Guest guest Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 This was posted on last week's Medscape pages. It is also a video commentary at this link (you'll need to register for free if you haven't done so): http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541341?src=mp Medscape usually will publish replies in future so don't just critique this commentary on the lists - send in your rebuttals to Medscape at the address at the very end below. Cynthia Ferre ______ The Reality of " Traditional Chinese " Medicines Posted 08/07/2006 Wallace Sampson, MD Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition and orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM history objectively. TCM developed in a tradition of an authoritarian culture. Independent thinking and argument were discouraged. A tradition of objective science did not develop.[2] Diseases were not described. Symptoms and physical characteristics were related only to natural elements and the cosmos. Ideas conformed to those of the emperor and state. TCM contained no concept of physiology, biochemistry, organ function, heredity, or infectious disease. Tongue and pulse diagnoses were essentially random; therapies based on them were useless -- accepted on authority, not proved.[3] What made TCM therapies appear effective? A collection of nonspecific psychological mechanisms, now known to be sources of error: misdirection, counterirritation (in the case of acupuncture and moxibustion), suggestion, and compliance demand. These observational errors and treater-subject interactions resulted in erroneous post hoc conclusions. Error was compounded by inability to identify error itself or to detect long-term effects. Conditioning and reinforcement, amplified by social pressures, created patient satisfaction and appearance of therapeutic success.[4] New anthropological findings and China scholars' re-evaluation indicate that acupuncture descended from various informal techniques, not formalized until the 19th and 20th centuries, largely by Europeans[5,6] and in China by the cultural revolution. TCM is not highly regarded by modern Chinese physicians, as 85% or more of medicine there is scientific, and TCM is utilized through self-referral.[7] TCM advocates in Western countries alternately propose that acupuncture effects have other scientific explanations, but unless they can prove that it has real effects and does not work through these nonspecific mechanisms that can apply to any method, their claims remain unverified and probably erroneous. That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Wallace Sampson of the MedGenMed Editorial Board. References 1. Sierpina VS, Frenkel MA. Acupuncture: a clinical review. South Med J. 2005;98:330-337. Abstract <http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15813160> 2. Qian Y. Science in China. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1985. 3. Imrie RH, Ramey DW, Buell PD, Ernst E. Veterinary acupuncture in historical scholarship: claims for the antiquity of acupuncture. Sci Rev Altern Med. 2001;5:133-139 4. Beyerstein B. Social and judgmental biases that make inert treatments seem to work. Sci Rev Altern Med. 1999;1:20-33. 5. Imrie R, Ramey D, Buell PD. Veterinary acupuncture in historical perspective. Sci Rev Altern Med. 2004-5;8:61-68. 6. Unschuld P. Medicine in China. A History of Ideas. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press; 1985:57-58. 7. Sampson W, Beyerstein B. Report of the CSICOP investigation of medicine in China. Skeptical Inquirer. 1998;20 Wallace Sampson, MD, Member of the MedGenMed Editorial Board; Clinical Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University, Stanford, California; Editor, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Los Altos, California. Author's email address: wisampson Disclosure: Wallace Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships Readers are encouraged to respond to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via email: glundberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 You really can't expect anything else from Wally Sampson. BTW, he probably monitors this group. Avery On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:48:31 -0400, Ferre, Cynthia (CDC/CCHP/NCCDPHP) <cdf1 wrote: > This was posted on last week's Medscape pages. It is also a video > commentary at this link (you'll need to register for free if you haven't > done so): > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541341?src=mp > Medscape usually will publish replies in future so don't just critique > this commentary on the lists - send in your rebuttals to Medscape > at the address at the very end below. > Cynthia Ferre > ______ > The Reality of " Traditional Chinese " Medicines > Posted 08/07/2006 > Wallace Sampson, MD > > Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be > evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition > and orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM > history objectively. > TCM developed in a tradition of an authoritarian culture. Independent > thinking and argument were discouraged. A tradition of objective science > did not develop.[2] > Diseases were not described. Symptoms and physical characteristics were > related only to natural elements and the cosmos. Ideas conformed to > those of the emperor and state. TCM contained no concept of physiology, > biochemistry, organ function, heredity, or infectious disease. Tongue > and pulse diagnoses were essentially random; therapies based on them > were useless -- accepted on authority, not proved.[3] > What made TCM therapies appear effective? A collection of nonspecific > psychological mechanisms, now known to be sources of error: > misdirection, counterirritation (in the case of acupuncture and > moxibustion), suggestion, and compliance demand. These observational > errors and treater-subject interactions resulted in erroneous post hoc > conclusions. Error was compounded by inability to identify error itself > or to detect long-term effects. Conditioning and reinforcement, > amplified by social pressures, created patient satisfaction and > appearance of therapeutic success.[4] > New anthropological findings and China scholars' re-evaluation indicate > that acupuncture descended from various informal techniques, not > formalized until the 19th and 20th centuries, largely by Europeans[5,6] > and in China by the cultural revolution. TCM is not highly regarded by > modern Chinese physicians, as 85% or more of medicine there is > scientific, and TCM is utilized through self-referral.