Debunking TCM

[RAF]

In a previous post, I submitted a website which provided a critique of the CSICOP association which attempts to debunk the paranormal, traditional Chinese medicine included.

http://www.alternativescience.com/csicop.htm

In an imperfect world, we all suffer from a gap between how we see ourselves and how others see us: between what we'd like to be and what we are. But in 30 years of journalism I haven't found a more striking gulf between self-image and performance than CSICOP -- the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

Everything about CSICOP purports to be scientific -- objective, fair, independent, investigative, rational. In reality, CSICOP is the home of the Paradigm Police, a kind of Pseudoscience-Central that deals in fundamentalist prejudice, opinion and bias, informed by a single, central hidden agenda -- to debunk at any cost any phenomenon, evidence or theory that touches on the list of taboo subjects that CSICOP has drawn up as forbidden.

The contradictions start even with CSICOP's name. Any rational person would expect an organisation that calls itself a Committee for Scientific Investigation to actually involve itself in carrying out scientific investigations, but CSICOP conducts no such investigations, it merely makes ex cathedra pronouncements telling the public what it should and shouldn’t believe, without troubling itself about conducting experiments.

When it was first formed in 1976, CSICOP did attempt a foray into scientific investigation, which turned into a farcical scandal. It decided to target the statistical work of French mathematician Michel Gauquelin whose work appeared to suggest there might be something in astrology after all.

Within a short time however, CSICOP officer Dennis Rawlins, who was acting as the study's statistician and was the only astronomer on CSICOP's council, announced he was quitting and accused CSICOP of blatantly fiddling the figures to prove Gauquelin wrong. (Click here for full story).

Since then, CSICOP has quietly dropped any pretence of being an investigating body and acts instead as the spiritual home of scientific fundamentalism -- a church with many priests but few congregations.

CSICOP's founder and president is Dr Paul Kurtz, formerly a professor with New York State University. Perhaps surprisingly, Dr Kurtz is not a scientist but a philosopher. In a memorable TV interview, on the subject of 'aliens', he said, "If we are going to admit aliens, what are we going to admit next? Fairies? Elves? Where do we draw the line?"

In this spontaneous comment Dr Kurtz has unconsciously disclosed his entire philosophy of science. For him, science is not open, without boundaries, up for exploration and discovery without fear or favour. Science is closed like a classified or restricted area to which ideas and people are "admitted" by duly authorised guardians, and once inside must stick to the authorised boundaries.

It is the guardians who "draw the line" around the boundaries of science. And Dr Kurtz clearly considers himself to be one of these guardians because he says "Where do we draw the line"?

Fairies, Elves, Aliens, Cold Fusion, Psychokinesis, ESP, acupressure, acupuncture, hypnotherapy, homeopathy, and dozens of other subjects are not acceptable subjects for investigation by science, or even by the media, not because the evidence says so, but because Dr Kurtz and his colleagues say so.

The fundamental rationale of Dr Kurtz's brainchild organisation is the same as his personal world view: The public must not be given facts and arguments and left to make up their own mind. Science must be left to those, like Dr Kurtz, who are qualified to judge what is true and what is false. CSICOP sees its function as being to educate an ignorant public in what is scientifically acceptable.

Of course it is fair to add that while all this may be anti-scientific and against the spirit of academic freedom it is a perfectly legitimate position to adopt and Dr Kurtz and his colleagues are perfectly entitled to think and speak as they wish. So why is CSICOP cause for concern?

The reason is that CSICOP has not merely contented itself with engaging in debate against what it sees as crackpot science, its members have taken active steps designed to silence their opponents and deny them access to media outlets.

CSICOP has formed what it calls the "Council for Media Integrity". This sounds like a worthy idea, and CSICOP claims its only aim is to provide a counter to what it regards as one-sided reporting -- again a reasonable idea. Until, that is, you learn what some CSICOP members actually do.

CSICOP's media relations officer, Matthew Nisbet, is quite open about the Council for Media Integrity's real purpose. It is, he says, to "turn the heat up on the entertainment industry and media."

Whenever a major TV network carries a programme whose content CSICOP disapproves, the organisation alerts members by email, encouraging them to bombard the network and the programme's producers will vociferous complaints, insisting that such content should not be broadcast. Not unnaturally, some producers and network executives feel it wiser to give in to this kind of pressure from prominent academics and avoid such subjects in future.

More insidiously, CSICOP members have also complained vociferously to the commercial companies who sponsor the programmes in question by buying advertising time. CSICOP members have threatened to organise boycotts of the products of such sponsor companies if they fail to agree not to sponsor such programmes again -- a powerful commercial threat that sounds alarmingly like intellectual

__________________________________________

This is a relevant topic, with no foul language and provides an alternative assessement of those critiquing TCM.

The moderator of this forum has seen fit to remove it once and I have reported this to the administrator of the site. Should this be removed again, we will repeat the process or request a replacement moderator for this forum.

[ctoepker]

I'm not sure what is happening here with deleted posts....

