Acupuncture

John,

I see nothing in your most recent correspondence that warrants
furhter discussion. I'm perfectly satisfied to let readers of eBMJ decide
for themselves, on the basis of material already posted, whose views are
grounded in demonstrable fact and whose are grounded in self-serving
fantasy.

Best to all,

Bob

John,

While I agree that one of us has “slipped from the main issue,” (if
not “from the pale of reality”), I hasten to point out that I’m not the
guilty party. If, when asked to substantiate your claim to knowledge of
Neolithic Chinese medical beliefs, you insist on citing books about the
“Lost Continent of Mu,” “alleged secret knowledge of the Ancient
Egyptians,” and other such nonsense, I have little choice but to respond
to said nonsense.

You suggest that, perhaps, “we” have ventured into this intellectual
“La-La Land,” because you’ve “produced abundant evidence for the points
you made, leaving little more but ‘folklore’ to query.” I’ve not detected
a trace of this alleged evidence. To the contrary, it’s quite clear
you’ve taken to citing irrelevant nonsense because, while you haven’t a
shred of evidence to support your claims, you are for whatever reason
unwilling or unable to concede that they are baseless.

Once again, you disparage “skeptics” – this time for “disputing the
validity of folklore.” (I’m not sure what “invalid” folklore, fables, or
legends might even look like. Perhaps you could define “invalid folklore”
for us?) The truth is that, far from finding folklore “invalid” (whatever
that means), I find it fascinating. In fact, some of my skeptical
colleagues are even professional folklorists. Moreover, I agree that
folklore can and sometimes does suggest avenues of productive scientific
investigation. Consider the Iliad and Schliemann’s excavations at
Hissarlik, and the Norse sagas leading to Ingstad’s discoveries at L’Anse
aux Meadows. (But, to be fair, we must also consider Ponce de Leon’s quest
for the “Fountain of Youth,” and the pervasive quest among early European
explorers for the folkloric “Christian Kingdom of Prester John” – alleged
to lie variously in India, Africa and Central Asia)

It seems that the only “deficiency” my skeptical colleagues and I are
guilty of, at least from a credulous perspective, is that we appreciate
the distinction between myth and objective evidence. We hesitate to trot
out tales of “Paul Bunyan and his blue ox, Babe,” or “Aesop’s Fables,” or
“Saint Nicholas and his flying reindeer,” or even the story of “St. George
and the Dragon” in support of our historical or archeological hypotheses.

After blaming me for your having resorted to the “folklore as
objective evidence” argument, you immediately propose that we “now
entertain the 'folklore' debate.” My suggestion is: let’s not. You
obviously feel your folkloric conjectures support your claim to special
knowledge of Neolithic Chinese medical thought, and I obviously think the
notion is ridiculous.

You tell us “it was recorded in the Nei Jing that during the reign of
the Yellow Emperor (2690-2590BC) Bian Shi (stone probes) were already
being used to adjust people's Qi circulation. Now we are talking approx.
4,600 years ago.”

This is yet another example of “fable” masquerading as “historical
fact.” (“Recorded” by whom? You conveniently forget to tell us. And
where is the “record” of which you speak?) If you take the time to check
the Sinological literature, as distinct from the acupuncture/TCM advocate
literature, you’ll find the following.

1. As I pointed out earlier, the earliest existing copies of (the
three constituent parts of) the Huang-de nei-jing date only from the 5th
to the 8th centuries A.D.

2. There is a bibliographic reference to a book by the name of “Huang
-di nei-jing” in Han times (200 B.C. to 200 A.D.), BUT there are many
examples from Chinese literature wherein an early text with a particular
name turns out to have nothing, whatever, to do with later texts bearing
the same name. It was common practice for subsequent authors to enhance
the prestige of their own ideas and their own writings by “borrowing” the
title of older and highly venerated texts (much as alt advocates routinely
do today). The Han text bearing the name “Huang-di nei-jing” has not
survived. Therefore, we simply do not know if it had anything whatever to
do with the versions that have survived to the present.

