TCM or modern medicine?

[SevenStar]

Let's say you have sifu A who is known for his tcma and sifu B who is in the medical field. which would you feel more comfortable with immediate treatment of an injury you received while training and why?

[cjurakpt]

it depends on the injury:
mild to moderate bruising / swelling / muscle strain, etc.: TCM on site is at least as good if not better than RICE and NSAIDS; herbs, acupuncture and / or tunina would all be apropriate (although some manual osteopathic positional release and neuromuscular techniques do work much faster than tuina on acute muscle strains...)

dislocation: well, I guess either one, if it wasn't too bad, but only if they had had experience doing that on a regular basis at one point, so they knew how to do it well (although my dad was a PE teacher for 30 years, and he learned in school how to re-locate joints - this was back in Hungary in the '50's - he didn't do it everyday, but he popped a few shoulders back in over the years without any problems);

fracture: I wouldn't want either of them touching me, get me to the ER for an x-ray (no interest in having my bones set by my TCM-trained sifu for two reasons: possible further injury from not seeing what's realy going on and if you don't do that on a regular basis, your skill level is not going to be what it needs to be to do it optimally: of course, if we were in the midle of the woods and had to get out on our own, I'd take my chances if it was a matter of life or death, but that's not really the case)

bleeding: I could go either way - if my sifu had some good cut powder, it'd be fine to use: that stuff is usually anti-microbial in composition, so it kills most of what would be trying to infect a cut; of course, if we're talking a Sam Peckinpar movie, then it's ER time...

hurt feelings to stress-induced psychosis: TCM is not known for its psychotherapeutic expertise - usually they'd call in the local taoist or buddhist priest to wave some incense around and hope for the best; I'd go for my western trained sifu, at least he'd be sensitive to my co-dependancy issues and wouldn't be as prone to counter-transference...;)

[lkfmdc]

stress-induced psychosis


Journey with us now back to those days when we were all training with CTS :eek:

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I rely on a balance of medical therapies.. there is wisdom in the cooperative and complimentary nature of medical theories.. working together will yield the best results for the patient..

Be well..

[AJM]

I treat myself with TCM, Veda or Homeopathy as needed.

[SevenStar]

Interesting. What all have you diagnosed and treated?

[MasterKiller]

7* got moderator-pwnd!

[tattooedmonk]

Both are equally valuable depending on the injury. When it comes to the intervention aspect ( surgeries and such ) then allopathic medicine is the way to go . But when it comes to prevention and/ or the rehabilitation aspects then I would go TCM.

It should be known that most, if not all, TCM practitioners are well versed in western (Allopathic medcine ), it is required at my school. Modern TCM schools do blood and urine test as well as X-rays, MRI, and use EKG machines, etc. to determine ,with a great amount of certainty , as to what is actually going on with a patient.

As for setting bones, ALL Doctors should be able to set a bone without Xrays . X-rays used as a safety precaution.

Before there was X-ray machines would your just leave you bone broken and not let a doctor set it???

I believe that in the near future you are going to see that many western doctors are going to become certified as D.O.M.s, ( Doctors of Oriental Medicine) ...this is the new title. It is no longer O.M.D.

However....... anyone who already has this title can use it....thanx A.M.A.!!!

[cjurakpt]

As for setting bones, ALL Doctors should be able to set a bone without Xrays . X-rays used as a safety precaution.

if x-rays are used as a "safety precaution", then the implication is that without using x-rays you are not being safe...
as for docs being able to set bones without x-rays, that makes no sense; why should they be able to do it like that? they will always have the x-rays available (ok, maybe not if you're in the middle of the woods, break your leg and there happens to be an orthopedist in your group who decides to reduce it on site, but that is certainly the exception rather than the rule), so learning to do it without films would be pointless; and also, not all docs set bones, nor should they: I wouldn't want a nephrologist reducing my open compund humeral fracture, that's for sure...


