tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post7938341150263387269..comments2024-03-05T00:59:35.390+08:00Comments on Angry Doctor: Always the last place you lookangry dochttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comBlogger118125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-56143695431867068502012-12-31T04:52:16.435+08:002012-12-31T04:52:16.435+08:00This can't really have effect, I think like th...This can't really have effect, I think like this.<br /><a href="http://rotakisti1987.posterous.com/nice-tadalafil-extremely-lilly-speculate-subs" rel="nofollow"> do not forget check</a> | <a href="http://puqoliar.monblogger.com/" rel="nofollow">check 2</a> | <a href="http://class-icks.tumblr.com" rel="nofollow"> also 5</a> <a href="http://godgunsandguts.tumblr.com" rel="nofollow">you may 7</a> | <a href="http://daheinge.xanga.com/" rel="nofollow">this 6</a> | <a href="http://fovaboll.xanga.com/" rel="nofollow"> do not forget site</a> <a href="http://comueyre.xanga.com/" rel="nofollow"> also 1</a> | <a href="http://tebarank.blogotek.net/" rel="nofollow"> also 2</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-29220618593243587422007-11-25T21:35:00.000+08:002007-11-25T21:35:00.000+08:00Annon 12.35pmthis is rude! what it is to be civil?...Annon 12.35pm<BR/><BR/>this is rude! what it is to be civil? unfortunately you do not know how to.-LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-33172709895590544032007-11-20T12:35:00.000+08:002007-11-20T12:35:00.000+08:00"Belief" as in I've seen cases where acupuncture (..."Belief" as in I've seen cases where acupuncture (as a case in point)works. I question & evaluate it too.<BR/><BR/>so it's not belief as in faith based/religious based where you believe banging a wall repeatedly will turn it into a door type.(well, not exactly a good eg. offhand but hope you get it).<BR/><BR/>thus *really* not apples to apples. :)<BR/>________________<BR/><BR/>LH are you stupid or just being stubborn and argumentative? <BR/><BR/>When you are not going around in circles you go off-tangent. No one is disputing that needling the skin produces certain effects. Where is your evidence of invisible qi??? If you can't produce the evidence than you might as well claim that invisible demons are the cause. Get it???? <BR/><BR/>Studies already show that there is no demonstrable qi and that the pain relief occurs even when the needles are inserted into non-acupuncture points. <BR/><BR/>Belief without evidence *IS* not only faith based but also cowdung thinking however you may wish to deny it. <BR/><BR/>Belief AGAINST contrary evidence is going a step further - plain idiotic. Whoever wrote that "Ignorance can cured but stupidity is forever" must have you and your cow-dung thinking ilk in mind.<BR/><BR/>"so it's not belief as in faith based/religious based..."<BR/><BR/>Of course it is! Believing in imaginary gods, invisible demons or invisible qi without evidence *IS* faith based. Yes you can be stubborn and deny it all you want but you can't change this fact.<BR/><BR/>I don't know why rational and intelligent people like Angrydoc and others even bother to respond to a stubborn and argumentative moron like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-85633806728181968012007-11-19T22:52:00.000+08:002007-11-19T22:52:00.000+08:00Your belief in invisible qi (blocked) is no differ...Your belief in invisible qi (blocked) is no different to the Coboclos' belief of invisible demons being the underlying cause of ailments and illness. You BOTH share a faith-based belief system.<BR/><BR/>Hi PZ,<BR/>"Belief" as in I've seen cases where acupuncture (as a case in point)works. I question & evaluate it too.<BR/><BR/>so it's not belief as in faith based/religious based where you believe banging a wall repeatedly will turn it into a door type.(well, not exactly a good eg. offhand but hope you get it). <BR/><BR/>thus *really* not apples to apples. :)<BR/><BR/><BR/>'Of course, how much of that translates to the patients through the practitioners and media is another matter altogether.'<BR/><BR/>Hi Angry Doc,that's true and it's indeed a bit of a problem. While you have explained that some of tcm has its roots in unscientific theory and methods, science has yet be able to refut some of "tcm's results" yet.<BR/><BR/>-LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-46183793708453196502007-11-18T13:24:00.000+08:002007-11-18T13:24:00.000+08:00"It's also baffling hearing that more practitioner..."It's also baffling hearing that more practitioners have obtained further qualitications in acupucture as in the news recently."