I don't know what to believe.
Is This News Legit - Science with Medicine from China?
ilove on 04/11/2023 - 04:41
Last edited 04/11/2023 - 10:16 by 1 other user
Last edited 04/11/2023 - 10:16 by 1 other user
Comments
A GOD? invented medicine? just had a quick look
Real person, just deified
Seems like a handy fella to have around.
"Demi-god, architect, priest, and physician, Imhotep (27th century BCE) was a real man, who is credited with designing and building one of the oldest pyramids in Egypt, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara. For nearly 3,000 years he was venerated in Egypt as a semi-divine philosopher, and during the Ptolemaic period, as the god of medicine and healing."
Imagine being able to do all that without an app?
Perhaps the actual source of the study would be more telling then the article, showing what research and data analysis was done
It's the OP; research skills isn't one of their strengths.
and you?
how do you find this?
A 5 second google search, and not reading poor quality news reporting sources or click bait level articles.
superior kerfuffle at it again
Heh, in scientific reports, you're supposed to use past passive wth no pronouns . This report is full of "we's".
The terminology used in the study is in line, most likely, with the quality and robustness of such study ;)
That's a bit outdated I think
LMAO No this is the equivalent of some quack saying they cured their cancer but eating some obscure fruit
Actually the exact.
Questions for the OP to ask.
Does TCM work?
Is it more effective overall than western allopathic medicine?
Why does 3000 year old TCM have to be reconciled to 'modern medicine' which is only a couple of hundred years old (or around 100 if you believe the current 'Rockerfeller medicine paradigm ( https://www.corbettreport.com/rockefeller-medicine-video/ )?
If you have a need now, why would wait for permission from some scientific study to go and see a TCM practitioner?I don't have any particular flag to wave for TCM but if it's been around for that long then it must have some merit, whether it's recognised by the western establishment or not. If in need of care I choose the best and safest mode of treatment depending on what the issue is.
it's too hard to understand… therefore … it's not legit in those eyes…logic…
If you have a need now, why would wait for permission from some scientific study to go and see a TCM practitioner?
You don't. Same way you don't need permission to eat rat poison or drink bleach.
Bug tea ftw.
been around for that long then it must have some merit,
Witchcraft must also have some merit then. 😲
If modern medicine could somehow be said to be reconciled with TCM, then it would probably encourage hundreds of millions of Chinese to rely on modern medicine and could help save lives.
Well that's one or two huge assumptions right there.
if it's been around for that long then it must have some merit
Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Thank you, dear.
By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Oh, how does it work?
It doesn’t work.
Uh-huh.
It’s just a stupid rock.
Uh-huh.
But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Lisa, I want to buy your rock."By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
And is it the intention of the rock to heal a particular ailment?
And you lecture ME about logic? lols.
how many thousands of years did people worship the sun?
length of belief does not equal veracitysigh
I'm not claiming it's effective because it's been around for 3000 years, I'm saying it's been around for 3000 years because it's probably effective.
Needs to be replicable and uses RCTs gold standard.
And unbiased of course - free of nationalism fervor, etc. E.g. TCM was recommended to treat Covid for a long time in China.
Note also SCMP has not been independent for a long time.
Scientists find traditional Chinese medicine …
Please summarise accurately, else message gets diluted as it's passed on. E.g.
Chinese scientists find traditional Chinese medicine …
Snacknack JB hi voucher is up.
Is this news legit?
Is This News Legit - Science with Medicine from China?
This post's title did my head in.
No doubt CHINA stole it from someone else.
Whatever the mainstream tries to convince you is "pseudoscience" means it works, & so is a threat to said mainstream.
Mainstream says not to drink bleach to cure whatever disease/illness you have, so you're gonna be drinking bleach? I'll sell you some. Mainstream bad, I good, I will save you.
Mainstream says not to drink bleach
And I would agree with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hypochlorite
The problem is the "mainstream" deliberately & cleverly confused sodium hypochlorite with sodium chlorite & one of its byproducts (chlorine dioxide) in order to demonise a currently underground health treatment sometimes known as MMS or CDS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_chlorite
Notice where it says: "It is also used for disinfection of municipal water treatment plants after conversion to chlorine dioxide….is approved by FDA under some conditions for disinfecting water used to wash fruits, vegetables, and poultry."
It is this form of sodium chlorite (chlorine dioxide solution) that the mainstream has tried to suppress by linking it to ingesting "bleach" & by attacking health practitioners who use it. How easy it is to fool & manipulate people into demonizing a health treatment. It only works because of ignorance.
