sogood wrote:That's the arrogance of limited Western health knowledge and scientific knowledge and rigour on Eastern medicine. If one is fully versed in the science and academia of Western medical science, one would have an open mind and not use terms like 'snake oil' here. Snake oil is more appropriately applied to quackery which Eastern medicine is not. But as I said, the true effect in OP's case is subject to debate and further observations. Being an anecdotal report, there's not too much conclusion one can draw from it. It 'worked' but there are also too many confounding factors involved. That's all.
It is not arrogance at all. The scientific method just happens to be a very good method of separating myth from fancy from fact as well as persuing fruitful lines of inquiry. It is NOT arrogant to test other things by the same effective methods. It IS arrogant to give some practices a free pass just because they are not "western".
Whether it is "western" or not is of no significance. "Western", "eastern", "Chinese", "traditional", "ancient" and so forth are terms that are lazily thrown around to justify things without having to go to any rigour. Such as validation by scientific method. If you have an other method that is better then tell us what it is. But it needs to be address confirmation bias, placebo, nocebo, google searches done in bad faith. It also needs to produce reproducible results.
Astrology was a "western" "Science" until a few centuries ago. Well, maybe middle eastern, but "western" did not exist for most of recorded history and much of what we would term "western" is a progression from a dominant "middle eastern". But over time us "westerners" have applied the scientific method to that and reject it on that basis.
Anyway, the scientific method has been applied to many old established practices, sometimes validating them, sometimes not. Though, to be fair, there is not a lot of percentage for pharma to validate old remedies that they cannot then gain intellectual property. When it comes to medical science testing and proving can be very expensive indeed. Many valid treatments not yet accepted may have to wait a long time before they are validated.
Your closure is spot on. n=1 is not a test sample. But it is often what we conveniently have to rely upon in the real world. ie If it appeares to work then, in the absence of any reason not to, stick with it.