Guest guest Posted July 26, 2003 Report Share Posted July 26, 2003 Attilio, I like posting your site as it seems a bit friendlier sometimes. Also I particularly like and feel an affinity for TCM's moderator. ;-) So here's a part of a recent presentation from CHA. Emmanuel Segmen On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 10:33 PM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: wrote: Without confirmatory evidence THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TOWM/conventional scientists, CAM practitioners - whatever theirmodalities and clinical expertise - will remain OUTSIDERS on thefringes of mainstream medicine. Hi Phil, I'm glad to have inspired in some small way along with the others your energetic post today. Your comment above is precisely the idea I wish to dispute, so I'm heartened that you've managed to state it so well. Those whom we now call Western medicine doctors were fringe element outsiders until the early 1900s. Their method of overcoming homeopaths and all other comers had little to do with double blind studies. They astounded their audience with successful surgeries. They pulled out their little trick called antiseptic technique. Dr. Brodman probed the human brain for centers of function and so on. They also made profoundly astute political moves while the audience was awed by their surgeries. They took over the professional body called the AMA and turned it into a powerful politcal action committee. They then transformed the medical school curriculums and their credentialing, and then establised the FDA. The rest, as they say, is history. The allopaths did not ever present anything acceptable to the homeopaths or other conventional practitioners of their time. I recommend CM practitioners figure out that their actions must in fact proceed along a much more monied and political vein if they want a more central part the stage. Paradigms become dominant because of economic and political interests. It also helps if the paradigm works and creates a bit of a stir in the audience. Also read Kuhn. One of the most important things Kuhn notes is that we scientists do research only on things that we already know about. All of the research chiefs at UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, Stanford or San Francisco State University would scold the hell out of the graduate students if the graduate students even slightly imagined anything for which there were no established materials and methods. Double blind studies done perfectly on behalf of CM will convince no one in Western medicine of anything. It might scare them, but it won't win them over because it's not in their economic nor political interest. It might convince a few insurance company administrators or congressmen, and therein will lie the path to success at the center stage. More likely research studies will do no such thing. I'm recalling a 1999 Journal of the American Medical Association article proclaiming that in 1998 Americans spent 40% of their health related dollars on alternative medical treatment and over the counter alternative remedies. In 1999 the New England Journal of Medicine unleased a torrent of editorials lashing chiropratic medicine and CM. I believe WM will respond badly to any success that CM has. I also believe that CM will have success as more practitioners are trained in CM and Americans spend their money on CM rather than on WM for treatments that CM does well. Just my scattered thoughts at the end of a rather challenging week. Thanks for your thoughts, Phil. Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2003 Report Share Posted July 27, 2003 Thank you for your site support Emmanuel. I appreciate your efforts and feel the infinity. Attilio Chinese Medicine , " Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen@i...> wrote: > Attilio, > > I like posting your site as it seems a bit friendlier sometimes. Also I particularly like and feel an affinity for TCM's moderator. ;-) So here's a part of a recent presentation from CHA. > > Emmanuel Segmen > > On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 10:33 PM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: > > > wrote: Without confirmatory evidence THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO > WM/conventional scientists, CAM practitioners - whatever their > modalities and clinical expertise - will remain OUTSIDERS on the > fringes of mainstream medicine. > > Hi Phil, > > I'm glad to have inspired in some small way along with the others your energetic post today. Your comment above is precisely the idea I wish to dispute, so I'm heartened that you've managed to state it so well. > > Those whom we now call Western medicine doctors were fringe element outsiders until the early 1900s. Their method of overcoming homeopaths and all other comers had little to do with double blind studies. They astounded their audience with successful surgeries. They pulled out their little trick called antiseptic technique. Dr. Brodman probed the human brain for centers of function and so on. They also made profoundly astute political moves while the audience was awed by their surgeries. They took over the professional body called the AMA and turned it into a powerful politcal action committee. They then transformed the medical school curriculums and their credentialing, and then establised the FDA. The rest, as they say, is history. > > The allopaths did not ever present anything acceptable to the homeopaths or other conventional practitioners of their time. I recommend CM practitioners figure out that their actions must in fact proceed along a much more monied and political vein if they want a more central part the stage. Paradigms become dominant because of economic and political interests. It also helps if the paradigm works and creates a bit of a stir in the audience. Also read Kuhn. One of the most important things Kuhn notes is that we scientists do research only on things that we already know about. All of the research chiefs at UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, Stanford or San Francisco State University would scold the hell out of the graduate students if the graduate students even slightly imagined anything for which there were no established materials and methods. > > Double blind studies done perfectly on behalf of CM will convince no one in Western medicine of anything. It might scare them, but it won't win them over because it's not in their economic nor political interest. It might convince a few insurance company administrators or congressmen, and therein will lie the path to success at the center stage. More likely research studies will do no such thing. I'm recalling a 1999 Journal of the American Medical Association article proclaiming that in 1998 Americans spent 40% of their health related dollars on alternative medical treatment and over the counter alternative remedies. In 1999 the New England Journal of Medicine unleased a torrent of editorials lashing chiropratic medicine and CM. I believe WM will respond badly to any success that CM has. I also believe that CM will have success as more practitioners are trained in CM and Americans spend their money on CM rather than on WM for treatments that CM does well. > > Just my scattered thoughts at the end of a rather challenging week. > > Thanks for your thoughts, Phil. > > Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.