Guest guest Report post Posted March 22, 2006 Hi Mike You're rasing some very good questions. Just a technical point. I believe that claim o 20% (or so) of WM interventions not being based on evidence is based on fallacy. I recommend the following article, which roundly exposes that statistic:- http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm:- The evidence for evidence-based medicine R. Imrie 448 NE Ravenna Blvd., #106, Seattle, WA 98115, USA D.W. Ramey PO Box 5231, Glendale, CA 91221, USA Reprinted with permission from Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2000), 8, 123–126 © 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd. (This article has also been accepted for publication in the Winter 2000-2001 edition of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.) But in my view, the above article, though probably having a sub-text of trying to discredit alternative healthcare, actually ends up supporting it, for if you look at the statistics it quotes, even if you take a conservative view, you end up concluding (if I remember correctly) that somewhere between 25 and 50% of WM interventions are based on evidence. (This depends on whether the quoted RCTs are double-blind or not, what level of blinding you consider sufficient and how to statistically weight the studies quoted, but I have taken a prudent approach and come up with something between 25% and 50%). BUT, although that is more than 20% it still means that a heck of a lot of WM is NOT based on evidence (ie 50-75%)! That's a lot and should truly open the door in every WM practioner's mind to the possible validity of medical interventions based on clinical experience (eg CM). I also recommend the article (on Attilio's website I think) called " Evidence for Evidence " for some stimulating ideas in this regard. All the best, David Chinese Medicine , " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > This brings to mind the federal govt finding that only about 20% of all the > medical procedures in usage at the time had any validity (wonder what he > would say to address that issue). The inequality is global and not just > upon us. I think we need to bring this type of thing up for discussion > (educate others with talking points on this) so that we are not always on > the defensive over a research model that was not of our making and has > problems. This is the classic blame game that we cannot win but we can > certainly change the rules and the focus of the discussion. Also, consider > that focused research upon efficacy and cost-effectiveness are more likely > to bend the insurance/govt ear due to healthcare costs spiralling out of > control and much dialogue about cutting huge insurance co out of it. An > aside, HSA's, disease mgmt and EMR (electronic medical records) have not > shown any cost containment so things could continue if allowed to. Insr > companies need to find inexpensive ways to do things and there is our > ticket. > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2006 David, I am including the US govt report on this topic that was delivered to Congress. Please check it out at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/ns20/year_f.html The federal govt office of technology assessment states, “It has been estimated that only 10 to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trials…” These are not my numbers but those of the federal govt. This is pretty disturbing. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " David Gordon " <junhengclinic >Chinese Medicine >Chinese Medicine >Re: pregnancy tx's >Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:45:31 -0000 > >Hi Mike > >You're rasing some very good questions. Just a technical point. I >believe that claim o 20% (or so) of WM interventions not being based >on evidence is based on fallacy. I recommend the following article, >which roundly exposes that statistic:- > >http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm:- >The evidence for evidence-based medicine >R. Imrie >448 NE Ravenna Blvd., #106, >Seattle, WA 98115, USA >D.W. Ramey >PO Box 5231, >Glendale, CA 91221, USA >Reprinted with permission from Complementary Therapies in Medicine >(2000), 8, 123–126 © 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd. (This article has >also been accepted for publication in the Winter 2000-2001 edition of >the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.) > >But in my view, the above article, though probably having a sub-text >of trying to discredit alternative healthcare, actually ends up >supporting it, for if you look at the statistics it quotes, even if >you take a conservative view, you end up concluding (if I remember >correctly) that somewhere between 25 and 50% of WM interventions are >based on evidence. (This depends on whether the quoted RCTs are >double-blind or not, what level of blinding you consider sufficient >and how to statistically weight the studies quoted, but I have taken >a prudent