Some astonishing narrow-mindedness there - sad to read. Chiropractic really saved my back (and I had lots of experience with the conventional allopathic strategies), and after 30 years suffering from allergies I finally found help with acupuncture (after years of no success with conventional treatments, over the counter products, etc.). I'm not ready to dismiss acupuncture, a 3000 year old medical art from China quite so glibly.
The easy thing about being a skeptic is the safety of the position I would say. There's much to fear in new, thretening ideas, and it is always an option to jump on the bandwagon later of course, if the idea pans out.
Most new ideas are greeted with skepticism and derision at first - it is pretty much axiomatic.
I suppose, tofudebeast, had you been around 100-odd years ago when the automobile first appeared on the scene, you might have been among the skeptics in the horse and buggy crowd? Or amongst the "that'll never fly" deriders who thought at the end of the 1800's, I'm sure, that the Wright brothers were just wasting their time with those silly flying machines.
Remember, at one point in western medical development, many doctors were skeptical of germ theory, and many died as a result. I could go on....
Henry, as a recognized diesel guru 'round here, I respect you. What critics of skepticim do not seem to understand is that skepticism is not the same thing as cynicism. Show me verifiable, testable, repeatable proof of the cause/effect of any of the remedies/treatments OTHER THAN ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, and then you can say your "belief" in those things is grounded in science. Science is merely a method, a process, not a set of beliefs. Unless and untill chiropractic, accupuncture (regardless of its age), etc. are empiracally shown to have actual efficacy, you're deep into placebo territory and wishful thinking. Such is the case with HHO.
It's not the same as a criticsm of practicality; your horse and buggy example is poor as an analogy. Few people back then ever said: "cars are a theoretical, ununproven technology...they're snake oil", rather they said "who the hell needs that ugly, loud, stink monstrosity?!" Not the same thing...
As for accupuncture being 3000 years old and therefore 'there's gotta be something legit to it'...well prayer is at least as old as humans (
H. sapiens sapiens) are, and that's not science either (and also is proven to work--through a reduction in cortisol, among other stress hormones, i.e. placebo effect).
Narrow-minded? Hardly. Fearful of new things? Um...I run B100. Damn near everything about me is fringe (just ask around), it's just that I do look before I leap... With HHO, I looked, and I saw a big fat pit with a sign in front of it that said "Suckers, jump here".
HHO a new idea!? HARDLY! Electrolysis is a 208 year-old technology. Splitting water is not new, nor is burning hydrogen for fuel. You know what else is not new? People with a substandard understanding of science (physics, anatomy, physiology, etc.) eager for relief (medical, financial, etc.) who get taken for a ride by a predatory charlatan. Second oldest business. Used up poo-nanny was what they were hocking, the left-overs from the oldest business. Thus, HHO= rotten crotch, if you follow my analogy.
Oh, as for your experience with a Chiropractor and your back...that's great, but while it may have been a chiropractor who worked on you, what you got was
physical therapy, a proven science, NOT CHIROPRACTIC. Go read about it...
As for your allergies, you do know that people can suddenly get them, and people can suddenly lose them...with or without any treatment.