Make sure you keep buying and drinking the miracle mineral snake oil.
Make sure you keep buying and drinking the miracle mineral snake oil.
Do you accept being conned by the mainstream?
They've actually peddled disinformation to get you to think a certain way, aren't you upset?
@mrdean: Yeh I feel so conned by mainstream to not drink miracle snake oils.
Will I win your respect if I start buying and drinking these miracle snake oils because you and some randoms told me to???? Only sheeps wouldn't drink it.
How much have you bought and drank? I'll make some and sell you mine. Anyone who tells you not to drink my miracle potion is mainstream and wants to hurt you, Im not big pharma so you can 1000% trust me.
Will I win your respect
I respect people regardless of what they do. You may do what you like.
But what speaks volumes is the fact that you do not in any way respond to what I outlined above about sodium hypochlorite (bleach) & sodium chlorite (chlorine dioxide).
Do you not understand the difference?
Do you not understand the "mainstream" have been telling you chlorine dioxide (MMS, CDS) is the same thing as drinking "bleach" when it is in fact not?
There are two ways you can do things like medicine. Or building bridges. Or whatever else.
There's the pre-scientific way of trying things, and telling other people, who tell the next generation, that they've worked. And trying to create some mythological framework about why they work.
Or there's the scientific way of developing a theoretical framework of how things work, experimenting to see if it does, having other people repeat it and prove or disprove it when they do, to further refine that theoretical framework so you can predict what is likely to work.
It is not surprising that over thousands of years cultures that have continued for that long without discovering science have discovered by accident - good or bad - that some things work and others don't. And that when science looks at what they have found works it has found there the good scientific reasons they do. And its also not surprising that the scientific method of theorising and experimenting and discovering WHY things work or don't has made hugely more progress in hundreds of years than those traditional methods have in thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Traditional medicine, or bridge building, or whatever else, isn't necessarily wrong. People wouldn't have passed on to the next generation ideas about what works if it plainly doesn't. But traditional medicine or bridge building or whatever else doesn't know WHY it works. It takes science to know why.
People wouldn't have passed on to the next generation ideas about what works if it plainly doesn't.
This is self evidentially not correct. Mostly what we're talking about is superstition of the Black Cat and Number 13 variety, re-examined under a scientific lens. Click bait headlines give these superstitions more credibility than they deserve by highlighting the few trivial morsels that do turn out to accidentally have some tangential basis in reality.
This is completely counter to the scientific method, which starts with a disprovable theory based on evidence. Science doesn't go searching for random factoids to support a particular position.
As far as OP's example goes, let's all talk about the health benefits of tiger penises, rhinoceros horn, sun bear gallbladders, and pangolin scales, for example. One could also go on about chemical toxicity, compete inefficacy, and obvious nonsense such as qi.
And let's not get started on western pseudoscience, such as astrology, naturopathy, and 95% of the supplements industry.
Indeed, before the invention of modern medicine you were actually more likely to die from visiting a medical practitioner than by staying home, with the industry rep massively assisted by the fact that the dead were already sick (can't save everyone, right?), while the ones who would have got better anyhow falsely attributed that recovery to the intervention of the medicine man or witchdoctor - kind of like people who took Ivermectin while they had COIVD and then recovered.
This is self evidentially not correct.
Placebo effect. In medicine pretty much anything you believe is going to work does. Unlike bridge building where a belief that the bridge will support you is entirely irrelevant to whether it will.
Of course tiger penises worked. If you believed they would. Just like psychoanalysis.
Placebo effect… perhaps, a bit, but mostly confirmation bias.
mostly confirmation bias
And that is the problem with so much of the "science" I see around that underpins policy. That the people doing it think they are practicing science when their results tend to confirm what they believe. The scientific method is not about proving you are right. Its about proving you are not wrong. As you say it is about disprovable theories. It is about proving there is no reasonable plausible alternative explanation other than what you are proposing that would explain the facts. Not that what you are proposing could explain them. And that's where the paper the OP alludes to is not actually science. It may be interesting, and it is dressed up to look like science with sciencey words. But all it is saying is that that there is a mechanism by which chinese traditional medicine could have some scientific footing. if it does, it is no more than a co-incidence.
Traditional medicine that works is known as main-steam medicine after testing and verification.
The evidence base for clinical treatments is often lacking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-022-06659-4
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31943616/
Look up Imhotep, your head will spin.