Before there was X-ray machines would your just leave you bone broken and not let a doctor set it???

obviously not - before they had x-rays, they relied on other less reliable signs (probably feel mostly), which, once they started using x-rays, they probably realized were not nearly as precise as using films, so they went with what was the best means available; and before x-rays they probably missed lots of things, like bone shards, that could end up piercing arteries when the fracture was relocated - that is reason alone why you'd never want someone reducing you blind...and also, back in the "old days" they'd probably reduce it as best they could, and then leave it alone, but often I bet wouldn't get it perfectly aligned, leaving it to heal in a relatively deformed manner - with films, you can verify the alignment (or you could even do it with live imaging, flouroscopy, if needed), which will lead to optimal healing and restoration of function

[tattooedmonk]

if x-rays are used as a "safety precaution", then the implication is that without using x-rays you are not being safe...
as for docs being able to set bones without x-rays, that makes no sense; why should they be able to do it like that? they will always have the x-rays available (ok, maybe not if you're in the middle of the woods, break your leg and there happens to be an orthopedist in your group who decides to reduce it on site, but that is certainly the exception rather than the rule), so learning to do it without films would be pointless; and also, not all docs set bones, nor should they: I wouldn't want a nephrologist reducing my open compund humeral fracture, that's for sure...



obviously not - before they had x-rays, they relied on other less reliable signs (probably feel mostly), which, once they started using x-rays, they probably realized were not nearly as precise as using films, so they went with what was the best means available; and before x-rays they probably missed lots of things, like bone shards, that could end up piercing arteries when the fracture was relocated - that is reason alone why you'd never want someone reducing you blind...and also, back in the "old days" they'd probably reduce it as best they could, and then leave it alone, but often I bet wouldn't get it perfectly aligned, leaving it to heal in a relatively deformed manner - with films, you can verify the alignment (or you could even do it with live imaging, flouroscopy, if needed), which will lead to optimal healing and restoration of function it is just part of modern procedure. all doctors are able set a bone properly without film. it is a tool to assist the doctor. it almost seems like you are saying without it(X-rays ) yoiu can not set the bone right or set it at all. the rest of this is just rediculous. this is why they are now used by ALL doctors. The chances of stuff like that happening are few and far between. feeling and x-rays serve the same purpose. there is no way around learning how to do the technique properly. just because you have film does not mean that you will set it properly or that these things might not happen.

[cjurakpt]

it is just part of modern procedure.
"just part of"? it's a key component - the whole basis of fracture management orthopedics is having films available for review


all doctors are able set a bone properly without film.
where do you get this? most doctors never set bones, because it's not part of their scope of practice (good example - my wife is an OB/GYN - a patient seized on thhe floor a few months ago and dislocated her shoulder; even though my wife new how to relocate it - she used to be an ER doc - they weren't allowed to touch it until they got films and an ortho consult); second, for those who do, they would never attempt it without films: go talk to a local orthopedist and tell him that he should able to set a bone just as well with or without films, see what he tells you when he finishes lauging hysterically...


it is a tool to assist the doctor.
yeah, a critical tool - why would they ever want to do a reduction without it? no sense in that


it almost seems like you are saying without it(X-rays ) yoiu can not set the bone right or set it at all.
no, what I am saying is that without films your chances of missing something or ending up with a misalignment are significantly greater than with, because without them you are unable to see the exact nature of the fracture; you certainly might be able to do it correctly without films, and I'm sure in the history of medicine it was done plenty of times; but there is obviously a significantly greater chance of doing it wrong without films than there is doing it with them


the rest of this is just rediculous. this is why they are now used by ALL doctors. The chances of stuff like that happening are few and far between.
I have no idea what you are talking about here


feeling and x-rays serve the same purpose.
that is wrong - these are two very different things: there are things that you can tell by sight that you can't tell by feel (and vice versa): try "feeling" what a compound fracture looks like: do you think you could possible detect the number and orientation of all the fragments?


there is no way around learning how to do the technique properly.
using films has nothing to do with "getting around" learning something correctly - it's part and parcel of doing it the right way; part of doing the technique correctly is having the correct diagnosis: getting the correct diagnosis is much easier with films then without; it's not intended to "get around" anything - it's an integral part of the whole process


just because you have film does not mean that you will set it properly
no, but it makes it a lot more likely that you will - that's the whole point of looking at a film: it will tell you what type of a reduction you will be doing - ever heard of an ORIF? it's short for Open Reduction Internal Fixation - that means that the reduction required a surgical repair because doing a closed one would not be appropriate - guess how you know that? looking at the films


or that these things might not happen.
never said anything wouldn't happen: they still could, because with medicine nothing is ever 100% - but using films as a guide to fracture management signifiantly cuts the rate of iatrogenic complications, end of story

[tattooedmonk]

"just part of"? it's a key component - the whole basis of fracture management orthopedics is having films available for review


where do you get this? most doctors never set bones, because it's not part of their scope of practice (good example - my wife is an OB/GYN - a patient seized on thhe floor a few months ago and dislocated her shoulder; even though my wife new how to relocate it - she used to be an ER doc - they weren't allowed to touch it until they got films and an ortho consult); second, for those who do, they would never attempt it without films: go talk to a local orthopedist and tell him that he should able to set a bone just as well with or without films, see what he tells you when he finishes lauging hysterically...


