What I know from reading science and scientists’ writings about science is that science does not claim to know everything and does not know exactly how everything really in all possible intricacies works that is known to science.
Can we say that true science so far is not comprehensive and exclusive: it does not know everything, certainly; and its explanation of things and processes is not exclusive of other and better explanation that might and would come up as science moves forward in exploring life and the universe.
Coming now to Chinese medicine, and also all other alternative medicines and even faith healing, in brief: all other ways and means of restoring health and providing relief for pain, ache, and discomfort, the questions I would like to pose to both the spokesmen of conventional scientific medicine and also the enthusiasts of Chinese medicine can come under the following headings:
Are there cases where conventional medicine has given up but Chinese medicine has succeeded?
In the successful cures of Chinese medicine where conventional medicine finds itself not capable, is the permanency of the cures comparable to cures effected in conventional medicine in cases where conventional medicine does routinely succeed?
Considering favorable replies if there be such to the above two questions, can it be true science to absolutely rule out the efficacy of Chinese medicine on grounds that present medical knowledge, materials, methods, and equipment do not support the cures, or even are against the genuinity of these cures?
The knowledgeable and informed spokesmen of conventional medicine and the enthusiasts of Chinese medicine if any here, please enlighten me.
As for myself, I am a pragmatist when it comes to medicine: whatever works and does not cause any harm, is all right with me, specially when it is more economical and takes less trouble and time and certainly less risks to life and limbs.
In non-emergency cases or when immediate or fast relief is not imperative, I am disposed to try everything outside conventional medicine.
Susma Rio Sep
How would you know for sure? Many people have claimed this. The point is that the Chinese cure is by defintion not taking place under the auspices of western science so isn’t going ot be published in any journal. All we can know is that people have been deemed to be untreatably rheumatic by western medicince and later claimed ot have been cured by accupuncture for example.
No it’s not true science, and true science does not rule out Asian medicine. There are any number of articles avaialable in reputable journals on the efficacy of Asian medicine, many of them favourable.
You’re going at this from a misleading angle. All “science” wants out of a cure is for the results to be demonstrable, repeatable (to a statistically similar degree) and more positive than the control group.
Its on these points that studies on things like “acupuncture” start to fall apart. I, personally, have no belief in acupuncture as a cure for anything. But I have a strong belief that, if you take a terminal or degenerate case and have a mystical old man say “When I stick this needle in your neck, you will feel better”, the person may feel better after the guy sticks the needle in his neck.
But to do a valid study, the guy would have to treat a large number of patients, treating half of them according to his “teachings” and the other half (the control group) by placing the needles randomly. If acupuncture is a valid, scientifically sound “cure”, then the “real” group should do significantly better than the control. If acupuncture results are completely driven by the placebo effect, then the two groups should have similar results.
But even that wouldn’t be perfect, because the guy might not be as “mystical” or whatever when operating on the control group. What you really need is a “double blind” study, where not only do the patients not know if they’re in the control group, but the acupuncturist doesn’t know which patients are getting the real deal and which ones are the control. For that to happen, you’d almost have to train two acupuncturists separately, only teach one correctly and teach the other the same procedure, but don’t teach him the “proper” places to put the needles, teach him to put them some other place.
If multiple double-blind studies were to take place and show that acupuncture was indeed a valid cure, it would then be embraced by more scientists, who would then concentrate on figuring out the why it works. But no such studies exist, so scientists aren’t going to bother themselves figuring out why something that probably doesn’t work could work.
Sympathetic nerve activity after acupuncture in humans.
Knardahl S, Elam M, Olausson B, Wallin BG.
Pain. 1998 Mar;75(1):19-25.
"The aim of the present study was to determine if acupuncture stimulation inhibits sympathetic nerve activity in humans. Multiunit efferent postganglionic sympathetic activity was recorded with a tungsten microelectrode inserted in a muscle fascicle of the peroneal nerve. Mean arterial pressure, heart rate and skin blood flow were also monitored. Pain thresholds were measured by electrical tooth pain stimulation. After a 30 min rest, acupuncture needles were inserted bilaterally into the Li 11 and the Li 4 acupuncture points, and manipulated until ‘chi’ cramp-like sensation was reported. Electrical stimulation (2 Hz, 0.6-0.8 ms duration, maximal tolerated stimulation without discomfort) was delivered for 30 min and the physiological recordings were continued for 90 min after the end of acupuncture. In a placebo control experiment, the same procedure was followed, except that acupuncture needles were inserted subcutaneously and no manipulation or stimulation was given. The stimulator delivered pulses to an unconnected channel, hence, the same audiovisual stimuli were experienced as with acupuncture, and care was taken to ask the same questions about sensations in the placebo and the acupuncture groups. Electroacupuncture produced an increase in pain threshold which was paralleled by a transient increase in muscle sympathetic nerve activity. During acupuncture, there was a small increase in heart rate and mean arterial pressure, but there was no post-acupuncture hypotension. The placebo control procedure did not change pain threshold or sympathetic nerve traffic. The findings suggest that electroacupuncture produces moderate hypoalgesia in humans paralleled by a significant increase in muscle sympathetic nerve activity.
