RE: poll for chinese medicine-TCM research

December 21, 2004

You've exposed a nest of thorny issues that I've included as topics of

discussion in my classes and in articles.

Lack of good research, both anecdotal and controlled, is certainly one of them.

However, I feel that the Chinese are in the best position to do these studies -

their patient populations are large and they have the expertise of scientists

trained in the West in statistics and experimental design. I think that with a

combination of both gentle pressure and blunt exposes of the poor quality of

their past research, that things could change. From my contacts in Taiwan, my

impression is that the Taiwanese TCM establishments are more savvy regarding the

need to use the best of scientific techniques without violating the integrity of

the inductive synthetic pattern-recognition paradigm that is at the core of

traditional Chinese herbology. The mainland Chinese, while often giving lip

service to traditional Chinese medicine, show evidence that they have bought the

philosophy of reductionistic materialism wholesale, and their research designs

reveal that this is how most of them really think. The very philosophy of

Communism, based on Hegel and Marx, is called dialectical materialism, which is

incompatible with many of the ancient ideas of traditional Chinese medicine,

which, as Manfred Porkert and Carl Jung have pointed out, is based on the

philosophy of inductive synthesis.

Scholars like Unschuld have provided a valuable perspective on the huge impact

of Communist Chinese politics on the development of TCM during the last 55

years. American TCM establishments would be wise to do a thorough review of TCM

and strip it of all of the cumbersome political baggage that it has acquired.

Perhaps Taiwan is in a better position to do this, as it has served as both a

repository of Chinese culture that would have been otherwise detroyed and as a

focus of scientific and technical achievement on par with Japan and South Korea.

There are several major problems with attempts to do good clinical research in

the USA:

* A general perception that NIH, CDC, FDA, and other alphabet

bureaucracies are merely giving lip service to the idea of alternative health

research, but the reality is that they all know their bread is buttered by the

drug companies, and they will always find ways to inhibit or criticize

alternatives that threaten the drug companies' profits.

* Greater concerns over legal issues in the USA re: clinical studies,

client confidentiality issues, informed consent for research.

* Before one begins collecting random clinical anecdotes, a protocol

needs to be designed to interpret the results. How does one record the symptoms,

keep track of their estimated magnitude, control for bias, cross-check the

accuracy of each practioners evaluation? Without these latter, a collection of

random clinical anecdotes will be only that, and will be bluntly labeled as such

by critics in the American medical establishment.

The legal, regulatory, and educational environment is so much more conducive

toward herbal research in Southeast and East Asia (or almost anywhere else in

the world for that matter), that I don't think we will ever be able to catch up

to them. So my suggestion would be to help give people in these countries

technical advice and expertise and encourage them to do the research properly.

Europe, especially Germany, has been another source of good herbal research.

Given the drastic decline in American scientific education, I have little hope

that this trend will be reversed anytime soon.

Regarding your statement that in " the cure of chronic illness, I think science

will actually prevail in this domain, thus a strategy of proving TCM's role in

this area will receive diminishing research funding over time " :

After 20 years of practice, I've concluded that TCM methods, in the narrow sense

of being limited to the herbal, acupuncture, and bodywork methods passed down to

us from the past up to even 60 years ago, are not enough to handle most chronic

illnesses today. (Don't misinterpret me - I find them ***indispensible*** and

effective, just not sufficient by themselves.) The reason is that the vast

majority of chronic illnesses are due to a combination of dietary poisons,

environmental poisons, and lifestyle factors that have arisen within the past

few decades. (For example, the link between brain cancers and cellphones.) So of

course, if you attempt to " cure " a person of a chronic illness with only herbs

and acupuncture, in the long run you are almost guaranteed to fail. The number

of new environmental poisons and food additives increases by the thousands each

year. Add on top of that harmful radiation - cell phones, microwaves, and toxic

music - we have a major crisis of civilization that far exceeds anything the

Romans did with excessive drinking of alcohol and salting their food with lead

chloride. The most effective solution in many cases is to educate clients and

assist them in eliminating the worst environmental and dietary poisons. In the

vast majority of cases, people have a choice in the matter - they can voluntary

decide to continue consuming products that are slowly killing them, or they can

stop. Voting with your dollars by refusing to buy harmful products is a very

effective and underused method to promote change.

I try to keep up with scientific developments in environmental health (which

includes diet and nutrition), which I feel is at the cutting edge of

breakthroughs in chronic disease.

The tragedy of American TCM education is that it will find itself increasingly

isolated in the past, if it does not include scientific training. And I'm not

just talking about offering 2nd-rate courses in science for students who have

not had these courses in college. We should be educating practitioners in how to

adapt traditional Chinese methods to use the pattern-recognition paradigm as a

tool of scientific understanding rather than as an item of religious dogma. If

this does not happen, you will see an increasing number of TCM graduates who

have memorized lots of stuff, but will not be able to figure out how to handle

environmental illness, which encompasses most chronic illness today.

As an example, take traditional Chinese diet therapy. There are many books on

this subject. Yet how many of them even mention or discuss the following

problems and issues?

* Aspartame and MSG and why these are harmful

* why microwaved food is harmful

* why hydrogenated oils and trans-fats are harmful

You will not find these issues discussed in ***any*** books of traditional

Chinese herbology or diet because these things did not exist until the last 50

years or so. To understand what science has wrought, good and bad, it is

necessary to understand it.

If a TCM college graduate of today learned basic TCM pattern recognition skills

and herbology, plus environmental health and nutrition - instead of acupuncture,

the TCM profession in the U.S. **might** have a chance at overcoming its

impending obsolescence, especially with regard to chronic illness.

---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

> Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:43:11 -0000

> " " <

>Re: New poll for

>

>Such self-selected polls of anecdotal experiences are considered meaningless

(because

>they are). What do you think this will prove? and to whom? I think this will

do more harm

>than good as it will be so easily dismissed as statistically insignificant and

provide further

>evidence of our professional naivete. again, we will appear as a profession

that continually

>polls it members about standards of care and never does any real research to

back it up.

>If anyone out there actually had sustained regular success with hypertension

and

>acupuncture, they should be able to provide documentation of long term

followup. For

>over five years, I have been requesting documentation of successful long term

treatment

>of even a single case of any chronic illness. I even created a database to

collect the results

>online. The failure of a single member of this group to submit even one such

documented

>case during this time speaks volumes more than such a bogus poll ever could.

This is a

>matter to be pursued with proper deliberation by a professional organization.