[7] > TCM advocates in Western countries alternately propose that acupuncture > effects have other scientific explanations, but unless they can prove > that it has real effects and does not work through these nonspecific > mechanisms that can apply to any method, their claims remain unverified > and probably erroneous. > That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Wallace Sampson of the MedGenMed Editorial > Board. > > > References > 1. Sierpina VS, Frenkel MA. Acupuncture: a clinical review. South > Med J. 2005;98:330-337. Abstract > <http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15813160> > 2. Qian Y. Science in China. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University > Press; 1985. > 3. Imrie RH, Ramey DW, Buell PD, Ernst E. Veterinary acupuncture in > historical scholarship: claims for the antiquity of acupuncture. Sci Rev > Altern Med. 2001;5:133-139 > 4. Beyerstein B. Social and judgmental biases that make inert > treatments seem to work. Sci Rev Altern Med. 1999;1:20-33. > 5. Imrie R, Ramey D, Buell PD. Veterinary acupuncture in historical > perspective. Sci Rev Altern Med. 2004-5;8:61-68. > 6. Unschuld P. Medicine in China. A History of Ideas. Berkeley, > Calif: University of California Press; 1985:57-58. > 7. Sampson W, Beyerstein B. Report of the CSICOP investigation of > medicine in China. Skeptical Inquirer. 1998;20 > > Wallace Sampson, MD, Member of the MedGenMed Editorial Board; Clinical > Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University, Stanford, > California; Editor, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Los > Altos, California. > > Author's email address: wisampson > Disclosure: Wallace Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial > relationships > Readers are encouraged to respond to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of > MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via > email: glundberg > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 I forgot that hides email addresses. The email address for the article's author (Wallace Sampson) is wisampson at aol.com The email address for Medscape's editor is glundberg at medscape.net Cynthia > Author's email address: wisampson > Disclosure: Wallace Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial > relationships > Readers are encouraged to respond to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of > MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via > email: glundberg > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2006 Report Share Posted August 21, 2006 Hello Consider the source. Wallace Sampson is an irritant. We need counter-irritants. He is notoriously opposed to anything outside of Newtonian physics. Too bad he appears to assert influence everywhere. TH " Ferre, Cynthia (CDC/CCHP/NCCDPHP) " <cdf1 wrote: This was posted on last week's Medscape pages. It is also a video commentary at this link (you'll need to register for free if you haven't done so): http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541341?src=mp Medscape usually will publish replies in future so don't just critique this commentary on the lists - send in your rebuttals to Medscape at the address at the very end below. Cynthia Ferre ______ The Reality of " Traditional Chinese " Medicines Posted 08/07/2006 Wallace Sampson, MD Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition and orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM history objectively. TCM developed in a tradition of an authoritarian culture. Independent thinking and argument were discouraged. A tradition of objective science did not develop.[2] Diseases were not described. Symptoms and physical characteristics were related only to natural elements and the cosmos. Ideas conformed to those of the emperor and state. TCM contained no concept of physiology, biochemistry, organ function, heredity, or infectious disease. Tongue and pulse diagnoses were essentially random; therapies based on them were useless -- accepted on authority, not proved.[3] What made TCM therapies appear effective? A collection of nonspecific psychological mechanisms, now known to be sources of error: misdirection, counterirritation (in the case of acupuncture and moxibustion), suggestion, and compliance demand. These observational errors and treater-subject interactions resulted in erroneous post hoc conclusions. Error was compounded by inability to identify error itself or to detect long-term effects. Conditioning and reinforcement, amplified by social pressures, created patient satisfaction and appearance of therapeutic success.[4] New anthropological findings and China scholars' re-evaluation indicate that acupuncture descended from various informal techniques, not formalized until the 19th and 20th centuries, largely by Europeans[5,6] and in China by the cultural revolution. TCM is not highly regarded by modern Chinese physicians, as 85% or more of medicine there is scientific, and TCM is utilized through self-referral.[7] TCM advocates in Western countries alternately propose that acupuncture effects have other scientific explanations, but unless they can prove that it has real effects and does not work through these nonspecific mechanisms that can apply to any method, their claims remain unverified and probably erroneous. That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Wallace Sampson of the MedGenMed Editorial Board. References 1. Sierpina VS, Frenkel MA. Acupuncture: a clinical review. South Med J. 2005;98:330-337. Abstract <http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15813160> 2. Qian Y. Science in China. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1985. 3. Imrie RH, Ramey DW, Buell PD, Ernst E. Veterinary acupuncture in historical scholarship: claims for the antiquity of acupuncture. Sci Rev Altern Med. 2001;5:133-139 4. Beyerstein B. Social and judgmental biases that make inert treatments seem to work. Sci Rev Altern Med. 1999;1:20-33. 5. Imrie R, Ramey D, Buell PD. Veterinary acupuncture in historical perspective. Sci Rev Altern Med. 2004-5;8:61-68. 6. Unschuld P. Medicine in China. A History of Ideas. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press; 1985:57-58. 7. Sampson W, Beyerstein B. Report of the CSICOP investigation of medicine in China. Skeptical Inquirer. 