subhuti on research in china

December 30, 2004

SD has published more research from china than anyone else in english.

his career is largely built on that and he thinks

" While keeping in mind that the Chinese evaluations are conducted and

reported in a manner that does not meet Western criteria, these reports

help illustrate the treatment strategies, duration of treatment, and

types of responses claimed. In this review, only recent publications

(that is, during the past decade, since 1995) are considered. "

from http://www.itmonline.org/arts/parkinsons.htm

same thing I said. these studies are suggestive but in general do not

even begin to approach the western criteria of proof of anything.

While SD does not read chinese, he is far more qualified to evaluates

flaws in biological research in herbology than anyone on this list,

IMO. If you think you have access to material that he does not, send

it his way for a looksee. Being able to read chinese does not give one

any insight into proper research criteria. In fact, being able to read

english in this field with a similar lack of scientific understanding

has often led to erroneous interpretation of english language research

as well. It is not for nonexpert insiders with major vested interests

to decide what is valid or not from a scientific perspective. We will

have to defer to recognized experts in this area or just give up even

trying. I am not sure what people don't understand about this basic

political truth.

Chinese Herbs

December 30, 2004

If you think you have access to material that he does not, send

it his way for a looksee. Being able to read chinese does not give one

any insight into proper research criteria. In

^^^^^^^^

^This is clear from the totaly noncritical translations we often

find. Somehow reading chinese has become more valued than common

senese or good science

removed]

December 30, 2004

Who says these are mutually exclusive?

On Dec 30, 2004, at 4:30 PM, alonmarcus2003 wrote:

> This is clear from the totaly noncritical translations we often

> find. Somehow reading chinese has become more valued than common

> senese or good science

>

December 31, 2004

At 12:30 AM +0000 12/31/04, alonmarcus2003 wrote:

>^This is clear from the totaly noncritical translations we often

>find. Somehow reading chinese has become more valued than common

>senese or good science

Alon,

I agree, but common sense is in short supply everywhere, not just in our field.

I'm not sure what you mean by a critical translation. The role of a

translator is to accurately represent what is written in the

original, not to critique its meaning. Personally I'm much more

interested in having material well translated than I am in the

translator's opinions, as interesting as these may be. I can then

form my own opinions and draw my own conclusions.

If " good science " (Vioxx anyone?) is deemed not to exist in China, we

still need the enormous number of case records and other materials

translated. The rate of translated publication is slower than a

snails pace at present.

Lastly, the problems with getting good research done in our field

have little to do with a lack of researchers. There are plenty of

well qualified medical researchers in the world, and in China. The

obstacles have much more to do with the marketplace, politics, power

and greed.

Rory

--

January 1, 2005

I'm not sure what you mean by a critical translation. The role of a

translator is to accurately represent what is written in the

original, not to critique its meaning. Personally I'm much more

interested in having material well translated than I am in the

translator's opinions, as interesting as these may be. I can then

form my own opinions and draw my own conclusions.

If " good science " (Vioxx anyone?) is deemed not to exist in China, we

still need the enormous number of case records and other materials

translated. The rate of translated publication is slower than a

snails pace at present.

]]]]]]]]]]

Vioxx is greed not science, the truth has been known for a long time,

before it was approved. I am not saying that WM is clean, at this

point $ is too influential.

while a good translation is importent if the translation is of an

obviously bogus material this needs to be discussed. We tend to just

except information comming out from Chinese sources even though many

of us that have seen the same stuff used in real life know its bogus.

We need to change the tone of the discusion. That is what i am saying.

Alon

January 2, 2005

At 9:53 PM +0000 1/1/05, alonmarcus2003 wrote:

>Vioxx is greed not science, the truth has been known for a long time,

>before it was approved. I am not saying that WM is clean, at this

>point $ is too influential.

--

Alon,

We agree that Vioxx is greed, but it seems to me that an awful lot of

what is presented to us a medical science turns out to be greed, or

some other sort of bias. And clearly whatever truth was known about

Vioxx before it was approved was not known by the patients who died

because of it, and probably not by their physicians either.

When you and others on this list criticize our field for not having

honest scientific validation, which I agree would be ideal, you are

holding us to a standard that not even Western medicine can claim. If

they can't achieve it, is it likely that we will be able to?

Rory

--

January 3, 2005

" When you and others on this list criticize our field for not having

honest scientific validation, which I agree would be ideal, you are

holding us to a standard that not even Western medicine can claim. If

they can't achieve it, is it likely that we will be able to? "

Rory,

You make a good point. That's why I have consistently suggested that

we also attack the short-comings and prejudices of Western biomedical

research using the critiques of social science

sociology/anthropology). Too many of us buy into the validity of

certain research " models " as if they embodied truth absolute. Similar

to some of our political discussions on this forum, I believe that,

without attacking the root of the problem, we are left battling with

the branches. Not only were the Medical Practices Acts a bad idea, I

believe that blindly accepting (or, in our case, acquiescing to) the

double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT as the " gold standard " has also

been a bad idea. There need to be a variety of different but

nonetheless valid methods of research depending on what is being

researched and why. As an extension of this, I believe we alternative

health care providers should be more pro-active in publishing and

propagating meta-critiques of bio-medical research.