To make a

>claim for success in treatment yet demonstrate complete unwillingness to prove

it is a

>sure recipe for disaster. A recent UC Irvine study is the first such proof I

know of in this

>matter and it flies in the face of traditional practice. See press release at

>http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0402/28.htm

>

>Personally, I think our ship has kind of sailed. I no longer think it likely

that the research I

>want for our field will ever get done. In about a decade, western medicine

will have

>changed so drastically that there will be little interest in researching TCM as

a gentler

>alternative anymore. We will still play a role in healthcare for several

decades to come.

>But for the long run, I suspect history will take another path than the

institution of TCM as

>a primary medical system. I now think our primary goal should be to show that

TCM can

>lead to improved quality of life regardless of age or health. That it can

noniatrogenically

>treat symptoms and self-limited conditions. And while it also could have

played a role in

>the cure of chronic illness, I think science will actually prevail in this

domain, thus a

>strategy of proving TCM's role in this area will receive diminishing research

funding over

>time. As an example, I don't TCM treats hypertension well, but I do think TCM

plus drugs

>results in better management of BP and fewer side effects. This is the primary

role I

>envision for TCM herbology - adjunct to drug therapy - and it is the subject I

will speak to

>at the upcoming Scripps conference. This is what we should rally behind and

attempt to

>prove.

>

>You may ask why I would even want to be in such a field doomed to inevitable

>obsolescense. There are many reasons why one might make this choice. We are

in a

>transitional period where western medicine is crude and barbaric. In addition,

CM

>promotes optimum health, not just normal physiology. So at this point in time,

I see TCM

>as playing an important role as a bridge to the future, but not as the future.

But I never

>figured it would be my last job. Americans changes jobs many times during

their lives as

>technology changes. I do not think we are insultated from this phenomena just

by doing

>something ancient. The social good and role TCM plays in its advancement

interest me.

>TCM's perpetual professional existence of is of no concern at all. Its like

when we knew

>the automobile was coming. This made passenger rail virtually obsolete for

much of the

>country. That didn't mean we should stop upkeeping the railroads for the

limited but vital

>purpose they serve.

>

>Todd

---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

December 22, 2004

At 10:20 PM -0700 12/21/04, rw2 wrote:

>Scholars like Unschuld have provided a valuable perspective on the

>huge impact of Communist Chinese politics on the development of TCM

>during the last 55 years. American TCM establishments would be wise

>to do a thorough review of TCM and strip it of all of the cumbersome

>political baggage that it has acquired.

--

Another point that Unschuld makes is that in the Han dynasty politics

also played a major role in defining Chinese medicine. Should we

throw out the modern but keep the feudal?

The idea of American TCM establishments stripping anything out of our

literature is terrifying, given the general level of scholarship we

have available to us. It also reeks of censorship.

Rory

--

December 22, 2004

Roger et al,

I just want to comment on the issue of research in China. First, I am in no

real authority to say much on this topic, but recently I have talked to

numerous Chinese and over the last year d to numerous Chinese

journals... I think that we should not be so fast to discount what the

Chinese as a whole, are doing. Yes in the past and the present China has

put out low-quality studies. But at the same time they are putting out some

very high quality one's, IMO. {Western journals are the same}. The Chinese I

spoke with say similar things, that, yes there are less reputable schools

and journals, but there are one's that carry much more weight and 'can be

trusted' and are of 'higher caliber'.

Further note: A couple of months ago, Todd posted a link for the criteria

for evaluating low / high quality research. At that time I asked, 'what is

a proper number of participants and time to be considered higher quality.'

I still haven't heard or found an answer. But I have seen studies from

China that look as good as studies here in the West. But before we write

off the whole country's research I think we should be a little more specific

in what we think is wrong at the current time and make sure we have spent

adequate time with the Chinese journals. I think Bob F. is in a good

position to comment... Bob?

Further: Roger says " American TCM establishments would be wise to do a

thorough

> review of TCM and strip it of all of the cumbersome political baggage that

> it has acquired. "

As far as herbalism or TCM theory goes, I still am far from convinced that

there is this huge communism stripping. I ask you Roger to provide some

examples / proof that this is the case. My Chinese teachers & my reading of

pre-communistic texts etc. says otherwise...What 'political' influence are

you suggesting we strip out? Also, do you really think that the medicine in

Taiwan is that much different than in China? Just curious...

-

>

> rw2 [rw2]

> Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:21 PM

>

> Re: poll for -TCM research

>

> You've exposed a nest of thorny issues that I've included as topics of

> discussion in my classes and in articles.

>

> Lack of good research, both anecdotal and controlled, is certainly one of

> them. However, I feel that the Chinese are in the best position to do

> these studies - their patient populations are large and they have the

> expertise of scientists trained in the West in statistics and experimental

> design. I think that with a combination of both gentle pressure and blunt

> exposes of the poor quality of their past research, that things could

> change. From my contacts in Taiwan, my impression is that the Taiwanese

> TCM establishments are more savvy regarding the need to use the best of

> scientific techniques without violating the integrity of the inductive

> synthetic pattern-recognition paradigm that is at the core of traditional

> Chinese herbology. The mainland Chinese, while often giving lip service to

> traditional Chinese medicine, show evidence that they have bought the

> philosophy of reductionistic materialism wholesale, and their research

> designs reveal that this is how most of them really think. The very

> philosophy of Communism, based on Hegel and Marx, is called dialectical

> materialism, which is incompatible with many of the ancient ideas of

> traditional Chinese medicine, which, as Manfred Porkert and Carl Jung have

> pointed out, is based on the philosophy of inductive synthesis.

>

> Scholars like Unschuld have provided a valuable perspective on the huge

> impact of Communist Chinese politics on the development of TCM during the

> last 55 years. American TCM establishments would be wise to do a thorough

> review of TCM and strip it of all of the cumbersome political baggage that

> it has acquired. Perhaps Taiwan is in a better position to do this, as it

> has served as both a repository of Chinese culture that would have been

> otherwise detroyed and as a focus of scientific and technical achievement

> on par with Japan and South Korea.

>

> There are several major problems with attempts to do good clinical

> research in the USA:

>

> * A general perception that NIH, CDC, FDA, and other alphabet

> bureaucracies are merely giving lip service to the idea of alternative

> health research, but the reality is that they all know their bread is

> buttered by the drug companies, and they will always find ways to inhibit

> or criticize alternatives that threaten the drug companies' profits.