approach and come up with something between 25% and 50%). >BUT, although that is more than 20% it still means that a heck of a >lot of WM is NOT based on evidence (ie 50-75%)! That's a lot and >should truly open the door in every WM practioner's mind to the >possible validity of medical interventions based on clinical >experience (eg CM). > >I also recommend the article (on Attilio's website I think) >called " Evidence for Evidence " for some stimulating ideas in this >regard. > >All the best, David > > >Chinese Medicine , " mike Bowser " ><naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > > This brings to mind the federal govt finding that only about 20% of >all the > > medical procedures in usage at the time had any validity (wonder >what he > > would say to address that issue). The inequality is global and not >just > > upon us. I think we need to bring this type of thing up for >discussion > > (educate others with talking points on this) so that we are not >always on > > the defensive over a research model that was not of our making and >has > > problems. This is the classic blame game that we cannot win but we >can > > certainly change the rules and the focus of the discussion. Also, >consider > > that focused research upon efficacy and cost-effectiveness are more >likely > > to bend the insurance/govt ear due to healthcare costs spiralling >out of > > control and much dialogue about cutting huge insurance co out of >it. An > > aside, HSA's, disease mgmt and EMR (electronic medical records) >have not > > shown any cost containment so things could continue if allowed to. >Insr > > companies need to find inexpensive ways to do things and there is >our > > ticket. > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2006 David Gordon wrote: > Hi Mike > > You're rasing some very good questions. Just a technical point. I > believe that claim o 20% (or so) of WM interventions not being based > on evidence is based on fallacy. I recommend the following article, > which roundly exposes that statistic:- > > http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm:- Hi Gordon! " Not Found " " The requested URL /CTiM.htm: was not found on this server. " " Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. " I hope you have saved the text somewhere. Regards, Pete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2006 mike Bowser wrote: <snip> > http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/ns20/year_f.html Hi Mike! The link only gets you to the page. You still have to find the article. The report is named " Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies. " Sept 1978. So you use the menu to get to Sept 1978, then find that title. Website is probably as old as the report. The text you quote is in the introduction, on page 6. Without this road map you have to read the whole thing and then you could miss it. Of course, people who don't want to hear this will say that it is all very different now, just aren't any newer studies. Regards, Pete > > The federal govt office of technology assessment states, > > “It has been estimated that only 10 to 20% of all procedures currently used > in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trials…” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2006 here is the link that works: http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm There also is a collection of links to acupuncture research on their website: http://www.vet-task-force.com/Medline2.htm and herbal medicine research: http://www.vet-task-force.com/Medline4.htm Regards, Tom. ---- petetheisen 03/23/06 10:22:39 Chinese Medicine Re: Re: pregnancy tx's David Gordon wrote: > Hi Mike > > You're rasing some very good questions. Just a technical point. I > believe that claim o 20% (or so) of WM interventions not being based > on evidence is based on fallacy. I recommend the following article, > which roundly exposes that statistic:- > > http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm:- Hi Gordon! " Not Found " " The requested URL /CTiM.htm: was not found on this server. " " Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. " I hope you have saved the text somewhere. Regards, Pete Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, http://toolbar thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 http://groups. com and adjust accordingly. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2006 Tom Verhaeghe wrote: Hi Tom! So they are now up to 37%, an improvement. And a lot of hints as to where the improvements are supposed to be. I find it remarkable that they have RCT evidence on surgery procedures. What do they do, give people sham operations? Well, I think they have done that, come to think of it, that arthroscopic knee surgery study. Imagine going to the hospital, waking up with several huge surgical wounds and in incredible pain only to (eventually) find that you were the " control " patient and they cut you open but didn't do anything once inside? Regards, Pete > > > here is the link that works: http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm > > There also is a collection of links to acupuncture research on their > website: http://www.vet-task-force.com/Medline2.htm > > and herbal medicine research: > http://www.vet-task-force.com/Medline4.htm > > Regards, > > Tom. > > > ---- > > petetheisen 03/23/06 10:22:39 To: > Chinese Medicine Re: Re: > pregnancy tx's > > David Gordon wrote: > >> Hi Mike >> >> You're rasing some very good questions. Just a technical point. I >> believe that claim o 20% (or so) of WM interventions not being >> based on evidence is based on fallacy. I recommend the following >> article, which roundly exposes that statistic:- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2006 One of the big concerns and questions that the MUHCC (MN universal healthcare coalition) has not been able to find support for is if EBM improves healthcare or cost containment. There is a lot of catch phrases and here say but our leadership, an attorney, has not found one study. These linked papers seem to imply that there is so much out there that proves this, my hesitation is that conclusions have been made w/o merit. This is something that we have spoken about previously and all seem to agree that supposition is much like fairy-tales and should not be repeated in scientific papers. Thank you for providing these links. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " Tom Verhaeghe " <tom.verhaeghe >Chinese Medicine ><Chinese Medicine > >Re: Re: pregnancy tx's >Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:03:53 +0100 (West-Europa (standaardtijd)) > > > >here is the link that works: http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm > >There also is a collection of links to acupuncture research on their >website: http://www.vet-task-force.com/Medline2.htm > >and herbal medicine research: http://www.vet-task-force.com/Medline4.htm > >Regards, > >Tom. > > >---- > >petetheisen >03/23/06 10:22:39 >Chinese Medicine >Re: Re: pregnancy tx's > >David Gordon wrote: > > Hi Mike > > > > You're rasing some very good questions. Just a technical point. I > > believe that claim o 20% (or so) of WM interventions not being based > > on evidence is based on fallacy. I recommend the following article, > > which roundly exposes that statistic:- > > > > http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm:- >Hi Gordon! > > " Not Found " > " The requested URL /CTiM.htm: was not found on this server. " > > " Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use >an ErrorDocument to handle the request. " > >I hope you have saved the text somewhere. > >Regards, > >Pete > > >Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times >http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > >Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, http://toolbar >thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 > > http://groups. >com and adjust accordingly. > >Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group >requires prior permission from the author. > >Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely >necessary. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2006 Mike I haven't got the time right now to investigate this again, but if what is written in the article I've linked to is vaguely right, it means that the 10-20% figure has been a huge (widely believed) urban myth for many years. It is quite believable that the federal govt office of technology assessment has taken on this urban myth. (Have you read my article?) However, I believe that there are some well-founded studies out there that show that the %, though higher than 10-20%, is still rather low and a major problem for those who are over-emphasizing EBM and EBG (and therefore a feather in our cap). All the best, David Chinese Medicine , " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > David, > > I am including the US govt report on this topic that was delivered to > Congress. Please check it out at > > http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/ns20/year_f.html > > > The federal govt office of technology assessment states, > > " It has been estimated that only 10 to 20% of all procedures currently used > in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trials… " > > > These are not my numbers but those of the federal govt. This is pretty > disturbing. > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > > > > " David Gordon " <junhengclinic > >Chinese Medicine > >Chinese Medicine > >Re: pregnancy tx's > >Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:45:31 -0000 > > > >Hi Mike > > > >You're rasing some very good questions. Just a technical point. I > >believe that claim o 20% (or so) of WM interventions not being based > >on evidence is based on fallacy. I recommend the following article, > >which roundly exposes that statistic:- > > > >http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm:- > >The evidence