Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 What is most interesting about the discussion of evidence based medicine at cyber-rounds is that the many of the medical myths are based on highly rational speculation within the parameters of western medicine and science. In other words, taken out of the context of actual clinical practice, many of these myths make a lot of sense on paper. to me, this underscores the danger in using TCM theory to elaborate highly rational propositions that have no history of clinical use in the chinese medical literature. that is why I always say that if something has no empirical history in TCM, it is fairly meaningless to invent something new just because it appears rational on paper. While some have said all TCM is MSU, there is still a big credibility gap between making stuff up and testing it for 1000 years and making stuff up yesterday and claiming it is somehow equally valid. Lets not make the same mistakes as our western style brethren. -- Chinese Herbal Medicine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 > While some > have said all TCM is MSU, there is still a big credibility gap between > making stuff up and testing it for 1000 years and making stuff up > yesterday and claiming it is somehow equally valid. Excuse me while I get rich doing acupuncture face lifts. Seriously though, while in school, back when Dr. Ma, Xiu-ling's English was just taking its first baby steps she was asked a question in class about a specific acupuncture point and why it does what it does. The student presented a theory that was reasonable. Dr. Ma's response was hesitant because of her lack of vocabulary. She ended up blurting out some Chinese saying, you know the kind, with four characters, and she translated it to something like " you tell me why it works " . I got the imporession that there was a specific relationship that a student should have with TCM in that we were *supposed* to use our heads, make new connections, but keep them based on fundamental theory. Did anybody else ever get anything like that? Doug, you were in that clinical point selection class. Do you remember that? -- Al Stone L.Ac. <AlStone http://www.BeyondWellBeing.com Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. Attachment: vcard [not shown] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 on 1/17/01 4:23 PM, Todd at wrote: > What is most interesting about the discussion of evidence based medicine > at cyber-rounds is that the many of the medical myths are based on > highly rational speculation within the parameters of western medicine > and science. In other words, taken out of the context of actual > clinical practice, many of these myths make a lot of sense on paper. to > me, this underscores the danger in using TCM theory to elaborate highly > rational propositions that have no history of clinical use in the > chinese medical literature. that is why I always say that if something > has no empirical history in TCM, it is fairly meaningless to invent > something new just because it appears rational on paper. While some > have said all TCM is MSU, there is still a big credibility gap between > making stuff up and testing it for 1000 years and making stuff up > yesterday and claiming it is somehow equally valid. Lets not make the > same mistakes as our western style brethren. > > -- I couldn't agree more. Let's continue to discuss new ideas and concepts, and work on them. . . .but not just make up a treatment that hasn't been tested in any way except in our heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 using TCM theory to elaborate highlyrational propositions that have no history of clinical use in thechinese medical literature. >>>>That is exactly what i have been saying. You should say CM as TCM does much of this theorizing. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 >At 4:23 PM -0800 1/17/01, >cyber-rounds --- What is this? and Where is evidence part 1? TIA Rory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2001 Report Share Posted January 18, 2001 , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote: > >At 4:23 PM -0800 1/17/01, > >cyber-rounds > --- > > What is this? > > and > > Where is evidence part 1? > > TIA > > Rory Evidence part I was named consensus and evidence. Sorry about my abbreviated title. the first post had a link to a site called cyber- rounds which is an online grouop that explores issues in medicine (such as consensus vs. evidence this month). I only check it out once in a while, but it is free and is a forum for the top researchers and fellow in western medicine. 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.