made up?

[Guest guest]

Zev,

 

You might be right but I would still think that I can find others that are

awefully close including my current schooling (chiro). Let's just leave the

bad press alone and consider how we might be able to create a more unified

education that still allows for individual interpretation and critical

thinking.

 

Got any ideas?

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

> " " <zrosenbe

>Chinese Medicine

>Chinese Medicine

>Re: Re: made up?

>Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:34:07 -0800

>

>Mike,

> I know of no other profession that has as much of a lack of

>accountability in practice and education as ours.

>

>

>On Dec 16, 2005, at 1:24 PM, mike Bowser wrote:

>

> > Zev,

> >

> > This is an intriguing thought but I am curious as to what this

> > would look

> > like in detail. As no other profession has a complete agreement on

> > the

> > material or ideas that are taught, so how can we achieve what they

> > could

> > not?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Robert

> The bottom line does it work?

 

browsing through the whole " made-up " discussion seems like we are

witnessing a historical moment of " paradigm shift " towards evidence-

based OM.

 

Ed Mizun.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Mike,

> I know of no other profession that has as much of a lack of

> accountability in practice and education as ours.

 

Hi Z'ev!

 

Social Work, at least when I was a Social Worker in the '70s. Worse than

we are experiencing, in fact, much worse.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

Zev,

 

The real question is who decides which filter is to be used? This could be

real problematic.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

> " " <zrosenbe

>Chinese Medicine

>Chinese Medicine

>Re: Re: made up?

>Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:19:06 -0800

>

>Too much to go into here, I think, but the 'skeptical modern filter'

>is a double-edged sword. Sometimes a lot of things of value are left

>in the dust by biased, one-sided studies that do not take into

>account the unique qualities of Chinese and other forms of herbal

>medicine.

>

>

>On Dec 16, 2005, at 11:04 AM, wrote:

>

> > I could not agree more but that should be more than scholarship of

> > past information. It must be put through a highly skeptical modern

> > filter which we lack more than scholarly work.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

A loaded question. What exactly would 'evidence-based' OM be? Would

the thousands of volumes of case histories throughout CM history be

acceptable? Or is 'evidence-based' just another buzz-word like

'integrative medicine', done superficially or with the political

dominance of WM?

 

 

On Dec 16, 2005, at 9:03 PM, ed_miz wrote:

 

> browsing through the whole " made-up " discussion seems like we are

> witnessing a historical moment of " paradigm shift " towards evidence-

> based OM.

>

> Ed Mizun.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Perhaps, Pete, you can share some experiences? I'd be very interested.

 

Z'ev

On Dec 17, 2005, at 3:15 AM, petetheisen wrote:

 

> Hi Z'ev!

>

> Social Work, at least when I was a Social Worker in the '70s. Worse

> than

> we are experiencing, in fact, much worse.

>

> Regards,

>

> Pete

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Exactly.

 

Z'ev

On Dec 17, 2005, at 5:04 PM, mike Bowser wrote:

 

> Zev,

>

> The real question is who decides which filter is to be used? This

> could be

> real problematic.

>

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

wrote: _What exactly would 'evidence-based' OM be? Would

the thousands of volumes of case histories throughout CM history be

acceptable? Or is 'evidence-based' just another buzz-word like 'integrative

medicine', done superficially or with the political dominance of WM? _

 

That is profoundly ignorant and offensive to the diverse people who have put

enormous work individually and collaboratively into actualizing these

concepts (in my case expressed as _integrated alternative med _). The

following (slightly edited) list of measureable factors in evaluating presenting

status and post-treatment structural and functional improvement comes from

Evidence-Based Treatment Guidelines, a 100-plus page document published

August, 2004 by Council of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Associations

and Foundation for Acupuncture Research. It was forwarded to me for my first

look just a few days ago.

