many modern herbal medicines ARE standardised in fact (if the MAIN active ingredient is known) whilst still retaining the chemical complexity of the whole herb.
many doctors/scientists have the concern you have raised, re: standardisation, safety etc.
on the other hand, from a natural medicine perspective this is a good thing,chemical complexity can equal synergy of actives, reduced side effects etc.
i believe there’s a case for both points of view.
there is a great deal of research supporting the validity of herbal medicine, but going beyond this…i personally feel there is more value in applying natural medicines from their traditional paradigm as opposed to relying solely on modern research.
hundreds of years of empirical knowledge is not as hit and miss as you might think
___________________________________________________________________________ “I’m just trying to lull you into a genuine sense of security!”
Vlad I admire your bravvado in your generalisations in summing up TCM as the age old (and may I add refuted) idea as an Endorphin releasing methodology of practice. It is clear to anyone with impartial knowledge that this clearly is NOT the reason why Acupunture works. This idea which is quite old now and quite redundant is merely a Western Scientifically repressed and rarther much knee-jerk framework of trying to understand another framework of medecine ONLY through their own model of understanding. To label it it generically as being THE DEFINITIVE reason for why it works is just like saying that during the Salem witch trials “Oh she must be a witch because when we drowned her she didn’t float back up to the surface”. You cannot label something through your own terminology and nomenclature if you don’t have the correct understanding to use the correct words and models. If you don’t have the right understanding or the right terminology to translate one process from a different style of medicine to another then just don’t do it. Beleieve the translation will create all manner of problems and inaccuracies just like the fallacies we have todat in modern science when they try to explain other models out understanding out side of their realms into their (mis)understandings. It’s like someone who only reads English trying to decipher text written in German. The translation will usually turn out out to be quite appalling.
Acupunture has been tested using a variety of animal models. It worked. That’s a pretty good indication it’s not a placebo effect.
There are a number of “modern western scientific” explanations for the mechanism of acupuncture. Personally, I do not think that any of them are particularly good scientific explanations yet; but the nature of science is progressive, so this is not a particularly damning attack. However, it is important here to consider the difference between “western scientific” and “western medical” concepts in terms of proofs and validity. Science is concerned with describing underlying mechanisms. Medicine is not - it is only concerned with describing valid use. Of course, science feeds medicine to an immense degree; but to consider the two as the same is incorrect and will result in flawed logic, particularly in discussions such as these. For example, the drug lithium has been, and still is, in mass use and critical acceptance among the medical community as a treatment for depression; yet no mechanism has been proposed.
In regards to science accepting “a link between mind and body,” I’m not sure why this should surprise anyone. Descarte’s dualism was a political scheme devised so that scientists would be allowed to study the brain without infringing upon the domain of the church. The primary feeling among the conservative scientific community now is one of materialism - the mind IS the brain. So clearly the two are connected. So a theory that involves mind-brain interaction isn’t at odds with conservative scientific thought in the least.
Which leads to another problem in this thread. What do you mean by psychosomatic response? The implied definition is one of the mind influencing the body. But as the two are currently seen as one entity, this seems entirely meaningless. Do you mean any mechanism whereby the CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM influences the REST OF THE BODY? I’m sure that, spelled out in such a manner, it is clear how fruitless THAT definition would be. If you mean something else, then much care must be taken in spelling out exactly what you mean. Good luck; I don’t think it can be done. The point is, be carefull tossing around terms like “psychosomatic;” upon analysis they’re far more useless than they seem.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR> BTW, I am very little impressed by big words or chemical names, I am a scientist after all.[/quote]
Good for you, son.
Describing a biological mechanism or pathway will be difficult without using chemical terms or the like. For references you can search the British Medical Journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, The American Journal of Chinese Medicine, Focus on Alternative & Complementary Therapies, Anethesia, Journal of Obesity & Related Disorders, Acupuncture in Medicine, Journal of Internal Medicine, Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. They should outline what acupunture can and can’t do.
Thanks for the list. But I was wondering specifically where you got the information you posted in regards to these chemical signals.
BTW, don’t call me son…very disrespectful…it’d be like me calling you my *****. Lets not go there.
