No, but as the other urine cite suggests (not directly, just through conclusion), due to high levels of urea and the fact that, as long as the kidneys are healthy the urine is stearal, it’s not always a bad idea to piss in your ear, probably better for the ear than water* used with one of those bulbs.
*Unless you use stearalized water, warmed to body temperature, adjusted for pH, and containing either organic or inorganic urea. Tap water could contaminate things.
… but it sure can attract a lot of attention in the middle of a department store.
Again, I agree. But direct testing using a variety of conditions is very rarely done. Most of these studies that do happen are very small and overly-controlled (ie, they’re pin-hole views). If a study like that is to find anything, the underlying phenomenon has to be very obvious and the curve of the observation monotonic.
The truth is that science doesn’t really know much about many of these issues. And the problem, the real problem, is instead of acknowledging that, cynics press on unwavered. I repeat: you and Q.E.D. say that what counts is simply good research. Yet you don’t see that there’s none of it. None of it on this issue of ear candles, at least. You don’t see that what you actually do is use strawmen yourselves, building up arguments out of simply ridiculing tentative explanations.
Now don’t get me wrong: dissecting possible mechanisms has its place. It is probabilistic thinking, and it can give clues. There’s nothing wrong with it per se. What I said, way back, is that you elevate your own probabilistic thinking close to certainty and at the same time you try to deride your opponents for thinking probabilistically at all!
The same way some people think, “a million people thinks this works, so it must,” you guys think, “if I can’t see any reason why it would, and there’s no irrefutable research, then I’m going to be sure it doesn’t work.” You are both taking probabilistic thinking too far, in a process that can be summed up as bias.
Frankly, what we need are big advances in direct testing of things. Advances that lower costs, ramp up volume, improve the analysis of data. That is not happening in the least. And no one, especially the intellectuals, even seem to mind the void.
No, it’s because anorexia and calorie restriction aren’t the same thing. All these studies strategically restrict calories to the optimum needed for survival, whereas anorexia causes the person to indiscriminately starve themselves of even essential nutrients until they risk death from heart failure. Even if it were 100% proven that calorie reduction lengthens life, there would be absolutely no cause to view anorexia as a life-lengthening condition. To cite from wikipedia, anorexia is thought to have the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder, with approximately 6% of those who are diagnosed with the disorder eventually dying due to related causes (cite). It’s a mental disorder that kills people.
It’s more accurate to say that unless we understand the mechanism, and we know that humans also have that mechanism, we’re not going to risk killing humans just because what works for one mammal ought to work for another mammal. That may be how it works in the movies, but not in actual research.
What the hell are you talking about? I swear, you’re just being willfully ignorant at this point because no one could possibly miss what is glaringly obvious. But, just so we’re perfectly clear here, I will break it down for you thusly: 1) Ear candling proponents claim that ear candles remove cerumen deposits; forget the mechanism, it’s irrelevant. The claim is that they remove these deposits, full stop. 2) The linked study tested four subjects with severe wax buildup and four with normal amounts, using the candles per the directions. 3) No change was observed aside from an ash layer present in the tested ears of all eight subjects.
Conclusion: ear candles DO NOT REMOVE EAR WAX. The fact that the claimed mechanism was disproved at the same time has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the study. Do you understand this or do I need to use smaller words?
lol. Something that works for a few mammals then gets tested on humans. That’s what medical research is, no? And no need mentioning, any of the drugs we test can kill people, and, of course, we’ve got no idea how many of them work.
See, you’re doing it again. Removing earwax [by suction], is the claimed mechanism not the claim. The claim is that ear candles improve hearing. Stop. (possibly, they do this by removing earwax. possibly, by removing it in a non-immediate way, eg by stimulating tissues).
You hand-pick what you want to argue against (first vacuum, now, instantaneous wax removal), and then you feel like you’ve won on the whole issue in all its relevant permuations. Are you being willfully ignorant of what you’re doing?
No. That isn’t what medical research is.
You were just moaning about how science doesn’t accept that anything works unless there’s a mechanism, and now you’re claiming in fact that the drugs we test are accepted without any understood mechanism at all. You can’t have it both ways, which is it going to be?
Uh, no. But let’s get the claim straight from the horse’s mouth, shall we? From a pro-ear-candling site:
Do you see that? Better not chance it, let me highlight it for you:
That is the claim. That claim was tested. That claim was not shown to have any merit whatsoever. Next!
All the claims i have seen are specifically for removing wax and debris, which *may * improve hearing. You have it backwards.
As has been demonstrated, there is research data (limited, to be sure), backed by sound physiologic principles, showing that the claims of ear candlers are bunkum.
Your contention seems to be that since there haven’t been large-scale clinical trials of ear candling, the only possible response of scientists/physicians/skeptics is to throw up their hands and say “It could happen.” But it doesn’t work that way.
Progress in medicine and other scientific fields rests on a simple principle: those proposing novel theories and treatments are required to provide evidence to back them up. Those who do solid work in this regard get a respectful hearing. Those who fall back on testimonials and claims that they should be exempt from this rule because science can’t possibly appreciate their form of woo, generally do not get respect.
