Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 I've enjoyed the discussion so far- this is a complicated issue. Not only are the studies done on Chinese medicine often not true to Chinese medicine methodology, but psychological studies have proven that if you disagree with a study's conclusions, you will disapprove of the methodology. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html If you want to see good studies on acupuncture, and great commentary on them by an MD who is fully devoted to acupuncture, and quite sympathetic to authentic CM, go to Acubriefs.com I did a review of the RCT's since the 1997 NIH statement: http://pulsemed.org/acuresupdate.htm An interesting twist is Paul Unschuld's assessment that the acceptance of any medicine has more to do with how it fits or doesn't fit with the social zeitgeist (spirit of the times). Scientific evidence, or even effectiveness is secondary. Ever had a patient who was satisfied with the treatment, even tho the results weren't satisfying to you? http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/html/refs/reorme.pdf But as for acceptance by western docs- depends on the doc. I doubt the AMA is going to be accepting Chinese medicine as a separate and equally valid medical system. But some docs might. Besides all the distinct ontology like meridians and different organ-systems, a fundamentally unique feature of CM (used in China to differentiate CM from WM) is pattern discrimination. Different treatment for different symptom/sign patterns is not really that strange. Western docs don't give all pts the same antihypertensives, e.g. It depends on the patient, and there are specific groupings according to symptoms, signs, and other diagnoses. We do the same thing - just different groupings. It's true, also, the CM is better at the big picture. WM looks a molecules, chemicals, etc. but can't bring everything together - psychoneuroimmunology is the only WM science I can think of that tries to bring it together, but after 20 years or so they haven't come up with much. It will take them forever. Which isn't to say it won't be worth doing- it's just going to take decades. Our biggest problem with making progress politically and in the media is that MD's are seen as the one true medical authority. They are the experts on everything. Pure scientists don't get as much attention, nor do scholars, or Master's degree people. Politicians and journalists both have this perspective. Because of this, our objections (to the actions of AMA, FDA, and drug companies against Chinese herbal medicine) go unheard. We are not seen as being as competent to assess dangers. Nor do they take Chinese docs very seriously. You have to either be an MD or affiliated with a big institution. This brings to mind again, Ted Kaptchuk. He is at Harvard. However, perhaps he would be risking his position to get involved in politics. I haven't talked to him. It's going to take some time for enough of us to have the degrees, affiliations, and willingness to make statements loud enough to be heard above the din of the prevailing winds. B Brian Benjamin Carter, M.Sci., L.Ac. Editor, The Pulse of Oriental Medicine Columnist, Acupuncture Today (619) 208-1432 San Diego (866) 206-9069 x 5284 Tollfree Voicemail The PULSE of Oriental Medicine http://www.pulsemed.org/ The General Public's Guide to Chinese Medicine since 1999... 9 Experts, 240+ Articles, 195,000+ readers.... Our free e-zine BEING WELL keeps you up to date Sign up NOW. Send a blank email to: beingwellnewsletter- Message: 5 Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:14:02 +0100 <ga.bates RE: Scientific methodology in alternative medicine Hi Ray, I fully appreciate and agree with what you are saying. Thanks. I have had a run-in with my local health provider and what I am trying to do is develop (discover / uncover) a way of reasoning that will make TCM acceptable to conventional thinking. The western medical paradigm is mechanistic and reductionist: if you go far enough into it everything boils down to the random motion of atoms and molecules and their physico-chemical interactions at different energy levels. In TCM the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, like any living thing. Try to tell that to a generation of doctors trained on recipes .. Well, I will keep looking. Sammy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 Hi, To All Who May Read This, In reading all the things that have been posted it is obvious the problems involved here are ones that must be taken and analyzed as to what is the real problem. Whether someone accepts Chinese medicine or not is not the problem. What are we really striving to findout? Since we realize or, should realize is that sickness is all an individual problem. It is very seldom two sicknesses no matter how related they are have the same way to