Fu-Pow
“Choy Lay Fut Kung Fu does not encourage its students to abuse or harm others with no reason. Nevertheless, in times when Kung Fu must be performed, Choy Lay Fut requires the student to change from a gentleman into a fierce and cold fighter.”
I once had a similar discussion with one Goktimus Prime. Just because TCM cannot easily be explained using scientific terminology does not mean that it does not work. To me, we are talking about 2 different thought paradigms so it would be difficult at best to explain one system in terms of another system.
Just because it cannot be easily measured or quantified does not mean that the theory (or practice) is unsound.
Needless to say, I disagree with you - I do not believe TCM is the placebo effect. How about we just agree to disagree?
cxxx:::::::::::>
What we do in life echoes in Eternity
Fish,nah, not impressed, it’s just some antioxidant found in green tea which is pretty much hyped as anti cancerous these days…hahahahhahahah
Are there some other fellow biologists here???
There has been an emerging field within the scienctific community that is looking beyond the the “Newtonian Mechanics” of biology. Quantum theory has been a revolution in physics( the basis of all scientific discipline) for quite some time. Yet, these theories has yet to filter down to our understanding of biology.
There are still many processes in our bodies that we have yet to understand. One very unwidely publicized problem exists in field of muscle energetics; hydrolysis of ATP and CP are inadequate to account for the total energy production(incl.thermodynamics)for muscle contraction. 2 reviews of this subject concur that some “extra” energy is produced, and by muscles from a variety of animals also. (Holmscher,E. and C.J. Keen,1978. Skeletal muscle energetics and metabolism. Ann.Rev.Physiol.40:93-131; Curtin, NA and RC Woledge,1978. Energy changes in muscular contraction. Physiol. Rev.58:690-761). There are also many more “unexplained phenomena” that shows that current knowledge of physiology cannot explain; ie emanation of magnetic fields from qigong practioners, yoga, theraputic touch nurses…that can have “non-artifact” effects.
Read “Body Electric” Dr. Robert o. Becker MD. His research has very far reaching implications, far too complex to explain on a bulletin board. Also, papers by James Oschman PhD, Beverly Rubik PhD.
As for peer review study on effect of acupuncture, research journals are full of them. All you have to do is look. I will give you one, Charles Shang, MD. Mechanism of Acupuncture- Beyond neurohumoral theory( Emory Univ. School of Med.) “pt PC6 accelerates bradycardia and decelerates tachycardia. ST36 surpresses hyperfunction(diarrhea) and stimulates hypofunction(constipation) of gut motility.”
As a scientist you know that “evolution is a conservative process”, bacteria have non-molecular communication system. The ability to respond to environment develop long before there were nerves, hormones, and circulatory sys. Hence, complex organism will still retain some of these processes.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR> There has been an emerging field within the scienctific community that is looking beyond the the “Newtonian Mechanics” of biology. [/quote]
In order to reach a Quantum theory of biology it would require that the molecules that make up the human body, somehow “step out” of there role as molecules in the human body. Granted, molecules in the human body have a differently coordinated activity in the human body, than in say a rock. However, at the quantum level the molecules still follow certain laws. And those laws are the basis for the next level of organization, ie the molecule. One level of organization supports the other. So while I think you can have a more integrated idea of biology you cannot say that it is really “Quantum.”
in basic chemistry we can see that relative to the size of subatomic particles (even simply the nucleus and electrons) an atom is largely just space.as we move up to larger molecules we’ve got even more space.
so in a way the apparent solidity of matter could be seen as a reflection of the strength of the bonds (ionic and covalent).these bonds can be seen as energy, so it’s energy not “solid stuff” that makes matter seem solid.
the duality of matter (viewing light as either a wave or a photon particle interchangeably) sets a precedent to view “real” particles as energy as well.
now, i totally agree that this could be seen as theoretical and impractical.at the orginisational level of the human body (atoms-molecules-tissues-organs-systems) how relevant is this?
i don’t know, but i believe personally that the question should not be shrugged off too lightly.
how sure are we that atoms/energy can’t
““step out” of there role as molecules in the human body”
i know from personal experience that things like acupuncture, energy healing etc. DO get results.
