UESP Forums

I could actually, it's like year 7 science.

Can we not bicker?

This man was actually recently in the news again, as they found a trace of the virus still in his blood. I'll try to find the story to link to on my lunch; I thought of you guys.

Yeah my father told me that too.

AIDS is not something you can cure, in this case prevention is better.

I think when this knowledge about AIDS-resistant/immune blood started circulating (it was before 2008 because I was still in highschool and I graduated in 2007) my Anatomy teacher decided to spend a day discussing the implications. I vaguely remember that even back then, the only reason anyone -knew- the blood was resistant is because the HIV/AIDS was still alive and well, it just didn't have a way to root itself in the cellular structure and cause immune system problems the way it normally would. So really even if that kind of blood were widely available for transplants to try and remedy the problem, the virus would still be there in the person. It wouldn't be cured at all, just prevented from causing damage. As Spiney said though, it's still not as effective or reliable as just preventing it getting into your system.



On the other hand with alternative medicine or whatever. If several world governments are banning the use of something in Medicine it is because it is known to not work and/or cause enough damage to the body that the benefits simply are not great enough to outweigh that damage. There's no conspiracy to keep the cure out of public hands (although I'll parrot that if such a thing existed it would still cost an extremely pretty penny). I'm absolutely certain you can look somewhere and find a list of drugs that were never released or recalled exactly because of the damage they cause. That pool disinfectant thing is no different. Certainly it was an unconventional idea to start with but when it doesn't produce results it cannot in good faith be given to the public because it will only harm them. Scientifically speaking it is completely possible that someone using an unconventional method might get the desired result, but those cases account for less than a fraction of a percent of all tested results. That is what they call a fluke. It's just like the people who managed to create free energy in a coffee mug on accident and could never reproduce that effect or people who go into Remission from Cancer without any treatment. These things happen every now and then, and though they are inspiring stories to read about they are by no means success stories or even indications that the means by which the results were achieved are in any way reliable or even reproduce-able.

On alternative medicines in general: Wolf's quote is completely true. They're "alternative" because they haven't been proven to be as reliable in research and testing as adjective-less Medicine. Not to mention most alternatives promote in BIG BOLD LETTERS that you need to eat healthy, exercise, etc. In those cases whatever you might be taking for the condition may not even be doing anything, rather it's the lifestyle change of Being Healthy that caused you to Be Healthy. Funny how that works sometimes. This is not a statement of the methodology of Medicine or its production, just a general statement about alternatives that already see wide use. Lots of them are placebos.

Oathbreaker wrote:I think when this knowledge about AIDS-resistant/immune blood started circulating (it was before 2008 because I was still in highschool and I graduated in 2007) my Anatomy teacher decided to spend a day discussing the implications. I vaguely remember that even back then, the only reason anyone -knew- the blood was resistant is because the HIV/AIDS was still alive and well, it just didn't have a way to root itself in the cellular structure and cause immune system problems the way it normally would. So really even if that kind of blood were widely available for transplants to try and remedy the problem, the virus would still be there in the person. It wouldn't be cured at all, just prevented from causing damage. As Spiney said though, it's still not as effective or reliable as just preventing it getting into your system.



On the other hand with alternative medicine or whatever. If several world governments are banning the use of something in Medicine it is because it is known to not work and/or cause enough damage to the body that the benefits simply are not great enough to outweigh that damage. There's no conspiracy to keep the cure out of public hands (although I'll parrot that if such a thing existed it would still cost an extremely pretty penny). I'm absolutely certain you can look somewhere and find a list of drugs that were never released or recalled exactly because of the damage they cause. That pool disinfectant thing is no different. Certainly it was an unconventional idea to start with but when it doesn't produce results it cannot in good faith be given to the public because it will only harm them. Scientifically speaking it is completely possible that someone using an unconventional method might get the desired result, but those cases account for less than a fraction of a percent of all tested results. That is what they call a fluke. It's just like the people who managed to create free energy in a coffee mug on accident and could never reproduce that effect or people who go into Remission from Cancer without any treatment. These things happen every now and then, and though they are inspiring stories to read about they are by no means success stories or even indications that the means by which the results were achieved are in any way reliable or even reproduce-able.

On alternative medicines in general: Wolf's quote is completely true. They're "alternative" because they haven't been proven to be as reliable in research and testing as adjective-less Medicine. Not to mention most alternatives promote in BIG BOLD LETTERS that you need to eat healthy, exercise, etc. In those cases whatever you might be taking for the condition may not even be doing anything, rather it's the lifestyle change of Being Healthy that caused you to Be Healthy. Funny how that works sometimes. This is not a statement of the methodology of Medicine or its production, just a general statement about alternatives that already see wide use. Lots of them are placebos.

