Traditional Chinese Medicine

[rezaf]

That may or may not be true. But in the context of TCM, who cares? When evaluating medical care, all I care about is the "superficial" effects, such as survival rate, expected lifetimes, quality of life, side-effects, costs, etc. examined using the "scientific method". All else is irrelevant.

If you really want to argue for TCM, you are really not doing yourself a favor by going into such metaphysical tangent, at least to a western audience. Once problem TCM has, at least in the west, is the perception that it is based on superstition and bad science, and it is not taken seriously. "The so-called western science has limited itself only to one level of awareness and all the machines that we have built for observing are also limited to that" is not going to convince anyone that TCM is serious medicine.

You are wrong about what I meant by superficial. I meant western medicine's knowledge about the physiological process of the things that happen when you do TCM.

As for the theory of TCM and 精气 stuff, this reaction is quite normal to something new. What I said is pretty advanced for someone who doesn't know anything about this knowledge. It's like trying to talk about the relativity theory to a 4 year old kid who's awareness of the world is limited to playing with toys and stuff like that. I merely told you how you can understand the theory of TCM if you are interested. You can practise qigong and mediation and slowly understand it(or even reject it) or you can blindly attack what you don't know about. The entrance to the theory of TCM is practising qigong and until then we can not have a scientific discussion about TCM because as I said you have to learn how TCM gathers the observable data that it needs, of course you are free to blindly attack but you should accept that it that it is blind and not scientific.

[jbradfor]

I was not attacking TCM. Or at least, I wasn't trying to. There are parts of TCM I like, in particular the focus on the entire body and aiding the body in healing itself. The body has amazing abilities to heal itself, and I think western medicine would do better to focus more on that. [e.g. some of the current research into getting the body to treat cancer cells as invaders and attack them might fall into this category.] In addition, I would expect that some TCM medicine does have beneficial therapeutic effects. OTOH, I think TCM fails horribly in two aspects, first its willingness to accept treatment that has not been shown effective via a scientific method, and second that it totally missed germs and infections as a major cause of disease.

What I was attacking, and will continue to attack, is medical claims made without any scientific evidence to their effectiveness, whether it is TCM or western medicine, or anything else.

OK, I think I might attack TCM, just a small bit. Or at least how you describe it, I admit your description is quite different than my interpretation of TCM, or, at least, TCM to me consists of a lot more than qigong and mediation. Your description of TCM sounds more like a religion to me. No proof or evidence offered, you just need to believe that it is true, and belief has priority over scientific evidence. And the truth is unfolded only to the true believers if you follow this path, everyone else is ignorant outsiders.

You are wrong about what I meant by superficial. I meant western medicine's knowledge about the physiological process of the things that happen when you do TCM.

This statement is true only if one accepts your version of TCM, which means this statement is basically a tautology. There have been many studies in the west about what happens to the brain and the body during, e.g. meditation. Their conclusions, however, might not agree with your beliefs, leading you to call western medicine's knowledge wrong, rather than questioning your own beliefs.

I'd be happy to continue discussing this, but we both need to admit that we are at an impasse: I put priority to evidence, and you put priority to belief.

[chrix]

I also want to clarify that I'm not arguing against TCM per se, as I said there are many studies being done about its efficacy, but I'm calling into question some of the premises of TCM that seem to have no scientific basis here.

As for the theory of TCM and 精气 stuff, this reaction is quite normal to something new. What I said is pretty advanced for someone who doesn't know anything about this knowledge. It's like trying to talk about the relativity theory to a 4 year old kid who's awareness of the world is limited to playing with toys and stuff like that. I merely told you how you can understand the theory of TCM if you are interested.

Would you please not compare TCM with the theory of relativity, I find this mildly offensive. The theory of relativity has been proven (and further developed) in many experiments by physicists all over the world, the theory of 精气 has not. Some scientists seem to be trying to find the scientific basis for it, it seems, though.

Other than that, I'm on a page with jbradfor here: I don't see the point of further discussing this if you just keep repeating your beliefs about TCM rather than about what kind of evidence there is for those beliefs.

[rezaf]

Chrix you have the wrong idea about science. The way you talk shows that you don't understand the concept of science. When our ancestors built the scientific method for observing and analysing the nature they wanted to remove dogmatism from our judgment. The fact that you say you are offended means that you have accepted part of the things that you have heard about science as your religion or some kind of superstition(I say heard because I guess you don't know everything even about today's science). But science is not finished yet which means that everything that we think we have discovered, later might prove to be wrong or partly true partly wrong General relativity is also not an exception. It has been criticised before and who knows what will happen to it later. However when I said that, I was only comparing them in terms of being complicated not any other aspects. Concepts should be analysed in their own dictionary(dictionary as a metaphore not the literal meaning). As you won't find 老外, in an english -english dictionary. You want me to describe 精气 using words that you have heard in the so called western science dictionary which is impossible as it belongs to another level of awareness not what we know as the material awareness. It's like I come out from a room that you have not been to and I talk about things that I have seen there. Until you go there yourself you have no right to pass any judgments if you want it to be the scientific way.