for evidence-based medicine > >R. Imrie > >448 NE Ravenna Blvd., #106, > >Seattle, WA 98115, USA > >D.W. Ramey > >PO Box 5231, > >Glendale, CA 91221, USA > >Reprinted with permission from Complementary Therapies in Medicine > >(2000), 8, 123–126 © 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd. (This article has Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2006 A very interesting urban myth that is being used a lot is that EBM actually lowers healthcare costs and another is that it actually improves healthcare quality. This is part of a huge problem that is being perpetuated by special interest groups looking to ensure a lucrative future (insurance, HMO). It is good that we learn to be critical whenever figures are tossed around. I can remember years ago, Dr. Jensen mentioned of a post-mortum Mayo clinic study that showed they about 50% accurate in their diagnosis and that other GP were much lower. I find this topic to be interesting and challenging but not likely to get much improvement in outcomes. After all, this model also looks at things as related to dollars. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " David Gordon " <junhengclinic >Chinese Medicine >Chinese Medicine >Re: pregnancy tx's >Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:13:37 -0000 > >Mike > >I haven't got the time right now to investigate this again, but if >what is written in the article I've linked to is vaguely right, it >means that the 10-20% figure has been a huge (widely believed) urban >myth for many years. It is quite believable that the federal govt >office of technology assessment has taken on this urban myth. (Have >you read my article?) > >However, I believe that there are some well-founded studies out >there that show that the %, though higher than 10-20%, is still >rather low and a major problem for those who are over-emphasizing >EBM and EBG (and therefore a feather in our cap). > >All the best, David > > >Chinese Medicine , " mike Bowser " ><naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > > David, > > > > I am including the US govt report on this topic that was delivered >to > > Congress. Please check it out at > > > > http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/ns20/year_f.html > > > > > > The federal govt office of technology assessment states, > > > > " It has been estimated that only 10 to 20% of all procedures >currently used > > in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by >controlled trials… " > > > > > > These are not my numbers but those of the federal govt. This is >pretty > > disturbing. > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > > > > > > > > > > " David Gordon " <junhengclinic > > >Chinese Medicine > > >Chinese Medicine > > >Re: pregnancy tx's > > >Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:45:31 -0000 > > > > > >Hi Mike > > > > > >You're rasing some very good questions. Just a technical point. I > > >believe that claim o 20% (or so) of WM interventions not being >based > > >on evidence is based on fallacy. I recommend the following >article, > > >which roundly exposes that statistic:- > > > > > >http://www.vet-task-force.com/CTiM.htm:- > > >The evidence for evidence-based medicine > > >R. Imrie > > >448 NE Ravenna Blvd., #106, > > >Seattle, WA 98115, USA > > >D.W. Ramey > > >PO Box 5231, > > >Glendale, CA 91221, USA > > >Reprinted with permission from Complementary Therapies in Medicine > > >(2000), 8, 123–126 © 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd. (This article >has > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2006 While not often in the US in china i saw many surgical patients that were treated with strong purgatives successfully. I have used these approaches several time in the US as well. I think like any medicine one should understand the potentials and risks. I have used Ba Dou as well as its one of the only warm purgatives and can be very important. More practical example for me is the use fu zi. I see many practitioners that are afraid to use it. I have used upto 30g per day on patients for many years and have never had a problem. But again one must understand risks and benefits. Oakland, CA 94609 - leabun1 Chinese Medicine Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:06 PM Re: pregnancy tx's I think the reason I dont should be fairly self evident. Im talking about extreme carthartics here, that have substantial toxicity and even carcinogenicity, hence the purgative nature of them. Like Ba Dou. If I had a patient with say, heart or kidney failure to the extent that I needed to use carthartics like that, they would probably be better off recieving western medicine in a hospital setting. WM is good for some things. As for ascitic patients, the ones I have treated before generally had portal hypertension. (Colourfully referred to as " squirters " by those in the paramedicine field) and I felt that this should also exclude them from treatments like this. If you have