Statistics

[Guest guest]

Dear Colleagues....

 

Data collection for Emperor's is randomized with a 30% sample. Yes we use

subjective perception of group function, this is useful data for our work.

However we also use hard figures such as income, patient volume etc. This

material is an essential component of our accreditation process.

Will Morris

 

herb-t wrote:

 

> , " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...>

> wrote:

> However, collecting data about overall survival rates would be

> inappropriate because the sample is skewed by the method of data

> gathering.

>

> That was my hunch. This group reflects a self selected demographic,

> which is usually dismissed in polling. So while it might be

> interesting to see the stats on this group, I doubt it would reflect

> national averages. In this case, we need a scientific sample of the

> entire profession, not of a specific demographic.

>

> Other types of questions make more sense for a self selected group,

> such as what form of herbs you use or what do you like to read. In

> these latter cases, the assumption is that those who participate in

> such a group are more likely to buy herbs and read about herbs than

> the average person. This type of poll does not tell us anything

> about

> the profession as a group, but it does send a message to suppliers

> about the concerns of the most active de

>

> ------

> fnCentral.com lets you manage your money the easy way - online!

> Control your finances, pay your bills, track your investments...

> fnCentral.com - the Web's first fully integrated personal finance

> manager. Open your FREE account today!

> http://click./1/4648/9/_/542111/_/959902520/

> ------

>

> Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

 

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

[Guest guest]

, " Emmanuel Segmen " wrote:

> So WM went ahead based on the statistics without thinking of the

consequences of adding a biological end product to a negative

feedback homeostasis.>>>

 

 

Emmanuel:

 

Interesting statistic:

Among the 57 million people in Britain there are probably 5,000

people who have only one leg. Therefore the average number of legs

is: ((5000 * 1) + (56,995,000 * 2)) / 57,000,000 = 1.9999123

 

All the people with two legs have more than the average number!!!!!

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

But wasn't this therapy initially based upon statistics and research into

the benefits of HRT?

 

 

>Statistics have now proved and changed a horrible situation. The

>clinical uselessness and iatrogensis of hormone replacement therapy. If

>MD's

>were allowed to control their own knowledge without such scrutiny, women

>would be far worse off today. Todd

 

_______________

Compare high-speed Internet plans, starting at $26.95.

https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)

[Guest guest]

, " BARRY THORNE " <

naturec@m...> wrote:

> But wasn't this therapy initially based upon statistics and research into

> the benefits of HRT?

 

actually it was based upon speculation that since pre-menopausal women

have less heart disease and osteoporosis, the hormones must be protective.

there was never any evidence that this was correct and certainly no evidence

that they were safe.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

This is kind of personal area of interest for me, so forgive my pickiness. The

2nd paragraph is more to the point, but ... HRT was for the most part evidence

based. It can be seen in the literature and even in the textbooks. As you go

from edition to edition of physiology texts through the late 1980s on through

the 1990s, the story unfolds. The use of estrogen/progesterone therapy to

reduce osteoporosis is where it began. Wholesale usage on broad spectrums of

menopausal and post-menopausal women proceeded. This is something I've paid

close attention to as the original research for the " pill " occurred at, among

other places, Roswell Park Memorial Institute near my home in the 1960s. One of

the postdoctorate fellows was my brother's close friend at that time. He

published in that original research that side-effects were not only likely but

certain to occur if women used the " pill " for longer than 9 months at a time.

That was the evidence of his research. Finally by the 1980s this got

promulgated to the clinical community. So it blew my mind that HRT became a

wholesale therapy by the 1990s because of its results with osteoporosis. This

is only one story. It's not any secret that people in the basic and clinical

sciences base their very existence in their profession on publishing papers.

It's publish or die. The results of this strange cultural ethic in our current

times is in part the wild overuse of statistical studies to look at virtually

everything.

 

I mean no disrespect here, Todd. You view is the more moderate one. But it's

my sense that this more moderate view will be eclipsed at some point in the near

future by a broader and clearer view of such things as " what is research " . Most

fundamentally one must not apply statistics outside of purely math based

applications. Even then engineering principles apply in real life. Assume you

are off by a factor of five. This never happens in practically any evidence

based research in medicine. So most of us in the sciences view any research

outside of the hard sciences as either bogus or at least over reaching. Bridges

and buildings last a lot longer than most ideas in Western medicine. On the

other hand, Chinese medical principles outlast most bridges. So I'm thinking

that your " science " or art of CM is already better than you give it credit for.