<BR/><BR/>As oz bloke wrote on a comment in another post, MOH's guidelines are that acupuncture provided by western doctors are to be "in accordance with current clinical evidence". For conditions where evidence is lacking or where acupuncture is provided as a part of a clinical trial, full disclosure and proper informed consent are to be made.<BR/><BR/>This shows that hype aside, the MOH acknowledges the difference between sticking needles into people relieving some condtions, and *acupucture* *working*. Of course, how much of that translates to the patients through the practitioners and media is another matter altogether.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-43552073484960439812007-11-18T12:40:00.000+08:002007-11-18T12:40:00.000+08:00From what you said, then "not making sense (of a b...<B>From what you said, then "not making sense (of a belief) doesn't make it false either"</B> -LH<BR/><BR/>Certainly, I agree. <BR/><BR/>Making or <I>not</I> making sense is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of beliefs. <BR/><BR/><B>I think this notion comes in because of the way a qn about comparing 'qi' and 'demons'.</B><BR/><BR/>Your belief in invisible qi (blocked) is no different to the Coboclos' belief of invisible demons being the underlying cause of ailments and illness. You BOTH share a faith-based belief system and as Angrydoc had pointed out earlier *IS* comparing "apples to apples" - something you keep refuting and are still refuting.<BR/><BR/>Can you explain how your faith-based belief system is different to that of the Coboclos?<BR/><BR/>PZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-74406230470089120672007-11-18T11:44:00.000+08:002007-11-18T11:44:00.000+08:00Hi PZ,i nearly missed seeing yr comment since this...Hi PZ,<BR/><BR/>i nearly missed seeing yr comment since this has already gone into archives. Just a response which assuming you'll come back and check-<BR/><BR/> Qi" makes sense to you just as much as invisible demons do the Caboclos. The thing is, "making sense" of a belief does not make it true. <BR/><BR/>Just to clarify that this phrase 'make sense' in the context of the previous posts has nothing to do with 'belief'. I think this notion comes in because of the way a qn about comparing 'qi' and 'demons'.<BR/><BR/>It's may not be appropriate to reduce all of tcm philosophy to just "invisible qi" and goes into a philosophical discussion on beliefs, faith, demons etc.<BR/><BR/>From what you said, then "not making sense (of a belief) doesn't make it false either". <BR/><BR/>I surmise your point is about *evidence-based* both in theory and outcome aspects. It's also baffling hearing that more practitioners have obtained further qualitications in acupucture as in the news recently.<BR/><BR/>-LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-59484396590492411782007-11-16T21:18:00.000+08:002007-11-16T21:18:00.000+08:00Hi LH,"making sense of 'qi' and 'demon' are 2 diff...Hi LH,<BR/><BR/><B>"making sense of 'qi' and 'demon' are 2 different things. As to *why*- sorry I don't know how to explain."</B><BR/><BR/>You can’t make sense of demons because most of us no longer hold the primitive beliefs of say the Amazonian tribes of the Caboclos, Manioc, Kayapo and the Witoto, who believe demons are the cause of illness.<BR/><BR/>Whether you think such beliefs silly and ludicrous, undoubtedly it makes sense to these primitive people. If it did not then of course they too would reject this belief. <BR/><BR/>"Qi" makes sense to you just as much as invisible demons do the Caboclos. The thing is, "making sense" of a belief does not make it true. <BR/><BR/>The fact is both are faith-based belief systems and identical. <BR/><BR/>Invisible demons or invisible qi may "make sense" to the people who believe them but that doesn't make it true or appear less ludicrous and silly to those who see through the lens of evidence-based belief.<BR/><BR/>PZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-59918879205989270682007-11-16T16:17:00.000+08:002007-11-16T16:17:00.000+08:00Hi Doc,However from a religious and spiritual poin...Hi Doc,<BR/><BR/><B>However from a religious and spiritual point of view there have been many accounts of healing done by religious figures eg Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>One wonders how that would fit in?</B> - Dr Oz Bloke<BR/><BR/>Religion, to my knowledge, doesn't purport to be a system or modality of cure for illness. <BR/><BR/>The cures claimed and referenced in religious magic-books usually done by messianic religious figures point to miracles and divine intervention of sky fairies and not meant to imply first-line medical therapy.<BR/><BR/>The answer is, religion wouldn't fit in medically, otherwise, Christians would go to their priests or Jews their rabbis when sick.