Alright, so we all know that our typical medicine would be antibiotics, pills, syrups and stuff like that, but Eastern medicine is a lot more weirder than this,especially Traditional Chinese Herbal medicine.It says "herbal" alright, but trust me, it's not just herbs.Because you see, the raw materials range from herbs and flowers to....well....scorpions,snake bile,sea horses,antelope horns (which taste pretty nice to me, actually),rhino horns,testicles,dog penis bones and a heck load more that you wouldn't wanna know.

Plus,tiger penises are once sold because they are said to increase your sex drive.

Also,famous Chinese therapies include Cupping,Gua sha, Acupuncture and Die-da, but these are still no match for the so called "herbs" in Traditional Medicine.

But still ,if any of you are interested in Eastern medicine, check this out.

At 10/15/14 11:28 PM, tailsbuddy wrote: But still ,if any of you are interested in Eastern medicine, check this out.

Ayurveda > Eastern medicine

Eeeeeyup,I've heard of that before too.It's actually quite similar, though the materials used don't make people as squeamish,which is a plus side of it.

Ayurveda > Eastern medicine

I say if the people support it then who cares? Ive heard of people getting stung with bees and acupuncture. If it makes them feel better than who are we to stop it? It may be a placebo effect but as long as it is helping patients and not harming them then I say fuck it let the treatments roll on!

"Alternative medicine" and "Eastern medicine" are misleading labels used to trick idiots into spending too much money on things that don't work. In fact, it's ridiculous how far people are willing to go to avoid already-proven forms of medicine.

In fact, it's ridiculous how far people are willing to go to avoid already-proven forms of medicine.

Not sure about that though, in some cases,people do that because the average medicine doesn't work,plus it's hard to prove that the treatment doesn't work because it isn't based on scientific theories.

At 10/16/14 01:18 AM, tailsbuddy wrote: it's hard to prove that the treatment doesn't work

Chiropractic 'medicine'
Homeopathic 'medicine'
Accupuncture 'medicine'
Magnet therapy 'medicine'
Reflexology 'medicine'

Fair enough.

Chiropractic 'medicine'
Homeopathic 'medicine'
Accupuncture 'medicine'
Magnet therapy 'medicine'
Reflexology 'medicine'

At 10/16/14 12:28 AM, Bit wrote: "Alternative medicine" and "Eastern medicine" are misleading labels used to trick idiots into spending too much money on things that don't work. In fact, it's ridiculous how far people are willing to go to avoid already-proven forms of medicine.

Do you mean to completely disregard an entire field of study that has been practiced for thousands of years around the world? I don't know about you, but it seems pretty self-centered to think that the only legitimate mode of medicine is the one you're familiar with, which just so happens to be less than 200 years old and is practiced most religiously in a country with some of the worst rates of cancer, autism, obesity, and various mental, immune, and digestive pathologies in the world.

Moreover, modern medical science has become a money grab. Pharmaceutical companies can maximize profit by sticking you on medications that mask symptoms rather than treating causes or taking a preventative approach. Use another few medications to mask the side-effects and you can bet that Merck and Bayer are making a pretty penny, and a good portion of that money goes to research groups that will selectively publish findings that will present evidence helpful to those companies, while another portion goes to lobbyists that ensure big pharma gets what they want.

At 10/16/14 03:29 AM, Cordyceps wrote: I think it's a fantastic business opportunity, because people are buying into it like crazy.

LOL true.
There's a type of herb called Ginseng that can be sold to as high as $800 per pound,which is somewhat ridiculous for the roots of a plant.

Western medicine doesn't work either. Otherwise people wouldn't be dying from Ebola, cancer, HIV, diabetes, etc. With western medicine all you do is take pills and pretend that it's doing something. The last thing western medicine "cured" was polio in the 1940's

Horrible.

- Some may work, but for the most part I would say they were snake oils, and

At 10/15/14 11:28 PM, tailsbuddy wrote: sea horses, [...] rhino horns, [...] tiger penises

- it encourages people to kill endangered animals. It's a ridiculous waste of life for something that has no reason to work.