I'm really with you, Todd. I'm really not with most uses of statistics. I'm

not really making any wild assertions.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:31 PM

Re: statistics

 

 

, " BARRY THORNE " <

naturec@m...> wrote:

> But wasn't this therapy initially based upon statistics and research into

> the benefits of HRT?

 

actually it was based upon speculation that since pre-menopausal women

have less heart disease and osteoporosis, the hormones must be protective.

there was never any evidence that this was correct and certainly no evidence

that they were safe.

 

Todd

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Emmanuel Segmen " <

susegmen@i...> wrote:

HRT was for the most part evidence based. It can be seen in the literature

and even in the textbooks.

 

this was not the opinion of my professors at the National College of

Naturopathic Medicine. My physiology, biochem and nutrition classes were

taught by a PhD physiologist who also considered herself well versed in the

research literature of the time. so from the late eighties till the early

nineties,

I had it drilled into my head that the so-called science behind HRT was bogus.

the studies were considered flawed and a transparent manipulation of facts by

the pharmaceutical companies. I don't remember the details, but I remember

being convinced at the time. In any event, current unbiased research bears

this out.

 

As for your assertion that statistics should only be used in pure math or that

most hard scientists consider them bogus outside the hard sciences, all I can

say is I know many soft scientists who would find your comments offensive

and I will stipulate that medical research is a soft science. I will also

reiterate

that statistical evidence is regularly confirmed in the clinic everyday.

Statistics do not describe any person, but only likelihoods, trends, etc. and

they

are often right on. I am curious if you have had any opportunity to confirm or

deny this in your personal practice of medicine as I do not recall how far you

advanced in your studies. I think it would be fair to say that acceptance of

alternative medicine has been proportional to the perception of valid research

being done on the subject. Any halt to this process which has barely begun

would be the doom of any future but a marginal one. And I suppose that is

what we have to decide. Do we want to make CM as much of a force in

healthcare as possible or do we want to stick to some philosophical position

that relegates us to obscurity. You may be right, but I do not agree and am not

willing to take the chance.

 

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel, All,

 

I want to make a few comments with regard

to what Paul Unschuld said about statistics

recently that started this thread. Paul said

that he believes that when historians write

the history of the current era (he presumes

of course that the current era will live to

have a history, which exposes him as an

optimist when he so often can appear quite

cynical and pessimistic to the careless observer),

one of the things they will laugh about is

our fixation on statistical significance.

 

I'm paraphrasing him, and I maintain that

I have not yet discussed this issue with

him to my own satisfaction and reserve the

right to amend all of this, at least in terms

of how he sees it.

 

I've already expressed my current views

on the matter. If I got what Paul said correctly,

he predicts that the reliance upon the significance

that generates from statistics will be one of

the first pieces of the edifice of modern science

to crumble as knowledge continues in its

relentless march forward. And I once again

note his unbridled optimism.

 

With respect to all of this, I want to point out

that it is not the degree to which any given

scientific belief is engrained that makes it

durable. Things that people rely deeply and

desperately on as the basis for their understanding

of the universe are every bit as susceptible to

the terrible truths that emerge from scientific

progress.

 

Just think how entirely the whole scientific

world was devoted to a Newtownian set

of limits and definitions when the revolution

in relativity broke out at the end of the 19th

and the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Or how completely the Ptolemaic construct

of the solar system dominated people's

minds prior to Copernicus.

 

So the fact, that every scientist in

the world would stomp and shout at Paul

or Emmanuel or me or anyone for suggesting

something so outlandish as the demise of

their most holy of holies really argues for

its legitimacy as a likely target for scientific

destruction, and not the other way round.

 

In the end, scientists always get it wrong.

 

And then they die, and according to one of

the giants of science of the 20th century,

Max Planck, that's what it takes to keep

the wheels turning.

 

So now, the $64,000 question.

 

What does any of this have to do with

Chinese herbal medicine? Can you count

up the evil qi and extrapolate the curve

of your patients' jing?

