Chinese Medicine produces a faster, better result than WM?

[GaryR]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Qi isn't a thing...it's an idea. Why it hasn't been proven is people keep looking for it like it's something they didn't know about or couldn't see. It's a way of portioning off a set of ideas about how "energy" *(and that's just regular kinetic energy moving the body around...no magic cosmic rays.) moves through the body and through 3 dimensional space and using that as a lens to look at how things are in a given situation and draw some conclusions about what's happening.

I think Qi is better as an idea, or metaphor precisely. The definitional problem comes in with a TCM diagnosis "Liver Qi stagnation" for example, they are being very specific about the thing or idea of "Qi" running through a specific pathway, and being stuck or deficient. If it's just regular energy that effects the body enough to cause a real problem, science could measure it. You can't have it both ways, either Qi is a specific "thing" or energy type that can be deficient, and specifically deficient in one of the meridians which is a treatable medical condition, or its a vague idea, ancient metaphor, "air", or however you care to define it......

Interesting diagram:

[shawnsegler]

If it's just regular energy that effects the body enough to cause a real problem, science could measure it.

Most western people have problems with it because it has never put quite the same emphasis on exactitude, and the sort of phenomena that qi is quantifying is not always a specific thing, it can be a number of things working in unison. They don't look so much at things, as dynamics and that's inherently vague because it's always in flux and the emphasis is on what's going on in a dynamic structure as opposed to the stasis that scientific method tries to conjure around any particular phenomena that it's trying to quantify.

My 2c

[Bob]

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1307/features/kaptchuk.htm

An interesting perspective from researcher Ted Kaptchuk:

What are your research interests now?

I study placebo effects. I study acupuncture. I study alternative medicine. I'm mostly interested in the philosophy of medicine, history of medicine, history of science. I research to what extent the placebo effect is real: Is it an artifact of the way we do clinical trials? What's its duration? Its magnitude? Is it plastic? Can one vary it? In what illnesses does it apply?

Some of my research looks into what its mechanism is. Do we see what physiological pathways it takes? How does ritual get translated into physiology? Does acupuncture or herbal medicine have more efficacy than a placebo?

I'm not a proponent [of alternative medicine]. I actually am the same way anyone else is at [Harvard Medical School] - probably even more critical of those phenomena. I consider myself a scholar and a scientist. But I am unusual in that I am a practitioner and I have no problem being a practitioner. I don't know if it's me, my charisma, the placebo effect, or the needles or the herbs I give, but I don't have any problem with that.

Then my philosophic questions are: What are the scientific, moral and ethical implications of the placebo effect? Maybe this placebo effect is really what we should be doing here! In the Middle Ages, the pope said you couldn't visit Jewish doctors. That was an ethical judgement. Is that the same thing we say now, you can't get a placebo because it's a forbidden form of treatment? That it's not the outcome that matters, it's how it got done? That's an ethical judgement, too. . . .

How do you think science gets covered in the press?

There is a way that science purports to be objective and independent of preconception. The press is always confused because the scientists have this myth. And in fact, scientists contradict each other all the time. I think the problem is not the press, but that science has given itself its own religiosity of being objective.

But there is a very big gray zone on the edge of science, and the public demands clear answers on important questions. In fact, studies sometimes only cloud the gray zone. And sometimes what science thinks is an absolute clear zone becomes cloudy with more experimentation.

There's an element of mythos in science, and the press and the public are colluding with scientists in order to promote their priestly function in the secular world.

I don't have any problem with that. I think people have the right to religion, but they should be more clear about the fact that there's a lot of subjectivity in science - from the questions asked, to the interpretations of results. . . .

What is it about the placebo effect that makes it so hard to study scientifically?

The idea of ritual is what science detests. The scientific revolution is about getting rid of culturally embedded behaviors, uncovering natural universals. A drug is a natural universal. Penicillin works in Africa or Asia. A ritual depends on belief, religion and imagination. Ritual is specific to culture. Placebo effect is presumably about the appearance of things, the belief in things, the ritual of things. There is something inherently unscientific about it.

