Power Balance in MAJOR legal trouble

Hearing about the Power Balance deal was what told me, beyond any doubt, that the Maloofs were not committed to Sacramento. Entering into an agreement with such a clearly fraudulent company is such a slap in the face and so undignified that I can't imagine anyone with serious desire to build something good would agree to it. Everyone has their price, certainly, but I can't imagine that there was no way to get an at least comparable deal for naming rights to an NBA facility.
 
I have a feeling, and it's just that, a feeling, that MSE will not be owners of the Kings next summer. I think they will sell. Maybe I'm just being wishful about it? ;)
 
And yet hokum like reflexology, acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, and many others go on unscathed.

Acupuncture is hokum? Are you serious? There is a huge amount of research behind the effectiveness of acupuncture for all kinds of things, not to mention 3000 years of history of an entire culture's worth of medicine. I suppose you can throw in Tai Chi and all Chinese herbal medicine as having no health benefits too, since they are based on basically the same systems. Sorry, I just hate closed minded people. Seems that anything that falls outside of a very narrow worldview is somehow threatening to some people. (And if your response/defense involves lumping me in with Power Balance... you can stop before you start.)
 
Hearing about the Power Balance deal was what told me, beyond any doubt, that the Maloofs were not committed to Sacramento. Entering into an agreement with such a clearly fraudulent company is such a slap in the face and so undignified that I can't imagine anyone with serious desire to build something good would agree to it. Everyone has their price, certainly, but I can't imagine that there was no way to get an at least comparable deal for naming rights to an NBA facility.

Agree.
 
Acupuncture is hokum? Are you serious? There is a huge amount of research behind the effectiveness of acupuncture for all kinds of things, not to mention 3000 years of history of an entire culture's worth of medicine. I suppose you can throw in Tai Chi and all Chinese herbal medicine as having no health benefits too, since they are based on basically the same systems. Sorry, I just hate closed minded people. Seems that anything that falls outside of a very narrow worldview is somehow threatening to some people. (And if your response/defense involves lumping me in with Power Balance... you can stop before you start.)

Yes, it is hokum, there is no scientific evidence in support of it. Sorry to have to break it to you, and no I'm not threatened by its existence, I'm humored by it. I just hope no one with serious ailments actually depend on it to work, other than for the placebo effect, but sugar pills are a lot cheaper, so I'd go with that, personally.

LOL at the idea that a practice is credible if it's old. Hey, maybe we should go back to bleeding and leeching people too.
 
Yes, it is hokum, there is no scientific evidence in support of it. Sorry to have to break it to you, and no I'm not threatened by its existence, I'm humored by it. I just hope no one with serious ailments actually depend on it to work, other than for the placebo effect, but sugar pills are a lot cheaper, so I'd go with that, personally.

LOL at the idea that a practice is credible if it's old. Hey, maybe we should go back to bleeding and leeching people too.

Maybe you aren't up to date?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-07-07-leeches-maggots_x.htm

It's often trickier to connect veins, which carry blood back to the heart, than arteries, which carry blood from the heart. So before grafted tissue gets new vein growth, it can become congested with blood. Sometimes surgery can fix the problem, but if it can't, the graft might fail.

Enter the leech. Not only does it suck out excess blood, but its saliva contains a powerful blood thinner. So even after it fills up and drops off, bleeding continues.

Douglas Chepeha, an ear, nose and throat surgeon at the University of Michigan, treats two or three patients a year with leeches after rebuilding faces or mouths decimated by cancer.

Typically, leeches are used one at a time and replaced as they drop off — usually every 20 minutes — for 24 to 48 hours, then intermittently for a few days afterward, Chepeha says.

"I've never had anybody refuse," Chepeha says. "They've come in with a serious cancer, they've had part of a critical organ removed, they want to get better. You say to them: 'I think this could help.' People have been amazingly stoic about it."

