Guest guest Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 there is no evidence that increasing > levels of sophistication in theroretical textbook knowledge translates to > increased clinical efficacy. Wouldn't this depend entirely on the level of sophistication that exited prior to being increased? Or have you now absolutely segregated the classroom and the clinic? I can't follow your logic. If increasing the level of sophisticaion in theoretical textbook knowledge does not translate into increased clinical efficacy, why are there school? Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2003 Report Share Posted February 6, 2003 > Jason > > Be that as it may, it does not even remotely prove that what is missing > would significantly improve one's practice over one based on what we have. > More is not always better. If one is selective, one can always choose > accurate information. That is of course, if the possibilities are there... My argument is again, as such.. FOR typical horse problems, there has been enough TCM transmitted to handle them. (i.e. PMS) - But for more complicated serious issues, I am convinced that a) our schools in no way prepared us for this b) that the information is few and far between. We were not trained for primary care (and western knowledge is also needed for this), but secondarily for a " feel good " medicine - I ask you, How many really serious cases are you seeing the school clinic... I never really saw any... If there condition was somewhat serious, they were coming to the school clinic as a adjuct, for balancing, to eliminate side-effects, NOT FOR SERIOUS PRIMARY care. AM I wrong? THis is what is lacking - until we are doing rounds in hospitals, and our Dx and herbs match this level, I see no argument. I know for a fact that in China, when one does rounds (in school), they treat and see very critical and serious conditions, they see late stage liver disease, and try to treat it. I have never seen ascites... ?? The school clinics in the states seem to be mostly musclarskeletal and b) internal problems are not that severe... Most seem to be stressed out students... Even when I observed westerns treating " difficult " conditions they were not TREATING them, but again alleviating side-effects, making the person feel better, treating the pattern and the person would come back and say I feel better. Now that is good... and, GRanted there are no cures for many " difficult " conditions, and that is all we can do. But I am seeing a much more proactive approach from my collegue who reads CHinese extensivly. ANd I know this comes from his reading, which is far beyond basic TCM. So you say where is the proof.. I say, I see it right in front of me. then the game becomes applying the information you > have. You claim the information is incomplete and this in and of itself > makes it inaccurate. But again I point out that one can apply this data > allopathically with succcess and there is no evidence that increasing > levels of sophistication in theroretical textbook knowledge translates to > increased clinical efficacy. I just can't follow this logic... What I see is that the basic pattern TCM approach does not always work. Where does one go from there? I see a more thorough understanding of CM - a deeper level - can and does find the solution. YEs you can search outside of TCM, but my point is clear , if you have to search to western solutions, then by default CM (at any level) is inaccurate. and again I have personally seen this deeper understanding translate to better accuracy and BETTER CLINIcAL results. Your argument is logical on paper, but > unclear if valid in reality. It is interesting that you claim to have > read all that is in english and found it lacking. Where did I say that??? My claim was that I have alomst every internal medicine book. and for certain (non-routine) problems, one can exhaust one's resources very quickly... One can find a article, and small chapter, and be done. YOu can try what you read, and if it works, great!, but if it doesn't then what do you do? you adlib, right? I never have claimed to have read everything... Alon's claim, if I remrember correctly was that there hasn't really been anything new that has come out in the last 15 years... that is interesting... > Diagnosis is made by collecting and assessing signs and symptoms. > treatment is derived directly from this process. It is not near as > mysterious or complicated as some would have it. But the use of herbs are complicated and are constantly changing... China is doing much research in modern uses for modern diseases.. is is essential, unless you just want to keep treating the (basic) patterns... I have found that beyond > a certain point of studies, one begins to see the bizarre, arcane and > mysterious in every patient . Agreed this may happen.. But I am not at all referring to some arcane and bizzare treatment strategy or method. I just feel it is naive to think we somehow have it all (already) and anything we don't have , still in chinese, in arcane and useless... -JAson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2003 Report Share Posted February 7, 2003 Agreed this may happen.. But I am not at all referring to some arcane and bizzare treatment strategy or method. I just feel it is naive to think we somehow have it all (already) and anything we don't have , still in chinese, in arcane and useless... >>>>Jason we certainly do not. But again one can also go to china and see what is going on at least in one hospital.That is a wealth on knowledge and education and if you keep a good skeptical outlook often an eye opening as well Alon 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.