 

A casual glance at this list might give an impression it is about forcing you to

emulate chiropractors with a neuro-musculoskeletal emphasis. For the

broadest possible acceptance by the populace and dominant medical

establishment, this is clearly the way to go, yet that is something I hate to

admit after several years worth of serious post-grad study of both Chinese

herbs and homeopathics.

 

If an internal-med focused herbalist or acupuncturist encounters no difficulty

with patient compliance, payment, governmental restriction, or a dozen other

realities, then the challenge for them is to see this approach as VERY DO-

ABLE OR ADAPTABLE, and take it from there. I have previously termed this

the Functional Model of Healthcare. There are other aspects and issues. I

strongly encourage anyone who wants to understand the issues of research

and alternatives to RCT's to read Complementary and Alternative Medicine in

the United States (2005), available to read online at:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309092701/html

 

Also recommended is Michael Cohen's site:

http://www.camlawblog.com

 

Just as a great deal of homeopathic literature of documented observation is

all but worthless, so too, the bulk of historical CM case histories don't stand

up

to the slightest scrutiny. And please don't get me started again on Wiseman

( ! ) Anyway, here's a good springboard for do-it-yourself Evidence-Based

whatever it is that you do.

 

Subjective

Decrease of pain, per various scales, (i.e. 1-10 or visual analogue)

Decrease of frequency of flare-ups or episodes of pain

Decrease in duration of flare-ups or episodes of pain

Decrease in sensitivity of pain to triggers and aggravating factors

Decrease in parasthesias

Decrease in stiffness

Decreased effects on mood and sleep

Decrease in limitations affecting ADL (activities of daily living)

Family/associate perceptions of pain behaviors

Objective

Increased pain thresholds and tolerance

Increased range of motion and flexibility

Increased endurance

Increased strength

Decreased joint laxity

Restored sensory and vascular function

Increased muscle bulk and tone

Improvements in posture and symmetry

Improvements in gait

Reduction of pathologic movements and signs

Decreased bruising, discoloration, scars, swelling, tenderness

Increased body mechanics and ability to perform activities of daily living

Increased ability to perform job-related duties

Reduction in medication and aids

Improvements demonstrated by special studies

Improved tolerance to sitting and standing.

Compliance and cooperation.

Relapse prevention.

Reduction of hospital visits or other medical interventions.

Reduced pain behaviors.

 

Joe Reid

http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com (nothing but pictures on it lately)

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> A loaded question. What exactly would 'evidence-based' OM be? Would

> the thousands of volumes of case histories throughout CM history be

> acceptable? Or is 'evidence-based' just another buzz-word like

> 'integrative medicine', done superficially or with the political

> dominance of WM?

 

Hi Z'ev!

 

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/peer.html

 

One of CAM's harshest critics has formulated a list of what is wrong

with our research. If his criticisms could be met, however, our research

would be improved.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Perhaps, Pete, you can share some experiences? I'd be very

> interested.

 

Hi Z'ev!

 

I may write an article on this one day for my website.

 

Briefly, however, the field of Social Work in those days was very

buzzword orientated. The way to " professional " recognition was to coin a

new noun. Didn't matter if it made no sense, as long as only you and the

in-crowd understood what it was *supposed* to mean. Then you developed a

nice business giving seminars to let the rest in on the " new thing " .

 

That, and the deep-rooted psychological need to be the most *liberal*

person/agency/nation on the face of the earth. Reverse racism, political

correctness, etc., etc.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

jreidomd wrote:

> wrote:

<snip>

> The following (slightly edited) list of measureable factors in

> evaluating presenting status and post-treatment structural and

> functional improvement comes from Evidence-Based Treatment

> Guidelines, a 100-plus page document published August, 2004 by

> Council of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Associations and

> Foundation for Acupuncture Research. It was forwarded to me for my

> first look just a few days ago.

>

> A casual glance at this list might give an impression it is about

> forcing you to emulate chiropractors with a neuro-musculoskeletal

> emphasis. For the broadest possible acceptance by the populace and

> dominant medical establishment, this is clearly the way to go, yet

> that is something I hate to admit after several years worth of

> serious post-grad study of both Chinese herbs and homeopathics.

