Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hi all, we all know that most of the research done in China is outcome-based research. Some argue that this is the most valuable kind of research, as it reflects real-life conditions as opposed to controlled clinical trials. Some even say that WM will move in that direction. Is there anyone who can comment on this? Or point me to a book that deals with this? I must say that having lived in China for some years, some of the research being done there is not very accurate. Since some time, hospitals there have received less and less state funding and thus have to find the money themselves (leading to sometimes desperate conditions like dumping very ill patients in the country-side with an ambulance. Several doctors have been murdered by desperate patients that couldn't pay for their treatment). They also have to fulfil criteria, like doing and publishing research that has a good outcome (somewhere high in the 90% I believe). This has resulted in some hospitals tweaking their numbers as to appear well with officials. I don't think there's much control on that. This is of course sad as good research and not-so-good research are then being mixed, confusing the readers. So anyone can comment on what good research is? Thanks in advance, Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hi Tom, IMO, good research needs to be objective and accurate in regards to what it actually assessed, how it assessed it and reveal honest and un-biased results for peers to review and judge. These areas must be addressed before we get into the intricacies of good trial design. Good trial design is irrelevant if the results it produces have been " massaged " to suit a certain party. Outcomes-based research and Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) are gaining popularity in medical research as they produce results that are more likely to represent real life. My university has switched its TCM research to these methods and they have had many studies published in recent years in peer reviewed journals, including many WM ones eg. Journal of Oncology, Journal of Immunology etc. You are right about some of the less than honest practices and " tweaking " of research that is commonplace in China. However, this is a problem that reaches all areas of scientific research, and especially WM. Pharmaceutical companies have been " caught-out " more and more recently in regards to their practice of only releasing " positive " research to support their quest for the almighty dollar while simultaneously suppressing results that do not support their products. This is part of the reason I mentioned in an earlier post today that WM and " science " are two very different animals. Science should be honest and objective and not censor or " adjust " results of any investigation. The " science " employed by many of the large pharmaceutical companies is not real science at all, but selective release of parts of scientific research to further their bottom line and get WM to use their products. Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it up; something that is too frequently overlooked. Many of the therapeutic tools used in their treatments, fed by pharmaceutical companies, is based on biased and inadequate, manipulated and downright dishonest research to begin with. Just consider the number of drugs which have been released and confirmed to be relatively " safe " after irrelevantly short clinical trials only to be withdrawn after the long term effects are discovered. A classic recent example is Viox. When will we demand that a new product undergo realistic long-term trials before these companies are allowed to continue to experiment on the public at large simply to make billions of dollars at the expense of peoples health. Viox was " voluntarily " withdrawn after the completion of a 3 year trial which showed significant increases in rates of heart disease and stroke due to its use. The company was making 2.5 billion dollars a year in the US from this product alone, and felt that it was not necessary to take this drug from the market after the first 18 months of this trial already clearly identified these problems. No, they continued to experiment on the human race for another 18 months which allowed to them to rake in another 3.75 billion dollars from those suffering in the US before Viox reached the end of its life. Unfortunately, the bottom line to all this is that most WM practices are not based on real " science " , but have been overtaken by the quest for money at the expense of the health of the human race. WM, while greatly beneficial in many areas, only really exists to its current degree due to its use of Pharmaceutical drugs of dubious value and safety. The public is finally getting the message of this reality as the unethical and greedy practices of these companies is being revealed. Perhaps this increasing awareness with hasten the shift back to real " science " and clinical relevant and honest research. I believe this will improve the clinical value of both WM and TCM; and the sooner we make this jump the better. Best Wishes, Steve On 07/10/2004, at 9:13 PM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote: > > > Hi all, > > we all know that most of the research done in China is outcome-based > research. Some argue that this is the most valuable kind of research, > as it > reflects real-life conditions as opposed to controlled clinical > trials. Some > even say that WM will move in that direction. > Is there anyone who can comment on this? Or point me to a book that > deals > with this? > > I must say that having lived in China for some years, some of the > research > being done there is not very accurate. Since some time, hospitals > there have > received less and less state funding and thus have to find the money > themselves (leading to sometimes desperate conditions like dumping > very ill > patients in the country-side with an ambulance. Several doctors have > been > murdered by desperate patients that couldn't pay for their treatment). > They also have to fulfil criteria, like doing and publishing research > that > has a good outcome (somewhere high in the 90% I believe). This has > resulted > in some hospitals tweaking their numbers as to appear well with > officials. I > don't think there's much control on that. > This is of course sad as good research and not-so-good research are > then > being mixed, confusing the readers. > > So anyone can comment on what good research is? > > Thanks in advance, > > Tom. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Dear Steven, thank you for your reply and pointing to some of the malpractices in both WM and TCM. I am aware of the corporate powers that " oil " the pharmaceutical industries. Luckily not everyone involved thinks and behaves that way, but sadly some do. I would be interested in hearing how much EBM is being used in clinical trials nowadays, and if those are as well accepted as the " ideal protocol " that was lauded in medicine. You're right about the difference between science and medicine, btw. When I was attending uni (first as a physio, later studied TCM) we also learned about the " ideal protocol " . Has this substantially changed now? Or is it still a minority that considers this EBM to be the real deal? Regards Tom. ---- Chinese Medicine 10/07/04 20:52:11 Chinese Medicine Re: research in TCM Hi Tom, IMO, good research needs to be objective and accurate in regards to what it actually assessed, how it assessed it and reveal honest and un-biased results for peers to review and judge. These areas must be addressed before we get into the intricacies of good trial design. Good trial design is irrelevant if the results it produces have been " massaged " to suit a certain party. Outcomes-based research and Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) are gaining popularity in medical research as they produce results that are more likely to represent real life. My university has switched its TCM research to these methods and they have had many studies published in recent years in peer reviewed journals, including many WM ones eg. Journal of Oncology, Journal of Immunology etc. You are right about some of the less than honest practices and " tweaking " of research that is commonplace in China. However, this is a problem that reaches all areas of scientific research, and especially WM. Pharmaceutical companies have been " caught-out " more and more recently in regards to their practice of only releasing " positive " research to support their quest for the almighty dollar while simultaneously suppressing results that do not support their products. This is part of the reason I mentioned in an earlier post today that WM and " science " are two very different animals. Science should be honest and objective and not censor or " adjust " results of any investigation. The " science " employed by many of the large pharmaceutical companies is not real science at all, but selective release of parts of scientific research to further their bottom line and get WM to use their products. Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it up; something that is too frequently overlooked. Many of the therapeutic tools used in their treatments, fed by pharmaceutical companies, is based on biased and inadequate, manipulated and downright dishonest research to begin with. Just consider the number of drugs which have been released and confirmed to be relatively " safe " after irrelevantly short clinical trials only to be withdrawn after the long term effects are discovered. A classic recent example is Viox. When will we demand that a new product undergo realistic long-term trials before these companies are allowed to continue to experiment on the public at large simply to make billions of dollars at the expense of peoples health. Viox was " voluntarily " withdrawn after the completion of a 3 year trial which showed significant increases in rates of heart disease and stroke due to its use. The company was making 2.5 billion dollars a year in the US from this product alone, and felt that it was not necessary to take this drug from the market after the first 18 months of this trial already clearly identified these problems. No, they continued to experiment on the human race for another 18 months which allowed to them to rake in another 3.75 billion dollars from those suffering in the US before Viox reached the end of its life. Unfortunately, the bottom line to all this is that most WM practices are not based on real " science " , but have been overtaken by the quest for money at the expense of the health of the human race. WM, while greatly beneficial in many areas, only really exists to its current degree due to its use of Pharmaceutical drugs of dubious value and safety. The public is finally getting the message of this reality as the unethical and greedy practices of these companies is being revealed. Perhaps this increasing awareness with hasten the shift back to real " science " and clinical relevant and honest research. I believe this will improve the clinical value of both WM and TCM; and the sooner we make this jump the better. Best Wishes, Steve On 07/10/2004, at 9:13 PM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote: > > > Hi all, > > we all know that most of the research done in China is outcome-based > research. Some argue that this is the most valuable kind of research, > as it > reflects real-life conditions as