Re: Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF. Alternatives that do work for many.

[Guest guest]

I agree with much that you say, and, as I've stated before, don't agree with

some things. I think that " anecdotal " evidence of people's understanding of the

universe and how it works, as well as understanding the human body and how it

works goes way back eons before modern medicine and/or modern science. Take for

example the Mayan Calender. It is very accurate, even today.

Take certain ancient points on earth, for example the great pyramid a giza and

the site at machu pichu (spelling?) which, by the way I've been to. These things

are astronomically placed, the huge stones had no mortar between them and they

are still standing today. There are many things I could point to that are not

out of the modern science books, but are valid.

 

As far as modern medicine, it's all due to Rockefeller.

 

http://www.sntp.net/fda/piper_griffin.htm

 

 

 

Roni

 

From: <res075oh@...>

hypothyroidism ; JAMES <res075oh@...>

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 1:57 PM

Subject: Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF. Alternatives that do work for

many.

It would be helpful if you would address the words I actually write

rather than depending upon a less than stellar memory.  I have never

once referred to " scientific proof " as proving anything; quite the

opposite.  I have every post I've ever posted here and am willing to

address any supposed foolish statement about " scientific proof " that you

can bring up.  Please see more below...

..

..

>      Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

>     

<mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20PROOF%2E%20%20Alternat\

ives%20that%20do%20work%20for%20many%2E>

>      khusha8 <khusha8>

>

>

>        Fri May 13, 2011 10:19 am (PDT)

>

>

>

>

> Hi, .

>

> Finally you have corrected yourself on the proper usage of " scientific

> proof " which you have used here ad nauseam. I hope you don't write

> again about the " lack of scientific proof " of whatever other people

> are discussing.

..

..

What I have mentioned is lack of scientific support.  I have never

quoted lack of scientific proof; that would be indeed foolish for me to

the point of stupidity.  I'm sure I've never been that stupid on this

list.  I challenge you to post a single example. Absolute scientific

proof does not exist.  When in the vernacular we refer to [scientific]

proof what we really have reference to is having a high degree of

confidence in the validity of the support for a proposition.

..

..

>

> For thousands of years millions of people have been using Acupuncture

> successfully. If you want to call that mere anecdotal evidence with no

> importance, go ahead.

..

..

Anecdotal evidence is of insufficient validity to be used in credible

research.  Whether it is of importance or not is MOL a matter of opinion

and varies from one subject to another.  Personally I sometimes find it

important and sometimes not; but if I were competent to conduct credible

scientific research [i'm not] then I would not use it therein.  What I

have said is that whatever credible research that has been done on

acupuncture has failed to find beneficial results above chance or

placebo.  You seem to have twisted that around to mean  I'm saying that

there is scientific proof that it does not work and that is simply not

correct.  Not only is it not correct but it is the kind of statement

that no one who is more than vaguely familiar with the scientific method

would ever make.

..

..

>

> But I'd like to remind you that anecdotal evidence can be of supreme

> importance. Just because you say it isn't it does not mean it is true.

> It is no the world according to .

..

..

Please stop attributing to me statements that I have never made.  I

suggest you quote my posts and dispute specific statements therein as

I'm doing here.  It's pretty tiring to continually have to correct your

inaccurate quotes of my statements.  Once again:  Anecdotal evidence is

of no value in credible scientific research.  That scientific research

has failed to support the effacy of acupuncture above chance or placebo.

IMHO the main value of anecdotal evidence to scientists is to suggest

fields of investigation.  And it may [or may not] surprise you that

sometimes the anecdotal evidence is correct and the scientists wrong. 

The best example I recall is rocks falling from the sky.  A few

centuries back there was no known mechanism by which rocks could fall

from the sky without human intervention, as scientific evidence and

theories of meteorites were lacking.  When peasants and other common

people reported exactly that happening they were pooh-poohed by the

scientists of the day, who suggested that a prankster was tossing the

rocks while no one was watching.  IIRC it was, however, scientists who

established that the anecdotal reports were correct and that the

perceived wisdom of science was wrong.

..

..

> In addition when a patient is cured (or improved) after Acupuncture

> treatments and this has been corroborated by multiple tests plus the

> diagnosis of reputable medical doctor (s), it is no longer considered

> " anecdotal evidence " .

..

..

It is in fact anecdotal evidence.  That does not necessarily mean that

it is wrong; it simply means that it does not meet the criteria required

in credible research.

..

..

> It becomes a fact.

..

..