This post, and the one before it, seem to be saying that there are politics driving scientific investigation. Yes, that is probably so...and perhaps good. One positive outcome is that fringe areas don't get accepted too readily and that resources are put behind things with greater chances of success. (Ahhh, that other 'science'...economics.)

In any case, as for the site being considered here...take the section on Skepticism (http://www.alternativescience.com/skepticism.htm). The article seems to be saying that those in the list are victims of politics. For example, it suggests that if only MIT hadn't been crooked in its evaluation, the Cold Fusion guys, Fleischmann and Pons would be recognized as geniuses and everyone would have more electricity than we could use.

Is it really that simple? Can a single institution like MIT really keep ground breaking research from the public? Are Fleischmann and Pons so innocent themselves?

Apparently, an Italian court doesn't think so. According to a judge in Italy, the cold fusion experiement was faked and the scientists "removed from reality" in their claims. ITALY - COLD FUSION & JUDGE'S VERDICT (http://www.padrak.com/ine/CFLIBEL.html) Courtesy of Jed Rothwell 26 March 1996

Of particular note:

However there were some negative aspects; 1. They failed to mention the work of Prof. Stephen Jones which began in 1986. Fleischmann and Pons had agreed with Jones to submit their papers for publication together on the 24th March. 2. When it was pointed out to Fleischmann and Pons that their gamma ray peak was at an impossible energy, they changed the scale. 3. They claimed to have observed and measured fusion for a long time but were not subject to gamma radiation - therefore it was not fusion. 4. In April 1989, the US government set up a committee of 22 scientists to check the results. Despite complicated work, the results were negative. This is described in the book by John Huizenga, the Co-Chairman, entitled Cold Fusion - The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. 5. On the 8th July 1989, in the Deseret News (daily newspaper published in Utah) appeared an article (with photograph) where Pons declared that he had made an apparatus of the size of a thermos which would satisfy the needs of a normal family and could make tea. Pons also said that the boiler was giving off 10 to 15 times the energy put in.

The court noted that little progress had been made since 1991, There was no good theory to explain the claims of cold fusion and there was a failure to observe the products of fusion as would be expected (tritons, neutrons, protons, 3He, 4He and gamma rays).

The court noted the comportment of Fleischmann and Pons who provided different and inconsistent data at different times, noted that they omitted to cite the work of Prof. Jones, noted the manner in which they dealt with the press, and noted how they considered future developments and concluded that they were separated from reality.
New Energy News (NEN) copyright 1996 by Fusion Information Center, Inc.

Using this same technique, one may take a look at all the other folks on the list. Were they victims of politics? Perhaps. Are they the ground breaking scientists the article purports. Probably not.

As this relates to TCM...the same sorts of questions come up. One should not take claims on faith and investigations must take into account all information. No one can very well on a point of view just because they believe firmly in it.

CT

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ctoepker
This post, and the one before it, seem to be saying that there are politics driving scientific investigation.

I thought what they were saying is that the people being pointed to as "scientific critics" of TCM are in fact not scientific at all.

Frankly, this takes the onus of "being scientific" off of TCM, as far as this argument is concerned. If the criticisms of TCM aren't required to be scientific, neither is it. And if the criticism consists of "it's not scientific", then the criticism has been handily refuted.

[vikinggoddess]

This post, and the one before it, seem to be saying that there are politics driving scientific investigation. Yes, that is probably so...and perhaps good. One positive outcome is that fringe areas don't get accepted too readily and that resources are put behind things with greater chances of success. (Ahhh, that other 'science'...economics.)

I would say rather that resources are put behind projects with a greater chance of feeding back into the incumbent power structure (political, medical, telco, etc.), but that's just me.

Negative outcomes:
NIH overfunds bad research proposals just because they are in a popular area e.g. retroviruses, etc., while reseachers in less popular fields with solid proposals find it difficult to get funding.
Quality research which threatens imcumbent belief structure or infrastructure lags behind, see relative slow progress in field of behavioral genetics, clean power, alternative therapies.

To me it is not really such a big deal that politics drive funding for scientific investigation, because historically it's always the independents who come up with the really innovative ideas. The problem is organizations, corporations, and governments who actively try to crush the development of new technology, protocols, ideas and therapies despite evidence supporting them. This happens very often in technology, where the large companies buy out small companies, just so that they can throw away all the prototype hardware that was a competetive threat.

Therefore is it worth while for people to know about the existence of organizations like CSICOP since they actively use thier influence to hush up the media.

RAF, Thank you for continuing to post this message. It's relevence to the TCM and potential threat of media censorship is clear, especially within the context of this forum.

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by vikinggoddess
[B]

I would say rather that resources are put behind projects with a greater chance of feeding back into the incumbent power structure (political, medical, telco, etc.), but that's just me.


This is along the lines of what I meant by politics.

CT

[dwid]

Therefore is it worth while for people to know about the existence of organizations like CSICOP since they actively use thier influence to hush up the media.

Organizations like CSICOP exert negligible influence, especially over the mainstream media. Things like UFO abduction stories, miracle cures, etc... are always sexier than hard science. Look at the popularity of garbage like Jonathan Edwards.