treat. Why? Because, everyone of us is made up differently physically, hormonal, gene, spiritually, blood and everything else that we are. So, there is no real way to treat everyone the same and think they will get better. If I want to be well, then what must I do? I need to findout the things my body needs to be well. What is the problem here? We do not findout about health until we are sick. Then what? We go to a doctor and hope he can find relief for us. This is in the Western world and the Eastern part of the world. Though they treat differently our problems, the bottom line is, does it prepare us to have a healthy life. NO! Why? Because health is dependant upon us personally, not the doctor. We have to be willing to seek the knowledge we need to take care of ourselves. Ohhhh, you say, that would take forever, and continue on being sick because the doctor in most cases has no clue to your illness. And if he does what about the next illness? or, next illness?. Our problem in most cases is laziness or, ignorance in not striving to understand our bodies and how they function. I cannot speak for the Eastern part of the world and what they have for self-help. But I can for the West. We have more information about self-care then is imaginable. Why not take advantage of it and fix yourself up and be healthy. We take our health for granted and abuse it in so many ways thinking nothing will happen to me. Here is something to think about, we are all going to grow old, that is a fact of life. But how we will spend that old age will depend upon what we do today in preserving our health. We can be happy and enjoying life or, sick and unhappy. This is our choice, we make the decision about it, what do you want? Thanks Ray Brian Carter <bbcarter wrote: I've enjoyed the discussion so far- this is a complicated issue. Not only are the studies done on Chinese medicine often not true to Chinese medicine methodology, but psychological studies have proven that if you disagree with a study's conclusions, you will disapprove of the methodology. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html If you want to see good studies on acupuncture, and great commentary on them by an MD who is fully devoted to acupuncture, and quite sympathetic to authentic CM, go to Acubriefs.com I did a review of the RCT's since the 1997 NIH statement: http://pulsemed.org/acuresupdate.htm An interesting twist is Paul Unschuld's assessment that the acceptance of any medicine has more to do with how it fits or doesn't fit with the social zeitgeist (spirit of the times). Scientific evidence, or even effectiveness is secondary. Ever had a patient who was satisfied with the treatment, even tho the results weren't satisfying to you? http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/html/refs/reorme.pdf But as for acceptance by western docs- depends on the doc. I doubt the AMA is going to be accepting Chinese medicine as a separate and equally valid medical system. But some docs might. Besides all the distinct ontology like meridians and different organ-systems, a fundamentally unique feature of CM (used in China to differentiate CM from WM) is pattern discrimination. Different treatment for different symptom/sign patterns is not really that strange. Western docs don't give all pts the same antihypertensives, e.g. It depends on the patient, and there are specific groupings according to symptoms, signs, and other diagnoses. We do the same thing - just different groupings. It's true, also, the CM is better at the big picture. WM looks a molecules, chemicals, etc. but can't bring everything together - psychoneuroimmunology is the only WM science I can think of that tries to bring it together, but after 20 years or so they haven't come up with much. It will take them forever. Which isn't to say it won't be worth doing- it's just going to take decades. Our biggest problem with making progress politically and in the media is that MD's are seen as the one true medical authority. They are the experts on everything. Pure scientists don't get as much attention, nor do scholars, or Master's degree people. Politicians and journalists both have this perspective. Because of this, our objections (to the actions of AMA, FDA, and drug companies against Chinese herbal medicine) go unheard. We are not seen as being as competent to assess dangers. Nor do they take Chinese docs very seriously. You have to either be an MD or affiliated with a big institution. This brings to mind again, Ted Kaptchuk. He is at Harvard. However, perhaps he would be risking his position to get involved in politics. I haven't talked to him. It's going to take some time for enough of us to have the degrees, affiliations, and willingness to make statements loud enough to be heard above the din of the prevailing winds. B Brian Benjamin Carter, M.Sci., L.Ac. Editor, The Pulse of Oriental Medicine Columnist, Acupuncture Today (619) 208-1432 San Diego (866) 206-9069 x 5284 Tollfree Voicemail The PULSE of Oriental Medicine http://www.pulsemed.org/ The General Public's Guide to Chinese Medicine since 1999... 