Woo
-
@antipodean said in Woo:
@canefan dry needling works to activate and release muscles.
That lines up with my experience also. With it being used to stimulate blood flow and tissue etc. Often pretty deep in the muscle where massage isn't as effective.
No personal experience around use of needles to assist with addiction or other health conditions. Always a bit dubious when one type of treatment can apparently treat nearly any condition known to humankind!!
But I could easily be in the placebo camp I guess
-
@Paekakboyz said in Woo:
lways a bit dubious when one type of treatment can apparently treat nearly any condition known to humankind!!
True. The miracle cure, as if it's marijuana!
-
@taniwharugby said in Woo:
I sent my son to a hypnotherapist....I am skeptical, but the reaction and change in my son following it was real.
I had been having issues with my neck and went to see someone recently, which was a more alternative treatment, was great, felt awesome after, but couple of days, was back to where I was before I went in, so went to my chiropractor and sorted now.
Weeelll ... chiropractic and osteopathy ...
... a degree of woo in those two as well.
Probably good for lower back pain though
-
-
@Crucial Facial eczema?
That's caused by fungal spores that the sheep ingest and then damages their livers. Basically like swallowing poison, so I'd be pretty sceptical about the coloured wool unless it's somehow magically repairing damaged livers.
-
@antipodean said in Woo:
@canefan dry needling works to activate and release muscles.
Fuck yeah. Had it done a couple of times to my trapezius and felt like I was getting massage x 100.
As for chiro - I've been seeing someone who is a chiropractor/kinesiologist and while some of it is quackery, most of the nerve/muscle release work she does is very effective on the rugby injuries I pick up that won't go away.
Plus she's hot. So totally hot.
-
I've never been to a chiropractor but from what I understand if they aren't giving you exercises to help alleviate your issue and strengthen the weakness they are just getting you into a cycle of returning when your issue flares up again.
The ex had really sore feet when she was pregnant, wouldn't go to a doctor and instead went to an acupuncturist. He put a needle into a nerve or something and caused her quite a bit of pain for a long time and made her even more irritating to be around.
-
@antipodean said in Woo:
@canefan dry needling works to activate and release muscles.
Fuck yeah. Had it done a couple of times to my trapezius and felt like I was getting massage x 100.
As for chiro - I've been seeing someone who is a chiropractor/kinesiologist and while some of it is quackery, most of the nerve/muscle release work she does is very effective on the rugby injuries I pick up that won't go away.
Plus she's hot. So totally hot.
Chiros have lots of funny ideas and pseudoscience. Plus, unlike physios, there seems to be no rehab just a desire to lock you into regular maintenance visits
-
@canefan where they know most folks don't actually do the regular rehab work - so there's often a latent customer guilt factor to prey upon!!
-
@Paekakboyz I never did my rehab work solely so I would have to keep going back to my physio.
-
@antipodean said in Woo:
@Paekakboyz I never did my rehab work solely so I would have to keep going back to my physio.
She must be hawt
-
Chiros have lots of funny ideas and pseudoscience. Plus, unlike physios, there seems to be no rehab just a desire to lock you into regular maintenance visits
I'm with @antipodean on this - hawt chiro = visits. Suck it up, health fund.
Plus they definitely had a plan for fixing me and it didn't take more than 3 or 4 visits even for the worst stuff.
-
@Crucial Facial eczema?
That's caused by fungal spores that the sheep ingest and then damages their livers. Basically like swallowing poison, so I'd be pretty sceptical about the coloured wool unless it's somehow magically repairing damaged livers.
Yeah, I know what Facial eczema is and what causes it. Also know that when you get certain weather patterns that help the spore growth it is a bitch of a thing to have affect your stock.
As I said. I have no idea whether the therapy thing was timing coincidence or how anyone can logically thing out would work but out of shear desperation it was used and the results were telling and timely. In this case it can't be a placebo effect either.Just to reiterate what I was trying to say. There are many things dismissed as quackery because we don't understand them. Scientists have either not studied them deeply/had funding/ had useable results for data etc. There are also some things which have been studied deeply and disproven. Some therapies work much better on some people than others as well.
Given that we only just starting to understand some of the intricacies around genetics and especially neuro-science I would be loath to dismiss out of hand anything that directly affects the nervous system (e.g. acupuncture). Just because we don't understand how it works to a degree of prescription doesn't mean it doesn't work for some people. -
@Crucial Facial eczema?
That's caused by fungal spores that the sheep ingest and then damages their livers. Basically like swallowing poison, so I'd be pretty sceptical about the coloured wool unless it's somehow magically repairing damaged livers.
Yeah, I know what Facial eczema is and what causes it. Also know that when you get certain weather patterns that help the spore growth it is a bitch of a thing to have affect your stock.