Unfortunately we do not have any absolute facts as to the physical

attributes of material objects.  NONE AT ALL.  We have what you, I and

everyone else considers established " facts " ; however to a scientists

these are simply very well supported and the underlying theories are

well understood.  For a " fact " to exist there cannot be an alternative

explanation [no matter how remote] consistent with the tenants of

science, and there is always an alternative explanation.

..

..

> The patient has been cured or improved as a result of Acupuncture

> treatment and not magic.

..

..

Perhaps [???].  In any event I cannot prove it wrong.  I CAN report that

[1] no credible scientific study has ever been able to show consistent

benefits for acupuncture above chance or placebo; and [2] There are no

credible theories as to how it might work; and [3] Such theories that

are presented as to how it works often are in direct conflict with well

established laws of physics.

..

..

> You can argue all you want, anything can be argued... on and on.

..

..

Anything can be debated.  It would be helpful if in your debate you

would accurately quote me.

..

..

>

> BTW. Do you call a spacecraft's flight around the Earth anecdotal

> evidence on the planets spherical shape? You say there is no

> " scientific proof " of the theory of the Earth being a sphere?

..

..

There is no such thing as " scientific proof " .  A proposition [the earth

is spherical, not flat] is either supported or not.  I used that example

to demonstrate the requirements of absolute facts and absolute proof.  I

do not doubt the Earth is a sphere; the evidence is utterly

overwhelming.  My point is that the rigorous nature of absolute proof

has not been met, since there is an alternate explanation consistent

with the known laws of physics.  An extremely remote and unlikely

explanation to be sure; but that does not matter.

..

..

>

> the Earth's roundness is not a theory and it has not been for

> centuries, neither is the efficacy of Acupuncture. THEY ARE BOTH

> FACTS. Update yourself `cause your scientific knowledge is stale and

> myopic.

..

..

Unfortunately you are in no position to critique my scientific

knowledge.  Nor, most likely, of logic.

..

..

>

> This forum is described by as a forum created to discuss

> alternatives to the treatment of Hypothyroidism. Why are you on this

> forum?

..

..

This forum has evolved, and both alternative and allopathic practices

are cussed and discussed here.  I'm here because I'm a hypothyroid

patient and because I hope to learn about the ailment; AND because I

want to prevent patients from being harmed by con artists and quacks.

..

..

> For years now I've seen you consistently detract from and even attack

> those who share their favorable results with alternative medicine.

..

..

That is simply not true.  In accordance with accepted practices of valid

debate I attack POSITIONS; not people.  There is not one example herein

AFAIK where I have attacked you or any other person.  Your position is

lacking in " facts " and your statements about the nature of science are,

well, elementary; as is your use of logic.  Not to mention that you seem

to have a major problem in responding to what I write rather than some

other crap that you make up.

I HAVE attacked some well established con artists who prey upon the

desperation, fear and ignorance of patients who often may be poor and

totally untrained in their ailment.  I see no need to apologize for that.

..

..

> Your argumentativeness and persistent attacks on Acupuncture,

> Homeopathy and many other forms of alternative medicine are truly

> unconscionable as well as questionable.

..

..

So you consider it unconscionable to point out that there is no

scientific support for the effacy of acupuncture and homeopathy??? 

Those are simple " facts " and anyone should be able to point them out

without being attacked as " Unconscionable/questionable " .  If my

statements are wrong, first QUOTE THEM CORRECTLY and then point out how

they are wrong.

..

..

> With your pseudoscientific circular arguments you might have dissuaded

> some whose life could have been improved by Acupuncture etc.

..

..

You are not equipped to accurately critique my scientific posits; pseudo

or otherwise.

..

..

>

> By the way. How do you find the time to write so much on this group?

> You write everyday for years. Don't you have something better to do

> since you claim to be a " scientist " ?

..

..

To put it rather bluntly, the statement is a lie.  I have repeatedly

posted here that I am not a scientist nor a doctor and that I have no

credentials in any field whatsoever.  AFAIK Chuck is the only scientist

on the group.  I do happen to bump into him on other groups in which we

have a common interest.

..

..

>

> Quit bulling

..

..

When you posted the word " bulling " before I thought you had some

reference to " shooting bull " .  I now believe you mean " bullying " . 

Whether you consider posting well established facts as " shooting bull "

or " bullying " does not make it so.  If my facts are wrong then QUOTE ME

CORRECTLY and point out where they are wrong.  That's not " shooting

bull " or " bullying.

..

..

> those who want to discuss Acupuncture, Homeopathy and other

> alternative methods on this group.

..

..

