Guest guest Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Hi All, & Hi I agree with most points in your note. Just a few comments. ..1 TCM WORLDWIDE must organise and work together ASAP. 1000 subs at 500$ is peanuts in a project to validate TCM. It takes >200,000,000$ to develop a single drug! Most practitioners are not noted for their willingness to part with cash for research or political lobbying. We must look for support wherever we can find it - Governments, funding agencies, herbal and related industries, etc. Most of all, we need wholehearted and widespread PUBLIC support. That support need not be financial, but it is MOST important to reshape public perception of TCM as a venerable, responsible, safe and clinically effective (in many cases) and COST-EFFECTIVE therapeutic system. To achieve this public support will cost a LOT of money and time in Public Relations. Also, we MUST be up-front about the strengths and weaknesses of TCM. It CANNOT cure everything, and it is probably less effective that allopathic med in many conditions. TCM (IMO) will NEVER be able to be a " stand-alone " (truly alternative) medicine in western societies. At its best, it could be a most valuable therapy if Ithe best of TCM were to be NTEGRATED with the best of WM. FOCUSED RESEARCH: We cannot cover ALL research bases; that would cost trillions of $. Therefore, we must focus/prioritise our research efforts into the area of clinical research. ALL research under this project should be to try to validate the safety and efficacy of TCM in the AREAS MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED. 2. War is seldom about justice, righting wrongs, or the " good of all " . In most cases it is simply about the desire to possess something that the " enemy " has, or to head off a percieved threat from the " enemy " to our own possessions. And War is seldom fought with ancient chivalry and honour. Instead, today, most Governments and armies use the " Dirty Tricks " brigades, sneak attacks, demoralisation, terrorism, false propaganda, etc to great effect. Luckily, we are unlikely to see the " suicide bomber " mentality on either side in the Medical War. The TCM/Holistic v Allopathic war is very real; it is about authority, social status, political power and (fundamentally) personal incomes. And we (TCM/Integrative side) are losing by the day. We must fight NOW, or be wiped out soon. Swords v bombs? Even if the " TCM Army " can find " State of the Art " weapons, the size of the " Allopathic Army " puts us in the category of David v Goliath. We CANNOT win that war on our own. But if we bring the PUBLIC into our ranks, we have a very good chance of having a " Mexican Standoff " - the Allopathic side do NOT want to alienate the public. please explain what you mean by: > 4. address the red herring of drug/herb interaction... How is drug/herb interaction a red herring? Best regards, Phil PS. I agree 100% with you on the need for good research, but such research is very costly. IMO, much of the (paltry) TCM funds should be spent in PUBLIC RELATIONS, rather than research. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose creating a membership based research foundation. The > purpose would be solely to write grants, fund and coordinate research in OM. This would be a non-profit organization with a board of directors. The board would be comprised of individuals who should command enough respect to garner the required support. It would be ideal to get 1000 members to pay dues of $500 each towards this end. Why so high? Why would anyone pay this? Well, even if your motivations are more mundane, the question to ask then is how a spate of properly targeted research would affect your bottom line? If we could prove chinese herbs could safely and effectively treat perimenopausal symptoms, for example. Not to mention the good for society. Research grants are only awarded to organizations that have facilities and personnel to carry out the research. The schools are the best example of this. However the schools do not have the money, time, wherewithal to write the grants and coordinate the research. Plus, with rare exceptions, I find much of the research misguided, people's pet projects, rather than just straightforward well-designed studies designed to serve the profession and public. The OCOM endometriosis study is a prime example of what we should be doing lots of. Lets do 100 studies of that sort. And lets compare acupuncture head to head with conventional therapies for neuromuscular problems. Let's determine whether integrative therapy is sometimes better, worse or the same as either/or. A research foundation could affiliate with schools and provide the expert personnel necessary to carry out these projects. But the main obstacle is money or lack thereof. Money to do the pilot studies. Money to write the grants. Money to pay the statisticians, etc. I personally think this would be the best way to solve many of our dilemmas. Political rankling without evidence on either side just makes me ill. Decisions made on this basis are just sleazemanship of the highest order (yeah, I made that word up). Research would provide the actual ammunition to: 1. prove the clinical efficacy of OM on mainstream terms 2. generate more referrals by doctors and rational reimbursement by insurers 3. prove the safety of OM in trained hands 4. address the red herring of drug/herb interaction 5. develop standards in diagnosis and treatment (such as dosage and form) 6. demonstrate the importance of standardized terminology for database searches 7. demonstrate how access to chinese source material is vital in designing effective research protocols Many of what are now philosophical and ideological debates would be settled in the minds of many by actual evidence. Now I know some of you dispute whether science provides evidence of anything or just exhibits its own biases. But I would ask all of you to step out of your philosophical boxes and try and think strategically on a purely pragmatic, mundane level. Like we are going to war and our survival depends on it. What weapons will we use to defend ourselves. Will we use swords against bombs? The fact is whether you like it or not, the vast majority of members on this list, not to mention pretty much ALL the decisonmakers who affect our day to day practices, believe firmly in the validity of science. I would add my strong feeling that modern medicine has failed because it is NOT scientific or evidence based, NOT because it is TOO scientific. If we can " prove " the items enumerated above, not only will it dramatically affect public perception, insurers and MD referrals and thus our practices, but it would also end several of the ongoing political and academic debates in the field (such as language and safety issues). Without such firm foundations upon which to rest our various cases, we will be forever at the whim of politics on one hand and the market on the other (having to sell oneself to the public by smoothness and charm is also disgraceful for a medical practitioner, IMO). Medicine should be beholden to neither politics nor the market (nor philosophy or ideology, for that matter). In any event, this foundation will not debate the validity of research. You can do that here, if you like. It will begin with the premise that research is good and everyone is free to give support or not. While the naysayers will still ultimately benefit from the work such a foundation will do, we should not let that stop us from shouldering the burden anyway. It is the right thing to do. Todd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, Email: < WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0] HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0] WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm 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.