Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cadydid523" data-source="post: 3056535" data-attributes="member: 90737">Is this directed to me?When I say most I mean the majority of studies undertaken tend to be negative. If most were positive, then it would be far more accepted by the scientific community, but it isn’t and there is a good reason why this is.There are two ways of looking at this: a) CAM as a whole, and b) individual CAM treatments. In my view while we can talk of CAM as a whole not being proven we should instead be more specific since it is such a big field. Instead we should look at individual CAM treatments and claims and when we do they also tend to be negative overall. But even then we shouldn’t refer to an individual treatment as a whole. For example we shouldn’t refer to Chiropractic as one single entity since it is so varied. You have the more valid scientific Chiro (or rather specific procedures) verses the rest of it which is more dubious. Likewise we shouldn’t refer to acupuncture as a single entity. While the basic claims of acupuncture (i.e. life force) is complete nonsense, there may be some effective application of sticking needles into someone. However proving a specific procedure does not prove the whole.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cadydid523, post: 3056535, member: 90737"] Is this directed to me? When I say most I mean the majority of studies undertaken tend to be negative. If most were positive, then it would be far more accepted by the scientific community, but it isn’t and there is a good reason why this is. There are two ways of looking at this: a) CAM as a whole, and b) individual CAM treatments. In my view while we can talk of CAM as a whole not being proven we should instead be more specific since it is such a big field. Instead we should look at individual CAM treatments and claims and when we do they also tend to be negative overall. But even then we shouldn’t refer to an individual treatment as a whole. For example we shouldn’t refer to Chiropractic as one single entity since it is so varied. You have the more valid scientific Chiro (or rather specific procedures) verses the rest of it which is more dubious. Likewise we shouldn’t refer to acupuncture as a single entity. While the basic claims of acupuncture (i.e. life force) is complete nonsense, there may be some effective application of sticking needles into someone. However proving a specific procedure does not prove the whole. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…