[trien27]

Actually it is good that you mentioned cancer.

My aunt used to have cancer. She combined Western [chemotherapy] & Chinese medicine [Chinese herbal soup, & etc...] and food therapy, and now it's gone. If just with chemotherapy, she might still be in the hospital right now.

[rezaf]

it totally missed germs and infections as a major cause of disease.

This is not true. TCM has a part named 外感六淫， which is very similar to what we know as germs now.

Your description of TCM sounds more like a religion to me. No proof or evidence offered, you just need to believe that it is true, and belief has priority over scientific evidence.

Seems like you are speaking about beliefs not evidence. I told you about the method of gathering data on 精气 which is qigong and systems like that but without any experience in these systems you BLIEVE that they are false.

Their conclusions, however, might not agree with your beliefs, leading you to call western medicine's knowledge wrong, rather than questioning your own beliefs.

I never said that those conclusions werefalse, they only show the things that are going on in the material level which means that they only show part of what's going on.

Edited May 5, 2010 at 08:23 AM by rezaf

[jbradfor]

Chrix you have the wrong idea about science. The way you talk shows that you don't understand the concept of science. When our ancestors built the scientific method for observing and analysing the nature they wanted to remove dogmatism from our judgment. The fact that you say you are offended means that you have accepted part of the things that you have heard about science as your religion or some kind of superstition

@rezaf, you're pretty off base here. I'm pretty sure that Chrix understands western science much better than you do.

Chirx is correct, your analogy is wrong. The theory of relativity has been tested by many many different experiments. The theory is there for everyone to understand and test for themselves. It can be used to predict the outcome of experiments. All that does not say that the theory is true. All it says is that based on our current knowledge, it is the best theory we have. But that's a pretty powerful statement, and as such General Relativity should be treated with respect that is it "probably" true, or at least holds a lot of truth in it.

In contrast, TCM has not been shown to be true. [Actually that's a bit of a stupid statement, I admit, as TCM consists of many different parts, but here I mean the theories behind TCM.] The basic theory TCM, for example meridians, has no evidence in western science. Yet. Therefore, comparing TCM to General Relativity is wrong, as the former has not been "proven" by western science, the later has. There may be a time that western science advances and we can detect meridians, but until that time meridians is not a valid theory in western science.

As you won't find 老外, in an english -english dictionary.

WRONG! http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%80%81%E5%A4%96 And even if it weren't there, that's a really bad analogy.

You want me to describe 精气 using words that you have heard in the so called western science dictionary which is impossible as it belongs to another level of awareness not what we know as the material awareness. It's like I come out from a room that you have not been to and I talk about things that I have seen there. Until you go there yourself you have no right to pass any judgments if you want it to be the scientific way.

Then, according to you, 精气 does not belong to western science. As Chrix explained, western science includes the requirement that all evidence be based on experiments that anyone can perform, are repeatable, and are verifying by others. According to you 精气, does not fall into that category. That's fine, that's your opinion, but you need to now understand that based on that argument, 精气 is now separate from western science, and you can no longer compare the two, because they rely on different assumptions.

I do not think that western science, as currently practiced, is necessarily the be-all and end-all to all knowledge. It does limit itself to one level of awareness, and it requires repeatability. The fact that western science does not agree with (or has not found the claims for) TCM and qigong does not mean that they are bad. But you need to understand that by the assumptions of western science, TCM and qigong are not valid theories.

[jbradfor]

@trien27

If just with chemotherapy, she might still be in the hospital right now.

I'm very glad your aunt recovered. But do you have any evidence that Chinese medicine helped her?

[Kenny同志]

But do you have any evidence that Chinese medicine helped her?

So are you certain it was due to chemotherapy? How? Prove it.

I have lots of very positve feedback of TCM efficacy from fellow patients. You don't have to believe it, but you might be turning a blind eye to something you may benefit from.

Edited May 5, 2010 at 03:17 PM by kenny2006woo

[jbradfor]

I'm not trying to disparage TCM, don't be so defensive. It's the lack of scientific validity I'm questioning.

In this case, yes, one can be certain. Before drugs are approved, they need to go through trials. These trials are typically double-blind, meaning neither the doctors nor the patients know which drug is being used. It has been well-proven that ones expectations, both on the doctor and the patient sides, can affect the outcome. In some of these cases placebos are randomly given to certain patients, rather than drugs. It is also well proven that just the knowledge of being given a drug makes patients feel better, and in some cases actually get better. [The body is an amazing thing.] For cancer drugs, however, I would expect that placebos are not given, since these patients typically are very sick and withholding medicine would be considered unethical. In these cases, probably two different medicines would be given.

Were any studies such as these done with the TCM?

I have lots of very positve feedback of TCM efficacy from fellow patients.

This is not scientifically valid. How do you know they would not have gotten better anyway? How do you know this is not due to the placebo effect? How do you know they would not have gotten better faster with some other medicine?