For instance, I believe that two-wing Chinese studies that compare the

efficacy of a specific CM protocol to a particular WM protocol for a

specific condition are useful and valid in their own way. They do tell

us something useful to know that can be the springboard for further

knowledge, research, and practical implementation. Likewise, even the

single-wing Chinese clinical audits are valid out-comes based research

that do tell us certain things. They do not tell us the same things

that prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs do, but does

all research have to answer the same questions? I, for one, don't

think so, and many sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers of

science agree.

Bob

January 7, 2005

--- When you and others on this list criticize our field for not

having

honest scientific validation, which I agree would be ideal, you are

holding us to a standard that not even Western medicine can claim. If

they can't achieve it, is it likely that we will be able to?

>>>>>>>>

You will never hear me defend the current state of WM in general. I

mostly work in CM so that is the field I am concerned with. The

problems with WM are numerous and wide. But so are the problems we

have with CM evidence. We need to change the tone of the discussion

to include more realistic clinical observations. As long as we feel

as though we have to defend our selves we will not allow for a real

critical discussion.

Alon

January 10, 2005

I've been taking my own advice of last week to deepen my knowledge of

contemporary medical anthropology, both on-line and in the library.

The following quote is from a medical anthropologist is Canada.

Reading the final paragraph, it seems to me that people choose to use

so-called alternative medicine as much because of their world view and

personal philosophy as for its clinical outcomes. What I mean here is

that I believe many practitioners and users of alternative medicine

continue their use and belief in their medicine regardless of clinical

outcomes. In other words, clinical outcomes may not be the most

important aspect of the medicine to its users. This would help explain

our professions general disregard for research and even basic literacy.

Just a thought.

Bob

Hugo de Burgos; www.ualberta.ca/~deburgos

While biomedicine continues to make important contributions to the

understanding and treatment of a variety of illnesses, there is an

apparent trend in people's medical behaviour which shows

dissatisfaction with conventional medicine (Bear 1987; Buckman and

Sabbagh 1993; Engel 1977; Good 1994; M. Good 1995; Hahn 1985, 1995;

Joshi and Mahajan 1990; Lock 1980; Martin 1987; Randi 1987; Rodhes

1990; D. Young 1989; A. Young 1981). For a variety of reasons,

patients who have traditionally relied on biomedicine are now seeking

alternative medical help (Buckman and Sabbagh 1993:1). Traditional

medical systems, which through the industrial age were considered

inferior and ineffective, are gradually re-emerging in Europe and

North America, and gaining in usage in the so-called developing countries.

A single event cannot account for the re-emergence of traditional

medical knowledge. The historical and contemporary circumstances that

have triggered and continue to promote its comeback are complex,

varied and essentially dialectic. Therefore, given the magnitude of

the task, I am only interested in studying the ways in which

alternative medicine is currently being utilized by indigenous people

in Nicaragua to express and simultaneously claim their indigenous

identity.

In Nicaragua, as with anywhere else, the re-emergence of traditional

healing does not necessarily imply a dismissal of biomedicine. Rather,

as it is argued, traditional healing is often sought as a complement

or alternative to biomedicine (Crandon-Malamud 1991; Eisenberg et al.

1993; Engel 1977; Kleinman and Sung 1979; Kakar 1988; Lock 1980;

Sargent 1982; Young 1989). In fact, there have been specific

anthropological studies that show how traditional and biomedicine can

work together in a reciprocal and complementary fashion (Kleinman et

al. 1976; Leslie 1972; Lock 198o; Young 1989). For instance, Lock

(1984:257) has shown how many doctors and patients in Japan today seem

willing to combine traditional and biomedical theories and practice,

if they believe it will bring the best results.

However, these " best results " cannot be determined by a general belief

in efficacy; but rather, by the mutual understanding, coexistence,

expression and affirmation of the cultures involved in the medical

dialogue. That is to say, in the context of medical pluralism

traditional healing can and has served as a model to express, claim

and assert the dignity of ethnicity (Crandon-Malamud 1991).

Intercultural diversity articulated in a dialogue of multiple medical

systems is as much about expressions of culture and identity as it is

about healing and procuring general well-being.

January 10, 2005

Bob,

This is a similar argument to the one raised several years ago by

Paul Unschuld in his article " The Reception of Oriental Medicine in the

West " (available as a PDF file from www.paradigm-pubs.com ). I

remember at the time it was made available that there was an outcry

that Paul was not really supportive of Chinese medicine, but he

certainly was on the mark in targeting the reasons for its acceptance

in the West.

