ah, but what you DON'T know, whippersnapper, is that the cow was a Kung-Fu practitioner, and was being treated for an eye injury with his Sifu's dit da jow.
Jeez Chris, sometimes yer such a smart-a**. :-p "thppppt"
ah, but what you DON'T know, whippersnapper, is that the cow was a Kung-Fu practitioner, and was being treated for an eye injury with his Sifu's dit da jow.
Jeez Chris, sometimes yer such a smart-a**. :-p "thppppt"
"My Gung-Fu may not be Your Gung-Fu.
Gwok-Si, Gwok-Faht"
"I will not be part of the generation
that killed Kung-Fu."
....step.
FWIW, I "amended" that to hyaluronidase....
The researchers being from Columbia seems to put it in the "area" of NYC Chinatown, while what I'd heard of was from LA......
The "cow's eye" seems to put it into the area of bovine "matter" which has a certain similarity....
In any case, I was still able to find "some material" about hyaluronidase "back then"ok "oldster", and what? 50 yrs. ago BS was still BS, AFAIK, if not more so given that the ability to debunk stories of that nature was a lot less than it is now
and still "remember it" to some degree.
Seems like you took a bit to go do a look-up yourself.
No more ridiculous than some of the stories you tell, Mr. Skeptic.that is all very interesting, but essentially irrelevant to the point about the story you heard being ridiculous;
If I find myself short of something useful to do, perhaps I'll take the opportunity to wax skeptical over your latest and greatest "revelation".
Last edited by bakxierboxer; 01-28-2009 at 12:02 PM.
ok... but that's the enzyme that breaks down hyaluronic acid, so now you are talking about a different chemical...
they are both in Manhattan; with about 200 blocks in between;
but still no documented evidence
similarity to what? did I miss something? what does bovine "matter" have to do with anything?
yeah - I Googled "hyaluronic acid history"
such as? please give me a specific example of which story you find ridiculous;
again, specifics please; and by all means, be as skeptical as you like about anything I say - if you can provide reliable evidence contradicting anything I post, I am all up for it; also, sarcasm does little to further your argument or polemic in general
Last edited by taai gihk yahn; 01-28-2009 at 12:21 PM.
Good points,
My only comments are as follows:
a. Is it the dit da jow (standardized) OR the massage portion that shows effect?
b. Everyone should have the same problem is same area
c. Use of a pain stiffness scale plus SF-36 (quality of life)
d. Time to relief is a better endpoint, i.e. 24, 48 hrs, etc or less
e. Add a cost effective portion, MD vs OMD or acupuncturist
f. You can nullify "sham treatment" if just massaging the area is good and compare to Time to relief. I would use sham in a different way thought that way may be an actual 'bogus' procedure when seen by an MD. For example, massaging the area then 'blowing qi (hot air??!!) is a shamanistic way to clear 'bad air' but a modern MD may see it as it may sound!!!
Funny thing though when a person is uninitiated to the mysteries if gung fu practice and it's related stance works and alignments it can appear quite magical. The Traveling "Monk" shows for instance. You look at those guys and go wow they can almost fly and how could that dude resist a blow to his head like that? In truth each and everything you see demonstrated there is a teachable skill set but until you learn it "It's magic!"
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders.
-Patanjali Samadhi
"Not engaging in ignorance is wisdom."
~ Bodhi
Never miss a good chance to shut up
you would have to seperate out the two: one group jow applied w/out deep massage; one applied with deep massage; one deep massage alone;
it's not a clinical trial using patients - your sample is healthy adults doing IP training; you would need a baseline report from each person pre-training, immediately post-training and then post-application of the modality in question;
I am not familiar with that one, but will go take a look at it - but if it's standardized and has been shown to be valid / reliable, sure
sure, why not - but you would need a sensitive window - for example, in 24 hr. everyone might feel better anyway - so I'd look at 1 hour, 3 hours, 6 hours - something like that maybe (or smaller increments even)
certainly a good parameter to look at, but this is typically done once the relative efficacy has been determined; to wit,one could argue that taking Advil after IP training could be a cheaper alternative, LOL
the point of a "sham" jow is that it's easy to do and impossible to detect, as opposed to "sham" deep massage, for obvious reasons;
all excellent points; and goes to further underscore the difficulty inherent in conducting good (reliable / valid) research;
For me, remembering that something from that far back contains "hyalur..." is "pretty good".
What do you remember from then?
A good deal closer than LA.they are both in Manhattan; with about 200 blocks in between;
If I'd thought much about it back then, I'm not sure just who I'd have approached to write it up.but still no documented evidence
In an earlier post on this I mentioned that the ingredient involved in the "herbal" formula was bull testicles.similarity to what? did I miss something? what does bovine "matter" have to do with anything?
Right about the time I looked it up to answer SR & corrected myself.yeah - I Googled "hyaluronic acid history"
Guess.such as? please give me a specific example of which story you find ridiculous;
Different strokes....again, specifics please; and by all means, be as skeptical as you like about anything I say - if you can provide reliable evidence contradicting anything I post, I am all up for it; also, sarcasm does little to further your argument or polemic in general
I write the way I write.
yeah, well considering the ending of the word completely changes the chemistry of it, not good enough in terms of the argument;
cows ≠ bulls; eyes≠testes; proximity≠causality
oh please, grow up; with all due respect, if you want to criticize something I wrote, go right ahead, but don't play the coy game; I think the reality is that you can't recall anything specific, you are just making a general comment; which is fine, but at least be honest about it;
that's fine, but it diminishes your inherent credibility;
OTOH, remembering something like that as having a "connection" to any Jow formulation would seem to be an interesting point of information.
No kiddin'?cows ≠ bulls; eyes≠testes; proximity≠causality
Your new role as "Mr. Obvious"?
You're right about that.oh please, grow up; with all due respect, if you want to criticize something I wrote, go right ahead, but don't play the coy game; I think the reality is that you can't recall anything specific, you are just making a general comment; which is fine, but at least be honest about it;
For the most part, although you can be annoyingly wordy at times, your info is good.
Areas where I felt that it wasn't so good seemed to not be worth jumping on.
Hunh!that's fine, but it diminishes your inherent credibility;
Surprised that you think I have any at all.
Can we get back to bashing Grey this talk of chemistry and such is for the high brow crowd, not us