Guest guest Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 Hi all, There's been alot of talk about research papers on TCM and how it conflicts with the biomedical framework of testing. I believe that we should eventually test herbs, prescriptions, patents, acupuncture, cupping, etc, within a biomedical framework that fits. An RCT may have to be conducted by adding a additional inclusion criteria when selecting the subjects, which would of course be a TCM syndrome differentiation, so that all the subjects are the same. Anyhow, putting that aside, I think we are coming from it at the wrong direction. As we jump straight in and start testing our herbs and acupuncture against WM, we lose our theoretical bases if the RCT outcome is either positive or negative. WM may say that ok, acupuncture works for this or ok herbs can cure that, but they totally abandon our theories. It's not the issue of whether acupuncture or herbal medicine is accepted, as it already has been accepted, via WM's extraction of cures from herbs and acupuncture's effectiveness for pain, drug use, etc. What's more important is that our literature heritage is accepted with our theories of disease and illness. How can we get WM, politicians and such to accept our ancient, traditional knowledge of medicine? I believe that this can be accomplished on a number of fronts. Firstly, such scholars as Unschuld do great service to TCM even though they are not practicing TCM professionals. The TCM associations battle with the govt. powers and insurance brokers to benefit our pocket, but its up to us to implement the third part of the struggle, the acceptance of our beliefs. To accomplish this, we can construct simply studies where data is correlated from other studies and research to MATCH symptoms together. It's this basis of symptom matching that may help bring our beliefs through into the medical world. By symptom matching we can show a relationship between certain symptoms as based upon out syndrome differentiation understandings. For example, insomnia and anaemic people. If we can produce, write and publish a multitude of papers that shows a correlation between symptoms as based upon TCM understanding, then we can show that our literature heritage is worth WM's further investigating. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 There are great reams of research in the area of nutrients that cure illnesses. These have conveniently been neglected as few know about them. Information is cheap and everywhere and few pay any attention to it. Major decisions are made be companies and government officials without all the info and with special interest in mind. We cannot afford this system of healthcare, too expensive. While studies are fine we need grassroots PR to educate the masses about how this will impact them $. Since money is guiding decisions we need to focus on this more and more. Which would you rather pay for a cardiac bipass ($50 K USD) or regular herbs/supplements at $50-$75/month? I know which one I would choose. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto >Chinese Medicine >To: ><Chinese Medicine >,<TCMAcademics > Controlled Trials in TCM >Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:20:24 -0000 > >Hi all, > >There's been alot of talk about research papers on TCM and how it conflicts >with the biomedical framework of testing. I believe that we should >eventually test herbs, prescriptions, patents, acupuncture, cupping, etc, >within a biomedical framework that fits. An RCT may have to be conducted by >adding a additional inclusion criteria when selecting the subjects, which >would of course be a TCM syndrome differentiation, so that all the subjects >are the same. > >Anyhow, putting that aside, I think we are coming from it at the wrong >direction. As we jump straight in and start testing our herbs and >acupuncture against WM, we lose our theoretical bases if the RCT outcome is >either positive or negative. WM may say that ok, acupuncture works for this >or ok herbs can cure that, but they totally abandon our theories. It's not >the issue of whether acupuncture or herbal medicine is accepted, as it >already has been accepted, via WM's extraction of cures from herbs and >acupuncture's effectiveness for pain, drug use, etc. What's more important >is that our literature heritage is accepted with our theories of disease >and >illness. How can we get WM, politicians and such to accept our ancient, >traditional knowledge of medicine? > >I believe that this can be accomplished on a number of fronts. Firstly, >such >scholars as Unschuld do great service to TCM even though they are not >practicing TCM professionals. The TCM associations battle with the govt. >powers and insurance brokers to benefit our pocket, but its up to us to >implement the third part of the struggle, the acceptance of our beliefs. To >accomplish this, we can construct simply studies where data is correlated >from other studies and research to MATCH symptoms together. It's this basis >of symptom matching that may help bring our beliefs through into the >medical >world. By symptom matching we can show a relationship between certain >symptoms as based upon out syndrome differentiation understandings. For >example, insomnia and anaemic people. If we can produce, write and publish >a >multitude of papers that shows a correlation between symptoms as based upon >TCM understanding, then we can show that our literature heritage is worth >WM's further investigating. > >Kind regards > >Attilio D'Alberto >Doctor of (Beijing, China) >BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM >07786198900 >attiliodalberto > <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 Hi Attilio & All, I agree that we should encourage high-quality research and clinical papers on AP / TCM. However, IMO, we (TCM practitioners & researchers interested in TCM) are too late to play catch-up with WM. In the short-term, the best that we can do is to demonstrate that TCM can be useful in certain specific conditions / syndromes. Whether we like it or not, WM is controls healthcare in most nations on earth. The multinationals, Govmts and the healthcare industry will resist any major change away from that position. Even if WM decides to integrate the best of the CAM systems, IMO, it will be on ITS terms; WM will try to control the integreated system also. Several listers have written that WM is the main paradigm in the major hospitals in China. IMO, this trend will work its way into the towns and villages also. IMO, TCM will be seen as a peasant-medicine, better than nothing if " the superior " integrated system is not available. I agree that TCM practitioners should try to keep the TCM theories alive, at least those that have useful applications in clinical medicine. BUT, I do not see WM embracing TCM theories unless we can generate a huge amount of research data that underpin their usefulness in Dx / selection of optimal TCM remedies. IMO, whether or not standardised formulas (in AP / herbalism) give significantly better clinical outcomes than individualised prescribing, as in TCM, is one area that WM probably will test (in the future). It would be much easier for busy hospitals and clinics to adopt standardised prescribing if its clinical outcomes prove to be as good as (or reasonably close to) individualised prescribing. Also, the training of nurses, technicians and " TCM Aides " would be far easier if there is little hard evidence to suggest that detailed TCM training gives superior results. Best regards, Phil >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attilio wrote: > I believe that we should eventually test herbs, prescriptions, patents, > acupuncture, cupping, etc, within a biomedical framework that fits. An > RCT may have to be conducted by adding a additional inclusion criteria > when selecting the subjects, which would of course be a TCM syndrome > differentiation, so that all the subjects are the same. Anyhow, putting > that aside, I think we are coming from it at the wrong direction. As we > jump straight in and start testing our herbs and acupuncture against > WM, we lose our theoretical bases if the RCT outcome is either positive > or negative. WM may say that ok, acupuncture works for this or ok herbs > can cure that, but they totally abandon our theories. It's not the > issue of whether acupuncture or herbal medicine is accepted, as it > already has been accepted, via WM's extraction of