opposed to controlled clinical > trials. Some > even say that WM will move in that direction. > Is there anyone who can comment on this? Or point me to a book that > deals > with this? > > I must say that having lived in China for some years, some of the > research > being done there is not very accurate. Since some time, hospitals > there have > received less and less state funding and thus have to find the money > themselves (leading to sometimes desperate conditions like dumping > very ill > patients in the country-side with an ambulance. Several doctors have > been > murdered by desperate patients that couldn't pay for their treatment). > They also have to fulfil criteria, like doing and publishing research > that > has a good outcome (somewhere high in the 90% I believe). This has > resulted > in some hospitals tweaking their numbers as to appear well with > officials. I > don't think there's much control on that. > This is of course sad as good research and not-so-good research are > then > being mixed, confusing the readers. > > So anyone can comment on what good research is? > > Thanks in advance, > > Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Steve Wrote " Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it up; something that is too frequently overlooked. " Hi Steve, I was wondering where you got these percentages from? I would just like to know the source of your figures. Thanks Ray Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hi Ray, I knew somebody would ask me this quesiton:-P The figure I mentioned is on the generous side, the article I read mentioned something less than this. I will track it down for you. It is from a WM journal from memory. Best Wishes, Steve On 07/10/2004, at 11:33 PM, rayford wrote: > > > > Steve Wrote > > " Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it up; > something that is too frequently overlooked. " > > Hi Steve, > I was wondering where you got these percentages from? I would just > like to > know the source of your figures. > Thanks > Ray Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 _____ Tom Verhaeghe [verhaeghe_tom] Thursday, October 07, 2004 5:13 AM Chinese Medicine research in TCM Hi all, we all know that most of the research done in China is outcome-based research. Some argue that this is the most valuable kind of research, as it reflects real-life conditions as opposed to controlled clinical trials. Some even say that WM will move in that direction. Is there anyone who can comment on this? Or point me to a book that deals with this? I must say that having lived in China for some years, some of the research being done there is not very accurate. Since some time, hospitals there have received less and less state funding and thus have to find the money themselves (leading to sometimes desperate conditions like dumping very ill patients in the country-side with an ambulance. Several doctors have been murdered by desperate patients that couldn't pay for their treatment). They also have to fulfil criteria, like doing and publishing research that has a good outcome (somewhere high in the 90% I believe). This has resulted in some hospitals tweaking their numbers as to appear well with officials. I don't think there's much control on that. [Jason] Yes. I have struggled with this also, but certain journals from China are more reputable that others i.e. JTCM is good. But also WM does the same doctoring of research also, look at the Pharmaceutical controversies in the last years. (Neurotin for one) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 _____ * Steven Slater [laozhongyi] Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it up; something that is too frequently overlooked. [Jason] Do you have a source for this, I would love to see this is print with an article - or is this your own %? -Jason .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hi Steve, It's not only in China where research is dubious. I wrote a paper on the acupuncture research conducted using the NADA protocol to treat cocaine abuse. Alot of the research was conducted by Margolin and co at Yale university and were full of flaws. The article is scheduled to be published in December's issue of The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Keep a look out, its a good read. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com Steven Slater [laozhongyi] 07 October 2004 13:43 Chinese Medicine Re: research in TCM Hi Tom, IMO, good research needs to be objective and accurate in regards to what it actually assessed, how it assessed it and reveal honest and un-biased results for peers to review and judge. These areas must be addressed before we get into the intricacies of good trial design. Good trial design is irrelevant if the results it produces have been " massaged " to suit a certain party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hi Jason and Ray, The best I can do for the moment is give you is; only 20% of biomedical treatments are 'proven' according to the US office of Technological assessment. I can't remember where I originally read this, but it is also quoted in a JCM sample article on EBM (an article I have very mixed feelings about....it is not the EBM I have been taught) which cited it from Walter A. Brown: ‘The Placebo Effect’, Scientific American, January 1998. The JCM article is here.... http://jcm.co.uk/SampleArticles/59-32.pdf I couldn't find the original paper in the archive of the US Office of technological assessment, but I will give it another look. I found the article in Scientific American online but hesitate to pay $8 to get for the purpose of tracking down the details of the original report by the US Office of Technological Assessment at this stage. http://www.sciamdigital.com