If you were to write the “John Heptonstall, 1999 version” of “The
Travels of Marco Polo,” and if you were to claim that Marco was abducted
by space aliens, taken to Vega Five and then returned, would future
historians, in your view, be obliged to construe your work as an objective
part of the historical record regarding 13th century Marco Polo? Just
curious.

3. So far as I’m aware, the earliest references to “qi” in what might
be construed as a medical or physiological sense date to the writings of
Meng-tsu and Tsou-yang in the 4th century B.C. – more than 20 centuries
later than the legendary reign of the Yellow Emperor. If you can cite
primary sources that indicate otherwise, please do so.

4. The earliest Chinese medical texts known today were discovered in
1973 at the Mawangdui graves, which were sealed in 168 BC. These
documents, a total of fourteen medical texts written on silk and wood,
provide a unique and apparently comprehensive picture of Chinese medicine
as it existed during the third and early second centuries BC. They are of
particular interest, not only because of their extreme antiquity, but
because they are the only such comprehensive medical texts to have
descended through the ages totally untouched and unmodified by subsequent
editors and revisers. Moxa-cauterization, compresses, fumigations,
medicinal baths, minor surgery, magical incantations, magical ritual
movements, massage, cupping, steaming, pressure with stones, and some 217
pharmaceutics are described. Although they record a broad spectrum of
therapeutic procedures available in China at the time, acupuncture is not
mentioned even once in these texts. If acupuncture were a significant
part of Chinese medical practice at the time, how could any rational
person reasonably explain this fact?

5. The earliest literary reference to any kind of therapeutic
“needling” (zhen) is found in the Shiji, [Records of the Historian], of
Sima Qian, written circa 90 BC. No known Chinese source prior to this
time refers unequivocally to any such technique. Sima Qian mentions
“needling” in passing three times, once in the biography of Bian Que, and
twice in the biography of Chunyu Yi. He offers no indication that these
practitioners were aware of a system of insertion points or that they were
acquainted with the fundamental system of conduits (described in later
centuries) whose “qi” flow might be influenced by “needling.”

6. No serious Sinologist or historian of medicine I’m aware of views
the Yellow Emperor as a real, flesh-and-blood, individual, much less one
who lived in the 24th or 25th centuries B.C (the traditional “folkloric”
dates ascribed to his reign). If you know of any Sinologist or historian
of medicine who holds such a belief, please name them and cite their
published statements supporting your claim.

7. Sinologist and historian of medicine, Prof. Paul Unschuld,
apparently has “in press” a book offering compelling argument that what
we, today, construe as the Huang-di nei-jing was compiled between 100 B.C.
and roughly 1,000 A.D. In any case, the consensus view among serious
historians and Sinologists today is that the Huang-di was not compiled
earlier than the first century B.C. (References upon request.)

8. You mention the Yellow Emperor’s physician, Qi Bo, but apparently
fail to realize the genuine significance of this figure. Qi Bo and his
commentaries raise the fascinating possibility that information presented
in the Huang-di nei-jing may not even be Chinese in origin. Scholars have
advanced the hypothesis that Qi Bo, the most important interlocutor of the
Yellow Emperor in The Inner Cannon of the Yellow Emperor, is none other
than Hippocrates of Cos.
The figure Qi Bo has no background in Chinese history or mythology, and
this fact, together with the Han-period pronunciation of his name [G'ieg
Pak], suggests that the fame of the Greek physician may have reached China
two centuries or more after his death. In any case, the “commentaries of
Qi Bo,” (extant copies of which are only 1,200 to 1,500 years old), in no
way support your wild conjecture that “Beijing Homo erectus practiced a
form of TCM-herbalism (and possibly acupuncture) all those years ago in
ancient China (half a million years ago) selecting local flora and fauna
for health.”