cures from herbs and > acupuncture's effectiveness for pain, drug use, etc. What's more > important is that our literature heritage is accepted with our theories > of disease and illness. How can we get WM, politicians and such to > accept our ancient, traditional knowledge of medicine? I believe that > this can be accomplished on a number of fronts. Firstly, such scholars > as Unschuld do great service to TCM even though they are not practicing > TCM professionals. The TCM associations battle with the govt. powers > and insurance brokers to benefit our pocket, but its up to us to > implement the third part of the struggle, the acceptance of our > beliefs. To accomplish this, we can construct simply studies where data > is correlated from other studies and research to MATCH symptoms > together. It's this basis of symptom matching that may help bring our > beliefs through into the medical world. By symptom matching we can show > a relationship between certain symptoms as based upon out syndrome > differentiation understandings. For example, insomnia and anaemic > people. If we can produce, write and publish a multitude of papers that > shows a correlation between symptoms as based upon TCM understanding, > then we can show that our literature heritage is worth WM's further > investigating. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of > (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 > attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> > www.attiliodalberto.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 success may kill me examples; good news: U.S. approved clinical trials: A rigorous trial from the UCLA School of Medicine, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, red yeast extract [a common everyday oriental food] reduces cholesterol levels by an average of 40 points in 12 weeks when combined with a low-fat diet. That's about the same result you'd expect from a low dose of the popular cholesterol drug [without the side effects] ... bad news: Because red yeast extract contains lovastatin, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has successfully banned red yeast RICE from open store shelves, arguing that it's really a drug, needing a doctor's prescription. Therefore, red yeast rice can no longer be sold an unregulated supplement. Should it return to the market, it will require full FDA oversight, as do all other prescription drugs. (source http://www.wholehealthmd.com/news/viewarticle/1,1513,29,00.html) good news Ginseng effective in controlling/treating diabetes ... numerous studies bad news: (paraphrasing) FDA letter to me personally 2004 " ... if you prescribe ginseng, a herb and dietary supplement, for the treatment of diabetes ... [the FDA] will consider ginseng a " New Drug " [citation]. As a New Drug you [Ed Kasper LAc] will need our federal license to dispense it. good news: U.S.phrase II clinical trails underway (sponsored by HONSO) Sho-saiko-to (Xiao Chai Hu Tang) has shown promise in increasing survival in patients with liver cancer and to evaluate its therapeutic effect on hepatitis C. http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/11571.cfm?RecordID=553 & tab=HC bad news: if it works ...you ... will not (be able to use it)... I have to ask. What is the purpose of Controlled Trials in TCM ? In my own personal case as quoted above, the FDA did not challenge my right as a duly licensed California health care provider. I could diagnose " thirsting and wasting disease " and prescribe ginseng as a dietary supplement and more importantly the patient may actually recover. HOWEVER the FDA was unequivocal as to my scope of practice. I can not diagnosis " Diabetes " nor can I treat " Diabetes " . Basically saying anything used to treat any __legally defined disease__ is a drug and falls under the regulation of the FDA. I have been trained and licensed to help people by doing TCM. A differential diagnosis - the hallmark of TCM. Yet it seems (to me at least) that all the " controlled trial " and " research " abandon these principles. TCM does not have " high cholesterol " , does not have " diabetes " does not have " hepatitis C. " They do have symptoms and presentations that may be similar - but they are not identical. They have herbal formulas that help those symptoms. But TCM does not have one magic bullet, one herbal formula, for one single disease. from God's green acres, Merry Christmas. with Peace and Joy to all Ed Kasper LAc, Santa Cruz, CA. Message: 12 Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:20:24 -0000 " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto Controlled Trials in TCM Hi all, There's been alot of talk about research papers on TCM and how it conflicts with the biomedical framework of testing. I believe that we should eventually test herbs, prescriptions, patents, acupuncture, cupping, etc, within a biomedical framework that fits. An RCT may have to be conducted by adding a additional inclusion criteria when selecting the subjects, which would of course be a TCM syndrome differentiation, so that all the subjects are the same. Anyhow, putting that aside, I think we are coming from it at the wrong direction. As we jump straight in and start testing our herbs and acupuncture against WM, we lose our theoretical bases if the RCT outcome is either positive or negative. WM may say that ok, acupuncture works for this or ok herbs can cure that, but they totally abandon our theories. It's not the issue of whether acupuncture or herbal medicine is accepted, as it already has been accepted, via WM's extraction of cures from herbs and acupuncture's effectiveness for pain, drug use, etc. What's more important is that our literature heritage is accepted with our theories of disease and illness. How can we get WM, politicians and such to accept our ancient, traditional knowledge of medicine? I believe that this can be accomplished on a number of fronts. Firstly, such scholars as Unschuld do great service to TCM even though they are not practicing TCM professionals. The TCM associations battle with the govt. powers and insurance brokers to benefit our pocket, but its up to us to implement the third part of the struggle, the acceptance of our beliefs. To accomplish this, we can construct simply studies where data is correlated from other studies and research to MATCH symptoms together. It's this basis of symptom matching that may help bring our beliefs through into the medical world. By symptom matching we can show a relationship between certain symptoms as based upon out syndrome differentiation understandings. For example, insomnia and anaemic people. If we can produce, write and publish a multitude of papers that shows a correlation between symptoms as based upon TCM understanding, then we can show that our literature heritage is worth WM's further investigating. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 Dear TCM List, With respect to Phil I would sum up his approach as typical of an educated westerner with a little knowledge of TCM, but one blinded by western success and one who fails to see the uniqueness and potential for the TCM paradigm in the modern world. In the west, symptom based allopathic medicine, deals effectively with trauma injuries and acute conditions. Compared to TCM, western medicine as a glorified first aid system having its origins on the battlefields of Europe over the last few hundred years. Traditional knowledge of all but a few herbal 'simples' was burnt with the books and the practitioners long before the barber-cum-surgeon went into the ascendant. Moreover, western medicine is pathetically unable to manage many chronic conditions from cancers to diabetes and heart disease. These are the very conditions that sap health care resources and artificially inflate the cost of treatment for other diseases, locking the whole system into a desperate 'quick fix' syndrome.* In the underdeveloped world the diseases that plague western man are virtually unheard of EXCEPT when a western lifestyle is adopted.