GO AWAY Idiot promoter for fantasy snake oil products! BOOO!!!

Oops. Thought I had been more clear than that in my previous explanation. In fact on rereading it I'm fairly convinced that I was. I'll restate my position in different terms to maybe clear up the confusion.

I suspect the kernel of our misunderstanding lies in your previous post. Thank you for helping me to crystallize my view.
"Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away. "

A-Obama uses religion for political reasons.
B-Santorum would implement policy for religious reasons.

I don't think I can make it much more clear than that. I would immensely prefer that religion be mishandled in the pursuit of politics, than the country be mishandled in the pursuit of religion. If that means I'm a hypocrite, than I proudly am.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.
Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.
Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.
Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.
And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.
Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.

Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.

Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.

Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.

And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.

Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

@GenjiKilpatrick I guess I should put this more bluntly, since you're just responding to me with slogans and talking points anyways. I don't want Ron Paul within a million miles of the Presidency. He is not even a slight match for me. He is a radical neo-Confederate psychopath.

The libertarian theory of governance is bunk. If all the government does is uphold absolute property rights, and enforce contract rights, then we don't all get more power, it means the wealthy people who own everything get more power, and the police just become their security guards.

The way I see it, nothing in this country will ever improve as long as this entire line of argument persists. The conversation we should be having is "what are the best government policies to move us forward" not this BS argument about whether government policies should exist at all.

Ron Paul exemplifies the worst aspects of the American right -- he whitewashes the past, and tries to bring old, failed, tyrannical, cruel policies from a century or more ago back to life, all the while trying to drape it in powdered wigs, the American flag, and cheese-covered freedom fries. But it's just snake oil. Hell, it's not just snake oil, it's fucking Soylent Green.

Have you ever looked at Ron Paul's personal copy of the Constitution? It's a cookbook! A cookbook!

The Washington Hillbillies have lost all their folksy charm after people who believed in her realize their wallets are thinner after she blew through town selling nothing but snake oil.

@JiggaJonson, we have snake oil salesmen today. Homeopathy is just that. Herbal potency pills are too. And many people think asparagus is an aphrodisiac. People are still trying to sell their inferior products to the masses, but the real problem with snake oil salesmen is that they usually came on a horse drawn carriage, and after selling to their marks they were gone. In today's society, most people can and do get their drugs from a brick and mortar store. If someone sells them something purporting to cure something and it doesn't, they could sue for fraud.

But this is a huge distraction from what we were talking about. At the end of the day, opening up the research market to the world and allowing global competition did in three weeks what top researchers couldn't do in decades.

The free market works. The more eyes we can put on a cure or solving a problem, the quicker we get results and the more it helps society and medical progress. Who would be against that?

What did they call those guys who cook up shit in their bathtubs and go around selling it town to town in a completely unregulated (free market) environment? OH YEAH!

Snake Oil from Zina Saunders on Vimeo.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'iRenew, scam, as seen on tv, empty, promises, snake oil' to 'iRenew, scam, as seen on tv, empty, promises, snake oil, that is so cooool' - edited by calvados

Ignoring the video - which is typical bilge - I'll move on to actual substance. Here is the crux of the current panic that is gripping the Warmies... Their empire is crumbling and they know it. Hence, they are lashing out in panic and anger. This is typical of most socialist scams when they go belly-up, as is further evidenced by the riots in Europe and elsewhere.

The Warmies have always had a particularly ugly sow’s ear they were desperately trying to turn into a silk purse. Their primary concern has never been the cliimate. Their sole objectives have always been entirely oriented around the creation of expensive programs which force human beings to accept decreased standards of living, reduced freedoms, higher taxes, less food, costly commodities, limited transportation, and onerous regulations. In exchange for all these burdens, humanity was to be provided a very nebulous ‘benefit’ (0.001% lower C02) which was by no means even guaranteed by the implementation of their draconian measures. That’s a tough bottle of snake oil to sell, even IF you have ironclad proof of your argument. And of course when it came right down do it the problem with the Warmies' argument was that they NEVER had proof of any kind beyond fabrications, exaggerations, and fevered imagination.