A quote from the article:

" It is at this point that we begin to understand why Oriental

Medicine has become so attractive in the West. Those people whose

existential fears are nourished by the increasing impact of chemistry

and technology on daily life, they welcome a medicine which appears

not to rely on chemical substances and technological means of diagnosis

and treatment. Oriental Medicine is propagated as a therapeutic

system relying on “natural” substances, without side effects. Those

people in the West who fear in increasing pollution of their bodies

through chemistry in food, water, and air, they are happy to have

found in Oriental Medicine a therapy system the application of which

does not entail the risk of chemical pollution. Similarly, those people

in the West who have an aversion to what they regard as “cold” and

“impersonal“ technology, they are happy to have found a therapy

system where diagnosis and treatment entail direct contact with the

healer. There is nothing between healer and patient when the former

feels the pulse or palpates the abdomen. "

One of the things that concerns me about the argument from de Burgos

is that the reemergence of traditional medicine in Latin American

countries is based on the interest of the native population, which has

1) less exposure to modernization than, say, urban China or the U.S.

and 2) (the native culture) is more of a stable phenomenon than the

alternative Western culture. By alternative culture, I mean the 'baby

boomer' generation who embraced alternative lifestyles (back to the

land, organic foods, eastern religion, etc.). By and large those

values have not passed on to our children, except for those values that

have become mainstream such as natural foods. The interest, however,

in communal living and other alternative lifestyles has waned. Since

Chinese medicine is identified largely with alternative lifestyles, we

should be concerned about its survival. We don't want to be pushed

aside with other '60's survival' trends, such as Deadheads and

psychedelics, whatever their value was or is.

We may be capitalists, however, we are also idealists. If I wanted

to make a lot of money, I'd have entered my father's business 35 years

ago in the garment district of Manhattan, or gotten an MBA instead of

studying William Blake and Afro-American avant-garde music at NYU.

Chinese medicine was a lifestyle choice, an alternative to the medicine

that couldn't heal me of the respiratory problems that plagued me from

birth until my 20's. It appealed to me and many others of my

generation because it offered a gentler, lifestyle-oriented way to heal

chronic illnesses. In many cases, such as my own, it worked.

I agree that Chinese medicine, at this point in time, may well

survive as a niche market. After all, Apple Computer is a 'niche

market', and it is worth billions of dollars and very successful. In

fact, it has many advantages over the Wintel cartel. Apple owns both

its own software and hardware, and unlike other computer companies, is

rewarded for innovation in the marketplace. I agree, Bob, that we need

to define our niche and strengthen our knowledge base, education, and

research from within.

On Jan 10, 2005, at 7:55 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

>

> I've been taking my own advice of last week to deepen my knowledge of

> contemporary medical anthropology, both on-line and in the library.

> The following quote is from a medical anthropologist is Canada.

> Reading the final paragraph, it seems to me that people choose to use

> so-called alternative medicine as much because of their world view and

> personal philosophy as for its clinical outcomes. What I mean here is

> that I believe many practitioners and users of alternative medicine

> continue their use and belief in their medicine regardless of clinical

> outcomes. In other words, clinical outcomes may not be the most

> important aspect of the medicine to its users. This would help explain

> our professions general disregard for research and even basic

> literacy.

>

> Just a thought.

>

> Bob

>

January 10, 2005

Z'ev,

" This is a similar argument to the one raised several years ago by

Paul Unschuld in his article " The Reception of Oriental Medicine in

the > West " (available as a PDF file from www.paradigm-pubs.com). I

remember at the time it was made available that there was an outcry

that Paul was not really supportive of Chinese medicine, but he

certainly was on the mark in targeting the reasons for its acceptance

in the West. "

Agreed. Thanks for the good quote. I think it's a useful one for all

of us to read/reread.

" We don't want to be pushed aside with other '60's survival' trends,

such as Deadheads and psychedelics, whatever their value was or is. "

I've been telling people that we risk being a one-generation

phenomenon for several years. In fact, I caught huge amounts of flak

from your and another school for saying this in print.

" We may be capitalists, however, we are also idealists. "

My point was only that, if this is an accurate description of the

situation, then there still is a way to play the game.

" I agree that Chinese medicine, at this point in time, may well

survive as a niche market. After all, Apple Computer is a 'niche

market', and it is worth billions of dollars and very successful. In

fact, it has many advantages over the Wintel cartel. "

Good point. Once one knows what niche they should market to, they can

focus their available resources more accurately.

Bob

January 10, 2005

Since I joined this group a couple months ago, I've been following this

thread and others on this group with great interest and would like to

acknowledge the participants of this group. The threads have been very

thoughtful and thought provoking.