** Phil cites the preference in China for WM as a justification for WM. Sure, China is undergoing huge population shifts from the country to the cities, and massive industrialisation. The fabric of a traditional way of life - including the embedded traditional health system - is quickly disappearing and something MUST replace it. Clearly in a country such as China there is going to be a misguided perceived preference for 'quick fix' western medicine. I think this is where Phil's opinion has its source, and it is sad that he does not realise this is an expression of the problem, NOT a solution. Failure to see these changes as a response with limited capability simply demonstrates thinking from within the perspective he is trying to justify. Phil's position gives neither credit to a health system that has served China for at least 4000 years, nor makes a selling point for TCM sui generis, (an equal and separate partner along side WM) ! * ** These arguments have all been clearly documented in my paper " A 21st Century Understanding of Prostate Cancer " . The offer to Phil to review the document stands, as it did nearly a year ago when I first invited him to do just that. Have a Happy New Year All, Sammy. G.A. " Sammy " Bates BA, BSc, MSc, PGCE. http://www.prostateman.org/readers/ - Chinese Medicine Monday, December 27, 2004 6:32 PM Re: Controlled Trials in TCM Hi Attilio & All, I agree that we should encourage high-quality research and clinical papers on AP / TCM. However, IMO, we (TCM practitioners & researchers interested in TCM) are too late to play catch-up with WM. In the short-term, the best that we can do is to demonstrate that TCM can be useful in certain specific conditions / syndromes. Whether we like it or not, WM is controls healthcare in most nations on earth. The multinationals, Govmts and the healthcare industry will resist any major change away from that position. Even if WM decides to integrate the best of the CAM systems, IMO, it will be on ITS terms; WM will try to control the integreated system also. Several listers have written that WM is the main paradigm in the major hospitals in China. IMO, this trend will work its way into the towns and villages also. IMO, TCM will be seen as a peasant-medicine, better than nothing if " the superior " integrated system is not available. I agree that TCM practitioners should try to keep the TCM theories alive, at least those that have useful applications in clinical medicine. BUT, I do not see WM embracing TCM theories unless we can generate a huge amount of research data that underpin their usefulness in Dx / selection of optimal TCM remedies. IMO, whether or not standardised formulas (in AP / herbalism) give significantly better clinical outcomes than individualised prescribing, as in TCM, is one area that WM probably will test (in the future). It would be much easier for busy hospitals and clinics to adopt standardised prescribing if its clinical outcomes prove to be as good as (or reasonably close to) individualised prescribing. Also, the training of nurses, technicians and " TCM Aides " would be far easier if there is little hard evidence to suggest that detailed TCM training gives superior results. Best regards, Phil >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attilio wrote: > I believe that we should eventually test herbs, prescriptions, patents, > acupuncture, cupping, etc, within a biomedical framework that fits. An > RCT may have to be conducted by adding a additional inclusion criteria > when selecting the subjects, which would of course be a TCM syndrome > differentiation, so that all the subjects are the same. Anyhow, putting > that aside, I think we are coming from it at the wrong direction. As we > jump straight in and start testing our herbs and acupuncture against > WM, we lose our theoretical bases if the RCT outcome is either positive > or negative. WM may say that ok, acupuncture works for this or ok herbs > can cure that, but they totally abandon our theories. It's not the > issue of whether acupuncture or herbal medicine is accepted, as it > already has been accepted, via WM's extraction of cures from herbs and > acupuncture's effectiveness for pain, drug use, etc. What's more > important is that our literature heritage is accepted with our theories > of disease and illness. How can we get WM, politicians and such to > accept our ancient, traditional knowledge of medicine? I believe that > this can be accomplished on a number of fronts. Firstly, such scholars > as Unschuld do great service to TCM even though they are not practicing > TCM professionals. The TCM associations battle with the govt. powers > and insurance brokers to benefit our pocket, but its up to us to > implement the third part of the struggle, the acceptance of our > beliefs. To accomplish this, we can construct simply studies where data > is correlated from other studies and research to MATCH symptoms > together. It's this basis of symptom matching that may help bring our > beliefs through into the medical world. By symptom matching we can show > a relationship between certain symptoms as based upon out syndrome > differentiation understandings. For example, insomnia and anaemic > people. If we can produce, write and publish a multitude of papers that > shows a correlation between symptoms as based upon TCM understanding, > then we can show that our literature heritage is worth WM's further > investigating. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of > (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 > attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> > www.attiliodalberto.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 Sammy, Life exectancy rates in China have jumped 31 years since 1950 (40 to 71 years). Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, why are these life expectancy rates rising? I'd be interested to hear about your theory. Kind regards Dermot - " sammy_bates " <sammy_bates <Chinese Medicine > Tuesday, December 28, 2004 11:33 AM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > > Dear TCM List, > > With respect to Phil I would sum up his approach as typical of an educated > westerner with a little knowledge of TCM, but one blinded by western > success and one who fails to see the uniqueness and potential for the TCM > paradigm in the modern world. > > In the west, symptom based allopathic medicine, deals effectively with > trauma injuries and acute conditions. Compared to TCM, western medicine as > a glorified first aid system having its origins on the battlefields of > Europe over the last few hundred years. Traditional knowledge of all but a > few herbal 'simples' was burnt with the books and the practitioners long > before the barber-cum-surgeon went into the ascendant. Moreover, western > medicine is pathetically unable to manage many chronic conditions from > cancers to diabetes and heart disease. These are the very conditions that > sap health care resources and artificially inflate the cost of treatment > for other diseases, locking the whole system into a desperate 'quick fix' > syndrome.* > > In the underdeveloped world the diseases that plague western man are > virtually unheard of EXCEPT when a western lifestyle is adopted.** Phil > cites the preference in China for WM as a justification for WM. Sure, > China is undergoing huge population shifts from the country to the cities, > and massive industrialisation. The fabric of a traditional way of life - > including the embedded traditional health system - is quickly disappearing > and something MUST replace it. Clearly in a country such as China there is > going to be a misguided perceived preference for 'quick fix' western > medicine. I think this is where Phil's opinion has its source, and it is > sad that he does not realise this is an expression of the problem, NOT a > solution. Failure to see these changes as a response with limited > capability simply demonstrates thinking from within the perspective he is > trying to justify. Phil's position gives neither credit to a health system > that has served China for at least 4000 years, nor makes a selling point > for TCM sui generis, (an equal and separate partner along side WM) ! > > * ** These arguments have all been clearly documented in my paper " A 21st > Century Understanding of Prostate Cancer " . The offer to Phil to review the > document stands, as it did nearly a year ago when I first invited him to > do just that. > > Have a Happy New Year All, > > Sammy. > > G.A. " Sammy " Bates > BA, BSc, MSc, PGCE. > http://www.prostateman.org/readers/ > > > - > > Chinese Medicine > Monday, December 27, 2004 6:32 PM > Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > > Hi Attilio & All, > > I agree that we should encourage high-quality research and clinical > papers on AP / TCM. However, IMO, we (TCM practitioners & > researchers interested in TCM) are