Most people do not understand the most fundamental components of legitimate scientific research. Take an intro level methods course at any college and you'll see that right away.

People generally fear what they do not understand, so they perceive the requirements of proof that good scientists take for granted as excessive and hostile. Perhaps in cases like CSICOP, those requirements are framed in a hostile manner, but good science in its application is without prejudice.

It's clear from many of the posts on this board that there are a lot of true believers, perhaps on both sides of the fence. You can't possibly critically study a topic from such a perspective, because you have a bias to only see the results that confirm what you already believe to be true. There's no point in engaging in debate from such a perspective, at least not on the level of proving/disproving theory. All that goes on between true believers is on the level of religious debate, and it always comes down to why everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

So, what's the point?

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by dwid

It's clear from many of the posts on this board that there are a lot of true believers, perhaps on both sides of the fence. You can't possibly critically study a topic from such a perspective, because you have a bias to only see the results that confirm what you already believe to be true. There's no point in engaging in debate from such a perspective, at least not on the level of proving/disproving theory. All that goes on between true believers is on the level of religious debate, and it always comes down to why everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.


Well said. I wish I had said it. [;)]

CT

[jgradisher]

Probably the best way to approach any belief is with a sort of inquiring agnosticism.

A Brazilian friend of mine once had a Brazilian witch do all sorts of stuff to exorcise my house of all negative energy (I was going through a rough spot at the time and my friend wanted to do anything that could help). The witch used a real hodge-podge of Brazilian-style voodoo and Wicca-style ritual. Did it work? Hell, I don't know, but I did feel better afterwards, surprisingly so for being a non-believer.

I just read in Robert Anton Wilson's latest book that only about 20% of "modern" allopathic remedies have been subject to double-blind testing. The rest is just hunches...Consider the source, but it is food for thought...

Hope that didn't seem too non-sequiturious (is that a word? it is now...)

[GeneChing]

The problem with science is that it is so sterile and the human mind is anything but. There's little romance in science, little poetry, and people crave that. The universe becomes cold and lonely - no purpose, no god, a bleak collection of atoms in motion. There is no equation for love. However, there is an undeniable efficiency in such a world view, so those that adopt a scientific stance often have a lot to combat from the general public.

To get non-sequiturious, let's take a popular science fitcion allegory, Star Trek. The initial series pitted Vulcan logic (symbolic of science) against Kirk's brash righteuosness and McCoys' coutry doctor know-how. Despite Spock's amazing vulcan powers, it was often good old human values that won the day (or the episode). The next generation replaced Spock with Data, a man machine seeking his human-ness. Voyager took it the next logical step, Seven of Nine. She had the same essential problem as Data, but she was sexy. After all, we're talking popular entertainment. Now, with Enterprise, we've come full circle with the sexy Vulcan, T'pol, but it's essentially the same dynamic - science vs. humanity. So for me, when CSICOP, NIH or TCM gets some sexy aliens in skin tight cat suits, I'll start taking them more seriously. :eek:

OK, sorry, I couldn't resist. Scientists and TCM fanatics can be sooooo stuffy.

[vikinggoddess]

ya, but of course spock is really just a archetypical Mescalito like Peter Pan, The leprechaun, etc., known throughout multiple shamanic tradtions. (more robert anton wilson). maybe we should all take peyote and reconvene on this topic....

[GeneChing]

There was that one episode with the Yangs vs. the Coms (yankees vs. communists) where they said he was the devil. I tend to think of mescalito as more of a prankster deity, akin to coyote in the native american tradition, or monkey king or ji dian in Chinese myth. None of them would look good in skin tight space cat suits anyway.

But seriously, science lacks emotion, which is my sideways point about sexy vulcans. Emotion is a great part of medicine. That's where TCM shines. For a TCM practitioner to take my pulses, he or she must sit next to me for quite some time, more time then I usually spend with my doctor, nurse and receptionist combined. That certianly has to factor into the process. Science has dehumanized a lot of medicine, which is a big problem since humans are what medicine is all about.

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by GeneChing
The problem with science is that it is so sterile and the human mind is anything but. There's little romance in science, little poetry, and people crave that. The universe becomes cold and lonely - no purpose, no god, a bleak collection of atoms in motion. There is no equation for love. However, there is an undeniable efficiency in such a world view, so those that adopt a scientific stance often have a lot to combat from the general public.

Just because science strives to isolate variables and calls attention to a person's own biases doesn't mean it lacks passion. The dicotomy is false.

Consider:

"Art is a passion pursued with discipline,
science is a discipline pursued with passion."

Arthur Sackler, Smithsonian contributor

One must allow the theoretician his imagination, for there is no other possible way for reaching the [scientific] goal.

Albert Einstein

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. I, too, can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more?

Richard P. Feynman



Anyone who knows about the very real people involved in the pursuit of science knows that passion, imagination and hunches play a big part. It is shameful to portray it as an inhuman, sterile, bleak, cold and lonely pursuit.

When a skeptic like FCV comes forward, he is attacked for his bias. Yet when this sort of bias is put forward it is welcomed unquestioningly. That is very hypocritical and just wrong.