Interestingly, in the forward of Blue Poppy's new text " Herbal Toxicities & Drug Interactions " , Marc Ringel, MD claims that only 30% of what he does as a western physician is backed by hard science. I know all this is cited by someone who cited it:P But things are not so easy to track down on my Mac at the moment with several thousand articles on my HD. Best Wishes, Steve On 08/10/2004, at 12:25 AM, wrote: _____ > > * Steven Slater [laozhongyi] > > Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it up; > something that is too frequently overlooked. > > [Jason] > > Do you have a source for this, I would love to see this is print with > an > article - or is this your own %? > > > > -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 I found the following paper - Identifying Health Technologies That Work: Searching for Evidence (September 1994) from the US Office of Technological assessment. I have not gone through it all yet to find the exact quote (313pgs to sort through).....but even a cursory reading is an eye-opener for those who have a blind faith in the scientific validity of WM practices and treatments. Personally, I am quite happy to continue to use what has been tested and accumulated over the last several thousand years over a relatively " new " system based upon experimentation by the vested interests of big business and the often un-tested techniques WM relies on to treat illness. I will and do happily refer out to WM when a patient requires their area of expertise in serious disease, but their area of expertise and effective treatment only covers a very small percentage of human suffering when considering the big picture. I fully support research into TCM; and believe it will improve it in the future........but I do not see any reason to try to reconcile it with the WM system as Manu continually suggests simply due to the fact that WM is " all-over-the-shop " so to speak. Best Wishes, Steve On 08/10/2004, at 12:52 AM, Steven Slater wrote: > > > Hi Jason and Ray, > > The best I can do for the moment is give you is; only 20% of > biomedical treatments are 'proven' according to the US office of > Technological assessment. I can't remember where I originally read > this, but it is also quoted in a JCM sample article on EBM (an article > I have very mixed feelings about....it is not the EBM I have been > taught) which cited it from Walter A. Brown: ‘The Placebo Effect’, > Scientific American, January 1998. > > The JCM article is here.... > > http://jcm.co.uk/SampleArticles/59-32.pdf > > I couldn't find the original paper in the archive of the US Office of > technological assessment, but I will give it another look. > > I found the article in Scientific American online but hesitate to pay > $8 to get for the purpose of tracking down the details of the original > report by the US Office of Technological Assessment at this stage. > > http://www.sciamdigital.com > > Interestingly, in the forward of Blue Poppy's new text " Herbal > Toxicities & Drug Interactions " , Marc Ringel, MD claims that only 30% > of what he does as a western physician is backed by hard science. > > I know all this is cited by someone who cited it:P But things are not > so easy to track down on my Mac at the moment with several thousand > articles on my HD. > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hi Tom, EBM is not a research or design protocol as such. It is a hierarchal system for evaluating knowledge and evidence of the value of a medical procedure/treatment. It takes into account everything from double-blinded placebo controlled research to clinical experience and considers that these and everything in between has its own value. Basically it promotes the fact that not everything needs to be proven via the " gold standard " of clinical research to have evidence to support it is effectiveness. There are many books and internet resources on EBM theory and outcome based trials if you wish to follow these subjects up. Phil is the " go-too " man in terms of finding anything on the net;-) Best Wishes, Steve On 07/10/2004, at 11:29 PM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote: > > > Dear Steven, > > thank you for your reply and pointing to some of the malpractices in > both WM > and TCM. I am aware of the corporate powers that " oil " the > pharmaceutical > industries. Luckily not everyone involved thinks and behaves that way, > but > sadly some do. > I would be interested in hearing how much EBM is being used in clinical > trials nowadays, and if those are as well accepted as the " ideal > protocol " > that was lauded in medicine. You're right about the difference between > science and medicine, btw. When I was attending uni (first as a physio, > later studied TCM) we also learned about the " ideal protocol " . Has this > substantially changed now? Or is it still a minority that considers > this EBM > to be the real deal? > > Regards > > Tom. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Yes I question where he get these stats as well, but to add to it they say 60% of WM diagnosis and perscriptions are either harmful of wrong. WM is now the third biggest cause of injury or death in western countries, hmmm someone should explain the meaning of medicine. Regards Manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: Hi Ray, I knew somebody would ask me this quesiton:-P The figure I mentioned is on the generous side, the article I read mentioned something less than this. I will track it down for you. It is from a WM journal from memory. Best Wishes, Steve On 07/10/2004, at 11:33 PM, rayford wrote: > > > > Steve Wrote > > " Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it up; > something that is too frequently overlooked. " > > Hi Steve, > I was wondering where you got these percentages from? I would just > like to > know the source of your figures. > Thanks > Ray Ford ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Steven Slater wrote: <snip> > Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it up; Hi Stephen! Very interesting! Do you have a link or a list that you could post about the content of the stuff that WM knows for sure? I think a *lot* of us would like a look at that list. Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Hi Pete, No I don't have a link or list separating what WM is backed by evidence and what is not in detail. Earlier in this thread I gave a couple of links that may provide interesting reading for those who understandably are under the impression that WM = scientific and proven medical techniques. Best Wishes, Steve On 08/10/2004, at 5:58 PM, Pete Theisen wrote: > > > Steven Slater wrote: > <snip> >> Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it up; > > Hi Stephen! > > Very interesting! Do you have a link or a list that you could post > about > the content of the stuff that WM knows for sure? I think a *lot* of > us > would like a look at that list. > > Regards, > > Pete > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Steven Slater wrote: > Hi Pete, > > No I don't have a link or list separating what WM is backed by > evidence and what is not <snip> >> >>> Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it >>> up; >> >> Hi Stephen! >> >> Very interesting! Do you have a link or a list that you could post >> about the content of the stuff that WM knows for sure? I think a >> *lot* of us would like a look at that list. Hi Stephen! OK, does *anyone* know? This would be a valuable resource, maybe we could make our own list? Who on the list knows Western Med? If it is only 30% it should be a short list. Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Please be very careful with this line of thinking No healing art, TCM included, has all the answers WM has its place (No, I am not an MD) both of my grandmothers are gone today because of the negligence of their personal medical physicians There are good practitioners and bad practitioners in all the healing arts. I know some people that have no business doing acupuncture or TCM Don't condemn the good people out there because of the bozos help the people you can, refer those you can't to competent practitioners of WM you know and trust there is no benefit to belittling other healing arts focus on building good Qi, for you and your patients doug _____ Pete Theisen [petet] Saturday, October 09, 2004 6:11 PM Chinese Medicine Re: research in TCM Steven Slater wrote: > Hi Pete, > > No I don't have a link or list separating what WM is backed by > evidence and what is not <snip> >> >>> Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it >>> up; >> >> Hi Stephen! >> >> Very interesting! Do you have a link or a list that you could post >> about the content of the stuff that WM knows for sure? I think a >> *lot* of us would like a look at that list. Hi Stephen! OK, does *anyone* know? This would be a valuable resource, maybe we could make our own list? Who on the list knows Western Med? If it is only 30% it should be a short list. Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Hi Doug Thanks for that sometimes I think people need to sink back to earth. All practitioners need to be humble no matter what your training, if everyone could work together then results would surely be far improved. The biggest problem is how all the different cultural medicines could work together, this would need a unified feild thheory that covers all the medicines not to conflict. I believe this has been done, not going to say it any more(haha of course I will). Doug Briggs <docacu wrote: Please be very careful with this line of thinking No healing art, TCM included, has all the answers WM has its place (No, I am not an MD) both of my grandmothers are gone today because of the negligence of their personal medical physicians There are good practitioners and bad practitioners in all the healing arts. I know some people that have no business doing acupuncture or TCM Don't condemn the good people out there because of the bozos help the people you can, refer those you can't to competent practitioners of WM you know and trust there is no benefit to belittling other healing arts focus on building good Qi, for you and your patients doug _____ Pete Theisen [petet] Saturday, October 09, 2004 6:11 PM Chinese Medicine Re: research in TCM Steven Slater wrote: > Hi Pete, > > No I don't have a link or list separating what WM is backed by > evidence and what is not <snip> >> >>> Less than 30% of WM has any real evidence or research to back it >>> up; >> >> Hi Stephen! >> >> Very interesting! Do you have a link or a list that you could post >> about the content of the stuff that WM knows for sure? I think a >> *lot* of us would like a look at that list. Hi Stephen! OK, does *anyone* know? This would be a valuable resource, maybe we could make our own list? Who on the list knows Western Med? If it is only 30% it should be a short list. Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Doug Briggs wrote: > > Please be very careful with this line of thinking > ><snip> > > Hi Stephen! > > OK, does *anyone* know? This would be a valuable resource, maybe we > could make our own list? Who on the list knows Western Med? If it is > only 30% it should be a short list. > Hi Doug! Careful? Yes, of course, but let's get to business. I mean if we had a short list of things that WM was a " sure cure " for, why, we would naturally refer all such cases to WM. Why re-invent the wheel? Regards, Pete 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.