You insist that, based on “numerous publications, especially the ones
you [I] provided, no consensus has yet been reached as to what is EBM.”
This is essentially a false claim. All advocates of evidence-based
scientific biomedicine I’m aware of agree emphatically that “anecdote,”
“patient/client testimonial,” and practitioner/patient/client “experience”
count for nothing in discerning the “objective evidential basis” for
medical claims. This certainly constitutes a “consensus” by any reasonable
standard, and it certainly excludes the beliefs, claims, and “anecdotal
gold standard” promoted by most advocates of “alternative” medicine.

The only issue under discussion among EBM advocates is the relative
emphasis that should be placed on various types of objective evidence such
as RCTs, systematic reviews, prospective vs. retrospective studies, and so
on. I’m unaware of a single EBM advocate who holds that “anecdotes,”
“medical fables,” “patient satisfaction,” or “practitioner experience”
should be ascribed equal weight to any of these things. If you can name
one, and can offer supporting documentation, please do so.

As I pointed out in my previous post to this forum, your absurd claim
is exactly analogous to the claims of U.S. “Creationists” when they assert
that “there is no consensus among scientists regarding the theory of
evolution.” The truth, of course, is that virtually all competent bio-
scientists agree that evolution has taken place and is, therefore “a
fact”: they only dispute the precise mechanisms and means by which it
works. The fact is that advocates of evidence- and science-based medicine
have, indeed, reached a “consensus” as to what does and does not
constitute “objective evidence.” Unfortunately for you and other “highly
invested” alt med advocates, they have, for very good reason, excluded the
highly subjective, arbitrary and demonstrably unreliable “standards” you
obviously hold dear.

If you steadfastly insist on venturing into the realms of fantasy,
myth, and "wishful thinking" in order to support your acupuncture/TCM
beliefs, it's difficult to see the point in continuing this dialog. On
the other hand, so long as you insist on mis-representing the facts in
support of your "acupuncture, TCM and/or alternative medical" beliefs,
I'll do my best to continue "casting the light of science, scholarship,
and reality" on your fantasies.

In any case, for your sake, and the sake of all those fated to read
what you write, I hope you'll eventually
learn to "do your homework" much more carefully before committing
additional misinformation to the public record. Misinformation ultimately
does no one any good.

Best to all,

Bob Imrie, DVM

John,

I think it speaks volumes that, when challenged to provide hard
evidence to support your claims regarding the medical beliefs of the
ancient Chinese thousands of years before the invention of writing, the
best you can do is to cite “Colonel” James Churchward (ca. 1850 – ca.
1936), the “Father of Crank Archeology,” and author of those “seminal
scientific works,” “The Lost Civilisation of Mu” (1926), and “The Children
of Mu.”

The “Colonel,” himself, tells us “All matters of science in this work
are based on the translations of certain ancient Naacal tablets which I
discovered in India many years ago.” Unfortunately, these “Naacal
tablets,” which “Hindu priests” taught him (and him alone) to translate
sometime during the 1870s, somehow managed to vanish into thin air soon
thereafter. (Funny how that always seems to happen whenever self-
described visionaries secretly discover and learn to interpret all the
evidence for a “lost continent” or a “lost civilization.” See the
histories of Theosophist, Madame Blavatsky, and Mormon patriarch, Joseph
Smith, to name just two examples.) So, basically, the “evidence” we’re
left with for the existence of the “lost continent of Mu” is the word of
James Churchward – which you obviously find highly compelling. I think
it’s worth pointing out here that Churchward not only claimed to be a
“Colonel, late of the Bengal Lancers,” but something of a “steel tycoon”
as well. Of course, no evidence seems to exist in support of these claims
either. Some folks will believe literally anything.

You tell us you were “taught by Prof LO Chi-kwong and his assistant
Dr TSUI Sui- king, (who both have “oodles of experience” and are very
highly regarded) … that the 'evolutionary theory of 'acupuncture &
moxibustion' tells of how thousands of years ago ancients located body
points which assisted in symptom removal through finger pressure … then
stone pressure was used, then 'puncture' was found to work…” Apparently,
you believe that, because these individuals are very experienced surgeons
and very highly regarded in China, what they taught you must be true.
(This, by the way, is what skeptics and scientists refer to as “an appeal
to authority in lieu of fact.”) Did you ever think to ask the good
doctors how they could possibly know what “ancient Chinese healers”
believed “thousands and thousands of years ago” when no written records
exist to support such claims? The core issue here seems to be your
apparent inability to distinguish between what someone with impressive
credentials has “taught you” or “told you” and objective evidence.