CT

[RAF]

The sword always cuts both ways.

If you look at the number and content of FC's posts, it looked like the sheriff was about to clean up the town. The content of his posts weren't the problem, at least from my perspective.

Censoring and/or deleting relevant topical material is power gone awry. When you delete material sceptical of the skeptic, then you've indulged your own biases at the expense of the free exchange of ideas.

Short of someone blantly trolling, its not a moderator's charge to assess the content of a post: that's the prerogative of the reader. "I don't see the logic of your post so I may leave it up for awhile or I may delete it. Explain your logic. I think I'll delete it" just doesn't fly. Some of us tried to explain this but were consistently deleted, with no explanation, and also called a couple of frickin names in other posts.

It was FC's decision to step down and leave and he, as Gene stated, is welcome back anytime.

If you can't take the heat, then ya gotta get out of the kitchen.

[vikinggoddess]

Anyone who knows about the very real people involved in the pursuit of science knows that passion, imagination and hunches play a big part. It is shameful to portray it as an inhuman, sterile, bleak, cold and lonely pursuit.

Ya, but you have to see the perspective that something like scientific a double blind study, where one group gets no treatment and another gets a treatment that the researchers/MDs are pretty sure will have positive effect, has it's inhuman aspects. Seems the human thing to do would be give treatment to everyone and hope for the best, but that's not science.

I also don't think that passion/imagination excludes sterile, cold and lonely. You have to have some serious passion about to spend 60+ hours/ week in a research lab (with AC and sterile solutions)....those poor overworked grad students and nutty professors. I finally left research because I felt it was too microcosmic and without significant application/interaction with the outside world. Obviously not the case with all research, but the atmosphere among scientists is a lot different compared to other groups of people who work daily with individuals and all their complexities.

[dwid]

Wow, this has turned into a really interesting thread.

Amazingly peaceable as well.

Anyway,

Gene:


Emotion is a great part of medicine. That's where TCM shines. For a TCM practitioner to take my pulses, he or she must sit next to me for quite some time, more time then I usually spend with my doctor, nurse and receptionist combined. That certianly has to factor into the process. Science has dehumanized a lot of medicine, which is a big problem since humans are what medicine is all about.

It's really interesting that you mention this, and at least some aspects of regular medicine are catching on.

I've been looking into to going to grad school to become a Nurse Practitioner, which is sort of like a stripped-down version of a primary care physician. Anyway, studies have shown that patients prefer Nurse Practitioners to regular doctors because they're more accessible and spend more time with them. Studies also show that patients are more likely to follow the instructions of Nurse Practitioners, probably because they can take the time to talk to the patient and explain things thoroughly.

Of course, hospitals and HMO's love Nurse Practitioners because they do the job of a doctor at a much lower salary, so I guess everybody wins.:D

It's interesting to me how much difference it makes to just take the whole formalized doctor-patient relationship down a couple of notches.


ctoepker took the words out of my mouth as far as his rebuttal to the sterility of science comments. Scientists have such lousy PR these days. I blame Hollywood. :D


vikinggoddess, I can understand where you're coming from. I am currently employed in a research job, and it would be hypocritical of me to say that everything in research is a joy. I think the best scientists are ones that grow up in a very human/humane environment. These are the ones that seem to stay down to earth even when doing the 60+ hours per week in the lab. I know plenty of folks that seem like they were factory-made to be academics, and have PhD's going back several generations in their families. Lots of time, they have the hunger but not the heart.

[GeneChing]

CTK: It was FC's methodology that got him in trouble. It wouldn't have been a problem if he wasn't a moderator. Now that he's no longer a moderator, he can be on an even playing field with this discussion. I do hope he comes back. As for being attacked, this is a forum. We all get attacked, if we perceive conflicting opinions as attacks. The instant you get defensive about it, you show a weakness that is easy to exploit. It's troll strategy, but it does often make a member run away if they can't take it, so troll or no, they win. As for skeptics being attacked for their bias, well, we all take sides on this debate. Surely you aren't attacking the skeptics. It's a lively debate, which is what forums are for. It's a shame when someone takes it personally. It's really ironic that of all people, the skeptics here are the ones taking it so. They should be the least attached.
Actually, I do agree with you that science has is points of passion, although I'd venture to say that Einstein and Feynman are exceptional scientists. I was in a PhD program for Cog Sci, and I remember the great photo of Master and Johnson, who did a lot of sex studies. There were these two stodgy doctors in lab coats with clipboards, watching dispassionately as a naked women writhing in ecstacy with monitors all over her body. That's the prevailing image of scientists. To be perfectly honest, I actually lean more towards the skeptical side. In fact, sometimes I think that inhibits my practice. I said it before - I hate acupuncture. But it gave positive results, so I have to disregard my skepticism for the practicality of it.
In time, I'll discuss more of my bad experiences with TCM, but for now, I'm more interested in seeing the tone of this forum settle down into a more comfratable flow. And I'd love to see FC come back.

VKGD: The root of passion is suffering, so put that way, I'll concede my point to you. Which viking goddess do you represent anyway?