Anyone can discuss alternative or allopathic practices here.  Any other

person can point out where said discussion is lacking in credible

support.  After all, you do sometimes see allopathic practitioners

referred to as " stupid " or " quacks " .

..

..

> Stop using well known detracting / confusing tactics to sidetrack the

> issues that other members of this group wish to discuss.

..

..

If I post unsupported " facts " then you should be free to point that

out.  However, PLEASE QUOTE ME CORRECTLY.

..

..

> (The theory of the Earth being spherical?!!

> ! LOL)

..

..

I was once so naive; but I grew up and MOL got an education.  Not formal

in most cases [no credentials, remember?].

..

..

>

> And , you simply don't know as much as you claim to know.

..

..

Then kindly point out any " fact " that I have stated that is incorrect. 

I challenge you to find even one; although I'm aware that I and everyone

else sometimes make mistakes.

..

..

> You are the dark ages of this group: ignorance disguise as knowledge

> with a pinch of arrogance.

..

..

If I am " ignorant " then it should be simple for you to point out a great

number of my statements that are inaccurate.  The fact is we are ALL

ignorant; just different levels in different fields.  The knowledge of

one's own ignorance tends to limit arrogance.

..

..

> You practice intellectual terrorism here... everyday.

..

..

If you consider pointing out that something [anything] is unsupported by

credible scientific research is terrorism then perhaps you know as

little about terrorism as you do science.

..

..

>

> Acupuncture might not be for everyone but neither are hormone

> replacement treatment or many other treatments.

>

> .

>

>

> >

> > Hi, . You appear to know very little about science and some of

> > your statements are not accurate. For future reference please allow me

> > to suggest a couple of corrections.

> >

> > First, " scientific proof " . It doesn't exist. Scientists never prove

> > any theory; they only provide evidence in support. We cannot even

> > " prove " [in the strict scientific meaning of " proof " ] that the Earth is

> > [MOL] spherical rather than flat. A theory is considered disproved if

> > even one counter example is found; but NEVER " proved " . That's one of

> > the reasons you may see a scientist wince when a creationist attacks

> > evolution by saying, " Evolution is just a theory; it has never been

> > proved " . It's completely true that it has never been proved, as no

> > theory ever has.

> >

> > As for acupuncture, what you are calling " proof " is actually in your

> > view " very strong supporting evidence " for its effacy. Unfortunately

> > what you consider " very strong supporting evidence " [and call " proof " ]

> > is neither. It is rather anecdotal evidence, which has virtually no

> > value in supporting any scientific proposition.

> >

> > Please see more below...

> > .

> > .

> >

> >

> > > Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

> > > <mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20new%20numbers>

> > > khusha8 <khusha8

> <khusha8>>

> > >

> > >

> > > Mon May 9, 2011 9:53 am (PDT)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Hey " ledbyrain " .

> > >

> > > It is great that you are getting such great results with your current

> > > treatment and it is not unusual that you're improvement has been so

> > > quick. Ask anyone who uses acupuncture and you will find a high rate

> > > of similar stories.

> > .

> > .

> > You will find a ton of adherents to any quack remedy you can name. If

> > you don't believe that then just pick something you consider to be a

> > total hoax and do a Google search on it. Almost without exception every

> > con artist out there will have readily available a list of testimonials

> > for you to peruse.

> > .

> > .

> > >

> > > Acupuncture is very effective treating many diseases although is

> being

> > > blindly ignored by those who say it does not work because there is no

> > > scientific proof. Denouncing acupuncture using what sounds like

> > > scientific language should not detract from the proof provided by

> > > millions of patients though thousand of years.

> > .

> > .

> > Again, you use the word " proof " very loosely. That's okay; but then

> > when you connect the word " proof " to the word " scientific " your

> > statement becomes inaccurate. In everyday expression more than likely

> > you and I will consider it " proved " that the Earth is round rather than

> > flat. But it isn't " scientifically proved " . Further: To state " There

> > is no credible scientific evidence in support " of something does not

> > mean it does not work. It means exactly what it says: Scientific

> > support is lacking. When we get beyond that we come to our opinions.

> > Mine is that since there is not only no credible scientific support for

> > the effacy of acupuncture but the methods by which it is purported to

> > work are flatly contradicted by the best science we have AND that it

> has

> > failed to show benefit above chance or placebo in the credible research

> > that has been undertaken there is no valid reason to suggest that it

> > works as advertised. You come to a different opinion for different

> > reasons. There is no " proof " that either of us is correct.

> > .

> > .