>

> * Greater concerns over legal issues in the USA re: clinical

> studies, client confidentiality issues, informed consent for research.

>

> * Before one begins collecting random clinical anecdotes, a

> protocol needs to be designed to interpret the results. How does one

> record the symptoms, keep track of their estimated magnitude, control for

> bias, cross-check the accuracy of each practioners evaluation? Without

> these latter, a collection of random clinical anecdotes will be only that,

> and will be bluntly labeled as such by critics in the American medical

> establishment.

>

> The legal, regulatory, and educational environment is so much more

> conducive toward herbal research in Southeast and East Asia (or almost

> anywhere else in the world for that matter), that I don't think we will

> ever be able to catch up to them. So my suggestion would be to help give

> people in these countries technical advice and expertise and encourage

> them to do the research properly. Europe, especially Germany, has been

> another source of good herbal research. Given the drastic decline in

> American scientific education, I have little hope that this trend will be

> reversed anytime soon.

>

> Regarding your statement that in " the cure of chronic illness, I think

> science will actually prevail in this domain, thus a strategy of proving

> TCM's role in this area will receive diminishing research funding over

> time " :

>

> After 20 years of practice, I've concluded that TCM methods, in the narrow

> sense of being limited to the herbal, acupuncture, and bodywork methods

> passed down to us from the past up to even 60 years ago, are not enough to

> handle most chronic illnesses today. (Don't misinterpret me - I find them

> ***indispensible*** and effective, just not sufficient by themselves.)

> The reason is that the vast majority of chronic illnesses are due to a

> combination of dietary poisons, environmental poisons, and lifestyle

> factors that have arisen within the past few decades. (For example, the

> link between brain cancers and cellphones.) So of course, if you attempt

> to " cure " a person of a chronic illness with only herbs and acupuncture,

> in the long run you are almost guaranteed to fail. The number of new

> environmental poisons and food additives increases by the thousands each

> year. Add on top of that harmful radiation - cell phones, microwaves, and

> toxic music - we have a major crisis of civilization that far exceeds

> anything the Romans did with excessive drinking of alcohol and salting

> their food with lead chloride. The most effective solution in many cases

> is to educate clients and assist them in eliminating the worst

> environmental and dietary poisons. In the vast majority of cases, people

> have a choice in the matter - they can voluntary decide to continue

> consuming products that are slowly killing them, or they can stop. Voting

> with your dollars by refusing to buy harmful products is a very effective

> and underused method to promote change.

>

> I try to keep up with scientific developments in environmental health

> (which includes diet and nutrition), which I feel is at the cutting edge

> of breakthroughs in chronic disease.

> The tragedy of American TCM education is that it will find itself

> increasingly isolated in the past, if it does not include scientific

> training. And I'm not just talking about offering 2nd-rate courses in

> science for students who have not had these courses in college. We should

> be educating practitioners in how to adapt traditional Chinese methods to

> use the pattern-recognition paradigm as a tool of scientific understanding

> rather than as an item of religious dogma. If this does not happen, you

> will see an increasing number of TCM graduates who have memorized lots of

> stuff, but will not be able to figure out how to handle environmental

> illness, which encompasses most chronic illness today.

>

> As an example, take traditional Chinese diet therapy. There are many books

> on this subject. Yet how many of them even mention or discuss the

> following problems and issues?

> * Aspartame and MSG and why these are harmful

> * why microwaved food is harmful

> * why hydrogenated oils and trans-fats are harmful

>

> You will not find these issues discussed in ***any*** books of traditional

> Chinese herbology or diet because these things did not exist until the

> last 50 years or so. To understand what science has wrought, good and bad,

> it is necessary to understand it.

>

> If a TCM college graduate of today learned basic TCM pattern recognition

> skills and herbology, plus environmental health and nutrition - instead of

> acupuncture, the TCM profession in the U.S. **might** have a chance at

> overcoming its impending obsolescence, especially with regard to chronic

> illness.

>

> ---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

>

> > Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:43:11 -0000

> > " " <

> >Re: New poll for

> >

> >Such self-selected polls of anecdotal experiences are considered

> meaningless (because

> >they are). What do you think this will prove? and to whom? I think this

> will do more harm

> >than good as it will be so easily dismissed as statistically

> insignificant and provide further

> >evidence of our professional naivete. again, we will appear as a

> profession that continually

> >polls it members about standards of care and never does any real research

> to back it up.

> >If anyone out there actually had sustained regular success with

> hypertension and

> >acupuncture, they should be able to provide documentation of long term

> followup. For

> >over five years, I have been requesting documentation of successful long

> term treatment

> >of even a single case of any chronic illness. I even created a database

> to collect the results

> >online. The failure of a single member of this group to submit even one

> such documented

> >case during this time speaks volumes more than such a bogus poll ever

> could. This is a

> >matter to be pursued with proper deliberation by a professional

> organization. To make a

> >claim for success in treatment yet demonstrate complete unwillingness to

> prove it is a

> >sure recipe for disaster. A recent UC Irvine study is the first such

> proof I know of in this

> >matter and it flies in the face of traditional practice. See press

> release at

> >http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0402/28.htm

> >

> >Personally, I think our ship has kind of sailed. I no longer think it

> likely that the research I

> >want for our field will ever get done. In about a decade, western

> medicine will have

> >changed so drastically that there will be little interest in researching

> TCM as a gentler

> >alternative anymore. We will still play a role in healthcare for several

> decades to come.

> >But for the long run, I suspect history will take another path than the

> institution of TCM as

> >a primary medical system. I now think our primary goal should be to show

> that TCM can

> >lead to improved quality of life regardless of age or health. That it

> can noniatrogenically

> >treat symptoms and self-limited conditions. And while it also could have

> played a role in

> >the cure of chronic illness, I think science will actually prevail in

> this domain, thus a

> >strategy of proving TCM's role in this area will receive diminishing

> research funding over

> >time. As an example, I don't TCM treats hypertension well, but I do

> think TCM plus drugs

> >results in better management of BP and fewer side effects. This is the

> primary role I

> >envision for TCM herbology - adjunct to drug therapy - and it is the

> subject I will speak to

> >at the upcoming Scripps conference. This is what we should rally behind

> and attempt to

> >prove.

