evidence

[Guest guest]

I know some of you think I am reducing chinese medicine to only that

which can be explained by modern science and dispensing with the rest,

but that is not the case.

 

1. all phenomena in the body have measurable components, thus any

alteration in health regardless of how one conceptualizes the cause,

must ultimately or immediately affect biochemistry and physiology.

Otherwise there would be no suffering, no patient, no office visit, no

fifty bucks. It says nothing about TCM theory to say the results of

therapy or the presence of illness are measurable using modern means.

 

2. Laboratory or clinical evidence are 2 ways of proving something.

Elaborating a plausible mechanism lends further weight. But nothing

seals the deal like epidemiology. Either sex causes illness or it

doesn't and we have millions of patients who have been studied at this

point. Believe me, there was once a great push to associate sexual

excesses with disease in the west. This includes masturbation and

homosexuality (a DSM classified mental illness until around 1970). It

is easier to control sex if it is not only bad, but also unhealthy.

But a century of research has totally backfired. Medical doctors have

had to stop associating these behaviors with illness unless infection

was involved because the evidence to the contrary was completely

absent.

 

It is very easy to understand the fallacy of logic that took place in a

prudish premodern culture that led to the mistaken notion of the

effects of sex on health. But unlike most of the rest of TCM theory,

this idea holds no currency in terms of research, scientific

plausibility (what is the exact biochemical mechanism by which this

occurs) or epidemiological data. If an idea has merit in any one of

those domains, it is worth considering. But if it has no merit in any

of those domains at all, it is worth considering something else.

Otherwise, we are just accepting dogma.

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, wrote:

> I know some of you think I am reducing chinese medicine to only that

> which can be explained by modern science and dispensing with the rest,

> but that is not the case.

>

> 1. all phenomena in the body have measurable components, thus any

> alteration in health regardless of how one conceptualizes the cause,

> must ultimately or immediately affect biochemistry and physiology.

 

 

do you also mean that you do not accept the concept of qi then?

I do not think that we have instruments that are sensitive enough to

discover the imbalances that an experienced practitioner can find by

taking anamnesis, pulse and tongue observation.

 

Tom.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

>

> I know some of you think I am reducing chinese medicine to only that

> which can be explained by modern science and dispensing with the rest,

> but that is not the case.

>

> 1. all phenomena in the body have measurable components, thus any

> alteration in health regardless of how one conceptualizes the cause,

> must ultimately or immediately affect biochemistry and physiology.

[Jason]

Yes in theory this is correct, but we by no means have a complete

understanding of the human body from this (measurable component)

perspective. Every day more and more is discovered; therefore I find this

whole line of reasoning suspect... Back to sexual taxation... are you

telling me that you have read a study that specifically explores the effects

of sex from a TCM kidney or essence perspective? If not then your line of

reasoning is IMO suspect. There are many subtle aspects of TCM that are not

only ignored in Western Medicine, but do not translate into any neat Western

scientific BOX. The fact that your western studies say sex causes no harm is

completely meaningless. One must ask how they evaluate this and does it

translate to TCM. Are they accounting for sub-clinical signs, not just

gross disease... There are so many variables. I would like to see your

studies... and furthermore, studies are suspect, unless repeated multiple

times, as much as historical record is. And don't get me wrong I agree with

your points about history, and we should not take things as gospel, but it

is clear that many people have noticed that sex causes problems in the

clinic, and this is really where things count... I do not think it fair or

accurate to try to discount such obvious observations with gross western

generalizations. Finally there are many pieces of CM that not only are

balked at by western science, but just do not makes sense. Yet in the

clinic we find that these seemingly inane observations lead us to incredible

insights hence helping the patient get better... So yes in theory all

phenomena has measurable components, but I do not buy this line of thinking

at all for any proof or disproof of anything - that is, if we are unable to

measure something now, who is to say that in 5 years that will not be the

case or things might change...

But if you find a study that is published in a reputable journal, and has

been repeated to verify validity, and looks at the sexual TAXATION from a CM

as well as Western perspective, and shows how there is no detriment to the

kidneys or essence, then I will eat my words... Wow, just thinking of how

hard it would be to design a legitimate study is enough to give someone a

headache... just my 2 cents...

 

-