Weird shit like that doesn't work.

- it encourages people to kill endangered animals. It's a ridiculous waste of life for something that has no reason to work.

True.Shark fins,rhinos, tigers,you name it. It really needs to stop,but it's still legal in some countries, and even if it IS, you can still get them in black markets.

At 10/16/14 09:29 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: A bad doctor would be one who didn't exhaust every other option if Western medicine failed (which it can, folks) if all else fails, try yoga, tai qi, meditation, faith healers, acupuncture....I want to live, so I'd try everything there is to live.

Including sticking a dead rat up your ass?

At 10/16/14 03:25 AM, Kwing wrote: Do you mean to completely disregard an entire field of study that has been practiced for thousands of years around the world?

There were far more examples of snake oil and false cures back then than their are now, you can't convince anybody that they were any more effective than modern medicine.

I don't know about you, but it seems pretty self-centered to think that the only legitimate mode of medicine is the one you're familiar with, which just so happens to be less than 200 years old and is practiced most religiously in a country with some of the worst rates of cancer, autism, obesity, and various mental, immune, and digestive pathologies in the world.

There are a lot more factors that go into play, such as population growth, (the more people in a given place, the more common the diseases are going to be) changes of lifestyle, and how illnesses are treated. To simply dismiss modern medicine the way you did is to essentially deny progress, especially when you realize that without modern medicine as a whole, many of us would have pretty short lifespans, much less even be alive today.

I'm not saying that "western medicine" is perfect, far from it, but the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of diseases are far better today than even 50 years ago, much less the rest of history.

Moreover, modern medical science has become a money grab. Pharmaceutical companies can maximize profit by sticking you on medications that mask symptoms rather than treating causes or taking a preventative approach.

It's much easier to treat the symptoms than the disease itself. For example, there are a lot of medicine that can stop or suppress coughing, fever, and chills that you get from influenza, but doesn't kill the virus itself. (the white blood cells do that) Similarly, aspirin and ibuprofen were made to stop pain at the source such as headaches, back pain and so on, and are usually non-addictive on it's own.

Use another few medications to mask the side-effects and you can bet that Merck and Bayer are making a pretty penny, and a good portion of that money goes to research groups that will selectively publish findings that will present evidence helpful to those companies, while another portion goes to lobbyists that ensure big pharma gets what they want.

Okay, now you are beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. First off, there is no such thing as a cure-all medicine, everyone has been looking for that forever, but it's scientifically impossible to make such a medicine because of the complexity of viruses, cancers, bacteria and so on. Second, research groups can only do so much with early version of medicines, as you can't really test a lot of that on humans. Finally, people have selling medicine for many years, and often times, they were nothing more than sugar pills and snake oils, it was only when regulation was made that the quality of medicine improved, and even that takes a lot of time. Now, that doesn't mean that pharmaceutical companies are not actively seeking profits, but without them, a lot of us would be suffering with diseases and mental illnesses untreated.

As I said before, modern medicine isn't perfect, but the alternatives are either far worse or at the very least, not effective enough to be used on a grand scale, and all the evidence points to exactly that.

Some of them are legit .

Vinegar for example can cure skin and feet fungus and lower blood sugar .

Onion juice when applied to scalp everyday helps improve hair growth . At the cost of terrible smell .

At 10/16/14 03:25 AM, Kwing wrote: Do you mean to completely disregard an entire field of study that has been practiced for thousands of years around the world? I don't know about you, but it seems pretty self-centered to think that the only legitimate mode of medicine is the one you're familiar with, which just so happens to be less than 200 years old and is

It doesn't matter how long people have been practicing alternative medicine. That falls within the confines of history, not science. And science has consistently found the vast majority of 'alternative medicine' to either be incorrect or dubious at best.

We should be skeptical of any field of study which has not been scientifically proven. Despite the popular opinion of alternative medicine advocates, science is not a massive conspiracy to keep people from finding the truth. Science was an important step towards bringing about a new age of understanding.

practiced most religiously in a country with some of the worst rates of cancer, autism, obesity, and various mental, immune, and digestive pathologies in the world.