 

Hi Z'ev!

 

This is very interesting, thanks. I will study this for a while before I

comment, however.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

I not only disagree with limiting the presentation of Chinese

medicine to a musculo-skeletal perspective, I find your strong-arm

approach in this and past posts equally offensive. I was speaking

about the tendency of folks in the medical fields to be taken by

politically-correct 'buzz-words', pushing them on our profession

without adequate input from the rank and file. I am all in favor of

research, and recognize that there are folks in our field who are

doing great groundwork for in-house studies. This has nothing to do

with buzz-words such as 'integrative' or 'evidence-based' on the

public scale. Anyone who knows me would never use the term

'ignorant' in reference to my work. If you want to descend to name-

calling to make your case, you've already lost. These are the

methods of politicians, not physicians.

 

I am sure I am not the only one who would question your ideas, or

wish to engage you on Wiseman terminology, and the blanket statement

that the bulk of CM case histories is 'worthless'.

 

 

On Dec 17, 2005, at 11:32 PM, jreidomd wrote:

 

> That is profoundly ignorant and offensive to the diverse people who

> have put

> enormous work individually and collaboratively into actualizing these

> concepts (in my case expressed as _integrated alternative med _). The

> following (slightly edited) list of measureable factors in

> evaluating presenting

> status and post-treatment structural and functional improvement

> comes from

> Evidence-Based Treatment Guidelines, a 100-plus page document

> published

> August, 2004 by Council of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine

> Associations

> and Foundation for Acupuncture Research. It was forwarded to me

> for my first

> look just a few days ago.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/18/2005 2:50:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,

alonmarcus writes:

 

There is a very big difference between verified research on known diseases

and the reading of unverified historical information

 

 

Could it be that the reason we have this issue is that Chinese medicine has

no way to recognize " known diseases, " as we use the term?

 

Chinese acupuncture and herbology seek to modify the host reaction to

various imbalances or influences, but there is no way that anyone using five

elements, zang-fu, pulse diagnosis or any of the other historical methods in

Chinese medicine could come up with differentials that have been discussed on

this

list, ie, polycyctic kidney disease, influenza, hepatitis and even cancer.

 

Perhaps the reason that there is a frustration with medical studies on

Chinese medicine is the mis-match between diagnostic categories and therapeutic

goals.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Zev

So far in the west we have very few studies showing objectively measurable

changes in any internal med problem. What we get from PRC is totally

unbelievable and unreproducable in the west much of the time. While historical

literature is important for the study of CM the clinical utility of such

information must be viewed skeptically. Half the time its even difficult to know

what exactly is being treated. Just as you have, i have also spent the last 25

years studying and practicing CM. I have observed the practice of CM in the PRC,

Japan, Taiwan and US and can only come to one conclusion. We need much more

reliable critical evaluation of our methods and outcomes. The only way this will

occur is if we do the research as the study of CM needs to be done with

allowances not appreciated by most biomedical researchers. This will only occur

when we stop looking at our medicine as somekind of sacred cow. If we do not

know enough CM than we bring the Dr from china and run the research here and run

it properly. To just keep asking for more and deeper study of culture, language

and medicine is unacceptable at this point. We have a profession that charges

for medical care and we have an obligation to the public we treat. The

biomedical world is bed enough i think we have the duty to do better and be more

ethical.

 

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

jreidomd

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, December 17, 2005 11:32 PM

Re: made up?

 

 

wrote: _What exactly would 'evidence-based' OM be? Would

the thousands of volumes of case histories throughout CM history be

acceptable? Or is 'evidence-based' just another buzz-word like 'integrative

medicine', done superficially or with the political dominance of WM? _

 

That is profoundly ignorant and offensive to the diverse people who have put

enormous work individually and collaboratively into actualizing these

concepts (in my case expressed as _integrated alternative med _). The

following (slightly edited) list of measureable factors in evaluating

presenting

status and post-treatment structural and functional improvement comes from

Evidence-Based Treatment Guidelines, a 100-plus page document published

August, 2004 by Council of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Associations

and Foundation for Acupuncture Research. It was forwarded to me for my first

look just a few days ago.