DWID: Best of luck becoming an NP. The NP's and the PA's are the workhorses of modern medicine. They have my utmost respect. I do a lot of volunteer work at the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic, so I work with a lot of NPs.

[RAF]

Here is also an interesting assessment which may lay at the bottom of those skeptical of TCM:

__________________________________________________ ___
The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know, and that limit is reality itself. In this view, widely held by atheists, agnostics and other self-styled rationalists, human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. The Enlightenment Fallacy holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.

In his "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant showed that this premise is false. In fact, he argued, there is a much greater limit to what human beings can know. The only way that we apprehend reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that our five-mode instrument for apprehending reality is sufficient for capturing all of reality? What makes us think that there is no reality that goes beyond, one that simply cannot be apprehended by our five senses?

Kant persuasively noted that there is no reason whatsoever for us to believe that we can know everything that exists. Indeed what we do know, Kant said, we know only through the refracted filter of our experience. Kant argued that we cannot even be sure that our experience of a thing is the same as the thing-in-itself. After all, we see in pretty much the same way that a camera does, and yet who would argue that a picture of a boat is the same thing as a boat?

Kant isn't arguing against the validity of perception or science or reason. He is simply showing their significant limits. These limits cannot be erased by the passage of time or by further investigation and experimentation. Rather, the limits on reason are intrinsic to the kind of beings that humans are, and to the kind of apparatus that we possess for perceiving reality. The implication of Kant's argument is that reality as a whole is, in principle, inaccessible to human beings. Put another way, there is a great deal that human beings simply will never know.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004153

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by GeneChing
The problem with science is that it is so sterile and the human mind is anything but. There's little romance in science, little poetry, and people crave that.

:confused: You sure? I find a great variety of science to be absolutely fascinating; full of romance and poetry. Why do you think otherwise? Freud, Darwin, and Einstein are absolutely fabulous. Nevermind Bohm, Leibniz, and that lot.


The NP's and the PA's are the workhorses of modern medicine.

PA's?

[vikinggoddess]

physicians assistants

[ctoepker]

I couldn't have said this any better...


There have been a number of misunderstandings in the WEst about acupuncture and moxibustion. They have nothing to do with parapsychology, occult influences or 'pyshic powers,' and consequently do not deserve the praises of those who believe in such things. They do not depend entirely on suggestion, nor on hypnotic phenomena at all, and they are not contradictory of modern scienfitic medicine; consequently they do not deserve the odium theolgicum of the medical profession of the West. Acupunture (with moxa) is simply a system of medical treatment which was already two thousand years old when modern science was born, and which had developed in a civilization quite different from that of Europe. Today the explanations of its actions are being sought in terms of modern physiology and pathology; great advances have been made in this direction though the end is not yet in sight. It looks as though the pohysiology and biochemistry of the central and autonomic nervous systems will be the leading elements in our understanding, but many other systems, endocrinological and immunological, are also sure to be involved. Another problem of great interest is the exact nature of acu-points in terms of histology and bio-phyisics. Since modern science did not spontaneously grow up in Chinese culture, acupuncture and moxa are traditionally based upon a theoritcal system essentially medieval in character, though very sophisticated and subtle, indeed full of valuable insights and salutary lessons for modern scientific medicine. Again the exact re-interpretation and re-formation of these theories, if such a thing is possible, will be a difficult matter for the future. However, we think it likely that in the oecumenical medicine of the coming years there will be a definte place for acupuncture both in theraphy and analgesia - exactly how far this will be so it is too early as yet to say.
--Joseph Needham, Celestial Lancets (1980), page 318


All I'm saying is that the balance is needed and everyone needs to be open minded.

One should not follow the Queen's advice to Alice and try to "imagine six impossible things before breakfast."

CT

[vikinggoddess]

One should not follow the Queen's advice to Alice and try to "imagine six impossible things before breakfast

The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.
~Linus Pauling

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by vikinggoddess


The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.
~Linus Pauling

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
---Carl Sagan

(Does anyone else hear the twanging of banjos?)

[dwid]

Here's a couple:

"Pully, hauly, tug with a will, the gods wiggle-waggle but the sky stands still." -Aldous Huxley

"We have no reliance on virgin or pigeon. Our method is science, our aim is religion." - Aleister Crowley

:D

[GeneChing]

I'll start at the beginning with rat (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/info/horoscope/horo_rat.php)

Whoops! Looks like I need to update these.

[RAF]

A June 23, 1995, article went so far as to say that society's assumption that medical styles are supported by irrefutable evidence "is so far off the mark that the term "medical science" is pratically an oxymoron." One research, Dr. David Eddy of the Jackson Hole Group (Jackson Hole is in Wyoming), estimates that NO MORE than 15% of MEDICAL TREATMENTS are founded on "relaible scientific evidence."*

Not an excuse to abandon science but rather one might stop trying to invoke the patronizing attitude that the foundation of Western/allopathic medicine is superior to TCM on the baiss of scientific proof. The Empeoror has no clothes may not hold completely but Western medicine is running around in its underwear. Science and rationalism are the unconcious myths of the West just as the peaceful, meditating, nonaggressive, One-with-Nature is the character of the East.

