 570 participants for 6 months, making it the longest and largest study of acupuncture to date. In the study, 190 of the participants received acupuncture treatment and 191 received a "sham" acupuncture procedure that the team had developed and tested in earlier research. A third group (189) attended an educational program developed by the Arthritis Foundation. All participants could continue to use some conventional care for osteoarthritis, such as certain anti-inflammatory medicines, if they so chose.

By week 8, the acupuncture group had better function than either the sham or the education group. By the 14th week, the acupuncture group also reported significantly less pain than the two other groups.
http://nccam.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2005_winter/acupuncture.htm

 

[Lothian]

The randomized clinical trial at the University of Maryland followed 570 participants for 6 months, making it the longest and largest study of acupuncture to date. In the study, 190 of the participants received acupuncture treatment and 191 received a "sham" acupuncture procedure that the team had developed and tested in earlier research. A third group (189) attended an educational program developed by the Arthritis Foundation. All participants could continue to use some conventional care for osteoarthritis, such as certain anti-inflammatory medicines, if they so chose.

By week 8, the acupuncture group had better function than either the sham or the education group. By the 14th week, the acupuncture group also reported significantly less pain than the two other groups.
http://nccam.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2005_winter/acupuncture.htm

Do you think it is significant that 75% of the patients receiving real accupunture thought they were having real accupunture yet 42% of the sham acupuncture were uncertain or convinced they were having a sham treatment ?

Given the problem with these patient was knee trouble what significance do you think there is to the finding that there was no improvement for any group in the physical test ?

 

[yrreg]

Let's stick first to my paragraph 1 and your reply to it.

I suggest we be systematic and do this business step by step -- shall we?

Originally Posted by yrreg :
I am trying to free you, 3 logic, from the authority mindset. ​

-------------

[3 logic:]
I assume your position is that no studies are accurate unless you perform them yourself or they agree with what you already believe.

You claimed, “Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical conditions”. ( ....)

[etc. etc. etc.]

I will go right away to the main concern of this post; I just want you to know that you have made two assumptions about me and my mind or claims, which you have to prove, because I am challenging you to do so: namely, that those two assumptions alleged by you are my positions or my claims:

1. I assume your position is that no studies are accurate unless you perform them yourself or they agree with what you already believe.

2. You claimed, “Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical conditions”.​

Please then produce texts from me that I have those two assumptions above, or made those two claims.

-----------------

Do not stray away from your reply to my paragraph 1, here reproduced again below, which is what we are at present actually occupied with.

Originally Posted by Yrreg :

1. Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you.​

-------------

[3 logic:]
Acupuncture is acceptable to whom and by what standards? The National Council Against Health Fraud does not consider acupuncture an acceptable option.
http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html

Let's continue in my paragraph 1 and your reply to it, before you go into other directions.

We were talking about the authority of the National Council Against Health Fraud; you brought in this collectivity of people as your authority; I am asking you to probe it to see whether it does deserve to be an authority.

It seems that instead of probing it you brought up another authority, the HON, whose icon is shown in the website of the NCAHF.

Getting authority to support authority to support authority, that is what I am not happy with you about. Please now probe the HON and don't forget also the NCAHF.

We will proceed to my paragraph 2 as soon as you have probed the authority of the NCAHF and now also the HON, which lends its icon to appear in the NCAHF's site.


I have the impression that you are very reluctant even resistant to probe the NCAHF, and now I might have to entertain the impression that you also are reluctant even resistant to probe the authority of the HON.


Do your probes of the authority of these two bodies first, that is the agenda you brought up in your reply to my paragraph 1. We will proceed to other matters, but first please probe the authorities of these two bodies.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Buddhism and acupuncture... and meditation

This is not directly connected with my present concern, namely:

(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1438966&postcount=30)

Originally Posted by Yrreg : (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1437823&postcount=18)
1. Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you.​

--------------

[3 logic:]
Acupuncture is acceptable to whom and by what standards? The National Council Against Health Fraud does not consider acupuncture an acceptable option.
http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html

I just like to share here as some kind of obiter materials, my wondering maybe some people here who are adverse to acupuncture are sympathetic to Buddhism and even call themselves Buddhists (people who are proud to call themselves Buddhists, like for example, Ryokan and Dancinng David), with whom the undersigned has had and still going on many a discussion on Buddhism, from the standpoint of what I call scientific skeptical criticism.

