Dec 21, 16 13:53 UTC

Reference Sites for the Non-Viability of Holistic Medicine  

It really saddens me to see this forum section in the health and safety area. If Asgardia is going to be a nation based on science then holistic "alternative" medicines have no place here. Alternative and holistic medicine misleads the patient into thinking their getting treatment when all they're getting is illusionary and, at best, placebo effect results.

Please bookmark these pages and use them liberally when thinking about the validity and use of holistic medicine.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/

Since acupuncture was mentioned specifically in the description:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/

A common refrain from these practitioners is that these methods don't cause any harm, so why worry about them, but that is far from the truth. From people treating their autistic children with bleach enemas to people treating cancer patients with Reiki there is a lot of harm done. To see just how much damage is done use this reference.

http://whatstheharm.net/index.html

My position, in keeping with the scientific consensus, is that these methods are dangerous pseudoscience at best and willing fraud at worst. These methods don't have any place in Asgardia.

Dec 21, 16 13:58 UTC

+1

Dec 21, 16 14:19 UTC

+2

Excellent.

Dec 21, 16 14:19 UTC

+2

Excellent.

Dec 21, 16 14:50 UTC

+3

Dec 21, 16 17:00 UTC

Although I agree fully with your outlook on "holistic medicine", I disagree with it having no place.

Sometimes, the placebo effect is all that's required.

As there is evidence with some facets producing what can be described as clearly more than a placebo effect, then minimally it's an area to study in order to ascertain the mechanism within which such an effect is manifested.

I'm not suggesting that it's a viable treatment for... anything really, but meerly pointing out that until it's fully understood then it's unwise to discount it as having little to no value.

Dec 22, 16 07:09 UTC

For those of you guys saying holistic and natural medicines should not be a thread, i would suggest looking up the actual definition of the word "holistic". Non-viability of holistic medicines? I really do not think you guys know what "holistic" means and i think you are just categorizing things you do not fully understand as "holistic". Any medical procedure that looks at, and aims to treat, the entire body as one whole unit, is, and can be, defined as "holistic". If we are going to be a scientific community, lets start by using the literal definitions of words. Acupuncture isnt synonmous with holistic as it can be used in dissecting parts to treat specific physical symptoms. Acupuncture is a branch of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and dates back 2000-4000 years. Surely, a medical practice that has survived a minimum of 2,000 years HAS to have some viability and i believe it is our duty to study it further. Traditional chinese medicine has spoken of the existence of the second brain located in the gut/naval area for thousands of years and it is only now and recently that we have been able to confirm the role and existence of the enteric nervous system proving the existence of the second brain, our gut. Our digestive system contains about the same number of neurotransmitters as our cranial brain and 95% of our serotonin and 50% of our dopamine are found and produced inside our gut. This means actions within our gut can control our mood, memory, sleep patterns, eating patterns, and more. Needless to say, i believe it is a poor approach to have a blanketed ban on medicial discussions that aim to treat the body as one whole unit, or on any medicial treatment to which we do not fully understand. Traditional western medicine does not have all the answers which is why we are seeing the rise of the Functional Medicine doctors who are combining western medicine with traditional chinese medicine and holistic and natural medicines to successful treat and reverse disease and ailment.

Dec 23, 16 02:10 UTC

I think the major concern is with having Natural or Holistic Medicine as its own category. In a rational scientific society all components of medical practice should be held to the same evidentiary standards of efficacy and safety. If a natural or holistic treatment is shown to be safe and efficacious than it can be treated just like any other recognized treatment. The problem arises when treatments that are unsafe and/or ineffective hide under the umbrella of "alternative medicine" to avoid being held to the same standards of evidence. That is why I don't think it is apropriate to discuss "natural and holistic medicine" as a separate category from medicine in general.

Dec 23, 16 13:20 UTC

By: Shen_Xian(Asgardian) on 22 December 2016, 7:09 a.m. Acupuncture is a branch of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and dates back 2000-4000 years. Surely, a medical practice that has survived a minimum of 2,000 years HAS to have some viability and i believe it is our duty to study it further. Traditional chinese medicine has spoken of the existence of the second brain located in the gut/naval area for thousands of years and it is only now and recently that we have been able to confirm the role and existence of the enteric nervous system proving the existence of the second brain, our gut.

The age of a thing has no relevance on its accuracy or factuality. The Appeal to Tradition is a logical fallacy and should never be accepted as a way to say that something works. There are a lot of things that are old practices and do not work. Faith healing has an even older history than acupuncture, but that doesn't work either.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Acupuncture is based on a completely imaginary set of specifications. There are no meridians. There are no psychic centers. There is no Chi. The supposed mechanism behind acupuncture simply does not exist and they would have to exist for acupuncture to work they way it's supposed to.

By: Shen_Xian(Asgardian) on 22 December 2016, 7:09 a.m. branch of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)

You're talking about the same system of medicine that says killing rhinocerous for their horns and eating shark fin soup will keep you horny and give you great sexual prowess.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ten-threatened-and-endangered-species-used-in-traditional-medicine-112814487/

https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/take-two-rhino-horns-and-call-me-morning

By: Jason Rainbow(Global Mod) on 23 December 2016, 2:15 a.m. I know very little on the subject, but it is my belief that there is some science behind it, and that some holistic remedies do produce results. -Acupuncture

Actually, there haven't been any studies that show any better results than a random or placebo effect.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-scientists-weigh-in-on-acupuncture/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/an-industry-of-worthless-acupuncture-studies/

Dec 23, 16 22:32 UTC

Western science speculates on many things that we just cannot prove in any physical nature...Say what you must, nobody is forcing you to be in this thread, but for some of us, the evidence is far from conclusive and until then this thread is more than appropriate. As the MOD said, these are valid and recognized fields within the professional medical community.

Dec 23, 16 22:42 UTC

i bet, if we looked close enough, there would probably be some medicinal value in shark fin much similar to the collagen and remineralization benefits found in bone broth. Im not condoning shark finning, all im saying is that many in the western practices are unifing in the sense that we all agree that we dont know much of whats really going on. We see that when we examine the quatum world and we see that in medical science within our microbiome.

Dec 23, 16 23:56 UTC

Alternative medicine is not something I would like to be practiced in Asgardia. The demand is clear; show evidence in correctly conducted studies, otherwise it is not valid. Harsh but fair.

Dec 24, 16 03:02 UTC

Since we are being clear and concise, what is "alternative"? What defines alternative? Who and what clear basis defines something to be "alternative"? To me, this is a very subjective and ambiguous word. Who was even talking about "alternative"? Is natural and holistic synonomous with "alternative"? Is traditional chinese medicine "alternative"? If so, is the medical system of the largest group of Asgardians now invalid? Who draws the line and where is it being drawn? Anyways, do not get ahead of yourselves. Asgardia is not a real place and god know what, and who, will define "alternative". Until then, you have no power or authority to close the book on discussions and furthering our understand of that to which we dont understand. Thats the very nature of science. Conclusive proof goes both ways.

Dec 25, 16 18:42 UTC

I think your discriminatory treatment of medicines that you personally disagree with goes against what Asgardia was created for. I know and work with a naturopathic doctor, and for you to call his entire profession "non-viable" is an insult to his degree, a degree that he obtained by attending medical school just like any other doctor.

Dec 25, 16 21:19 UTC

For me the problem is that a distinction is made between naturopathy, acupuncture, and other "alternative" treatments and accepted medical practices. All treatments regardless of origin should be held to the same standards and regulations. If you can show me well controlled double blinded studies I don't care if your treatment came from the "alternative" category, you made it up or it came from Mars on an asteroid.