<BR/><BR/><B>Can science prove the Christianity faith? Or the Buddhist faith? Or Islamic faith? Or Taoist faith? Or Hindu faith? etc etc</B><BR/><BR/>If existence of invisible sky fairies can be proven the word FAITH need not be invoked. And the wicked sky fairy need not threaten you with torture in hell for all eternity if you do not believe in her.<BR/><BR/>As Sam Harris puts it so succinctly - <I>"Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe in their God when reasons fail.</I> <BR/><BR/>PZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-44487298616840320782007-11-16T16:11:00.000+08:002007-11-16T16:11:00.000+08:00LH,Thanks for continuing to read and comment.I thi...LH,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for continuing to read and comment.<BR/><BR/>I think for the 'second' part we are more or less in agreement.<BR/><BR/>"On this thread, I'm trying to understand why, if some aspects of tcm has shown results, why there is still so much backlash and somewhat vehemant objections from med professionals."<BR/><BR/>Because just because *some* aspects of TCM have shown results does not mean that *all* of TCM work, and it is important for people to make that distinction. As an analogy, imagine if doctors claimed that just because antibiotics works for some diseases/infections, *all* of western medicine works.<BR/><BR/>"making sense of 'qi' and 'demon' are 2 different things. As to *why*- sorry I don't know how to explain."<BR/><BR/>If you can't explain why qi and demon are different, then you also cannot dispute someone who claims that they are the same, can you? :)<BR/><BR/>We all come to this blog, these discussions, with our own sets of experiences and prejudices. One of the things I hope we can do here to to present and look at evidence, and consider them critically even when they are contrary to our own cherished beliefs, or beliefs which we have never questioned.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-89781477869351120932007-11-16T16:00:00.000+08:002007-11-16T16:00:00.000+08:00"You need to explain why you consider one form of ..."You need to explain why you consider one form of explanation which invokes an invisible entity as making more sense than another."<BR/><BR/>I am not evading. If I can answer,I would, but I can't because I really think it's not apples to apples.It's something like asking why would believing in God makes more sense than believing in ghosts?(since both are invisible)<BR/><BR/>The Goldilocks story I posted is to illustrate the fact that unless there is an independently verifiable mechanism of action which can be observed, any theory which invokes invisible forces can be used to 'explain' observed phenomenon, even when they have no basis in reality, and no one will be able to dispute it.<BR/><BR/>ok i understand-this one is clearer-you are asking why would I believe/make sense to me that the observed phemomemon (the acupuncture relieves pain)is due to "qi" and not 'demon'-since both are invisible? if this understanding is correct, then back to above- I still don't think it's apples to apples because making sense of 'qi' and 'demon' are 2 different things. As to *why*- sorry I don't know how to explain. it's not that I don't want to.<BR/><BR/>-LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-47264945176383962842007-11-16T15:48:00.000+08:002007-11-16T15:48:00.000+08:00"On the second part we are in disagreement only ov..."On the second part we are in disagreement only over definitions"<BR/><BR/>yes, i agree-although many patients do equate being offered an option by their dr as a form of hope-ok. I think you have understand the point already.Because there are cases where pts do not even get this offer of option-not because there wasn't any probably, but because the dr isn't willing to consider any (probably they regard 'em as outside scientifically proven & tested scope).I hope you understand I'm not talking abt shamans,voo doo etc).This is from my encounters with people who shared their experiences, and I do not claim for all.<BR/><BR/>On this thread, I'm trying to understand why, if some aspects of tcm has shown results, why there is still so much backlash and somewhat vehemant objections from med professionals. After all, there is asymmetry of knowledge here. <BR/><BR/>simple eg: a) Broke leg>op> after op>can walk w/o pain = no issue.<BR/><BR/>b) Broke leg>op>after op>can walk>got aches>leg weak etc..=dr recommends physio, gives painkillers..<BR/><BR/>To stress that this is a very simplified situation. There can be many variables to affect outcomes. But people is likely to turn to tcm for relief if the dr can't further improves the situation to (b)And we hear drs saying people are ignorant, turning to 'unproven mtds'that undo their work... <BR/><BR/>so what extent has such feedback actually help the patient. if according to tcm philosopy-eating/avoiding certain food to faciliate healing post op. works, then why not? (I don;t refer to nutritional science here).