 

A casual glance at this list might give an impression it is about forcing you

to

emulate chiropractors with a neuro-musculoskeletal emphasis. For the

broadest possible acceptance by the populace and dominant medical

establishment, this is clearly the way to go, yet that is something I hate to

admit after several years worth of serious post-grad study of both Chinese

herbs and homeopathics.

 

If an internal-med focused herbalist or acupuncturist encounters no difficulty

with patient compliance, payment, governmental restriction, or a dozen other

realities, then the challenge for them is to see this approach as VERY DO-

ABLE OR ADAPTABLE, and take it from there. I have previously termed this

the Functional Model of Healthcare. There are other aspects and issues. I

strongly encourage anyone who wants to understand the issues of research

and alternatives to RCT's to read Complementary and Alternative Medicine in

the United States (2005), available to read online at:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309092701/html

 

Also recommended is Michael Cohen's site:

http://www.camlawblog.com

 

Just as a great deal of homeopathic literature of documented observation is

all but worthless, so too, the bulk of historical CM case histories don't

stand up

to the slightest scrutiny. And please don't get me started again on Wiseman

( ! ) Anyway, here's a good springboard for do-it-yourself Evidence-Based

whatever it is that you do.

 

Subjective

Decrease of pain, per various scales, (i.e. 1-10 or visual analogue)

Decrease of frequency of flare-ups or episodes of pain

Decrease in duration of flare-ups or episodes of pain

Decrease in sensitivity of pain to triggers and aggravating factors

Decrease in parasthesias

Decrease in stiffness

Decreased effects on mood and sleep

Decrease in limitations affecting ADL (activities of daily living)

Family/associate perceptions of pain behaviors

Objective

Increased pain thresholds and tolerance

Increased range of motion and flexibility

Increased endurance

Increased strength

Decreased joint laxity

Restored sensory and vascular function

Increased muscle bulk and tone

Improvements in posture and symmetry

Improvements in gait

Reduction of pathologic movements and signs

Decreased bruising, discoloration, scars, swelling, tenderness

Increased body mechanics and ability to perform activities of daily living

Increased ability to perform job-related duties

Reduction in medication and aids

Improvements demonstrated by special studies

Improved tolerance to sitting and standing.

Compliance and cooperation.

Relapse prevention.

Reduction of hospital visits or other medical interventions.

Reduced pain behaviors.

 

Joe Reid

http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com (nothing but pictures on it lately)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click,

http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

What you are suggesting is simply the other side of the coin from

research into classical CM literature and approaches. I think we

need both. According to emphasis and temperament, different

individuals will be drawn in different directions. One approach

doesn't negate the need for the other.

 

 

On Dec 18, 2005, at 8:58 AM, wrote:

 