yeah, a critical tool - why would they ever want to do a reduction without it? no sense in that


no, what I am saying is that without films your chances of missing something or ending up with a misalignment are significantly greater than with, because without them you are unable to see the exact nature of the fracture; you certainly might be able to do it correctly without films, and I'm sure in the history of medicine it was done plenty of times; but there is obviously a significantly greater chance of doing it wrong without films than there is doing it with them


I have no idea what you are talking about here


that is wrong - these are two very different things: there are things that you can tell by sight that you can't tell by feel (and vice versa): try "feeling" what a compound fracture looks like: do you think you could possible detect the number and orientation of all the fragments?


using films has nothing to do with "getting around" learning something correctly - it's part and parcel of doing it the right way; part of doing the technique correctly is having the correct diagnosis: getting the correct diagnosis is much easier with films then without; it's not intended to "get around" anything - it's an integral part of the whole process


no, but it makes it a lot more likely that you will - that's the whole point of looking at a film: it will tell you what type of a reduction you will be doing - ever heard of an ORIF? it's short for Open Reduction Internal Fixation - that means that the reduction required a surgical repair because doing a closed one would not be appropriate - guess how you know that? looking at the films


never said anything wouldn't happen: they still could, because with medicine nothing is ever 100% - but using films as a guide to fracture management signifiantly cuts the rate of iatrogenic complications, end of story it is a key component for modern medical procedures but prior to this speciality and modern inovations every doctor did and should have been able to set a bone without it. this is just the way the system is set up. if you can not set the bone without the film, in my honest opinion, then you can not be a very good doctor...you are just a technician. yeah sure x-rays are helpful and part of the west medical procedure but it should not be the deciding factor as to whether you do or don't set a bone or whether you can or can not . this in a lot of ways is a crutch and a way around having a good , sound technique for setting bones. the reason why there is a greater chance of these things happening is because more emphasis is put on being a technician then being a doctor. what I mean by feeling is using your senses...... seeing is a feeling. touching is a feeling(TCM). the story about your wife maybe true but this goes back to what I was saying about safety precaution . it the way the system is set up. a general practitioner can set a bone. everyone has a specialty and no one is to do what another doctor has a specialty in...why?? money ...get another doctor up here to do this and do that so we can bill them for something else. your way of thinking is very western and very short and narrow sighted. try to see the whole picture here and do not get caught up in such a very small way of thinking.

[cjurakpt]

it is a key component for modern medical procedures but prior to this speciality and modern inovations every doctor did and should have been able to set a bone without it.
yeah, becasue back then they had no choice, so they had to do it that way; now we know of a way that's safer and more efective, with x-ray, so that's the way that is used now;


this is just the way the system is set up. if you can not set the bone without the film, in my honest opinion, then you can not be a very good doctor...you are just a technician.
WHY are you not a good doctor if you can't set a bone without an x-ray? have you ever set a bone? if you had a choice between doing it blind or with a film would you choose the former way? would you as a patient prefer your doctor to do it "traditionally"? as for being "just a technician" what does that mean? I know plenty of techs in the medical field who do what they do far better than a doc ever could (e.g. - ultrasound), so the analogy makes no sense (not to menition being denigrating to technicians);


yeah sure x-rays are helpful and part of the west medical procedure
try world-wide...they have been adopted by every country in the world that can have them available


but it should not be the deciding factor as to whether you do or don't set a bone or whether you can or can not .
so enlighten us then, what should the deciding factor be?


this in a lot of ways is a crutch and a way around having a good , sound technique for setting bones. the reason why there is a greater chance of these things happening is because more emphasis is put on being a technician then being a doctor. what I mean by feeling is using your senses...... seeing is a feeling. touching is a feeling(TCM).
why is it a cruch? what is it about setting a bone without x-rays that is so much better than not? how is using an objective visual guide less valid than a highly subjective tactile one? working with an x-ray is not a crutch, it doesn't detract from good setting technique - it ENHANCES it, because you have a better idea of what is going on - the x-ray doesn't set the bone for you - if you have poor technique, the x-ray won't keep you from making a mistake...you still need good technique in both cases; but good technique for the setting won't tell you what is going on inside as definitively as a visual scan
you have a very romantic viewpoint: that somehow it is nobler or more authentic to work purely with one's innate sensorial ability than to rely on something external; are you in the healthcare field? have you ever actually worked with real patients? the reality is that you use whatever you can to make your treatment safer and more effective, not to "uphold" some ideal about how one should or shouldn't practice...