But we can apply the same logic to laser eye surgery or vasectomy. No surgical technique can be subject to this kind of double blind. That doesn’t mean they are not scientific.
Blake, that was an interesting cite. I’m not trying to be an ass, but I have questions:
Why wasn’t electicity applied to the needles of the control group, so that the only difference between the two was the lack of “manipulation until ‘chi’ cramp-like sensation observed”? Certainly, if the thousand-year old practice of acupunture is the main cause of the increase in pain tolerance, then the modern invention of electricity shouldn’t be a necessary component, right? 'Cause right now, it certainly looks like running the current through the needles is a significant difference between the test group and the control.
What was the sample size?
Have the results been repeated by independant researchers?
And the difference between the double blind I suggested and, say, a double-blind for other surgical techniques, is that you can do the double-blind for acupuncture. But again, double-blind isn’t a necessity, it’s just a good practice. I’d be happy with solid controlled studies.
Well, Chinese medicine I am referring to is not limited to acupuncture; although it is a good part of Chinese medicine. The use of herbs in various combinations and quantities also constitutes an essential and big component.
I like to come back to the incidence of successful outcomes from Chinese medicine in cases where conventional medicine has not been effective and has given up.
If we discount all the possible explanations that are founded upon placebo, scam, fraud, self-healing of the body, etc., we are still left with a number of, shall we say, incontrovertible successes.
Now, conventional medical researchers might not be interested in studying the intrinsic merits of the Chinese medical procedures and materials that bring about the favorable effects; because basically such materials and procedures are not within the laboratory methodology of conventional medical researches.
Can we say that then some other methodology will have to be worked out and adopted? Is that possible, and then feasible? Many things are not done because of dis-incentive in terms of feasibility.
The practical application here is that when a patient cannot be successfully treated in conventional medicine, it might be practical to suggest to him to try Chinese medicine and other alternative medicines, with the caveats of course against scam artists and the latest fads in the word-of-mouth medical bazaar.
I believe it is even a disservice to not suggest such an option.
Cite? Name one that is “incontrovertably” not attributable to a placebo effect, for instance.
Putting these procedures through double-blind clinical trials is most certainly withing conventional methodology.
Look, despite what you seem to want to think, there is not some big medical conspiracy out there that’s trying to prevent this wonderful alternative medicine from being released to the public. Doctors are in the business of helping people feel better. I know dozens of doctors, and every one of them would willingly adopt any sort of unusual procedure, if there was evidence that it worked. Ask any doctor what they wouldn’t be willing to try to help some six year old kid dying from leukemia, for instance. From a more cynical point of view, the first drug company to prove that some Chinese herbal concoction or ionized bracelet or magnetic shoe inserts actually worked could make a ton of money off it.
The reason this stuff isn’t mainstream is NOT because the medical “establishment” is trying to keep it down, but because it just plain doesn’t work. At least, it doesn’t work well enough or reliably enough to recommend it to the general public. Treatments need to meet standards of efficacy and safety.
I honestly don’t know. My somewhat educated guess is that acupuncture relies to some extent on the victim, err patients, telling the practitioner where to put the needle. This experiment intended only to investigate whether acupuncture techniques could invoke a response. If we had manipulation then there may have been a confusion between the effect of the needle and the effect of the current. That reduces the validity of the control. If they had done this you would then ask why they didn’t just insert the needles under the skin. I guess they should have done both but they didn’t so….
Only if we can validly apply that to western medicine. If the thousand year old practice of surgery is the main cause of increased healing then the modern invention of lasers shouldn’t be a necessary component, right? Wrong. Laser surgery can be more effective and still be based on the same principles, just as electric acupuncture can be more effective and still based on the same principles.
I’m not saying this is the as, but it strikes me as strange when skeptics say that Chinese medicine is not scientific because it doesn’t adapt as western medicine does and relies on age old tradition. Then when it does adapt and make use of new technologies it is evidence that the underlying principles they were adapted form don’t work. I’m not sure it can win.
Without any doubt. However what it does show is that manipulation of acupuncture points with needles has an effect. ie that the points themselves are physiologicall valid and not simply mystical quackery
No idea. I just pulled the abstract off PubMed as the first hit when I searched on “acupuncture placebo”. I don’t have access to the full text.
