Category: Health


Natural Law

Buddhadasa calls Natural Law Idappaccayata (first talk of 8), this is really what I am talking about – idappaccayata. It becomes a feeling, a sense, an understanding of what is natural. He then goes on to talk about paticcasamuppada as natural law, and again I don’t have a problem with that. Whilst natural law is objective it almost feels as if it is a subjective thing. And this of course is a problem.

Let me try to be clearer by contrasting natural law with science. To my mind natural law and science ought to be the same. I discussed Bacon’s dichotomy for taxonomy that later turned into science and religion LINK. Prior to Bacon what was considered natural law was also seen as knowledge.

Now the divisions between science and religion have been cemented by business. It suits BigPharma not to have various “natural cures” as healing because such healing cannot be patented and therefore cannot be profited from. Why are those natural cures “natural law”? Basically paticcasamuppada is about causes and conditions. Let’s examine a cause and condition. The chi is blocked on a meridian and unblocking that meridian with an acupuncture needle leads to healing. Now the evidence (see quote below) supports this causes and conditions approach to healing through acupuncture. I suggest this healing follows a natural law that science does not accept because it cannot measure chi.

Homeopathy I know much less about but its basic principle if to give a little of what you don’t want and the body builds up an immunity. Again I am limited on this but isn’t that what vaccines are about? Science supports them against an internet-based movement. What is the difference between homeopathy and vaccines? BigPharma.

It is my understanding that Ayurveda is a natural-based medicine – follows natural laws. I think naturopathy and Ayurveda are connected, so I suggest naturopathy follows natural law.

Apart from acupuncture none of the above can I give serious commitment to as I just don’t know. What I am seeking is an understanding of natural law in a context other than spiritual. As yet I don’t have one.

This has not really gone anywhere – apart from the usual acupuncture. Idappaccayata is natural law based on causes and conditions. I am seeking an understanding of the conditioning point so it must be connected. But this blogpost has little more than contention.

Below:- In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective. From here. Note the one-way sceptic conclusion that the evidence is so overwhelming it must be biassed – without consideration of their own bias.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Gindsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Advertisements

Is Acupuncture Medical Knowledge?


I would have preferred to have as a title “Is Acupuncture Applied Science?” because medicine tends to be recognised as applied science, but if I use that title the answer is prejudiced by such as the one-way sceptics at Science-Based Medicine.

I therefore have changed the blog title although I will return to the issue. First and foremost when you ask if medicine works who is it you ask? The patient. If a patient is cured, then that means the treatment probably works but needs to be verified. In China especially patients have been cured and they repeatedly go back for treatment. This tends to suggest a valid treatment, strong evidence.

However as a sceptic this is not proof. To investigate we start with patients. And here is the problem with science measuring the success of acupuncture, their western machines cannot measure the chi. As a reminder acupuncture sees itself as a chi-based system in which the chi should be balanced. The chi also runs along meridians and if those meridians are blocked disease arises. If your machines cannot measure chi, yet it is a chi-based system then science that does not believe in chi cannot measure. To determine whether acupuncture works, it is not good to use a system that does not believe in the structural framework.

So before we can answer the question “Is Acupuncture Medical Knowledge?”, we have to either determine whether the chi exists or we need to find an alternative methodology; science-based medicine has not attempted to do that.

As a statistician I would try to design an experiment in which similar symptoms and disease has been treated by acupuncture. If various combination of needle placements are supposed to fix a disease, then I would try to find patients with those symptoms and then apply the treatment. I don’t know that science-based medicine has done that.

I have previously argued that there is 3000 years of evidence regarding the efficacy of acupuncture. Here is a paragraph from the one-way sceptics that describes that evidence:-

“In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective.” from here.

Now this looks like good evidence that acupuncture works. In fact the figures might well be too good. As a sceptic I would try to find whether the investigations have been manipulated. But until I found such I would have to say the evidence is good that acupuncture works.

Here is what science-based medicine said “This is important to the understanding of the acupuncture literature, as many of the positive studies are coming out of China. The unrealistically high percentage of positive studies makes the Chinese body of clinical literature very suspect.” from here. Suspect, maybe, but given the wealth of evidence in favour of acupuncture a scientist needs to accept the conclusions. Surely if there is such a preponderance of suspect literature, it would be easy to find dubious “studies”. But science-based medicine does not accept the conclusions, has found no dubious studies, and continues to attack acupuncture treatments. This is not sound science. As a sceptic I would also consider such numbers high, but I would need far more evidence than statistical scepticism to imply such a body of evidence is “lies”. And when you consider the level of influence BigPharma has on western medicine the source of the conclusions is more likely to be funding pressure than scientific veracity.

