It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possible Cause of Relief from Acupuncture Found

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in "god-awakenings". I can reach enlightenment perfectly well without having to ascribe to ancient Hindu tradition.


Tell me how you can reach enlightenment.

By the way, god awakenings (whatever that is) have nothing to do with kundalini awakening, and Hindu tradition is just one of the few spiritual paths that deal with kundalini directly.

Kundalini is within every living being.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Riposte]




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GTORick
I think the fallacy lies in the idea that because we know acupuncture provokes an anti-inflammatory response in the body that it is the only response it provides. For example, nerves run on electrical signals. It is well known that with an electric charge there exists an electric field, Coulomb force etc. Acupuncture may somehow interact in this way with these fields.


I agree with this completely. Now if only it worked for gout. This anti inflammatory research sounds promising. Also chi can be felt by anyone and seen by a few. I just wish it would work on gout, if you know what I mean.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


It's a personal journey, much like every individual's relationship with (or without) a deity. For me, personally, enlightenment is learning to love life, those around you, and yourself, while constantly trying to make yourself and your world a better place. You should never go out of your way to harm others, you should never stop learning, and you should help anyone possible when given the chance.

It sounds sappy, I know, but that's truly how I feel an enlightened individual should be. Of course, as I said, it's a personal journey, so others have to make their own path and find their own meaning.

EDIT: Kundalini most certainly has to do with god-awakenings. It is tied into the tantric and vedic belief of awakening the vital energies of the body.

[edit on 5/13/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
And if it's any consolation, I have personally seen, heard, and felt this energy. On a daily basis in fact, which can be quite annoying sometimes.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
And if it's any consolation, I have personally seen, heard, and felt this energy. On a daily basis in fact, which can be quite annoying sometimes.


I've had patients who could feel insects crawling on their skin everyday, despite no insects being present. I'm sure that's annoying, too.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
It's a personal journey, much like every individual's relationship with (or without) a deity. For me, personally, enlightenment is learning to love life, those around you, and yourself, while constantly trying to make yourself and your world a better place. You should never go out of your way to harm others, you should never stop learning, and you should help anyone possible when given the chance.

It sounds sappy, I know, but that's truly how I feel an enlightened individual should be. Of course, as I said, it's a personal journey, so others have to make their own path and find their own meaning.


Ok well that's not enlightenment. It's just your personal sappy New Age inspired feel-good happy version.

Enlightenment is the permanent dissolution of the mind, i.e., ego. The end of all attachments and desires.


EDIT: Kundalini most certainly has to do with god-awakenings. It is tied into the tantric and vedic belief of awakening the vital energies of the body.


I don't really know what a god awakening is supposed to mean. Kundalini is simply conscious energy. Which you say does not exist, and I can promise you it does.

You can see and feel it yourself if you are so inclined.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa


That's not true at all. We can't even do that for most pharmaceuticals, as we don't have a patient's genome in their medical record.


Are you trying to tell me that if you had their genome in hand you could tell whether or not they would be subject to the placebo effect? Because I was under the impression we did not know the genes responsible for that effect. The other things, you are presumably saying we DO know genes that control those responses, and if you DID have a genome in their chart you COULD tell.

But the bottom line is, even if you did have their genome you couldnt tell, true?


Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how we diagnose and treat, which is completely understandable not being in the field yourself. Medicine isn't as cut and dry as most other fields of science. We have to go with the most logical and effective answer/treatment first, measure the response, and then decide to continue or discontinue from there.


Oh trust me, I am not "in the field" but I have been to doctors long enough to understand how inexact a science it is. Not to mention anyone who wants to can watch House and his crew doing exactly what you just described every Monday night.



Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
And those same ancient physicians gave it properties we know to be false, and ascribed certain diseases to it that we know have other causative agents.


Western medicine right this very minute is claiming certain diseases are caused by factors that we will later find to be inaccurate. True? Or false?


Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Stress does have a role in ulcers. Chronic stress causes a state of immunodepression, which is what allows H. pylori to wreak havoc when normally it would be a transient and asymptomatic infection. THIS is what the discoverer was explaining, not that stress was a red herring.


Does stress cause ulcers without H. Pylori? I have been under enormous stress, and not ever had an ulcer. Stress does not cause ulcers. Or if it does, stress causes any number of illnesses and conditions including cancer. Are you willing to say stress causes cancer? Or the flu? Or hepatitis? Or HIV? It may play a role in weakening the immune system, but it is not the cause. True? Or False? Or are we just redefining "cause" now?

For Western medicine, you will make excuses, and take the broad view, and consider contributing factors, but when it is Chi, and ancient terminology, you hold them to absolute standards, word for word, to the letter.




Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Not likely. Most of what we were learning 100 years ago from today is considered knowledgeable and a solid groundwork for science. About this time one hundred years ago, we were discovering proteins, nucleic acids, hormones, and the more obscure functions of endocrine glands.