I will ask them, the Buddhists in those threads where I either initiated or participate in, from my part as a critic with what I might consider valid exceptions, whether they being Buddhists are positively or negatively inclined toward acupuncture -- seeing that the folks who bring them Buddhism also bring acupuncture and medical practices from the Far East to the West.

What about the people here in this thread, anyone Buddhist here?

One impression I keep getting from the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum is that there are things science as we have it now cannot deal with and therefore must be, at least not be suppressive in their regard.

These are the people who also do meditation and report favorable and even medical or broadly health benefits from meditation, specifically the Buddhist kinds of. There are also other kinds of meditation, practically all coming from the Far East, in particular that motherland of all such philosophico-religious speculations about karma and rebirths and ultimate nirvana, etc., India, and to a the way I see it lesser extent, China.

(The Chinese are not as mystical as the Indians, but they are a practical people who will absorb anything and everything that works, understanding 'works' as good for them -- understanding 'good' as anything that at least makes you feel better if nothing else. My opinion again, I could be wrong.)

Is acupunture a fad as I keep saying to my Buddhist colleagues here that Buddhism is a fad; in which case acupuncture is winning over Buddhism by leaps and bounds.

[Hahahaha softly.]

-----------------

Oh well, back to my concern here at present with 3logic's authority from the NCAHF and now the authority of the HON: authorities to not say to anyonoe coming to me, that:

Originally Posted by Yrreg : (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1437823&postcount=18)
1. Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you.​

No, I am not telling anyone coming to me with a medical problem, as to a man in the street with an opinion, that drowning oneself "is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you."

So, shall we continue in polite and civil langauge, systematically, one step at a time?

And remember, keep the ratio of fire to message small or zero, but increase the message to fire ratio to massive degrees. And yes or no, no emotionalism, please.


Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

I didn't know there was a connection between acupuncture and Buddhism..

Oh, right, there isn't!

And just for the record, as a Buddhist, I think acupuncture is a load of crap.

 

[yrreg]

How not to study acupuncture

I didn't know there was a connection between acupuncture and Buddhism..

Oh, right, there isn't!

And just for the record, as a Buddhist, I think acupuncture is a load of crap.

I am asking Buddhists here about their knowledge and attitude in regard to acupuncture, seeing the folks who bring you Buddhism also bring you acupuncture.

Your response, Ryokan, is unworthy of your profession as a Buddhist, it is too emotional, even the word 'crap' already precludes you from taking a serious look at acupuncture.

Just like the collectivity of people calling themselves the 'National Council Against Health Fraud,' by adopting the word fraud in their name they already preclude themselves from seeing anything in any attempts of people to heal and or dispense help to fellow humans seeking their assistance to relieve suffering, as fraudulent if it is not explicable by science, when in fact not everything so far has been explained by science -- or has everything been explained by science?

Right away, we have to ask ourselves this question: "Can science as we have it now explain every phenomenon of man and nature?"

Who among the most accomplished of scientists and science thinkers and science philosophers can say that it has or it can explain today all phenomena of man and nature which have been noticed by man?

Scientific skeptics seek to show that a lot of phenomena which they call paranormal are not really paranormal but normal, only observers don't see them except as extraordinary to the laws of nature which also govern man, or are interventions of preternatural or supernatural agents.

For example, in the famous or notorious case of Geller with his spoon bending by mind power, it is claimed by him that, as I know from stock knowledge or information, he does it by power of the mind, meaning concentrating his mind on the spoon to bend it, without any application of mechanical force with his fingers to effect the bending.