Let me push at the personal boundaries here. Undoubtedly there is Chinese national pride in acupuncture so as a sceptic I must question. However western science also demonstrates its own pride feeling that its own academia is the best in the world – more than likely true. But making a statement that implies that because the figures are high they must be rigged is simply disguised racism. This is supposed to be science-based medicine so the metier of criticism is science. I am sure that the studies in China and elsewhere were published in journals, and I am equally sure such journals had some sort of academic rigour prior to publication. Examine that rigour, point out erroneous assumptions, question experimental methodology. Without applying this sort of criteria and drawing the conclusion they have done has meant that SBM is little more than western pride and disguised racism.

Why does consideration of acupuncture fit in with mindfulness methodology? What is the conditioning point? That is the question. SBM dismisses China’s evidence yet at the same time they do not recognise their own vested interest in supporting a system that is funded by BigPharma – nor do they recognise their own institutional academic pride. Their scepticism is one-way. As a sceptic I would question the evidence in China but I could not dismiss it based simply on scepticism as the evidence is too strong.

This would mean that there would need to be appropriately-funded research. The design of the experiment would have to be extremely robust in terms of:-

a) Effectively measuring the functioning of acupuncture within its environment.
b) Allowing such sceptics as SBM to have unbiassed access to the design.
c) Not requiring western-based machines that cannot measure chi to be part of the design
d) Having a design that could test success or failure without needing to accept the chi framework.

I doubt whether BigPharma would be willing to fund such an experiment, and given the plethora of evidence in China why should the onus of funding be on them. UNESCO might be a way forward but their ties are western and BigPharma influence might be too strong.

BigPharma’s business strategy cannot realistically be access to the Chinese market, however it can be limiting western acceptance of acupuncture. Appealing to racism that dismisses Chinese science would fit in with such a strategy.

“Is Acupuncture Applied Medical Science?” ought to be the title of this blogpost but science dismisses the existence of chi without appropriate scientific investigation. The reasons for this are not scientifically clear given the high proportion of people on earth who accept the existence of chi and prana. As patents cannot be taken out on “nature” and as there can therefore be no profits to BigPharma, my scepticism indicates BigPharma influence as to why science is not currently investigating the chi.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Gindsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Investigating cancer research


As a sceptic I wish to investigate cancer and cancer research, if ever there was an area of medicine in which sound scepticism and ensuing investigation with unbiased integrity was needed it is cancer research.

On the one hand there is radiation treatment and chemotherapy. Doctors who use such treatments claim that the science supports them. However the results of such treatments produce such tremendously awful side effects, many people question whether the treatments are worth it. These treatments kill healthy and cancer cells, and the doctors who use the treatments are apologetic but say there is nothing else.

Here is the problem there are people who claim there is something else. There is a huge bank of anecdotal evidence that various treatments have worked. Such treatments include

Macrobiotics
Gerson
Burszynski
Cannabis
Laetrile
Simoncini and Sodium Bicarbonate

and more ….

Not only this but some of these treatments especially Gerson and Burszynski claim they have carefully documented scientific evidence to support their treatments. Yet despite people donating huge amounts of money to cancer research charities these alternative treatments are not investigated.

As a sceptic I do not accept any conditioned conclusions. With regards to the existing practices I have many questions, and these revolve around the current cancer treatment practices. I have the feeling that many oncologists accept chemotherapy because there is nothing better. But what about research into this decision? Are the side effects more harmful than the benefits of the treatment?

As far as I know there are different chemotherapy drugs used for different types of cancer, are these known and established? Is it known that such a drug will work on such a cancer for all the various stages? When does such a drug not work?

Are there cancers in which there is no treatment?

What appears to be happening to me is that mainstream medicine does not have any choices and chooses chemo. This is not a scientific approach unless there is evidence to support the chemicals in all situations.

The real problem that exists with evaluation of existing cancer treatments is the control of the research process that BigPharma has. As a sceptic it seems reasonable to ask the above questions, and from a neutral perspective all humans would like verified answers. Critics of the situation claim that BigPharma inhibits any research that would reduce the use of their drugs. As a sceptic I want those questions answered. I do not see sceptics such as the SBM even asking the questions. It should also be noted here the control that medical insurance has on the choice of treatment, chemo is accepted by insurance; here BigPharma and the finance industry are hand-in-hand.

From a different perspective what about the alternative treatments? SBM and similar science sceptics dismiss them as not even worth investigating. Yet there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence where claims that each of these treatments has “cured cancer”. As a sceptic I want such anecdotes investigated. It is not sufficient to dismiss such evidence because it does not fit the existing recovery model – which appear to many simply to be chemo or not.

As a sceptic I want such “evidence” investigated in an unbiassed way. There is a “huge” amount of anecdotal evidence that could contribute to legitimate scientific knowledge. To me this is what a sceptic should be asking for not taking a partisan side that only supports the status quo. Especially as such a status quo has got to be influenced by the power and influence of BigFood, BigPharma and finance.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Gindsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.