Autism
"Autism has a strong genetic basis, although the genetics of autism are complex and it is unclear whether ASD is explained more by rare mutations with major effects, or by rare multigene interactions of common genetic variants.[6][53] Complexity arises due to interactions among multiple genes, the environment, and epigenetic factors which do not change DNA but are heritable and influence gene expression.[22] Studies of twins suggest that heritability is 0.7 for autism and as high as 0.9 for ASD, and siblings of those with autism are about 25 times more likely to be autistic than the general population.[42]"

More complicated than it has been given credit for. You can't just pop a pill and make the autism go away, nor can you stick needles in your arms and channel you chi to eradicate the autism. Genetics seems to play a big role.

Obesity
"At an individual level, a combination of excessive food energy intake and a lack of physical activity is thought to explain most cases of obesity.[68]"

That's a shocker. We already know that overeating and lack of physical activity causes obesity. Yet people continue to overeat and live a sedentary lifestyle despite warnings from doctors and researchers.

Cancer
"Common environmental factors that contribute to cancer death include tobacco (25–30%), diet and obesity (30–35%), infections (15–20%), radiation (both ionizing and non-ionizing, up to 10%), stress, lack of physical activity, and environmental pollutants."

All of which doctors and researchers have warned against. Seems like modern medicine already has a p good idea of why cancer happens and how to prevent it. If only people would take better care of themselves...

Moreover, modern medical science has become a money grab. Pharmaceutical companies can maximize profit by sticking you on medications that mask symptoms rather than treating causes or taking a preventative approach. Use another few medications to mask the side-effects and you can bet that Merck and Bayer are making a pretty penny, and a good portion of that money goes to research groups that will selectively publish findings that will present evidence helpful to those companies, while another portion goes to lobbyists that ensure big pharma gets what they want.

Alternative Medicine on Amazon
Chiropractors
Reflexology
Accupuncture
Magnet Therapy

I think you get the point. There is definitely profit to be made off of people who don't understand that these 'treatments' aren't backed by scientific data.

Could be as good as Western Medicine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8

Get in the fucking sack.

Alternative medicine is a great way for people to make money off gullible, superstitious, or less informed people.

Some stuff may work but when it does, it's just called medicine.

You could certainly try something if you liked. You would effectively be doing an experiment on yourself. There's a chance it may work. If it doesn't work though don't fool yourself into thinking it's working.

At 10/16/14 07:07 AM, MrObamius wrote: Western medicine doesn't work either. Otherwise people wouldn't be dying from Ebola, cancer, HIV, diabetes, etc. With western medicine all you do is take pills and pretend that it's doing something. The last thing western medicine "cured" was polio in the 1940's

The majority of the western medicine doesn't cure diseases, but rather aids the body fight the illness. Except radiation and surgery treatments. That's pretty much a cure, if it doesn't spread quickly through your body.

At 10/16/14 12:10 PM, Bit wrote: We should be skeptical of any field of study which has not been scientifically proven.

I agree with this, but the problem is the publication bias. Publishing something that goes against the dogma of modern medicine will at best have you immediately written off as a quack or at worst can put you in physical danger.

I think you get the point. There is definitely profit to be made off of people who don't understand that these 'treatments' aren't backed by scientific data.

That completely applies to bogus western medicine as well. Do you not realize that the first doctor who suggested washing hands would prevent spreading disease was sent to a mental hospital? Or maybe that cocaine was an over-the-counter drug in the late 1800s? Or perhaps that mothers were blamed for being 'frigid' toward children that were diagnosed with autism? Or that for a while it was common practice to ingest a tapeworm with the intention of losing weight? Or that homosexuality is a mental illness?

In most if not all of these cases, there has been hard evidence to suggest that these practices or beliefs were ignorant, or such evidence would have been easy to procure through experimentation, but the actual data was completely ignored. These discrepancies and mistakes still exist in today, most likely to a greater extent than anyone is aware.