Again, I'm not saying that TCM drugs are not effective. But I prefer to base my decisions on the results of scientific studies, not hearsay.

[daofeishi]

As I pointed out earlier, there is no need for anyone to explain how something works before it is shown that it actually works.

How do you show that a treatment works? You compare it against patients who get no treatment at all (but think they do) and see if you can find a difference. If patients who get treated do significantly better, the method works.

There is no question about how it works, there is a question about showing that it works.

I don't understand why advocates of alternative medicine don't just go and show the world that their methods really work. You just have to produce evidence that your method is better than doing nothing or giving people sugar pills! That is a small price to pay for a Nobel prize, isn't it? Not only will such evidence get you recognition and fame for discovering a new "force of nature", it would dispel all the criticism.

Now, I think the reason why advocates of alternative medicine keep claiming their methods are "outside the scope of science" is that they know exactly what will happen if they try and test their claims. Emperors don't usually like to be caught with their butts naked.

Edited May 5, 2010 at 06:05 PM by daofeishi

[chrix]

Were any studies such as these done with the TCM?

As my very brief foray into the MEDLINE/Pubmed database proved yes, though not for all of them, and not necessarily conclusive (for instance it's hard to make practitioners of acupuncture "blind" for the double-blind studies). And there are even some studies trying to find scientific explanations of the mystical forces TCM advocates seem to believe in.

But as many have said here, these are two different issues, whether a given method is significantly effective, and how it works. If a method proves significantly effective (in the statistical sense, not the anecdotal one), it will be accepted by western medicine as a valid method.

[Kenny同志]

This is not scientifically valid. How do you know they would not have gotten better anyway? How do you know this is not due to the placebo effect? How do you know they would not have gotten better faster with some other medicine?

There is no point further canvassing it. TCM prescriptions, even for the same complaint, vary from person to person, that is, TCM treats each patient more as an single individual than as a part of a larger group. So, I don't think a double-blind experiment where one whole group receives identical prescriptions and the other group the other sort of identical prescriptions best shows its efficacy, however, even done this way, there is authoritative evidence that TCM works. Note in the quotation "明显提高“ and "明显改善”.

I suggest you go to a TCM clinic and confirm its efficacy. One should not jump to conclusions when he knows little about the subject.

By the way, I have taught myself TCM for some three years.

And there are even some studies trying to find scientific explanations of the mystical forces TCM advocates seem to believe in.

It is not mystical forces.

Edited May 6, 2010 at 01:28 AM by kenny2006woo

[rezaf]

jbradfor and chrix let's just solve one problem at a time. I prefer to talk about the existance of 精气 part.

This is my statement: If you practise certain types of qigong or meditation exercises you can shift your awareness to other levels where 精气can be seen and felt.

Which part of it is not scientific?

[eatfastnoodle]

My personal experience: it's quite effective, as long as you can stomach the taste of the medicine. Back when I was a kid, every time I got sick, I would lose my stomach even after I felt perfectly ok. In another word, everything was good, I just didn't want to eat. My mother would take me to a Chinese medicine practitioner, he'd proscribe some weird stuff, as much as I hated it, I took it even though some times I threw up, I don't know if it's just me getting back to normal or if the medicine were really effective, I started eating like a normal kid not long after I took those medicine.

[daofeishi]

TCM treats each patient more as an single individual than as a part of a larger group. So, I don't think a double-blind experiment where one whole group receives identical prescriptions and the other group the other sort of identical prescriptions best shows its efficacy,

Why do you need identical prescriptions?

Give every patient in the one group individualized TCM, and give the control group "individualized" placebo.

There is no reason whatsoever the individual methods that constitute TCM shouldn't be able to pass double-blind trials if they really work.

[daofeishi]

This is my statement: If you practise certain types of qigong or meditation exercises you can shift your awareness to other levels where 精气can be seen and felt.

Which part of it is not scientific?

The part where you don't show that "精气" exists and is not a figment of your (or someone else's) imagination.

I am highly skeptical of claims where you have to reach "enlightenment" or "a shift of awareness" to be able to "see" the connections.

If you are not able to produce any objective evidence that what you are saying is right, how can I believe that you have an understanding of what you claim to understand or that what you claim exists really exists?

[Kenny同志]

Why not know enough about it before denying it?

[daofeishi]

I am not denying anything, I am being a TCM-agnostic, insofar that I haven't seen any evidence for the efficacy of most methods beyond placebo.

There are some studies that suggest that some methods have their merit, and as long as the studies are properly conducted I accept their conclusions. I have seen one article printed in a peer reviewed journal that seemed to indicate that acupuncture might help for certain kinds of neck pain. I am also sure that some herbs contain active chemical substances that can be used for medical purposes.

However, If you cannot show me that your method works, I am, sorry for being blunt, not going to waste my time learning it. The rule of thumb is: what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[BrandeX]

Can anyone else see the exact relation in this discussion to similar Theism vs. Atheism debates which people commonly have? The TCM side in this thread fails for the same reasons the "magic/god/the authority did it" camp in the other type of debate does.