Woo...

[DRoseDARs]

...is the sound of not just Roger Bacon (if you don't know who that was you should educate yourself) but every single man and woman throughout thousands of years of history who contributed to what we now recognize as the modern scientific method feverishly trying to claw their way out of their graves to try to figure out what the hell happened, publish research papers on the matter and related subjects in peer-reviewed journals and then cry into their drinks at the nearest bar.

Poking a bunch of needles into someone's skin at pressure points didn't get us to the moon. Diluting mercury in water until it's not there isn't uncovering the Higgs Boson. Clapping as hard as you can to save Tinker Bell won't cure her lung cancer.

Science did. Science is. Science will.

[mike_c]

1. the kick, and the rec....

Yepper.

[Th1onein]

2. Arrogant restatement of arrogant statements.

Pffft.

[DRoseDARs]

3. Yes, the shear arrogance...

...of 10,000+ years of Human endeavor to learn how the universe works beyond the lazy "God did it." or "I'm a medical professional and have 20 years of anecdotal evidence from a sample size of 1, myself, therefore it totally works!" I really hope none of her professors ever see that thread. It may drive them to the bottle too...

[Th1onein]

38. The problem is that you demand that we pay attention to empirical evidence, EXCLUSIVELY.

And that's not how things work. You HAVE to observe, and in that observation, take into account many things. Even those things you call woo. Without that, you have no science, to begin with.

[on point]

64. And that is the start of empirical evidence. Observation, theory test, proof

Anything less is magic thinking not worthy of serious consideration

I suggest you educate yourself on science, scientific method before you make more embarrassing foolish comments that leave you on par with ancient volcano worshippers.

[Th1onein]

73. Your insults are not warranted.

"I suggest you educate yourself on science, scientific method before you make more embarrassing foolish comments that leave you on par....." is rude and unnecessary. Moreover, it does nothing to further your argument.

I am aware of the scientific method; probably more aware than most people. But good luck putting people down just because they disagree with you.

Welcome to Ignore.

[Katashi_itto]

108. Lol!! What a pompous stance

[dorkulon]

100. This statement doesn't mean anything yet.

More specific please. Many things, like what?

[Th1onein]

102. I'll give you an example.

There was this kid. He had cystic fibrosis and he cultured what is known, in that disease, as the harbinger of death, a bacteria called Psuedomonas aeruginosa. He was in his late twenties and had cultured that bacteria for some years. In these patients, that bacteria, once cultured, never goes away, and it leads to eventual destruction of the lung tissue and death.

This kid gets cancer; sarcoma, and he begins a regimen of chemo drugs, one an anthracycline. Bam! He gets rid of the Psuedomonas bacteria; and in fact, it looks like he doesn't have cystic fibrosis anymore, either. His recovery is so astounding, the researchers start looking back: Have you or anyone else ever seemed to recover from this disease after being treated for cancer? Lo and behold, a whole slew of kids have reported this.

Now, you can take those anecdotal reports and you can call them "woo," but if you do, you have lost out on a promising area of research. OR you can start asking questions, such as which drug in this kid's "cocktail" could have caused this reaction? Did it cause a change in immune function? Is that why this kid got well? Eventually, if you ask enough questions, you get a very illuminating answer: The anthracycline drug caused the induction of the expression of a protein that is functionally redundant to the protein that is mutated in the disease, and whose mutation causes the disease. NOW, you have another set of questions: Can you cause that induction with a drug that is not cumulatively cardiotoxic, like the anthracyclines? If you can answer that, and others, such as to do with drug delivery, you've got yourself a treatment for the disease, and a systemic one at that.

[dorkulon]

105. Anecdotal reports are not 'woo,' they're just not very reliable.

Especially anecdotal reports about woo (ghost sightings, for instance). I'm sure that the researchers in question verified that the subjects had indeed been treated for cancer via medical records before releasing their work.

[Th1onein]

120. Anecdotal reports have a flaw: low sample population

This does not make them woo, but they, indeed, do not have the weight of an empirical study. Nevertheless, we need to pay attention to them. We can learn from them.

And, by the way: You are missing the point here. It's not that the scientists need confirmation that the patient was undergoing chemo treatments, but that they seemed to be "cured" of the disease after getting chemo.

[gcomeau]

5. Ah yes, the sheer arrogance of stating plain facts...

[dorkulon]

23. What could possibly be more arrogant than insisting that you know the "truth" despite having nothing

but your intuition to back you up and a mountain of real evidence against you?

[Th1onein]

40. There are a group of scientists looking to harness the placebo effect

They don't know how or why it works, but they do know that it's there. It's effects are what you call "woo." Yet a group of Harvard scientists are trying to harness it's effects, because they want to use it in their armory against the effects of disease. THEY give credence where credence is due. Wonder why you don't?

Let me tell you why: Because YOU reserve the right to label as science only those things that you approve of. They don't. THEY observe. That's what real scientists do, before they go for the empirical data.

[hueymahl]

77. The Placebo Effect is not Woo . .

It is an observable, repeatable, testable phenomenon of the human body. It is an effect on the mind that triggers different bodily reactions. I am glad and not surprised that it is being studied so that science can understand better the relationship between the body and mind.