There is a great gap between the "Theory of Science" versuses the practice and application of Science in medicine.

*Timeless Healing: The Power and Biology of Belief, Herbert Bensons, M.D. 1997., 103-5. CSICOPs and the skeptical Inquirer and Quack Watch, have already blacklisted him, however, you might not like his message but his sources are valid.

Another interesting point:

Like all human endeavors, medicine is also susceptible to human error: Medicine's dictum "First, do no harm" is undermined by the fact that 180,000 hosptialized Americans can die each year because of errors made by hospital personnel according to the former surgeon Dr. Lucian L. Leape of the Harvard School of Public Health in the December 1994 Journal of the American Medical Association. . . . Even more distressing however, is the fact that the medical profession maintans an "osterichlike attitude" about itsmistakes, says Dr. David Blumenthal, MPP, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. "Mistakes have been treated as uncommon and atypical requiring no remedy beyond the traditional incident reports and morbidity and mortality conferencs" Dr. Blumenthal writes int he aforementioned 1994 issues of JAMA., p. 104.



All systems have problems, including TCM and Western medicine.

[jgradisher]

I think your analogy of the Emperor running around in his underwear is great.

And to add to the list of quotes:

Supreme knowledge is supremely dangerous, ultimate mysteries remain ultimately mysterious. Beware the delusional rationalist who argues otherwise....

Tom Robbins

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by jgradisher
I think your analogy of the Emperor running around in his underwear is great.

And to add to the list of quotes:

Supreme knowledge is supremely dangerous, ultimate mysteries remain ultimately mysterious. Beware the delusional rationalist who argues otherwise....

Tom Robbins

While pointing at the Emperor, one may want to consider one's own wardrobe! ;) And something about living in a glass house...and stones...? :D

"It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge."
--Enrico Fermi (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/103-6123351-8160655?tag=starlingtechnolo&keyword=Enrico%20Fermi&mode=books)


"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."
--Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

CT

[RAF]

Well, I guess if you got, ya flaunt it!:eek:

Besides, what's wrong with a nude emperor or empress?

Of course science and its methodolgy isn't completely denuded, as we all agree, it has its place. Just like those acupuncture needles have their place, yeah nude, ouch!!!!

Now where is my robe????

[RAF]

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/health/7163392.htm

Posted on Sun, Nov. 02, 2003

`Off-label' drug use harmful, study finds
Medicines being prescribed in uncertified therapies can injure, even kill, report says
By Alison Young and Chris Adams
Knight Ridder Newspapers

NEW BALTIMORE, MICH. - First of three parts

Moreover, the number of unapproved prescriptions is soaring. In the last year, 115 million were written, nearly double the number of five years ago, a Knight Ridder analysis of prescriptions for the country's top-selling drugs found.

The practice, called off-label prescribing, often is driven by questionable research, aggressive drug-company marketing and cavalier doctors, and is condoned by tepid regulators.

Doctors are giving their patients epilepsy drugs for depression and hot flashes and to help them lose weight. They use anti-depressants to treat premature ejaculation and pain, and powerful anti-psychotics for insomnia and attention-deficit disorder. High blood-pressure pills are prescribed for headaches and anxiety; antibiotics are used to treat viruses.

Some drugs, in fact, are sold mostly for unapproved purposes
Moreover, the number of unapproved prescriptions is soaring. In the last year, 115 million were written, nearly double the number of five years ago, a Knight Ridder analysis of prescriptions for the country's top-selling drugs found.

The practice, called off-label prescribing, often is driven by questionable research, aggressive drug-company marketing and cavalier doctors, and is condoned by tepid regulators.

Doctors are giving their patients epilepsy drugs for depression and hot flashes and to help them lose weight. They use anti-depressants to treat premature ejaculation and pain, and powerful anti-psychotics for insomnia and attention-deficit disorder. High blood-pressure pills are prescribed for headaches and anxiety; antibiotics are used to treat viruses.

The practice is legal, widely accepted and defended by doctors and the American Medical Association -- and it's taking a toll. Victims of off-label prescribing whom Knight Ridder interviewed have suffered heart attacks and strokes, had permanent nerve damage or lost their eyesight. Most said they never were told that the FDA hadn't approved their treatments.

Based on FDA data, Knight Ridder estimates that at least 8,000 people became seriously ill last year after taking some of the nation's most popular drugs off-label. The true number is likely to be many times higher.

``Sometimes it may help, sometimes it may do more harm than good, and sometimes it may kill people,'' said Arnold Relman, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Despite the rise in off-label drug use, the FDA has done little to discourage it, and is considering whether to allow drug companies greater leeway in pushing unapproved therapies.
__________________________________________________

And the Medical Establishment complains about unproven TCM therapies or deaths from herbal remedies? What was that about those who live in glass houses shouldn't write prescriptions, oops, I mean throw stones? Does anyone really think that allopathic medicine is practiced on the basis of PURE scienitific research? Come on, medicine is a complex blend of science, politics, ideology, unconscious motivation, and profit. I don't think TCM escapes a coat from this broad brush stroke, too.