encountered patients who could not more easily be helped by western medicine and responded well to a treatment like this, then I would be really interested to know about them. It would be good to know for future reference that there is a treatment, no matter how harsh, available. I am also aware of a situation that exemplifies the toxicity of some of these herbs, a while ago in Australia a small child died from eating just one Ba Dou seed, they thought it was candy and then swallowed it, I think. (And yes, you might say that they should have stored them better, but as the mother of a three year old who can, and will, get into anything, youd have to keep them in a locked box with a padlock.) Regards, Lea. Chinese Medicine , " Alon Marcus DOM " <alonmarcus wrote: > > I also dont use violent purgatives in disease treatment > >>>>> > Lea why not? these can sometimes be the only effective approach > > > > > Oakland, CA 94609 > > > - > leabun1 > Chinese Medicine > Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:39 PM > Re: pregnancy tx's > > > Hello all, > I do not think that this debate is limited to chinese medicine. Have > a look at environmental science sometime! Which is all the more > reason for students of chinese medicine to recieve good training in > analysis of data of this type. It is also important for chinese > medicine practitioners to be able to critically analyze western > medicine studies as well, as almost all your patients will be > recieving some type of western medicine treatment in their lives as > well. > This was exemplified by somebody previously on this forum who was > unable to properly analyze the efficacy of cervical pap smears and > thought that a lower percentage meant that it was not useful, and I > think somebody replied well in explaining how this is just > incorporated into the protocol for frequency of use, which makes the > screening quite successfull. > At RMIT university there have been a few studies done recently in > the chinese med. dept. that I am pretty sure incorporated CM > differentiation into the selection criteria, you could always go to > www.rmit.edu.au and have a look for them, a hayfever study was > published in many journals, and there is a migraine trial underway > at the moment. (Just look for the name Xue, hes the head of the > unit, so his names on everything I think.) I believe one thing they > did in designing these trials was to go to the head of the > statistics dept. of the university, and ask them if they wanted to > have their name on a paper. I believe that their statistics are > beyond reproach, for that reason. But RMIT is a large university > with a large biomedical science faculty and so has alot of resources > to draw on, and postgrad research positions for people to conduct > these studies. > On another note, I believe it was Mike Bowser who posted the > question about the term TCM? I actually use it in the opposite sense > and try never to use the term " traditional " for post 1940's CM. I > refer to what I do as Chinese medicine, as it is anything but > traditional, and this is a good thing. I do not practice so > called " medical acupuncture " or " medical herbalism " , I practice > herbal medicine and acupuncture in the way it has always been > practiced, based on chinese med. differentiation and the use of > classical formulae. And I prefer raw herbs by decoction, if I can > get my patients to take them, but I also make tinctures and stock > patents. Only I incorporate in new knowledge that has been acquired > with modern science and the dissemination of knowlege from other > traditions. > If anyone here uses Gan Mao Ling, then you should know that some of > the herbs in that have only been in use in CM for less than 100 > years. I also find the ability to get updates and alerts on the > presence of aristolochic acid in herbs and patents, to be > invaluable. Also, China now grows more ayurvedic herbs than India > and exports them back to them. > I also dont use violent purgatives in disease treatment, and will > happily refer a patient back to a western doctor so as to have > access to western diagnostics, and I think that given a choice I > would rather have western med for treatment for something like > glaucoma. (When we did opthalmology at Uni, they dug up this old guy > who had been an opthalmologist in China to come and talk to us, who > said that they would have to palpate their own eye and then feel the > patients eye to compare pressure... " if hard, like a pebble, then > glaucoma. " Given a choice, I'd rather go to an optometrist and have > a carefully calibrated bubble of air bounced off my eye.) > Another example is that TB had a very poor traditional prognosis as > it was differentiated as being a deficiency syndrome, and yet with > the advent of modern microbiology, it became known that TB was > actually a pathogen, which is technically an excess type of disease, > which needed to be treated with different herbs to combat