Your claim that alternative medicine is not based off of the scientific method is also weak, not just because there are things we do now that were previously considered alternative or illegitimate, but also because there exists phony pseudoscience in western medicine too, meaning that you could use the same logic to argue the exact opposite point.

At 10/16/14 08:16 PM, Kwing wrote: I agree with this, but the problem is the publication bias. Publishing something that goes against the dogma of modern medicine will at best have you immediately written off as a quack or at worst can put you in physical danger.

That's why I can give you a list of recent medical innovations which, according to you, should have resulted in these people being ousted from the scientific community or even physically harmed.

Or this list

That completely applies to bogus western medicine as well. Do you not realize that the first doctor who suggested washing hands would prevent spreading disease was sent to a mental hospital? Or maybe that cocaine was an over-the-counter drug in the late 1800s? Or perhaps that mothers were blamed for being 'frigid' toward children that were diagnosed with autism? Or that for a while it was common practice to ingest a tapeworm with the intention of losing weight? Or that homosexuality is a mental illness?

All of those claims (sans homosexuality, but that's more a matter of wording) were made when we had a very limited understanding of biology. There were no scientific studies done which suggested that washing your hands was a bad idea, but now that we have years of scientific data, we know that washing your hands is a good idea. It was only lack of a scientific understanding which led those ideas to spread.

But now we do have a better understanding of biology. Many studies are done each year which give us data which allows us to come to better conclusions about how to deal with illness. Medicine is not static. We're learning new things constantly. What that means is that while we are proving certain things to be true, we're also proving other things to be false.

Things which have been proven false, or have not been studied sufficiently, are labeled "alternative medicine". Some of the best examples of which I have posted previously in this thread: reflexology, magnet therapy, acupuncture. None of these things have been proven to be beneficial, but people continue to offer these services to people, at a significant cost, despite not having any scientific evidence that it does anything.

In most if not all of these cases, there has been hard evidence to suggest that these practices or beliefs were ignorant, or such evidence would have been easy to procure through experimentation, but the actual data was completely ignored. These discrepancies and mistakes still exist in today, most likely to a greater extent than anyone is aware.

Addressed this point above. We have a better understanding of biology now, and we're constantly challenging previously held assumptions.

Your claim that alternative medicine is not based off of the scientific method is also weak, not just because there are things we do now that were previously considered alternative or illegitimate,

That's the difference, though. Some old alternative medicine was scientifically proven to be correct, and it was accepted by the medical community.

Some old alternative medicine was scientifically proven to be incorrect, and it is not accepted by the medical community, but people will still pay to get these treatments which were proven to be useless, or even harmful.

Your point relies on the examination of alternative medicine in the 1800s to be as scientific and rigorous as it is during modern times, but this is not the case. Most doctors had little to no medical training and relied on assumptions made by their predecessors rather than hard scientific evidence.

but also because there exists phony pseudoscience in western medicine too, meaning that you could use the same logic to argue the exact opposite point.

Cool. Give me a few links.

At 10/16/14 12:08 AM, gearsofwhore wrote: I say if the people support it then who cares? Ive heard of people getting stung with bees and acupuncture. If it makes them feel better than who are we to stop it? It may be a placebo effect but as long as it is helping patients and not harming them then I say fuck it let the treatments roll on!

Except for patients with treatable ailments such as cancer that worsen over time (without treatment) and the placebo effect does jack shit to combat it. I've heard Steve Jobs being quoted as an example: had a treatable form of pancreatic cancer, stopped surgery and had a year (?) of alternative therapy and then it had become worse.

At 10/16/14 09:13 PM, Bit wrote: That's why I can give you a list of recent medical innovations which, according to you, should have resulted in these people being ousted from the scientific community or even physically harmed.

None of those items on either list overturn the existing mindset behind our medicine, nor do they offer a free non-patented treatment that would harm corporate profits, which is why they are accepted and integrated into medical practice. Look at it this way - if you were to hand a medieval knight a sword made of titanium, they might say it was charmed, but if you handed them a machine gun, they would consider it to be some kind of demonic abomination. With all beliefs comes a degree of flexibility, but it only goes so far - usually that line is crossed when a discovery means that a previously held belief is objectively wron

All of those claims (sans homosexuality, but that's more a matter of wording) were made when we had a very limited understanding of biology.