too late to play catch-up with WM. In > the short-term, the best that we can do is to demonstrate that TCM can > be useful in certain specific conditions / syndromes. > > Whether we like it or not, WM is controls healthcare in most nations on > earth. The multinationals, Govmts and the healthcare industry will resist > any major change away from that position. Even if WM decides to > integrate the best of the CAM systems, IMO, it will be on ITS terms; WM > will try to control the integreated system also. > > Several listers have written that WM is the main paradigm in the major > hospitals in China. IMO, this trend will work its way into the towns and > villages also. IMO, TCM will be seen as a peasant-medicine, better than > nothing if " the superior " integrated system is not available. > > I agree that TCM practitioners should try to keep the TCM theories alive, > at least those that have useful applications in clinical medicine. BUT, I > do not see WM embracing TCM theories unless we can generate a > huge amount of research data that underpin their usefulness in Dx / > selection of optimal TCM remedies. > > IMO, whether or not standardised formulas (in AP / herbalism) give > significantly better clinical outcomes than individualised prescribing, > as > in TCM, is one area that WM probably will test (in the future). > > It would be much easier for busy hospitals and clinics to adopt > standardised prescribing if its clinical outcomes prove to be as good as > (or reasonably close to) individualised prescribing. Also, the training > of > nurses, technicians and " TCM Aides " would be far easier if there is > little > hard evidence to suggest that detailed TCM training gives superior > results. > > Best regards, > Phil > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Attilio wrote: > > I believe that we should eventually test herbs, prescriptions, patents, > > acupuncture, cupping, etc, within a biomedical framework that fits. An > > RCT may have to be conducted by adding a additional inclusion criteria > > when selecting the subjects, which would of course be a TCM syndrome > > differentiation, so that all the subjects are the same. Anyhow, putting > > that aside, I think we are coming from it at the wrong direction. As we > > jump straight in and start testing our herbs and acupuncture against > > WM, we lose our theoretical bases if the RCT outcome is either positive > > or negative. WM may say that ok, acupuncture works for this or ok herbs > > can cure that, but they totally abandon our theories. It's not the > > issue of whether acupuncture or herbal medicine is accepted, as it > > already has been accepted, via WM's extraction of cures from herbs and > > acupuncture's effectiveness for pain, drug use, etc. What's more > > important is that our literature heritage is accepted with our theories > > of disease and illness. How can we get WM, politicians and such to > > accept our ancient, traditional knowledge of medicine? I believe that > > this can be accomplished on a number of fronts. Firstly, such scholars > > as Unschuld do great service to TCM even though they are not practicing > > TCM professionals. The TCM associations battle with the govt. powers > > and insurance brokers to benefit our pocket, but its up to us to > > implement the third part of the struggle, the acceptance of our > > beliefs. To accomplish this, we can construct simply studies where data > > is correlated from other studies and research to MATCH symptoms > > together. It's this basis of symptom matching that may help bring our > > beliefs through into the medical world. By symptom matching we can show > > a relationship between certain symptoms as based upon out syndrome > > differentiation understandings. For example, insomnia and anaemic > > people. If we can produce, write and publish a multitude of papers that > > shows a correlation between symptoms as based upon TCM understanding, > > then we can show that our literature heritage is worth WM's further > > investigating. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of Chinese > Medicine > > (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 > > attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> > > www.attiliodalberto.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 Dermot, You make it sound very simple, but you forget that the turmoil of China in the last 100 years has meant not all of the people, not all of the time, have access to an effective health system, WM or TCM for that matter. The improvements in China you mention have been brought about by social and political change, not medical intervention alone. Simple things like understanding the need for sterile equipment, clean water and adequate nutrition transcend differences between WM and TCM. > Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, Sorry, but I never said such a stupid thing as that. I am not attacking WM, I am attacking the mind-set that puts a 'quick-fix' treatment of symptoms, in front of a holistic understanding of disease etiology and a balanced approach to treating the individual. I have a question for you: Are suggesting WM is superior to TCM in every respect ? Maybe you could offer some indication of where you think the strengths of TCM lie ;-) Kind regards, Sammy. - Dermot O'Connor Chinese Medicine Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:49 PM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM Sammy, Life exectancy rates in China have jumped 31 years since 1950 (40 to 71 years). Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, why are these life expectancy rates rising? I'd be interested to hear about your theory. Kind regards Dermot - " sammy_bates " <sammy_bates <Chinese Medicine > Tuesday, December 28, 2004 11:33 AM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > > Dear TCM List, > > With respect to Phil I would sum up his approach as typical of an educated > westerner with a little knowledge of TCM, but one blinded by western > success and one who fails to see the uniqueness and potential for the TCM > paradigm in the modern world. > > In the west, symptom based allopathic medicine, deals effectively with > trauma injuries and acute conditions. Compared to TCM, western medicine as > a glorified first aid system having its origins on the battlefields of > Europe over the last few hundred years. Traditional knowledge of all but a > few herbal 'simples' was burnt with the books and the practitioners long > before the barber-cum-surgeon went into the ascendant. Moreover, western > medicine is pathetically unable to manage many chronic conditions from > cancers to diabetes and heart disease. These are the very conditions that > sap health care resources and artificially inflate the cost of treatment > for other diseases, locking the whole system into a desperate 'quick fix' > syndrome.* > > In the underdeveloped world the diseases that plague western man are > virtually unheard of EXCEPT when a western lifestyle is adopted.** Phil > cites the preference in China for WM as a justification for WM. Sure, > China is undergoing huge population shifts from the country to the cities, > and massive industrialisation. The fabric of a traditional way of life - > including the embedded traditional health system - is quickly disappearing > and something MUST replace it. Clearly in a country such as China there is > going to be a misguided perceived preference for 'quick fix' western > medicine. I think this is where Phil's opinion has its source, and it is > sad that he does not realise this is an expression of the problem, NOT a > solution. Failure to see these changes as a response with limited > capability simply demonstrates thinking from within the perspective he is > trying to justify. Phil's position gives neither credit to a health system > that has served China for at least 4000 years, nor makes a selling point > for TCM sui generis, (an equal and separate partner along side WM) ! > > * ** These arguments have all been clearly documented in my paper " A 21st > Century Understanding of Prostate Cancer " . The offer to Phil to review the > document stands, as it did nearly a year ago when I first invited him to > do just that. > > Have a Happy New Year All, > > Sammy. > > G.A. " Sammy " Bates > BA, BSc, MSc, PGCE. > http://www.prostateman.org/readers/ > > > - > > Chinese Medicine > Monday, December 27, 2004 6:32 PM > Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > > Hi