not 100%, and not for everyone(no system of medicine does)…but they do something.
so, is it just placebo? (i don’t think so).but if so, isn’t that really just another word for the same thing, a scientifically unexplained healing phenomena.
ie. if it’s “all in the mind” doesn’t that warrant some respect and/or research?
many things are written off as placebo or spontaneous remission…but these aren’t really explanations, they’re just terms.
we don’t even know how anaesthetic works.don’t you think that until we can fully scientifically explain placebo and spontaneous remission that we should keep at least an open mind that there may be forces at work in nature/the human body beyond our current scientific model?
as a previous poster mentioned, i’d also question the validity of trying to force traditional paradigms into the current scientific understanding.
systems like TCM may be complete and accurate in their own right.
just as we have many different languages that can all express the same concepts, is it not possible to have different methods of understanding the same things (in this case medicine/health/the body) without having to squeeze them into “science” or the modern allopathic model of medicine?
___________________________________________________________________________ “I’m just trying to lull you into a genuine sense of security!”
Originally posted by bodhitree If TCM is placibo, why is it effective in Vetranary medicine.
My dog periodically starts to bloat. When I see the preliminary symptom–crazed licking of everything in sight–I begin to pet her and speak to her in calming tones.
About 1/2 the time, this is enough to make her symptoms and, presumably, her discomfort disappear.
i’ve had acupuncture treatments that totally knocked out some friggin serious joint problems before. i think it is more that a placebo.
although, when i have that done, or any herbal or natural healing performed, i feel really good knowing i’m using natural stuff to heal myself and i’m certain it will work. and when i take some synthetic drug for a mygraine or something, i just grumble about how it will make me drowsy and sluggish and all the other crappy side effects that come with synthetic drugs. so i see how some people can think TCM is a placebo. those people should try some TCM.
TCM is as much a placebo as Western medicine.
I would of thought that was obvious!!!
However TCM is not used in that way, it’s used as pertinent treatment for specific conditions, but hey so Western medicine!! Why do people want to make divisions between the two when in fact there ar far more similarities than one wants to dmit?
Originally posted by If you thought that the Yellow Eporor’s Classic made TCM out to be the Placebo effect, then unfortunately you may of misunderstood it. It is in fact quite the opposite. And yes, diseases CAN be cured. This in itself sounds like a generalisation, but it depends on situations and the probability of ones own health and the surrounding influencing factors also.
repulsive monkey
If you were a practioner of tcm and which qi gong is surely a part of or even just aware of that both preventitively and curatively then to not practice or work to cultivate and consistently flow within that qi wouldn’t that make you an attention seeking hypocondrac and other forms of tcm an absolute placebo?
And being that qi is the force which sustains life at full health or any health or life then wouldn’t it have to be a conscious decision to let go of that and maybe i should meditate on it deeper but what would justify that - specifically?
Your remark doesn’t make too much sense on a few levels, namely I’m not sure what you’re questioning due to its unclear direction, plus why do take someone elses quote and then comment to me (unless it was an old quote by me!).
By the way I am a practitioner of both TCM and Qi-gong.
Originally posted by If you thought that the Yellow Eporor’s Classic made TCM out to be the Placebo effect, then unfortunately you may of misunderstood it. It is in fact quite the opposite. And yes, diseases CAN be cured. This in itself sounds like a generalisation, but it depends on situations and the probability of ones own health and the surrounding influencing factors also.
This is one of your quotes and I as I said, not to take anything away from non qi gong forms of “tcm”, but by practing qi gong you could be assumed to have maximum qi right - which we all know we both absorb and omit, so if a patient was to see us we would be consiously or no contolledly or no, omitting that qi which they - consciously or no are absorbing therefore giving them the benifits we receive from having qi flow at that level making anything else a placebo and … do you see where I’m comming from with this or are we just on different planets with this?
My dog periodically starts to bloat. When I see the preliminary symptom–crazed licking of everything in sight–I begin to pet her and speak to her in calming tones.
About 1/2 the time, this is enough to make her symptoms and, presumably, her discomfort disappear.
How does this fit with your question? [/B]
Maybe your dog bloats because you don’t pet her enough and speak to her in calming tones.