I disagree. You think "most" of what they thought back them was "solid groundwork" because they only teach you the theories that turned out to have merit. You should see all the foolishness that didnt make it into your text books. The history of science is fascinating, and amusing.

Scientific American in every issue gives us quick looks back 50, 75, and 100 years, but not always at medicine. However a quick google will give you all kinds of stuff to giggle at.

www.ima.org.il...

Like this from a medical text book,


He gives a
complete description of modes of infection in TB, with emphasis on
inhalation of the bacterium. As far as treatment is concerned: ``The
cure of tuberculosis is a question of nutrition; digestion and
assimilation control the situation; make the patient grow fat, and
the local disease may be left to take care of itself.''


www.wattpad.com...

See when it is our science, the art YOU practice, you recognize that things build on older ideas. That terms change over time, and that knowledge grows. That it is imperfect, and that our knowledge is evolving.

But when it is something you call "mystic" you arent as generous.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
I've had patients who could feel insects crawling on their skin everyday, despite no insects being present. I'm sure that's annoying, too.


Flesh out your point here. Are you calling me insane? A liar?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte


Ok well that's not enlightenment. It's just your personal sappy New Age inspired feel-good happy version.

Enlightenment is the permanent dissolution of the mind, i.e., ego. The end of all attachments and desires.


Ok well that's not enlightenment. It's just your personal condescending neo-Vedic inspired pseudo-intellectual version.

Gee, pushing my baseless opinion about an entirely emotional experience is fun!





I don't really know what a god awakening is supposed to mean. Kundalini is simply conscious energy. Which you say does not exist, and I can promise you it does.


Kundalini Awakening
Ascension of the Kundalini
Awakening of the Kundalini 2



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
I've had patients who could feel insects crawling on their skin everyday, despite no insects being present. I'm sure that's annoying, too.


Flesh out your point here. Are you calling me insane? A liar?


No, I was pointing out that the brain can simulate sensation without any actual sensory input;



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Ok well that's not enlightenment. It's just your personal condescending neo-Vedic inspired pseudo-intellectual version.

Gee, pushing my baseless opinion about an entirely emotional experience is fun!



It's not an entirely emotional experience. Emotion has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, it can't be described in literal nor metaphorical terms. It is beyond any understanding of the mind. It has nothing at all to do with the intellect.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
No, I was pointing out that the brain can simulate sensation without any actual sensory input;


So I am hallucinating? I am insane?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Please explain to me how, within the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry, an energetic imbalance can create a pathologic infection of bacteria and viruses out of thin air. Also, explain how, within these laws, such an infection can be cured by sticking a needle in your back. These are the claims made in traditional Chinese clinics, as well as by some on this board.



Well, I am not going to argue that there are not bunk practitioners of Oriental Medicine. I have a friend who has ovarian cancer, who wasted 8 precious months undergoing bogus acupuncture and herbal treatments. Of course there is no guarantee that her outcome would be significantly different had she not wasted the time, western medicine is remarkably inept at treating that particular cancer as well. But the point is, there are absolutely bogus DOMs, and acupuncture is NOT a panacea.

However thats not what you and I began arguing. Lol.

And as for your comment above, perhaps the mechanism they were trying to describe was much like the mechanism you described regarding stress and ulcers.

We dont know for certain that they only meant neurological impulses with their term "chi." It means, life force. Maybe they simply aggregated a bunch of things, the flows of electricity, fluids, who knows. I still dont see why it requires the laws of physics to be bent.

If they designed treatments that worked, relatively well for their time, I dont see why that is any different from doctors today prescribing anti-depressants. I just dont get the derision. After all, many a brilliant paper was written fairly recently about how this or that anti depressant did work.

I do understand your frustration with those who refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses with the theory however.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander


Are you trying to tell me that if you had their genome in hand you could tell whether or not they would be subject to the placebo effect? Because I was under the impression we did not know the genes responsible for that effect. The other things, you are presumably saying we DO know genes that control those responses, and if you DID have a genome in their chart you COULD tell.

But the bottom line is, even if you did have their genome you couldnt tell, true?


Yes, if we had complete genetic panels on patients, we would be able to compare that data with those who experience effects from given placebos, and given enough data power, I could look at the patients profile and make a reasonably accurate determination. That's how genetic medicine works, and it's been a boon to many fields of medicine.


Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
e]

Oh trust me, I am not "in the field" but I have been to doctors long enough to understand how inexact a science it is. Not to mention anyone who wants to can watch House and his crew doing exactly what you just described every Monday night.


It's not inexact. You're misunderstanding again. When I have a patient with a given infection, I know that a collection of X-number of drugs will combat it, with certain patient populations metabolizing certain drugs at a higher rate. So, I give the drug that most accurately fits that patients ethnic, metabolic, and medical profile. Of course, you can't account for someone having a slightly different genetic make-up than the patient deemed "average" for their group, which is where you plan a secondary therapy.



Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Western medicine right this very minute is claiming certain diseases are caused by factors that we will later find to be inaccurate. True? Or false?