Attilio & All, > > I agree that we should encourage high-quality research and clinical > papers on AP / TCM. However, IMO, we (TCM practitioners & > researchers interested in TCM) are too late to play catch-up with WM. In > the short-term, the best that we can do is to demonstrate that TCM can > be useful in certain specific conditions / syndromes. > > Whether we like it or not, WM is controls healthcare in most nations on > earth. The multinationals, Govmts and the healthcare industry will resist > any major change away from that position. Even if WM decides to > integrate the best of the CAM systems, IMO, it will be on ITS terms; WM > will try to control the integreated system also. > > Several listers have written that WM is the main paradigm in the major > hospitals in China. IMO, this trend will work its way into the towns and > villages also. IMO, TCM will be seen as a peasant-medicine, better than > nothing if " the superior " integrated system is not available. > > I agree that TCM practitioners should try to keep the TCM theories alive, > at least those that have useful applications in clinical medicine. BUT, I > do not see WM embracing TCM theories unless we can generate a > huge amount of research data that underpin their usefulness in Dx / > selection of optimal TCM remedies. > > IMO, whether or not standardised formulas (in AP / herbalism) give > significantly better clinical outcomes than individualised prescribing, > as > in TCM, is one area that WM probably will test (in the future). > > It would be much easier for busy hospitals and clinics to adopt > standardised prescribing if its clinical outcomes prove to be as good as > (or reasonably close to) individualised prescribing. Also, the training > of > nurses, technicians and " TCM Aides " would be far easier if there is > little > hard evidence to suggest that detailed TCM training gives superior > results. > > Best regards, > Phil > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Attilio wrote: > > I believe that we should eventually test herbs, prescriptions, patents, > > acupuncture, cupping, etc, within a biomedical framework that fits. An > > RCT may have to be conducted by adding a additional inclusion criteria > > when selecting the subjects, which would of course be a TCM syndrome > > differentiation, so that all the subjects are the same. Anyhow, putting > > that aside, I think we are coming from it at the wrong direction. As we > > jump straight in and start testing our herbs and acupuncture against > > WM, we lose our theoretical bases if the RCT outcome is either positive > > or negative. WM may say that ok, acupuncture works for this or ok herbs > > can cure that, but they totally abandon our theories. It's not the > > issue of whether acupuncture or herbal medicine is accepted, as it > > already has been accepted, via WM's extraction of cures from herbs and > > acupuncture's effectiveness for pain, drug use, etc. What's more > > important is that our literature heritage is accepted with our theories > > of disease and illness. How can we get WM, politicians and such to > > accept our ancient, traditional knowledge of medicine? I believe that > > this can be accomplished on a number of fronts. Firstly, such scholars > > as Unschuld do great service to TCM even though they are not practicing > > TCM professionals. The TCM associations battle with the govt. powers > > and insurance brokers to benefit our pocket, but its up to us to > > implement the third part of the struggle, the acceptance of our > > beliefs. To accomplish this, we can construct simply studies where data > > is correlated from other studies and research to MATCH symptoms > > together. It's this basis of symptom matching that may help bring our > > beliefs through into the medical world. By symptom matching we can show > > a relationship between certain symptoms as based upon out syndrome > > differentiation understandings. For example, insomnia and anaemic > > people. If we can produce, write and publish a multitude of papers that > > shows a correlation between symptoms as based upon TCM understanding, > > then we can show that our literature heritage is worth WM's further > > investigating. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of Chinese > Medicine > > (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 > > attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> > > www.attiliodalberto.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 >> Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, Sammy Said " Sorry, but I never said such a stupid thing as that. I am not attacking WM, I am attacking the mind-set that puts a 'quick-fix' treatment of symptoms, in front of a holistic understanding of disease etiology and a balanced approach to treating the individual. Dermot said. - Glad you agree that this opinion is stupid. When you advocated taking aspirin rather than going to a WM hospital when suffering a severe heart attack, or stroke, it gave me the wrong impression that you were very anti-WM to the point that you thought it was dangerous. Sammy Said " I have a question for you: Are suggesting WM is superior to TCM in every respect ? Maybe you could offer some indication of where you think the strengths of TCM lie ;-) Dermot said - No, Sammy I'm a TCM practitioner and believe there are strengths and weaknesses in both medical systems. It often depends on the condition being treated. Another important factor is the skill of the practitioner. I also believe that it is perfectly acceptable to receive treatments from both medical systems. Its not a competition. Kind regards Dermot P.S. I suggest that this debate about WM v CM has become very " old " now and should not continue to take up space on this forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 > Dermot said. - Glad you agree that this opinion is stupid. When you advocated taking aspirin rather than going to a WM hospital when suffering a severe heart attack, or stroke, it gave me the wrong impression that you were very anti-WM to the point that you thought it was dangerous. Dermot, when I said that I was simply referring to the fact that aspirin is a well known emergency treatment for coronary infarction. There are hundresd of references like this one on PubMed. I would say to someone with a coronary problem: " Bt all means carry an aspirin bottle around with you, and indeed have 1/2 aspirin a day as prophylactic. But you also need to address your health condition in a wider context. Exercise ? Reduced sat fat diet ? Maybe even consult a TCM doctor to investigate underlying causes .. ? " Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2004;5 Suppl 5:S39-46. Reducing cardiac events after acute coronary syndromes. Granger CB, Weaver WD. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Coronary heart disease is the number one cause of death in the world and acute coronary syndromes (ACS) continue to be associated with high rates of morbidity. ACS refers to the spectrum of acute myocardial ischemia, including unstable angina, ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and acute MI without ST segment elevation (NSTEMI). Current guidelines indicate both aspirin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists (if catheterization/revascularization are planned) as class IA recommendations in ACS. Anticoagulant therapy, in the form of heparin, is a class IA recommendation for the acute hospital phase of ACS. The risk of recurrent thrombotic events following ACS remains high in the post-hospital phase, creating a rationale for the use of oral direct thrombin inhibitors such as ximelagatran, in both the acute and long-term settings. The Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Direct Thrombin Inhibitor Ximelagatran in Patients with Recent and Myocardial Damage (ESTEEM) trial, a placebo-controlled, double-blind study of post-MI patients, evaluated 4 dosing regimens of ximelagatran versus placebo in the initial months following an ACS and found an encouraging reduction in the end points of death, MI, and stroke with the use of an oral direct thrombin inhibitor. PMID: 15619614 [PubMed - in process] > P.S. I suggest that this debate about WM v CM has become very " old " now and should not continue to take up space on this forum That is fine with me. I didn't start it ;-) This was an offshoot of the PC-SPES debate where I said: * ** These arguments have all been clearly documented in