the story about your wife maybe true but this goes back to what I was saying about safety precaution . it the way the system is set up.
it is a true story (why woldn't it be?:confused: ); and as for the "way the system is set up" believe it or not, is to be as safe as possible; again, you don't take a "safety precaution" because you feel like it, or because it's a nice thing to do - you use it because it's SAFER to do it...


a general practitioner can set a bone. everyone has a specialty and no one is to do what another doctor has a specialty in...why?? money ...get another doctor up here to do this and do that so we can bill them for something else. your way of thinking is very western and very short and narrow sighted. try to see the whole picture here and do not get caught up in such a very small way of thinking.

if anyone is thinking short, narrow and small, it is you - you have a very biased and cynical perspective about what "western" medicine and doctoring is as opposed to what you think that it should be; in your desire to be so holistic, you have fallen into the trap of becoming condescending; you think that the bottom line with allopathy is the almighty dollarand that decisions made by doctors are economic in basis ("bill them for something else"); your perspective shows a staggering lack of understanding about how most doctors really work; yes, there are a number in it for the $$$; but most actually care about their patients, and the reason that they call in a specialist is that, because of the degree of advancement in each field is such that no one person can do it all, plain and simple: you don't want a GP interpreting films, you want a radiologist, because they will catch that extra 10% to 15% of stuff the GP will miss, which can at times be the difference between life and death; the person you want setting your bones is the one who does it all of the time, not once in a while;
anyway, my initial point was that with the availability of x-rays there is absolutely no reason why one should have a bone set any other way, unless it was a extenuating circumstances; I think I made my point, so that's about it for me on this topic

[tattooedmonk]

for the most part I agree with all that you are saying. I have a bad habit of playing devils advocate to get people to really think through their stand points on certain issues . I commend you on your valiant effort on this topic. Most people have not done the research or have the knowledge to back up their statements and beliefs . You have done a great job in doing so.

[Black Jack II]

western medicine for actual treatment but it never hurts to take responsibilty with your own health and add safe alternative therapy.

[cjurakpt]

for the most part I agree with all that you are saying.
all of a sudden? that's a bit of a switch...


I have a bad habit of playing devils advocate
playing devil's advocate is not a bad habit - it can be a very useful exercise; however, it's not what you are doing: when you play devil's advocate, you can actually agree with the person beforehand, but then bring up a contrary point just to see where it takes the line of reasoning, not because you believe in that point necessarilly; you were stating your opinion based purely on your belief system - there was no indication that you were doing otherwise


to get people to really think through their stand points on certain issues .
you didn't get me to think through anything - this opinion, and others that I have like it, have already been thought through by me one way or another, because it's part of my professional perspective; it's also pretty presumtuous to atempt to instruct someone who has not asked for instruction...


I commend you on your valiant effort on this topic. Most people have not done the research or have the knowledge to back up their statements and beliefs . You have done a great job in doing so.
I find your capitulation and your congratulatory statements suspiciously disingenuous and uncharacteristicaly concilliatory - my sense is that you are attempting some sort of verbal aikido in order to difuse the situation, going empty to give me nothing to contend with; that's fine, whatever - whether I convince you or not is actually unimportant to me: you posted a perspective that, in my opinion, if someone took to heart, might be detrimental to them healthwise at some point (e.g. - letting someone set a bone without use of films); by reading my response, they will have a different view to draw on; they will, of course, then make their own decision, but at least it wasn't based on lack of perspective

[tattooedmonk]

all of a sudden? that's a bit of a switch...


playing devil's advocate is not a bad habit - it can be a very useful exercise; however, it's not what you are doing: when you play devil's advocate, you can actually agree with the person beforehand, but then bring up a contrary point just to see where it takes the line of reasoning, not because you believe in that point necessarilly; you were stating your opinion based purely on your belief system - there was no indication that you were doing otherwise


you didn't get me to think through anything - this opinion, and others that I have like it, have already been thought through by me one way or another, because it's part of my professional perspective; it's also pretty presumtuous to atempt to instruct someone who has not asked for instruction...