9 Experts, 240+ Articles, 195,000+ readers.... Our free e-zine BEING WELL keeps you up to date Sign up NOW. Send a blank email to: beingwellnewsletter- Message: 5 Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:14:02 +0100 <ga.bates RE: Scientific methodology in alternative medicine Hi Ray, I fully appreciate and agree with what you are saying. Thanks. I have had a run-in with my local health provider and what I am trying to do is develop (discover / uncover) a way of reasoning that will make TCM acceptable to conventional thinking. The western medical paradigm is mechanistic and reductionist: if you go far enough into it everything boils down to the random motion of atoms and molecules and their physico-chemical interactions at different energy levels. In TCM the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, like any living thing. Try to tell that to a generation of doctors trained on recipes .. Well, I will keep looking. Sammy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 Hi again Ray, There is so much good input to this subject it is gratifying. Can I take one thing at a time. This is not a rejection of the gist of your email Ray but I do take issue with this (quote below) because WM has distorted certain aspects of our health, I believe to *make it advantageous* to be a doctor or a pharmacist and to have *exclusive control* over an important section of our 'intake'. We need air, water, food, shelter, clothes and medicines for survival and a healthy and comfortable life. If some agency can corner the market on one of those essentials they have a 'nice little earner' as the saying goes. and it is justifying its own existence. It has become almost synonymous with capitalist enterprise that 'anything goes' to get that earner working. In this case the earner is cultivating public ignorance and certain misconceptions about disease. Some of these misconceptions are now so deeply rooted they touch the very core of our zietgeist. " I cannot speak for the Eastern part of the world and what they have for self-help. But I can for the West. We have more information about self-care then is imaginable. Why not take advantage of it and fix yourself up and be healthy. " I'll give a concrete example that is within my own sphere of expertise. Bear with me whilst I quote from a paper written nearly 50 years ago. It is so old PubMed have not yet got round to cataloguing it and the only reason I know about it is because I did a physical archive search in a clinical sciences library. It concerns treatment of prostate cancer (PC). The accepted treatment for prostate cancer today after surgery and radiation is removal of androgens (chemical castration). Castration had been practiced by doctors because it is expedient, it shows results and that is all can be said. No one asks for testosterone replacement therapy because they are ignorant of it: the techniques just have not been developed in WM although in TCM there is vast scope and indeed application of techniques to raise Kidney Qi (e.g. MingMen Life Gate Fire Jing). Although the quote below reads as though it were written yesterday it was, sadly, written nearly half a century ago! One can only gasp in disbelief. " The mechanism of the response to testosterone in these two patients is obscure. These observations invite the development of new concepts to explain the response of these prostatic cancers to alterations in the endocrine environment. " So much for all that 'health awareness' in modern western society - about some things we are as ignorant as the worst bunch of savages that ever roamed the earth. OK, here goes: Cancer Research; 1956. pp 473-9 ; OLOF H. PEARSON Discussion of Dr. Huggins' Paper " Control of Cancers of Man by Endocrinological Methods " ; Division of Clinical Investigation, Sloan-Kettering Institute, and the Department of Medicine, Memorial and James Ewing Hospitals, New York, N.Y. <snip> Case I: An untreated patient with advanced prostatic cancer with severe bone pain from osseous metastases was given testosterone propionate. There was prompt relief of pain, and within a few weeks he was asymptomatic. He was treated with testosterone propionate, 50 mg/day, for 9 months, during which time he was well. There was a gradual rise in serum acid phosphatase from 0.5 to 0.9 Bodansky units during testosterone therapy. After 9 months there was a return of pain and evidence of progression of disease. Withdrawal of testosterone resulted in a fall in acid phosphatase and a transient relief of symptoms. When pain recurred, orchiectomy induced prompt improvement. Following castration, administration of