Woo, for example, is the belief that homeopathic cures are actually doing something when in fact it is the placebo effect that is creating any type of measurable effect.

[dorkulon]

96. Thanks.

I was gonna say that...

[Th1onein]

98. Exactly. It's not woo, but it's often been called woo.

Are you a woo watcher? I, for one, am sick of being told what is woo and what is not woo by a group of people who are nothing but arrogant jerks.

I don't believe homeopathy works, except by placebo. So what?

[dorkulon]

99. So that's not woo, is all.

Believing in homeopathy as anything else is woo. In other words, it's something people believe despite copious evidence to the contrary. Is "bullshit" a better word? I don't spend a lot of time arguing about it, but that's mainly because I've given up on people.

Smart people always seem arrogant to less smart people. But they're usually not; they're just right and others are wrong, and nobody likes a smart-ass. But I maintain that true arrogance is insisting something is true with nothing but one's own 'feeling' or 'intuition' to back one up.

[Th1onein]

103. People who define what is and what is not "woo" should just STFU.

It's not going to change anything, but it will piss people off. And it's a continuum, as well, what one person calls woo is not what another person would call woo. How about we all just have an open mind, and no judge what others believe in, by calling it crap like "woo"? How about we just present FACTS and logic that argue against these things, instead of putting down the people who believe in them?

I, personally, don't believe homeopathy works, but I am open to hearing the other side on the issue. When, instead of that, people just put down to "woo" something they don't believe in, they are just putting down those who do believe in it, and worst of all, shutting their minds and their intellect to the fact that it might works, or why it works, even if it's just the placebo effect. It gets neither side anywhere.

[dorkulon]

104. Look, what you're asking for is that nobody ever tell anyone else they're wrong.

Because it might hurt their feelings. Sorry, but no. If you investigate homeopathy you'll find there really is no other side. It's baseless junk and informing people of that is a service, whether they like it or not.

[Th1onein]

121. That is NOT what I'm asking for at all.

What I AM asking for is for people who disagree with one another not lump the other's opinions under the coverall of "woo." It's called respect. Where there are two, one is the teacher and the other the student. Would either one of those denigrate the others' thoughts as "woo"? I don't think so.

What I see people doing here is taking everything other people espouse, including reincarnation, acupuncture, homeopathy, and lumping it into the "woo" category and trying to stop discussion about it. It's arrogant, it's rude, and it's really very stupid to close your mind completely to ANYTHING.

[dorkulon]

122. OK, forget 'woo.'

How about 'nonsense'? Because really that's what it is. Not everything other people espouse, but specifically the things you mentioned (actually there is evidence that acupuncture works to alleviate pain, only it doesn't seem to matter whether it's performed by an experienced practitioner or any random person). To begin with, the very notion of reincarnation relies on another completely unfounded assumption: the existence of an eternal soul in all of us, for which, again, there is no evidence at all, just a lot of people who want it to be true. Well, a lot of people choose to believe a lot of things, and that doesn't automatically merit my respect. Does belief in Santa Claus merit our respect? How about belief in Zeus? Where does one draw the line between honest criticism and such 'respect' for patently absurd beliefs?

Sometimes, the student thinks he or she is the teacher.

[Th1onein]

123. Nonsense is just another word for "woo." That doesn't fly either.

There is a real danger in the idea of throwing into the trash other people's ideas, no matter how absurd you might think that they are. And the danger is even worse when you throw away ideas for which "there is no evidence." Because if you are waiting for someone to spend the time and money to GET the evidence, when it's against their best interests to do so, you're going to wait a long, long time. Just how difficult is it, to have respect for other's opinions, even if you don't agree with them?

It's called humility, and any good scientist must have it, and have it in abundance. It's the decency and the honesty to say, "You know what? I just don't KNOW." And you don't. There are, admittedly, a bunch of crazies, cranks, and quacks out there, but if we curl our lips and refuse to look at the evidence, refuse even to test for evidence, we may exclude loads of crap, but sooner or later, we will also exclude the next Doppler, or Hans Alfven.

[dorkulon]

124. Wrong.

I DO know that homeopathy is bullshit. That is entirely knowable, and indeed, I do know it. Evidence has been gathered. Little vials of water do not cure anything. Not everything is up for debate.

Things don't fall upward. There is such a thing as truth.

[Th1onein]

125. Here we go again. You seem to value calling other people's beliefs bullshit more than

you value humility, curiousity or tolerance. Here, let me clap you on the back for your good hating skills.

[dorkulon]

126. I value the truth.

I don't think I know everything, and I accept that I could be wrong about a lot of things. But some things just aren't true. If I pretended I thought they might be, it would be humoring, not humility.

[Th1onein]

127. As do I. As do most people. You, alone, do not have the market cornered on truth.

And you very apparently have little ability to admit when you're wrong, but you also apparently lack a mind open enough to understand that your truth might not be the only one.

No one is asking you to humor people. Just to act decently, and with an open mind, when faced with another's truth. You might actually learn something you did not know before. And, if you don't immediately shut these people out, you might find out why they believe as they do, and actually be able to educate them enough so that they will accept YOUR truth, as theirs. Otherwise, you're just busy hating; and you change nothing for the better.