<BR/><BR/>If the conclusion is clear to all that acupuncture (as an eg)isn't working-it's all a farce-then fine (with me at least). I'd think I have gained a new knowledge to learn how to make better health related decisions. <BR/><BR/>-LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-59208422547574673392007-11-16T12:38:00.000+08:002007-11-16T12:38:00.000+08:00Yes. Essentially we are talking about things which...Yes. Essentially we are talking about things which are "the substance of things hoped for, of evidence not seen".<BR/><BR/>"angrydoc's camps arguments are basically about treatment related to health and how they MUST be proven via scientific research methods before they can be used and recommended for the various conditions they are alleged to be able to treat."<BR/><BR/>Again, yes. The *efficacy* of a method must be proven, preferably over a control group (with or without placebo and blinding).<BR/><BR/>However, this must be done with the understanding that any efficacy observed does not automatically mean that the theory behind the method is correct. The Goldilocks story I posted is to illustrate the fact that unless there is an independently verifiable mechanism of action which can be observed, any theory which invokes invisible forces can be used to 'explain' observed phenomenon, even when they have no basis in reality, and no one will be able to dispute it.<BR/><BR/>"However from a religious and spiritual point of view there have been many accounts of healing done by religious figures eg Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/>One wonders how that would fit in?"<BR/><BR/>My simple observation of that, the religious beliefs behind notwithstanding, is that judging from the number of patients you and I have to see, oz bloke, there simply aren't enough of these healers around!<BR/><BR/>"As long as people continue to do get positive results with a form of "unproven" treatment, that treatment will be continued to be explored by people who are seeking help."<BR/><BR/>Say rather that as long as people continue to *think* they get positive results with a form of unproven treatment, they will continue to seek it.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-29944458601810147622007-11-16T08:44:00.000+08:002007-11-16T08:44:00.000+08:00"On the first part you are merely evading the ques..."On the first part you are merely evading the question. You need to explain why you consider one form of explanation which invokes an invisible entity as making more sense than another. We *are* comparing apples to apples."<BR/><BR/>Hi Angry doc,<BR/><BR/>actually TCM has a bit of spiritual component in its history. However this has been suppressed recently by the TCM board at least locally.<BR/><BR/>So there might be some weight in comparing the TCM theories of Qi and Yin/Yang to spiritual philosophies eg spirits/ghosts etc.<BR/><BR/>After reading many many arguments from both sides it appears that angrydoc's camps arguments are basically about treatment related to health and how they MUST be proven via scientific research methods before they can be used and recommended for the various conditions they are alleged to be able to treat.<BR/><BR/>However, the nature of TCM does include some element of spirituality, spirit controlling the body etc. In a way that almost means a religion of some sorts with a strong faith element.<BR/><BR/>Now if TCM was merely a religion and did not engage in healing activities to the extent of becoming part of the nation's health care system, I doubt angry doc and supporters would bother with it. <BR/><BR/>However from a religious and spiritual point of view there have been many accounts of healing done by religious figures eg Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/>One wonders how that would fit in? <BR/><BR/>Sorry to bring in the religious element but I wasn't the one who started it. Angrydoc's comment about ghosts and spirits being invisible like Qi just got me thinking.<BR/><BR/>Can science prove the Christianity faith? Or the Buddhist faith? Or Islamic faith? Or Taoist faith? Or Hindu faith? etc etc?<BR/><BR/>Interestingly historically in the old days, science was held back many times due to the religious powers being more influential in society. Scientists who had new (now we know correct) theories of the universe were thrown in jail for being blasphemous.<BR/><BR/>Today, science and religion have drawn a line and they have well marked out territories.