the > underlying cause. Now we know that there are herbs that prove to be > at least somewhat effective against TB and these are incorporated > into treatment. > A great example is the isolation of Qinghaosu, or artemisinin from > Artemisia Annua, Qing Hao, for use as a malarial treatment. Which > kills more people than HIV/AIDS). (My mother met one of the chinese > researchers who isolated this, in Nanning in the early eighties, I > think she has a copy of his original paper, but shes not a CM > doctor, shes a marine biologist, so I dont know what she did with > it, but I digress.) This is a wonderfull treatment for people > already infected with the ovale or vivax strains (Im not sure if its > used for falciparum) and has saved many lives. Its ease of use in an > isolated form, makes it more readily available to poor areas where > malaria is endemic, and its just not practical to send a team of > herbalists with a boatload of raw herbs to do it the traditional > way. Unfortunately it was originally intended that this drug would > be offered in combination with other antimalarials to prevent or > reduce resistance, but the next thing you know, a friend told me he > bought it over the counter in Papua New Guinea. (Worked a treat, > too.) So we might yet screw this one up. > Now current research is showing that Qing Hao is also useful for > certain types of cancer, and cancer is another good example of why > we need to pay attention to Western science. In a statement that I > believe is accredited to Hippocrates, he said that if you were lucky > enough to find a patient with cancer, they were almost sure to die > of something else, first. These days, we are seeing the advent of > many types of cancer that can be very aggresive. This is a modern > disease and older traditional medicines, whilst of great value, dont > always keep up and may need to be modifed to suit. (Im not saying > that western medicine is on top of this either, we're all > floundering around in the dark to a certain extent.) Let necessity > be the mother of invention, I say. > When wen bing, warm disease theory was first expounded, it was in > response to pestilential epidemics that required new thinking and > new treatment, but it didnt devalue the thinking behind the shang > han lun. > I wish I could spend more time on this post and polish it up a bit, > but I have to go. More later. > Regards, > Lea. > > > > > > Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Chinese Medicine Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 > > and adjust accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 24, 2006 The patients you are talking about were treated in a hospital setting, and I was aware of patients being treated with harsh purgatives in the hospital system in china, but in my experience this was in lieu of western medicine drugs because either it was the only treatment option available or the patient could not afford a WM treatment. I dont feel that it is in the scope of my practice here in Australia, where we have a national health care system that is available to all, to be using Ba Dou. And I do not have a problem with the use of fu zi if I feel it is indicated, but with this and other toxic herbs, I like to let discretion be the better part of valour and not get too gung-ho unless its warranted. I dont feel that fu zi and cathartics such as Ba Dou are really comparative, either, from a toxicity standpoint. Would you be able to give me some examples of the patients you treated in the US with strong purgation? I would be interested to learn about it, especially since it seems you had a good outcome. Thanks, Lea. Chinese Medicine , " " <alonmarcus wrote: > > While not often in the US in china i saw many surgical patients that were treated with strong purgatives successfully. I have used these approaches several time in the US as well. I think like any medicine one should understand the potentials and risks. I have used Ba Dou as well as its one of the only warm purgatives and can be very important. More practical example for me is the use fu zi. I see many practitioners that are afraid to use it. I have used upto 30g per day on patients for many years and have never had a problem. But again one must understand risks and benefits. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 24, 2006 You think a knee is bad! I remember reading an RCT on heart surgery! Chinese Medicine , petetheisen <petetheisen wrote: > > Tom Verhaeghe wrote: > > Hi Tom! > > So they are now up to 37%, an improvement. And a lot of hints as to > where the improvements are supposed to be. > > I find it remarkable that they have RCT evidence on surgery procedures. > What do they do, give people sham operations? Well, I think they have > done that, come to think of it, that arthroscopic knee surgery study. > > Imagine going to the hospital, waking up with several huge surgical > wounds and in incredible pain only to (eventually) find that you were > the " control " patient and they cut you open but didn't do anything once > inside? > > Regards, > > Pete > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 24, 2006 leabun1 wrote: > You think a knee is bad! I remember reading an RCT on heart surgery! Hi Lea! As in a " vein harvest " surgery scar in the legs, a bunch of holes for tubes and a huge incision on the chest including sawing the sternum for everyone, experimental and control group? Have you a link to that? Who did better, the real patients or the placebo patients? Regards, Pete > > Chinese Medicine , petetheisen > <petetheisen wrote: > >> Tom Verhaeghe wrote: >> >> Hi Tom! >> >> So they are now up to 37%, an improvement. And a lot of hints as to >> where the improvements are supposed to be. >> >> I find it remarkable that they have RCT evidence on surgery Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 24, 2006 I think this treatment is warranted sometimes, and I am impressed with your use of strong purgation in these cases. Few practitioners in the West have the guts to do so. On Mar 24, 2006, at 10:18 AM, wrote: > All the patients i have treated with strong purgation were acute > abdomen patients. The goal was to prevent surgery and most were > able to avoid one. One patient however i wish we did not try it on > as she developed a serious pancreatic cyst that left her insulin > dependent. I would say in total i probably treated some 20 patients > in US for acute abdomens > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 24, 2006 Remember i got training in this when in China. Oakland, CA 94609 - Chinese Medicine Friday, March 24, 2006 10:29 AM Re: Re: pregnancy tx's I think this treatment is warranted sometimes, and I am impressed with your use of strong purgation in these cases. Few practitioners in the West have the guts to do so. On Mar 24, 2006, at 10:18 AM, wrote: > All the patients i have treated with strong purgation were acute > abdomen patients. The goal was to prevent surgery and most were > able to avoid one. One patient however i wish we did not try it on > as she developed a serious pancreatic cyst that left her insulin > dependent. I would say in total i probably treated some 20 patients > in US for acute abdomens > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 24, 2006 Hi, I remember reading about this - it was in the US a fair few years ago. Three groups, one group had real heart bypass, one group had the cut and the sternum-saw and stitch-up (pun intended) and one group had carefully controlled/assessed/monitored drug treatment. The group that did the best?? The fake surgery group!!!!! stephen > leabun1 wrote: > > You think a knee is bad! I remember reading an RCT on heart surgery! > > Hi Lea! > > As in a " vein harvest " surgery scar in the legs, a bunch of holes for > tubes and a huge incision on the chest including sawing the sternum for > everyone, experimental and control group? Have you a link to that? > > Who did better, the real patients or the placebo patients? > > Regards, > > Pete > > > > Chinese Medicine , petetheisen > > <petetheisen wrote: > > > >> Tom Verhaeghe wrote: > >> > >> Hi Tom! > >> > >> So they are now up to 37%, an improvement. And a lot of hints as to > >> where the improvements are supposed to be. > >> > >> I find it remarkable that they have RCT evidence on surgery > > > Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, > http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 > > > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 25, 2006 From memory it was a huge incision and sternum cracking. I had thought that I had the original paper here, but I had a look for it, and I remember now that I read it at University in a health research methods class, and the lecturer must have brought it in for us to read. You could always try a pubmed search, but that is a lot of work. Sorry. Chinese Medicine , petetheisen <petetheisen wrote: > > leabun1 wrote: > > You think a knee is bad! I remember reading an RCT on heart surgery! > > Hi Lea! > > As in a " vein harvest " surgery scar in the legs, a bunch of holes for > tubes and a huge incision on the chest including sawing the sternum for > everyone, experimental and control group? Have you a link to that? > > Who did better, the real patients or the placebo patients? > > Regards, > > Pete > > > > Chinese Medicine , petetheisen > > <petetheisen@> wrote: > > > >> Tom Verhaeghe wrote: > >> > >> Hi Tom! > >> > >> So they are now up to 37%, an improvement. And a lot of hints as to > >> where the improvements are supposed to be. > >> > >> I find it remarkable that they have RCT evidence on surgery > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 25, 2006 stephenmacallan wrote: > Hi, I remember reading about this - it was in the US a fair few years > ago. Three groups, one group had real heart bypass, one group had the > cut and the sternum-saw and stitch-up (pun intended) and one group > had carefully controlled/assessed/monitored drug