Nice post. On the topic of alternative medicines, I don't think that many major western health care providers really approve of alternative medicine, as the way it works as far different, however this doesn't mean it is ineffective by any means.

There's nothing to prove that its effective by any means.

Spiney wrote:There's nothing to prove that its effective by any means.

Yes, but at the turn of the 20th century, many cures we have today were "not proven to be effective" back then.

You keep on mentioning the effectiveness of alternative medicine, but I've seen no evidence to back it up. Where are the double-blind clinical trials? Where is the scientific reasoning on a molecular level behind how the 'cures' work? Where are the peer-reviews and years of testing to ensure that the drugs do, in fact, work in humans, and cause no serious adverse effects?

Frost Mage wrote:Yes, but at the turn of the 20th century, many cures we have today were "not proven to be effective" back then.

Once again, proof? We need to know what information caused you to arrive at the conclusion that alternative medicine works, if we're going to show you where you're wrong.

<.<

What I'm talking about aren't drugs, at least not at the moment. I'm still addressing Spiney's doubt of acupuncture being effective. To that, I give you Exhibit A. Not hard proof, but some studies, and background on what it is.

Frost Mage wrote:

Spiney wrote:There's nothing to prove that its effective by any means.

Yes, but at the turn of the 20th century, many cures we have today were "not proven to be effective" back then.

I don't see how that has an relevance.

Spiney wrote:

Frost Mage wrote:

Spiney wrote:There's nothing to prove that its effective by any means.

Yes, but at the turn of the 20th century, many cures we have today were "not proven to be effective" back then.

I don't see how that has an relevance.

It's relevant because of how we didn't have any clue to what many things did, negative or positive, in this case acupuncture, and therefore, sometimes, we just need to give things a chance, and not wait for all of the hard facts about it doing amazing things.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19160193

The control group had needles stuck in random places, which should have no effect according to acupuncture. The other group received acupuncture in the conventional areas, to relieve pain. As you cannot have a traditional placebo, since the subjects would know if they're not being stabbed, this is the next best thing. And it was shown that pain relief was no different between the control group and the 'real' group, implying that the effect was purely placebo.

http://www.vifab.dk/uk/cochrane+and+alt ... cupuncture?

...the majority of the Cochrane reviews about acupuncture, acupressure, electroacupuncture and moxibustion [concluded] there exists no solid evidence to determine the effectiveness of the treatments. The reviews point out that many of the studies suffer from methodological defects and shortcomings. Furthermore, the number of trial subjects has been limited. Thus most of the overall conclusions are uncertain.

If there was any hard evidence anywhere, it conclusively proved that acnupuncture works better than a placebo, it wouldn't be alternative medicine. There's really nothing else to say on the subject. It hasn't been proven to work.

Frost Mage wrote:It's relevant because of how we didn't have any clue to what many things did, negative or positive, in this case acupuncture, and therefore, sometimes, we just need to give things a chance, and not wait for all of the hard facts about it doing amazing things.

You mean like Thalidomide? We need hard facts and evidence because trying drugs and treatments without them can have devastatingly negative consequences. It'd be unbelievably irresponsible to give something to the general public without doing enough tests to ensure it doesn't harm them, and actually helps cure them. That's true for medicine, alternative medicine, and anything else. The only problem is that by definition, alternative medicine can't be shown to work.

I'm still a believer. Really works wonders IMO. I think that's where we should stop, guys. This is getting a little too heated. I'm going to melt!

There's no reason to stop, is there? I don't believe my previous post indicated I was angry in any way, and I'm able to debate with someone without throwing the pieces on the floor and storming off. Are you going to respond to my points, or give reasons for why you believe in alternative medicine? For all I know, you could have some information that I don't, and I'm open to learning.

It just seems quite clear-cut to me. Alternative medicine, by definition, cannot be proven to be effective. You should realise that anecdotal evidence means nothing, as someone could make a full recovery from whatever the problem was with no medicine at all, in the majority of cases which aren't life-threatening. If subjective evidence can't be trusted (due to the unpredictability of the body and the nature of statistics), and objective evidence shows that there is no effect other than placebo from any alternative drugs / treatments, then I can't see any reason to believe. Quacks exist[ed] for a reason; it's a very lucrative business and people are naive.

I suppose we can continue.

When I'm talking about acupuncture, I'm not talking about that infomercial at 4 o'clock in the morning, I mean genuine, time-tested acupuncture. Really, there haven't been many studies on it, and for that, people have every right to be skeptical. Even I am, to a point. My point is, people have to learn to stop looking for hard facts in anything (something we have been far too engulfed in). And for that, we become ignorant. Now, there are definitely things that DON'T work, and have been backed by research, but until I see a definitive answer that acupuncture does absolutely nothing, or is pure placebo, I have to give it a chance.

