You are here:
|
Report a comment Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site. Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report. Comment in question » Go back to the article |
mXcomment 1.0.8 © 2007-2008 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved
By: David (Registered IP 90.204.32.135) on 13-04-2008 13:47
As for the content itself, it's laughable. It starts with a basic scare tactic about someone who overdosed on over the counter meds, but fails to give ANY details at all.
For the record, here is an extract from a news article where a doctor talks about the high levels of methyl salicylate needed to overdose:
"in order to get this type of result, you have to take a tremendous amount of this stuff and be rubbing it on day after day, morning, noon and night, go through cases of it to get a level that would be detrimental."
source: http://i.abcnews.com/GMA/ story?id=3263343
The article briefly mentions DOMS (delayed onset muscle soreness) but doesn't even refer to it as that, nor does it give any insight into what causes it or how it functions. Another clue that this is nothing but a advert, not a helpful article to any aspiring martial artist.
Worst of all are the conclusions the author draws at the end. Anyone with a basic understanding of critical thinking and logic will be able to see how laughable they are. I draw your attention to:
"Kung Fu monks are arguably the most scientific pharmacists ever to exist on the planet."
This is just clearly nonsense. Are any of these monks ACTUALLY qualified in pharmacology? Do they all have degree's and doctorates in the subject? I am willing to put money on the fact the answer is "no" to both questions. Just because something is measured out preciesly (as the author states) does not make it scientific in any way shape or form.
Next we have the wonderful claim:
"How do I know this? Because the proof is in the results! I have used and been witness to the use of these liniments to well over several hundred athletes"
Anyone with even a basic grounding in scientific theory would know that this counts for nothing. Anecdotal evidence does not equal proof that a treatment works. Nor does the fact that herbal treatments are older than convential medicine despite his rhetorical appeal to this fact: "Imagine 25 thousand years of herbalsim compared to a few hundred?
If his treatments really work then he should be able to back that idea up with some peer-reviewed randomised double-blind placebo trials with hard data end points. THAT would be science.
I find it ironic that his final sentence speaks of trust: "Don’t risk your life using over the counter drugs that once again have been proven not to be trusted" when we have no way AT ALL to know to trust his medicines other than his word, and considering the sophistry at play in this article I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
» Report this comment to administrator
» Reply to this comment...