Normally pretty squeamish, Alyssa Kieff, 22, of Marrero, La., tolerated five days of leech therapy in April. Kieff's beagle had snapped at her and tore off her right upper eyelid, which was reattached microsurgically by Kamran Khoobehi, a Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center plastic surgeon.
 
It's interesting how you conveniently left out this little tidbit:

Medicinal leeches are bloodsucking, aquatic cousins of the earthworm that hail from Europe. Doctors used leeches for bloodletting — thought to be good for whatever ailed patients — from Hippocrates' time through the mid-19th century. Leeches fell out of favor when doctors finally recognized that patients they bled fared no better, and often worse, than other patients.

I guess it wouldn't have come off quite as witty if you left that in.
 
It's interesting how you conveniently left out this little tidbit:



I guess it wouldn't have come off quite as witty if you left that in.


I was talking about the use of leeches, not bloodletting. Although they do "drain" blood from patients under certain circumstances - but not as a widespread practice like they used to.
 
Yes, it is hokum, there is no scientific evidence in support of it. Sorry to have to break it to you, and no I'm not threatened by its existence, I'm humored by it. I just hope no one with serious ailments actually depend on it to work, other than for the placebo effect, but sugar pills are a lot cheaper, so I'd go with that, personally.

LOL at the idea that a practice is credible if it's old. Hey, maybe we should go back to bleeding and leeching people too.

Btw, I was not using the fact that it's long tenured to be the reason to believe it, but just as supporting evidence. Acupuncture can't cure everything, obviously. For example if you have a broken bone you need a cast. If you're having a heart attack to go to the emergency room. But as a preventative measure, strengthening the immune system, and for pain management... chinese medicine has things western medicine can't offer. For you to just toss it out completely, saying it's 100% "hokum" is pretty ignorant.
 
Last edited:
Which is what you knew I was referring to.

not really you seemed to just make a blanket statement saying how none of this stuff works for anything.

ps: maybe my active energy bracelet doesnt actually give me better balance or something, I don't know and I don't want to know. I feel like it does actually work and it looks good so that's my business and I'm still glad I have it no matter what anyone else thinks.
 
Btw, I was not using the fact that it's long tenured to be the reason to believe it, but just as supporting evidence. Acupuncture can't cure everything, obviously. For example if you have a broken bone you need a cast. If you're having a heart attack to go to the emergency room. But as a preventative measure, strengthening the immune system, and for pain management... chinese medicine has things western medicine can't offer. For you to just toss it out completely, saying it's 100% "hokum" is pretty ignorant.

No, it's not supporting evidence at all.

I toss it out because there's no scientific evidence for its efficacy. I don't give a rat's *** whether something is Western, or Chinese, or from the Congo, it's hokum until it's supported by scientific evidence. Acupuncture is an expensive placebo.
 
not really you seemed to just make a blanket statement saying how none of this stuff works for anything.

ps: maybe my active energy bracelet doesnt actually give me better balance or something, I don't know and I don't want to know. I feel like it does actually work and it looks good so that's my business and I'm still glad I have it no matter what anyone else thinks.

Yeah, it's called the placebo effect.
 
No, it's not supporting evidence at all.

I toss it out because there's no scientific evidence for its efficacy. I don't give a rat's *** whether something is Western, or Chinese, or from the Congo, it's hokum until it's supported by scientific evidence. Acupuncture is an expensive placebo.

Well, if you are going to claim that it is an "expensive placebo", then you have to prove that as well. According to your logic, nothing as ever had any legitimacy or truth until the development of the scientific method. BTW, I'm a huge fan of the scientific method, but what you're doing is automatically condemning anything not validated by that method. What a good scientist would do is at the very least if something isn't proved, to classify it as unknown.

So, answer this: how is it that in hunter gatherer societies (without the benefit of the scientific method as we know it, just trial and error, etc.), that they were virtually free of all so called "chronic and degenerative" diseases? According to your logic, they were just incredibly lucky. Or were they actually doing things (nutrition, etc) that were creating optimal human health?
 
