Guest guest Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 Ok, I will try to get the ball rolling. Since we mostly agree that research is beneficial, and we need to control it to properly protect CM, then let's start discussing some specifics. 1) I personally have no problem with having a study based upon a western disease as long as there is enough CM pattern differentiation within it. 2 reasons, a) This is done in China, b) this is what the American public relate to, not running piglet…Objections? 2) Let us deconstruct the IBS study and figure out what we do and do not like about this, this IMO serves a good springboard… 3) Finally I am specifically trying to discuss herbs, hopefully eliminating many of the placebo concerns surrounding acupuncture. - , " wainwrightchurchill " <w.churchill_1-@t...> wrote: > Z'ev, et al, > > I agree with Z'ev's point(s) below. There's no one here who isn't > passionate about CM. So what's going on? > > I think the following interchange contains several of the basic points: > > " As we know with one of the St. Johnswort studies, it was totally biased > and the intentions were malevolent. A German study was done by a > pharmaceutical company that bought out a company producing a St. > Johnswort product, measuring treatment of patients with major > depression by St. Johnswort. After the poor showing in the study, the > drug company apparently discontinued the product. > > >>>>And this is my point. Do you want others to do the research. They > are already doing it. All it will take is a few very large and > publicized studies to turn around a trend in CAM therapy. We are now > practicing in a society that gives us the benefit without much good > evidence. This same society still gives much credence to so-called > medical research. And again look at St Johns example > Alon " > > 1)We don't disagree that research is being done > 2)We are concerned about the nature of that research > 3)We agree that research issues could have a bearing on the standing > of CM in the community. > > Now, to simply call for research, without qualification, does not take > into account legitimate (in my opinion) concerns about the nature of > that research. Careful thinking has to be done about what constitutes > research into CM that is valuable, or indeed harmful, to CM. I hope we > all agree about this. If not, please express reasons so that we can > move on. > > If we do agree, that's at least 50% of any contention in this forum > resolved. If we don't agree, then my own feeling is that people who > have expressed concerns about research have stated their positions > explicitly, and in detail, and it's up to others to refute those > points systematically. > > Assuming that we all basically agree about the problematic issues > about research, then the next step is, taking these concerns into > account, to think about what to do next. > > It all seems quite straightforward to me. I'll welcome any > disagreement, however. > > Perhaps this thread shouldn't be entitled " Stagnation " v " Stasis " . > Otherwise, people may have to chose which of these two sides they're on! > > Best wishes, > Wainwright - > " " <zrosenbe@s...> > > Monday, November 17, 2003 5:13 PM > Re: " Stagnation " v " Stasis " (Zhi v Yu) > > > > OK, I accept this. > > > > For me the point is that we all have points of view that we are > > passionate about. > > One thing we can all agree on is that we are all passionate about > > Chinese medicine. We have different points of view on the subject, > and > > this is to be expected, especially with a subject like medicine, which > > is complex and multi-faceted like human beings themselves. > > > > What concerns me is that people are getting more and more strident, > not > > listening, and the tone of the conversations is getting abusive. > > People are being pigeonholed unfairly, dismissed, and words are being > > used as hammers rather than tools for further communication. . > > > > I am asking you, as moderator, to help moderate the tone of > these > > discussions, set parameters, and bring things back to a common ground. > > > > I think we should read Simcha's recent posting again. I agree with > him > > that there is a point of view that can embrace and reconcile opposites. > > > > It may seem idealistic, but idealism sometimes is a good tool. > > > > The mind may rule the heart, but sometimes the heart must prevail. > > > > Let's find common cause, and move on. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 I agree. The public has done a great job educating itself in biomedicine over the last decade or two. We should help in educating the public on Chinese medical data as well. There is nothing wrong with using Chinese disease categories. When I explain them to patients, they usually have no problems comprehending them. We should expect anything less from health professionals? On Nov 17, 2003, at 12:30 PM, bcataiji wrote: > Introducing the public or media to Chinese disease names will open the > door for better communication between CM practitioners and the public. > It will also potentially give us more patients. Take rib-side pain, > for instance. I've known people who have had intermittent rib-side > pain, but just let it slide because they did not think that the > doctors would do anything for it. If they knew that it was a specific > disease in CM and could readily be treated, maybe they would. 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.