[kungato]

"When started"? I don't think it was ever really considered BS other than maybe specifically western medicine in the past max 100 years. Doesn't it make sense that with the progress medicine has done in the last century that we would scrutinise methods which couldn't be scientifically proven?

[viraptor]

"eastern" practices are often described in such generic way that any "works / doesn't work" becomes meaningless. Especially in case of ideas connected to mysticism. What does "does meditation work?" even mean. It's like "do pills work?" What kind of pills, what kind of meditation, what kind of effect are we looking at. I've heard many people describing it as BS, but they also heard of it as a miracle cure.

I think what changed recently is that a lot more details are included in the conversations.

[spaetzleesser]

“I've heard many people describing it as BS, but they also heard of it as a miracle cure.“

This may actually be true. For some people it works and for others it doesn’t. I think western medicine’s main mistake is to come up with things that work for as many people as possible. But we are very different and may need different things to be healthy.

[viraptor]

It's more cost effective if things work for everyone, but it's not like we reject things because they are not generic enough. See how many different statins you can be on for example if one doesn't work for you. If RNA testing was cheaper we could skip the guessing part (for statins) though and know which one to start with. Same with different techniques in psychology.

I don't think any serious professional disagrees with different needs.