As though to illustrate this point, you proceed to tell us “the
Taoists have their own legend[s] which [are not] dissimilar to the legends
of the Olmecs and other ancient peoples.” In other words, “legends,” in
your view, are to be construed as a type of objective evidence. (If this
is not your view, why are you citing legends in response to a request for
objective evidence?) Even if you were somehow able to demonstrate that
they vaguely reflect objective reality, what in the world would modern
renditions of these “Olmec legends,” or even Taoist ones, have to say
about your claimed knowledge of Chinese medical beliefs from the third
millennium BC? (Answer: nothing.)

The final irrelevancy you toss on the heap of imaginary evidence
offered in support your claim to knowledge of Neolithic Chinese medical
beliefs is that “the Egyptians seem to have known much about maths [sic]
and astronomy.” What in the world do you believe this has to do with
Chinese medical theory/philosophy/knowledge of the third millennium B.C.?

(By the way, you ask the irrelevant question: “Are they [the Great
Pyramid of Khufu] not currently dated at somewhere between about 10,000
and 3,000BC?” My irrelevant answer is “No. They [the Great Pyramid] are
not ‘dated to between about 10,000 and 3,000 BC.’ The Great Pyramid is
dated to the early Fourth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom – specifically, to
the reign of King Khufu [ca. 2591 to ca. 2568 B.C.]. The very earliest
pyramid in Egypt, the Step Pyramid of King Djoser, dates to roughly 2685 -
2680 B.C. Claiming that they [the Old Kingdom pyramids of Egypt] date to
‘between 10,000 and 3,000 B.C. is akin to claiming that the Apollo moon
landings ‘date to between 8,000 B.C and 1,650 A.D.)

You tell us that it’s “clear from the numerous publications that no
consensus has yet been reached as to E[vidence] B[ased Medicine],” but, as
the multiple references I’ve already posted here amply demonstrate, this
is simply false. (Your claim does, however, have much in common with the
arguments “Creationists” often advance against “Evolutionists.”) While
the fine details are still up for discussion, the basic tenets of evidence
-based medicine are well-established and agreed upon – at least among
advocates of science-based medicine.

Finally you ask: “Need I say more to refute your 'ancients were
pretty dumb' theory?”

No. You need not “say more,” John. I think you’ve said enough. I
hold no such “theory.” On the other hand, I confess I do hold in contempt
those “modern revisionists” who arrogantly take it upon themselves to
“speak on behalf of the ancients” rather than allowing the “ancients” to
speak for themselves by means of the objective literary, historical, and
archeological records. While I believe in nothing even remotely resembling
the “ancients were dumb” theory to which you refer, I would be delighted
to further discuss my “some modern folks are fools” hypothesis, if you’d
like.

Best to all,

Bob

I’m a bit disappointed that when I ask you to explain your straight-forward
claim that as little as 1% of standard medicine is evidence-based, you
respond with a veritable mountain irrelevant conjecture that fails to even
address the question. Instead of showing us the hard data and meticulous
analysis that would be required to prove your point, you offer a pointless
mish-mash including platitudes and homilies about statistics being “damn
lies,” “skeptics asking God for an ID card,” and various irrelevancies such
as “Only 40% of GPs know of [the] Cochrane database, and few use it, only
20% have surgery access to bibliographic databases…” and so on ad nauseam.