 

Maybe a more constructive way to phrase

the question is, " How can statistics be

employed in Chinese medical research? "

 

I've felt for the past several years that

the folks who could answer this question

are the ones who address their statistical

inquisitions to giant open complex systems.

And it is with these types that I have been

discussing the issue.

 

I have a hunch that you can generate enormous

and powerful insights about Chinese medicine

with complex systems science, which John Holland

stressed to me remains utterly reductionistic and

statistic-based in its essential methologies.

 

And I also think, and I think that this thought

is catching on in the complex systems science

communities both in China and around the

world, that Chinese medical thought provides

people engaged in such disciplines with

potentially enormous advantages, although

these remain to be clearly identified, I think,

let alone realized.

 

Just a little food for thought before breakfast.

 

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008>

>

> I've already expressed my current views

> on the matter. If I got what Paul said correctly,

> he predicts that the reliance upon the significance

> that generates from statistics will be one of

> the first pieces of the edifice of modern science

> to crumble as knowledge continues in its

> relentless march forward

 

This may or may not be true, so what do we do in the mean time.

Cross our fingers and wave crystals? He may be a prophet or just a

paranoid android…? But it seems that everything around us is based

on percentages and stats, from computers to medicine, to your

insurance rates. This is our reality.

 

> In the end, scientists always get it wrong.

 

Funny statement which I find quite ridiculous… furthermore are non-

statistical methods more reliable?

Also, I can't imagine that an ancient Chinese physician does not

unconsciously (or consciously) think statically.. I.e. Wow I have

given the last 30 patients a formula Z idea for disease X / pattern Y

and 28 of them got better.. Maybe I should write that one down…

 

>

> What does any of this have to do with

> Chinese herbal medicine? Can you count

> up the evil qi and extrapolate the curve

> of your patients' jing?

 

Moot point… (IMO)

 

>

> Maybe a more constructive way to phrase

> the question is, " How can statistics be

> employed in Chinese medical research? "

 

Maybe I am too simple, but what about

 

1) Disease X treated with CM has 75% success rate, treated with

Western Med has a 50% success rate.

2) CM – Disease X, Pattern Y, Formula Z led to 65% cure

Disease X, Pattern YY, Formula ZZ led to 30% cure

Disease X, Pattern YYY, Formula ZZZ led to 45 % cure.

(one can of course include mods in the formula for varying

symptoms, or not)

 

This info. is very useful.. The question only revolves around if this

information can be gathered reliably.

 

>

> Just a little food for thought before breakfast.

 

Now time for my breakfast, thanx for the discussion Ken… Curious

about your counterpoints.

 

-

[Guest guest]

My 3 cents about statistics is rather simple.... if you massage the data

long enough, one will find some sort of significance. I have seen this over

and over and over. I am speaking from the experience, of being a head lab

tech in a fairly prominent research lab for 7 years. Allot of research is

driven by drug companies which certainly have invested interests, in the

outcome of their products.

 

Teresa

 

 

 

l Message -----

" " <

 

Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:08 AM

Re: statistics

 

 

, " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008>

>

> I've already expressed my current views

> on the matter. If I got what Paul said correctly,

> he predicts that the reliance upon the significance

> that generates from statistics will be one of

> the first pieces of the edifice of modern science

> to crumble as knowledge continues in its

> relentless march forward

 

This may or may not be true, so what do we do in the mean time.

Cross our fingers and wave crystals? He may be a prophet or just a

paranoid android.? But it seems that everything around us is based

on percentages and stats, from computers to medicine, to your

insurance rates. This is our reality.

 

> In the end, scientists always get it wrong.

 

Funny statement which I find quite ridiculous. furthermore are non-

statistical methods more reliable?

Also, I can't imagine that an ancient Chinese physician does not

unconsciously (or consciously) think statically.. I.e. Wow I have

given the last 30 patients a formula Z idea for disease X / pattern Y

and 28 of them got better.. Maybe I should write that one down.

 

>

> What does any of this have to do with

> Chinese herbal medicine? Can you count

> up the evil qi and extrapolate the curve

> of your patients' jing?

 

Moot point. (IMO)

 

>

> Maybe a more constructive way to phrase

> the question is, " How can statistics be

> employed in Chinese medical research? "

 

Maybe I am too simple, but what about

 

1) Disease X treated with CM has 75% success rate, treated with

Western Med has a 50% success rate.