But, then, I think you already know that. Perhaps you just don't care?

[dorkulon]

128. I'm all for enlightening others and I'm open to the notion that I'm not right about everything.

But it doesn't change the facts about certain beliefs being a bunch of malarkey. Sure, I could be nicer about it, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Homeopathy is bunk. Of that I am sure, in the same way I'm sure that things don't fall upward. It's not arrogance; it's knowledge.

Certainly, there's a bitter old man part of me that has just given up on people ever getting smarter. But I also know that's not very helpful. Still, there's only so many times that delusional simpletons can tell me that they feel sorry for me or that they'll pray for me before I start to feel less than friendly towards them.

[Th1onein]

129. I understand what you're saying, but it's a recipe for loss.

In France, they call it "chapel," being so in love with your own ideas that you can't entertain any others. It's arrogance, and it's a slippery slope. Instead of asking "why," you're just saying no, and in that process, you begin down the slope, and once that happens you lose so, so much, that could be added to your bank of knowledge, and built upon. Plus, you alienate people. It's just pointless, and harmful, to start labeling like that.

There's a world of difference between saying, "I don't think that this or that will have any efficacy, because .....," and saying, "Oh, that's just woo." The former is edifying; the latter dismissive.

[Dorian Gray]

112. That's not true

I know plenty of smart people who argue their points politely and don't appear arrogant at all. Even to the unintelligent.

[dipsydoodle]

113. Aside from which

anything which gives an individual hope when all else is lost should be welcome.

[dorkulon]

97. Way to completely mischaracterize my position.

The placebo effect is well-documented science. Wrong again.

[Squinch]

4. Well, if you used acupuncture to try to get to the moon, you are very, very stupid. But

for arthritis, or chronic pain? Well, that's another story.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/acupuncture-provides-true-pain-relief-in-study/?_r=0

One person's woo is another's pain relief. And I'm pretty sure the person whose pain is relieved doesn't really care that you don't understand that much of what is now called science was once called woo. Like for example the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.

[ElboRuum]

7. Incorrect.

If it's studied and found to have at least a high correlation to efficacy, then by definition it is NOT WOO. Study, test, experimentation, conclusion... is SCIENCE.

By that very same token, what is now called science was called... well... science. It was never called woo. Why? Because study, test, experimentation, conclusion. That others did or did not accept the results of this process has no bearing on the fact that it was science. The fact that there was a process for vetting these conjectures was and is the only requirement. Woo is the unrelenting assertion of a truth in the absence of knowledge or in the face of its direct refutation.

[Squinch]

22. Well, in that case,

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 12:36 AM - Edit history (1)

acupuncture, according to that article, is clearly not woo.

But until very recently, we thought it was. And many here on DU are still insisting that it is.

So, studies about efficacy don't seem to be entering into this DU discussion. Just fear of woo.

[Liberal Veteran]

26. Interesting fact about acupuncture.

It doesn't seem to matter where you stick the needles or if you even stick the needles in, it produces the same effect.

What would you say to a doctor who prescribed oral antibiotics for your pneumonia and said "You can take the pills orally or place them on your feet or hold them in your hand, either way, your infection will clear up?"

Or go to the hospital with a ruptured appendix and the doctor says "Well, we can perform an appendectomy or massage the area between your first and second toe."

If acupuncture make you believe you feel better, more power to you. It doesn't necessarily follow that it that it is somehow more scientific than any other thing you might dismiss as quackery.

My grandmother swore up and down that spraying WD-40 on her joints helped her arthritis. I highly doubt we could call it "science".

[Squinch]

27. Do you want it to make sense to you, or do you want it to work?

I am not saying it is more scientific. I am saying that it has been tested using the scientific method and it has been found to work.

We don't really know how aspirin works. Is aspirin woo?

[Liberal Veteran]

31. Difference being, if someone just waved an aspirin over your body and you said "I feel better"...

...does that mean the aspirin worked?

[Squinch]

36. If someone puts needles in certain parts of your body, and you feel better, and

significant numbers of other people feel better after the same treatment, and respected scientific studies show that those results are significantly greater than a placebo effect, does the treatment work?

If not, then what other criteria do you propose to determine whether pharmaceuticals work? Because those same factors are the only reasons why we think those "scientific" drugs work.

[Liberal Veteran]

37. But it doesn't matter if they stick the needle in your foot or your back or even stick it in at all.

That's kinda the point. Someone poking you on the heel of your foot with a toothpick produces the same result as poking a thin needle in the back of your neck.

There isn't some scientific qi realignment being performed in either case. There is some belief on the part of the patient that there is something to it.

If it works for you, it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket, but it isn't really medicine. Doesn't it say something to you that an actor can walk in and produce the exact same result poking you with needles at random as someone who claims to be a licensed acupuncturist?

By the same token, someone walking into a pharmacy and handing you a bottle of pills at random for disease isn't going to cure your illness.