my paper " A 21st Century Understanding of Prostate Cancer " . The offer to ....... review the document stands .......... As for controlled trials, I would like to put a PC-SPES slant on that thread as follows: It looks like Sophie Chen is working in the UK to produce a new PC-SPES formulation. Word has it that she come up with something that does not suppress androgen. If that is so it will be great advance in the treatment of prostate cancer. To avoid the sillyness experienced with the first formulation of PC-SPES we need to adopt a systematic approach to recording its use and its effects. I posted the following on a couple of lists and some of you may find it useful, to get a handle on how TCM practitioners might approach men coming to you asking you if you can improve on the formula, and maybe do it less expensively. [ One of the problems with PC-SPES was its expense, and it did spawn a number of look-alikes, Prostasol being one of the most durable and successful. ]. Here it is: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The importance of keeping a record (hx or PCD as otherwise known) is illustrated below with two diagrams. I used the familiar Date | PSA | testosterone | Other .. ... to import into a spreadsheet and draw the graph automatically. I have not shown testosterone here to avoid clutter in the present context. The first larger diagram shows my PSA history over almost a decade. The early part is extrapolated and may not be a true representation, but since 1996 I have been having monthly PSA and testosterone blood draws. The graph includes periods of HB on Zoladex, and numerous 'blips' ( irregular 'spikes' and 'dips') where I happened on things that were causing my PSA to increase or decrease at a rate different to the predicted rate based on a logarithmic presentation. A log of PSA will give a straight line, the angle (+/-) will tell us whether the tumour is growing or receding - as long as PSA is a reliable marker of course. I want to point out two 'spikes' that alerted me to the problem with CPA (cyproterone acetate) a progestin used to allay the fatigue of androgen deprivation. " Zoladex 3 " and " Zoladex 4 " point to these spikes at the end of a period of low PSA. If you scan down the page you will see I have a second smaller diagram highlighting this. Here are the two spikes again: The first one I noticed by accident as I was coming OFF a bout of HB towards the end of 2000. My PSA came up really quickly, then faded for a while before the effect of low testosterone kicked in, causing PSA to rise once more. The second 'spike' in 2001 again at the end of a period of HB This time I deliberately tried to reproduce the effect a second time by taking CPA for a few weeks in addition to the Zoladex I was one. Sure enough a 'spike' appeared. This time it was completely suppressed by the next shot of Zoladex until that too wore off and the effect of low androgen caused my PSA to come up again. There is a lot more than this in my hx. A lot more, for example evidence that high levels of testosterone do not cause further increases in PSA once the low testosterone phase has been overcome during an OFF HB period, intermittent phase - but that will do for now. I want to impress on all of you the need to start making an accurate record of your conditon so it can be graphed. If the new PC-SPES does come out, then we will want to have predictable and repeatable scientific documentation to take us forward. We do not want a repeat of that sillyness ........... We need to be strong, and we need to be smart to help the new PC-SPES survive. This will be regardless of how good the new formulation may be, because the great threat is that we will be able to take charge of our own disease, and manage it ourselves, without the constant, expensive, intervention of doctors. Chorus of MD's and Pharma CEO's " Good grief! What will happen to our pension funds then ! 'Patient empowerment' is one thing when it means them mindlessly regurgitating the brainwash we dreamt up for them. But taking care of themselves, eliminating the middleman - that is too hard a pill to swallow ! We must stop them at any cost ! " Believe me folks the attack on alternative medicine has already started big time, do not flatter yourself that distant democratic processes will smooth it all out. You have to be part of this democratic process in a pro-active and progressive way. If not for you then for your sons. Just like charity, democracy starts at home, so get that PC hx together now ! Sammy. Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you see fit. If the graphs do not come out they are available at the natural_prostate_treatments home page see Messages in the left hand Menu and Search on > hx - PCD < . http://prostateman.org/ - Dermot O'Connor Chinese Medicine Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:11 AM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM >> Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, Sammy Said " Sorry, but I never said such a stupid thing as that. I am not attacking WM, I am attacking the mind-set that puts a 'quick-fix' treatment of symptoms, in front of a holistic understanding of disease etiology and a balanced approach to treating the individual. Dermot said. - Glad you agree that this opinion is stupid. When you advocated taking aspirin rather than going to a WM hospital when suffering a severe heart attack, or stroke, it gave me the wrong impression that you were very anti-WM to the point that you thought it was dangerous. Sammy Said " I have a question for you: Are suggesting WM is superior to TCM in every respect ? Maybe you could offer some indication of where you think the strengths of TCM lie ;-) Dermot said - No, Sammy I'm a TCM practitioner and believe there are strengths and weaknesses in both medical systems. It often depends on the condition being treated. Another important factor is the skill of the practitioner. I also believe that it is perfectly acceptable to receive treatments from both medical systems. Its not a competition. Kind regards Dermot P.S. I suggest that this debate about WM v CM has become very " old " now and should not continue to take up space on this forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 In fact " WM disadvantages " received the lowest vote in Attilio's poll a few month's ago, when Qigong was ruled out for further discussion on this forum. So I'm surprised that this debate has been allowed to surface again. Kind regards Dermot - " Dermot O'Connor " <dermot <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:11 AM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > >>> Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, > > Sammy Said " Sorry, but I never said such a stupid thing as that. I am > not > attacking WM, I am attacking the mind-set that puts a 'quick-fix' > treatment > of symptoms, in front of a holistic understanding of disease etiology and > a > balanced approach to treating the individual. > > Dermot said. - Glad you agree that this opinion is stupid. When you > advocated taking aspirin rather than going to a WM hospital when suffering > a > severe heart attack, or stroke, it gave me the wrong impression that you > were very anti-WM to the point that you thought it was dangerous. > > Sammy Said " I have a question for you: Are suggesting WM is superior to > TCM in every respect ? Maybe you could offer some indication of where you > think the strengths of TCM lie ;-) > > Dermot said - No, Sammy I'm a TCM practitioner and believe there are > strengths and weaknesses in both medical systems. It often depends on the > condition being treated. Another important factor is the skill of the > practitioner. I also believe that it is perfectly acceptable to receive > treatments from both medical systems. Its not a competition. > > Kind regards > > Dermot > > P.S. I suggest that this debate about WM v CM has become very " old " now > and > should not continue to take up space on this forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 > Dermot, when I said that I was simply referring to the fact that > aspirin is a well known emergency treatment for coronary infarction. Yes Sammy, I would say that this is now common knowledge. But if you suffer a severe heart attack or stroke and take an aspirin alone as a means to avoid going to hospital? Well I think that is just being foolhardy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 >> Dermot