Well, if you are going to claim that it is an "expensive placebo", then you have to prove that as well. According to your logic, nothing as ever had any legitimacy or truth until the development of the scientific method. BTW, I'm a huge fan of the scientific method, but what you're doing is automatically condemning anything not validated by that method. What a good scientist would do is at the very least if something isn't proved, to classify it as unknown.

So, answer this: how is it that in hunter gatherer societies (without the benefit of the scientific method as we know it, just trial and error, etc.), that they were virtually free of all so called "chronic and degenerative" diseases? According to your logic, they were just incredibly lucky. Or were they actually doing things (nutrition, etc) that were creating optimal human health?

I don't have to do that, because there have actually been properly done double blind studies on acupuncture and it shows that it has no greater effect than a placebo.

I don't know enough about the subject to know if virtually free of it is a proper description, but if it is, then my guesses would be shorter lifespan and/or lower caloric intake/higher energy output. Just plain old natural selection any way you slice it really
 
Last edited:
I don't have to do that, because there have actually been properly done double blind studies on acupuncture and it shows that it has no greater effect than a placebo.

I don't know enough about the subject to know if virtually free of it is a proper description, but if it is, then my guesses would be shorter lifespan and/or lower caloric intake/higher energy output. Just plain old natural selection any way you slice it really

"Shorter life span" is actually a statistical bending of truth due to higher infant mortality and childhood diseases. Once a person survived childhood, they often lived to ripe old ages in those societies. Just think of the modern surviving examples of people who live as hunter gatherers. They don't all die at 35 do they?

Yes, I agree natural selection. But natural selection isn't just nature weeding out the weak ones, it's the adaptive strength and nutritional wisdom that has accumulated over the history of a species. It is also a species being the result of a certain biological niche. My point: there is a lot of health wisdom contained in human culture that was validly serving humans long before the refinement of the scientific method. Which, again, to stress, I am a huge fan of, when done in an unbiased way.
 
"Shorter life span" is actually a statistical bending of truth due to higher infant mortality and childhood diseases. Once a person survived childhood, they often lived to ripe old ages in those societies. Just think of the modern surviving examples of people who live as hunter gatherers. They don't all die at 35 do they?

...

My point: there is a lot of health wisdom contained in human culture that was validly serving humans long before the refinement of the scientific method.

I don't know what the sources are for your arguments that hunter-gatherer societies were "virtually free of chronic and degenerative diseases" and that shorter average lifespans in the pre-medical age were merely a result of infant/childhood mortality and not also compounded by a shorter lifespan for those reaching adulthood. I'm no expert on the subject but I'm quite widely read in the sciences and I've never heard either assertion.

But, even if one were to grant those as factual, the infant/childhood mortality that you admit to seems to shoot a hole in your overall argument: If these societies were so in tune with what is good for health with the "wisdom contained in human culture", why were the non-adult mortality rates so high? Why did folk medicine fail them there?

I've heard it said that there is no such thing as "alternative medicine". Alternative medical practices that actually work are called "standard medical practices" because they are adopted by the scientific community as a whole once they are proven to work. For a well-known example, aspirin comes from a chemical found in the bark of a willow tree, which had been used as a folk remedy for at least two millennia before it was established as effective by the scientific method. Folk medicine isn't always bunk, but when it isn't, it stands up to scientific test. Acupuncture, by and large, does not - certainly not for the wide range of claims that acupuncturists make - and the "flow of qi" theory behind it is clearly myth. There are links to numerous studies arguing the general ineffectiveness of acupuncture in the intro to the Wikipedia article, if you're interested.
 
If there is a whole big pile of evidence showing that somethings is not true and a small pile of evidence showing that something is true, the big pile outweighs the little one. It is a very well known flaw in human thinking that too much value is put on the little pile and no where near enough on the big pile. You can't ignore all of the evidence that proves something is false just because there may be some evidence that it is true.
 
I don't know what the sources are for your arguments that hunter-gatherer societies were "virtually free of chronic and degenerative diseases" and that shorter average lifespans in the pre-medical age were merely a result of infant/childhood mortality and not also compounded by a shorter lifespan for those reaching adulthood. I'm no expert on the subject but I'm quite widely read in the sciences and I've never heard either assertion.