[Squinch]

42. Does the treatment work by all established medical standards? The answer is yes. As opposed to

a lot of procedures that are bread and butter to the accepted medical community, and a whole lot more invasive than acupuncture. For example,

meniscus repair knee surgery (a very common surgery), which has been found to commonly be no more effective than a placebo:
http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/knee-pain/news/20131226/study-questions-value-of-common-knee-surgery

spinal fusion surgery (another very common surgery, very profitable for hospitals and doctors) which been known forever to be a really ineffective procedure, and which is still done all the time, all over the country: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-30/highest-paid-u-s-doctors-get-rich-with-fusion-surgery-debunked-by-studies.html

knee surgery for arthritis, which was found years ago not to have any beneficial effect, but which is still performed hundreds of thousands of times a year in the US: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/11/science/sci-knee11


None of those very common and absolutely accepted medical procedures has any beneficial effect according to established medical standards. Yet, I am guessing you would not characterize them as woo.

But acupuncture does work, according to established medical standards. And yet, you are insisting that it is woo.

OK! Stick to those guns! All woo is useless. Unless you have pain. In which case, some of it works just fine, thanks. And the accepted medical community is the only thing you should trust with your health! Unless, in many cases, you want to have any beneficial effects at all, because what the doctors will do to you won't help one bit.

[Liberal Veteran]

48. Useless? Yes or no. Science? Definitely not! -nt

[Squinch]

49. Your analysis is very unscientific. The question science asks is: does it work? If the answer

is yes, it is yes. Worrying about how or why is another question that can be raised, but a lack of answer to the second question does not nullify the validity of the first answer.

[Liberal Veteran]

61. It's the difference between faith and fact.

Some people swear that prayer helps their pain. Others believe holding a pretty crystal over the painful area lessens the pain.

For the most part it is harmless and if it helps you psychologically, that's fine.

But if you are going to make case that it is actual medicine? That's where we differ.

Going back to my grandmother, I certainly wouldn't take her WD-40 away from her, but she isn't made out of rusty iron. It is just a form of self-delusion.

And with acupuncture, the fact that there is not discernible difference between the outcomes of poking yourself in one place, or another, or not at all (where you just think you are being poked), says that medicine isn't what is at play in the results.

If I handed you a bottle of homeopathic sleeping drops and you claim to get better sleep, and I get the same result when I hand you a bottle of tap water in the same jar, would you assume there is something medicinal in the tap water that cured your sleeping disorder?

[Squinch]

63. Does it work? Does it significantly outperform a placebo in medical studies? Does it work better

than many "traditional medicine" pain treatments?

Why, yes. Yes it does.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/acupuncture-provides-true-pain-relief-in-study/?_r=0

And again I am asking: a treatment whose goal is to reduce pain is successful at reducing pain. Do you consider the treatment to be effective?

You keep describing treatments whose effects equal a placebo effect. Acupuncture significantly outperforms a placebo effect.

If actual pain relief is not part of actual medicine, I am seriously wondering what you think actual medicine is.

[Liberal Veteran]

65. So by your definition, prayer and magic crystals and voodoo are really medicine?

As long as someone believes (has faith) it is medicine.

Setting the bar pretty low for science, wouldn't you say?

[Squinch]

66. Do they outperform the placebo?

That IS the bar for science, wouldn't you say?

[Liberal Veteran]

67. No, I wouldn't. By definition, if you have the same result from acupuncture as theatrics...

....(meaning you are pretending to perform acupuncture), you have proven that a placebo is just as effective as the real thing.

Checkmate.

[Scout]

75. snort

"checkmate" in your opinion....

did you miss this? " Acupuncture significantly outperforms a placebo effect."

[Squinch]

85. Well, we'll let Sloan Kettering and the National Institute of Health know that you don't approve

of their findings. I'm sure they'll be destroyed.

[Dorian Gray]

115. I did not

read that as his "definition" at all.

I think you totally overlooked his points. Which is a shame bc it's an interesting argument.

[Coexist]

58. do you have a link that proves it works?

there are several studies cited at the below link that indicate that acupuncture is more or less a placebo:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-doesnt-work/

I'd be interested to see a study that says it does; I researched acupuncture when we were struggling with my daughter's headaches and nothing I found led me to believe it was anything other than a sham.. with the exceptions of anecdotes - mostly about people's pets.

I chose to not spend my money on it.

[Squinch]

62. If you notice, those "studies" all seem to be from the same source and aren't actually studies.

I have never heard of the "Society for Science Based Medicine" but those "studies" are actually just articles by a few guys who don't like acupuncture who say in their articles that they don't like acupuncture. I only see one study discussed in any of the three articles, from a publication called "Pain," though that study is not summarized, nor are the results of the study analyzed in the article.


But anyhow, for example, here's a Times article summarizing a very large study headed by a researcher from Sloan Kettering and sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/acupuncture-provides-true-pain-relief-in-study/?_r=0

[Matariki]

6. Newton was an alchemist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727), the noted English scientist and mathematician, wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies. These occult works explored chronology, alchemy, and Biblical interpretation (especially of the Apocalypse). Newton's scientific work may have been of lesser personal importance to him, as he placed emphasis on rediscovering the occult wisdom of the ancients. In this sense, some[1] believe that any reference to a "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.

