Acupuncture in Scientific American on PBS

[Guest guest]

Tymothy,

 

Your criticisms of the show are well-expressed.  Why don't you send them on to

PBS or the producers of the show?

 

Andrea Beth

 

Traditional Oriental Medicine

Happy Hours in the CALM Center

1770 E. Villa Drive, Suite 5

Cottonwood, AZ  86326

(928) 274-1373

 

 

--- On Thu, 1/29/09, miracles28 <tymothys wrote:

miracles28 <tymothys

Acupuncture in Scientific American on PBS

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, January 29, 2009, 8:53 PM

 

In preperation for an article that i am preparing on the standards and

results of Acupuncture trials, i have become rather immersed in the

subject. As it happens this evening i was watching Scientific American

on PBS. What drew me was the discussion of an L-Dopa trial with

Parkinson's patients. In this study a placebo saline solution prompted

the exact firing of Dopamine receptors as the actual drug.

The next section of the episode then covered Acupuncture and i want to

briefly write about one aspect of the episode (though there are many

that noteworthy and profound to the practice of the medicine).

Firstly, in the L-Dopa study, i was curious to see what questions

would then be asked of the physician as to the tangible effects of the

placebo and how they then compared to the questions raised in Acu trial.

In the Acu trial Alda asked the L.Ac. who was part of the trial how he

would feel if " sham " needles were found to produce results similar to

" real " needles? He asked essentially that if Acupuncture is placebo

driven, you're profession might be placebo (ie. of no to little

worth), where would the practitioner's profession stand if that's the

case? "

Understand that the show was mostly favorable to the medicine, but one

must look to subtext and philosophic bias whenever the medicine is

addressed.

The L-Dopa physician was never asked such a question. If i was to have

conducted the interview i would have asked " if there is no discernible

difference between this very strong mind altering drug with serious

side effects and placebo, how do you justify using the drug? Aren't

you concerned that chemical based medicine is at risk if the placebo

causes the same response. Can't we extrapolate issues with all such

trials? " But this question wasn't asked.

The other issue that i personally have is the explanation that

Acupuncture works because of this mysterious rather unscientific (ie.

primitive) notion of " Qi " that runs through these as yet unidentified

things called meridians.

I personally have never stated to a patient that the medicine works in

this manner. I do not believe this to be the case, and if i did, i

would still offer multiple viewpoints. I find it unfortunate and

damaging to the profession that this stereotype of diagnostic

understanding is perpetuated in the media.

It's also interesting to note that the Diagnosis the Chinese

practitioner was " Heart Qi Deficiency " , i laughed as i had just read

the recent posts concerning herbal diagnostics not applicable to

Acupuncture. In fact i had predicted that the first person to discuss

the medicine would be an old Chinese practitioner using phrases the

American population would not understand.

On the positive side Dr. Kaptchuk has created a " sham " needle that

does not penetrate the skin, this will provide much cleaner data for

future trials.

Regards, Tymothy

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and

acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

 

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " miracles28 "

<tymothys wrote:

>

See Tymothy's original post

 

Hi Tymothy and others

 

I think some of your post alludes to the notion of 'medical

dominance', which we see in full play in the area of oncology.

 

Chemotherapeutic interventions, with or without radiotherapy and other

adjunctive treatments - despite all the expense and research - still

do not effect a cure in much more than 50 - 60% of adults in 1st world

countries, who are treated for cancer.

 

The drugs - in particular - have well-documented effects some of which

are potentially life-threatening, yet they are considered 'safe'.

A class of drugs such as this is the anthracyclines, which are known

to cause heart damage in statistically significant numbers of people

who've received them.

 

I'm hard-pressed to think of the ramifications for our profession,

were we to be administering treatments which similarly damage as many

people as so many 'scientifically validated' pharmaceutical agents.

 

In my country - Australia - the tabloid and other press would be all

over us, our state and federal governments would launch immediate

enquiries, the AMA would lobby for acupuncture and natural remedies to

only be administered by MDs, the Therapeutic Goods Administration

would immediately close down manufacturers of suspect substances

[they've done it in the past ] and the cost of CAM would skyrocket, as

only MDs would be providing it.

 

How did 'safe and effective' come to mean one thing for allopathy, and

something else again for TCM, acupuncture, and other CAM interventions?

 

Kind of a rhetorical question, I know, but one we have to keep asking

of our allopathic friends;

 

" Dear Doc, when you want to know about the safety and efficacy of the

medicine I practice, by WHICH standards are you defining and assessing

'safety' and 'efficacy'. "

 

Ask it...

over

and over

and over

[Guest guest]

Andrea,

I am planning on writing them through snail mail this week, i

attempted to find something on their website, but there were no links.