It may be that ordinary people have demanded the investigation of alternative medicine. It may be that alternative medicines have demanded the placebo investigation. But I think that the NIH has really accelerated the placebo stuff. The big NIH conference on the placebo effect in 2000 was very important in initiating this conversation. NIH is a governmental bureaucratic institution, but it also really tries to be innovative and look into important questions.

You were an activist in your student days. Do you think of your work today as radical?

I think my work is radical in terms of science. But I try to abide by scientific rules. I try to be imaginative and innovative, potentially critical. I operate at the margins and I don't march with thousands of other scientists. But I work at the NIH and I fundraise for HMS. That's pretty straight. I still haven't cut my hair though.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think this is the best part of the interview and is viewpoint I agree with:

Some people caution that the surge in alternative medicines signals the beginning of a non-scientific age. Do you think we are entering one?

I'm a scientist, but I can live with superstition. Scientific perspective is so rational that it forgets that the passion and foibles of human beings are part of the dialogue and discourse of all ages. I don't mean to say science is bad, but there's a hubris there that science has all the answers and you've just got to get rid of all the superstitious stuff and then we'd have a great world. I think we have to get rid of the arrogance and racism and intolerance and xenophobia, and that would be more important than getting the public to be purely rational.

Science's demand for privilege has to be negotiated, not automatic. There are a lot of reasons to be disappointed with science. In the same way, there are a lot of reasons to be really pleased with it. Getting rid of the arrogance will make people more appreciative of science, more than suppressing other tendencies with strict rationalism.

I think the NIH has every right and absolute responsibility to be absolutely scientific in everything it does because that's its job. But I can tolerate Haitian hoodoo medicine. Hmong refugees have a right to Hmong medicine. And I believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims have the right to pray to the creator of the universe and I don't object if my wife believes in astrology. I think patients have a right to that; I don't care whether it's scientific or not.

[GaryR]

An interesting article snippet from; Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China"

"Critics have pointed out that TCM relies, even today, on an ancient philosophical view of the body that was formulated during an era when the Chinese, for religious reasons, were forbidden to dissect cadavers. Thus the organ systems referred to in the ancient texts that still underlie TCM’s practices are merely metaphors that bear little relationship to the anatomical systems revealed by Andreas Vesalius, William Harvey, and the other pioneers of scientific medicine.8 Chinese medicine of 3,000 years ago was certainly no more primitive than the folk practices from the same era that evolved into Western medicine; but just as we no longer rely on the astronomy of ancient Greece, it would seem that progress in anatomy, physiology, pathology, and therapeutics has rendered most ancient medical practices obsolete. For those who would argue that antiquity implies validity, consider the longevity of racism, sexism, or the belief in a flat Earth.

Although TCM is based on a philosophical rather than empirical understanding of bodily function, it is possible that some of its procedures might still work, but for reasons unrelated to the magical belief system that supplied their rationale thousands of years ago (Xie 1995). Open-minded physicians everywhere would welcome any treatment that could benefit their patients, regardless of its origins — providing it can demonstrate its value in properly controlled clinical trials. It was in this spirit that we approached the fact-finding mission that took us to the foremost TCM facilities in the People’s Republic..................."

The article concludes:

Looking back at our discussions with TCM proponents in China, it often seemed that our questions and their answers came from two different worlds. It soon became apparent to us that this is equally true when the scientific and traditional medical communities in China try to communicate. This was obvious in the wide gap between the remarks of the academics and physicians gathered by CAST in Beijing, and the answers given by most of the TCM physicians we encountered in Beijing and Shanghai. The former spoke in terms we could understand, emphasizing the requirement to support claims with evidence and the need to understand such demonstrable effects TCM might produce in terms of scientifically verifiable biological mechanisms. Although the speakers at the CAST meeting in Beijing tended not to demean TCM during their presentations, several of them dismissed it in private conversations. The rest refrained from making rationalizations for TCM.