One of the main problems with all you Warmies is that you can't put forward a position. You talk about 'scientific proof' of 'climate change'. Pht. You don't need the rigor of scientific method to tell anyone that the climage changes. Dur dur dur. Everyone accepts the premise that Earth's climate is not static. Wow - what a keen observation.

Where the Warmies have lost the argument is thier plaintive, inaccurate, unproven position that HUMAN C02 emmissions are (A) what changes the climate and (B) the climate can be changed by reducing human C02. There was never any evidence of that position. But Warmies love to muddle terminology and pretend that just because 'scientists' agree that climate is changing (again - not much of an accomplishment) that also all those scientists agree that human activity is responsible for it (which they most decidedly do NOT).

Add on top of that the fundamental reality that many of the cornerstones of the APG Warmie movement have been proven to be complete bunk. Just this week the Polar Bear guy was proven by a federal probe to be completely full of crap. He had no data that bears were dying because of human activity as he claiimed. The hockey stick chart - falsified. East Anglia university data - the numbers are cooked. The IPCC panels - all thier data is bad and the majority of thier claims have all been debunked and failed. Time and time again when you put the Warmies under the microscope of REAL SCIENCE, the argument completely falls apart.

The video has it completely backwards. It is not FOX & conservatives who are faking thier way. The entire climate change movement and all its acolytes are the ones who are lying to accomplish a biased, incorrect, inaccurate, anti-science objective entirely for political purposes.

I'm terribly late to the party, but I can't resist commenting here. This is a wonderful post with loads of great ideas and comments. I'll go bullet style like all the cool kids are doing.

* Taxation of individuals, and more to the point enforcement of individual tax laws, comes down to prioritization. Morally, it may feel better to want the IRS to tackle the super rich, but financially, it is in fact more beneficial to audit those less capable of evasion. If the IRS can spend $5k to get $10k from several individuals, that is fiscally more useful than spending millions going after one individual that can indefinitely avoid settling up. Corporations, on the other hand, are another matter entirely. Corporations are given the rights of citizens, like free speech, due process, etc., but are not expected to fulfill the same obligations in terms of taxes, being honest with law enforcement, being eligible for military service, voting, etc. That's a whole other can of worms opened up by the SCOTUS back in the 1800s. The answer lies in removing the citizen like rights of corporations, but that's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

* Welfare serves the dual purpose of helping those who have been screwed over by circumstance and those who have been screwed over by the system. It is something that the vast majority of right wingers will claim is better served by private charities, which are invariably faith based. Even AA is a religious organization. And every person that subscribes to a faith of one sort or another will tell you that nearly all charities are faith based. You know why? Because its virtually impossible to get non-profit status and wide recognition for an organization unless it is faith based. That historical/cultural bias is reason enough for me to justify a secular/communal charity system.

* Conventional nuclear power is great, assuming it is done safely. That's the problem, though - is it economically viable to maintain conventional nuclear power plants safely? None of the arguments I've seen on either side of the issue really deal with that aspect. It basically comes down to a matter of risk management, which TEPCO clearly failed at. Implementing conventional nuclear power safely requires a really absurd amount capital, but it may be economically smart at a large enough scale. Figuring out the economics of safe nuclear power is way above my pay grade. Ultimately, I believe it is something humans are quite capable of doing, but is there enough political will to do it properly?

* Free markets are awesome! Don't confuse free markets with capitalist bullying, though. A free market assumes that everyone in the market has the same information as everyone else. That's the only way it can actually be free. As soon as one party manipulates the information available to others, the market is no longer free. That applies to everything from snake oil remedies to irresponsible mortgages. A free market doesn't mean a market free of regulation, it means one in which everyone has equal access to the marketplace, producers and consumers alike.

