Patent study

[Guest guest]

<As someone said however, you need to double

blind the study so that neither the person dispensing the herbs, the

person

getting the herbs or the person doing intakes etc. has any idea who

is

getting what.>

 

I can see no reason why Chinese herbal medicine can't be researched

using placebo controlled, double blind RCTs IF the same formula or

set of formulas are given in a methodical and regularized fashion. Of

course it's possible to do an initial diagnosis to determine whether

the herbal formula is appropriate to the patient's diagnosis.

However, I believe that a placebo controlled, double blind RCT can't

be done practicably if a practitioner is monitoring the patient

during the trial, because the practitioner can get a sense (perhaps

wrong) of whether the patient is taking real herbs, or the placebo,

or at least whether treatment is progresing well or not, which can

then be transmitted to the patient, subliminally perhaps, that could

influence results.

 

Since it's arguable that for many illnesses, individualised

prescriptions, altered as treatment progresses, is the norm, this is

a big problem for investigating CHM as it is usually practiced.

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

Wainwright,

 

" Since it's arguable that for many illnesses, individualised prescriptions,

altered as treatment progresses, is the norm, this is

> a big problem for investigating CHM as it is usually practiced. "

 

The norm where? China, yes; North America definitely not. The de facto standard

of care in N. America, Europe, Israel, and

Australia-NZ is the use of ready-made formulas. So I think it does make sense to

study this. As for the use individualized formulas,

the Chinese publish oodles and oodles of research on those. The main problem

with that research is that it is not blinded.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

because the practitioner can get a sense (perhaps

wrong) of whether the patient is taking real herbs, or the placebo,

or at least whether treatment is progresing well or not, which can

then be transmitted to the patient, subliminally perhaps, that could

influence results.

>>>Well this is one of the questions. It would however be better if we can have

a formula given based on initial dx and not change it

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

The norm where? China, yes; North America definitely not. The de facto standard

of care in N. America, Europe, Israel, and

Australia-NZ is the use of ready-made formulas.

>>>Bob you can add Japan and Taiwan

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " wainwrightchurchill "

<w.churchill_1-@t...> wrote:

 

> I can see no reason why Chinese herbal medicine can't be researched

> using placebo controlled, double blind RCTs IF the same formula or

 

The R in RCT stands for random, and it is generaly accepted that it is

unethical to have a random sample on whom a clinic trial is based. In

normal ethical clinical trials, the sample is a convenience sample,

not a random sample - in other words, people have to volunteer for the

study, rather than being chose at random.

 

However, the group of volunteers can then be randomly put into the

different experimental / control groups, but this is not the same idea

as a genuine RCT.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

 

> However, the group of volunteers can then be randomly put into the

> different experimental / control groups, but this is not the same idea

> as a genuine RCT.

>

> Brian C. Allen

 

I'm sorry; I spoke too soon on this one. I was confused between the

idea of a random sample and RCT. I did not realize RCT was being used

to describe a controlled trial with randomized allocation to

experiment / control groups.

 

I was mislead in my CRD & S class. I was specifically taught that there

is no such thing (because of ehtics) of a radomized controlled trial,

but I now I see that the teacher was using a much more narrow definition.

 

Sorry again.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

<<Wainwright,

 

" Since it's arguable that for many illnesses, individualised

prescriptions, altered as treatment progresses, is the norm, this is

> a big problem for investigating CHM as it is usually practiced. "

 

The norm where? China, yes; North America definitely not. The de

facto standard of care in N. America, Europe, Israel, and

Australia-NZ is the use of ready-made formulas. So I think it does

make sense to study this. As for the use individualized formulas,

the Chinese publish oodles and oodles of research on those. The main

problem with that research is that it is not blinded.

 

Bob>>

 

Bob,

If it is the norm in the places you mention to give solitary ready-

made formulas, then of course it's useful to conduct research to see

how well they work. I agree that an advantage is that such studies

can be blinded.

 

Wainwright

 

Wainwright