> >

> >You may ask why I would even want to be in such a field doomed to

> inevitable

> >obsolescense. There are many reasons why one might make this choice. We

> are in a

> >transitional period where western medicine is crude and barbaric. In

> addition, CM

> >promotes optimum health, not just normal physiology. So at this point in

> time, I see TCM

> >as playing an important role as a bridge to the future, but not as the

> future. But I never

> >figured it would be my last job. Americans changes jobs many times

> during their lives as

>

> >technology changes. I do not think we are insultated from this phenomena

> just by doing

> >something ancient. The social good and role TCM plays in its advancement

> interest me.

> >TCM's perpetual professional existence of is of no concern at all. Its

> like when we knew

> >the automobile was coming. This made passenger rail virtually obsolete

> for much of the

> >country. That didn't mean we should stop upkeeping the railroads for the

> limited but vital

> >purpose they serve.

> >

> >Todd

>

> ---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

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

> board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

December 22, 2004

> I try to keep up with scientific developments in environmental

health (which includes diet and nutrition), which I feel is at the

cutting edge of breakthroughs in chronic disease.

May I ask how you keep up, Roger? What do you read for that? Any good

links, books, magazines?

Tom.

December 22, 2004

" I think Bob F. is in a good position to comment... Bob? "

Everyone's opinion is a personal opinion. Since I do not want to argue

ad hominem, no comment. The literature speaks for itself. Everyone

shoud, read critically all the time. 'Nuf said.

" Further: Roger says " American TCM establishments would be wise to do

a thorough review of TCM and strip it of all of the cumbersome

political baggage that it has acquired. "

I agree with Jason on this one. People saying this just have not read

widely the Chinese medical literature, premodern and contemporary, in

Chinese.

That being said, I take partial responsibility for promoting this idea

in print and in person many years ago when A) I didn't really know

what I was talking about because I did not have personal access to the

primary source data, and B) my pro-Tibetan sympathies made me biased

and, therefore, hypercritical of the Chinese in general and the

communists in particular. Again, all opinions are personal and one's

got to look at the history of the person holding them. Isn't that also

one of P.U.U.'s points?

Bob

December 22, 2004

Further note: A couple of months ago, Todd posted a link for the

criteria for evaluating low / high quality research. At that time I

asked, 'what is a proper number of participants and time to be

considered higher quality.' I still haven't heard or found an answer.

Jason,

There is no magical number that makes study size credible, although more

is generally considered to provide more substantive statistical support

to the results. The main factor that needs to be established is

statistical significance, which does not broadly require a specific

number of people to be in a study. The stronger the " effect size " of

the therapy being evaluated, the fewer study subjects required to

achieve a statistically significant reflection of that effect. But

then, there is not only effect size but the percentage of people with a

" defined " condition that are likely to respond to the same particular

therapy. In respiratory allergy for example, such a significant

percentage have sinusitis (say75%+?) that if you have a very effective

therapy that treats an underlying liver fire which turns out to be THE

key causal component in only in 20 percent of allergy sufferers, and

does not address the sinusitis, then you have a strong " effect size "

that is only relevant to a limited number of allergy sufferers.

Therefore, unless you further specify in the criteria for accepting

study subjects to include liver fire as a required key component, then

despite a substantial effect size for the liver fire group, your study

could either fail or require a much larger study population than a study

evaluating the effectiveness of a sinusitis remedy that has the same

effect size as the treatment for liver fire. If the liver fire group is

20% of the study population and the placebo responders make up 20

percent of the population, then you're in trouble.

The above dilemma in study design considerations is likely a factor that

has contributed to the scientifically less credible study design seen in

many of the studies published in Chinese journals in recent decades.

I'm referring to where the results are stated in the percentage of

subjects who respond in degrees to which they responded, i.e. strong

effect 15%, moderate effect 45%, mild effect 30%, no effect 10%. The

report for this result often states a 90% success rate, which most

consider misleading, so it casts doubt on the whole study. Criteria to

establish that an effect is " strong " is usually based on subjective

assessments, however if the study design is rigorous (especially that

criteria for each category designation is thorough), and only the group

with a " strong " effect is considered to be in the " benefit " column, and,

blinding and placebo effects are factored into the design, then you have

a good starting point.

In a private practice, if you can find a series of therapies that each

have only a moderate effect, but used sequentially over time have a

cumulative effect, then that form of medical care can be successful

without having remedies that would likely reveal statistically

significant benefits in a blinded, contolled, randomized study.

Stephen Morrissey

Botanica BioScience

PuRing PhytoMedical Research

[]

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 5:40 AM

RE: Re: poll for -TCM research

Roger et al,

I just want to comment on the issue of research in China. First, I am

in no

real authority to say much on this topic, but recently I have talked to

numerous Chinese and over the last year d to numerous Chinese

journals... I think that we should not be so fast to discount what the

Chinese as a whole, are doing. Yes in the past and the present China

has

put out low-quality studies. But at the same time they are putting out

some

very high quality one's, IMO. {Western journals are the same}. The

Chinese I

spoke with say similar things, that, yes there are less reputable

schools

and journals, but there are one's that carry much more weight and 'can

be

trusted' and are of 'higher caliber'.

Further note: A couple of months ago, Todd posted a link for the

criteria

for evaluating low / high quality research. At that time I asked, 'what

is

a proper number of participants and time to be considered higher

quality.'

I still haven't heard or found an answer. But I have seen studies from

China that look as good as studies here in the West. But before we

write

off the whole country's research I think we should be a little more

specific

in what we think is wrong at the current time and make sure we have

spent

adequate time with the Chinese journals. I think Bob F. is in a good

position to comment... Bob?

Further: Roger says " American TCM establishments would be wise to do a

thorough

> review of TCM and strip it of all of the cumbersome political baggage

that

> it has acquired. "

As far as herbalism or TCM theory goes, I still am far from convinced

that

there is this huge communism stripping. I ask you Roger to provide some

examples / proof that this is the case. My Chinese teachers & my

reading of

pre-communistic texts etc. says otherwise...What 'political' influence

are

you suggesting we strip out? Also, do you really think that the medicine

in

Taiwan is that much different than in China? Just curious...

-

>

> rw2 [rw2]

> Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:21 PM

>

> Re: poll for -TCM research

>

> You've exposed a nest of thorny issues that I've included as topics of

> discussion in my classes and in articles.