* Small government, or even no government, is ideal because ideally everyone thinks like you do, and has exactly the same minimal requirements that you have. In the real world, the needs of individuals in very large social groups are immensely varied. You may live your whole life without ever needing the services of a fire department. You may not ever need to protect yourself from a psychopathic killer. Hell, you may run your own website from your home and never do more than walk your kids along a deer path to a private school near you. But you are a part of a society. Your kids' teacher may live 50 miles away and need to travel along paved roads to get to that wonderful school. The web of internetworked computers upon which your income relies was first conceived by people working at public institutions. The smallpox vaccination you got as a kid was developed by a tax funded group of doctors. The nuclear power that you want to support would never have been possible without vast amounts of federal funding. Bureaucratic and corruption waste is not unique to government, and any properly organized system can minimize waste. It's not the idea of government, but its implementation that makes it wasteful. Corporations are no more immune to that waste than any other collective. It's true that waste is easier to identify and possibly eliminate in smaller systems, but very large organizational systems are required for big results like space travel, vaccinations, and imperial domination.

* Do not confuse religion with spirituality. Religion is about dogma and social control. Spirituality is about one's connection with the universe. If your neighbor believes in a grey bearded man in the sky that created everything 6000 years ago, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his desire to eliminate the teaching of evolution from public schools. He may use the former to justify the latter, but the two are not really connected. If someone comes to your door offering a deeper connection with the universe around you through Jesus, you can listen politely, tell them that you are already plugged in, or whatever. If someone comes to your door to tell you that you and your family need to behave in a certain way, you can tell them to fuck off with a quite clear conscience.

I don't think any of these ideas are young or old, but it does take some time to refine them into something coherent. I'm 41 and I barely know what coherent or consistent means. One last thing to remember is that you are not who you were 10 years ago, or even 10 seconds ago. Every moment fresh water flows over the fall - it might look the same, but the rocks are never touched twice. (oh - now I'm just getting pretentious)

indeed.

Much of my work is on somatic theory.
Chiropractic, as an osteopathy derivative, has some solid basis in that they look at nerve compression at the spine, and while it is certainly true that decompressing innervation at the spine can help with other problems, such as GI issues and asthma, in a technique sense they are only focusing on one aspect of distortion - that of restriction at the spine. However, once there is a distortion at the spine (the bottom of the brain) it becomes a whole body pattern and issue...which requires far more time, patience, and attention to detail than merely popping a facet joint. It requires the type of time and patience that is non-existent in most of western medicine, or chiropractic. The body is a seamless whole.

It's very hard to make a lot of money doing this work.
But a chiro can pop 10 people an hour. A western doc can write 40 scrips an hour.

Massage is typically working by accident. It helps, but it is premised on a muscular approach, which is incredibly misleading. Muscles may dominate the body in terms of size, but they are a reactive system, not a controlling system, and the lowest man on the totem pole in terms of the hierarchy of survival mechanisms. Physical therapy is also stuck on the muscular approach to the body. In fact, this approach typically dominates western thought when it comes to somatic/structural distortion/pain. And most people go to hospitals with essentially somatic complaints. See where i'm going with this?

Harrington rods for scoliosis should one day be properly viewed as barbaric.


In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
A friend of mine had scoliosis, at least I think that what she had, I never heard the proper medical term for it. She had it corrected by doctors inserting some metal rods by her spine, so now her back is all stiff - I'm a little vague on the details since it's a while since I heard the story.

In any case, I agree that we must also heavily scrutinize the medical system, since companies go where the profits are, and if there are no profits to be had, then that kind of medicine is discarded and abandoned. This is what has happened with many potential cancer treatments, since there is less profit in un-patentable formulas than those that can be patented.

If your methods actually do work consistently then it would certainly stand up to scientific standards, it must be replicable and verifiable and that's basically it. The problem is that often it works like "magic" and heals some, but not all with what appears to be the same illness. This is due to a lack of understanding of what is actually wrong with a patient.

The back and nervous system is notoriously hard to "fix" since few people understand it very well and each person is unique (to some extent).