> Zev

> So far in the west we have very few studies showing objectively

> measurable changes in any internal med problem. What we get from

> PRC is totally unbelievable and unreproducable in the west much of

> the time. While historical literature is important for the study of

> CM the clinical utility of such information must be viewed

> skeptically. Half the time its even difficult to know what exactly

> is being treated. Just as you have, i have also spent the last 25

> years studying and practicing CM. I have observed the practice of

> CM in the PRC, Japan, Taiwan and US and can only come to one

> conclusion. We need much more reliable critical evaluation of our

> methods and outcomes. The only way this will occur is if we do the

> research as the study of CM needs to be done with allowances not

> appreciated by most biomedical researchers. This will only occur

> when we stop looking at our medicine as somekind of sacred cow. If

> we do not know enough CM than we bring the Dr from china and run

> the research here and run it properly. To just keep asking for more

> and deeper study of culture, language and medicine is unacceptable

> at this point. We have a profession that charges for medical care

> and we have an obligation to the public we treat. The biomedical

> world is bed enough i think we have the duty to do better and be

> more ethical.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev

There is a very big difference between verified research on known diseases and

the reading of unverified historical information. No one approach does not

negate the other but you can not treat CM historical literature as verifiable

information. It can only be used to guide us for further clinical study. Z'ev i

think sometimes you need to connect to your name a little more. Have a nice

Hanukkah

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Chinese Medicine

Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:02 PM

Re: Re: made up?

 

 

Alon,

What you are suggesting is simply the other side of the coin from

research into classical CM literature and approaches. I think we

need both. According to emphasis and temperament, different

individuals will be drawn in different directions. One approach

doesn't negate the need for the other.

 

On Dec 18, 2005, at 8:58 AM, wrote:

 

> Zev

> So far in the west we have very few studies showing objectively

> measurable changes in any internal med problem. What we get from

> PRC is totally unbelievable and unreproducable in the west much of

> the time. While historical literature is important for the study of

> CM the clinical utility of such information must be viewed

> skeptically. Half the time its even difficult to know what exactly

> is being treated. Just as you have, i have also spent the last 25

> years studying and practicing CM. I have observed the practice of

> CM in the PRC, Japan, Taiwan and US and can only come to one

> conclusion. We need much more reliable critical evaluation of our

> methods and outcomes. The only way this will occur is if we do the

> research as the study of CM needs to be done with allowances not

> appreciated by most biomedical researchers. This will only occur

> when we stop looking at our medicine as somekind of sacred cow. If

> we do not know enough CM than we bring the Dr from china and run

> the research here and run it properly. To just keep asking for more

> and deeper study of culture, language and medicine is unacceptable

> at this point. We have a profession that charges for medical care

> and we have an obligation to the public we treat. The biomedical

> world is bed enough i think we have the duty to do better and be

> more ethical.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

Historical information is verified by the fact that the Chinese,

a very pragmatic civilization for the most part, used this medicine

for millenia to treat a wide range of diseases and basically

maintained a healthy population. I know several practitioners who

have used traditional herb and point prescriptions, based on

traditional theory, and have gotten excellent results. From what

you have said, it seems that I've gotten better results with a

'classical' approach than you have, you've done better with more

evidence-based material. This is what I mean by emphasis and

orientation in approach.

On Dec 18, 2005, at 12:20 PM, wrote:

 

> Z'ev

> There is a very big difference between verified research on known

> diseases and the reading of unverified historical information. No

> one approach does not negate the other but you can not treat CM

> historical literature as verifiable information. It can only be

> used to guide us for further clinical study. Z'ev i think sometimes

> you need to connect to your name a little more. Have a nice Hanukkah

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Zev,

 

When I hear pracitioners upholding a torch for western medicine I tend to

feel that we do not realize that only a small portion (~15%) of the clinical

practice of WM has any scientific validity. If on the other hand, we simply

want to make ourselves better then I say, yippee let's do it. We need to be

clear about why and how.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

> " " <zrosenbe

>Chinese Medicine

>Chinese Medicine

>Re: Re: made up?

>Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:56:17 -0800

>

>Alon,

> Historical information is verified by the fact that the Chinese,

>a very pragmatic civilization for the most part, used this medicine

>for millenia to treat a wide range of diseases and basically

>maintained a healthy population. I know several practitioners who

>have used traditional herb and point prescriptions, based on

>traditional theory, and have gotten excellent results. From what

>you have said, it seems that I've gotten better results with a

>'classical' approach than you have, you've done better with more

>evidence-based material. This is what I mean by emphasis and

>orientation in approach.