Some thoughts I would like to add:

I, as a practitioner of 8 - 9 years have diluted the traditional and

foundational constructs of Chinese medicine. I currently practice a blend

of what I know of TCM, western medicine, new age thinking, other spiritual

thinkings, American thinking, what I think I know, and what I think I was

taught to know. Sometimes I guess.

For my patients healing, I use needles, herbs, supplements, food, western

doctors, western tests, not so western tests, chiropractors, conversation,

homework, and ..All within my scope of practice. All safely.

I use a watered down five element thinking as a paradigm to work with my

patients, a lot. I like it and they like it.

I really appreciate those who understand the classics and keep that alive

for us. I am sure that the classics teach us about who we are now. I am

not sure how the classics relate to how we are now, and could use some

education in this arena. I look forward to taking CEU classes for this.

I have treated many patients in the workers compensation arena, and have

done quite well. Doctors like me. Some patients get better. My reporting

is good.

With the change in WC laws, I am sad for the patients that won't get to see

me. My patient load is now filled in with cash patients. I still treat the

same number of people. I make less money.

I have doctor friends who like acupuncture. To get and to refer.

All western medicine is not closed minded.

The problem is not with the doctors, it's the medical politicians.

Patients do not come to me because their doctor told them to, (unless WC).

They rarely come to me because they read a study that said what I do works.

They don't understand my degree. Patients come to me from either

fascination or desperation. Mostly desperation. I would love it to be

fascination.

Most people come to me because somebody told them about me. Something I did

worked.

As a group, we believe the AMA controls everything medical. I'm not so

sure.

A lot of Western Medicine doctors don't understand how what I do will help

someone. They still send me patients because their patients want to come

and because patients report relief.

I am in constant awe and inspired that there are people in our field who

organize and participate in our state and national organizations. Thank you.

Because without you, I would have no representation. I may not always agree

with your stand, but you are giving us a voice. If I felt strong enough

about something, I could participate.

I will keep sending you money.

I don't have a concern. The WC changes are a nuisance. People still come

to see me. Fascination and Desperation.

I don't practice TCM (strictly), and people get better. I wonder about

this.

Some people don't get better.

People still come see me.

I would like to see more research on how what we do works.

I am in community speaking about what I do. Speaking about people being

healthy. Give my time to healthy projects. I hold health classes. I do

market myself. This pays off.

I think what it is I would like to say is that I appreciate the work our

organizations do, even though I don't always agree. Whether we have one

degree or another, are part of mainstream or not, we are now in a large

enough quantity and enough people know about us, that people will seek us

out. Fascination or Desperation. The legal pendulum will swing. Over

time, TCM will experience times of freedom, and times of constriction. The

I-Ching, you know. We as practitioners have a commitment to the health of

people that goes beyond politics and personal gain. It's why I believe most

of us are here. It's fun and a great way to help people. I think we

believe what we do works. Some patients do also. Even when at times, I'm

not so sure of what it is that's working. I believe that our profession is

currently experiencing some growing pains in locating our identity on the on

the map of American politics, medicine and thinking. I am glad that this is

happening, and look forward to how we grow and develop ourselves and our

profession. I look forward to our research that allows us to understand

what it is we're doing and to educate others. It is the forums such as this

that are the leading edge of that evolution.

Thank you for the forum. Special thanks to Z'ev and Bob and some of you

others that I don't personally know. Elders in our community who lead us

with vision, insight and integrity.

Bertram

Bertram L. Furman L.Ac. QME

Oriental Medical Associates

" Building Optimal Health for all People, To Educate and To Serve with

Integrity "

acudr

www.Acupunctureandyou.com

619.595.0709

[zrosenbe]

Monday, January 10, 2005 11:16 AM

Re: Re: subhuti on research in china

Bob,

This is a similar argument to the one raised several years ago by

Paul Unschuld in his article " The Reception of Oriental Medicine in the

West " (available as a PDF file from www.paradigm-pubs.com ). I

remember at the time it was made available that there was an outcry

that Paul was not really supportive of Chinese medicine, but he

certainly was on the mark in targeting the reasons for its acceptance

in the West.

A quote from the article:

" It is at this point that we begin to understand why Oriental

Medicine has become so attractive in the West. Those people whose

existential fears are nourished by the increasing impact of chemistry

and technology on daily life, they welcome a medicine which appears

not to rely on chemical substances and technological means of diagnosis

and treatment. Oriental Medicine is propagated as a therapeutic

system relying on " natural " substances, without side effects. Those

people in the West who fear in increasing pollution of their bodies

through chemistry in food, water, and air, they are happy to have

found in Oriental Medicine a therapy system the application of which

does not entail the risk of chemical pollution. Similarly, those people

in the West who have an aversion to what they regard as " cold " and

" impersonal " technology, they are happy to have found a therapy