As I said. I have no idea whether the therapy thing was timing coincidence or how anyone can logically thing out would work but out of shear desperation it was used and the results were telling and timely. In this case it can't be a placebo effect either.Just to reiterate what I was trying to say. There are many things dismissed as quackery because we don't understand them. Scientists have either not studied them deeply/had funding/ had useable results for data etc. There are also some things which have been studied deeply and disproven. Some therapies work much better on some people than others as well.
Given that we only just starting to understand some of the intricacies around genetics and especially neuro-science I would be loath to dismiss out of hand anything that directly affects the nervous system (e.g. acupuncture). Just because we don't understand how it works to a degree of prescription doesn't mean it doesn't work for some people.My issue with the people who peddle woo is the way they present it in a way that's not much different to conspiracy theory loons. Big pharma is demonised for a start as is western science "they are just trying to make money off you etc " . If you have a genuine alternative treatment that's great, do peer reviewed clinical trials and lets how it or if it works either by itself or with conventional treatments. Trouble is too often the people peddling alternative remedies don't do themselves any favours at all with their behaviour.
Obviously this does not apply to homeopathy, it's complete and utter nonsense ad doesn't deserve to be treated with anything but contempt.
-
Ok ... accupuncture ...
... Doc, who is reportedly quite old school (as suggested by his practice partner one day when I had to see him instead) is right into accupuncture.
Has got me to be stuck with needles for a couple of weeks (disc, back, nerve issue).
Frankly .... it's doing absolutely nothing. Just as expected.
Am quite astonished though that a modern trained medical doctor is into accupuncture.
Physios do it a lot, seems to work for them. Maybe your guy is doing it wrong?
Plenty of rugby physios use it.
I've had one course of it at a time when I used to get chronic hayfever and the drugs were just making me drowsy all the time. Was suggested by a GP as they had seen success in the past.
Therapy involved a lot of needles around the sinus area and a few in the arms and it actually did have an effect.
I'm loath to dismiss it entirely as targeting nerves and the effects on the brain are not fully understood by 'modern medicine' anyway. Neurologists are still researching and finding out all sorts of stuff so it isn't as if the method is disproven, it is just unproven.Thing is with a lot of this stuff is that it doesn't always work and doesn't work on all people, which is the threshold for 'proof'. Sometimes there is no harm in trying and if it works for you, then great.If it doesn't then certainly don't keep persisting or trying to sell it to others or think it is the first and only port of call.
That isn't how clinical trials work. A treatment is compared with a placebo (generally in a randomised trial), and a difference in outcome between the placebo and treatment groups is examined using statistical tests. The treatment does not have to show benefits for all patients. It has to be more likely to work (produce a better outcome) than the placebo. This includes analysis of subgroups that may respond differently to the treatment.
-
@Crucial Facial eczema?
That's caused by fungal spores that the sheep ingest and then damages their livers. Basically like swallowing poison, so I'd be pretty sceptical about the coloured wool unless it's somehow magically repairing damaged livers.
Yeah, I know what Facial eczema is and what causes it. Also know that when you get certain weather patterns that help the spore growth it is a bitch of a thing to have affect your stock.
As I said. I have no idea whether the therapy thing was timing coincidence or how anyone can logically thing out would work but out of shear desperation it was used and the results were telling and timely. In this case it can't be a placebo effect either.Just to reiterate what I was trying to say. There are many things dismissed as quackery because we don't understand them. Scientists have either not studied them deeply/had funding/ had useable results for data etc. There are also some things which have been studied deeply and disproven. Some therapies work much better on some people than others as well.
Given that we only just starting to understand some of the intricacies around genetics and especially neuro-science I would be loath to dismiss out of hand anything that directly affects the nervous system (e.g. acupuncture). Just because we don't understand how it works to a degree of prescription doesn't mean it doesn't work for some people.My issue with the people who peddle woo is the way they present it in a way that's not much different to conspiracy theory loons. Big pharma is demonised for a start as is western science "they are just trying to make money off you etc " . If you have a genuine alternative treatment that's great, do peer reviewed clinical trials and lets how it or if it works either by itself or with conventional treatments. ...
And then give it away for free ...
-
Ok ... accupuncture ...
... Doc, who is reportedly quite old school (as suggested by his practice partner one day when I had to see him instead) is right into accupuncture.
Has got me to be stuck with needles for a couple of weeks (disc, back, nerve issue).
Frankly .... it's doing absolutely nothing. Just as expected.
Am quite astonished though that a modern trained medical doctor is into accupuncture.
Physios do it a lot, seems to work for them. Maybe your guy is doing it wrong?
Plenty of rugby physios use it.
I've had one course of it at a time when I used to get chronic hayfever and the drugs were just making me drowsy all the time. Was suggested by a GP as they had seen success in the past.
Therapy involved a lot of needles around the sinus area and a few in the arms and it actually did have an effect.