1998;20 Wallace Sampson, MD, Member of the MedGenMed Editorial Board; Clinical Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University, Stanford, California; Editor, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Los Altos, California. Author's email address: wisampson Disclosure: Wallace Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships Readers are encouraged to respond to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via email: glundberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2006 Report Share Posted August 22, 2006 Not worth it. He apparently conveniently selects texts that support his claim while ignoring the hundreds that support ours. That's what I call sticking to the appetizers at the buffet table while ignoring the main course. Philip On 8/22/06, Twyla Hoodah <twylahoodah wrote: > > Hello > Consider the source. Wallace Sampson is an irritant. We need > counter-irritants. He is notoriously opposed to anything outside of > Newtonian physics. Too bad he appears to assert influence everywhere. > TH > > > " Ferre, Cynthia (CDC/CCHP/NCCDPHP) " <cdf1 <cdf1%40cdc.gov>> wrote: > This was posted on last week's Medscape pages. It is also a video > commentary at this link (you'll need to register for free if you haven't > done so): > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541341?src=mp > Medscape usually will publish replies in future so don't just critique > this commentary on the lists - send in your rebuttals to Medscape > at the address at the very end below. > Cynthia Ferre > ______ > The Reality of " Traditional Chinese " Medicines > Posted 08/07/2006 > Wallace Sampson, MD > > Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be > evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition > and orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM > history objectively. > TCM developed in a tradition of an authoritarian culture. Independent > thinking and argument were discouraged. A tradition of objective science > did not develop.[2] > Diseases were not described. Symptoms and physical characteristics were > related only to natural elements and the cosmos. Ideas conformed to > those of the emperor and state. TCM contained no concept of physiology, > biochemistry, organ function, heredity, or infectious disease. Tongue > and pulse diagnoses were essentially random; therapies based on them > were useless -- accepted on authority, not proved.[3] > What made TCM therapies appear effective? A collection of nonspecific > psychological mechanisms, now known to be sources of error: > misdirection, counterirritation (in the case of acupuncture and > moxibustion), suggestion, and compliance demand. These observational > errors and treater-subject interactions resulted in erroneous post hoc > conclusions. Error was compounded by inability to identify error itself > or to detect long-term effects. Conditioning and reinforcement, > amplified by social pressures, created patient satisfaction and > appearance of therapeutic success.[4] > New anthropological findings and China scholars' re-evaluation indicate > that acupuncture descended from various informal techniques, not > formalized until the 19th and 20th centuries, largely by Europeans[5,6] > and in China by the cultural revolution. TCM is not highly regarded by > modern Chinese physicians, as 85% or more of medicine there is > scientific, and TCM is utilized through self-referral.[7] > TCM advocates in Western countries alternately propose that acupuncture > effects have other scientific explanations, but unless they can prove > that it has real effects and does not work through these nonspecific > mechanisms that can apply to any method, their claims remain unverified > and probably erroneous. > That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Wallace Sampson of the MedGenMed Editorial > Board. > > References > 1. Sierpina VS, Frenkel MA. Acupuncture: a clinical review. South > Med J. 2005;98:330-337. Abstract > <http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15813160> > 2. Qian Y. Science in China. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University > Press; 1985. > 3. Imrie RH, Ramey DW, Buell PD, Ernst E. Veterinary acupuncture in > historical scholarship: claims for the antiquity of acupuncture. Sci Rev > Altern Med. 2001;5:133-139 > 4. Beyerstein B. Social and judgmental biases that make inert > treatments seem to work. Sci Rev Altern Med. 1999;1:20-33. > 5. Imrie R, Ramey D, Buell PD. Veterinary acupuncture in historical > perspective. Sci Rev Altern Med. 2004-5;8:61-68. > 6. Unschuld P. Medicine in China. A History of Ideas. Berkeley, > Calif: University of California Press; 1985:57-58. > 7. Sampson W, Beyerstein B. Report of the CSICOP investigation of > medicine in China. Skeptical Inquirer. 1998;20 > > Wallace Sampson, MD, Member of the MedGenMed Editorial Board; Clinical > Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University, Stanford, > California; Editor, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Los > Altos, California. > > Author's email address: wisampson <wisampson%40aol.com> > Disclosure: Wallace Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial > relationships > Readers are encouraged to respond to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of > MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via > email: glundberg <glundberg%40medscape.net> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2006 Report Share Posted August 22, 2006 My guess is that he is well-funded by the pharmaceutical companies and mainstream medicine. After the chiropractors won the anti-trust lawsuit against the AMA et. al., the anti-altmed stuff all went underground to groups like NCAHF and CSICOP. There are a lot of personnel links between the two groups. Besides being well-funded, these groups are also very internet-savvy, and have been using tools like Wikipedia and splogs to promote their agenda. I know that they monitor email lists such as this, because on other, " private " mailing lists, my posts have been forwarded to quackpots almost as fast as I've typed them. This being the biggest of the TCM lists, I would be unsurprised if the quackpots were listening in here. Tim Bolen has a lot of info on the quackbuster jokers, at www.quackpotwatch.org. Avery On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:30:02 -0400, Twyla Hoodah <twylahoodah wrote: > Hello > Consider the source. Wallace Sampson is an irritant. We need > counter-irritants. He is notoriously opposed to anything outside of > Newtonian physics. Too bad he appears to assert influence everywhere. > TH > > " Ferre, Cynthia (CDC/CCHP/NCCDPHP) " <cdf1 wrote: > This was posted on last week's Medscape pages. It is also a > video > commentary at this link (you'll need to register for free if you haven't > done so): > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541341?src=mp > Medscape usually will publish replies in future so don't just critique > this commentary on the lists - send in your rebuttals to Medscape > at the address at the very end below. > Cynthia Ferre > ______ > The Reality of " Traditional Chinese " Medicines > Posted 08/07/2006 > Wallace Sampson, MD > > Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be > evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition > and orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM > history objectively. > TCM developed in a tradition of an authoritarian culture. Independent > thinking and argument were discouraged. A tradition of objective science > did not develop.