After purchasing and studying Newton's alchemical works in 1942, economist John Maynard Keynes, for example, opined that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians". In the Early Modern Period of Newton's lifetime, the educated embraced a world view different from that of later centuries. Distinctions between science, superstition, and pseudoscience were still being formulated, and a devoutly Christian Biblical perspective permeated Western culture.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jul-aug/05-isaac-newton-worlds-most-famous-alchemist#.UsopYtykd8E

[NuclearDem]

15. Yes, he was. Nearly everyone was, because it was the only "science" that existed at the time.

This is Medieval Europe we're talking about. That most people from that era we look on now as great scientists were involved in alchemy is not surprising.

[DRoseDARs]

16. And what of his works survived to affect the modern world? His scientific works. nt

[Coyotl]

8. Woo Hoo!

That's the only good kind of woo

[FrodosPet]

10. Woooo!

[Coyotl]

14. There are great woooos and there are average woooos.

[Art_from_Ark]

71. I'm getting WOOzy from all the woo

[awoke_in_2003]

17. How the hell did I make it through the woo war of 2014

without thinking of the Nature Boy? WOOOOOOOOOO

[Leith]

9. You Have Me to Thank

I keep snapping my fingers to ward off tigers. Obviously it has been working - anyone see any tigers around lately?

Ta da! <*snap! snap!*> You're woolcome.

[awoke_in_2003]

18. I spray my yard with Bigfoot repellant...

So far, it has worked.

[SidDithers]

11. Good post...

"Clapping as hard as you can to save Tinker Bell won't cure her lung cancer. "



Sid

[Quixote1818]

12. Bravo! Unfortunately the US is losing the Woo wars and it's really fucking scary

Daily Kos Why People Distrust Science:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/19/1217278/-Why-People-Distrust-Science

[RobertEarl]

13. Didn't read the link

My experience, call it my science, is that people do not trust some of the conclusions of some science. Like a few don't trust some of my science. Heck, even I don't have blind faith in some of my science.

Some of the worst conclusions of some science includes the 'nukes are safe' science.

On the other side of that is the environmental science which is coming to the conclusion that major, big, huge, humongous anthro-caused earth changes are in motion. Well, that just flat out scares some people silly, pushing them into denial, and they end up hating that science.

[zappaman]

24. "Heck, even I don't have blind faith in some of my science."

Judging from your Fukushima posts, I have no faith in your science either.

[dionysus]

50. ohhhhhh....

[longship]

32. Yup. Everybody needs to form their own science.

That will work.

Uh-huh!

[questionseverything]

78. so enlighten us about the steam from # 3

Possibility 1: a meltdown is taking place

The Reactor 3 fuel storage pond still houses an estimated 89 tonnes of the plutonium-based MOX nuclear fuel employed by the reactor, composed of 514 fuel rods.

Ever since the explosion Tepco has been concerned that if the spent fuel storage pond dries out, the intensely radioactive spent fuel rods would melt down and produce further significant radioactive emissions.

Possibility 2: ‘corium’ has reached groundwater

Reactor 3 itself contained 566 fuel rods, and has experienced a complete meltdown. The location of the molten fuel, known as ‘corium’, is unknown, but it may have burnt its way through the reactor base and entered the underlying soil.

This would also produce steam as the hot corium came into contact with groundwater, while also releasing radioactive contamination to make its way into the Pacific Ocean.

Possibility 3: rainwater on stray fuel elements / Reactor

An alternative explanation is that the steam plumes could be caused by stray fuel pellets and reactor rod fragments – which themselves produce significant amounts of heat – coming into contact with rainwater percolating through the damaged and roofless structure.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

so my question is are there other more likely scenarios?

which of these 3 is the most likely? (let's hope it is # 3 since that is the least harmful)

or why are these 3 scenarios completely false ?

[longship]

81. Nobody said that they were false.

The damned reactor building is a fucking mess. Those on site are best qualified to determine the cause of this steam, which has apparently is not a new thing.

But some people have an ideological agenda to portray Fukushima as the worst thing ever. It's killing sea life all over the Pacific, even on the west coast of North America!!!! (Nope! Made up bullshit.)

And so it goes.

One may indeed question, why should anybody believe anything about Fukushima?

I heartily agree. Only transparency and openness will help. Unfortunately, TEPCO and the Japanese government has done grievous damage to their credibility by their early attempts to hide what was happening there. Now nobody will believe anything they say.

The result is some ideologues have jumped into the vacuum, spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (with the emphasis on fear, because radiation is scary).

I no longer trust any information on Fukushima, but especially that which predicts global gloom and doom, or such silly things like connecting sea star meltdown to it. (Note: the sea star melting has been known since the 1990's, which kind of falsifies the Fukushima claims.)

What's bad here is people are speculating, without any first hand information. That can only happen from Japan, and people generally are not believing it.

I do not trust anything published on Fukushima right now. Especially from sources which do not have feet on the ground at Fukushima.

The very sad situation is that we'll only find about Fukushima Daiichi as things happen there. The hair on fire predictions will likely be as wrong as any of it. The reportage has been horrible.

