Chinese Medicine produces a faster, better result than WM?
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:04 pm
Here you go Doc, your right, it should be separate thread....
So I guess the general question to the group, does TCM provide a "faster", and "better" result in many cases than Western Medicine? If so, what cases? What evidence do you have to support this?
To pick up where the last thread left off...
It matters to those who like evidence based medicine, and not faith based medicine, yes. It matters to real patients with real medical needs. Actually, it looks like many of the studies attempting to prove it are by people who want it to gain mainstream acceptance. I would think any person looking into spending money and effort to get treated by any type of alternative medicine would use due diligence and research its demonstrable track record for whatever ailment they have. Unless you have taken some global survey, I don't think you can honestly make such a blanket statement about the bias of others on that scale.
As I said before, belief is not relevant, results are. If in fact there are such "great results" as you claim, then there should be no problem proving it.
In what cases? Where is the data? This is a very bold claim. A "faster, and "better" result? You were calling out Chris M on another thread about making claims, etc, even taking him out of context. While it seems you are making explicit and bold claims about TCM v. Western medicine with zero evidence to back up these claims. Is the "Doc" in Doc Stier a TCM title? Do you have some personal stake in propagating this conjecture?
I agree, using animals is a great idea to eliminate the placebo effect. But, just because something is "regularly applied" by a "growing number" doesn't mean its effective, again, where is the data? Do you have a peer reviewed study done on animals and how effective acupuncture is over another form of treatment? Or is this just more conjecture?
Personally I think it would be great if TCM has proved itself to be "faster" and "better" in "many cases" over Western Medicine, it seems there just isn't any concrete data to support this. Just like any other health consumer, diverse treatments and valid competition only gives me more options, and better quality health care overall. What is NOT good for the consumer are people claiming something is effective when they have no proof that it is. It would be like prescribing a medication that was untested/unknown instead for a problem that had a known/effective treatment. Not that I am equating TCM with Homeopathy, but its sad to walk into a GNC and see a homeopathic section along side real vitamins and such. Read into what homeopathy is and you will quickly realize that this is a complete snake oil sale, lock stock and barrel. But personal hopes aside, as Chris said "As a scientist, I have no choice currently but to conclude that TCM is a body of completely objectively unsubstantiated tribal/naturalist beliefs codified into a cultural paradigm to explain the internal systems of the human body and its systemic relationship to rest of the natural world that is, statistically, most likely to be grounded purely in superstition, like most other pre-Age of Reason naturalist cultural paradigms."
G
So I guess the general question to the group, does TCM provide a "faster", and "better" result in many cases than Western Medicine? If so, what cases? What evidence do you have to support this?
To pick up where the last thread left off...
Doc Stier wrote:Does it really matter whether or not Chinese Medicine is 'validated' through Western scientific research? Those who demand such validation as proof of its effectiveness are generally also those who have already dismissed it as quackery, and are merely looking for documentation to support their biased opinion.
It matters to those who like evidence based medicine, and not faith based medicine, yes. It matters to real patients with real medical needs. Actually, it looks like many of the studies attempting to prove it are by people who want it to gain mainstream acceptance. I would think any person looking into spending money and effort to get treated by any type of alternative medicine would use due diligence and research its demonstrable track record for whatever ailment they have. Unless you have taken some global survey, I don't think you can honestly make such a blanket statement about the bias of others on that scale.
Doc Stier wrote:More relevant proof of the value of Chinese Medicine, IMO, is found instead in the real world results of expert practitioners who effectively treat the full spectrum of different physical health conditions and diseases every day in their clinics, and produce great results regardless of whether or not their patients believe that they can.
As I said before, belief is not relevant, results are. If in fact there are such "great results" as you claim, then there should be no problem proving it.
Doc Stier wrote:And in many cases, Chinese Medicine produces a faster, better result in comparison to the results obtained when treated by MD's of all kinds for the same conditions via medical management and/or surgical management.
In what cases? Where is the data? This is a very bold claim. A "faster, and "better" result? You were calling out Chris M on another thread about making claims, etc, even taking him out of context. While it seems you are making explicit and bold claims about TCM v. Western medicine with zero evidence to back up these claims. Is the "Doc" in Doc Stier a TCM title? Do you have some personal stake in propagating this conjecture?
Doc Stier wrote:Additionally, Chinese Medicine techniques such as acupuncture are also regularly applied by a growing number of Veterinarians to effectively treat a wide variety of injuries and diseases in birds, animals, and reptiles, wherein no 'power of suggestion' or 'belief' on the part of the 'patient' is a viable factor in any way.
I agree, using animals is a great idea to eliminate the placebo effect. But, just because something is "regularly applied" by a "growing number" doesn't mean its effective, again, where is the data? Do you have a peer reviewed study done on animals and how effective acupuncture is over another form of treatment? Or is this just more conjecture?
Personally I think it would be great if TCM has proved itself to be "faster" and "better" in "many cases" over Western Medicine, it seems there just isn't any concrete data to support this. Just like any other health consumer, diverse treatments and valid competition only gives me more options, and better quality health care overall. What is NOT good for the consumer are people claiming something is effective when they have no proof that it is. It would be like prescribing a medication that was untested/unknown instead for a problem that had a known/effective treatment. Not that I am equating TCM with Homeopathy, but its sad to walk into a GNC and see a homeopathic section along side real vitamins and such. Read into what homeopathy is and you will quickly realize that this is a complete snake oil sale, lock stock and barrel. But personal hopes aside, as Chris said "As a scientist, I have no choice currently but to conclude that TCM is a body of completely objectively unsubstantiated tribal/naturalist beliefs codified into a cultural paradigm to explain the internal systems of the human body and its systemic relationship to rest of the natural world that is, statistically, most likely to be grounded purely in superstition, like most other pre-Age of Reason naturalist cultural paradigms."
G