I find your capitulation and your congratulatory statements suspiciously disingenuous and uncharacteristicaly concilliatory - my sense is that you are attempting some sort of verbal aikido in order to difuse the situation, going empty to give me nothing to contend with; that's fine, whatever - whether I convince you or not is actually unimportant to me: you posted a perspective that, in my opinion, if someone took to heart, might be detrimental to them healthwise at some point (e.g. - letting someone set a bone without use of films); by reading my response, they will have a different view to draw on; they will, of course, then make their own decision, but at least it wasn't based on lack of perspectiveno actually it is not. I agreed to a point from the beginning. I just wanted to see what you knew that is all. I was not trying to give you a lesson or teach you anything. And yes you did have to think this through or you would not have been able to post what you did. Either way it does not change the facts. a doctor should be able to set a bone( in the case of an emergency) without film but because of many factors in the equation it is best and safest to do it with the x-rays.:D

[cjurakpt]

no actually it is not. I agreed to a point from the beginning.
I can't find a single example from you previous posts that would support that statement


I just wanted to see what you knew that is all.
that's just weird; are you like, 8 years old? "I just wanted to know if you know" is kinda juvenile; if you want to know what someone knows, the easiest way is to ask them directly...going through the whole schtick about using x-rays as a crutch to "draw" me out and expose my knowledge really isn't a productive use of time; and if, as you say, you agreed with me originally, then what do you care what I know or not?


I was not trying to give you a lesson or teach you anything. And yes you did have to think this through or you would not have been able to post what you did.
yes, but it was not because you "got me" to think it through - there was nothing to think about, it was all written off the cuff, because I already have opinions on things like this


Either way it does not change the facts. a doctor should be able to set a bone( in the case of an emergency) without film but because of many factors in the equation it is best and safest to do it with the x-rays.:D
again, that is the exact opposite of what you wrote earlier

anyway, you are kinda strange if this is how you amuse yourself; this will be my last post on this topic and to you in general;

[herb ox]

Aright gentlemen, to your corners, please... and now a word from our sponsors...

Not every MD knows how to set bones properly esp. without Xrays. While bonesetting may be taught during intern rounds or whatever, many of those skills are lost to time and non-practice.

The ability to practice such skills is the single most important factor if you ask me... even the most well trained bonesetter from China won't get to keep those skills too sharp in America because a broken bone is a 'red flag' and a serious liability... get them to the ER or face a possible malpractice suit.

Traditional practicioners will usually agree: Western med best for acute syndromes and trauma, Chinese med best for chronic issues that aren't so easily solved by medications. I see patients come in daily with complaints that western med has been unable to solve... a few weeks of herbs and acupuncture and there's almost always an improvement. Speculation is one thing; witnessing first hand is another. Only when East and West unite will we be able to truly advance healthcare to encompass everyone's needs.

Work toward unity, not who's opinion is most valid.

let's see... I think that makes 4 cents total...

peace

herb ox

[cjurakpt]

Aright gentlemen, to your corners, please... and now a word from our sponsors...

Not every MD knows how to set bones properly esp. without Xrays. While bonesetting may be taught during intern rounds or whatever, many of those skills are lost to time and non-practice.

The ability to practice such skills is the single most important factor if you ask me... even the most well trained bonesetter from China won't get to keep those skills too sharp in America because a broken bone is a 'red flag' and a serious liability... get them to the ER or face a possible malpractice suit.

Traditional practicioners will usually agree: Western med best for acute syndromes and trauma, Chinese med best for chronic issues that aren't so easily solved by medications. I see patients come in daily with complaints that western med has been unable to solve... a few weeks of herbs and acupuncture and there's almost always an improvement. Speculation is one thing; witnessing first hand is another. Only when East and West unite will we be able to truly advance healthcare to encompass everyone's needs.

Work toward unity, not who's opinion is most valid.

let's see... I think that makes 4 cents total...

peace

herb ox

I agree with you completely, with one exception: I have treated numerous patients who have been the standard physical therapy / orthopedist route with little to no improvement using osteopathic manual approach and have had the similar type of results you mention above that you attribute to TCM approach; osteopathy is a western based therapy; the commonality is that these are both principle-based, holistic systems, that take into account numerous factors and also that treat each person uniquely; so the point is that allopathic approach works, as you say, for acute stuff very well; other things such as TCM osteopathy, naturopathy, homeopathy are better suited to chronic, sub-acute stuff that does not require a crisis-intervention approach

my gripe with TM was that he seemed to have at first a pretty unrealistic view of what medicine should be like, then he flips around and says he's agreed with me the whole time and was just trying to get me to say what I know - as i said above, I am done with that line of inquiry

that should make about 4 1/2 cents

BTW, where do you work, what is your professional licensure, in what sort of setting, what sort of patients?