Regards, Tymothy

 

>

> Tymothy,

>

> Your criticisms of the show are well-expressed.  Why don't you send

them on to PBS or the producers of the show?

>

> Andrea Beth

>

> Traditional Oriental Medicine

> Happy Hours in the CALM Center

> 1770 E. Villa Drive, Suite 5

> Cottonwood, AZ  86326

> (928) 274-1373

>

>

[Guest guest]

Good Job!  Let us know how (and if) they reply!

 

Andrea Beth

 

Traditional Oriental Medicine

Happy Hours in the CALM Center

1770 E. Villa Drive, Suite 5

Cottonwood, AZ  86326

(928) 274-1373

 

 

--- On Sat, 1/31/09, miracles28 <tymothys wrote:

miracles28 <tymothys

Re: Acupuncture in Scientific American on PBS

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, January 31, 2009, 2:02 AM

 

Andrea,

I am planning on writing them through snail mail this week, i

attempted to find something on their website, but there were no links.

Regards, Tymothy

 

>

> Tymothy,

>

> Your criticisms of the show are well-expressed.  Why don't you send

them on to PBS or the producers of the show?

>

> Andrea Beth

>

> Traditional Oriental Medicine

> Happy Hours in the CALM Center

> 1770 E. Villa Drive, Suite 5

> Cottonwood, AZ  86326

> (928) 274-1373

>

>

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and

acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

 

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

Margi,

You make a very good point.

All medicine is philosophy and never has it been otherwise. I have

learned this when explaining the mechanisms of acu to patients who

come in thinking it might be some sort of witch craft (yet still

willing as they oft have no options). When i explain it in physical

world terminology, the reaction is almost always " oh, okay, " simple as

that.

 

There are many concerns for our profession as it stands extremely

vulnerable to outside influences and a lack of cohesive base

internally (ie. disparate cultural groups, lack of international

research standards, etc.), it would not take much, as you mentioned to

push the profession in any particular direction if the powers that be

saw fit. Up until now, it would appear that we are not competitive

enough to illicit this response.

 

My primary concern for the profession is that if research continues to

be published that uses a " sham " needle as the placebo, which then is

spun to indicate that there are no discernible differences between

" real " and " fake " acu, then the ramifications could be far reaching.

It was the sparse initial research that the WHO acknowledged as well

as the NIH. If the research overwhelmingly demonstrates otherwise,

this will (not may) have far reaching deleterious effects. One such

possibility that all should be concerned about is the possibility of

loss of insurance coverage. It is evident that many companies are

looking for ways to exclude alternative care from their programs to

cut costs, therefore it is in our interest to do all that we can to

ensure that the profession is presented with the highest unified

standards.

 

Regards, Tymothy

 

 

> See Tymothy's original post

>

> Hi Tymothy and others

>

> I think some of your post alludes to the notion of 'medical

> dominance', which we see in full play in the area of oncology.

>

> Chemotherapeutic interventions, with or without radiotherapy and other

> adjunctive treatments - despite all the expense and research - still

> do not effect a cure in much more than 50 - 60% of adults in 1st world

> countries, who are treated for cancer.

>

> The drugs - in particular - have well-documented effects some of which

> are potentially life-threatening, yet they are considered 'safe'.

> A class of drugs such as this is the anthracyclines, which are known

> to cause heart damage in statistically significant numbers of people

> who've received them.

>

> I'm hard-pressed to think of the ramifications for our profession,

> were we to be administering treatments which similarly damage as many

> people as so many 'scientifically validated' pharmaceutical agents.

>

> In my country - Australia - the tabloid and other press would be all

> over us, our state and federal governments would launch immediate

> enquiries, the AMA would lobby for acupuncture and natural remedies to

> only be administered by MDs, the Therapeutic Goods Administration

> would immediately close down manufacturers of suspect substances

> [they've done it in the past ] and the cost of CAM would skyrocket, as

> only MDs would be providing it.

>

> How did 'safe and effective' come to mean one thing for allopathy, and

> something else again for TCM, acupuncture, and other CAM interventions?

>

> Kind of a rhetorical question, I know, but one we have to keep asking

> of our allopathic friends;

>

> " Dear Doc, when you want to know about the safety and efficacy of the

> medicine I practice, by WHICH standards are you defining and assessing

> 'safety' and 'efficacy'. "

>

> Ask it...

> over

> and over

> and over

>