<BR/><BR/>This debate will never end. As long as people continue to do get positive results with a form of "unproven" treatment, that treatment will be continued to be explored by people who are seeking help.Dr Oz blokehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876294124443628182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-44095338409318515862007-11-15T12:00:00.000+08:002007-11-15T12:00:00.000+08:00LH,On the second part we are in disagreement only ...LH,<BR/><BR/>On the second part we are in disagreement only over definitions: I consider advice to seek acupuncture for symptoms which it has been proven to work for as offering an option, not offering hope.<BR/><BR/>On the first part you are merely evading the question. You need to explain why you consider one form of explanation which invokes an invisible entity as making more sense than another. We *are* comparing apples to apples.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-46815181384300569872007-11-15T10:15:00.000+08:002007-11-15T10:15:00.000+08:00"I mean to say, if most people find accupuncture (..."I mean to say, if most people find accupuncture (as a case in point) works and you don't-because the theory don't support, is it being a bit hung-up over 'theory' ... but I think somethings really can't be explained by science yet."<BR/><BR/>This is exactly cow-dung thinking. <BR/><BR/>By this reasoning, by all means visit your favourite shaman, voodoo doctor or snake oil salesman for the latest miracle cures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-34343119521985979952007-11-15T10:00:00.000+08:002007-11-15T10:00:00.000+08:00"I mean to say, if most people find accupuncture (..."I mean to say, if most people find accupuncture (as a case in point) works and you don't-because the theory don't support, is it being a bit hung-up over 'theory' ... but I think somethings really can't be explained by science yet."<BR/><BR/>So you shouldn't have any problem undergoing caning therapy and be caned by an old man from Malayasia to cure your ailment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-24487328514504170072007-11-15T09:39:00.000+08:002007-11-15T09:39:00.000+08:00But why does invisible qi make more sense to you t...But why does invisible qi make more sense to you than invisible demons?<BR/>------------<BR/>..Overheard<BR/><BR/>"Objection.This is a (mis)leading paraphased question as invisibility and demons are outside the topic. It subtlely implied that making sense out of tcm is comparable to that-which is not apple to apple"<BR/><BR/><BR/>sesame magistrate :"Objection sustained. The question thus need not be answered."<BR/><BR/>"To profess an ability to heal that one does not possess is to be a quack."<BR/><BR/>sesame magistrate : "People may turn to aspects of tcm when they are looking for alternative/complementary relief methods. For a healer who is willing to explore other safe options (offers hope)does not mean 'recommend other options without requiring some proof of efficacy.' since a mode of therapy works, but noted there are disagreements on the 'theory'and what aspects of tcm works. <BR/>Those who are unsure if you are seeing a quack/qualifies as a quack can reference to www.quackometer.net (at own risk).<BR/><BR/>Don't be too upset or happy at the results although it could be derived scientifically.<BR/><BR/>Time to visit Goldlilocks. I heard she went to seek treatment for knee pain.<BR/><BR/>--------<BR/>-LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-28324331324205017672007-11-14T10:09:00.000+08:002007-11-14T10:09:00.000+08:00"A doctor's job is to offer advice and options bas..."A doctor's job is to offer advice and options based on knowledge. To profess an ability to heal that one does not possess is to be a quack."<BR/><BR/>That accusation can be made of many oncologists as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-10872122573039650592007-11-13T23:11:00.000+08:002007-11-13T23:11:00.000+08:00"the key word here is "make sense" -of the maze of..."the key word here is "make sense" -of the maze of info in making healthcare decision as a non-tech person and hearing different opinions."<BR/><BR/>But why does invisible qi make more sense to you than invisible demons?<BR/><BR/>"it seems a bit queer hearing that you don't think a doc's job is to offer hope."<BR/><BR/>A doctor's job is to offer advice and options based on knowledge. To profess an ability to heal that one does not possess is to be a quack.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-32374736340003576992007-11-13T22:46:00.000+08:002007-11-13T22:46:00.000+08:00"If something cannot be explained by science, how ..."If something cannot be explained by science, how do you know it is true?" <BR/><BR/>that qn comes about because you equate truth as something 'justifiable by science'(only).It can become a general qn,but back to topic, <BR/>I just said that I think not *everything* can be explained by science" and I suspect (suspect only) that's why people are trying tcm in those areas where there are observed phenomenon (to quote your phase) because they see it works.and yes, knowing that you have said that "the explaination is more likely wrong"...