Guest guest Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 acukaren <acukaren> wrote: > Hi all, > > As long as the subject of research has been brought > up, I think it extremely important that acupuncturists > become involved and watch the trends of what is > happening with research. Acupuncture research is not > just about the efficacy of acupuncture. It is about > our future - the acupuncturists. This is a pivotal > time in the US. If you are still involved with an > acupuncture school in your area, keep an eye to what > is happening with the research and who is running the > show. Make sure that there is an IRB at the school or > institute and that the acupuncture community is > represented in whatever board is overseeing the > research. If there is not an IRB, make some noise! A > lot of research will be backed financially by > allopathic medical institutions. It does not suffice > to have only their institutional review boards > overseeing the research. > > In October of 2003 the NIH awarded $2 million to the > New England School of Acupuncture (NESA) to promote > research in partnership with the Osher Institute > (Harvard Medical School), Dana Farber and Children's > Hospital in Boston. These are powerful institutes. > > see http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct2003/nccam-29a.htm > > If you look at NESA website, you will see that there > is a collaboration between Tufts medical school and > NESA whereby Tufts students are able to shadow > interns at NESA clinic and NESA students are allowed > to collaborate on academic projects (literature search > and mock research). I could be wrong but seems the > yin and yang aren't quite balanced there. > > Karen Donahue, M.Ac. I totally agree with you Karen. All TCM practitioners should be more aware of research and how its conducted. All too often, people just leave it up to others who then misrepresent TCM and its effectiveness. We should all make more noise and stand up for what we believe in otherwise we'll be sidelined and TCM will be viewed as another fashionable quack medicine. Attilio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Dear Attilio, We do not agree people to call as Traditional medicine. That suggests Chinese medicine is just fashionable and no science based medicine. is just chinese medicien. We should not add 'traditiona' in front . I agree to take research but not for all CM practitioners. That is becasue chinese medicine does not based on experimental way to treat human. In many situration, a famous Chinese medicine doctor has never done the research but he can have very succesful curing rate. We should let them to practice and do not think our researchers are more clever than them. Look, over last hundred years, a great number of researchers and acadamic institutes for have come out but there is no single fundermental discovery. Again, if definition of research is towards only science-based it shows no help to develop Chinese medicine since current science methods have not had enough power to understand Chinese medicine. As I have been both scientist and medical practitioner on CM for many years, I enjoy the debating in this TCM group. I expect if we can use network to link everyone or individual knowledge or inspirts about healing for Human from thousands ways and using principle of Chinese medicine:macro-medicine concept to put them together, we might find the correct direction to develop Chinese medicine. That is the more member to join this group, the more the good opportunity to do the research for Chinese medicine. Thanks John Wu MD PhD MSc DCEH MGCTCM Dr & HERBS Ltd, UK www.drandherbs.com 0044 77 135 060 24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 TCM is the sum total of village wisdom gleaned from experiences of hundreds of great healers over centuries. Research which seeks to prove or disprove tends to pretension. TCM is a Design, and the healer an Artist who appreciates it and adds a stroke of his or her own on the canvas when experience dictates. Even today one looks to point-prescriptions to treat, and many times the Design is never sought, and seldom found. If one looks for the ingredients of paint and stroke is a canvas, and misses out on the work itself, one will be left with pieces of the perfection, and not perfection itself. Again, great healers who left their commentaries in the Nan-Ching over 20 centuries never sought to hide anything. What they surmised was what was written and left for posterity, which is you, and I. A sobering thought. All that is recorded in great treatises was experience. Not one instance of "research" in the Western sense appears in the Classics. Dr. Holmes KeikobadMB BS DPH Ret. DIP AC NCCAOM LIC AC CO & AZwww.acu-free.com - home based recertification for acupuncturists and health professionals 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.