The reliability of TCM (traditional chinese medicine)

[ray245]

There has been some debate going on in regards to the reliability of TCM, with people who dismiss it as superstitious belief, while other believe that it is simply a school of thought that is viable, but has not be fully understood using western science technique.


So, can the members here tell me if TCM is considered viable to heal certain illness and etc?

[Melchior]

It is possible that by random chance some (preciously few) of the prescribed remedies could actually be useful; in some cases they are at least innocuous and may work because of the placebo effect, if the patient for some reason believes in them. The underlying view of the human body makes no sense and has no validity.

[Broomstick]

Please define "traditional Chinese medicine" - it helps to know where the edges are. Are you talking about the herbal remedies? Acupuncture? Dietary theories? All of the above?

Like many pre-science pharmacopoeias, the Chinese collection contains some useful items and a lot of bunk. Powdered rhino horn is not viagra, but using ephedra for some respiratory ailments might actually be useful, as just two examples.

[Zixinus]

What school of thought is TCM? That people have "life forces" and "laylines" in places because old Chinese illustrations and masters say so?

TCM is just like any folk medicine: any sort of actual successful healing is due to accident rather then deliberate thought. It may be more elaborate, but its damned by its very name: Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Unless you are telling me that a couple of turds that were able to get away with selling silly solutions for problems.

It doesn't matter if its Western or Eastern folk medicine: in essence, it is still the bullshit shat by a few medieval twats that thought that a person's physical problems are to be solved by spiritual means rather then by physical means.

If you have a broken leg, no amount of praying will heal it faster (unless you pray in such a manner that it doesn't cause any stress to the broken leg, which you can do without praying). You will need to put a cast to it and eat calcium-based stuff so that your body can produce bone-repairing stuff faster.

This is the reason why Doctors can be sued while any TCM practitioner cannot: they know deep down that they can't do what actual doctors do because actual doctors study the human body while any folk doctor studies old superstitious bullshit that has no basis in reality.

[General Zod]

Traditional medicine, especially acupuncture, is bullshit.

Sept. 24, 2007 -- Acupuncture proved to be more effective than conventional lower back pain treatments in a new study, but it was no more effective than a sham needle procedure.

The German study compared outcomes among 1,162 patients with chronic low back pain treated with traditional Chinese acupuncture; sham acupuncture; or a conventional approach to treating back pain using drugs, physical therapy, and exercise.

The study is the largest investigation of acupuncture vs. conventional nonsurgical treatment for lower back pain ever reported, researchers say.

"Acupuncture represents a highly promising and effective treatment option for chronic back pain," researcher Heinz Endres, MD, tells WebMD. "Patients experienced not only reduced pain intensity, but also reported improvements in the disability that often results from back pain -- and therefore in their quality of life."

Several earlier studies involving patients with chronic pain have shown similar benefits for traditional and sham acupuncture.

A 2005 analysis of 33 back pain studies did show a treatment advantage for traditional acupuncture, but a researcher involved in the analysis says more recent studies challenge this finding.

"The evidence as a whole suggests that the benefits of true acupuncture over sham acupuncture are almost clinically irrelevant," Eric Manheimer, MS, of the University of Maryland Center for Integrative Medicine tells WebMD. "The reasons for this are not really clear. It may be that putting the needles anywhere stimulates some sort of analgesic effect."

Hooray for the placebo effect?

[PainRack]

What school of thought is TCM? That people have "life forces" and "laylines" in places because old Chinese illustrations and masters say so?

TCM is just like any folk medicine: any sort of actual successful healing is due to accident rather then deliberate thought. It may be more elaborate, but its damned by its very name: Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Any discussion of TCM needs to first seperate whether its talking about remedies or "science". In the later, the second is clearly not compatible with scientific thinking and understanding of the day. The massive differences in say accupuncture points and various schools of thoughts, as well as what appears to be somewhat philosophical evolution of methodology is hardly counterchecked by reality. For example, hot vs cold foods, fever vs cold.