See above. There are certainly plenty of articles on the efficacy of acupuncture in reputable journals though, so this isn’t a one off. In fairness there are also many showing ambiguous results as well.
How many times must I say this: oodles of conventional medical researchers are interested in studying the intrinsic merits of the Chinese medical procedures and materials that bring about the favorable effects. There are thousands of them working on it right now. Go to PubMed and do a search on acupuncture, you’ll get thousands of hits. There are at least 7 reputable scientific journals devoted solely or largely to this aspect of Chinese medicine alone. Chinese medicine is not psuedoscience, or at least no more so than toxicology, which also has its share of quacks. The materials and procedures are well within the laboratory methodology of conventional medical researches.
I’m a big fan of Chinese medicine, but I really do have to second what ** Smeghead** has said. The reason this stuff isn’t mainstream is NOT because the medical “establishment” is trying to keep it down, but because it just plain doesn’t work well enough or reliably enough to recommend it to the general public. We are dealing with a medial practice at the same technological level as European medicine in 1770. Sure there were some good procedures out there, but there was a lot of quackery and cupping and bleeding as well. Once we have some sort of reliable practice behind Chinese medicine, ie we have made it a science rather than an art, then we can start prescribing it. Until then it would be dangerous and immoral to do so.
Sure there’s a lot of evidence for Chinese medicine. There’s a lot against too. If you want to use it go right ahead. It isn’t completely unsupportable. But it is nowhere near perfected enough to go mainstream yet.
I honestly don’t know. My somewhat educated guess is that acupuncture relies to some extent on the victim, err patients, telling the practitioner where to put the needle. This experiment intended only to investigate whether acupuncture techniques could invoke a response. If we had manipulation then there may have been a confusion between the effect of the needle and the effect of the current. That reduces the validity of the control. If they had done this you would then ask why they didn’t just insert the needles under the skin. I guess they should have done both but they didn’t so….
Only if we can validly apply that to western medicine. If the thousand year old practice of surgery is the main cause of increased healing then the modern invention of lasers shouldn’t be a necessary component, right? Wrong. Laser surgery can be more effective and still be based on the same principles, just as electric acupuncture can be more effective and still based on the same principles.
I’m not saying this is the as, but it strikes me as strange when skeptics say that Chinese medicine is not scientific because it doesn’t adapt as western medicine does and relies on age old tradition. Then when it does adapt and make use of new technologies it is evidence that the underlying principles they were adapted form don’t work. I’m not sure it can win.
Without any doubt. However what it does show is that manipulation of acupuncture points with needles has an effect. ie that the points themselves are physiologicall valid and not simply mystical quackery
No idea. I just pulled the abstract off PubMed as the first hit when I searched on “acupuncture placebo”. I don’t have access to the full text.
See above. There are certainly plenty of articles on the efficacy of acupuncture in reputable journals though, so this isn’t a one off. In fairness there are also many showing ambiguous results as well.
How many times must I say this: oodles of conventional medical researchers are interested in studying the intrinsic merits of the Chinese medical procedures and materials that bring about the favorable effects. There are thousands of them working on it right now. Go to PubMed and do a search on acupuncture, you’ll get thousands of hits. There are at least 7 reputable scientific journals devoted solely or largely to this aspect of Chinese medicine alone. Chinese medicine is not psuedoscience, or at least no more so than toxicology, which also has its share of quacks. The materials and procedures are well within the laboratory methodology of conventional medical researches.
I’m a big fan of Chinese medicine, but I really do have to second what ** Smeghead** has said. The reason this stuff isn’t mainstream is NOT because the medical “establishment” is trying to keep it down, but because it just plain doesn’t work well enough or reliably enough to recommend it to the general public. We are dealing with a medial practice at the same technological level as European medicine in 1770. Sure there were some good procedures out there, but there was a lot of quackery and cupping and bleeding as well. Once we have some sort of reliable practice behind Chinese medicine, ie we have made it a science rather than an art, then we can start prescribing it. Until then it would be dangerous and immoral to do so.
Sure there’s a lot of evidence for Chinese medicine. There’s a lot against too. If you want to use it go right ahead. It isn’t completely unsupportable. But it is nowhere near perfected enough to go mainstream yet.
BlakeThe reason this stuff isn’t mainstream is NOT because the medical “establishment” is trying to keep it down
And here’s a clear-cut example where they have adopted it: the anti-malarial artemisinin.
I think one big fallacy pervades this issue: that age-old practices deserve some kind of consideration for being age-old. When you think of Western medicine, in comparison, we had ancient remedies that later proved to have some basis in reality (for instance, digitalis, salicylic acid in willow bark, etc). We also had (as you say) entirely misguided treatments such as bleeding, and before that, the ‘four humours’ theory of disease, sympathetic magic, and much other stuff that was total garbage. Traditional Chinese medicine appears to be a similar mix.