> > >

> > > Scientific proof is something very elastic and it is often applied by

> > > some in a very biased way. Since lots of what we hear to be

> > > " scientific proof " is funded by pharmaceutical companies then

> anything

> > > that does not lead to them making " drug sales " is labeled by them as

> > > " unscientific " .

> > .

> > .

> > IMHO some of the supporting evidence provided by pharmaceutical

> > companies does not pass the smell test, much less any kind of

> scientific

> > test. But again, " scientific proof " is not involved.

> > .

> > .

> > >

> > > Just because some do not understand how the science of acupuncture

> > > works does not mean acupuncture does not work. Millions of people

> > > during thousand of years can not be mistaken, it would be totally

> > > unscientific to say so.

> > .

> > .

> > One of the main reasons to suspect that acupuncture does not work as

> > advertised is that at least some of us DO understand enough of science

> > to know that it cannot possibly work on the principles described, and

> > for a simple reason: They are totally bogus. ly, the term

> > " science of acupuncture " is an oxymoron. Even if it works it is not

> > science.

> > .

> > .

> > >

> > > There is a large amount of evidence supporting alternative medicine

> > > successful treatment of many diseases and there is also mountains of

> > > evidence showing that allopathic medicine sometimes fails to cure

> many

> > > diseases and just simply over medicates with detrimental results to

> > > their patients. This is a scientific fact.

> > .

> > .

> > Absolute facts are a little more elusive than you imagine. Even to

> > scientists. And all of the supporting evidence for acupuncture is

> > anecdotal while every credible scientific effort to confirm its effacy

> > has failed to provide benefits above chance or placebo. And the logic

> > of supporting the effacy of one method of healing with an argument that

> > another method of healing is not totally beneficial is logically

> ridiculous.

> > .

> > .

> > >

> > > There are lots of respected medical doctors and medical institutions

> > > who approve and use acupuncture with great results. Most major

> > > hospitals have acupuncture services today, including The Mayo Clinic.

> > .

> > .

> > Sure, and insurance companies [sometimes, at least] pay for it. You

> > don't suppose that the fact that it is often far less expensive than

> > actual effective treatment has anything to do with that do you?

> > .

> > .

> > >

> > > I'm very glad that you are getting such good results with

> acupuncture.

> > > I had acupuncture treatments many years ago to get rid of asthma with

> > > great results. Like anything else, having a good acupuncturist is

> key.

> > > Unfortunately where I live now I don't have a good one, however not

> > > having a good acupuncturist led me to look and find a great homeopath

> > > who has helped me tremendously.

> > >

> > > If it is working for you as it has worked for many others, that is

> > > enough to suggest that you should continue your path.

> > >

> > > I find it reprehensible that every time someone posts on getting good

> > > results with any alternative medical treatment on this Hypothyroidism

> > > group the same couple of members have to say " there is no scientific

> > > proof " regardless of the fact that a consistent rate of successful

> > > treatmens by any protocol consists of plenty of scientific proof.

> Good

> > > science does not ignore the evidence.

> > .

> > .

> > Good science doesn't ignore credible evidence. Good science ignores

> > anecdotal evidence in credible research, and for very good reasons.

> > Reported beneficial results may create " proof " in your world view but

> > that view has little acquaintance with science. That doesn't mean

> > they're wrong; just what it says: There's no scientific support.

> > .

> > .

> > >

> > > To deny people of a chance of improving their health by means of

> > > biased information that condemns them to a life of taking pills which

> > > in many cases do not cure them and only causes more problems is

> > > absolutely shameful.

> > .

> > .

> > No one is denied a chance to improve their health. Everyone here is

> > allowed to follow any healing regimen they desire. I do deny you the

> > right to distort the meaning of words and to present false " facts "

> about

> > science which are so clearly based upon a lack of knowledge of same. If

> > you post something here, and especially if you recommend [or

> > " prescribe " ] it to others and it not only has no scientific support in

> > credible research but flatly contradicts the most basic tenants of

> > physics and science you should not be surprised if someone points out

> > those facts.

> >

> >

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

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

>

> Finally you have corrected yourself on the proper usage of " scientific proof "

which you have used here ad nauseam. I hope you don't write again about the

" lack of scientific proof " of whatever other people are discussing. ...

Strange, I do not recall ever declaring that alternative approaches suffer

from a lack of scientific proof. A lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary

is very different, as empirical science does admit to DISPROOF or falsification

of a hypothesis.

I would suggest that when you resort to ad hominem attacks, you have already

lost the argument.

Chuck