>

> Lack of good research, both anecdotal and controlled, is certainly one

of

> them. However, I feel that the Chinese are in the best position to do

> these studies - their patient populations are large and they have the

> expertise of scientists trained in the West in statistics and

experimental

> design. I think that with a combination of both gentle pressure and

blunt

> exposes of the poor quality of their past research, that things could

> change. From my contacts in Taiwan, my impression is that the

Taiwanese

> TCM establishments are more savvy regarding the need to use the best

of

> scientific techniques without violating the integrity of the inductive

> synthetic pattern-recognition paradigm that is at the core of

traditional

> Chinese herbology. The mainland Chinese, while often giving lip

service to

> traditional Chinese medicine, show evidence that they have bought the

> philosophy of reductionistic materialism wholesale, and their research

> designs reveal that this is how most of them really think. The very

> philosophy of Communism, based on Hegel and Marx, is called

dialectical

> materialism, which is incompatible with many of the ancient ideas of

> traditional Chinese medicine, which, as Manfred Porkert and Carl Jung

have

> pointed out, is based on the philosophy of inductive synthesis.

>

> Scholars like Unschuld have provided a valuable perspective on the

huge

> impact of Communist Chinese politics on the development of TCM during

the

> last 55 years. American TCM establishments would be wise to do a

thorough

> review of TCM and strip it of all of the cumbersome political baggage

that

> it has acquired. Perhaps Taiwan is in a better position to do this, as

it

> has served as both a repository of Chinese culture that would have

been

> otherwise detroyed and as a focus of scientific and technical

achievement

> on par with Japan and South Korea.

>

> There are several major problems with attempts to do good clinical

> research in the USA:

>

> * A general perception that NIH, CDC, FDA, and other alphabet

> bureaucracies are merely giving lip service to the idea of alternative

> health research, but the reality is that they all know their bread is

> buttered by the drug companies, and they will always find ways to

inhibit

> or criticize alternatives that threaten the drug companies' profits.

>

> * Greater concerns over legal issues in the USA re: clinical

> studies, client confidentiality issues, informed consent for research.

>

> * Before one begins collecting random clinical anecdotes, a

> protocol needs to be designed to interpret the results. How does one

> record the symptoms, keep track of their estimated magnitude, control

for

> bias, cross-check the accuracy of each practioners evaluation? Without

> these latter, a collection of random clinical anecdotes will be only

that,

> and will be bluntly labeled as such by critics in the American medical

> establishment.

>

> The legal, regulatory, and educational environment is so much more

> conducive toward herbal research in Southeast and East Asia (or almost

> anywhere else in the world for that matter), that I don't think we

will

> ever be able to catch up to them. So my suggestion would be to help

give

> people in these countries technical advice and expertise and encourage

> them to do the research properly. Europe, especially Germany, has been

> another source of good herbal research. Given the drastic decline in

> American scientific education, I have little hope that this trend will

be

> reversed anytime soon.

>

> Regarding your statement that in " the cure of chronic illness, I think

> science will actually prevail in this domain, thus a strategy of

proving

> TCM's role in this area will receive diminishing research funding over

> time " :

>

> After 20 years of practice, I've concluded that TCM methods, in the

narrow

> sense of being limited to the herbal, acupuncture, and bodywork

methods

> passed down to us from the past up to even 60 years ago, are not

enough to

> handle most chronic illnesses today. (Don't misinterpret me - I find

them

> ***indispensible*** and effective, just not sufficient by themselves.)

> The reason is that the vast majority of chronic illnesses are due to a

> combination of dietary poisons, environmental poisons, and lifestyle

> factors that have arisen within the past few decades. (For example,

the

> link between brain cancers and cellphones.) So of course, if you

attempt

> to " cure " a person of a chronic illness with only herbs and

acupuncture,

> in the long run you are almost guaranteed to fail. The number of new

> environmental poisons and food additives increases by the thousands

each

> year. Add on top of that harmful radiation - cell phones, microwaves,

and

> toxic music - we have a major crisis of civilization that far exceeds

> anything the Romans did with excessive drinking of alcohol and salting

> their food with lead chloride. The most effective solution in many

cases

> is to educate clients and assist them in eliminating the worst

> environmental and dietary poisons. In the vast majority of cases,

people

> have a choice in the matter - they can voluntary decide to continue

> consuming products that are slowly killing them, or they can stop.

Voting

> with your dollars by refusing to buy harmful products is a very

effective

> and underused method to promote change.

>

> I try to keep up with scientific developments in environmental health

> (which includes diet and nutrition), which I feel is at the cutting

edge

> of breakthroughs in chronic disease.

> The tragedy of American TCM education is that it will find itself

> increasingly isolated in the past, if it does not include scientific

> training. And I'm not just talking about offering 2nd-rate courses in

> science for students who have not had these courses in college. We

should

> be educating practitioners in how to adapt traditional Chinese methods

to

> use the pattern-recognition paradigm as a tool of scientific

understanding

> rather than as an item of religious dogma. If this does not happen,

you

> will see an increasing number of TCM graduates who have memorized lots

of

> stuff, but will not be able to figure out how to handle environmental

> illness, which encompasses most chronic illness today.

>

> As an example, take traditional Chinese diet therapy. There are many

books

> on this subject. Yet how many of them even mention or discuss the

> following problems and issues?

> * Aspartame and MSG and why these are harmful

> * why microwaved food is harmful

> * why hydrogenated oils and trans-fats are harmful

>

> You will not find these issues discussed in ***any*** books of

traditional

> Chinese herbology or diet because these things did not exist until the

> last 50 years or so. To understand what science has wrought, good and

bad,

> it is necessary to understand it.

>

> If a TCM college graduate of today learned basic TCM pattern

recognition

> skills and herbology, plus environmental health and nutrition -

instead of

> acupuncture, the TCM profession in the U.S. **might** have a chance at

> overcoming its impending obsolescence, especially with regard to

chronic

> illness.

>

> ---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

>

> > Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:43:11 -0000

> > " " <

> >Re: New poll for

> >

> >Such self-selected polls of anecdotal experiences are considered

> meaningless (because

> >they are). What do you think this will prove? and to whom? I think

this

> will do more harm

> >than good as it will be so easily dismissed as statistically

> insignificant and provide further

> >evidence of our professional naivete. again, we will appear as a

> profession that continually

> >polls it members about standards of care and never does any real

research

> to back it up.