testosterone and 04-androstenedione failed to produce an exacerbation of symptoms. Case II: This patient with advanced prostatic cancer had responded well to castration for several years. When there was a relapse following castration, estrogen and cortisone therapy failed to induce improvement. Hypophysectomy was performed, and there was prompt relief of pain, subsidence of marked edema of the legs, a rise in hemoglobin, and improvement in well being; but the serum acid phosphatase, which was markedly elevated, did not fall (Chart 2). The improvement was maintained for about 5 months. Administration of beef pituitary growth hormone produced no detectable change in his disease status. Five months after Hypophysectomy there was a slight increase in pain, a drop in hemoglobin, but no other evidence of progressive disease. Testosterone administration produced a striking fall in serum acid phosphatase, a rise in hemoglobin level, and symptomatic improvement. The mechanism of the response to testosterone in these two patients is obscure. These observations invite the development of new concepts to explain the response of these prostatic cancers to alterations in the endocrine environment. <snip> Not justifying the methodology here, I am looking at the outcome which has been rejected by WM. I agree with Brian Carter in the preceding message when he says: " .. psychological studies have proven that if you disagree with a study's conclusions, you will disapprove of the methodology. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html .... " I'll be taking a closer look at this an the other links everyone has written in with. What I am seeking is an explicit discussion of the problems encountered with paradigms possessing their own internal dialectic interfacing with the current model, conventional wisdom with its own distorted internal dialectic. Examples that immediately come to mind are Freudianism and Marxism. Although we have incorporated into our language much of the conceptual framework of these two idea systems (e.g. " projection " , " transference " , " displacement " , " infrastructure " ) they are still essentially rejected because the interface is poor. A similar problem applies with TCM, not because TCM lacks worth, but because it lacks an interface. Anyway, I expect you are all yawning away by now so I'll stop yapping and say 'have a great day'. Thanks for your help. Sammy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 Hi Sammy, I think maybe you misunderstood my message or, I am misunderstanding yours. I agree with you it is a mess in western medicine which is out of control. What I was stating and meaning is to prevent ourselves from having to go through the horrors of any medical treatment is to study our own body and learn the necessary things to be healthy. Don't depend on a doctor unless absolutely necessary. We need to learn our own prevention We need to teach it to our children prevention of illnesses. Why don't we? Because, people think there ok until they get sick. Then go to the doctor to get well. They then give us a drug. I believe any operation is a calamity unless all measures have been exhausted to keep from having to do it. If you look back in the old western times they called the doctor, bones, and there was a reason for that. that is what they actually did was take care of the bones not all these other type of operations. I think we are on the same page. Ray ga.bates wrote: Hi again Ray, There is so much good input to this subject it is gratifying. Can I take one thing at a time. This is not a rejection of the gist of your email Ray but I do take issue with this (quote below) because WM has distorted certain aspects of our health, I believe to *make it advantageous* to be a doctor or a pharmacist and to have *exclusive control* over an important section of our 'intake'. We need air, water, food, shelter, clothes and medicines for survival and a healthy and comfortable life. If some agency can corner the market on one of those essentials they have a 'nice little earner' as the saying goes. and it is justifying its own existence. It has become almost synonymous with capitalist enterprise that 'anything goes' to get that earner working. In this case the earner is cultivating public ignorance and certain misconceptions about disease. Some of these misconceptions are now so deeply rooted they touch the very core of our zietgeist. " I cannot speak for the Eastern part of the world and what they have for self-help. But I can for the West. We have more information about self-care then is imaginable. Why not take advantage of it and fix yourself up and be healthy. " I'll give a concrete example that is within my own sphere of expertise. Bear with me whilst I quote from a paper written nearly 50 years ago. It is so old PubMed have not yet got round to cataloguing it and