I'm loath to dismiss it entirely as targeting nerves and the effects on the brain are not fully understood by 'modern medicine' anyway. Neurologists are still researching and finding out all sorts of stuff so it isn't as if the method is disproven, it is just unproven.Thing is with a lot of this stuff is that it doesn't always work and doesn't work on all people, which is the threshold for 'proof'. Sometimes there is no harm in trying and if it works for you, then great.If it doesn't then certainly don't keep persisting or trying to sell it to others or think it is the first and only port of call.
That isn't how clinical trials work. A treatment is compared with a placebo (generally in a randomised trial), and a difference in outcome between the placebo and treatment groups is examined using statistical tests. The treatment does not have to show benefits for all patients. It has to be more likely to work (produce a better outcome) than the placebo. This includes analysis of subgroups that may respond differently to the treatment.
Yeah. Bit of an overstatement there on my part.
I guess my point is that if it helps someone then don't dismiss it entirely, try and understand how and why it helped that person and not others.
I do think we place a lot of emphasis on fixing the general rather than analysing the few to see if there are lessons that can be applied to a greater effect.
Public health services in particular are geared toward blanket advice to capture as many people as possible (which isn't in itself a bad thing). When that advice doesn't work then people search for alternatives with no idea what may or may not work for them and have to trial and error everything themselves.Slightly off the topic but in a similar vein I have often wondered why with cancer research so much of the effort goes into cures and vaccines while less effort is put into understanding why some people get cancer from a set of circumstances and others don't. If, for example, someone could be tested for likelihood of melanoma then they could be extra careful instead of a blanket advice to everyone to slip, slop, slap.
Learning vulnerabilities is a great way of targeting. -
@Crucial A quick answer on the cancer bit - the predictive power of epidemiological studies is very weak. For most things it is very hard to gather convincing data to support behavioural recommendations, let alone getting people to make successful behavioural changes (obesity!). Smoking and sunburn are probably the best known exceptions. Cancer research institutes do spend quite a bit of money of these things, perhaps with the opportunity cost of investigating more of the basic science.
Additionally, the effect sizes are probably small, and very many people will get cancer eventually anyway. Most cancers are probably from random mutation, especially when infectious disease causes are excluded. Studies on medical interventions do have strong predictive power, and medical intervention will be required for a very high proportion of the population.
Earlier/less-invasive/cheaper diagnosis is an interesting field (that I have worked in), and is certainly being pursued, but pharmaceutical and vaccine development has a much stronger record for return on investment in terms of patient survival and money. It is likely that improved genomic diagnosis will be tightly integrated with pharmaceutical development and prescribing in the future.
One area I would be interested in seeing more information on is the effect of additives like benzene in transport fuels. Especially given the importance of automobile emissions for air pollution in cities.
-
Thanks Tim. I'm not sure if I have misunderstood some of that but are you saying that it is more likely that getting a cancer is a combination of environmental impacts and luck than environmental impacts and genetics? Or is that an area where we simply don't know enough and it isn't currently producing enough bang for buck?
There are people that spend all day in the sun without protection never getting melenomas alongside others that can cop it from a dose of sunburn. My everyman logic tells me that is probably genetic but if it is down to randomness then I guess blanket attempts at controlling the environmental impact will have the greater effect. -
@Crucial I was mainly talking about behaviour and exposure. e.g. diet and pollution.
Studies of gene variants as risk factors are certainly an important (and highly pursued) area of research. The most well known being the BRCA mutations for breast cancer (these two genes encode tumour suppressor proteins that aid in chromosomal repair).
If you can find a variant of a gene that reduces risk for cancer, then you can try to mimic its action and make a valuable drug. (This is how the new PCSK9 inhibitor drugs, for controlling cholesterol, were developed.) However, except for outliers, genetic risk is controlled by the complex interaction of networks of many genes, and deciphering these is very difficult, especially with only epidemiological data to go on. And finally, you need to develop a drug to take advantage of that information. Then you must decide if that development strategy is better than pursuing another, such as looking at common mutations in tumour cells and trying to block them.
An important distinction is between your genome, which is the same throughout your body, and the genome of your cancer cells. The latter has developed mutations in the gene sequences, which may differ from tumour cell to tumour cell, and it is these that drive the tumour's progression. (e.g. growth, drug sensitivity, and metastasis)
Much effort in cancer diagnosis and drug development is going into studying these tumour DNA mutations (and gene expression profiles), to understand how they determine tumour behaviour and drug interactions. For example, mutations in the RAS family of genes (especially KRAS) are important in the progression and drug sensitivity of many cancers, but particularly for high mortality lung and colon cancer. A lot of effort is going into finding drugs for these targets, and diagnosing, and predicting prognosis, from studying these mutations in circulating DNA and tumour cells in the blood. e.g. If a patient is responding to treatment, but the number of KRAS mutation positive cells/DNA fragments is increasing, then a change of drug will be needed in the near future.
Chiropractic - Wikipedia
