Another Chinese Myth Exposed

Hairy_Hacker

Old-Salt
Acupuncture played havoc with my haemophilia is all I can say.









That my taxi? :oops:
 

Flashman07

War Hero
I'll have to agree, I'm not into all this chinese herbal mumbo-jumbo and 'alternative medicines' but accupuncture cured some extremely bad migraines I was having for years. Whether or not accupuncture actually works or whether my mind tricked me into believing it had I don't know, but in this instance nothing else could help me.
 
Flashman07 said:
I'll have to agree, I'm not into all this chinese herbal mumbo-jumbo and 'alternative medicines' but accupuncture cured some extremely bad migraines I was having for years. Whether or not accupuncture actually works or whether my mind tricked me into believing it had I don't know, but in this instance nothing else could help me.

You see it is this use of terms that really is the problem.

First... what makes you think you are cured?

How do you know it was acupuncture that cured your migraine?

Migraines come and go - with or without treatment - that is what they do.

There is also a number of people who have had operations on their ears in order to rectify vertigo issues - who report that they no longer have migraines. There are people who move from the city to rural locations who report that they no longer have migraines. Conversely there are people who move from villages to cities who report they no longer have migraines. People say when they eat cheese they get a migraine, people say when they get a migraine - they eat cheese and it stops. Pollen might be the answer, some people report that flying causes a migraine and again - conversely the opposite is true for others. Bright light can start one, bright light can stop one... it goes on and on. The one thing that is sure as far as migraine is concerned - there never has been a definite cure - not yet.

If you receive acupuncture almost every day of your life and do not have a migraine and every time that you don't have acupuncture you do get a migraine, then what you say might just carry some weight for you and you alone. But to be fair, you don't and that then means your experience is nothing more than an experience... not evidence. Sorry... but that is the way it is.
 
Carcass said:
However, when you get a system of "medicine" (and I use the term loosely) that actively avoids any form of regulation or evidence-based practice then we HAVE to stop it.
SkiCarver said:
The problem we have is that 'alternative practicioners' are not medically trained and will not send a patient presenting serious symptoms to their gp to get medicine that will actually work.
I totally agree with both these points, but these are problems with the way in which the treatments are dispensed rather than with the treatments themselves.

I had an uncle (note the deliberate use of past tense) whose GP didn't refer him to an oncologist because he didn't recognise the symptoms of leukaemia quickly enough. I don't doubt the doctor would have done it differently if he'd spotted them and I'm certainly not trying to draw a comparison with the quacks who dispense fragrant herbs and healing crystals for brain tumours, but just to point out that no system of medicine will ever catch every illness. A good healer will know their limitations and when to pass the case to a more appropriate person. Bad ones exist in every field.
 
Acupuncture isn't all it's cracked up to be. It cured me of my back pain but did fcuk all for my belonephobia.
 
FiveAlpha said:
Acupuncture isn't all it's cracked up to be. It cured me of my back pain but did fcuk all for my belonephobia.
It was the running away screaming that cured your back pain.
 
BanjoBill said:
FiveAlpha said:
Acupuncture isn't all it's cracked up to be. It cured me of my back pain but did fcuk all for my belonephobia.
It was the running away screaming that cured your back pain.
She only ran away because I fitted my entire fist up me own hole. I also caught my own sperm in my mouth.
 
Are you talking specifically about acupuncture or all alternative medicines?
 
WhizzyShootingStar said:
Are you talking specifically about acupuncture or all alternative medicines?
As a general rule;

'alternative medicines' are called that because there is no evidence they work. If there was evidence, they would simply be medicine.

Having said that, there can be an initial assessment based on plausibility.

acupunture. no evidence of efficacy and no mechanism known for function, however, you are actually sticking things into the body so it is at least possible that it could do something. The better (double blind) studies show little or no effect.

Homeopathy. true homeopaty is a preparation of a substance by diluting it in water. It is diluted to the point where there is no active ingredient. Yes, all it is, is water. There is no mechanism by which this can work and it has been proven not to work.

Herbal remadies. Again, little or no evidence of efficacy defines why these are 'alternative medicines'. there have been some studies on some products and some have been shown to have effects. Unfortunately, as you aren't getting them from a medical professional, you are at risk of getting something which does not work, which makes you ill directly, or which interferes with the 'real' medicines you may be taking.

Alternative treatments really do kill people. If you have a medical concern, go to your GP!

I will say it again as it is really important. Something is defined as 'alternative medicine' because there is no evidence it works.
 
The fact still remains that some have an effect on people, thats evidence enough, yes? To ignore it just because there are no actual studies conducted or truly valid is not merely enough to totally decern the aspect.
 