> >If anyone out there actually had sustained regular success with

> hypertension and

> >acupuncture, they should be able to provide documentation of long

term

> followup. For

> >over five years, I have been requesting documentation of successful

long

> term treatment

> >of even a single case of any chronic illness. I even created a

database

> to collect the results

> >online. The failure of a single member of this group to submit even

one

> such documented

> >case during this time speaks volumes more than such a bogus poll ever

> could. This is a

> >matter to be pursued with proper deliberation by a professional

> organization. To make a

> >claim for success in treatment yet demonstrate complete unwillingness

to

> prove it is a

> >sure recipe for disaster. A recent UC Irvine study is the first such

> proof I know of in this

> >matter and it flies in the face of traditional practice. See press

> release at

> >http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0402/28.htm

> >

> >Personally, I think our ship has kind of sailed. I no longer think

it

> likely that the research I

> >want for our field will ever get done. In about a decade, western

> medicine will have

> >changed so drastically that there will be little interest in

researching

> TCM as a gentler

> >alternative anymore. We will still play a role in healthcare for

several

> decades to come.

> >But for the long run, I suspect history will take another path than

the

> institution of TCM as

> >a primary medical system. I now think our primary goal should be to

show

> that TCM can

> >lead to improved quality of life regardless of age or health. That

it

> can noniatrogenically

> >treat symptoms and self-limited conditions. And while it also could

have

> played a role in

> >the cure of chronic illness, I think science will actually prevail in

> this domain, thus a

> >strategy of proving TCM's role in this area will receive diminishing

> research funding over

> >time. As an example, I don't TCM treats hypertension well, but I do

> think TCM plus drugs

> >results in better management of BP and fewer side effects. This is

the

> primary role I

> >envision for TCM herbology - adjunct to drug therapy - and it is the

> subject I will speak to

> >at the upcoming Scripps conference. This is what we should rally

behind

> and attempt to

> >prove.

> >

> >You may ask why I would even want to be in such a field doomed to

> inevitable

> >obsolescense. There are many reasons why one might make this choice.

We

> are in a

> >transitional period where western medicine is crude and barbaric. In

> addition, CM

> >promotes optimum health, not just normal physiology. So at this

point in

> time, I see TCM

> >as playing an important role as a bridge to the future, but not as

the

> future. But I never

> >figured it would be my last job. Americans changes jobs many times

> during their lives as

>

> >technology changes. I do not think we are insultated from this

phenomena

> just by doing

> >something ancient. The social good and role TCM plays in its

advancement

> interest me.

> >TCM's perpetual professional existence of is of no concern at all.

Its

> like when we knew

> >the automobile was coming. This made passenger rail virtually

obsolete

> for much of the

> >country. That didn't mean we should stop upkeeping the railroads for

the

> limited but vital

> >purpose they serve.

> >

> >Todd

>

> ---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

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

including

> board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and

a

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

December 23, 2004

While we seem to be very hard upon ourselves for research, why are we not

applying the same criticism to western medical research. There are many

studies which come up with false conclusions or manipulate the results.

Stats are not exact they are only approximations. We have groups that are

fighting for research ethics, it must be a problem. Big business operates

that conclusions = truth. I have yet to meet a statistic or anyone that

fits that description closely. Medicine has never practiced a statistical

model of care. In addition, the govt accounting office (GAO) issued a

statement several years ago that only 10-15% of the current medical

procedures had any scientific validity. Let¹s be careful what we worship.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

On 12/22/04 11:39 PM, " Stephen " <stephen wrote:

> Further note: A couple of months ago, Todd posted a link for the

> criteria for evaluating low / high quality research. At that time I

> asked, 'what is a proper number of participants and time to be

> considered higher quality.' I still haven't heard or found an answer.

>

> Jason,

> There is no magical number that makes study size credible, although more

> is generally considered to provide more substantive statistical support

> to the results. The main factor that needs to be established is

> statistical significance, which does not broadly require a specific

> number of people to be in a study. The stronger the " effect size " of

> the therapy being evaluated, the fewer study subjects required to

> achieve a statistically significant reflection of that effect. But

> then, there is not only effect size but the percentage of people with a

> " defined " condition that are likely to respond to the same particular

> therapy. In respiratory allergy for example, such a significant

> percentage have sinusitis (say75%+?) that if you have a very effective

> therapy that treats an underlying liver fire which turns out to be THE

> key causal component in only in 20 percent of allergy sufferers, and

> does not address the sinusitis, then you have a strong " effect size "

> that is only relevant to a limited number of allergy sufferers.

> Therefore, unless you further specify in the criteria for accepting

> study subjects to include liver fire as a required key component, then

> despite a substantial effect size for the liver fire group, your study

> could either fail or require a much larger study population than a study

> evaluating the effectiveness of a sinusitis remedy that has the same

> effect size as the treatment for liver fire. If the liver fire group is

> 20% of the study population and the placebo responders make up 20

> percent of the population, then you're in trouble.

>

> The above dilemma in study design considerations is likely a factor that

> has contributed to the scientifically less credible study design seen in

> many of the studies published in Chinese journals in recent decades.

> I'm referring to where the results are stated in the percentage of

> subjects who respond in degrees to which they responded, i.e. strong

> effect 15%, moderate effect 45%, mild effect 30%, no effect 10%. The

> report for this result often states a 90% success rate, which most

> consider misleading, so it casts doubt on the whole study. Criteria to

> establish that an effect is " strong " is usually based on subjective

> assessments, however if the study design is rigorous (especially that

> criteria for each category designation is thorough), and only the group

> with a " strong " effect is considered to be in the " benefit " column, and,

> blinding and placebo effects are factored into the design, then you have

> a good starting point.

>

> In a private practice, if you can find a series of therapies that each

> have only a moderate effect, but used sequentially over time have a

> cumulative effect, then that form of medical care can be successful

> without having remedies that would likely reveal statistically

> significant benefits in a blinded, contolled, randomized study.

>

> Stephen Morrissey

>

> Botanica BioScience

> PuRing PhytoMedical Research

>

> []

> Wednesday, December 22, 2004 5:40 AM

>

> RE: Re: poll for -TCM research

>

> Roger et al,

>

> I just want to comment on the issue of research in China. First, I am

> in no

> real authority to say much on this topic, but recently I have talked to

> numerous Chinese and over the last year d to numerous Chinese

> journals... I think that we should not be so fast to discount what the

> Chinese as a whole, are doing. Yes in the past and the present China

> has

> put out low-quality studies. But at the same time they are putting out

> some

> very high quality one's, IMO. {Western journals are the same}. The

> Chinese I

> spoke with say similar things, that, yes there are less reputable

> schools

> and journals, but there are one's that carry much more weight and 'can

> be

> trusted' and are of 'higher caliber'.