So what?! Do you suppose it's possible that some GPs may have learned
something about science- and evidence-based medicine from a source other
than the Cochrane database?… such as their science-based medical training?
In order to come up with your imaginary 1-20% figure, you’ve had to resort
to an absurd definition of “evidence-based interventions” as “only those
administered by physicians who are familiar with the Cochrane database
and/or the tenets of EBM.” Is it reasonable to assume that, if a GP who has
never heard of the Cochrane database prescribes an antibiotic to treat a
susceptible bacterial infection, his/her “ignorance of the database”
somehow renders said treatment “non-evidence-based”? The issue at hand is
“how much of standard medicine is evidence-based”: not “how many GPs or MDs
have utilized the Cochrane database,” or “how many physicians have accessed
EB-checking facilities.” Your responses seem designed to obfuscate this
point.

You’ve offered us several prime examples of how alt advocates will go to
almost any lengths to mis-represent and distort the facts so that they
appear to cast scientific biomedicine in a “bad light.” They seem to feel
that maligning science and scientific biomedicine somehow bolsters the case
for acupuncture, homeopathy, and various other unproven and “evidence-free”
medical belief systems. This pathological process is somewhat akin to the
person who, when asked to prove that he’s smart, responds with a diatribe
accusing everyone else in the world of being stupid.

How many flaws, real or imaginary, will have to be “exposed” in standard
medicine in order to “validate” acupuncture, homeopathy, phrenology,
psychic surgery, chiropractic, or any other unproven therapeutic wannabes?
The only reason I can think of for one to doggedly believe in the “only 1
to 20% of standard medicine is evidence-based” fantasy is that they feel it
somehow bolsters the case for the various “0% evidence-based alternative”
therapies the alt med community is providing on a fee-for-service basis to
the public.

When you tell us that RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials or CCTs –
Controlled Clinical Trials) have “never really been performed” because “the
theoretical requirements are unrealistic and unscientific,” what is your
point? Because no RCT is perfect, are you seriously suggesting that we
abandon this standard? In your view, we should abandon RCTs in favor of
what?

It’s not too difficult to imagine the “standards” some folks might prefer
as an alternative -- the same “ancientness,” “anecdotal,” “testimonial,”
“patient/practitioner satisfaction” standards that scientific biomedicine
has painfully and inexorably struggled to discard over the last several
centuries. Of course, there is a certain convoluted (if pathological) logic
to this position. If one is heavily invested -- financially, emotionally,
and professionally -- in the efficacy of unproven modalities, these
medieval standards are the ONLY ones that will justify the continued use of
such modalities in the 20th and 21st centuries. Therefore, in the
“tail-wag-the-dog” world of alternative medicine, these “standards” MUST be
fought for.

You tell us that prominent scientist and ethicist “Senator Edward Kennedy”
noted that IF only 10% of the data from on-going CCTs is defective the
problem is enormous." Of course, you seem to have overlooked the
all-important word “if.” You tell us: Dr. John Braithwaite, states that [in
view of] international bribery, corruption,... fraud in the testing of
drugs, [and] criminal negligence in the unsafe manufacture of drugs, the
pharmaceutical industry has a worse record of law breaking than any other
industry.” So, again, what is your point?

Does Kennedy go on to say that "controlled clinical trials are, thererore,
not worth conducting"? What does Braithwaite have to say about the
entirely unregulated manufacturers of “herbal medications,” or the
manufacturers of “homeopathic” remedies, or other “alternative” therapeutic
agents? (Answer: nothing.) Is your point that, since “bribery and
corruption” sometimes come into play in the application of scientific
biomedicine, that the tenets of science and scientific biomed are somehow
invalid? Sometimes potent antibiotics are ineffective in the face of
resistant bacterial infection. Does it follow that we should abandon
antibiotics in favor of “homeopathic water therapy” or “cow dung
poultices”? I don’t think so. It seems that the very best argument some alt
advocates can advance in support of the various unproven therapies they’re
selling the public is that “scientific biomedicine is fraught with
deficiencies.”