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by RAF
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/health/7163392.htm

Posted on Sun, Nov. 02, 2003

`Off-label' drug use harmful, study finds
Medicines being prescribed in uncertified therapies can injure, even kill, report says
By Alison Young and Chris Adams
Knight Ridder Newspapers
__________________________________________________

And the Medical Establishment complains about unproven TCM therapies or deaths from herbal remedies? What was that about those who live in glass houses shouldn't write prescriptions, oops, I mean throw stones? Does anyone really think that allopathic medicine is practiced on the basis of PURE scienitific research? Come on, medicine is a complex blend of science, politics, ideology, unconscious motivation, and profit. I don't think TCM escapes a coat from this broad brush stroke, too.

RAF,

I liked what you said about building bridges...even that sometimes you have to poke holes.

The difference between those in the 'science' camp and those in the 'TCM' camp is that when asked the scientist will say "you might be right. We're doing the best we can, but mistakes happen. We're just human."

On the other hand, most of the TCM folks I engage take a 'moral high ground' stance and look down on all else, taking strength from pointing out the weaknesses of the other camp. This is often strange since sometimes the herbs and treatments they support actually depend on the very material and evidence they disdain.

Small example:
Herbal Cancer Remedy Chocked Full of Drugs (http://www.sciencenews.org/20020921/note15ref.asp)

Herbal Lottery (http://www.sciencenews.org/20030607/bob8.asp)

Rather than continue to sling stones and point fingers in desperate attempts to outdo one another, why not focus on how the two can inform each other?



Sweet news about ginseng
Janet Raloff

From San Diego, at the Experimental Biology 2000 meeting

Many people with adult-onset diabetes can control their blood sugar or limit side effects of the disease by avoiding large meals and adhering to a healthy diet. A small study now indicates that ginseng may be a helpful addition to such a lifestyle.

Herbalists often prescribe American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) as a folk remedy for diabetes. Several years ago, researchers at the University of Toronto began examining that health claim and now present evidence of a benefit.

Volunteers with and without diabetes received an inert 3-gram capsule or equal amount of ginseng powder. The capsules were given either at the same time as or 40 minutes before ingesting 25 g of the sugar glucose. In all the comparisons, men and women who took the ginseng experienced a 15 to 20 percent smaller rise in blood sugar, according to a report in the April 10 Archives of Internal Medicine.

In a second trial, this time with 10 diabetic men and women in their 60s, Vladimir Vuksan and his colleagues now report finding no additional effect of doubling or tripling the original dose of ginseng or taking the herbal remedy at longer intervals before the sugar. They conclude that people with diabetes can derive modest benefits by downing ginseng any time up to 2 hours before eating.


References:

Stavro, M.P. . . . and V. Vuksan. 2000. Effect of dose and time escalation of American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) administration on glycemic response in type 2 diabetes. FASEB Journal 14(March 15):A736.

Vuksan, V., et al. 2000. American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) reduces postprandial glycemia in nondiabetic subjects and subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Archives of Internal Medicine 160(April 10):1009-1013. Abstract available at http://archinte.ama-assn.org/issues/v160n7/abs/ioi90208.html.

Sources:

Mark Stavro
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Center
St. Michael's Hospital
61 Queen Street East
Toronto, ON M5C 2T2
Canada

Vladimir Vuksan
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Center
St. Michael's Hospital
61 Queen Street East
Toronto, ON M5C 2T2
Canada



From Science News, Vol. 157, No. 20, May 13, 2000, p. 312.


Why did they choose to look at Ginseng? Because it is widely used in TCM and other traditional asian systems. The 'scientific' camp is waking up to outside information and using it to further its own understanding...what about TCM?

Maybe no house is all glass, but the one without windows is the darkest, lonliest place to be.... How can TCM move beyond the 'holier than thou' stage and move back to its investigative roots?

CT

[GeneChing]

what's wrong with a nude emperor or empress? Ming Emperor Wanli (1573-1620) grew so fat that he could not walk unaided.

[RAF]

CT:

I agree with you.

Gene:

Okay, your right, lets put those robes back on!

Later.

[vikinggoddess]

Have you guys seen this article from '99:


CHINESE MEDICINE IN CRISIS SCIENCE, POLITICS, AND THE MAKING OF "TCM" by Heiner Fruehauf http://www.jcm.co.uk/SampleArticles/tcmcrisis.phtml

I think the young Chinese doc's I studied under would argue much of what the author writes, considering they had studied well the classics and taught us to treat the patient's presenting pattern and not the disease (Zheng vs. Bing).

Opening paragraph: "This article1 is based on the conviction that the traditional art of Oriental medicine is dying - both in mainland China, home of the mother trunk of the field, and consequently overseas where branches of the tree are trying to grow. It may be an anachronistic piece, written at a time when TCM administrators around the world are celebrating major advances in the field, such as increasing numbers of students, practitioners, patients, colleges, universities, and hospitals, which all appear to reflect a booming state of Oriental medicine. But if we truly respect our tradition as a living organism and listen intently to the deeper layers of its pulse, it becomes evident that the original vitality of the system is expiring, although its true condition may be obscured by a steroidal glow on the surface...."