>On Dec 18, 2005, at 12:20 PM, wrote:

>

> > Z'ev

> > There is a very big difference between verified research on known

> > diseases and the reading of unverified historical information. No

> > one approach does not negate the other but you can not treat CM

> > historical literature as verifiable information. It can only be

> > used to guide us for further clinical study. Z'ev i think sometimes

> > you need to connect to your name a little more. Have a nice Hanukkah

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

We also need to understand the mechanisms at work.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

> " " <zrosenbe

>Chinese Medicine

>Chinese Medicine

>Re: Re: made up?

>Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:02:15 -0800

>

>Alon,

> What you are suggesting is simply the other side of the coin from

>research into classical CM literature and approaches. I think we

>need both. According to emphasis and temperament, different

>individuals will be drawn in different directions. One approach

>doesn't negate the need for the other.

>

>

>On Dec 18, 2005, at 8:58 AM, wrote:

>

> > Zev

> > So far in the west we have very few studies showing objectively

> > measurable changes in any internal med problem. What we get from

> > PRC is totally unbelievable and unreproducable in the west much of

> > the time. While historical literature is important for the study of

> > CM the clinical utility of such information must be viewed

> > skeptically. Half the time its even difficult to know what exactly

> > is being treated. Just as you have, i have also spent the last 25

> > years studying and practicing CM. I have observed the practice of

> > CM in the PRC, Japan, Taiwan and US and can only come to one

> > conclusion. We need much more reliable critical evaluation of our

> > methods and outcomes. The only way this will occur is if we do the

> > research as the study of CM needs to be done with allowances not

> > appreciated by most biomedical researchers. This will only occur

> > when we stop looking at our medicine as somekind of sacred cow. If

> > we do not know enough CM than we bring the Dr from china and run

> > the research here and run it properly. To just keep asking for more

> > and deeper study of culture, language and medicine is unacceptable

> > at this point. We have a profession that charges for medical care

> > and we have an obligation to the public we treat. The biomedical

> > world is bed enough i think we have the duty to do better and be

> > more ethical.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Z've

Still we need much more reliable information and obviously the place to start is

the history of CM including classical

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Chinese Medicine

Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:56 PM

Re: Re: made up?

 

 

Alon,

Historical information is verified by the fact that the Chinese,

a very pragmatic civilization for the most part, used this medicine

for millenia to treat a wide range of diseases and basically

maintained a healthy population. I know several practitioners who

have used traditional herb and point prescriptions, based on

traditional theory, and have gotten excellent results. From what

you have said, it seems that I've gotten better results with a

'classical' approach than you have, you've done better with more

evidence-based material. This is what I mean by emphasis and

orientation in approach.

On Dec 18, 2005, at 12:20 PM, wrote:

 

> Z'ev

> There is a very big difference between verified research on known

> diseases and the reading of unverified historical information. No

> one approach does not negate the other but you can not treat CM

> historical literature as verifiable information. It can only be

> used to guide us for further clinical study. Z'ev i think sometimes

> you need to connect to your name a little more. Have a nice Hanukkah

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mike,

 

In a message dated 12/19/2005 3:16:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

When I hear pracitioners upholding a torch for western medicine I tend to

feel that we do not realize that only a small portion (~15%) of the clinical

 

practice of WM has any scientific validity

 

 

As long as you purport to treat these disease entities that come from a

paradigm outside your own then you have no choice but to Make Stuff Up.

 

If you are going to confine yourself to the body of traditional Chinese

medical knowledge, two things must follow: In the first place, the body of

knowledge is complete and it cannot be added to. Thus the task is to translate

and

standardize. once you do that, then you need to insure that practitioners

have interexaminer reliability across the varied diagnostic techniques. The fact

that a group of westerners has continued on and on about obscure pulse

entities without being able to verify this makes the discussion seem a little

mystical. And when things are mystical, all the magicians have a right to say

whatever they like.

 

The second then you must necessarily stop talking about any western disease

terms. Breast cancers were just lumps, contact dermatitis and early psoriasis

were the same thing, a migraine and a brain tumor couldn't be distinguished

in their early (and probably later) stages.