You are mistaken with regard to therapeutic phlebotomy and TCM. Therapeutic
phlebotomy has nothing whatever to do with the “leeches” or “ergot” you
mention. You tell us: “Yes the Chinese do still use 'pricking' as a form of
intervention, usually to lower BP, or temperature, or to reduce the effects
of shock.” The fact is that, in China, modern veterinary acupuncturists
advocate the letting of “a half-liter or more” of blood in the treatment of
some maladies.” I’d be happy to provide references if you wish. As
Kuriyama, Unschuld and other Sinologists and historians of medicine have
observed, two thousand years ago the Chinese, like the ancient Greeks
before them, often performed therapeutic phlebotomy, and in intriguingly
similar ways. The practice was eventually abandoned in human TCM, but it is
still very much a part of veterinary TCM as practiced in China.

You refer to “HealthWatch personality Dr. Neville Goodman, examiner for the
Royal College of Anaesthetists” and you immediately dismiss all his
straight-forward criticisms of homeopathy on the basis that “he doesn't
believe in it,” even though “RCTs supports it!” The hard fact is that the
highest quality RCTs and meta-analyses do NOT support homeopathy. I suspect
you know as well as I do that the highest quality (most tightly controlled,
adequately randomized, and statistically significant studies) show
precisely the opposite of what you suggest. See:

I also suspect you’re well-aware that, even when meta-analyses of extant
homeopathy trials are conducted by dyed-in-the-wool homeopathy advocates
such as Wayne Jonas, the authors are forced to concede that “we found
insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly
efficacious for any single clinical condition” See:

If, after 200 years of investigating homeopathy, that’s the case, why in
the world should we waste any more of our precious and limited time and/or
research funding on homeopathic “research”? How many more centuries of
investigation will we have to suffer through before we can reasonably say
“Enough is enough! We’ve examined homeopathy up and down and it obviously
doesn’t work”? And, more to the point, when will it become “medical fraud”
to persist in selling homeopathic therapies to a gullible but trusting
public?

You respond to one of my queries with the comment: “How can I refer to
5,000 years of 'acupuncture and moxibustion'? The simple answer is that I
didn't.” And my simple retort is, “I never asked the question to which
you've responded here." It seems you’ve gone out of your way to distort
both my words and your own prior comments in order to obscure the facts.”
Let’s take a quick look at what I actually said, and what you actually said
in your previous messages.

You claimed “'Inflammation of the liver'/'excessive bile production' …
retains the same symptomatology and possible differential diagnoses as it
did 5,000 years ago… the same emotions are involved … same acupoints
effective … similar modes of stimulation (needles, massage, herbs) - the
main change is how it may have developed in the patient; 5,000 years ago it
may be due to drinking excessive alcohol or a particular pathogen, nowadays
it may also be due to that, but may also be caused by our toxic
environment/food. 5,000 years ago it may have been treated with eg.
peppermint and nowadays may also be treated with that. 5,000 years ago
acupoints LIV2 or LIV3 would be effective, same today” And I responded “I’m
curious to know exactly what you believe “Chinese medicine" had to say
about “acupuncture, moxibustion” and various other things “5,000 years ago”
(3,000 BC.) I’d very much like to know the identity of the specific Chinese
medical and/or literary sources upon which you base your beliefs and claims.”

My question still stands: what sources from the Chinese historical record
allow you to make such claims? The fact is, you have no idea what TCM
really had to say about these things “5,000 years ago,” because there are
no surviving Chinese medical texts that even come close to being 5,000
years old. Therefore your claims are based on nothing more than your
imagination and your fervent “belief” that the tenets of 20th century TCM
are “thousands and thousands of years old” (and, therefore, somehow
“venerable” rather than merely obsolete).

You then proceed to regale us with the “evolutionary theory” for the
development of the "Theory of Ching Luo" or Channels and collaterals that
holds that the Chinese "started in some way using hands, then stones (BIAN
stone), then graduated to bamboo, then porcelain, and finally metals
through the ages to stimulate acupoints.”