[2] > Diseases were not described. Symptoms and physical characteristics were > related only to natural elements and the cosmos. Ideas conformed to > those of the emperor and state. TCM contained no concept of physiology, > biochemistry, organ function, heredity, or infectious disease. Tongue > and pulse diagnoses were essentially random; therapies based on them > were useless -- accepted on authority, not proved.[3] > What made TCM therapies appear effective? A collection of nonspecific > psychological mechanisms, now known to be sources of error: > misdirection, counterirritation (in the case of acupuncture and > moxibustion), suggestion, and compliance demand. These observational > errors and treater-subject interactions resulted in erroneous post hoc > conclusions. Error was compounded by inability to identify error itself > or to detect long-term effects. Conditioning and reinforcement, > amplified by social pressures, created patient satisfaction and > appearance of therapeutic success.[4] > New anthropological findings and China scholars' re-evaluation indicate > that acupuncture descended from various informal techniques, not > formalized until the 19th and 20th centuries, largely by Europeans[5,6] > and in China by the cultural revolution. TCM is not highly regarded by > modern Chinese physicians, as 85% or more of medicine there is > scientific, and TCM is utilized through self-referral.[7] > TCM advocates in Western countries alternately propose that acupuncture > effects have other scientific explanations, but unless they can prove > that it has real effects and does not work through these nonspecific > mechanisms that can apply to any method, their claims remain unverified > and probably erroneous. > That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Wallace Sampson of the MedGenMed Editorial > Board. > > References > 1. Sierpina VS, Frenkel MA. Acupuncture: a clinical review. South > Med J. 2005;98:330-337. Abstract > <http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15813160> > 2. Qian Y. Science in China. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University > Press; 1985. > 3. Imrie RH, Ramey DW, Buell PD, Ernst E. Veterinary acupuncture in > historical scholarship: claims for the antiquity of acupuncture. Sci Rev > Altern Med. 2001;5:133-139 > 4. Beyerstein B. Social and judgmental biases that make inert > treatments seem to work. Sci Rev Altern Med. 1999;1:20-33. > 5. Imrie R, Ramey D, Buell PD. Veterinary acupuncture in historical > perspective. Sci Rev Altern Med. 2004-5;8:61-68. > 6. Unschuld P. Medicine in China. A History of Ideas. Berkeley, > Calif: University of California Press; 1985:57-58. > 7. Sampson W, Beyerstein B. Report of the CSICOP investigation of > medicine in China. Skeptical Inquirer. 1998;20 > > Wallace Sampson, MD, Member of the MedGenMed Editorial Board; Clinical > Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University, Stanford, > California; Editor, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Los > Altos, California. > > Author's email address: wisampson > Disclosure: Wallace Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial > relationships > Readers are encouraged to respond to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of > MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via > email: glundberg > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2006 Report Share Posted August 22, 2006 Then let him be shocked that a western medicine doctor like me will take the side of TCM. On 8/22/06, Dr. Avery Jenkins <docaltmed wrote: > > You really can't expect anything else from Wally Sampson. BTW, he probably > monitors this group. > > Avery > > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:48:31 -0400, Ferre, Cynthia (CDC/CCHP/NCCDPHP) > <cdf1 wrote: > > > This was posted on last week's Medscape pages. It is also a video > > commentary at this link (you'll need to register for free if you haven't > > done so): > > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541341?src=mp > > Medscape usually will publish replies in future so don't just critique > > this commentary on the lists - send in your rebuttals to Medscape > > at the address at the very end below. > > Cynthia Ferre > > ______ > > The Reality of " Traditional Chinese " Medicines > > Posted 08/07/2006 > > Wallace Sampson, MD > > > > Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be > > evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition > > and orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM > > history objectively. > > TCM developed in a tradition of an authoritarian culture. Independent > > thinking and argument were discouraged. A tradition of objective science > > did not develop.[2] > > Diseases were not described. Symptoms and physical characteristics were > > related only to natural elements and the cosmos. Ideas conformed to > > those of the emperor and state. TCM contained no concept of physiology, > > biochemistry, organ function, heredity, or infectious disease. Tongue > > and pulse diagnoses were essentially random; therapies based on them > > were useless -- accepted on authority, not proved.[3] > > What made TCM therapies appear effective? A collection of nonspecific > > psychological mechanisms, now known to be sources of error: > > misdirection, counterirritation (in the case of acupuncture and > > moxibustion), suggestion, and compliance demand. These observational > > errors and treater-subject interactions resulted in erroneous post hoc > > conclusions. Error was compounded by inability to identify error itself > > or to detect long-term effects. Conditioning and reinforcement, > > amplified by social pressures, created patient satisfaction and > > appearance of therapeutic success.[4] > > New anthropological findings and China scholars' re-evaluation indicate > > that acupuncture descended from various informal techniques, not > > formalized until the 19th and 20th centuries, largely by Europeans[5,6] > > and in China by the cultural revolution. TCM is not highly regarded by > > modern Chinese physicians, as 85% or more of medicine there is > > scientific, and TCM is utilized through self-referral.