Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Unfortunately, the following comments regarding the research on herbal medicines I believe is accurate. Although I've been an herbalist for 20 years and have no doubt they are very effective in many cases, the Chinese research quality is embarrassing and definitely needs improvement. My main complaint is that most articles use western diseases as the experimental criteria, rarely mentioning the TCM patterns; most of this research I find to be of very limited usefulness. See for discussion: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-2.html#t-sing Although Quackwatch is a notoriously biased organization, and is not taken seriously by even many mainstream people, in this case they have hit some sore points. In most of the trials, disease was defined and diagnosed according to conventional medicine; trial outcomes were assessed with objective or subjective (or both) methods of conventional medicine, often complemented by traditional Chinese methods. Over 90% of the trials in non-specialist journals evaluated herbal treatments that were mostly proprietary Chinese medicines. . . . Although methodological quality has been improving over the years, many problems remain. The method of randomisation was often inappropriately described. Blinding was used in only 15% of trials. Only a few studies had sample sizes of 300 subjects or more. Many trials used as a control another Chinese medicine treatment whose effectiveness had often not been evaluated by randomised controlled trials. Most trials focused on short term or intermediate rather than long term outcomes. Most trials did not report data on compliance and completeness of follow up. Effectiveness was rarely quantitatively expressed and reported. Intention to treat analysis was never mentioned. Over half did not report data on baseline characteristics or on side effects. Many trials were published as short reports. Most trials claimed that the tested treatments were effective, indicating that publication bias may be common; a funnel plot of the 49 trials of acupuncture in the treatment of stroke confirmed selective publication of positive trials in the area, suggesting that acupuncture may not be more effective than the control treatments. > " " >Quackwatch > >http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html >Anyone want to write them a letter? > >-Jason > ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Hi, Having been a Research Psychologist, I can tell you that these are the same complaints that are leveled against all empirical research by someone or other. In fact, the most common complaint is that research is done below standard. Don't forget - case studies are a respected form of research and there have been discoveries in W med that have started with one patient. The key is to keep your notes as though each patient is a research project - complete notes kept longitudinally, etc.. Martha Lucas On Nov 1, 2004, at 7:34 AM, rw2 wrote: > Unfortunately, the following comments regarding the research on herbal > medicines I believe is accurate. Although I've been an herbalist for > 20 years and have no doubt they are very effective in many cases, the > Chinese research quality is embarrassing and definitely needs > improvement. My main complaint is that most articles use western > diseases as the experimental criteria, rarely mentioning the TCM > patterns; most of this research I find to be of very limited > usefulness. See for discussion: > > http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-2.html#t-sing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html > > > > Anyone want to write them a letter? Its largely our own fault that this type of stuff exists. We hand them the very new age crap they bash us with every day in our brochures and press releases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 , " Martha Lucas, Ph.D., L.Ac. " <drmlucas@a...> wrote: > > Hi, > > Having been a Research Psychologist, I can tell you that these are the > same complaints that are leveled against all empirical research by > someone or other. In fact, the most common complaint is that > research is done below standard. In fact, the research is below any reasonable standards. Controlled studies have already shown that some of what the chinese claim could be accomplished just as well with a sugar pill. We would do well to avoid the trap of claiming the type of case based research the chinese do is valid. There is valid case analysis and bogus case anlysis. By all accounts, the chinese largely do the latter. The solution is do properly controlled herbal research which has shown time and again that TCM works. This is another one of those tired arguments: Controlled research doesn't work on TCM, so we have to do something else. Meanwhile nothing gets done. As I have said countless times, we either engage the existing paradigm and try and break it or it will stand forever. I think your post is quite telling as we all know that clinical psychology is generally not well accepted by insurers and policymakers as a result of the nature of research in the field; surely not a status we should strive for. It would be a grave error to suggest that the same problems that impede controlled psych research would affect herbal studies. In fact, as the bensousan IBS study has shown,it is quite easy to control variables in an herbal study and still be faithful to TCM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Its largely our own fault that this type of stuff exists. We hand them the very new age crap they bash us with every day in our brochures and press releases. >>>>And at the same time we do not request or push for high standards in research in Asia in general as well as in US. Most do not understand research methodologies and why the discussed limitation are important. The majority of the profession still find excuses for poor research. alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 In a message dated 11/1/04 11:50:54 AM, writes: > Controlled > studies have already shown that some of what the chinese claim could > be accomplished just as well with a sugar pill. We would do well to > avoid the trap of claiming the type of case based research the chinese > do is valid. There is valid case analysis and bogus case anlysis. By > all accounts, the chinese largely do the latter. > While I agree with the above view of Chinese research, i do not think that pharmaceutical research is that much different, except that it is more expensive, safety issues long term aside. David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Go to http://bolenreport.com/ and you can read all about the Quacks who brought Quackwatch.Dr. Eliezer Ben-Joseph I invite any of you to join me live on the radio any Saturday morning with questions or just to listen. Just go to my web site at: www.naturalsolutionsradio.com Watch your thoughts, they become your words. Watch your words, they become your actions. Watch your actions, they become your habits. Watch your habits, they become your character. Watch your character, it becomes your destiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 oleander soup , " tedsanford " <tedsanford wrote: > > There was a long article about the FTC and Daniel Chapter 1 in my Sunday paper, which extensively quoted Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch, labeling him a consumer advocate, and the site a nonprofit internet site on health fraud. > Does anyone know his history or his financing? > I want to write a rebuttal, which they probably won't publish. > Ted You will probably find more on Mr. Quack aka Stephen Barrett on http://www.bolenreport.com/ than any other place on the web. Tim has been involved in pursuing Mr. Barrett than any one else I know of. Jack 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.