But, even if one were to grant those as factual, the infant/childhood mortality that you admit to seems to shoot a hole in your overall argument: If these societies were so in tune with what is good for health with the "wisdom contained in human culture", why were the non-adult mortality rates so high? Why did folk medicine fail them there?

I've heard it said that there is no such thing as "alternative medicine". Alternative medical practices that actually work are called "standard medical practices" because they are adopted by the scientific community as a whole once they are proven to work. For a well-known example, aspirin comes from a chemical found in the bark of a willow tree, which had been used as a folk remedy for at least two millennia before it was established as effective by the scientific method. Folk medicine isn't always bunk, but when it isn't, it stands up to scientific test. Acupuncture, by and large, does not - certainly not for the wide range of claims that acupuncturists make - and the "flow of qi" theory behind it is clearly myth. There are links to numerous studies arguing the general ineffectiveness of acupuncture in the intro to the Wikipedia article, if you're interested.

I'm not arguing against the advances made in modern medicine to decrease infant mortality, but the point is that not only was adult health in hunter gatherer societies nearly perfect in almost every known example, their teeth and facial bone structure was nearly perfect as well, and there was almost never any crooked teeth, need for braces, and very low rates of cavities. Contrast that to the modern world where every third kid needs braces. For a source on this "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Dr. Weston A Price. Clearly they knew something about health and nutrition that has been lost in the modern world. I'm not talking so much about folk medicine, but about basic nutritional knowledge.
 
I'm not arguing against the advances made in modern medicine to decrease infant mortality, but the point is that not only was adult health in hunter gatherer societies nearly perfect in almost every known example, their teeth and facial bone structure was nearly perfect as well, and there was almost never any crooked teeth, need for braces, and very low rates of cavities. Contrast that to the modern world where every third kid needs braces. For a source on this "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Dr. Weston A Price. Clearly they knew something about health and nutrition that has been lost in the modern world. I'm not talking so much about folk medicine, but about basic nutritional knowledge.

It's called natural selection. The ones with bad teeth didnt survive to reproduce. Less cavities because of less sugars.
 
It's called natural selection. The ones with bad teeth didnt survive to reproduce. Less cavities because of less sugars.

Actually it's more than that kind of simple natural selection in this case. People of the same exact racial stock, living in the same area, and sometimes even in the same family, that were eating the moderd diet vs. their traditional foods had incomplete facial bone formation and crowded teeth. And yes more cavities came from sugars.

But that would indicate that there were specific things in their diets that were contributing to protecting against these dental deformations.

Is it really that hard to believe the so called "primitive" peoples possessed health and nutrition knowledge?
 
Last edited:
Actually it's more than that kind of simple natural selection in this case. People of the same exact racial stock, living in the same area, and sometimes even in the same family, that were eating the moderd diet vs. their traditional foods had incomplete facial bone formation and crowded teeth. And yes more cavities came from sugars.

But that would indicate that there were specific things in their diets that were contributing to protecting against these dental deformations.

Is it really that hard to believe the so called "primitive" people's possessed health and nutrition knowledge?

Um, they didn't exactly have the capacity to make Twinkies and Coca-cola back then. Maybe you should also be asking why their automobile fatality numbers were so low? ;)
 
Um, they didn't exactly have the capacity to make Twinkies and Coca-cola back then. Maybe you should also be asking why their automobile fatality numbers were so low? ;)


I guess it is apparently hard to give credit to primitive peoples for knowing what in their environment supported their phenomenal health, but rather to assign this to something they were incapable of doing rather than what they were capable of doing. I guess it's hard to root for people who lost wars. Anyway, your loss.
 
I guess it is apparently hard to give credit to primitive peoples for knowing what in their environment supported their phenomenal health, but rather to assign this to something they were incapable of doing rather than what they were capable of doing. I guess it's hard to root for people who lost wars. Anyway, your loss.