[7] > > TCM advocates in Western countries alternately propose that acupuncture > > effects have other scientific explanations, but unless they can prove > > that it has real effects and does not work through these nonspecific > > mechanisms that can apply to any method, their claims remain unverified > > and probably erroneous. > > That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Wallace Sampson of the MedGenMed Editorial > > Board. > > > > > > References > > 1. Sierpina VS, Frenkel MA. Acupuncture: a clinical review. South > > Med J. 2005;98:330-337. Abstract > > <http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15813160> > > 2. Qian Y. Science in China. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University > > Press; 1985. > > 3. Imrie RH, Ramey DW, Buell PD, Ernst E. Veterinary acupuncture in > > historical scholarship: claims for the antiquity of acupuncture. Sci Rev > > Altern Med. 2001;5:133-139 > > 4. Beyerstein B. Social and judgmental biases that make inert > > treatments seem to work. Sci Rev Altern Med. 1999;1:20-33. > > 5. Imrie R, Ramey D, Buell PD. Veterinary acupuncture in historical > > perspective. Sci Rev Altern Med. 2004-5;8:61-68. > > 6. Unschuld P. Medicine in China. A History of Ideas. Berkeley, > > Calif: University of California Press; 1985:57-58. > > 7. Sampson W, Beyerstein B. Report of the CSICOP investigation of > > medicine in China. Skeptical Inquirer. 1998;20 > > > > Wallace Sampson, MD, Member of the MedGenMed Editorial Board; Clinical > > Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University, Stanford, > > California; Editor, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Los > > Altos, California. > > > > Author's email address: wisampson > > Disclosure: Wallace Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial > > relationships > > Readers are encouraged to respond to George Lundberg, MD, Editor of > > MedGenMed, for the editor's eyes only or for possible publication via > > email: glundberg > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2006 Report Share Posted August 22, 2006 I wish to comment on Dr. sampson's statements and then answer with some of my own. For the record I am a MD from the University of the Philippines who has incorportated TCM into his own practice. Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition and orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM history objectively. I answer that: To compare Western medicine with TCM, ayurveda, or any other form of complementary medicine is like comparing Catholic and Protestant doctrine: one will invariably run into a clash in terminology and philosophy. Let me illustrate using a Catholic/Protestant example. For Protestants, the word " worship " usually means offering praise through song and scripture reading. So for a Protestant, Catholics really worship saints and Mary. For Catholics, " worship " means offering the Blessed Sacrament to God the Father in Mass, so when a Catholic says he does not worship Mary, the Catholic is right using HIS terminology. Another example? Imagine if I were an Englishman and I told an American that I would like to knock her up. I only mean that I want to wake her up, but the American would intepret the same words in a more offensive sense. Ultimately, the mistake of medical practitioners of different traditions is not that they try to integrate them, but that they try to force their own traditions into another. This is the same with TCM and Western medicine. Similar terms have dissimilar meanings. The thinking process upon arriving at a diagnosis is different. TCM developed in a tradition of an authoritarian culture. Independent thinking and argument were discouraged. A tradition of objective science did not develop.[2] The same authoritarianism can be said of " western " medicine and science before the renaissance. This argument has no bearing here. And besides, is modern medical science, funded by drug companies truly objective? What is being objective? Being objective means looking at the evidence without bias. A patient receives acupuncture and acknowledges a difference. The unbiased observer acknowledges the same difference. A biased supporter may embellish the " result " and I acknowledge that this is wrong. But one is also wrong if one denies the result merely because one does not understand. Diseases were not described. One look at the Shang Han Lun, the Pi Wei Lun, or any other TCM text will refute this. Rather, they were not described in the same manner modern western medicine would describe them. Symptoms and physical characteristics were related only to natural elements and the cosmos. Hmmm, so a flame, where we get the word " inflammation " , is not a natural element? If you fault TCM for describing concepts in terms of natural elements, then western med can fault itself as well. Ideas conformed to those of the emperor and state. TCM contained no concept of physiology, biochemistry, organ function, heredity, or infectious disease. Tongue and pulse diagnoses were essentially random; therapies based on them were useless -- accepted on authority, not proved.[3] TCM knew thousands of years before Western medicine did that blood flows through vessels, that kidney failure leads to anemia, and other later " discoveries " . Just because TCM terms it's concepts differently does not mean it does not share the same concepts. They understood the relationships between organs. They understood that characteristics were transmitted from parents to children (they called it pre-heaven essence). They knew about infectious disease (but not microorganisms) before Europe did (TCM knew about certain plagues that are transmitted from person to person) Tongue and pulse diagnoses essentially random? Therapies based on them useless? No more useless than a western doctor trying out all sorts of drugs to lower a person's BP to no avail. What made TCM therapies appear effective? A collection of nonspecific psychological mechanisms, now known to be sources of error: misdirection, counterirritation (in the case of acupuncture and moxibustion), suggestion, and compliance demand. These observational errors and treater-subject interactions resulted in erroneous post hoc conclusions. Error was compounded by inability to identify error itself or to detect long-term effects. Conditioning and reinforcement, amplified by social pressures, created patient satisfaction and appearance of therapeutic success.[4] They appear effective because they are effective. Such ideas insult the patient. By that logic, then the patient should respond more to more socially accepted western practices than to the " weird " TCM principles. Sometimes they do respond better to western therapy. However, we should not attribute the success of TCM to mere placebo, because the same can be said of western medicine. New anthropological findings and China scholars' re-evaluation indicate that acupuncture descended from various informal techniques, not formalized until the 19th and 20th centuries, largely by Europeans[5,6] and in China by the cultural revolution. TCM is not highly regarded by modern Chinese physicians, as 85% or more of medicine there is scientific, and TCM is utilized through self-referral.