the only reason I know about it is because I did a physical archive search in a clinical sciences library. It concerns treatment of prostate cancer (PC). The accepted treatment for prostate cancer today after surgery and radiation is removal of androgens (chemical castration). Castration had been practiced by doctors because it is expedient, it shows results and that is all can be said. No one asks for testosterone replacement therapy because they are ignorant of it: the techniques just have not been developed in WM although in TCM there is vast scope and indeed application of techniques to raise Kidney Qi (e.g. MingMen Life Gate Fire Jing). Although the quote below reads as though it were written yesterday it was, sadly, written nearly half a century ago! One can only gasp in disbelief. " The mechanism of the response to testosterone in these two patients is obscure. These observations invite the development of new concepts to explain the response of these prostatic cancers to alterations in the endocrine environment. " So much for all that 'health awareness' in modern western society - about some things we are as ignorant as the worst bunch of savages that ever roamed the earth. OK, here goes: Cancer Research; 1956. pp 473-9 ; OLOF H. PEARSON Discussion of Dr. Huggins' Paper " Control of Cancers of Man by Endocrinological Methods " ; Division of Clinical Investigation, Sloan-Kettering Institute, and the Department of Medicine, Memorial and James Ewing Hospitals, New York, N.Y. <snip> Case I: An untreated patient with advanced prostatic cancer with severe bone pain from osseous metastases was given testosterone propionate. There was prompt relief of pain, and within a few weeks he was asymptomatic. He was treated with testosterone propionate, 50 mg/day, for 9 months, during which time he was well. There was a gradual rise in serum acid phosphatase from 0.5 to 0.9 Bodansky units during testosterone therapy. After 9 months there was a return of pain and evidence of progression of disease. Withdrawal of testosterone resulted in a fall in acid phosphatase and a transient relief of symptoms. When pain recurred, orchiectomy induced prompt improvement. Following castration, administration of testosterone and 04-androstenedione failed to produce an exacerbation of symptoms. Case II: This patient with advanced prostatic cancer had responded well to castration for several years. When there was a relapse following castration, estrogen and cortisone therapy failed to induce improvement. Hypophysectomy was performed, and there was prompt relief of pain, subsidence of marked edema of the legs, a rise in hemoglobin, and improvement in well being; but the serum acid phosphatase, which was markedly elevated, did not fall (Chart 2). The improvement was maintained for about 5 months. Administration of beef pituitary growth hormone produced no detectable change in his disease status. Five months after Hypophysectomy there was a slight increase in pain, a drop in hemoglobin, but no other evidence of progressive disease. Testosterone administration produced a striking fall in serum acid phosphatase, a rise in hemoglobin level, and symptomatic improvement. The mechanism of the response to testosterone in these two patients is obscure. These observations invite the development of new concepts to explain the response of these prostatic cancers to alterations in the endocrine environment. <snip> Not justifying the methodology here, I am looking at the outcome which has been rejected by WM. I agree with Brian Carter in the preceding message when he says: " .. psychological studies have proven that if you disagree with a study's conclusions, you will disapprove of the methodology. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html .... " I'll be taking a closer look at this an the other links everyone has written in with. What I am seeking is an explicit discussion of the problems encountered with paradigms possessing their own internal dialectic interfacing with the current model, conventional wisdom with its own distorted internal dialectic. Examples that immediately come to mind are Freudianism and Marxism. Although we have incorporated into our language much of the conceptual framework of these two idea systems (e.g. " projection " , " transference " , " displacement " , " infrastructure " ) they are still essentially rejected because the interface is poor. A similar problem applies with TCM, not because TCM lacks worth, but because it lacks an interface. Anyway, I expect you are all yawning away by now so I'll stop yapping and say 'have a great day'. Thanks for your help. Sammy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 > I think we are on the same page. Absolutely ;-) I think western medicine is heading for a catastrophe in the treatment of chronic and degenerative diseases because they fail to