[questionseverything]

83. about the starfish

while it has been reported before,the level now seems much higher and it is clustered on the west coast

the pacific is under assault from so many directions, over fishing,global warming,oil spills and now radioactivity (to what degree we do not know yet)

i would think it is probably a combination....some unknown disease attacking the starfish's weakened immune systems(weakened from radiation)

[longship]

88. Or, since this kind of thing has been seen before...

... it has nothing to do with Fukushima.

Also, since very little radiation from Fukushima has reached the west coast (because it's about 5,000 miles away and the Pacific is huge) it isn't even a credible claim.

Keep questioning.

[NuclearDem]

34. No, I will not call it "your science."

You can have opinions, but you don't get your own science.

[pnwmom]

19. Acupuncture has been shown in dozens of SCIENTIFIC studies to be helpful

in relieving pain.

No, it never got anyone to the moon. So what? Neither did aspirin.

This is from a Harvard newsletter, but doctors at prestigious institutions all over the country have been convinced that acupuncture is a valid pain relieving tool.

But some people made up their minds about this twenty years ago and no amount of research will change their minds.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-is-worth-a-try-for-chronic-pain-201304016042

Over the years there has been substantial debate about whether acupuncture really works for chronic pain. Research from an international team of experts adds to the evidence that it does provide real relief from common forms of pain. The team pooled the results of 29 studies involving nearly 18,000 participants. Some had acupuncture, some had “sham” acupuncture, and some didn’t have acupuncture at all. Overall, acupuncture relieved pain by about 50%. The results were published in Archives of Internal Medicine.

The study isn’t the last word on the issue, but it is one of the best quality studies to date and has made an impression.

“I think the benefit of acupuncture is clear, and the complications and potential adverse effects of acupuncture are low compared with medication,” says Dr. Lucy Chen, a board-certified anesthesiologist, specialist in pain medicine, and practicing acupuncturist at Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital.

[Pathwalker]

25. What do they know? They're just Doctors, not some

anonymous poster claiming to know all that is right and true because... they say so! So what if it's been proven to work by actual scientists? That's not scientific proof, is it?

[Squinch]

28. This is kind of funny, isn't it?

It has been tested using the scientific method, and proven effective, but people think it's stupid to use it, and they are claiming that it is not scientific enough for them.

Wacky!

[Th1onein]

41. Don't you understand that they and only they reserve the right to label what is woo and

what is not woo?

[Squinch]

43. No! Because I am the ruler of woodom, dammit! And don't you forget it!

[Th1onein]

44. Damn, I hate it when that happens!

[Squinch]

45. .

[Liberal Veteran]

29. On the flip-side of that...

"The best controlled studies show a clear pattern... the outcome does not depend on needle location or even needle insertion. Since these variables... define acupuncture, the only sensible conclusion is that acupuncture does not work."

They don't say the patients didn't express pain relief. They said, it didn't matter if you did true acupuncture or even theatrical acupuncture, the result was the same.

Doesn't that raise the question of whether or not self-reporting of pain relieve is more dependent on what the patient believes than the actual scientific efficacy of the treatment?

[longship]

33. Bingo!

That's why medical studies are placebo controlled studies, and are blinded. The act of intervention can influence subjective measures like pain. If one does not factor out those things, the study is effectively worthless. Non-specific symptoms and subjective measures are meaningless. The success is measured by how well the treatment actually works, not how it seems to work.

And acupuncture fails on all counts.
* http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/

* http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-revisited/

* http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/puncturing-the-acupuncture-myth/

Etc.

[Squinch]

47. So let me get this straight: you are looking at a treatment whose goal is pain reduction, and

that treatment is shown to be successful in reducing pain, and yet you think it is ineffective because.... ok, that's where I lose you.

What is your criteria for success for treatments with the goal of pain reduction, given that your criteria does not seem to be the patient's actual relief from pain?

[arcane1]

52. You're misrepresenting Liberal Veteran's post.

If performing a treatment has the same success as merely pretending to perform the treatment, the success may be due to something other than the treatment itself.

[Squinch]

53. Again, is the treatment effective?

[arcane1]

54. That's not the question to ask.

The question should be: Is the observed effect being caused by the treatment?

If pretend treatment is as effective as real treatment, then the answer is likely "No, something else must be causing this effect. More study is needed."

I'm content with saying "I don't know, need more data".

[Squinch]

55. You are avoiding the question: Is the treatment effective?

[arcane1]

56. Unknown.

You're avoiding my question too. We're even

[Squinch]

57. Is the pain reduced?

[Liberal Veteran]

69. That's subjective rather than objective.

If your blood pressure is spiking or you have a fever, I can give you a medication and objectively measure the results of the medication.

Pain is a bit trickier. It tends to be subjective and self-reported. You might believe my tap water decreased your pain and subjectively it did. But all I really did was play a hoax on you.

Of course the study of the placebo effect is scientific, but the use of placebo is wildly unreliable.

It can be harmless, but not always. Suppose you decided to see the acupuncturist for a few months for your headaches. You convince yourself that the pain is reduced. Meanwhile, there is an actively growing tumor in your brain.