If the ear candlers, urine drinkers, parasite zappers and the like want to be acknowledged as being rational and science-based (and there’s frequently a longing for this acceptance), let 'em publish some quality research, rather than whine about how scientists should spend money and effort to prove them wrong.*
*Actually, a lot of research has been and continues to be conducted into alt med claims, including some in the university setting, some by the U.S. government (i.e. the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine). I’m afraid that research into ear candling does not carry a very high priority, probably well below that of homeopathy and dowsing. 
In other words, *hope springs eternal, *or don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
Haha. I thought this wasn’t a trial of the proponents, but of the truth. The issue is whether there’s use to ear candles. That’s what matters above all. Not your guys’ pride. You’re being rather silly defending yourselves with, “nuh-uh! the proponents clearly say it removes earwax instantly! see! they’re dumb, like we said! why should we actually care about anything else?”
Like I said, you take one, rather intractable issue, “do ear candles have any effects? are any of those effects desirable? what’s the balance between effects and side-effects? do there have to be special conditions, predispositions, procedures for the treatment to be effective?” and for it substitute a simplistic one, “do ear candles remove earwax.” You do the substitution because it helps you win, makes you feel the issue is simple, and as such makes you feel confident you can claim you’re right.
And by the fucking way, Q.E.D., are you really saying that a “study” is four people trying to follow directions on the box? See, this is exactly the mindless bs I’m talking about.
A subtle jab. However, what it is is that in medicine they’ve realized not to care so much about mechanisms because they’re results-driven and commercial. They end up doing a lot of direct testing and have more wisdom than to idly speculate. Drug researchers see the fallacy of requiring mechanisms for what it is.
Why not, exactly?
[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
As I am reading this thread, a PBS show is playing on the TV that is very appropriate. It is discussing the Philosopher’s Stone and the pursuit of it in the Middle Ages.
This magical substance was
Certainly that was a good reason to hope for it.
AFAIK, to this date, it has never been found. Why not continue to search for it? It could happen. Science doesn’t know everything. They laughed at Galileo, right?
Because as science has progressed, the chances of the Philosopher’s Stone existing has become increasingly dim. It doesn’t fit what we know about the elements or chemistry. It didn’t look likely in the 19th Century, and the 20th Century didn’t improve its chances, either.
So what science does is assign relative possibilities to things. Could we design a more efficient motor? Travel to Mars? Good chances, because we can build on prior knowledge and as we build, we get closer to our goal. Celestial mechanics? Not only do they work according to our computations, but we are getting better at the computing – now we’re adjusting for such things unthought of by Newton, like abberations caused by the speed of light.
Alchemy did the opposite – nothing worked, nothing got better. It has been completely discarded.
Before you grab onto some idea or believe some new claim, consider: What are the chances of it being true, based on all available evidence to date? High? Low? Very, very low?
So let’s assign a relative chance of ear candling performing in any beneficial way. Tests are negative, theories don’t make sense, and no new evidence is coming forward to support proponents.
It’s time to let go of a dream, as all hope is fading. Put your energies and talents into something that has a better chance of generating a rewarding ending. Pick your battles where you have at least an even chance of winning. Our world can use some smart people to help improve our lot. It doesn’t need more alchemists.
Here’s some basic reading for you.
Ok, I’m next.
So, where is the claim of ear wax removal? And claiming that a product may help with symptoms is far removed from a definate will help with symptoms. Weak example, and sad because there are so many out there that are better and actually make said claims.
Let’s be honest with ourselves, some people are going to see something that has an effect and say it works (confirmation bias), other people are going to shut down against something at the slightest hint of thinking outside the box (cynicism).
The bottom line is that they are both right, both wrong and both full of treatable ignorance. The product is doing something otherwise there would be no confirmation for the bias to point to. It’s definately not doing what the proponants say it’s doing so it’s valid to be cynical. Being doubtfull of dubious claims can keep us alive (what were those machines in shoe shops that took x-rays to achieve a proper fitting?) but sometimes things have enough of a claim to be looked into and possibly be explored for effectivness and ways to make them safer.
I’m not even really saying ear candling deserves this further exploration but there are many who do and many non-traditional approaches that merit attention as well. A lot of people are good at finding out what the cones and other alt-med products don’t do, I just think it would be more productive to find out what they actually do do rather than just attacking their proponents.
The claim of ear wax removal is implicit in the claim that it alleviates the listed symptoms which are caused by ear wax buildup. If the buildup causes the symptoms, then logically, the only way to alleviate them is to remove the buildup.
I’m sorry, but this is spurious reasoning and is exactly the kind of post hoc fallacy which leads to confirmation bias in the first place. Something happens after the ear candle treatment. This something may have absolutely nothing to do with the treatment, but because it happens afterwards the subject assumes it is due to the treatment. Confirmation bias ensues.
Well, unless the implied claim was that the treatment would, say, make you not really care about the wax buildup. But that wouldn’t be a very impressive claim.
Quite honestly, the logical gymnastics we’ve had in this thread are a perfect example of why selling quack remedies is still a viable business - there are people naive and gullible enough to believe and buy anything, and there are other folks happy to muddy the waters for them by virtually insisting that anything not proven false enough times is probably true.