Glory

I don't know. The difference between Corwin and you apparantly and me is that I don't claim to know what the mechanism is. Corwin is claiming that the mechanism by which acupuncture has an effect is an invisible and utterly undetectable energy produced by the body called chi. I have yet to see him give any compelling evidence or even testimony to give credence to this belief. (before the deluge of redundancy begins please note that the key word is compelling.

Glory

Veil of Fire

Sentinel:

No, I'm seriously arguing that a black box mechanism does not automatically completely invalidate a practice when there's plenty of evidence supporting its efficacy.

Oh, and for argument's sake.. is this the standard skeptic thing where even though you might not have a better idea, you'll belittle someone else's attempt to explain it?

Glory:

Please, find where I claimed to know what the mechanism is. In fact, my REALLY BIG post above goes to great lengths to say we DON'T know the mechanism. But according to you and every other 'skeptic' in this thread, not knowing the mechanism is somehow considered to be a successful debunking of the practice.

Ok, your turn to propose a theory then. What's the mechanism?

How is it a straw man? Kally has repeatedly said that anything for which we can't explain the mechanism works by the placebo effect. IUDs are a product for which we can't explain the mechanism. I don't see the flaw in my conclusion, and further I don't see how I'm doing such a piss poor job combatting the over-used catch-all category of things 'skeptics' have failed to debunk labled "placebo effect". Merely stating that by following the 'skeptic' logic to it's end conclusion, the brain obviously has the power to keep the body from getting pregnant.

If I'm building straw men, it's only because you keep putting words in my mouth.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>

sentinel00

Can you please cite this evidence supporting acupuncture's efficacy? Also, please be thurough and answer the evidence against acupuncture's efficacy (for which there is much more).

Veil of Fire

Sentinel: Please see Alek0's post on the bottom of page 4. Also, you might want to ask your insurance company why they cover a practice if it can't possibly work.

[edited to add: BTW, the only 'evidence' I've seen in this thread against acupunture consists of the following: (A) It can't work because it just sounds silly, and (B) It can't work because we don't know how it could work (see A). ]

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>

sentinel00

You must not have read every post. I will direct you to not only reread every post, but pay close attention to the posts that debunk the information Alek0 offered.

This should take you some time, so I won't expect a reply today.

Mad Kally

[quote]posted by Veil of shit:
If you're just going to come back to insult people, Ms. Oh-Please-Pity-Me-I-Was-Raised-By-Fundies-and-I-Bring-it-up-in-every-third-post-I-make-relevant-or-not, why come back at all?

You are a total dumb ass and a liar. You also called Rick a prick. You F*cking usless piece of shit bitch! I hope this will help get this thread closed so we don't have to hear your vomit spewed all over this forum!!!

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p>

sentinel00

You know what, I've changed my mind. I've decided that you, Veil of Fire, are obviously not intellectually honest or enterprising enough to do your own research on acupuncture and learn anything from what you find.

So, I'm going to post some excerps and links to articles that should clear up the issue for you. I leave it to you to either accept the truth, or continue to live in ignorance.

No better than placebo... Hmmm. So I can claim chi, angels, invisible pink unicorns, or the power of the universe contained within my nostrils... and all of those claims have equal value with the placebo effect. Do you or do you not find this interesting?

So perhaps doctors keep acupuncture on the insurance companies scrolls simply as a money making device, or a way to get reimbersement for real working therapies the insurance company doesn't cover. I ask you, who would you trust to treat your illness, a doctor or an insurance salesman?

Again, no studies of acupuncture return results that lends any credence to the claims of acupuncturists. Why go on believing it?

The above quote asks a good question I'd like you to answer. BTW, this article produces a very concise history of acupuncture including a ton of references for the article (142!) in case you doubt any of the claims made in the article.

For more reading try these articles not from medical science websites:

<a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/9509/chi.html" target="_blank">CSICOP</a>

<a href="http://www.skepdic.com/acupunc.html" target="_blank">The Skeptic's Dictionary</a>

<a href="http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html" target="_blank">National Council against Health Fraud</a>

<a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html" target="_blank">Straight Dope</a>

Monkeybot

Actually, Alek0 him/herself tells us that the studies are inconclusive and use poor control groups.

I think this is a totally reasonable comment. S/he (forgive me, I'm not sure of your gender Alek) acknowledges the positive studies but also reminds us of their shortcomings. In effect, she confirms what I've been trying to say all along: that acupuncture may have medical and/or painkilling properties, but it simply has not been conclusively demonstrated yet. As such, I do not dismiss it out of hand, but I certainly don't consider it valid in the same sense that I consider X rays, penicillan, or surgery valid.

The burden of proof lies upon those who claim acupuncture has healing/beneficial/etc. properties.

*edited because it has not been conclusively demonstrated that I can use ubb code

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Monkeybot ]</p>

galiel

Glory:

BTW, [Veil of Fire,] your comments constitute a straw man. Apparantly this placebo effect thing is the only thing you feel comfortable refuting. You are not only doing a poor job at it, you are ignoring the salient points of the discussion. Try to stay on topic.

The Sentinel:

You know what, I've changed my mind. I've decided that you, Veil of Fire, are obviously not intellectually honest or enterprising enough to do your own research on acupuncture and learn anything from what you find.

Monkeybot:

The burden of proof lies upon those who claim acupuncture has healing/beneficial/etc. properties.

Thank you all. Yes, the bottom line is that those who make extraordinary claims (which fly in the face of the known body of scientific knowledge) must present extraordinary proof. Having a tantrum does not constitute extraordinary proof.

As I've said, VoF is just another irrational fundie, he just happens not to be a Christian God fundie. Unfortunately, superstitious anti-science irrationalism is not the exclusive domain of creationists. There is no arguing with people who "know The Truth", whether they clothe it in priest's robes or healing crystals.

Yes, as I believe no one here would dispute, acupuncture is worthy of further study--for evidence of any specific physiological, electro-chemical effects, not for its effect on "chi" or brie or chedder--and, indeed, it has been and continues to be studied.

No, there is currently no scientifically reputable evidence that it works better than placebom and quite a bit of evidence to suggest that it doesn't.

No, there is no "conspiracy" to suppress the truth, but, of course, I would say that, since I'm part of the conspiracy--look out, behind you!!

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Veil of Fire

Kally: Ooh, strong words from II's Gemma Therese clone. You can flame people all you want, but you can't take it, huh? Full of shit at always, and just as useless.

galiel:
Physician, heal thyself. You've made more claims to knowing The Truth(tm) than I have. I haven't made ANY concrete claims one way or the other on this issue. Merely that rejecting something because the proffered mechanism is suspect isn't precisely kosher.

For some reason, EVERYONE here seems to think that disagreeing with the manner in which a conclusion is reached is disagreeing with the conclusion itself.

Sentinel: Thank you for the citations. Pity that the hard information always comes LONG after the initial appeals to ridicule.