No, I just have a hard time giving credit to people for some things that were basically impossible for them to screw up to begin with. If you were a "normal" person in most of the ancient times, chances are you didn't spend your days sucking down sugary drinks and eating processed sugary snacks. Many societies struggled to have enough food for the populace to begin with and there were no 40-hour workweeks or emergency rooms. Many people died from things like the plague, tuberculosis, infections from injuries, etc., etc., that generally do not happen in many/most countries today, including many children.

Did they have beer and wine, etc.? You bet! And many did various types of "natural" drugs. But, in general, most had to be productive and work within societies to survive.

Did a lot of societies have advanced methods of dealing with the whims of nature and work to store food for the winters, etc.? Sure! But that is different than saying that by eating lots of carrots and corn and chickens they were intentionally bypassing the cupcakes and bonbons. No, they were eating what they had, and those were generally foods nutritionally better than what many folks eat today!
 
I still think when Alexander the Great decided to conquer the known world he was unconsciously on a massive quest to discover chocolate. :p

Might have explained why Ghengis was always in such a bad mood too.
 
No, I just have a hard time giving credit to people for some things that were basically impossible for them to screw up to begin with. If you were a "normal" person in most of the ancient times, chances are you didn't spend your days sucking down sugary drinks and eating processed sugary snacks. Many societies struggled to have enough food for the populace to begin with and there were no 40-hour workweeks or emergency rooms. Many people died from things like the plague, tuberculosis, infections from injuries, etc., etc., that generally do not happen in many/most countries today, including many children.

Did they have beer and wine, etc.? You bet! And many did various types of "natural" drugs. But, in general, most had to be productive and work within societies to survive.

Did a lot of societies have advanced methods of dealing with the whims of nature and work to store food for the winters, etc.? Sure! But that is different than saying that by eating lots of carrots and corn and chickens they were intentionally bypassing the cupcakes and bonbons. No, they were eating what they had, and those were generally foods nutritionally better than what many folks eat today!

For the most part I agree with you, although I think we are talking about two different groups of people. I'm referring mostly to specifically hunter gather societies, pre-agricultural people, and contrary to popular belief, it was not their constant searching for food that was the main reason they were healthy and lean, although no doubt their hunting trips did keep them strong. Average hunter gatherer workweek was 17 hrs. 17. Also I'm referring to people who did not live in urban environments and so did not have very many infectious diseases, except perhaps from an injury.

Paleolithic humans were, like many other hunting species, very adept. It's when we turned our eating habits into more like those of a prey species (foraging/working constantly, and for starchy/grainy/cellulose rich foods) that we went against what we had been naturally selected for and opened ourselves to the host of "urban" diseases including most chronic and degenerative diseases, and many of the infectious ones as well - those that travel quickly within a contained population with sanitation issues. Neither of these were much of a concern for the paleolithic human. Just injury really. That's not to say that you couldn't offer these people twinkies, a car, and and a white picket fence and they wouldn't take it, some might, but many were keenly aware of the value of their lifestyle and wholeheartedly resisted the "developments" of the white man. At this point though, it is nearly all lost, so we need to remember the lessons learned by those folks and try to apply it to our modern situation. Basically, don't eat sugar!

Also, they knew which foods were particularly nutritionally dense, and made special trips to obtain them. I.e. certain foods from the sea, and certain organ meats. They gave these foods preferentially to pregnant women. It's a misconception to say that they merely "ate what was available". Although that is partly true, they were also very intentional about killing and finding the most nutrient dense food available. This is part of the genuis of our species (pun intended): since the early humans, we intentionally sought out more nutrient dense foods that protected our species and spurred the development of our large brains, and part of this is by chance. There is a line of thinking within anthropology that goes as such: we were the only predators on the savannah with opposable thumbs, and hence could dig into the skull cavity of our prey, eating the brains, and foraging that of carcasses, and therefore the sky high omega 3 content, allowing our own brains greater nourishment and development.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top