>

> Further note: A couple of months ago, Todd posted a link for the

> criteria

> for evaluating low / high quality research. At that time I asked, 'what

> is

> a proper number of participants and time to be considered higher

> quality.'

> I still haven't heard or found an answer. But I have seen studies from

> China that look as good as studies here in the West. But before we

> write

> off the whole country's research I think we should be a little more

> specific

> in what we think is wrong at the current time and make sure we have

> spent

> adequate time with the Chinese journals. I think Bob F. is in a good

> position to comment... Bob?

>

> Further: Roger says " American TCM establishments would be wise to do a

> thorough

>> > review of TCM and strip it of all of the cumbersome political baggage

> that

>> > it has acquired. "

>

> As far as herbalism or TCM theory goes, I still am far from convinced

> that

> there is this huge communism stripping. I ask you Roger to provide some

> examples / proof that this is the case. My Chinese teachers & my

> reading of

> pre-communistic texts etc. says otherwise...What 'political' influence

> are

> you suggesting we strip out? Also, do you really think that the medicine

> in

> Taiwan is that much different than in China? Just curious...

>

> -

>

>> >

>> > rw2 [rw2]

>> > Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:21 PM

>> >

>> > Re: poll for -TCM research

>> >

>> > You've exposed a nest of thorny issues that I've included as topics of

>> > discussion in my classes and in articles.

>> >

>> > Lack of good research, both anecdotal and controlled, is certainly one

> of

>> > them. However, I feel that the Chinese are in the best position to do

>> > these studies - their patient populations are large and they have the

>> > expertise of scientists trained in the West in statistics and

> experimental

>> > design. I think that with a combination of both gentle pressure and

> blunt

>> > exposes of the poor quality of their past research, that things could

>> > change. From my contacts in Taiwan, my impression is that the

> Taiwanese

>> > TCM establishments are more savvy regarding the need to use the best

> of

>> > scientific techniques without violating the integrity of the inductive

>> > synthetic pattern-recognition paradigm that is at the core of

> traditional

>> > Chinese herbology. The mainland Chinese, while often giving lip

> service to

>> > traditional Chinese medicine, show evidence that they have bought the

>> > philosophy of reductionistic materialism wholesale, and their research

>> > designs reveal that this is how most of them really think. The very

>> > philosophy of Communism, based on Hegel and Marx, is called

> dialectical

>> > materialism, which is incompatible with many of the ancient ideas of

>> > traditional Chinese medicine, which, as Manfred Porkert and Carl Jung

> have

>> > pointed out, is based on the philosophy of inductive synthesis.

>> >

>> > Scholars like Unschuld have provided a valuable perspective on the

> huge

>> > impact of Communist Chinese politics on the development of TCM during

> the

>> > last 55 years. American TCM establishments would be wise to do a

> thorough

>> > review of TCM and strip it of all of the cumbersome political baggage

> that

>> > it has acquired. Perhaps Taiwan is in a better position to do this, as

> it

>> > has served as both a repository of Chinese culture that would have

> been

>> > otherwise detroyed and as a focus of scientific and technical

> achievement

>> > on par with Japan and South Korea.

>> >

>> > There are several major problems with attempts to do good clinical

>> > research in the USA:

>> >

>> > * A general perception that NIH, CDC, FDA, and other alphabet

>> > bureaucracies are merely giving lip service to the idea of alternative

>> > health research, but the reality is that they all know their bread is

>> > buttered by the drug companies, and they will always find ways to

> inhibit

>> > or criticize alternatives that threaten the drug companies' profits.

>> >

>> > * Greater concerns over legal issues in the USA re: clinical

>> > studies, client confidentiality issues, informed consent for research.

>> >

>> > * Before one begins collecting random clinical anecdotes, a

>> > protocol needs to be designed to interpret the results. How does one

>> > record the symptoms, keep track of their estimated magnitude, control

> for

>> > bias, cross-check the accuracy of each practioners evaluation? Without

>> > these latter, a collection of random clinical anecdotes will be only

> that,

>> > and will be bluntly labeled as such by critics in the American medical

>> > establishment.

>> >

>> > The legal, regulatory, and educational environment is so much more

>> > conducive toward herbal research in Southeast and East Asia (or almost

>> > anywhere else in the world for that matter), that I don't think we

> will

>> > ever be able to catch up to them. So my suggestion would be to help

> give

>> > people in these countries technical advice and expertise and encourage

>> > them to do the research properly. Europe, especially Germany, has been

>> > another source of good herbal research. Given the drastic decline in

>> > American scientific education, I have little hope that this trend will

> be

>> > reversed anytime soon.

>> >

>> > Regarding your statement that in " the cure of chronic illness, I think

>> > science will actually prevail in this domain, thus a strategy of

> proving

>> > TCM's role in this area will receive diminishing research funding over

>> > time " :

>> >

>> > After 20 years of practice, I've concluded that TCM methods, in the

> narrow

>> > sense of being limited to the herbal, acupuncture, and bodywork

> methods

>> > passed down to us from the past up to even 60 years ago, are not

> enough to

>> > handle most chronic illnesses today. (Don't misinterpret me - I find

> them

>> > ***indispensible*** and effective, just not sufficient by themselves.)

>> > The reason is that the vast majority of chronic illnesses are due to a

>> > combination of dietary poisons, environmental poisons, and lifestyle

>> > factors that have arisen within the past few decades. (For example,

> the

>> > link between brain cancers and cellphones.) So of course, if you

> attempt

>> > to " cure " a person of a chronic illness with only herbs and

> acupuncture,

>> > in the long run you are almost guaranteed to fail. The number of new

>> > environmental poisons and food additives increases by the thousands

> each

>> > year. Add on top of that harmful radiation - cell phones, microwaves,

> and

>> > toxic music - we have a major crisis of civilization that far exceeds

>> > anything the Romans did with excessive drinking of alcohol and salting

>> > their food with lead chloride. The most effective solution in many

> cases

>> > is to educate clients and assist them in eliminating the worst

>> > environmental and dietary poisons. In the vast majority of cases,

> people

>> > have a choice in the matter - they can voluntary decide to continue

>> > consuming products that are slowly killing them, or they can stop.

> Voting

>> > with your dollars by refusing to buy harmful products is a very

> effective

>> > and underused method to promote change.

>> >

>> > I try to keep up with scientific developments in environmental health

>> > (which includes diet and nutrition), which I feel is at the cutting

> edge

>> > of breakthroughs in chronic disease.