said. - Glad you agree that this opinion is stupid. When you > advocated taking aspirin rather than going to a WM hospital when suffering > a > severe heart attack, or stroke, it gave me the wrong impression that you > were very anti-WM to the point that you thought it was dangerous. > > Dermot, when I said that I was simply referring to the fact that > aspirin is a well known emergency treatment for coronary infarction. Also Sammy for reference, it isn't advisable to tell someone who has suffered a stroke to take aspirin. Research has shown that although aspirin lowers the risk for heart attack by about 32%, it increases the risk for hemorrhagic stroke by 84%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 This is very true Dermot. Thank you for bringing it to our attention again. The discussion of WM as a disadvantage medicine is not allowed on this group. This is because, by not allowing the side effects of WM to be discussed, it will allows us, TCM practitioners, to focus our attention upon our own advantages rather than bicker as to our hard-done-by situation and all the problems of WM. We as an industry, really need to be more optimistic and pro-active. It’s better that we direct our energy and attention to the betterment of TCM than the side effects of WM. Hopefully, if we all do our best for the good of the whole, we can make a difference for ourselves, TCM and towards patients. Attilio Dermot O'Connor <dermot wrote: In fact " WM disadvantages " received the lowest vote in Attilio's poll a few month's ago, when Qigong was ruled out for further discussion on this forum. So I'm surprised that this debate has been allowed to surface again. Kind regards Dermot - " Dermot O'Connor " <dermot <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:11 AM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > >>> Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, > > Sammy Said " Sorry, but I never said such a stupid thing as that. I am > not > attacking WM, I am attacking the mind-set that puts a 'quick-fix' > treatment > of symptoms, in front of a holistic understanding of disease etiology and > a > balanced approach to treating the individual. > > Dermot said. - Glad you agree that this opinion is stupid. When you > advocated taking aspirin rather than going to a WM hospital when suffering > a > severe heart attack, or stroke, it gave me the wrong impression that you > were very anti-WM to the point that you thought it was dangerous. > > Sammy Said " I have a question for you: Are suggesting WM is superior to > TCM in every respect ? Maybe you could offer some indication of where you > think the strengths of TCM lie ;-) > > Dermot said - No, Sammy I'm a TCM practitioner and believe there are > strengths and weaknesses in both medical systems. It often depends on the > condition being treated. Another important factor is the skill of the > practitioner. I also believe that it is perfectly acceptable to receive > treatments from both medical systems. Its not a competition. > > Kind regards > > Dermot > > P.S. I suggest that this debate about WM v CM has become very " old " now > and > should not continue to take up space on this forum ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 I'd be curious how life expectancy rates are effected by the decrease in the death of newborn children, if those are factored in. Sometimes statistics are inflated by numerous factors such as this. On Dec 28, 2004, at 2:44 PM, sammy_bates wrote: > > Dermot, > > You make it sound very simple, but you forget that the turmoil of > China in the last 100 years has meant not all of the people, not all > of the time, have access to an effective health system, WM or TCM for > that matter. The improvements in China you mention have been brought > about by social and political change, not medical intervention alone. > Simple things like understanding the need for sterile equipment, clean > water and adequate nutrition transcend differences between WM and TCM. > > > Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, > > Sorry, but I never said such a stupid thing as that. I am not > attacking WM, I am attacking the mind-set that puts a 'quick-fix' > treatment of symptoms, in front of a holistic understanding of disease > etiology and a balanced approach to treating the individual. > > I have a question for you: Are suggesting WM is superior to TCM in > every respect ? Maybe you could offer some indication of where you > think the strengths of TCM lie ;-) > > Kind regards, > > Sammy. > > > - > Dermot O'Connor > Chinese Medicine > Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:49 PM > Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > > > > Sammy, > > Life exectancy rates in China have jumped 31 years since 1950 (40 > to 71 > years). Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many > people, > why are these life expectancy rates rising? I'd be interested to > hear about > your theory. > > Kind regards > > Dermot > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Dermot, good point. but may be due to the end of the ravages of war and the political unification of the country which resulting in public services like water and sewer and a normal life to develop. (post Korean War era to present). Another factor was the Governments insistence upon a single child. So IMO, the health of the population is not dependant upon western science interventionism. Ed Kasper LAc. Licensed Acupuncturist & Herbalist Acupuncture is a jab well done www.HappyHerbalist.com Santa Cruz, CA. Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:49:05 -0000 " Dermot O'Connor " <dermot Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM Sammy, Life exectancy rates in China have jumped 31 years since 1950 (40 to 71 years). Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, why are these life expectancy rates rising? I'd be interested to hear about your theory. Kind regards Dermot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 How could anyone disagree with what you have to say. But, again, you are quoting me out of context. Sammy. - Dermot O'Connor Chinese Medicine Wednesday, December 29, 2004 3:50 PM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > Dermot, when I said that I was simply referring to the fact that > aspirin is a well known emergency treatment for coronary infarction. Yes Sammy, I would say that this is now common knowledge. But if you suffer a severe heart attack or stroke and take an aspirin alone as a means to avoid going to hospital? Well I think that is just being foolhardy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Dermot quoted something I said months ago, about WM and aspirin, long before the current edict was in place (see Attilio's note below). Sammy. - Attilio D'Alberto Chinese Medicine Wednesday, December 29, 2004 4:43 PM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM This is very true Dermot. Thank you for bringing it to our attention again. The discussion of WM as a disadvantage medicine is not allowed on this group. This is because, by not allowing the side effects of WM to be discussed, it will allows us, TCM practitioners, to focus our attention upon our own advantages rather than bicker as to our hard-done-by situation and all the problems of WM. We as an industry, really need to be more optimistic and pro-active. It's better that we direct our energy and attention to the betterment of TCM than the side effects of WM. Hopefully, if we all do our best for the good of the whole, we can make a difference for ourselves, TCM and towards patients. Attilio Dermot O'Connor <dermot wrote: In fact " WM disadvantages " received the lowest vote in Attilio's poll a few month's ago, when Qigong was ruled out for further discussion on this forum. So I'm surprised that this debate has been allowed to surface again. Kind regards Dermot - " Dermot O'Connor " <dermot <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:11 AM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > >>> Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, > > Sammy Said " Sorry, but I never said such a stupid thing as that. I am > not > attacking WM, I am attacking the mind-set that puts a 'quick-fix' > treatment > of symptoms, in front of a holistic understanding of disease etiology and > a > balanced approach to treating the individual. > > Dermot said. - Glad you agree that this opinion is stupid. When you > advocated taking aspirin rather than going