treatment. The group > that did the best?? > > The fake surgery group!!!!! Hi Stephen! When I read these studies I think of the very aggressive TCM techniques - point linking, loop tying, thread embedding, bone scraping or just 50 needles in 20 inches along the effected channel or local area. Is this not in a way reminiscent of what the surgeon is doing? Regards, Pete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 25, 2006 hello pete, just a smidge over the top, though stephen > stephenmacallan wrote: > > Hi, I remember reading about this - it was in the US a fair few years > > ago. Three groups, one group had real heart bypass, one group had the > > cut and the sternum-saw and stitch-up (pun intended) and one group > > had carefully controlled/assessed/monitored drug treatment. The group > > that did the best?? > > > > The fake surgery group!!!!! > > Hi Stephen! > > When I read these studies I think of the very aggressive TCM techniques > - point linking, loop tying, thread embedding, bone scraping or just 50 > needles in 20 inches along the effected channel or local area. > > Is this not in a way reminiscent of what the surgeon is doing? > > Regards, > > Pete > > > Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, > http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 > > > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 25, 2006 stephenmacallan wrote: Hi Stephen! I would never do these things, I just think that the fake surgery studies shed some light on why they were done in the past, and in China, perhaps are still done by some doctors. Regards, Pete > hello pete, > just a smidge over the top, though > > stephen > > >>stephenmacallan wrote: >> >>>Hi, I remember reading about this - it was in the US a fair few years >>>ago. Three groups, one group had real heart bypass, one group had the >>>cut and the sternum-saw and stitch-up (pun intended) and one group >>>had carefully controlled/assessed/monitored drug treatment. The group >>>that did the best?? >>> >>>The fake surgery group!!!!! >> >>Hi Stephen! >> >>When I read these studies I think of the very aggressive TCM techniques >>- point linking, loop tying, thread embedding, bone scraping or just 50 >>needles in 20 inches along the effected channel or local area. >> >>Is this not in a way reminiscent of what the surgeon is doing? >> >>Regards, >> >>Pete >> >> >>Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times >>http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com >> >>Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, >>http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 >> >> >> and adjust >>accordingly. >> >>Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group >>requires prior permission from the author. >> >>Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely >>necessary. >> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 25, 2006 Yep, through needling points never really went out of vogue, and lots of places in China use very large needles if the first treatments dont have a good response. Where I was in Nanjing there were some Doctors who specialized in deep needling, but they told me it was a more popular treatment in the north and some doctors there went even further with how deep they needled points. Chinese Medicine , petetheisen <petetheisen wrote: > > stephenmacallan wrote: > Hi Stephen! > > I would never do these things, I just think that the fake surgery > studies shed some light on why they were done in the past, and in China, > perhaps are still done by some doctors. > > Regards, > > Pete > > > hello pete, > > just a smidge over the top, though > > > > stephen > > > > > >>stephenmacallan wrote: > >> > >>>Hi, I remember reading about this - it was in the US a fair few years > >>>ago. Three groups, one group had real heart bypass, one group had the > >>>cut and the sternum-saw and stitch-up (pun intended) and one group > >>>had carefully controlled/assessed/monitored drug treatment. The group > >>>that did the best?? > >>> > >>>The fake surgery group!!!!! > >> > >>Hi Stephen! > >> > >>When I read these studies I think of the very aggressive TCM techniques > >>- point linking, loop tying, thread embedding, bone scraping or just 50 > >>needles in 20 inches along the effected channel or local area. > >> > >>Is this not in a way reminiscent of what the surgeon is doing? > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >>Pete > >> > >> > >>Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Chinese Medicine Times > >>http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > >> > >>Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, > >>http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 > >> > >> > >> and adjust > >>accordingly. > >> > >>Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > >>requires prior permission from the author. > >> > >>Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > >>necessary. > >> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