2) CM - Disease X, Pattern Y, Formula Z led to 65% cure

Disease X, Pattern YY, Formula ZZ led to 30% cure

Disease X, Pattern YYY, Formula ZZZ led to 45 % cure.

(one can of course include mods in the formula for varying

symptoms, or not)

 

This info. is very useful.. The question only revolves around if this

information can be gathered reliably.

 

>

> Just a little food for thought before breakfast.

 

Now time for my breakfast, thanx for the discussion Ken. Curious

about your counterpoints.

 

-

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare

practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing

in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,

including board approved online continuing education.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Teresa Hall "

<Teresa.bodywork4u@w...> wrote:

>

> My 3 cents about statistics is rather simple.... if you massage the

data

> long enough, one will find some sort of significance. I have seen

this over

> and over and over. I am speaking from the experience, of being a

head lab

> tech in a fairly prominent research lab for 7 years. Allot of

research is

> driven by drug companies which certainly have invested interests,

in the

> outcome of their products.

>

> Teresa

 

Yes this is one side to this 3 sided coin, but there are another 2.

 

-

>

>

>

> l Message -----

> " " <@h...>

>

> Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:08 AM

> Re: statistics

>

>

> , " kenrose2008 "

> <kenrose2008>

> >

> > I've already expressed my current views

> > on the matter. If I got what Paul said correctly,

> > he predicts that the reliance upon the significance

> > that generates from statistics will be one of

> > the first pieces of the edifice of modern science

> > to crumble as knowledge continues in its

> > relentless march forward

>

> This may or may not be true, so what do we do in the mean time.

> Cross our fingers and wave crystals? He may be a prophet or just a

> paranoid android.? But it seems that everything around us is based

> on percentages and stats, from computers to medicine, to your

> insurance rates. This is our reality.

>

> > In the end, scientists always get it wrong.

>

> Funny statement which I find quite ridiculous. furthermore are non-

> statistical methods more reliable?

> Also, I can't imagine that an ancient Chinese physician does not

> unconsciously (or consciously) think statically.. I.e. Wow I have

> given the last 30 patients a formula Z idea for disease X / pattern

Y

> and 28 of them got better.. Maybe I should write that one down.

>

> >

> > What does any of this have to do with

> > Chinese herbal medicine? Can you count

> > up the evil qi and extrapolate the curve

> > of your patients' jing?

>

> Moot point. (IMO)

>

> >

> > Maybe a more constructive way to phrase

> > the question is, " How can statistics be

> > employed in Chinese medical research? "

>

> Maybe I am too simple, but what about

>

> 1) Disease X treated with CM has 75% success rate, treated with

> Western Med has a 50% success rate.

> 2) CM - Disease X, Pattern Y, Formula Z led to 65% cure

> Disease X, Pattern YY, Formula ZZ led to 30% cure

> Disease X, Pattern YYY, Formula ZZZ led to 45 % cure.

> (one can of course include mods in the formula for varying

> symptoms, or not)

>

> This info. is very useful.. The question only revolves around if

this

> information can be gathered reliably.

>

> >

> > Just a little food for thought before breakfast.

>

> Now time for my breakfast, thanx for the discussion Ken. Curious

> about your counterpoints.

>

> -

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed

healthcare

> practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics

specializing

> in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional

services,

> including board approved online continuing education.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It's statistics which brought about the problem of hormone replacement therapy.

Nutritional supplementation and weight bearing exercise were showing only 4%

improvements, even when used together. Hormone replacement therapies were

showing high levels of improvement statistically. So WM went ahead based on the

statistics without thinking of the consequences of adding a biological end

product to a negative feedback homeostasis. HRT was withdrawn after it was

noticed that it made matters worse, but it got the initial go ahead based on

statistical studies.

>>>>However not controlled studies and that is the problem. Observations are

misleading and the HRT is the perfect example. Yes statistics were used to

analyzed patients but they could not control for the fact that women taking them

were probably different in other ways. Only when a truly controlled study was

done did all the so-called collective observations (called epidemiology in WM)

did the real problems found out.Collective observations by CM practitioner will

not be any better.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <@h...>

wrote:

> , " kenrose2008 "

> <kenrose2008>

 

> > In the end, scientists always get it wrong.