The statements of the TCM physicians, on the other hand, tended to be rambling, global, and tangential (this was not merely a language barrier, for many of them spoke excellent English). The traditionalists were difficult to pin down because when they had no available answer, the question would be redirected. While TCM physicians downplayed the importance of statistical approaches and placebo-controlled clinical trials, they did not hesitate to enlist such data when it seemed to their advantage. We came away with the strong feeling that the TCM community, with a few exceptions, does not really understand the power of the placebo effect nor the need for double-blind clinical trials. They seemed not to comprehend why we were not impressed by testimonials or anecdotes about individuals who had recovered after TCM treatments. Many claims seemed inflated, such as that for TCM’s effectiveness in Alzheimer’s disease and AIDS (see, e.g., Hou 1991). In the end, we were left with the same sense of frustration we often felt after arguing with advocates of ‘alternative medicine’ at home. Both exhibit an essential vagueness when explaining the mechanisms presumed to underlie their treatments. Both are prone to assume that metaphors count as explanations and that anecdotal evidence can substitute for systematic verification of claims.

Several speakers in both Beijing and Shanghai laced their discussions with political references, for example, to the evils of feudalistic times, the unwillingness to be subjected to logic (dialectics), and inhibitions to social progress. It seems that the practice of TCM and the concepts of internal and external Qi place China in a dilemma. Advancement of these ideas, especially overseas, increases China’s prestige and is a matter of cultural pride. Yet the inherent mysticism and magical thinking in these notions are an embarrassment to the Marxist rationalism of the government and to the scientific community as a whole. Furthermore, the growing involvement of criminal elements in paranormal spheres, as occurs to some extent in all countries, is considered a growing threat to social order. Overall, we perceived a delicate balancing act, between toleration and encouragement of TCM on the one hand, and attempts to restrict its more extreme manifestations, such as external Qi quackery, on the other.

We ended our tour unconvinced that Traditional Chinese Medicine has objectively proven its claims to cure any specific diseases. Acupuncture has some mild analgesic [lowered sensitivity to pain while conscious] properties and Chinese herbs have already yielded to scientific analysis some useful drugs - undoubtedly more will follow. We could find no scientific support for the use of cupping, moxibustion, and acupuncture for infectious diseases, deafness, and congenital deformities. We acknowledge the emotional comfort Chinese patients suffering from chronic or fatal disorders receive from TCM ministrations, but we saw no evidence to back up the oft-heard assertion that TCM actually works where Western medicine has failed. Insofar as TCM offers a degree of comfort and hope for those in difficult situations, it seems to perform a similar role to those of vitamin supplements, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, and therapeutic touch, our homegrown Western pseudomedicines.11"

The whole article is worth a read if you have a few minutes--http://www.csicop.org/si/show/china_conference_1/

G

[D_Glenn]

An interesting article snippet from; Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China"

"Critics have pointed out that TCM relies, even today, on an ancient philosophical view of the body that was formulated during an era when the Chinese, for religious reasons, were forbidden to dissect cadavers. Thus the organ systems referred to in the ancient texts that still underlie TCM’s practices are merely metaphors that bear little relationship to the anatomical systems revealed by Andreas Vesalius, William Harvey, and the other pioneers of scientific medicine.8 Chinese medicine of 3,000 years ago was certainly no more primitive than the folk practices from the same era that evolved into Western medicine; but just as we no longer rely on the astronomy of ancient Greece, it would seem that progress in anatomy, physiology, pathology, and therapeutics has rendered most ancient medical practices obsolete. For those who would argue that antiquity implies validity, consider the longevity of racism, sexism, or the belief in a flat Earth.

Where do you find this stuff? There is nothing factual in that paragraph at all. In TCM all the organs and glands are there and in the proper places. TCM even knew of and considers the pericardium as it's own organ while Western medicine is only now discovering the role the pericardium plays.


.

[GaryR]

Where do you find this stuff? There is nothing factual in that paragraph at all....


.

Read the whole article, the link is at the bottom. Here is the paragraph directly before the one you quoted...