"Western medicine" isn't an individual, so I can't presume to speak for every person who falls under that umbrella. It's a bit disingenuous for you to do it, as well.


Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Does stress cause ulcers without H. Pylori? I have been under enormous stress, and not ever had an ulcer. Stress does not cause ulcers. Or if it does, stress causes any number of illnesses and conditions including cancer. Are you willing to say stress causes cancer? Or the flu? Or hepatitis? Or HIV? It may play a role in weakening the immune system, but it is not the cause. True? Or False? Or are we just redefining "cause" now?


Stress can cause ulcers on it's own, yes. It has an enormous impact on the endocrine (such as increasing glucocorticoid synthesis) and immune systems. Without the stress stimuli, these modulations wouldn't occur, and the ulcer wouldn't be as likely to occur. Just because YOU are under stress and not developing ulcers doesn't mean ALL patients under stress won't develop them.


For Western medicine, you will make excuses, and take the broad view, and consider contributing factors, but when it is Chi, and ancient terminology, you hold them to absolute standards, word for word, to the letter.


There's a very good reason I do this. Modern medicine is based on average and likelihood ratios. Alternative therapies aren't. I have never seen someone promoting an alternative therapy who says "this treatment often works for some patients". Instead, they say things like "Rife machines WILL cure ALL cancers". When you dabble in absolutism, don't be surprised when you're challenged with similar absolutes.




Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
I disagree. You think "most" of what they thought back them was "solid groundwork" because they only teach you the theories that turned out to have merit. You should see all the foolishness that didnt make it into your text books. The history of science is fascinating, and amusing.

Scientific American in every issue gives us quick looks back 50, 75, and 100 years, but not always at medicine. However a quick google will give you all kinds of stuff to giggle at.

www.ima.org.il...

Like this from a medical text book,


He gives a
complete description of modes of infection in TB, with emphasis on
inhalation of the bacterium. As far as treatment is concerned: ``The
cure of tuberculosis is a question of nutrition; digestion and
assimilation control the situation; make the patient grow fat, and
the local disease may be left to take care of itself.''


www.wattpad.com...

See when it is our science, the art YOU practice, you recognize that things build on older ideas. That terms change over time, and that knowledge grows. That it is imperfect, and that our knowledge is evolving.

But when it is something you call "mystic" you arent as generous.


A large portion of that 100-year old text regarding tuberculosis is still valid. The bacterium is, indeed, inhaled as a main route of infection. Proper diet has a positive effect on the immune system thus limiting the spread of tuberculum granulations and maintaining lung capacity. Obviously, they didn't have anti-virals then, so being "left to take care of itself" is all they could really do. Some cases of TB never progress beyond a few granulations, so it would seem ot be cured in a time before X-rays were standard.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte


It's not an entirely emotional experience. Emotion has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, it can't be described in literal nor metaphorical terms. It is beyond any understanding of the mind. It has nothing at all to do with the intellect.


Wonderful! Then you're in no position to tell me I'm wrong, as it can't be understood. Thus, my answer is just as likely to be right as yours is.

Case closed, good night!



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


When it comes to validity of studies that are based on scientific faith I simply ask... Are eggs good or bad for you now?


Strange it is because I always thought that the area around punctured skin becomes inflamed!



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atlantican
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


When it comes to validity of studies that are based on scientific faith I simply ask... Are eggs good or bad for you now?


It depends. Are you reading actual science, or are you listening to Oprah's uneducated interpretation of that science? Eggs have never been "bad" for you. There were a few studies that showed CERTAIN individuals with CERTAIN underlying pathologies (hypertension, high cholesterol) shouldn't eat many of them, especially the yolk. Then, the pop-media took this study, ripped all but the first and last sentence out, and starter shrieking, "DON'T EAT EGGS! THEY SAID EGGS ARE BAD!"


Strange it is because I always thought that the area around punctured skin becomes inflamed!


Have you seen an acupuncture needle? They are incredibly thin. Also, if you'll read the study, you'll see that they are referring to reducing inflammation in already inflamed areas, such as crushing injuries of the limbs and back. The tiny inflammation from a pin-prick isn't noticeable when it's over an area of intense, debilitating inflammation.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 



Obviously, there is no mystical energy flowing through us


Obviously we should not jump to conclusions without proof.

Otherwise its not obvious.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 



No, I was pointing out that the brain can simulate sensation without any actual sensory input;


Maybe that's because that "sensory input" is coming from someplace/something that scientists are not looking at.

Like that energy you like to brush off as "magical."

Its interesting that we as humans are still using the logic of our ancestors...I mean, when you look at the horizon the Earth appears to be flat...

Its obvious really.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dalan.
Maybe that's because that "sensory input" is coming from someplace/something that scientists are not looking at.

Like that energy you like to brush off as "magical."


No, we have very clearly defined mechanisms that cause phantom sensory perception. It's nor magical energy, it's a dysfunction in somatosensory neurons.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join