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by vikinggoddess
Have you guys seen this article from '99:

CHINESE MEDICINE IN CRISIS SCIENCE, POLITICS, AND THE MAKING OF "TCM" by Heiner Fruehauf http://www.jcm.co.uk/SampleArticles/tcmcrisis.phtml


It seems to me that he has made several fundamental mistakes.

1. He begins his historilogical outlook only at the end of the dynastic period. If he had taken the time to examine other periods of information influx (say the Tang and Yuan dynasties) he would have found parallel periods of scientific flux among Chinese experts. Clearly the new input from external sources did not kill the practice, but elevated it to the levels found in later dynasties.

This is what I refer to when I say "return to its investigative roots."

2. The politics surrounding TCM are interesting...whether they are from Sun Yat Sen, Chiang Kai Shek, Mao Ze Dong or anyone else. Nevertheless, one thing is clear..."modern medicine" (the proper opposite of 'traditional') has effective theories of disease (cell theory, anti-biotics, etc.) which the Chinese were lacking. So, why does he find it so bad that the students study up on this information and decry people learning "anatomy, physiology, immunology, parasitology..." Isn't it natural for a nation to turn to effective, proven technologies...medicine among them? Besides, its not as if the Chinese didn't study these things before...or where did the diagrams come from? They just didn't do it very much.

Put another way, why don't we see the argument that the Chinese army return to its traditional roots and use only spears, swords, kung fu and 'traditional' gun powder? Answer: they would be (and were) crushed. So, why expect that they would return to a completely traditional medicine and abandon other effective treatment options?

3. Time and again he refers to "traditional core values" as if there were one and only one set. However, his own story, and the original sources show this is not the case.

On the other hand, there were several ideas I did agree with...
like "The general discourse on Oriental medicine in the West appears to have reached the realm of the 10,000 details (i.e. "what points work best for diabetes," "how to treat headaches with Chinese herbs"), while leaving the basic parameters of its scientific approach unexplored."

I do think there was a science behind many conclusions of the Chinese system. I agree that the context of those conclusions should be understood. Nevertheless, that context should take into account an increased body of knowledge...shutting it out just isn't viable.

Thanks for the interesting read!
CT

[vikinggoddess]

1. He begins his historilogical outlook only at the end of the dynastic period. If he had taken the time to examine other periods of information influx (say the Tang and Yuan dynasties) he would have found parallel periods of scientific flux among Chinese experts. Clearly the new input from external sources did not kill the practice, but elevated it to the levels found in later dynasties.

CT, what do you know of these earlier periods. Although I once knew some of the basics of Chinese med. history, the main thing I remember I learned from a Taoist and not literature or history professors. He said that after the Tang Dynasty, Chinese medicine was reintroduced into China from the middle east by scholars who had originally learrned in China. Does anyone know about this? I always thought it was facinating, but never saw any literature about this.

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by vikinggoddess
He said that after the Tang Dynasty, Chinese medicine was reintroduced into China from the middle east by scholars who had originally learrned in China. Does anyone know about this? I always thought it was facinating, but never saw any literature about this.

I've done some looking into the specifics of TCM history, mostly because of discussions like these. There certainly is transmission of Chinese ideas to the middle east and transmission back. I have posted some images of Chinese manuals written in Arabic, for example. When it flowed back, it was informed by discoveries from that region. And back and forth that way. Clearly, the back and forth was strongest during periods when links were strongest. In any case, the driving factor was an interest in advancing the knowledge and ability to heal...in both regions.

From what I've read "reintroduced" is entirely too strong. It implies the knowledge was entirely lost and then replanted. As always, in all places, periods of civil war and strife will tend to create trouble for keeping track of knowledge. However, I have seen no evidence to suggest that the 'light went out' in China.

The first place to start researching this sort of thing is to read through Joseph Needham's Science and Technology in China. It is a multi-volume work and can be found in the library...usually in reference. After that, I can point out some other resources...do you read Chinese?

Sincerely,
Chris

P.S. As soon as I've figured out what I did with those images of Chinese manuals in Arabic, I'll post them here for those interested. As I recall, they were medical drawings from the Takksuq-namah-Ilkhan dar funun-i 'ulum-i Khitai (Treasures of the Ilkan on the Sciences of Cathay) prepared by the Rashid al-Din al-Hamadani about 1313 CE (or right in the middle of the Yuan Dynasty).

[vikinggoddess]

I will look for Needham's book. I have heard it suggested before.

Unfortunately my Chinese reading conprehension is limited to the very basics of
Chinese medical language.

Looking forward to seeing the images...

Thanks,
Cory

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by vikinggoddess
Unfortunately my Chinese reading conprehension is limited to the very basics of Chinese medical language.


OK, I'll look and see what I can recommend in English. Apparently a lot of work has also been done in France...hows your French?

CT

[vikinggoddess]

French is fine.