Posts by Sam Vilain
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Steven,
Please note I do not have anything in particular against homeopathy. In the early 20th century homeopathy, naturopathy and herbology represented approximately 80% of practiced medicine. The 1910 Flexner Report, subsidized by the Oil/Railroad barons Carnegie and Rockefeller recommended Federal funding be withdrawn from schools not practicing Scientific medicine, and some would say this movement is what led to their decline and the rise of the pharmaceutical industry.
Why would 80% of people subscribe to systems of healing which were ineffective? Is it because these systems all worked, if via some unknown physical effect? Is it the nebulous and Scientifically off-limits "placebo effect" ?
Whatever the reason, to me it remains somewhat fringe because the practice has almost died out; the large schools have shut and you just can't find huge volumes of well referenced material, or huge amounts of research happening on it. So while it might not be scientific to discard it out of hand, I'm not interested in investigating it.
However I have no problem whatsoever with people selling homeopathic medicines that have big stickers plastered on them saying "WARNING: SCIENTISTS HAVE REACHED THE CONSENSUS THAT THIS IS SNAKE OIL. ANY ACTUAL POSTIVE RESULTS EXPERIENCED WOULD PROBABLY HAVE HAPPENED IF WE REPLACED THIS MEDICINE WITH TAPWATER" or whatever. Just so long as they don't make claims for effects as truth without the studies to back it up.
-
And Juha... seeing as you place a lot of faith in case reports I present a solution for the next time you find yourself with an intractible case of hiccups. From PubMed
-
I totally agree about the "western" title which is why I'm putting it in quotes all the time. Science transcends political boundaries and the dichotomy is actually a political one, or a quack's way of getting brand distinction, IMHO. Or even worse it's postmodern (don't get me started). "Western" medicine has been ripping off Chinese herbz since before China was even discovered by the West.
Heh, good point, but I don't think it's that awful to call it Western Medical Science as that term frequently appears in literature. Though after reading this I think I will use the terms Biomedicine and Scientific Medicine more.
-
Chinese traditional medicine and physical energy practices such as acupuncture and wushu are of course, all stolen from the Vedas anyway.
Not all would say that, for instance Joseph Needham, author of the series Science and Civilisation in China, writes in his book, "Celestial Lancets: A History & Rationale of Acupuncture & Moxa" (Cambridge Press (UK), 1980):
...it is natural to look for parallels in medical ideology [in the Indian culture-area], even though acupuncture was never practised in the sub-contintent of the Ayurveda. In the time of the Samhitas, about the beginning of the era, praṇa was quite as prominent as Greek pneuma or Chinese qì, but not much was said about the vessels in which it flowed. Only in late Tantrism was there elaborated a system of such channels ... Since the main source for this pneumatic physiology dates only from +1577 (though perhaps embodying earlier materials), it may be reasonable to regard it as a somewhat garbled and theologised echo of the acu-tracts and qì channels so ancient in Chinese medicine.
I think there is a distinct lack in this debate of the separation between the different types of "Alternative and Complementary medicine" that is about as problematic as use of the word "drug" for any bioactive compound from coffee and aspirin through to LSD and crack. Its real use is perhaps limited. Much better to use proper terms - Psychoactive, Stimulant, Hallucinogen, Depressant, etc.
So let's start seeing this debate in colour.
1. "Traditional Chinese Medicine", "Eastern Medicine", "Oriental Medicine", the stuff developed from 200BC -> today and still practiced in most of Asia despite the huge shake-up of modernisation. This includes Acupuncture - which has been shown to have clinical efficacy as already pointed out - in fact as early as 1800's it was widely practiced in parts of Europe, by Western doctors. In terms of herbs there have been several large pharmacoepœia published in this time cataloging substances and their effects (albeit in a pre-scientific framework), eg from the 200BCE Shén Nóng Běncǎo Jīng to the 1596CE Běncǎo Gāng Mù. Has some older and somewhat vague works certainly, but these were largely superceded by the 1601CE Zhēnjiǔ Dàchéng. Note that there are no real religious works in their cannon, even the Tao Te Ching wimps out in trying to explain the cause of everything. China has slowly been modernising this huge body of medical knowledge. Each of the herbs is well documented and are generally prescribed in combinations of 4-10 herbs. They are sold loose by TCM Herbs practitioners or in extracted form which always are sold with Latin descriptions of the complete contents and usually their relative percentages. The schools in New Zealand that teach this stuff with NZQA degree programmes also have Western medical doctors and require their students to study Western Medical Science. You wouldn't believe the number of people who end up dropping out from these courses when they find out that it's not just la de da and holding hands and that yes indeed they too need to know anatomical charts like the back of their second metacarpal.
2. "Ayurvedic", "Yoga", etc. Lots of other Indian stuff like Yoga etc. I think their cannon includes books that you might find sold to you on the street by Kṛṣṇa consciousness devotees. Power to them, but not my thing.
3. Western herbology. I don't really know much about this but from what I gather it's largely simple cause and effect stuff, ie this specific herb or oil does this or that. Great, testable stuff, should be possible to classify them. I don't see a particular problem with asking people who manufacture them to be able to back up any assertions they make about its efficacy with some kind of study.
4. Homeopathy. AIUI they take substances with a specific effect, put them in a container and then rinse the container clean a ridiculous number of times (eg 14). Any rational explanation of its mechanism would have to include very uncharted waters in wacko fields like Water memory and Quantum Mechanics. [tongue firmly in cheek for that - see also the pallaver around What tнē #$*! Ďө ωΣ (k)πow!?].
I think there is need for regulation; there certainly are too many quacks around and a lot of stupid ideas out there. Perhaps there needs to be a generally safe category to cover very common substances, from coffee to lavender oil. In terms of the Chinese Patent Herb manufacturers, I think it would be more prudent to ask them to provide details of relevant trials that have been performed with the formulas and/or component ingredients for their assessment.
Of course I have a vested interest in this. I find Eastern Medicine effective for maintaining my own health and losing access to the extremely cheap mass-market versions of Chinese Herbs is therefore a direct threat to my health.