>I am an enthusiast of acupuncture, but you can't be sure it ( they ) were
>successfully used for thousands of years, since you have no data proving it
>( they ) did really work then.
>Regarding their being considered experimental and alternative because they
>are part of a different paradigm: Yes, that's it! Belonging to a
>non-mainstream paradigm is exactly what qualifies whatever it is to be
>called alternative. Being mainstream is what qualifies something to be the
>first choice. Just don't forget that western medicine is mainstream not only
>for being westerner, but also for being able to be demonstrated, repeated,
>refuted, explained. That's not really what happens with acupuncture and
>other systems... though I use them.
As for your first statement, there are certainly no data proving that
acupuncture worked in the past. But likewise there was no data proving
that, e.g., Jenner's smallpox vaccination worked until considerable time
after it had been in common use.
Western medicine is mainstream for many reasons, most of them political.
I taught at the UNiversity of Michigan for 20 years. Did you know that in
1900 the University of Michigan had two medical schools, one of them
homeopathic and better attended than the other one. Most homeopathic
treatments have been shown to be effective, but only in an anecdotal
sense, because there is no way of determining the exact biochemical
pathway a homeopathic medication takes.
I taught mathematics, statistics and computer science at the University
of Michigan. Most of what passes for statistical research in the medical
journals I usually read would have received failing grades in courses
that I taught.
Bless Your Heart(s),
Jeffrey Joel
JSJoel@c...
Circulation
Crone Chronicles: A Journal of Conscious Aging
|
|  |