>

> Funny statement which I find quite ridiculous

 

me, too. since in the end, science always prevails. you folks less " moderate "

than me can quote your prophets till the cows come home. we'll see what we

shall see. In the meantime, I will fight you tooth and nail on this matter. I

think your position is not only misguided but actually dangerous. for example,

we only know that certain herbs the chinese thought were safe are toxic due to

science. funny that you seek reconciliation because this current posturing can

only lead to a complete fracturing of the field. Many of us have worked hard

to craft careful CM research proposals and direction. To thwart this right now,

well, makes one seem like an agent-provocateur. The MD crowd will do the

research and they will steal our field. PU may study American trends, but he

clearly has head in other places most of the time so who knows what he really

knows. I live here and treat patients all year long. You guys are just plain

wrong. Please remind me again, which of you besides Z'ev is actually seeing

patients regularly. If you are not, then is your position based upon the

completely speculative ideas of an anthropologist. Talk about what hard

scientists consider bogus.

 

[Guest guest]

actually it was based upon speculation that since pre-menopausal women

have less heart disease and osteoporosis, the hormones must be protective.

there was never any evidence that this was correct and certainly no evidence

that they were safe.

 

>>>>And then confirmed with so called observations (epidemiology studies).

Unfortunately some things only come to light when a true blind study is done

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

My physiology, biochem and nutrition classes were

taught by a PhD physiologist who also considered herself well versed in the

research literature of the time. so from the late eighties till the early

nineties,

I had it drilled into my head that the so-called science behind HRT was bogus.

the studies were considered flawed and a transparent manipulation of facts by

the pharmaceutical companies. I don't remember the details, but I remember

being convinced at the time. In any event, current unbiased research bears

this out.

>>>>Not only that it was even somewhat controversial even in GYN groups. I have

seen first hand much of the discussion within the GYN community via my wife. Set

in classes (going with my wife to meetings) were HRT was argued about since

early 90's. The problem with the poor and lack of real studies was argued by

many evidence based types for a long time

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Just think how entirely the whole scientific

world was devoted to a Newtownian set

of limits and definitions when the revolution

in relativity broke out at the end of the 19th

and the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Or how completely the Ptolemaic construct

of the solar system dominated people's

minds prior to Copernicus.

>>>>Except that science is way beyond Newton and still uses statistics and

controlled methods.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

What does any of this have to do with

Chinese herbal medicine? Can you count

up the evil qi and extrapolate the curve

of your patients' jing?

>>>Why not? Is evil qi mean anything that a patient demonstrate? if yes than

document what he does demonstrate. If not may be its a fantasy

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I've felt for the past several years that

the folks who could answer this question

are the ones who address their statistical

inquisitions to giant open complex systems.

And it is with these types that I have been

discussing the issue.

 

>>>>>I just heard a talk yesterday by a very well know physicist stating that

the worst scientist he has ever run across are the so-called system scientist.

According to him that is basically a code for those that only understand very

little about lots of things

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

My 3 cents about statistics is rather simple.... if you massage the data

long enough, one will find some sort of significance. I have seen this over

and over and over. I am speaking from the experience, of being a head lab

tech in a fairly prominent research lab for 7 years. Allot of research is

driven by drug companies which certainly have invested interests, in the

outcome of their products.

 

>>>>No question and they have control over publishing so that we do not see many

of the negative studies. This is a huge problem

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is one of the points of view I find problematic. Chinese medicine

is largely philosophical, and I happen to be an individual with a more

philosophical bent. Despite recent trends, I don't want to see the

nourishing influence of philosophy surgically removed from Chinese

medicine.

 

Just because 'hard scientists' don't like another science doesn't make

it 'bogus'. I find this type of dismissive talk on their part

offensive, if what you say about hard scientists is true.

 

 

On Nov 13, 2003, at 8:42 AM, wrote

 

> If you are not, then is your position based upon the

> completely speculative ideas of an anthropologist. Talk about what

> hard

> scientists consider bogus.

[Guest guest]

You raise another interesting point here.