"TCM’s advocates assert that herbs, moxibustion, massage, breathing exercises, acupuncture, and certain foods are able to restore the balance of the Yin and Yang, variants of Qi energy, which are supposed to flow in invisible channels in the body called “meridians.” By balancing Qi in this way, they say, health is maintained or restored. Some of the means for achieving this balance can look rather strange to those accustomed to scientific medicine. Take, for instance, something widely sold in China, the “505 Magic Bag.” It is “shaped like an apron and, containing 50 [herbal] ingredients, [it] can prevent and treat many diseases of the stomach and intestines . . . [when] the bag [is worn] close to the navel” (Hou 1991).7"

[D_Glenn]

That is an interesting lop-sided article to say the least, talk about "spin".

It is a good reminder though of just how bad the P.R.C. still was only 13 years ago. Fortunately TCM had already made it to Taiwan, Japan, Korea, the U.S., Europe, Canada etc. well before the Communists gained control of China.


Gary, would you be at all interested in some factual information that actually explains how TCM works?

And OT but what happened to flowingcombat?


.

[ShortFormMike]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Qi isn't a thing...it's an idea. Why it hasn't been proven is people keep looking for it like it's something they didn't know about or couldn't see. I

but Shawn that is not TCM's view of qi. they think qi is a real force. BKF (who i'm a fan of) talks of it like that and i'm assuming that's how he got learned it in china.

what makes me agnostic about qi is that the energy released in the splitting of the atom was calculated first and then studied after it was actually done and no where did qi come up.

maybe i'm just jealous cuz i don't have any.

[Bob]

Part 5 Medicine and Health

Circulation of Blood
2nd Century BC

Most people believe that the circulation of the blood in the body was discovered by William Harvery, and that it was he who first brought the ideas to the attention of the world when he published his discovery in 1628. . .

In China, indisputable and voluminous textual evidence exists toprove that the circulation of the blood was an established doctrine of by the second century BC at the latest. p. 136.

Circadian Rhythms in the Human Body
2nd Century BC

Acupuncture, which is thought to go back 1500 BC in China wass practiced with circadian rhythms in mind. Hence the name of one medieval acupuncture manual, Noon and Midnight manual. Another work on acupuncture was entitled Mnemonic Rhyme to Aid in the Selection of Acu-points Accourind to the Diurnal Cycle, the of the Month and the Season of the Year. The diurnal cycle refers to the daily rhythms. This work is said to have bee written about 419 AD. though it may date from 930 AD. p. 141

The Science of Endocrinology
2nd century BC

Deficiency Diseases
3rd Century AD

Diabetes[/b
]7th Century AD

[b]Immunology
10th Century AD

The Genius of China: 3000 Years of Science, Discovery & Invention
Robert Temple
Visiting Professor of the history and philosophy of science at Tsinghua University of Beijing. He also is a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society; member of the Egype Exploration Socienty for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies; and visiting research fellow of the University of the Aegean in Greece. He is the author of ten books, including The Sirius Myster and Oracles of the Dead, and lives in England with his wife, Oliva.

http://www.amazon.com/Genius-China-Scie ... 103&sr=1-1

The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention (Paperback)
by Robert Temple (Author), Joseph Needham Ph.D. FRS FBA (Foreword)

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Needham, the foremost Western historian of Chinese science, has written 15 volumes of his projected 25-volume Science and Civilisation in China series initiated in 1954. This immense, authoritative work has long needed distillation for the general reader, and British writer Temple impressively accomplishes the task here. Beautifully illustrated, the book describes some 5000 years of Chinese science, discovery and invention from agriculture, astronomy and engineering through industrial technology, medicine, math and music, up to, in an ironic closing chapter, the Chinese genius in warfare, including ancient Chinese usage of mustard gas, gunpowder and rockets. The book is an exhilarating celebration of historic achievements, the breadth of which will astonish the general reader. BOMC alternate; Macmillan Book Club selection.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review
"Wonderfully illustrated, comprehensive, concise, definitive." --This text refers to the Paperback edition

Of course, you can also read the reviews some positive, some negative but overall no better or worse than what is conjured up by the Skeptical Inquirer.