[7] Au contraire, there have been standard acupuncture points since the 2nd century, there have been schools of acupuncture and Chinese medicine since the time of Wang Wei Yi's Bronze Tang dynasty acupuncture statues. TCM not highly regarded by modern Chinese physicians? SO WHY DO THEY STUDY IT EVEN IN WESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOLS? WHY ARE THERE INTEGRATED EAST-WEST PROGRAMS IN CHINA? WHY ARE THERE STAFF ACUPUNCTURISTS IN MODERN CHINESE NEUROLOGIC CENTERS? I get referrals from neurologists, dermatologists, ophthalmologists, rehab specialists, orthopedic surgeons and internists. TCM advocates in Western countries alternately propose that acupuncture effects have other scientific explanations, but unless they can prove that it has real effects and does not work through these nonspecific mechanisms that can apply to any method, their claims remain unverified and probably erroneous. Time and time again, the effect of TCM is demonstrated in front of audiences and through studies. It is just unfortunate that many people choose to IGNORE the evidence or choose only those that support their opinions. I have personally opened many western doctors' eyes to TCM by demonstrating acupuncture publicly using THEIR patients. That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Wallace Sampson of the MedGenMed Editorial Board. And this is mine: The truly knowledgeable person knows that no matter how much he knows, he knows that there is much he has yet to know. The true scientist shapes his opinions according to objective observation, not the other way around. Dr. Philip Nino Tan-Gatue, MD Department of Family and Community Medicine University of the Philippines College of Medicine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 On Tuesday 22 August 2006 11:35, Dr. Philip Tan-Gatue wrote: Hi Dr. Philip! Outstanding analysis. Do you mind if I quote you on my own website? With proper credit, of course. Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ > I wish to comment on Dr. sampson's statements and then answer with some of > my own. For the record I am a MD from the University of the Philippines > who has incorportated TCM into his own practice. > > Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be > evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition and > orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM history > objectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 Quote all you want. I'm a western doc. I love TCM. I use both with no problems. and I'm PROUD of it. On 8/23/06, Pete Theisen <petetheisen wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 August 2006 11:35, Dr. Philip Tan-Gatue wrote: > > Hi Dr. Philip! > > Outstanding analysis. Do you mind if I quote you on my own website? With > proper credit, of course. > > Regards, > > Pete > http://www.pete-theisen.com/ > > > > I wish to comment on Dr. sampson's statements and then answer with some > of > > my own. For the record I am a MD from the University of the Philippines > > who has incorportated TCM into his own practice. > > > > Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be > > evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition > and > > orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM history > > objectively. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 An additional note: The " Great " Dr. Sampson ends his editorial thus: That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Wallace Sampson of the MedGenMed Editorial Board. What does he mean by that? That we are to accept his opinion at face value because of his title? Is this not an example of the blind authoritarianism that he claims TCM is riddled with? Addendum on describing diseases. A patient goes to a western doctor and he is told that his blah blah (insert organ receptor name here) is reacting to excessive blah blah (exert hormone name here) causing blah blah (insert fancy latin or doctor name syndrome here). A patient goes to a chinese doctor and is told he is straining himself by not eating regularly, causing his appetite changes and bloatedness, and is advised lifestyle changes. Just compare. See why in some cases, TCM doctors are preferred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 Hi there, Thankyou for your analysis Dr. Philip. I am a TCM practitioner who is currently studying to apply for graduate western medicine. I recently got into a similar bit of intellectual biffo on a forum for students such as myself that is also frequented by many western med students. It became quite frustrating for me, as no matter how eruditely I presented my arguments or how encompassing and understanding of western scientific thought and process I was, I kept running into the same poorly thought out arguments and increasing hostility. I was eventually flamed by some of the members who were finding it hard to fault my arguments, so instead they attacked my intentions and character. It was an unsettling experience in that it made me realise the type of attitudes that I would have to deal with on a daily basis, were I to get into graduate med. I ended up discussing the matter with my father, who is a very well known scientist in his own field, and has run into the same kind of attitudes, albeit over other issues. He pointed out to me that many, many people, across all scientific fields, tend to treat western science as a BELIEF SYSTEM, and lose sight of the fact that it is a METHODOLOGY. This then leads to a type of fundamentalism which can become outright hostility for those who do not adhere to their rigid belief system. Im not quite sure what we are meant to do about attitudes like this, but I am quite determined to practice truly integrative medicine, and it is really nice to know there is a certain amount of precedent with practitioners such as yourself. Keep up the good work. And if I have it my way, Im going to work towards national government registration of Chinese medicine in my country and ideally the eventual ability of chinese medicine practitioners to work within the public hospital system- at least utilising acupuncture. Looks like Ive got a hard road to hoe. regards, Lea Starck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 On Wednesday 23 August 2006 19:37, Dr. Philip Tan-Gatue wrote: Hi Dr. Philip! Thanks. I greatly appreciate your contribution. Regards, Pete > Quote all you want. I'm a western doc. I love TCM. I use both with no > problems. and I'm PROUD of it. > > On 8/23/06, Pete Theisen <petetheisen wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 August 2006 11:35, Dr. Philip Tan-Gatue wrote: > > > > Hi Dr. Philip! > > > > Outstanding analysis. Do you mind if I quote you on my own website? With > > proper credit, of course. > > > > Regards, > > > > Pete > > http://www.pete-theisen.com/ > > > > > I wish to comment on Dr. sampson's statements and then answer with some > > > > of > > > > > my own. For the record I am a MD from the University of the Philippines > > > who has incorportated TCM into his own practice. > > > > > > Advocates of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) say that TCM cannot be > > > evaluated through " Western " judgment because TCM differs in tradition > > > > and > > > > > orientation.