I’t seems you haven’t “done your homework” in this regard. (Can you imagine
performing “acupuncture” with sharpened stones (bian) – ouch! -- or with
“porcelain” needles? -- snap!) If you’re interested in learning what
contemporary Sinologists and historians of medicine (as distinct from
acupuncturists and TCM advocates) actually believe regarding the probable
uses of "bian" and the development of acupuncture, I suggest you find a
copy of: The Origins of Acupuncture, Moxibustion, and Decoction, by YAMADA
Keiji, Nichibunken Monograph Series No. 1, International Research Center
for Japanese Studies, Kyoto, Japan, 1998. Various books by Sinologist and
historian of medicine Paul Unschuld cast the issue in an even more
conservative light.

You tell us “The Taoist theory I am familiar with is that 10,000 years ago
the Chinese were visited by a group of Caucasians they called 'The Son's Of
the Reflected light' who taught them physics, mathematics, astronomy,
peaceful living, and bio-electric body therapy.” My immediate response is:
“What a charming story. Why in the world would you assume it’s true?” What
textual material or objective evidence exists to support it? You’ve
provided yet another prime example of precisely the sort of “imaginary
historical TCM reference” to which I alluded earlier. (One wonders how
much anyone, including "Europeans," knew about mathematics and physics,
much less "bio-electricity," during the Mesolithic period [10,000 to 3,000
BC].)

Please keep in mind that Scientologists advance similarly evidence-free
“theories” about super-beings having populated Earth several tens to
thousands of years ago. Likewise, followers of “Chariots of the Gods”
advocate Eric von Daniken advance similar “visiting space alien theories.”
19th century “Atlantis” advocate Ignatius Donally, and his various
supporters, advanced similar beliefs, and so do any number of other
“lunatic fringe” groups. Of course, advocates of science, reason, and
historical scholarship respond as they must: with the question “where is
the hard, objective evidence?” The answer always seems to be: There is none.

Your musings regarding “enlightened beings” visiting South America and
“teaching advanced subjects which led to rapid evolutionary development”
provide yet another embarrassing illustration of the utterly credulous and
entirely “evidence-free” basis for some "pop" historical and medical
beliefs.

You tell us: “anthropologists are still trying to explain Col. James
Churchward in his books on the legendary civilisation of MU taken from
ancient tablets discovered in Hindu temples late last century [which tell]
of an advanced civilisation which was destroyed by a cataclysm probably
involving flood. His story fits the various cultures and the period of the
'flood' is within the last 12,000 years. Prior to that he states that the
MU civilisation lasted about 100,000 years. Their teachings have a great
similarity to TCM philosophy and cosmology…” Do they? Can you provide for
us transcriptions from, or a literal translations of, any of these magical
“Hindu tablets”? Of course, even if such accounts exist, we know they
can't be "first person accounts" of events taking place 12,000 years ago,
because writing, itself, is less than 6,000 years old. "Can you name a
single “anthropologist” who states they are “still trying to explain” any
of this evidence-free rubbish? Can you provide a single scrap of
documentary evidence substantiating either the existence of “MU” or the
presence of any civilization on “MU” dating to ANY epoch, much less dating
to “100,000 years ago”? I don’t think you can do any of these things.

Finally, you tell us “5,000 years may have been too conservative [a
figure]” (without having provided a single tangible, verifiable reference
to support your far-fetched beliefs regarding medical practice in Neolithic
China.) Then you ask me “Are you convinced yet, or is Skeptic [sic] an
incurable trait?” My answer is that “healthy skepticism is an inherent and
essential part of a ‘scientific world-view,’ so, yes, I suppose it's an
“incurable trait” – at least among those who chose not to be gullible
and/or those who value a scientific perspective on reality. Of course,
those who’ve emotionally, financially and professionally “committed”
themselves to the provision of various unproven and highly unlikely medical
“therapies” without waiting for “hard supportive evidence” need not fret
over the matter, since they're obviously not afflicted with this "incurable
trait.”

Kindest regards to all,

Robert Imrie, DVM

NCAHF (NCRHI) Task Force on Veterinary Pseudoscience

www.seanet.com/~vettf/
www.ncahf.org/
"The Entirely On-Line Alt Med Primer"

www.seanet.com/~vettf/Primer2.htm