WSS, personal experience is utterly useless in assessing medical efficacy, (placebo effect). we have discussed the placcebo effect on this thread and the ethics (or lack thereof) of giving people 'treatments' which only rely on the placebo effect.

'Alternative medicine' practicioners have little or no medical training and the really do kill people by stopping them getting real help. That has also been mentioned on the thread.

If you choose to go to an alternative medicine practitioner, that is of course your choice. The problem is they are not going to give you the facts about their 'treatments'. If said treatment kills you, it is simply evolution in action.
 
I think all this boils down to regulation.

Doctors in the NHS are bound by a governing body, peer-assessments, evidence-based practice and are completely held accountable for their clinical decisions, competency and actions.

Alternative therapists have none of these.

Its not a question of if it "works" or not (and the jury is still very much out on that one). Its a question of patient safety.
 
SkiCarver said:
WSS, personal experience is utterly useless in assessing medical efficacy, (placebo effect). we have discussed the placcebo effect on this thread and the ethics (or lack thereof) of giving people 'treatments' which only rely on the placebo effect.
I agree, but what i meant was in regards to alternative medicine that actually works not due to the placebo effect.
I only say this due to knowing people who have tried conventional medicine but found the alternative to be of much greater impact.
 
WhizzyShootingStar said:
I only say this due to knowing people who have tried conventional medicine but found the alternative to be of much greater impact.
The problem with this kind of 'evidence' :) is that it is outside of a controlled environment and we cannot know if they would have just improved anyway. That is why there has to be controlled studies carried out by the best qualified academics.

Tis what I meant earlier when I talked about faith. We have to put our faith in the people that come with all the recognised qualifications, are governed by a code of rules and behavior... and have dedicated their lives to improving ours.

It is just as has been said. If it was any good, it would not be an alternative. Doctors would see to it that it was tested and tested until they could prescribe it safely and be proud to do so.
 
jarrod248 said:
A medicine will have a randomised "double blind" controlled trial - this is the gold standard in working out whether a drug works or not.
My bold
 
WhizzyShootingStar said:
I agree, but what i meant was in regards to alternative medicine that actually works not due to the placebo effect.
I only say this due to knowing people who have tried conventional medicine but found the alternative to be of much greater impact.
Jesus Christ, when will people get it into their thick skulls that anecdotes are NOT evidence??? Show me a double-blinded RCT that shows it works and I'll believe it. Then, a drug company will buy it up and manufacture it. Job's a good 'un.
 
WhizzyShootingStar said:
I only say this due to knowing people who have tried conventional medicine but found the alternative to be of much greater impact.
The greatest and most satisfying impact would be your body striking concrete after a 30 storey freefall. This would only be bettered if you landed on the sperm drinker known as jarrod.
 
Carcass said:
WhizzyShootingStar said:
I agree, but what i meant was in regards to alternative medicine that actually works not due to the placebo effect.
I only say this due to knowing people who have tried conventional medicine but found the alternative to be of much greater impact.
Jesus Christ, when will people get it into their thick skulls that anecdotes are NOT evidence??? Show me a double-blinded RCT that shows it works and I'll believe it. Then, a drug company will buy it up and manufacture it. Job's a good 'un.
Say a person was given conventional medicine, but with no signs of getting better decided to use 'alternative medicine'. Due to using this, it did in fact make a difference and the condition improved. Note the condition is one that could not have got better on it's own. What's your opinion on this situation?

Now about double-blind studies, i'm not saying there is a problem with it, but what about drugs which have undergone studies and have been proved safe and available etc, but have very serious side effects, deadly should i say. There is obviously something not right about so surely it must be considered as a serious problem.

As far as i'm aware there are places which provide some alternative drugs, prescription of course, the states being one.
 
WhizzyShootingStar said:
Carcass said:
WhizzyShootingStar said:
I agree, but what i meant was in regards to alternative medicine that actually works not due to the placebo effect.
I only say this due to knowing people who have tried conventional medicine but found the alternative to be of much greater impact.
Jesus Christ, when will people get it into their thick skulls that anecdotes are NOT evidence??? Show me a double-blinded RCT that shows it works and I'll believe it. Then, a drug company will buy it up and manufacture it. Job's a good 'un.
Say a person was given conventional medicine, but with no signs of getting better decided to use 'alternative medicine'. Due to using this, it did in fact make a difference and the condition improved. Note the condition is one that could not have got better on it's own. What's your opinion on this situation?
Not necessarily. The condition may have improved spontaneously (i.e. by itself).
We have standards of proof in this country for a reason.
 
I did say it's one that cannot be improved, seeing as it is lacking in something.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top