That is when things can become unfortunate.

Or, it could just be tension headaches. In that case, no harm likely done. Of course in that case, you might just as well be served with burning an aromatherapy candle or meditating.

Thus, my "yes and no" to your question of an unscientific therapy being useful.

[arcane1]

74. If I give one person an aspirin and another a sugar pill, and they both lose pain...

Have I proven the aspirin worked, or that the sugar pill worked?

Answer: neither.

[Squinch]

84. If the aspirin outperforms the placebo, you have proven that the aspirin worked.

[arcane1]

86. Exactly.

Which requires multiple double-blind tests to confirm

[Squinch]

87. As I said to another poster, Sloan Kettering and the National Institutes of Health will

certainly be crushed that their research is not up to your standards.

[arcane1]

89. I haven't seen their studies, but I would interpret them objectively.

What I wouldn't do is appeal to their authority.

[Squinch]

90. And I am sure they eagerly wait to receive your objectivity.

[arcane1]

91. I don't even know what you're saying anymore.

We agreed that tests can prove things, why are you being a smart-ass to me now?

[Squinch]

92. Because you are going around and around: Does it significantly outperform the placebo?

The answer is yes.

I will post this again: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/acupuncture-provides-true-pain-relief-in-study/?_r=0

But the fact that it outperforms the placebo doesn't seem to make a dent in the objections being voiced in this thread. Those with objections keep coming back with the argument, "but it has to outperform the placebo in lots of good tests." So we go back to, "well, it does. Here, here's a good study." And the answer that comes back to me is, "Yes, but it has to outperform the placebo." "But it does..."

So nevermind. Have a good night.

[arcane1]

93. I wasn't going round and round, I answered all your questions

The only one of mine you answered was about being a smart-ass. You're going round and round

Now I'll read the study

[arcane1]

94. PS: Here's the link to the actual study, not the NYT article:

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513

I doubt I'll get through this while at work, but I'll finish it when I get home.

[arcane1]

95. Interesting. These authors found a modest improvement, but believe more study is needed:

We believe that our findings are both clinically and scientifically important. They suggest that the total effects of acupuncture, as experienced by the patient in routine clinical practice, are clinically relevant, but that an important part of these total effects is not due to issues considered to be crucial by most acupuncturists, such as the correct location of points and depth of needling. Several lines of argument suggest that acupuncture (whether real or sham) is associated with more potent placebo or context effects than other interventions.110- 113 Yet, many clinicians would feel uncomfortable in providing or referring patients to acupuncture if it were merely a potent placebo. Similarly, it is questionable whether national or private health insurance should reimburse therapies that do not have specific effects. Our finding that acupuncture has effects over and above those of sham acupuncture is therefore of major importance for clinical practice. Even though on average these effects are small, the clinical decision made by physicians and patients is not between true and sham acupuncture but between a referral to an acupuncturist or avoiding such a referral. The total effects of acupuncture, as experienced by the patient in routine practice, include both the specific effects associated with correct needle insertion according to acupuncture theory, nonspecific physiologic effects of needling, and nonspecific psychological (placebo) effects related to the patient's belief that treatment will be effective.

In conclusion, we found acupuncture to be superior to both no-acupuncture control and sham acupuncture for the treatment of chronic pain. Although the data indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo, the differences between true and sham acupuncture are relatively modest, suggesting that factors in addition to the specific effects of needling are important contributors to therapeutic effects. Our results from individual patient data meta-analyses of nearly 18 000 randomized patients in high-quality RCTs provide the most robust evidence to date that acupuncture is a reasonable referral option for patients with chronic pain.


We're both right to some degree

Here are the links to three of the foot-notes, too:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16452103
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20980765
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12044130

[bhikkhu]

68. Well, its not all about acupuncture.

I can easily say that acupuncture may work, reports show it works, and the mechanics of exactly how it works (or not) will be worked out in time. Aspirin was in the same boat at one time - a woo-ish concoction of willow bark some native tribes used. We know exactly how and why it works now, but we didn't for a long time.

Ignoring acupuncture, there's still UFO's, bigfoot, reincarnation, miscellaneous psychic powers, healing via magnets, prayer, homeopathy, and crystals, crop circles, precognition, ghosts...and I'm probably forgetting whole areas. When I was a kid I was very much into it, read all the books, tried all the stuff, but at some point I learned enough about the real world to find that even more fascinating.

[pnwmom]

70. I agree. I don't object to palm reading, etc., being labeled woo,

but there are many frequent posters here who sweep up just about anything they don't like and label it woo, even if there have been serious studies showing positive results.

[1000words]

21. mmmmmmmmmm... bacon.

[whatchamacallit]

30. Dumb post

is dumb.

[Rex]

35. hoo?

nt.

[Puzzledtraveller]

39. Woo-Tang?

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Until the 1970's Science did claim being gay was a disease.

Because of those years of stupid assumption based behavior, the medical and research communities were left starkly unprepared for the greatest health crisis of our time when AIDS hit the scene, so they spent years before they could offer up a single protocol.
So whatever. Science is just as capable of being wrong, staying wrong and refusing to self inspect as religious institutions are. The attitude in the OP is one of the reasons that often fatal flaw flourishes.