Most “traditional” medical practices are composed of one part honest, working herbalism, one part mystical theory, one part hand-waving, and one part “other”.
And it actually works to a greater or lesser degree.
Here’s my devil’s advocate take: given that Chinese medicine has been around for about 4 and a half millennia, is it not reasonable to assume that dangerous/useless ‘remedies’ might have died out, while effective ones survived? The practitioners may have based their theory on spurious beliefs, but natural selection would allowed the effective treatments to persist.
I see my point got lost somewhere. What I’m trying to say is that it’s completely possible to have a scientific study that says that “ancient Chinese medicine” works beyond the placebo effect without being able to scientifically say “why” it works. You don’t need any new guidlines or standards or testing practices.
And Blake, my point was that, right now, the study (if repeatable and had a valid sample size) showed that if you stick the needles into the points, manipulated them in that special acupuncture way, and then ran a current through the needles it had an effect that just sticking the needles in didn’t.
If they wanted to show that electroacupuncture worked better than traditional acupuncture, then they should have done the full manipulation in the control. If they wanted to show that the manipulation was a required step, they should have ran the current through the control. If they wanted to show that the points were important, then they should have stuck the needles into the control randomly, manipulated them, and ran the current through them.
But they didn’t do any of those things, so you can’t reach any of those conclusions from that study.
And back to Susma, if proven medicical practices (western or otherwise) have completely failed a person, I have no qualms against them seeking out traditional alternatives. That’s the thing about the placebo effect, it doesn’t matter to the patient if it’s the treatment or their own mind that’s making them feel better, they just want to feel better. What I have problems with is when people shun proven techniques in favor of unpredictable ones, simply because the unpredictable ones are “ancient” or “mystical”.
The practitioners may have based their theory on spurious beliefs, but natural selection would allowed the effective treatments to persist.
Iffy, because the “after this, therefore because of this” fallacy runs deep in human nature. Since people usually get better from minor complaints under their own steam, natural selection would also allow treatments that had no effect (or even mildly detrimental effect) to persist.
But why would “natural selection” even be a factor? We’re talking people here, people who want to stick with irrational beliefs for crazy reasons. (I’m talking about us all, not just ancient Chinese) people who have a had time finding cause and effect. Look how long bleeding was practiced in Europe. Look how many newspapers in America have astrology sections. Look at how many people in India saw “MonkeyMan”. I’d say “natural selection” doesn’t stand a chance.
Okay, here’s the thing: Untrained people are very bad at frequency analysis. They remember events that re-enforce their beliefs and forget those that contradict their beliefs. Likewise, believing you will be healed can help you heal–cf “placebo effect”. both are well-documented phenomena. If a treatment has no direct effect at all on a disease, people will still tend to believe it is effective and thus both be predisposed to have selective memory and to a placebo effect.
Indeed, when, in Hong Kong, I was offered crushed rhino horn and pearl for laryngitis, and I immediately thought “what a crock”. I don’t doubt that there are effective remedies in Chinese medicine, but I’m willing to concede that this might be due to chance.
chinese medicine is not base on western science.
western science is based on a set of rules to figure things out and to prove it works.
since chinese medicine has not gone through the rigors of being proven out by western scientific methodology, you can claim chinese medicine works. on the other hand, you can’t say it doesn’t work. you just don’t know. western doctors cannot advocate medicine that they don’t know if it works or not.
now, that we understand the difference between the two and why western medicine cannot accept chinese or alternative medicine, let’s see why chinese or alternative medicine doesn’t get more funding to prove its efficacy. the reason is that there are no profit for pharmaceuticals to pursue this. there are no profit for medical device makers to pursue this. the only people that can profit from it, don’t have the capital to fund multi million dollar studies.
no argument there, I’d say “to try and prove how it works.”
I can say that it’s a load of marlarky, you have to prove it works. Proof that I accept enough to let somebody poke needles into my body to cure me of my ills. Good luck.
That’s why when all is said and done, if you want to be given the best possible chance of getting well, you go to western doctors.
You have not said much to nail down this point. I get so frustrated talking to people who believe in the validity of “Eastern Medicine” they get so passionate talking about the herbs and teas and how long chinese people live but they cannot back it up with numbers. Plus, they cannot tell me what “Eastern” medicine could do for me when I got hit by a car and had multiple fractures.
What about the practitioners of these treatments, won’t they profit? What about the thousands of healthy cured patients who aren’t paying money to the evil medical establishment? Insurance companies would profit, they’d pay out less for treatment in some cases.