Of course those things happened when we had a more limited understanding of biology, it was BECAUSE of new, controversial information that our understanding of biology has expanded. What I'm pointing out is that in some cases, evidence exists and is easily presentable, but is overlooked anyway. Ignaz Semmelweis was able to drastically lower the rate of infection in his patients by washing his hands, but those statistics were completely ignored.

But now we do have a better understanding of biology. Many studies are done each year which give us data which allows us to come to better conclusions about how to deal with illness. Medicine is not static. We're learning new things constantly. What that means is that while we are proving certain things to be true, we're also proving other things to be false.

Medicine isn't static, but it isn't as if all diseases have a perfect record of getting better, either. This isn't to say that I think that every condition that is statistically worsening is the fault of the medical industry, but I think it's very likely that private interests turn a blind eye to an effective treatment for something if they can profit more off of a diseased patient than a healthy one.

Things which have been proven false, or have not been studied sufficiently, are labeled "alternative medicine". Some of the best examples of which I have posted previously in this thread: reflexology, magnet therapy, acupuncture. None of these things have been proven to be beneficial, but people continue to offer these services to people, at a significant cost, despite not having any scientific evidence that it does anything.

... Or, all of the studies that have shown them to be successful have remained unpublished. Not only does it protect private interests to monopolize what treatments are considered legitimate, but it also has to do with what people want to hear. The newspapers here in Chicago publish liberal news because the people here are liberal and it's what they will consume. News in the conservative suburbs is likely to be notably different. Point being, people don't like change, and they don't like being told that what they believe in is wrong.

From personal experience, I can vouch for the effectiveness of a good acupuncture treatment. I doubt this is a placebo effect either, as I can consistently experience a dramatic change from a skilled acupuncturist while experiencing a much weaker effect from a different acupuncturist.

That's the difference, though. Some old alternative medicine was scientifically proven to be correct, and it was accepted by the medical community.

Yes, but there are a lot of politics that go into whether or not something is accepted by the medical community, much more than whether or not the treatment is effective. Americans consume 90% of the world's prescription medication, but they are far from being 90% healthier than the rest of the developed world.

Your point relies on the examination of alternative medicine in the 1800s to be as scientific and rigorous as it is during modern times, but this is not the case. Most doctors had little to no medical training and relied on assumptions made by their predecessors rather than hard scientific evidence.

Don't be so naive. People are no more open-minded than they were ten thousand years ago, let alone one hundred. I've heard the whole "Things have changed and it's better now," argument from tons of people on all sorts of issues and it's never true.

Cool. Give me a few links.

In addition to the older examples I listed, there's an article here where a group of kids prove that Wi-Fi emissions suppress plant growth.
http://www.mnn.com/health/healthy-spaces/blogs/student-science-experiment-finds-plants-wont-grow-near-wi-fi-router

I suppose I could also bring up the back and forth argument about the safety of GMO vegetables, though these kinds of debates are usually useless since it ends up with a cited source being accused of not being good enough, when the people who decide what is 'good enough' or 'scientifically proven' are frequently the same people involved in the field. For instance, Michael Taylor is the Deputy Commissioner at the FDA, used to be the Vice President of Monsanto. Since what is officially considered true is oftentimes no more accurate than the word of anyone else, a discussion like this is bound to devolve into one person's word against another's.

Eastern medicine most of the time is crap.

the shit doesn't work its all in your head.

Eastern medicine....state of the art....in about 1000AD

since then we have something called SCIENCE

Modern medicine is based on scientific studies and understanding, eastern or alternative medicine is based on many years of observations and experience.

In one sense, modern medicine is more reliable because it emphasizes on through understanding on the actual mechanisms involved and treating specific symptoms or causes. It does not mean traditional medicine has no value. As far as I know, eastern medicine, which is the result of numerous systematic observations, aims to improve overall health with natural cures, and in fact it can be beneficial too.

I think the two kinds of medicine can complement each other if you exercise care.