If we stop looking for hard facts, we risk another Thalidomide disaster. We must test our drugs and treatments in order to ensure innocent people aren't harmed or killed. When we test to see if a drug is dangerous, we also test to see whether it works. You can't do one without the other. Also, to go further, why should we stop looking for facts? They're facts; truths about our reality.

Also, your position is typical for someone who believes in alternative medicine. You want to definitive proof that acupuncture does nothing? Well, absolute proof only exists in the realm of mathematics, and you'll never get the evidence you need. It's similar to people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy - they want proof that it wasn't. Unfortunately, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, since any holes in their story that you point out can be explained indefinitely.

Looking for facts is absolutely necessary, but if we don't give things a chance once in a while, we'll never know. By the way, I don't expect us to be able to go to Kaiser Permanente to go get an acupuncture treatment, I just want to society to accept acupuncture, and until it is proven ineffective, like I said, I will still believe in it. Sometimes we need to give more respect to other countries' medicines, and this is a great example. It's alright to be skeptic, but when it gets to the point of not trying to prove it one way or the other, you get mass outbreaks of people debating their opinions, and in turn, it gets commercialized, is reproduced by a scam-artist, which is nothing like the original product, and he in turn brings down the entire idea, leaving all hopes of it one day having respect in the ashes. But that's just my two cents. I mean, I have thoughts on 9/11, but this is not the time nor place. >.>

But... you either want absolute proof that acupuncture is ineffective, which can't exist, or you want proof beyond reasonable doubt, which I showed you a few posts ago. Also, any claim that 'if the type of acupuncture is shown to be ineffective, then it wasn't 'real' acupuncture' is not only a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but it's also incorrect. The PubMed study I linked you to had a control group with needles in supposedly ineffective places, and another group with needles where acupuncture experts say they should be, and they got the same result. The study was done with over 4000 people, and they concluded that there was no difference between putting needles in random places, and putting them where 'professionals' say they should be. Why isn't that conclusive enough? What kind of evidence do I need to show you before you consider changing your mind? This isn't a rhetorical question; I genuinely want to know what you'd need to reevaluate your position, because I think I've shown more than enough evidence.

It's irrational to believe in everything until proven otherwise, so I'm unsure why you need alternative medicine to be disproven to stop believing in it, rather than just... not believe in it until it's been shown to work.

If it did genuinely work Frost, it would be a commonplace treatment. But as it stands, its pretty much does nothing and is only effective at parting feeble minded people from their money.

Spiney, Acupuncture is practiced in a country that has a billion people in it. How much more commonplace can you get?

Besides, it does work, just not as the practitioners describe it. Some studies I've read have shown that it works by releasing the brain's natural pain killer and dispersing it through all the needle punctures, thereby relieving pain.

It might simply be the power of suggestion, but I know of several people, (including my dad who was as skeptical of acupuncture as anyone) for whom it worked.

Dark Lord Cam wrote:Spiney, Acupuncture is practiced in a country that has a billion people in it. How much more commonplace can you get?

Besides, it does work, just not as the practitioners describe it. Some studies I've read have shown that it works by releasing the brain's natural pain killer and dispersing it through all the needle punctures, thereby relieving pain.

Thank'ee.

Dark Lord Cam wrote:Spiney, Acupuncture is practiced in a country that has a billion people in it. How much more commonplace can you get?

Besides, it does work, just not as the practitioners describe it. Some studies I've read have shown that it works by releasing the brain's natural pain killer and dispersing it through all the needle punctures, thereby relieving pain.

Okay first, its not something that you go to a hospital and they would prescribe.

Secondly, did you not read Rhyme Asylums ppst detailing how Accupuntcure is placebo?

I did. But these are all just studies. Nothing has yet to be proven conclusively for or against Acupuncture. It works for some people, and really, what else matters?

Besides, there are many medicines out there prescribed by witch doctors that actually turned out to be effective which we then adopted. That's all "medicine" is these days. Alternative treatments that have proven to work.

Dark Lord Cam wrote:Nothing has yet to be proven conclusively for or against Acupuncture.

Not true, actually. By marvelous coincidence, I happened to be paging through the latest issue of National Geographic this evening and came across and article about an acupuncture experiment in rats. The point just below the knee, called the zusanli, is present in humans as well and is used to treat a variety of conditions in traditional acupuncture. The rodents receiving the needles produced substantially less of the molecule neuropeptide Y, a molecule causing stress in rats, when in a controlled stressful environment. It's considered to be the first molecular proof that acupuncture relieves stress.