Some "alternative" medicines are perinormal - they work, but we don't know it yet. They are essentially medicines, but we have not determined precisely how and why they help. "Home remedies" are really a proto-version of alternative medicines in this way, in that someone once used it and it worked. Others, like homeopathy, are demonstrably false and are indeed scams. The make wild claims based on nothing but superstition and humbug.

Prayer is also not medicine. If you get bitten by a snake and pray for the venom to leave your body, you die.

The court of public opinion is highly subjective and cannot be trusted to make reliable judgments. This is why the scientific method exists - to eliminate the need for "he said, she said".

It is smart to be weary of the medicinal industry, I'll grant you that, but your doctor is not an arm of that - he (or she) is a healer, that is their goal. I am deeply troubled when certain doctors are influenced by incentives that go against the patient's best interest - it does happen, medicinal firms offering bonuses if you use their products even though they're inferior and so on. But the fact remains that this inferior product has still gone through channels which ensure that it does work, alternative medicine does not.

It is absolutely imperative that people are not deceived to believe that some treatments do more than they think, like when chiropractic offers treatments to non-musceloskeletal problems like ADHD or asthma. It may help your back, fair enough, I've cracked my own back and I think it helps, because it feels good - chocolate feels good too, but it doesn't help my health.

The second such a snake oil salesman does not want to stand up to proper scrutiny is when he has revealed himself to be a fraud. Because if his method is disproved, then he cannot fake it anymore.

I do not doubt that massage therapy does offer relief and helps with muscle problems, I could also believe that chiropractic helps with joint pain, muscle pain or some skeletal problems - but they must be studied and analysed properly and not just pretend like it works, we must know WHY it works.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
Some great insights.
My difficulty is in the gross generalizations that are taking place.
I do what some people call "alternative" medicine. I don't necessarily take exception to that title given the state of western medicine.
Growing up with a scoliosis I searched for different approaches to fix the problem, and eventually ended up practicing and teaching manual therapy from a neurological model of the body, focusing on rotational distortion. It is essentially cutting edge, and i can do things with a spine that would make a western neurosurgeon question his approach.

However I may not stand up to scrutiny by western standards, since I essentially view the body in a much different manner, and certainly work with it in a much different manner.
Tomorrow however, may be a different story, as it has been with acupuncture, massage, osteopathy, non-freudian psychology, or any number of treatments that have made their way into the mainstream. Scrutiny is often the court of public opinion, although this court of opinion is greatly effected by what we have been brought up to believe and who we automatically give status and credibility to.

I think it is essential that all practitioners of the healing arts, including western medicine, realize that our actual knowledge of the human body, it's functions, and it's abilities, is very small. And it is exceedingly important to keep those doors to possibilities open.

At the same time, it is incumbent upon us to heavily scrutinize the current accepted treatments which are more often than not inadequate, reliant upon drugs, or are barbaric in nature. At the same time we must heavily scrutinize an overall system which is premised on the industry making a profit, which lends itself to indefinitely treating symptoms rather than preventative medicine.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Scientific method.

"Alternative" medicine wants to do the same thing as Intelligent Design, it wants to take the easy road. ID wants to be in the class room without having sufficient evidence to support its claim. Alternative medicine wants to be sold and used to heal sick people. The latter is fine and even admirable, if it works, but there is insufficient evidence to support the claims that alternative medicine makes.

If you buy a service from me that I cannot provide, then you have been scammed and my claim was bunk. This is what alternative medicine does.

Defining alternative, it's medicine that hasn't gone through thorough scrutiny and does not stand up to it. It is medicine that doesn't work.

Pick your poison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine Homeopathy, Chiropractic, energy therapy, crystals all that stuff.

Regarding massage and acupuncture, I'm in a more relaxed approach, because they don't promise magical solutions. Massage works at healing muscle pain, certainly, and it certainly relaxing. Acupuncture, I don't have sufficient knowledge about to make a definitive judgment about. Naturally, I'm skeptical, because as far as I know, it has not been tested to the proper extent that it should to be called medicine. When I read about more details of it "Qi" and whatnot - I get more skeptical.