[1] This mystery can be dispelled by examining TCM history > > > objectively. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 Dr. Sampson has been around a while and the Townsend Letters Magazine in November 2005 has an editorial addressing him specifically about a previous attack on alternative medicine. His talk is so crude and prejudiced as well as historically incorrect that I don't worry that even the Western doctors would take him seriously. I see him as someone who probably had some stature within the organization and now is asking for his time in front of the camera. doug eisenstark Chinese Medicine , " Dr. Philip Tan-Gatue " <philiptangatue wrote: > > An additional note: The " Great " Dr. Sampson ends his editorial thus: > > That's my opinion. I'm Dr. Wallace Sampson of the MedGenMed Editorial Board. > > > What does he mean by that? That we are to accept his opinion at face value > because of his title? Is this not an example of the blind authoritarianism > that he claims TCM is riddled with? > > Addendum on describing diseases. > > A patient goes to a western doctor and he is told that his blah blah (insert > organ receptor name here) is reacting to excessive blah blah (exert hormone > name here) causing blah blah (insert fancy latin or doctor name syndrome > here). > > A patient goes to a chinese doctor and is told he is straining himself by > not eating regularly, causing his appetite changes and bloatedness, and is > advised lifestyle changes. > > Just compare. See why in some cases, TCM doctors are preferred. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Back in August, I sent the post below about an editorial on TCM on Medscape. Medscape finally published the response letters over the holidays. Here is the link: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/548353?src=mp Happy New Year! Cynthia -- In Chinese Medicine , " Ferre, Cynthia \(CDC/CCHP/NCCDPHP\) " <cdf1 wrote: > > This was posted on last week's Medscape pages. It is also a video > commentary at this link (you'll need to register for free if you haven't > done so): > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541341?src=mp > Medscape usually will publish replies in future so don't just critique > this commentary on the lists - send in your rebuttals to Medscape > at the address at the very end below. {snip} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 --- Cynthia Ferre <cdf1 wrote: > Back in August, I sent the post below about an > editorial on TCM on > Medscape. Medscape finally published the response > letters over the > holidays. Here is the link: > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/548353?src=mp Ah, he's a fool. Typical statements: " Claims for acupuncture efficacy in nausea and pain are not credible. " and, criticising CAM journals: " ...and the practice of using only experts (proponents, insiders) as reviewers. " (and what is peer review? jeez) He doesn't know what he's talking about. Hugo Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 After reading through the link. I am continually amazed how these days in the scientific community, there is still a lack of basic knowledge about what scientific methodology actually entails. And its getting worse! Scientific theory is categorized by the fact that it is ineherently falsifiable. This is what seperates a scientific theory from a belief structure. Scientific theories SHOULD be falsifiable and discarded when proven wrong, and when that theory is proven wrong and comes tumbling down (which I believe some of the replies from TCM colleagues adequately did), no amount of pushing and shoving is going to get that theory back up again. To continue to defend a postion after this time, marks it as a belief. It is clear from his replies that Sampson's information is purely opinion based and is basically a personal belief. It is amazing how somewhere between proffering an opinion, and then being called upon to defend their position, people become so invested in their original theory that it becomes a belief, and they start to accept it as doctrine and forget the original tenets of scientific theorizing. Whilst the belief vs. theory problem is rife in all sectors of science, Sampson's opinions were so overtly displayed, that what amazes me is that none of the scientific community, outside of the CM field, actually called him on this. (Wouldnt be the first time I guess.) As a better scientist than me once said: " You cant legislate against stupidity. " My two cents. Lea Starck. Chinese Medicine , " Cynthia Ferre " <cdf1 wrote: > > Back in August, I sent the post below about an editorial on TCM on > Medscape. Medscape finally published the response letters over the > holidays. Here is the link: > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/548353?src=mp > > Happy New Year! > Cynthia > > -- In Chinese Medicine , " Ferre, Cynthia > \(CDC/CCHP/NCCDPHP\) " <cdf1@> wrote: > > > > This was posted on last week's Medscape pages. It is also a video > > commentary at this link (you'll need to register for free if you > haven't > > done so): > > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541341?src=mp > > Medscape usually will publish replies in future so don't just > critique > > this commentary on the lists - send in your rebuttals to > Medscape > > at the address at the very end below. > {snip} > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 On Thursday 04 January 2007 13:59, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > --- Cynthia Ferre <cdf1 wrote: > > Back in August, I sent the post below about an editorial on TCM on > > Medscape. Medscape finally published the response letters over the > > holidays. Here is the link: > > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/548353?src=mp > > Ah, he's a fool. > > Typical statements: > " Claims for acupuncture efficacy in nausea and pain are not credible. " > and, criticising CAM journals: " ...and the practice of using only experts > (proponents, insiders) as reviewers. " (and what is peer review? jeez) Hi Hugo! But if you try to use patient feedback they start carping about HIPPA. What to do, what to DO? -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 Hi, I would like to add my two cents on the issue - on Dec 1999 I treated my first case of cortical blindness in dogs, the dog regain full sight, the vet college ophthalmologist did a good report on the case, it was rejected as " nonsense " by #1 vet ophthalmologist in the world - #1 claimed: " could you saw us the anatomical pathway from the acupuncture point to brain blood vessels, and related physiological data...? " could I or you have the abilities to mark down these venues from acupuncture point to a specific blood vessel in the brain...after all - we are just simple clinicians without MRI, CT and all the up to date machines? then in the next 5 yrs I add 2 more cases with similar success, yet - more rejections. In Sept 2005 I was called to join a company by the name Brainsgate, they heard about my work, and apparently - that what they are doing in people! now - suddenly I am sitting in a company worth about 100 millions US$, doing the same electroacupuncture, but this time the company put patents, send data to FDA etc and the publications are in " Neurology " journals etc. Conclusion: it is not a question of data (the data about the neurological pathway from ST-01 or SI-18 is in the scientific-medical literature for the last 70 yrs [ I was not exposed to it, but all the great ophthalmologists, for sure vet #1, knew it, I did know it because it is an advanced data not available to common clinicians like me]), it is only a question of money - could you make a patent on it? could you protect it? get investors, make a company and here we have 10 publications on electroacupuncture, but this time we call it " neurological stimulation " :-) so, that's life, S. Dr. Sagiv Ben-Yakir BSC DVM(in honor) MRCVS CVA(IVAS) benyakir - Pete Theisen Chinese Medicine Friday, January 05, 2007 2:13 PM Re: Re: Medscape editorial on TCM On Thursday 04 January 2007 13:59, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > --- Cynthia Ferre <cdf1 wrote: > > Back in August, I sent the post below about an editorial on TCM on > > Medscape. Medscape finally published the response letters over the > > holidays. Here is the link: > > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/548353?src=mp > > Ah, he's a fool. > > Typical statements: > " Claims for acupuncture efficacy in nausea and pain are not credible. " > and, criticising CAM journals: " ...and the practice of using only experts > (proponents, insiders) as reviewers. " (and what is peer review? jeez) Hi Hugo! But if you try to use patient feedback they start carping about HIPPA. What to do, what to DO? -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 It should come as no mystery that groups such as NCAHF and the like are funded largely by pharmaceutical companies, as well as " individual " MDs who happen to be acting in concert (it has to be that way since the AMA lost the Wilkes case). Avery On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:22:12 -0500, Lea Starck <leabun1 wrote: > After reading through the link. I am continually amazed how these days > in the scientific community, there is still a lack of basic knowledge > about what scientific methodology actually entails. And its getting > worse! > Scientific theory is categorized by the fact that it is ineherently > falsifiable. This is what seperates a scientific theory from a belief > structure. Scientific theories SHOULD be falsifiable and discarded > when proven wrong, and when that theory is proven wrong and comes > tumbling down (which I believe some of the replies from TCM > colleagues adequately did), no amount of pushing and shoving is going > to get that theory back up again. To continue to defend a postion after > this time, marks it as a belief. It is clear from his replies that > Sampson's information is purely opinion based and is basically a > personal belief. It is amazing how somewhere between proffering an > opinion, and then being called upon to defend their position, people > become so invested in their original theory that it becomes a belief, and > they start to accept it as doctrine and forget the original tenets of > scientific theorizing. > Whilst the belief vs. theory problem is rife in all sectors of science, > Sampson's opinions were so overtly displayed, that what amazes me is > that none of the scientific community, outside of the CM field, actually > called him on this. (Wouldnt be the first time I guess.) > As a better scientist than me once said: " You cant legislate against > stupidity. " > My two cents. > Lea Starck. > > Chinese Medicine , " Cynthia > Ferre " <cdf1 wrote: >> >> Back in August, I sent the post below about an editorial on TCM on >> Medscape. Medscape finally published the response letters over the >> holidays. Here is the link: >> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/548353?src=mp >> >> Happy New Year! >> Cynthia >> >> -- In Chinese Medicine , " Ferre, > Cynthia >> \(CDC/CCHP/NCCDPHP\) " <cdf1@> wrote: >> > >> > This was posted on last week's Medscape pages. It is also a video >> > commentary at this link (you'll need to register for free if you >> haven't >> > done so): >> > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541341?src=mp >> > Medscape usually will publish replies in future so don't just >> critique >> > this commentary on the lists - send in your rebuttals to >> Medscape >> > at the address at the very end below. >> {snip} >> > > Avery L. Jenkins, DC, FIAMA, DACBN Chiropractic Physician Fellow, International Academy of Medical Acupuncturists Diplomate, American Clinical Board of Nutrition www.docaltmed.com -- -- E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This transmission may be: (1) subject to Physician-Patient confidentiality, or, (2) strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 As far as research goes, even the most objective data is ignored when it comes to some biomed scientists evaluating acupuncture. They begin with the assumption that acupuncture can't possibly do anything, or anything good, and proceed from there. It is the opposite of " inquiry. " So even CAM researchers who present objective measured data from imaging, lab tests, etc. are accused of being " partisans " or " biased " when their results are positive, and they flip out if you use the term " acupoint " or even, in some cases, " acupuncture " instead of " dry needling " because, obviously, acupuncture doesn't exist. Revolutions, one funeral at a time... -ben hawes, L.ac. 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.