<BR/><BR/>"If you accept any explanation which seems to make sense, then why would invisible qi be more acceptable to you than an invisible demon? "<BR/><BR/>Gd qn-except that if I had accept any explanation which seems to make sense, then we'd not be discussing this! see, the key word here is "make sense" -of the maze of info in making healthcare decision as a non-tech person and hearing different opinions.<BR/><BR/>"I think maybe that's where our difference is: I don't think a doctor's job is to offer hope;"<BR/> <BR/>it seems a bit queer hearing that you don't think a doc's job is to offer hope. you may realise the contrary someday.maybe it's part of the doc's expected role-a bit like if you are a nurse you are expected to be gentle and caring (but nurses (they are only humans..)do have a temper!).<BR/><BR/>so don't worry, you are not hope-less yet.<BR/><BR/>*pause* am hopeful <BR/><BR/>-LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-30226221392441323122007-11-13T17:54:00.000+08:002007-11-13T17:54:00.000+08:00"Not to say that I'll believe everything and anyth..."Not to say that I'll believe everything and anything that cannot be proven by science, but I think somethings really can't be explained by science yet."<BR/><BR/>If something cannot be explained by science, how do you know it is true? If you accept any explanation which seems to make sense, then why would invisible qi be more acceptable to you than an invisible demon?<BR/><BR/>"I mean most are usually looking for other hopes when they ask that."<BR/><BR/>I think maybe that's where our difference is: I don't think a doctor's job is to offer hope; I think a doctor's job is to give his advice and opinion based on his knowledge, which should be evidence-based.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-33901538324218554772007-11-13T17:29:00.000+08:002007-11-13T17:29:00.000+08:00Looks like I still only get it 50% right with your...Looks like I still only get it 50% right with your "Yes and No " reply.<BR/><BR/>"Why should they have lower standards of proof for 'other options'? Why should you?<BR/><BR/>I will be dismayed if doctors recommend other options without requiring some proof of efficacy."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I mean to say, if most people find accupuncture (as a case in point) works and you don't-because the theory don't support, is it being a bit hung-up over 'theory'. Not to say that I'll believe everything and anything that cannot be proven by science, but I think somethings really can't be explained by science yet. I am not saying tcm is all accurate etc,but some principles and advice in MYB for eg. seems to make sense-like the article I referred previously(altho' you may "pooh pooh" it and say there is no scientific reason that thyroid problem is related to "weak qi" etc)I thought it's quite exasperating when you ask doctors what they think of tcm as offering some alternative relief and we get the *disapproving look*- I mean most are usually looking for other hopes when they ask that.-LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-57417558808670920702007-11-12T23:33:00.000+08:002007-11-12T23:33:00.000+08:00"I know you are making a distinction between acupu..."I know you are making a distinction between acupuncture having an observed effect of relieving pain but without sound scientific theory behind makes it "wolly" and dubious-is that right?"<BR/><BR/>Yes and no. The observed effects are not really 'woolly' since it is demonstrable; the 'explanation' is not just woolly, but more likely 'wrong' as demonstrated by the findings.<BR/><BR/>"if still no, then I also don't need to clarify part 2 (where *you* still don't get it too)"<BR/><BR/>This part I don't get. What is part 2?angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-65033268957810585282007-11-12T22:48:00.000+08:002007-11-12T22:48:00.000+08:00" No, you still don't get it, LH."I see that you h..." No, you still don't get it, LH."<BR/><BR/>I see that you have taken the efforts to try and explain and I do appreciate that for a meaningful discussion. There's a few points in there I wanted to clarify which I think by your response didn't interpret it the way I wanted it to be. I know you are making a distinction between acupuncture having an observed effect of relieving pain but without sound scientific theory behind makes it "wolly" and dubious-is that right? if still no, then I also don't need to clarify part 2 (where *you* still don't get it too)-LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com