It may work, but it should be tested experimentally, before making claims of healing.

People are allowed to use their money as they want, but these things should damn well not be able to call themselves medicine. Relaxation, sure, therapy, perhaps, healing - no.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
would you care to define alternative? do you mean non-american, non-western?
does acupuncture stand up to western scrutiny? how about manual therapy? who's scrutiny are you talking about? Tell me how you measure what people FEEL with a machine, or a bloodtest.
how well does typical western medicine deal with back pain? - drugs, drugs, more drugs?
how about a scoliosis? neurological strain patterns? any chronic pain issue?
western medicine, relies on over-drugging it's patients, treating each as a number. What and how they practice is often completely controlled by insurance companies.
perhaps your statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
sure there is crap out there, but lets not pretend that western medicine is immune. far from it, it's peddling a good portion of the stinkiest garbage.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Alternative medicine is bunk. Like alternative math or alternative reason.

If there was any truth to it, it would stand up to scrutiny and it would be used as proper treatment. Homeopathy especially is downright fraud.

*debunked

A friend of mine had scoliosis, at least I think that what she had, I never heard the proper medical term for it. She had it corrected by doctors inserting some metal rods by her spine, so now her back is all stiff - I'm a little vague on the details since it's a while since I heard the story.

In any case, I agree that we must also heavily scrutinize the medical system, since companies go where the profits are, and if there are no profits to be had, then that kind of medicine is discarded and abandoned. This is what has happened with many potential cancer treatments, since there is less profit in un-patentable formulas than those that can be patented.

If your methods actually do work consistently then it would certainly stand up to scientific standards, it must be replicable and verifiable and that's basically it. The problem is that often it works like "magic" and heals some, but not all with what appears to be the same illness. This is due to a lack of understanding of what is actually wrong with a patient.

The back and nervous system is notoriously hard to "fix" since few people understand it very well and each person is unique (to some extent).

Some "alternative" medicines are perinormal - they work, but we don't know it yet. They are essentially medicines, but we have not determined precisely how and why they help. "Home remedies" are really a proto-version of alternative medicines in this way, in that someone once used it and it worked. Others, like homeopathy, are demonstrably false and are indeed scams. The make wild claims based on nothing but superstition and humbug.

Prayer is also not medicine. If you get bitten by a snake and pray for the venom to leave your body, you die.

The court of public opinion is highly subjective and cannot be trusted to make reliable judgments. This is why the scientific method exists - to eliminate the need for "he said, she said".

It is smart to be weary of the medicinal industry, I'll grant you that, but your doctor is not an arm of that - he (or she) is a healer, that is their goal. I am deeply troubled when certain doctors are influenced by incentives that go against the patient's best interest - it does happen, medicinal firms offering bonuses if you use their products even though they're inferior and so on. But the fact remains that this inferior product has still gone through channels which ensure that it does work, alternative medicine does not.

It is absolutely imperative that people are not deceived to believe that some treatments do more than they think, like when chiropractic offers treatments to non-musceloskeletal problems like ADHD or asthma. It may help your back, fair enough, I've cracked my own back and I think it helps, because it feels good - chocolate feels good too, but it doesn't help my health.

The second such a snake oil salesman does not want to stand up to proper scrutiny is when he has revealed himself to be a fraud. Because if his method is disproved, then he cannot fake it anymore.

I do not doubt that massage therapy does offer relief and helps with muscle problems, I could also believe that chiropractic helps with joint pain, muscle pain or some skeletal problems - but they must be studied and analysed properly and not just pretend like it works, we must know WHY it works.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
Some great insights.
My difficulty is in the gross generalizations that are taking place.
I do what some people call "alternative" medicine. I don't necessarily take exception to that title given the state of western medicine.
Growing up with a scoliosis I searched for different approaches to fix the problem, and eventually ended up practicing and teaching manual therapy from a neurological model of the body, focusing on rotational distortion. It is essentially cutting edge, and i can do things with a spine that would make a western neurosurgeon question his approach.

