list members in japan

[Guest guest]

hope you & loved ones are ok this morning - my thots &

prayers are with you, god bless

---

< wrote:

> , " mike

Bowser " <naturaldoc1@h...> wrote:

>

> >

> > Science long ago showed me that few things are

absolute like they continue

> > to portray. The problem is not in our theory but

in the lack of ability for

> > WM to evaluate it in a study. Think about trying

to design a study that

> > takes into account multiple variables and it just

becomes a nightmare. Most

> > studies, by comparison, limit variables to two and

so the conclusion is

> > simply yes or no, not yes but ...

>

> Actually it is simple to use science as it is to

design accurate comparative studies of actual

> practices. there is no failing on either TCM or

science in this matter. There is however a

> failure to do the research necessary within our

field. Don't mistake me as agreeing with

> anyone who thinks we should just be accepted on our

theory and history alone. The

> variables you describe are a straw man. It is very

easy to study multivariant therapies, you

> just compare outcomes and set aside the whole issue

of placebo. This is an accepted

> standard in WM for many procedures and we can easily

design such studies and meet

> those standards. If you think the tactic of

claiming their stuff also has not been studied,

> you are gravely mistaken. The demand is for more,

not less evidence. It is also an

> erroneous claim. There stuff has been studied

extensively, just not by gold standards. I

> called it silver standards, because its the next

level. To use the metal analogy further,

> most studies from China meet lead standards, IMO.

>

> We can easily do better if about 10% of the

community was devoted to research.

> Otherwise we will likely fade as an independent

profession over time and/or have our

> techniques coopted without the theory at all. As I

have pointed out, quite a bit of research

> (even from China) does show acupuncture and herbs to

be effective regardless of whether

> traditional diagnostics are used. I have also

pointed out that most CM was practiced more

> allopathically throughout history according to

Unschuld and worked quite well, it seemed.

> The battle over bian zheng was not really a battle

of wits or a battle of efficacy; it was a

> turf battle and a class battle (something you should

appreciate Mike, given your oft

> expressed political leanings). A classic power

struggle that tells us nothing about efficacy,

> safety, etc. It just tells us who were the cultural

elite of their day. So it all still needs to be

> studied even by the standards of chinese history.

>

> These were the EBM instructions I received for a

conference at which I spoke. As you can

> see, there are many ways to study TCM that would

meet muster. And that most chinese

> studies would be considered quite preliminary at

best.

>

> " In keeping with the evidence-based theme of our

conference, we encourage presenters

> who are discussing treatment of conditions to

consider the strength of evidence for the

> natural supplements they are discussing. Two of the

most common evidence guidelines

> include those of the AAFP available at

http://www.aafp.org/x17444.xml and those

> commonly utilized by the American College of

Physicians available with an example using

> saw palmetto at

http://www.usp.org/dietarySupplements/sawpalmetto.html#criteria.

Both

> standards will be included in the syllabus for

attendee reference. Dr. Bonakdar has

> included an outline of his talk as an example of how

AAFP evidence-based guidelines may

> be incorporated. "

>

 

>

>

>

>

>