see the wholeness of the living being. They try to isolate active principles from complex compounds, and identify causal agents by a process of reduction. This is a methodology inherited from the Alchemists who travelled with the Arab traders to the Far East. Conventional medical methodology is an inheritance from that 'magical thinking': hopping from one symptom fix to another with the latest version of the 'Holy Grail' and never a look at the person with a health problem. Western medicine is so lacking in understanding that if you tell a conventional doctor about the need to see the 'whole person' he/she will look at you in a pitying way and suggest that you might need counselling, or maybe a psychiatrist ! [ Having done a stint as a psychiatric social worker, that is definitely a NONO unless of course you need a quick fix and patching up until you can reach a proper doctor]. Well, I still have a lot of learning to do, so I had better get on with it. Cheers, Sammy. Ray Zielinski [rmk_12z] 11 June 2003 02:08 Chinese Traditional Medicine RE: [Chinese Traditional Medicine] Western Med acceptance of CM Hi Sammy, I think maybe you misunderstood my message or, I am misunderstanding yours. I agree with you it is a mess in western medicine which is out of control. What I was stating and meaning is to prevent ourselves from having to go through the horrors of any medical treatment is to study our own body and learn the necessary things to be healthy. Don't depend on a doctor unless absolutely necessary. We need to learn our own prevention We need to teach it to our children prevention of illnesses. Why don't we? Because, people think there ok until they get sick. Then go to the doctor to get well. They then give us a drug. I believe any operation is a calamity unless all measures have been exhausted to keep from having to do it. If you look back in the old western times they called the doctor, bones, and there was a reason for that. that is what they actually did was take care of the bones not all these other type of operations. I think we are on the same page. Ray ga.bates wrote: Hi again Ray, There is so much good input to this subject it is gratifying. Can I take one thing at a time. This is not a rejection of the gist of your email Ray but I do take issue with this (quote below) because WM has distorted certain aspects of our health, I believe to *make it advantageous* to be a doctor or a pharmacist and to have *exclusive control* over an important section of our 'intake'. We need air, water, food, shelter, clothes and medicines for survival and a healthy and comfortable life. If some agency can corner the market on one of those essentials they have a 'nice little earner' as the saying goes. and it is justifying its own existence. It has become almost synonymous with capitalist enterprise that 'anything goes' to get that earner working. In this case the earner is cultivating public ignorance and certain misconceptions about disease. Some of these misconceptions are now so deeply rooted they touch the very core of our zietgeist. " I cannot speak for the Eastern part of the world and what they have for self-help. But I can for the West. We have more information about self-care then is imaginable. Why not take advantage of it and fix yourself up and be healthy. " I'll give a concrete example that is within my own sphere of expertise. Bear with me whilst I quote from a paper written nearly 50 years ago. It is so old PubMed have not yet got round to cataloguing it and the only reason I know about it is because I did a physical archive search in a clinical sciences library. It concerns treatment of prostate cancer (PC). The accepted treatment for prostate cancer today after surgery and radiation is removal of androgens (chemical castration). Castration had been practiced by doctors because it is expedient, it shows results and that is all can be said. No one asks for testosterone replacement therapy because they are ignorant of it: the techniques just have not been developed in WM although in TCM there is vast scope and indeed application of techniques to raise Kidney Qi (e.g. MingMen Life Gate Fire Jing). Although the quote below reads as though it were written yesterday it was, sadly, written nearly half a century ago! One can only gasp in disbelief. " The mechanism of the response to testosterone in these two patients is obscure. These observations invite the development of new concepts to explain the response of these prostatic cancers to alterations in the endocrine environment. " So much for all that 'health awareness' in modern western society - about some things we are as ignorant as the worst bunch of savages that ever roamed the earth. OK, here goes: Cancer Research; 1956. pp 473-9 ; OLOF H. PEARSON Discussion of Dr. Huggins' Paper " Control of Cancers of Man by Endocrinological Methods " ; Division of Clinical Investigation, Sloan-Kettering Institute, and the Department of Medicine, Memorial and James Ewing Hospitals, New York, N.Y. <snip> Case I: An untreated patient with advanced prostatic cancer with severe bone pain from osseous metastases was given testosterone propionate. There was prompt relief of pain, and within a few weeks he was asymptomatic. He was treated with testosterone propionate, 50 mg/day, for 9 months, during which time he was well. There was a gradual rise in serum acid phosphatase from 0.5 to 0.9 Bodansky units during testosterone therapy. After 9 months there was a return of pain and evidence of progression of disease. Withdrawal of testosterone resulted in a fall in acid phosphatase and a transient relief of symptoms. When pain recurred, orchiectomy induced prompt improvement. Following castration, administration of testosterone and 04-androstenedione failed to produce an exacerbation of symptoms. Case II: This patient with advanced prostatic cancer had responded well to castration for several years. When there was a relapse following castration, estrogen and cortisone therapy failed to induce improvement. Hypophysectomy was performed, and there was prompt relief of pain, subsidence of marked edema of the legs, a rise in hemoglobin, and improvement in well being; but the serum acid phosphatase, which was markedly elevated, did not fall (Chart 2). The improvement was maintained for about 5 months. Administration of beef pituitary growth hormone produced no detectable change in his disease status. Five months after Hypophysectomy there was a slight increase in pain, a drop in hemoglobin, but no other evidence of progressive disease. Testosterone administration produced a striking fall in serum acid phosphatase, a rise in hemoglobin level, and symptomatic improvement. The mechanism of the response to testosterone in these two patients is obscure. These observations invite the development of new concepts to explain the response of these prostatic cancers to alterations in the endocrine environment. <snip> Not justifying the methodology here, I am looking at the outcome which has been rejected by WM. I agree with Brian Carter in the preceding message when he says: " .. psychological studies have proven that if you disagree with a study's conclusions, you will disapprove of the methodology. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html .... " I'll be taking a closer look at this an the other links everyone has written in with. What I am seeking is an explicit discussion of the problems encountered with paradigms possessing their own internal dialectic interfacing with the current model, conventional wisdom with its own distorted internal dialectic. Examples that immediately come to mind are Freudianism and Marxism. Although we have incorporated into our language much of the conceptual framework of these two idea systems (e.g. " projection " , " transference " , " displacement " , " infrastructure " ) they are still essentially rejected because the interface is poor. A similar problem applies with TCM, not because TCM lacks worth, but because it lacks an interface. Anyway, I expect you are all yawning away by now so I'll stop yapping and say 'have a great day'. Thanks for your help. Sammy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Chinese Traditional Medicine , Ray Zielinski <rmk_12z> wrote: > If you look back in the old western times they called the doctor, bones, and there was a reason for that. that is what they actually did was take care of the bones not all these other type of operations. I thought `bones' was short for sawbones. This came from the early days of medicine when it was slang for a surgeon. Nearly all they could do for a person was saw off a body part if it became infected. sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Hi, Your right that is what they did was saw off the things they could not do anything with. but their original dealings with the public was for fixing and setting bones not all the operations they started doing. But with more knowledge they have advanced to where they are now. Which in some ways is good and some ways isn't because now people rely almost completely on doctors to cure them of everything and have ignored their responsibility of self-care. Thanks Ray qiuser <qiuser wrote: Chinese Traditional Medicine , Ray Zielinski <rmk_12z> wrote: > If you look back in the old western times they called the doctor, bones, and there was a reason for that. that is what they actually did was take care of the bones not all these other type of operations. I thought `bones' was short for sawbones. This came from the early days of medicine when it was slang for a surgeon. Nearly all they could do for a person was saw off a body part if it became infected. sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.