However I may not stand up to scrutiny by western standards, since I essentially view the body in a much different manner, and certainly work with it in a much different manner.
Tomorrow however, may be a different story, as it has been with acupuncture, massage, osteopathy, non-freudian psychology, or any number of treatments that have made their way into the mainstream. Scrutiny is often the court of public opinion, although this court of opinion is greatly effected by what we have been brought up to believe and who we automatically give status and credibility to.

I think it is essential that all practitioners of the healing arts, including western medicine, realize that our actual knowledge of the human body, it's functions, and it's abilities, is very small. And it is exceedingly important to keep those doors to possibilities open.

At the same time, it is incumbent upon us to heavily scrutinize the current accepted treatments which are more often than not inadequate, reliant upon drugs, or are barbaric in nature. At the same time we must heavily scrutinize an overall system which is premised on the industry making a profit, which lends itself to indefinitely treating symptoms rather than preventative medicine.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Scientific method.

"Alternative" medicine wants to do the same thing as Intelligent Design, it wants to take the easy road. ID wants to be in the class room without having sufficient evidence to support its claim. Alternative medicine wants to be sold and used to heal sick people. The latter is fine and even admirable, if it works, but there is insufficient evidence to support the claims that alternative medicine makes.

If you buy a service from me that I cannot provide, then you have been scammed and my claim was bunk. This is what alternative medicine does.

Defining alternative, it's medicine that hasn't gone through thorough scrutiny and does not stand up to it. It is medicine that doesn't work.

Pick your poison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine Homeopathy, Chiropractic, energy therapy, crystals all that stuff.

Regarding massage and acupuncture, I'm in a more relaxed approach, because they don't promise magical solutions. Massage works at healing muscle pain, certainly, and it certainly relaxing. Acupuncture, I don't have sufficient knowledge about to make a definitive judgment about. Naturally, I'm skeptical, because as far as I know, it has not been tested to the proper extent that it should to be called medicine. When I read about more details of it "Qi" and whatnot - I get more skeptical.

It may work, but it should be tested experimentally, before making claims of healing.

People are allowed to use their money as they want, but these things should damn well not be able to call themselves medicine. Relaxation, sure, therapy, perhaps, healing - no.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
would you care to define alternative? do you mean non-american, non-western?
does acupuncture stand up to western scrutiny? how about manual therapy? who's scrutiny are you talking about? Tell me how you measure what people FEEL with a machine, or a bloodtest.
how well does typical western medicine deal with back pain? - drugs, drugs, more drugs?
how about a scoliosis? neurological strain patterns? any chronic pain issue?
western medicine, relies on over-drugging it's patients, treating each as a number. What and how they practice is often completely controlled by insurance companies.
perhaps your statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
sure there is crap out there, but lets not pretend that western medicine is immune. far from it, it's peddling a good portion of the stinkiest garbage.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Alternative medicine is bunk. Like alternative math or alternative reason.

If there was any truth to it, it would stand up to scrutiny and it would be used as proper treatment. Homeopathy especially is downright fraud.

*debunked

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Alternative, medicine, sham, snake oil, medic, battlefield' to 'alternative, medicine, homeopathy, sham, snake oil, medic, battlefield' - edited by calvados

downvote for "positive thinking" snake oil masquerading as philosophy

Mysling, when you believe that good people are being intentionally mislead and exploited, it does bring out a certain indignation. That is why 'scam' is both a powerful and a correct word to use here. When someone is swindled by a snake oil salesman, the compassionate thing to do is to expose him and condemn his actions. You don't try and reach a middle ground with the charlatan. This is why I admire the career's of men like James Randi and Ben Goldacre. The only distinctions between psudo-science, supernatural claims and religion is the level of harm and the demand on the victim.

But I think you also make an excellent point; offending people is often the quickest way to ensure they won't listen to you. I don't know what is the best way to be persuasive with someone who disagrees with you.