>> > The tragedy of American TCM education is that it will find itself

>> > increasingly isolated in the past, if it does not include scientific

>> > training. And I'm not just talking about offering 2nd-rate courses in

>> > science for students who have not had these courses in college. We

> should

>> > be educating practitioners in how to adapt traditional Chinese methods

> to

>> > use the pattern-recognition paradigm as a tool of scientific

> understanding

>> > rather than as an item of religious dogma. If this does not happen,

> you

>> > will see an increasing number of TCM graduates who have memorized lots

> of

>> > stuff, but will not be able to figure out how to handle environmental

>> > illness, which encompasses most chronic illness today.

>> >

>> > As an example, take traditional Chinese diet therapy. There are many

> books

>> > on this subject. Yet how many of them even mention or discuss the

>> > following problems and issues?

>> > * Aspartame and MSG and why these are harmful

>> > * why microwaved food is harmful

>> > * why hydrogenated oils and trans-fats are harmful

>> >

>> > You will not find these issues discussed in ***any*** books of

> traditional

>> > Chinese herbology or diet because these things did not exist until the

>> > last 50 years or so. To understand what science has wrought, good and

> bad,

>> > it is necessary to understand it.

>> >

>> > If a TCM college graduate of today learned basic TCM pattern

> recognition

>> > skills and herbology, plus environmental health and nutrition -

> instead of

>> > acupuncture, the TCM profession in the U.S. **might** have a chance at

>> > overcoming its impending obsolescence, especially with regard to

> chronic

>> > illness.

>> >

>> > ---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

>> >

>>> > > Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:43:11 -0000

>>> > > " " <

>>> > >Re: New poll for

>>> > >

>>> > >Such self-selected polls of anecdotal experiences are considered

>> > meaningless (because

>>> > >they are). What do you think this will prove? and to whom? I think

> this

>> > will do more harm

>>> > >than good as it will be so easily dismissed as statistically

>> > insignificant and provide further

>>> > >evidence of our professional naivete. again, we will appear as a

>> > profession that continually

>>> > >polls it members about standards of care and never does any real

> research

>> > to back it up.

>>> > >If anyone out there actually had sustained regular success with

>> > hypertension and

>>> > >acupuncture, they should be able to provide documentation of long

> term

>> > followup. For

>>> > >over five years, I have been requesting documentation of successful

> long

>> > term treatment

>>> > >of even a single case of any chronic illness. I even created a

> database

>> > to collect the results

>>> > >online. The failure of a single member of this group to submit even

> one

>> > such documented

>>> > >case during this time speaks volumes more than such a bogus poll ever

>> > could. This is a

>>> > >matter to be pursued with proper deliberation by a professional

>> > organization. To make a

>>> > >claim for success in treatment yet demonstrate complete unwillingness

> to

>> > prove it is a

>>> > >sure recipe for disaster. A recent UC Irvine study is the first such

>> > proof I know of in this

>>> > >matter and it flies in the face of traditional practice. See press

>> > release at

>>> > >http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0402/28.htm

>>> > >

>>> > >Personally, I think our ship has kind of sailed. I no longer think

> it

>> > likely that the research I

>>> > >want for our field will ever get done. In about a decade, western

>> > medicine will have

>>> > >changed so drastically that there will be little interest in

> researching

>> > TCM as a gentler

>>> > >alternative anymore. We will still play a role in healthcare for

> several

>> > decades to come.

>>> > >But for the long run, I suspect history will take another path than

> the

>> > institution of TCM as

>>> > >a primary medical system. I now think our primary goal should be to

> show

>> > that TCM can

>>> > >lead to improved quality of life regardless of age or health. That

> it

>> > can noniatrogenically

>>> > >treat symptoms and self-limited conditions. And while it also could

> have

>> > played a role in

>>> > >the cure of chronic illness, I think science will actually prevail in

>> > this domain, thus a

>>> > >strategy of proving TCM's role in this area will receive diminishing

>> > research funding over

>>> > >time. As an example, I don't TCM treats hypertension well, but I do

>> > think TCM plus drugs

>>> > >results in better management of BP and fewer side effects. This is

> the

>> > primary role I

>>> > >envision for TCM herbology - adjunct to drug therapy - and it is the

>> > subject I will speak to

>>> > >at the upcoming Scripps conference. This is what we should rally

> behind

>> > and attempt to

>>> > >prove.

>>> > >

>>> > >You may ask why I would even want to be in such a field doomed to

>> > inevitable

>>> > >obsolescense. There are many reasons why one might make this choice

> We

>> > are in a

>>> > >transitional period where western medicine is crude and barbaric. In

>> > addition, CM

>>> > >promotes optimum health, not just normal physiology. So at this

> point in

>> > time, I see TCM

>>> > >as playing an important role as a bridge to the future, but not as

> the

>> > future. But I never

>>> > >figured it would be my last job. Americans changes jobs many times

>> > during their lives as

>> >

>>> > >technology changes. I do not think we are insultated from this

> phenomena

>> > just by doing

>>> > >something ancient. The social good and role TCM plays in its

> advancement

>> > interest me.

>>> > >TCM's perpetual professional existence of is of no concern at all.

> Its

>> > like when we knew

>>> > >the automobile was coming. This made passenger rail virtually

> obsolete

>> > for much of the

>>> > >country. That didn't mean we should stop upkeeping the railroads for

> the

>> > limited but vital

>>> > >purpose they serve.

>>> > >

>>> > >Todd

>> >

>> > ---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

>> >

>> > Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including

>> > board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and

> a

>> > free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>> >

December 23, 2004

Mike, The only reason I see for undertaking western style research is if

you are trying to influence those people that believe in or regulate by that

research model. That's why I do it. If I were still relying mainly on

patient visits for my livelihood I would not care that much about doing this

kind of research. As a practitioner, no one has ever asked me whether my

prescription had any scientific data to support my choice of herbs.

Insurance coverage for herbs, if you think that would be good, might require

research data undertaken within the parameters of controlled studies to

support such an idea (insurance). However, insurance coverage for herbs is

not only a practitioner's logistical management nightmare, but also less

likely as insurance companies continue to cover less and less of the western

drugs that are prescribed for OTC types of conditions, like pain, allergies,

etc. My post was only addressing an academic question.

Stephen Morrissey

mike Bowser [naturaldoc1

<BLOCKED::naturaldoc1 ]

Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:13 AM

Re: RE: poll for -TCM research