Scientific skeptics like the people in CSICOP and also here in our own JREF try to show that in fact physical force is applied to the spoon, but out of sight or notice of the audience; in other words Geller is just a trick magician and not an example of mind power -- in accordance with the idea summed up in the words, mind over matter.*

So, scientific skeptics should also try to study acupuncture to find out what physical force or chemistry or human psychology or generally scientific effectivity is involved, side by side with seeking to detect any trick involved, but more importantly how science as we have it now can explain the phenomenon, i.e., of acupuncture.

Now, about the placebo and the anecdotal evidence approaches to the examination of acupuncture, first placebo cannot be dismissed if indeed every phenomenon of acupuncture supposedly successful is due to placebo, for in this hypothesis we should then work really seriously to develop the placebo in acupuncture, seeing that there are everyday witnesses who from their own experience of healing can tell us that in fact they could not get relief except and until they made use of the skill of acupuncturists.

Second, as regards anecdotal evidence like people telling us that they themselves derived healing from acupuncture, when these people amount to a number big enough as to establish a pattern, then we must look into all the personal and situational and psychological circumstances and incidental details of these people to see, how these circumstances and incidental details can be created in other people having similar complaints, like pain from cancer or nuisance from a runny nose, so that they too can be treated successfully with acupuncture.

Have you noticed that, my own observation and reflection only, patients of acupuncture are always conscious patients, unlike in conventional scientific medicine a patient can be unconscious as when brought in from a road accident.

That already is a reason and a ground to study.

---------------

Your post cited above is most unworthy of your profession as a Buddhist and you tell people that you are proud to call yourself a Buddhist. Do you remember the first sutra you told me to read, the what, Halama Sutra? whereby the Buddha tells his audience not to believe because people say so in the last analysis, but because you yourself examined the question and have reached your own conclusion, to accept or not to accept the answer, or and very important formulate your own answer.

Buddha, your master and idol, must be turning in his nirvana grave, hahaha, for the kind of disciple and emulator you have shown yourself to be in several instances here in JREF -- shades of Achilles' Heel.


Everyone here writing emotionally against acupuncture, and even calling practitioners of acupuncture frauds and their patients dupes, please take up my suggestion:

Examine first whether a patient has in fact obtained healing from acupuncture which he has not obtained and could not obtain from conventional scientific medicine; then second find out all the physical and personal and psychological circumstances and incidental details of the patient and also the material setting of the successful acupuncture treatment.​

And please, no such words as crap, or any instance of emotionalism from your mind and heart, but proceed with total laboratory concentration and adsorption and an open mind.

*Mind over matter -- here is an anecdote told by my favorite skeptic, Pes Oir Amsus, ala B. Russell:

What is mind? Mind is not matter.
What is matter? Never mind!​

​

[Hahahaha softly.]


Yrreg, aspiring Fat Laughing Buddha

---------------

From Nirvana with love, Butai.

 

[yrreg]

Kalama Sutra and selective reading

Kalama Sutra

"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching.

Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words.

Rely not on theory, but on experience.

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."


- the Buddha​

------------------

I said that science today has not explained everything noticed by man and today cannot explain everything noticed by man. Remember and don't ever forget, science is a growing science.

I did not say that acupuncture is immune to scientific explanation. It is not immune only we have to study more thoroughly this phenomenon of acupuncture to discover the science that is its underpinning, whatever its a-scientific explanations found in its traditional presentation as a medical system and practice.

Please don't twist my words and please don't engage in selective reading of my posts. And don't nitpick, just to be argumentative for no useful purpose to the advancement of knowledge, except to feel that you are so scientifically skeptical, and others cannot because they maintain an open mind about acupuncture.

I am modesty aside a super skeptic: where everyone is in the bandwagon, like taking up Buddhism or bashing acupuncture, then I will take the opposite tack.


Yrreg

 

[RationalVetMed]

Your response, Ryokan, is unworthy of your profession as a Buddhist, it is too emotional, even the word 'crap' already precludes you from taking a serious look at acupuncture.