to a WM hospital when suffering > a > severe heart attack, or stroke, it gave me the wrong impression that you > were very anti-WM to the point that you thought it was dangerous. > > Sammy Said " I have a question for you: Are suggesting WM is superior to > TCM in every respect ? Maybe you could offer some indication of where you > think the strengths of TCM lie ;-) > > Dermot said - No, Sammy I'm a TCM practitioner and believe there are > strengths and weaknesses in both medical systems. It often depends on the > condition being treated. Another important factor is the skill of the > practitioner. I also believe that it is perfectly acceptable to receive > treatments from both medical systems. Its not a competition. > > Kind regards > > Dermot > > P.S. I suggest that this debate about WM v CM has become very " old " now > and > should not continue to take up space on this forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Sorry Sammy, but you brought up the WM v TCM debate when you rounded on Phil. I was simply responding to this See your quote below of the 28th of December. I would like it if we could move on now, besides I'm sure that there is far more that we agree on rather than disagree on. I also agree with Attilio, we should focus our attention on the betterment of TCM rather than trying to damn other systems of medicine. Kind regards Dermot - " sammy_bates " <sammy_bates <Chinese Medicine > Thursday, December 30, 2004 9:44 AM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > Dermot quoted something I said months ago, about WM and aspirin, long > before the current edict was in place (see Attilio's note below). > Sammy. > - > Attilio D'Alberto > Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, December 29, 2004 4:43 PM > Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > > > > This is very true Dermot. Thank you for bringing it to our attention > again. > > > > The discussion of WM as a disadvantage medicine is not allowed on this > group. This is because, by not allowing the side effects of WM to be > discussed, it will allows us, TCM practitioners, to focus our attention > upon our own advantages rather than bicker as to our hard-done-by > situation and all the problems of WM. We as an industry, really need to be > more optimistic and pro-active. It's better that we direct our energy and > attention to the betterment of TCM than the side effects of WM. Hopefully, > if we all do our best for the good of the whole, we can make a difference > for ourselves, TCM and towards patients. > > > Attilio > > Dermot O'Connor <dermot wrote: > > In fact " WM disadvantages " received the lowest vote in Attilio's poll a > few > month's ago, when Qigong was ruled out for further discussion on this > forum. > So I'm surprised that this debate has been allowed to surface again. > > Kind regards > > Dermot > > > - > " Dermot O'Connor " <dermot > <Chinese Medicine > > Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:11 AM > Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > > > > > > >>> Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, > > > > Sammy Said " Sorry, but I never said such a stupid thing as that. I am > > not > > attacking WM, I am attacking the mind-set that puts a 'quick-fix' > > treatment > > of symptoms, in front of a holistic understanding of disease etiology > and > > a > > balanced approach to treating the individual. > > > > Dermot said. - Glad you agree that this opinion is stupid. When you > > advocated taking aspirin rather than going to a WM hospital when > suffering > > a > > severe heart attack, or stroke, it gave me the wrong impression that > you > > were very anti-WM to the point that you thought it was dangerous. > > > > Sammy Said " I have a question for you: Are suggesting WM is superior > to > > TCM in every respect ? Maybe you could offer some indication of where > you > > think the strengths of TCM lie ;-) > > > > Dermot said - No, Sammy I'm a TCM practitioner and believe there are > > strengths and weaknesses in both medical systems. It often depends on > the > > condition being treated. Another important factor is the skill of the > > practitioner. I also believe that it is perfectly acceptable to > receive > > treatments from both medical systems. Its not a competition. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Dermot > > > > P.S. I suggest that this debate about WM v CM has become very " old " > now > > and > > should not continue to take up space on this forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Ok gang, please stop bickering. You'll note that all your references to the negative aspects of WM and flaming are being cut out of your messages. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com Dermot O'Connor [dermot] 30 December 2004 19:28 Chinese Medicine Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM Sorry Sammy, but you brought up the WM v TCM debate when you rounded on Phil. I was simply responding to this See your quote below of the 28th of December. I would like it if we could move on now, besides I'm sure that there is far more that we agree on rather than disagree on. I also agree with Attilio, we should focus our attention on the betterment of TCM rather than trying to damn other systems of medicine. Kind regards Dermot - " sammy_bates " <sammy_bates <Chinese Medicine > Thursday, December 30, 2004 9:44 AM Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > Dermot quoted something I said months ago, about WM and aspirin, long > before the current edict was in place (see Attilio's note below). > Sammy. > - > Attilio D'Alberto > Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, December 29, 2004 4:43 PM > Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > > > > This is very true Dermot. Thank you for bringing it to our attention > again. > > > > The discussion of WM as a disadvantage medicine is not allowed on this > group. This is because, by not allowing the side effects of WM to be > discussed, it will allows us, TCM practitioners, to focus our attention > upon our own advantages rather than bicker as to our hard-done-by > situation and all the problems of WM. We as an industry, really need to be > more optimistic and pro-active. It's better that we direct our energy and > attention to the betterment of TCM than the side effects of WM. Hopefully, > if we all do our best for the good of the whole, we can make a difference > for ourselves, TCM and towards patients. > > > Attilio > > Dermot O'Connor <dermot wrote: > > In fact " WM disadvantages " received the lowest vote in Attilio's poll a > few > month's ago, when Qigong was ruled out for further discussion on this > forum. > So I'm surprised that this debate has been allowed to surface again. > > Kind regards > > Dermot > > > - > " Dermot O'Connor " <dermot > <Chinese Medicine > > Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:11 AM > Re: Re: Controlled Trials in TCM > > > > > > > >>> Given that it seems to be your opinion that WM kills many people, > > > > Sammy Said " Sorry, but I never said such a stupid thing as that. I am > > not > > attacking WM, I am attacking the mind-set that puts a 'quick-fix' > > treatment > > of symptoms, in front of a holistic understanding of disease etiology > and > > a > > balanced approach to treating the individual. > > > > Dermot said. - Glad you agree that this opinion is stupid. When you > > advocated taking aspirin rather than going to a WM hospital when > suffering > > a > > severe heart attack, or stroke, it gave me the wrong impression that > you > > were very anti-WM to the point that you thought it was dangerous. > > > > Sammy Said " I have a question for you: Are suggesting WM is superior > to > > TCM in every respect ? Maybe you could offer some indication of where > you > > think the strengths of TCM lie ;-) > > > > Dermot said - No, Sammy I'm a TCM practitioner and believe there are > > strengths and weaknesses in both medical systems. It often depends on > the > > condition being treated. Another important factor is the skill of the > > practitioner. I also believe that it is perfectly acceptable to > receive > > treatments from both medical systems. Its not a competition. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Dermot > > > > P.S. I suggest that this debate about WM v CM has become very " old " > now > > and > > should not continue to take up space on this forum 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.