[TeeYiYi]

60. Indeed...

...a truly momentous miracle of science that so many were cured overnight.

TYY

[mathematic]

72. Psychology claimed that

Psychology has always struggled to gain acceptance as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. There were a lot of important changes to the field in the 60s to make it more like science. To this day undergrads have to be taught why and how modern psychology is a science.

All this is besides the point. "Science" doesn't tell us what outcomes are desirable. Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, as undesirable, based on social and legal reasoning. Psychology studied homosexuality and compiled irrefutable data that said that homosexuality is NOT a disorder. It's just one of many different natural states and efforts to "cure" it were futile at best and harmful at worst. Social and legal reasoning is still coming around on that one.

An analogous contemporary case can be found in the Deaf community. Some people don't view deafness as a disability in need of a cure, contrary to mainstream thought. What's important to note is that science makes no claim on one idea or the other. Science can tell how how deafness occurs, how to provide hearing (trying to find a neutral term for "correct&quot , and potentially how to prevent deafness but ultimately we have to rely on social reasoning to determine if we should take any intervention in deafness.

[hueymahl]

80. Actually, "science" did not claim that, Woo did

Certain doctors made unproven assertions without scientific study and without supporting scientific evidence that comported with societal norms at the time and were therefore accepted. The very definition of "Woo"

[Orrex]

82. No one on DU has ever claimed that science is incapable of being wrong

Science is just as capable of being wrong, staying wrong and refusing to self inspect as religious institutions are.

No one on DU has ever claimed that science is impervious to abuse or misuse. It is a fact that homosexuality was identified as a disease, and this is indeed a terrible blot on its history. However, one of the great strengths of science is its ability to grow and improve. It's certainly not always a quick or easy or painless proces, but in the end the general tendency is to move forward because science is self-correcting.

Woo, in contrast, never admits mistakes and never self-corrects. Can you point to one example where a practice of alternative medicine was recognized and abandoned as faulty due to the increased understanding of alternative medicine? I seriously doubt it. Instead, in those very rare cases when alternative medicine or pseudoscience abandons a faulty practice, it's due to the increased understanding imparted by actual medicine and actual science.

Your objection about homosexuality is understandable but is not, ultimately, an indictment of science or the scientific method. Instead, it is an indictment of people who abused science for their own agendas. Still tragic, but a very different tragedy. You could, with equal justifiction, dismiss all of religion because of the actions of predatory Catholic priests or condemn all of alternative medicine because of the black market for rhino horn.

[dorkulon]

101. +1

[BlueToTheBone]

51. Hoo~

Never forget you can't have Woo Hoo without the Woo.

[Jamaal510]

59. Woo! $5 Pizza!

[GoneFishin]

76. I demand that everyone think like me! From here on out, ALL hypotheses will be met with demeaning

and condescending criticism unless said line of thought is mine, OR the fruits of said line of thought have already been proven 100% true, or at least acknowledged by, and is highly profitable to, a large corporation.

No more trial and error, or experimentation will be tolerated. Nothing good ever came of it, as far as I know, and it will cease immediately.

[Katashi_itto]

79. Trash

[marions ghost]

106. Yep

I feel sorry for people who have never benefited from acupuncture.

[Katashi_itto]

107. Acupunture helped me up to my hip replacement surgery

Gave me some decent pain management after I tried literally everything

[marions ghost]

109. I've found it great for things like that

had rotator cuff tear (could not write my name, agonizing )--2 acupuncture treatments later, no pain whatsoever. I kept on working without having to lose much time. That was 20 years ago.

My dad had serious back spasms and pain -- a tear or pull (not a disc). Two treatments back to back. Gone.

I also had treatments for grief and depression after my mother died. I was skeptical of that. To my surprise, it worked. It just seemed to clear the feelings of being in a rut over it. It's also good for travel sickness or anxiety.

I have a friend who is having a rough time after joint replacement. Hooked on Oxycodone. I keep telling her about acupuncture but she considers it "woo." You'd think she'd be willing to try it once if she's really in so much pain.

Oh yeah, I'm sold on acupuncture.

People who run things down without ever having tried them are laughable.

[Katashi_itto]

110. Agree, essentially they have turned science into a religion to be worshiped

unquestioningly.

[dipsydoodle]

114. They tried that on my right hip.

Our NHS here in the UK paid for that along with some other stuff. Was finally more or less sorted with steroid jabs.

That was years ago and its held up. Left one is starting to play up now.

[Katashi_itto]

116. Oh dear lord, I hope you dont have to have a replacement soon. Mine was caused when I got hit

in a car accident

[dipsydoodle]

117. I've got lots of friends who've had replacements.

Maybe a bi-product of dancing too much to swing music for twenty years or so.

[Katashi_itto]

118. :)

[dipsydoodle]

111. Well - the UK's NHS offers both acupuncture and chiropractery.

You may think they may don't know what they're doing but I'd settle for our NHS over your ACA anytime.

[Katashi_itto]

119. I get alot of my Healthcare through VA (Veteran's Admin) they off both too