 

If hard scientists consider anthropology to be bogus, what will they

think of Chinese medicine, where different practitioners often have

different perspectives, diagnoses and treatment strategies? Which is

based on 'fuzzy' conceptual logic? What will be left of Chinese

medical theory after it is hacked to pieces by 'hard science'? If

they've already dismissed other disciplines out of hand, what benefits

will we gain from 'hard analysis'?

 

 

On Nov 13, 2003, at 8:42 AM, wrote:

 

> If you are not, then is your position based upon the

> completely speculative ideas of an anthropologist. Talk about what

> hard

> scientists consider bogus.

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> Maybe I am too simple, but what about

>

> 1) Disease X treated with CM has 75% success rate, treated with

> Western Med has a 50% success rate.

> 2) CM – Disease X, Pattern Y, Formula Z led to 65% cure

> Disease X, Pattern YY, Formula ZZ led to 30% cure

> Disease X, Pattern YYY, Formula ZZZ led to 45 % cure.

> (one can of course include mods in the formula for varying

> symptoms, or not)

>

> This info. is very useful.. The question only revolves around if this

> information can be gathered reliably.

 

Yes, it is a bit too simple and drums up the same problems as

discussed with HRT.

 

Firstly, the above stats regarding formulae do not take into account

any other factors. For example, a good clinical study will account

for most practically accountable variables.

 

Secondly, prescribing everyone a particular formula because it had the

hightest cure rate among a group of other formulas that were tested is

just the same kind of cookie-cutter medicine employed by Western

Medicial doctors (you feel down? here, take Prozac...).

 

Whereas it might be interesting to note that a single formula has a

65% cure rate, should I just accept that the other 35% of the people

are not going to get better? Should I just accept that perhaps the

65% could not have been cured faster or with less effort?

 

A great thing about , in my limited experience, is the

ability to tailor treatments specifically to individuals. If formula

Z had a 65% cure rate in a study, and I change just one herb, or even

adjust the dosage of just one herb, then it is no longer the same

formula Z that was tested, so the statistic will no longer be relevent

scientifically, even though you may wish to think that it is close enough.

 

I could go on and on about this, but I really just wanted to get the

ball rolling on this point...

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bca@o...>

wrote:

>

> Yes, it is a bit too simple and drums up the same problems as

> discussed with HRT.

 

Please explain why?

 

 

>

> Firstly, the above stats regarding formulae do not take into account

> any other factors. For example, a good clinical study will account

> for most practically accountable variables.

 

Of course there is more to it than above, but that is just the jist

of the information, as an end result, which I find helpful.

 

>

> Secondly, prescribing everyone a particular formula because it had

the

> hightest cure rate among a group of other formulas that were tested

is

> just the same kind of cookie-cutter medicine employed by Western

> Medicial doctors (you feel down? here, take Prozac...).

 

This is not the point of such information. 1) the paradigm is

different, therefore I think such a cookie cutter approach is

different. But so there is not confusion. I am no advocate of

generalized cookie cutter formulas.

2) one may choice to follow such approach and get pretty good

results. If I know that a certain group with pattern Y (etc) will

get better 65% of the time and with western medicine they are

hovering right around the 35% mark, then this is valuable. Not only

for me but for the patient and the PUBLIC. This demonstrates the

potential of CM and you can confidently relay the information to the

patient. It also gives the pract confidence, and if he/she chooses

can tweak the formula for the individual. The stats are not there to

become a rigid protocol, but a guidepost to possible effectiveness…

 

>

> Whereas it might be interesting to note that a single formula has a

> 65% cure rate, should I just accept that the other 35% of the people

> are not going to get better?

 

Not at all, it is just an estimate… Wouldn't you like to know that

with scenario X there was only a 10% cure rate, and with scenario Y

there was an 80% cure rate….Wow such valuable information. I think

it takes a mature and confident profession to look at such stats… If

something doesn't work I don't want to try it `that way' when a

patient comes in… With this information I might consider a different

approach. But if I know that 80% of the time this avg. joe formula

works, I would most likely start with that. Does that mean give the

exact formula, maybe or maybe not.. this is where personal style

comes in .. personally I tweak everything.. I am just a tweaker..

 

 

Should I just accept that perhaps the

> 65% could not have been cured faster or with less effort?