When did Buddhism become a profession, what is it about being emotional that worries Yrreg so much and what gives Yrreg the authority to judge the Buddhishness of others? The post-modern obsession with even-handedness is as vacuous as Yrreges insults veiled as politeness

Right away, we have to ask ourselves this question: "Can science as we have it now explain every phenomenon of man and nature?"

Irrelevant - science is a process that allows the testing of phenomena. We can test phenomena without an understanding of their mechanism.

The test comes first, then an investigation of the mechanism. So far the tests have suggested acupuncture is no better than placebo. This is nothing to do with Buddhism or belief it is the scientific process.

Yuri

 

[brodski]

When did Buddhism become a profession, what is it about being emotional that worries Yrreg so much and what gives Yrreg the authority to judge the Buddhishness of others? The post-modern obsession with even-handedness is as vacuous as Yrreges insults veiled as politeness



Irrelevant - science is a process that allows the testing of phenomena. We can test phenomena without an understanding of their mechanism.

The test comes first, then an investigation of the mechanism. So far the tests have suggested acupuncture is no better than placebo. This is nothing to do with Buddhism or belief it is the scientific process.

Yuri

he's not trying the old "science doesn't know everything" gimmick is he?

Next thing you know he'll be arguing that "bees can't fly".

Science doesn't have to explain the effects of acupuncture, because so far the acupuncturists cannot show an effect.

Is he also trying to link his "debunking" of Buddhism with his support for acupuncture?

You know I'm almost tempted to take this guy off "ignore" just to see how far he is prepared to sink into his own stupidity, but then again, I don't think my blood pressure (or my faith in the human race) could take it.

 

[yrreg]

What hubris!

I didn't know there was a connection between acupuncture and Buddhism..

Oh, right, there isn't!

And just for the record, as a Buddhist, I think acupuncture is a load of crap.

I wouldn't be so sure about your words if I were a Buddhist.

Please don't customize Buddhism so that you can enjoy its luxury and still maintain the hubris of being a what, scientific skeptic.


[Hahahaha softly.]


Now, I will use an emotional term, one poster here who is sympathetic to my posts on re skeptical criticism of Buddhism, if memory serves me correctly, says: Buddhists here strut about with oh so infallible arrogance.

Cauldron calling the kettle black, hahahaha.

-------------------

I didn't know there was a connection between acupuncture and Buddhism. -- Ryokan

There are many things you don't know as a matter of fact.


Oh, right, there isn't! -- Ryokan

And an exclamation at that! You should have continued with Zen.


And just for the record, as a Buddhist, I think acupuncture is a load of crap. -- Ryokan

Be smart, don't put anything on record; Buddha was smart, he never put down anything in writing, and he lived and taught over half a century. Now no one blames him but his disciples putting down supposedly his thoughts 500 years after his demise, passing on to nirvana with no trace whatsoever of any last will and testament in writing.


Yrreg, aspiring Fat Laughing Buddha

---------------

From Nirvana with love, Butai.

 

[yrreg]

An example of selective readng or understanding.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
Your response, Ryokan, is unworthy of your profession as a Buddhist, it is too emotional, even the word 'crap' already precludes you from taking a serious look at acupuncture.​

When did Buddhism become a profession, what is it about being emotional that worries Yrreg so much and what gives Yrreg the authority to judge the Buddhishness of others? The post-modern obsession with even-handedness is as vacuous as Yrreges insults veiled as politeness

Good friend, Yuri, there are more to profession than your understanding of profession.

I would say your posts are unworthy of your profession as a scientific skeptic here.

Ask me and I will tell you other understandings of the word profession, as a matter of fact, the original meaning of. Hint: think confession.


Yrreg, aspiring Fat Laughing Buddha

---------------

From Nirvana with love, Butai.

 

[RationalVetMed]

Good friend, Yuri, there are more to profession than your understanding of profession.

Your grammatical imprecisiveness makes the rendering of a reply beneath my dignity. Still, it's nice to have friends.

[the sound of one hand clapping drowned out by the sound of a tree falling in a forest with no one there to hear it]

Yuri