SCIENTIFIC PROOF. WAS: new numbers

[Guest guest]

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>

>

>

> 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.

..

..

>

> I wish you perfect health.

>

> Many thanks for sharing your wonderful story.

>

>