I wonder what this thread is really about?

No one is going to change their perspective regardless what is said.

Is there a BTDT for the BTDT?

[Michael]

Professor had died a few years earlier. Tam's dedication to his teacher led him to assimilate Professor's commitment to Chinese culture.

There Are No Secrets, 1993, p. 42.

I recently read in the book about T.T. Liang, Steal My Art, that Professor Cheng was refused treatment in the first hospital the night he died because the doctors were familiar with his criticism of Western Medicine. Talk about taking things to extremes.

When he came down with a sharp, persistent pain in his abdomen, Tam sought out a traditional Chinese herbalist rather than a Western doctor. It was a fatal mistake. Employing the traditional techniques that Professor used so well, the doctor misdiagnosed and mistreated Tam's appendicitis. The appendix burst, the pain temporarily subsided, and the poisons poured into his body while Tam thought he had been cured, as Professor had cured him so many times.

Most acupoints are bilateral, but there's a point on the right shin for appendicitis that is only on that leg, the same side of the body as the appendix. Don't know how often it's used, but it is listed in Deadman's Manual of Acupuncture.

[ShortFormMike]

I recently read in the book about T.T. Liang, Steal My Art, that Professor Cheng was refused treatment in the first hospital the night he died because the doctors were familiar with his criticism of Western Medicine. Talk about taking things to extremes.

i read that book and really enjoyed. tt liang is a big time bullshitter though. there were a couple stories in there that were totally made up. the big one that comes to mind is how CMC was demoing for a taipei police chief and zhang qinglin was there and got so pissed at cheng's bragging that he covertly injured him. zhang qinglin never left the mainland!

so who knows what else is bullshit. a great book though.

[Overlord]

At the moment, a lot of general practitioner practice (medical doctors) acupuncture and get health rebate in Australia. But at the same time they deem Chinese Medicine not an evidence based medicine. They think CM is based on placebo effect, an positive clinical outcome not a result of the medication given, but from something else.

They think they are better acupuncturists and can provide better service, even they think acupuncture itself is not very evidence based (one of my friend is a GP acupuncturist). It is all about money now.....sigh......

There is registration of CM in state of Victoria. We have to wait till 2012 for national registration down under.I think if the placebo effect can cure cancer, then it is good medicine. ke ke.....

Over

[Michael]

I recently read in the book about T.T. Liang, Steal My Art, that Professor Cheng was refused treatment in the first hospital the night he died because the doctors were familiar with his criticism of Western Medicine. Talk about taking things to extremes.

i read that book and really enjoyed. tt liang is a big time bullshitter though. there were a couple stories in there that were totally made up. the big one that comes to mind is how CMC was demoing for a taipei police chief and zhang qinglin was there and got so pissed at cheng's bragging that he covertly injured him. zhang qinglin never left the mainland!

so who knows what else is bullshit. a great book though.

I wonder if the author of the book, Olson, got the name wrong? It's probably my favorite story in the whole book after the one about the other two TJQ students in Minneapolis that didn't like each other and rode separately to visit Liang an hour away. One of them told the other that a Saturday class was canceled, but when they both showed up and the first one was caught in a lie, Liang decided the best way to handle it was to blame the whole thing on Olson, the student who lived with him, allowing the other two students to avoid a confrontation. Then Liang later assuages Olson by saying he will eventually be better at TJQ than the other two so don't worry what they think. Brilliant!

[wiesiek]

i was treated 2 times by WM antibiotics for inner ear inflamation /2 months/
during of 3rd i get inflamation 3 times!
i swich into moxa
and heal myself in one week!

side note:
moxa treatment left some minor scars around my ear,
`cause i kept burning moxas litlle too long
due to positive effect of the treatment /pain immidedly gone/

just my personal experience

[Michael]

More people should learn how to use moxa. There is a small danger of minor burns, but no other side-effects. If you get a burn, you can learn some more Chinese Medicine to heal it quickly.