 

No… push on…

 

>

> A great thing about , in my limited experience, is

the

> ability to tailor treatments specifically to individuals. If

formula

> Z had a 65% cure rate in a study, and I change just one herb, or

even

> adjust the dosage of just one herb, then it is no longer the same

> formula Z that was tested, so the statistic will no longer be

relevent

> scientifically, even though you may wish to think that it is close

enough.

 

I do think it is.. I am more importantly looking at the idea tried.

The overall gist of the formula or treatment principle in very

valuable.

 

-

[Guest guest]

I think Jason's rebuttals are right on the money here.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

I think it would be fair to say that acceptance of alternative

medicine has been proportional to the perception of valid research being done on

the subject. Any halt to this process which has barely begun would be the doom

of any future but a marginal one. And I suppose that is what we have to decide.

Do we want to make CM as much of a force in healthcare as possible or do we want

to stick to some philosophical position that relegates us to obscurity. You may

be right, but I do not agree and am not willing to take the chance.

 

Hi

 

I'm not clear on the " rightness " of my assertions ... just that's where I live.

The battle over statistics usage between hard and soft scientists is

death-defying ... between hard and social scientists it's virtually Saturday

Night Live ... in other words, highly profane.

 

I actually worry that CM will be " relegated " to standard American healthcare.

Truly the nightmare of some would be the sweet dreams of others.

 

I have no argument with you at all. I see we are simply stating the places where

we live.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Theresa,

 

This has been my experience, too. I've been chewed out plenty of times by

research directors when I suggest we publish findings that would actually help

rather then the ones that would get us paid. There's a lot of oral tradition in

the lab, as you know, that never gets published. That's why postdocs go to

specific labs to work, at least for a while, to learn the traditions of that lab

that never get published. It's like being a cook who goes to work for a famous

restaurant to see " how they do it " .

 

The publications in the end are mostly about money. Bridges and buildings last

a lot longer than most of the conclusions I've read in current journals. The

Suwen has out lasted many a bridge.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

Teresa Hall

Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:16 AM

Re: statistics

 

 

 

My 3 cents about statistics is rather simple.... if you massage the data

long enough, one will find some sort of significance. I have seen this over

and over and over. I am speaking from the experience, of being a head lab

tech in a fairly prominent research lab for 7 years. Allot of research is

driven by drug companies which certainly have invested interests, in the

outcome of their products.

 

Teresa

 

 

 

l Message -----

" " <

Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:08 AM

Re: statistics

 

 

, " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008>

>

> I've already expressed my current views

> on the matter. If I got what Paul said correctly,

> he predicts that the reliance upon the significance

> that generates from statistics will be one of

> the first pieces of the edifice of modern science

> to crumble as knowledge continues in its

> relentless march forward

 

This may or may not be true, so what do we do in the mean time.

Cross our fingers and wave crystals? He may be a prophet or just a

paranoid android.? But it seems that everything around us is based

on percentages and stats, from computers to medicine, to your

insurance rates. This is our reality.

 

> In the end, scientists always get it wrong.

 

Funny statement which I find quite ridiculous. furthermore are non-

statistical methods more reliable?

Also, I can't imagine that an ancient Chinese physician does not

unconsciously (or consciously) think statically.. I.e. Wow I have

given the last 30 patients a formula Z idea for disease X / pattern Y

and 28 of them got better.. Maybe I should write that one down.

 

>

> What does any of this have to do with

> Chinese herbal medicine? Can you count

> up the evil qi and extrapolate the curve

> of your patients' jing?

 

Moot point. (IMO)

 

>

> Maybe a more constructive way to phrase

> the question is, " How can statistics be

> employed in Chinese medical research? "

 

Maybe I am too simple, but what about

 

1) Disease X treated with CM has 75% success rate, treated with

Western Med has a 50% success rate.

2) CM - Disease X, Pattern Y, Formula Z led to 65% cure

Disease X, Pattern YY, Formula ZZ led to 30% cure

Disease X, Pattern YYY, Formula ZZZ led to 45 % cure.

(one can of course include mods in the formula for varying

symptoms, or not)

 

This info. is very useful.. The question only revolves around if this

information can be gathered reliably.

 

>

> Just a little food for thought before breakfast.

 

Now time for my breakfast, thanx for the discussion Ken. Curious

about your counterpoints.

 

-

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare

practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing

in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,

including board approved online continuing education.