 

Putting aside Western medical treatment, perhaps we might take a look at

western thought. Without statistical analysis, you run the risk of fooling

yourself time after time. You risk taking credit for " curing " syndromes in a

week,

which left untreated would have lasted seven days. And without good clinical

trials (which would be possible if you established standards) you can't even

tell whether the made up stuff is recent or centuries old.

 

Guy Porter

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

mike Bowser wrote:

> When I hear pracitioners upholding a torch for western medicine I

> tend to feel that we do not realize that only a small portion (~15%)

> of the clinical practice of WM has any scientific validity.

 

Hi Mike!

 

Have you a link for that figure? A while ago another link was bouncing

around, or perhaps this is the same source? The report is named

" Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies. " Sept 1978.

 

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/%7Eota/ns20/year_f.html

 

Unfortunately, this link only gets you half the way there. Once on the

page you select " 78 " ; then you find the title; then you select either

the full report or the chapter one; the text you are looking for is in

chapter one on the 6th page of the chapter one PDF in almost the middle

of the page: " It has been estimated that only 10 to 20 percent of all

procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be

efficacious by controlled trial. " Whew!

 

Now for the 64 cent question? Does anyone know *which* 15%? (or 10 or 20)

 

Regards,

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

Guy,

 

Interesting but lets not forget that we do not live in ancient times and any

and all attempts to try to understand what they meant are just that,

attempts. The Chinese language has many nuances for each pictograph and how

do we really know that we got it right? Each of us has got to figure what

these things means to us and therefore understand that this is an individual

medicine. Modern China has changed this focus.

 

My point about medical efficacy is that it appears that some in the

profession are trying to hold us up to some unrealistic " western medical

standard " , which does not really exist. I do support more research into the

" Why of it " , which includes better biological studies and focus upon ancient

theories not just techniques. As our body is biologically regulated, it

makes sense to consider that Chinese medicince is biological medicine. The

focus is upon correct regulation of various systems not on medical

interventions. An aside here though, TCM has a very strong interconnection

in China to allopathic medicine.

 

So how do you propose that we get back to our roots when they are so driven

to create integration?

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

>DrGRPorter

>Chinese Medicine

>Chinese Medicine

>Re: Re: made up?

>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:09:01 EST

>

>

>

>

>Mike,

>

>In a message dated 12/19/2005 3:16:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,

>naturaldoc1 writes:

>

>

>

>When I hear pracitioners upholding a torch for western medicine I tend to

>feel that we do not realize that only a small portion (~15%) of the

>clinical

>

>practice of WM has any scientific validity

>

>

>As long as you purport to treat these disease entities that come from a

>paradigm outside your own then you have no choice but to Make Stuff Up.

>

>If you are going to confine yourself to the body of traditional Chinese

>medical knowledge, two things must follow: In the first place, the body of

>knowledge is complete and it cannot be added to. Thus the task is to

>translate and

>standardize. once you do that, then you need to insure that practitioners

>have interexaminer reliability across the varied diagnostic techniques. The

>fact

>that a group of westerners has continued on and on about obscure pulse

>entities without being able to verify this makes the discussion seem a

>little

>mystical. And when things are mystical, all the magicians have a right to

>say

>whatever they like.

>

>The second then you must necessarily stop talking about any western disease

>terms. Breast cancers were just lumps, contact dermatitis and early

>psoriasis

>were the same thing, a migraine and a brain tumor couldn't be distinguished

>in their early (and probably later) stages.

>

>Putting aside Western medical treatment, perhaps we might take a look at

>western thought. Without statistical analysis, you run the risk of fooling

>yourself time after time. You risk taking credit for " curing " syndromes in

>a week,

>which left untreated would have lasted seven days. And without good

>clinical

>trials (which would be possible if you established standards) you can't

>even

>tell whether the made up stuff is recent or centuries old.

>

>Guy Porter

>

>

>

>