Digest Number 1049

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

Ken:

 

Have you had an opportunity to read Volker Scheid's new book,

in Contemporary China: Plurality and Synthesis?

 

Not yet. Does it deal with the role of

language and cognitive processes in

the theory and practice of Chinese medicine?

 

If so, what does he say?

 

I'll pick up a copy as soon as possible. I've

heard good things about it.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

Is it the placebo effect or did the shallow incisions actually exert

a positive influence on the channels and collaterals that was

equal or better than deeply invasive surgery?

 

I think we should be careful about

using the term " the placebo effect "

as if it were a known entity that

can be categorically compared with

other variables.

 

Also, as I read the Post piece, the

procedures that were being tested

were not, strictly speaking, " deeply

invasive, " although that term is

also poorly defined. One procedure

was flushing the joint, the other

was smoothing the surfaces and then

flushing the joint.

 

I'd also point out that the nature

and extent of the " shallow incisions "

is not clearly known based upon what

was written in the article.

 

 

Certainly proved

that poking lightly at the knee has therapeutic effects.

 

I don't think that it proved anything,

and it certainly didn't prove that " poking

lightly " does anything at all. How do

you reckon a proof from the data that

was presented?

 

I can't

believe no one saw the obvious parallel with acupuncture.

 

One obvious parallel with acupuncture that

I see is the trend among some contemporary

acupuncture researchers to try and demonstrate

that acupuncture has no more efficacy than

" the placebo effect. "

 

That's one of the reasons why I pointed

out the importance of the fact that " the

placebo effect " is not well defined and

certainly not understood by those who

use it to prove this and that about

other forms of medical intervention.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Not yet. Does it deal with the role of

> language and cognitive processes in

> the theory and practice of Chinese medicine?

 

Ken:

 

It deals with the conceptual and ideological plurality found in CM,

that is the rich variety of interpretation and application of

classical ideas---or lack of clear consensus. Of particular interest

was the variety of opinions concerning bianzheng lunzhi (pattern

differentiation and treatment differentiation).

 

One point that stands out to me is on p.209:

 

" The ideological dimensions of bianzheng lunzhi are, perhaps, the

most obvious. Given the historical pressures of the time, it was

necessary for Chinese physicians in the 1950s struggling for the

indenpendence of their tradition to show that their practice, while

possessing distinctly Chinese cultural roots, was capable of

moderization and of contributing something unique to the

contemporary world of medicine. "

 

Their struggle with their relationship to WM in China does not seem

very dissimilar to our struggle with our relationship to CM in the

USA.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I'll second that.

 

Z " ev Rosenberg

On Friday, July 12, 2002, at 08:48 PM, <yulong wrote:

 

>   I can't

> believe no one saw the obvious parallel with acupuncture.

>

> One obvious parallel with acupuncture that

> I see is the trend among some contemporary

> acupuncture researchers to try and demonstrate

> that acupuncture has no more efficacy than

> " the placebo effect. "