Now, the real issue is remedies. Unlike the science, which had observation backed deductions mixed in a sea of philosophical and superstitious thinking, the remedies at least have been run through SOME checking against reality. For example, both the Tang and Ming dynasty had various medical scholars compare and test the use of herbal medicines for the use against various diseases, although again, the problem of inaccurate diagnosis pops up due to TCM methodology.
Ditto for accunpuncture, foot massage and the like. So, what you have are semi-effective remedies that have actually been partially intergrated into modern science(well, accunpuncture is the real sticking point) but the rest are simply different ways of slaying the cat. Qigong? Exercise such as Pilates probably offer the same benefit. Massage? Same. As for herbal therapies, there isn't any reason to continue to rely on traditional supplements when pharma can do the same thing in reliable, measured doses.
Although I do agree that despite for some, its easier to drink said herbal stuff than take a barrage of pills, but then again, I'm not the one COOKING said soups.

[General Zod]

Now, the real issue is remedies. Unlike the science, which had observation backed deductions mixed in a sea of philosophical and superstitious thinking, the remedies at least have been run through SOME checking against reality. For example, both the Tang and Ming dynasty had various medical scholars compare and test the use of herbal medicines for the use against various diseases, although again, the problem of inaccurate diagnosis pops up due to TCM methodology.

Remedies are about as effective as their western counterparts. The useful ones get turned into mass-produced medicine. The not so useful ones either don't get used or snake-oil salesmen continue to peddle them as the real deal.

Ditto for accunpuncture, foot massage and the like. So, what you have are semi-effective remedies that have actually been partially intergrated into modern science(well, accunpuncture is the real sticking point) but the rest are simply different ways of slaying the cat. Qigong? Exercise such as Pilates probably offer the same benefit. Massage? Same. As for herbal therapies, there isn't any reason to continue to rely on traditional supplements when pharma can do the same thing in reliable, measured doses.
Although I do agree that despite for some, its easier to drink said herbal stuff than take a barrage of pills, but then again, I'm not the one COOKING said soups.

Even less so for acupuncture, which is really no more than a massive placebo effect. See the study I posted above.

[ray245]

Please define "traditional Chinese medicine" - it helps to know where the edges are. Are you talking about the herbal remedies? Acupuncture? Dietary theories? All of the above?

Like many pre-science pharmacopoeias, the Chinese collection contains some useful items and a lot of bunk. Powdered rhino horn is not viagra, but using ephedra for some respiratory ailments might actually be useful, as just two examples.

In general...I want to know which part of TCM has been rejected, and which parts can be considered acceptable.

[General Zod]

Please define "traditional Chinese medicine" - it helps to know where the edges are. Are you talking about the herbal remedies? Acupuncture? Dietary theories? All of the above?

Like many pre-science pharmacopoeias, the Chinese collection contains some useful items and a lot of bunk. Powdered rhino horn is not viagra, but using ephedra for some respiratory ailments might actually be useful, as just two examples.

In general...I want to know which part of TCM has been rejected, and which parts can be considered acceptable.

Instead of trying to figure out if it's been rejected, try seeing if it appears in any reputable medical journals instead. If not it's safe to discount it as a dodgy practice at best.

[PainRack]

Even less so for acupuncture, which is really no more than a massive placebo effect. See the study I posted above.

I beg to differ. The problem is defining placebo. By definition, placebo is NOT supposed to have any effect other than psychological. However, sham needle accupuncture is in itself difficult to do since there's actually a school of accupuncture which uses pressure only.

[Broomstick]

Of course, if you haven't an effective remedy the placebo effect is better than nothing... but these days we do have effective remedies.

[Jaepheth]

Funny, I'm reading the same article and drawing a different conclusion...

Sept. 24, 2007 -- Acupuncture proved to be more effective than conventional lower back pain treatments in a new study,but it was no more effective than a sham needle procedure.

The German study compared outcomes among 1,162 patients with chronic low back pain treated with traditional Chinese acupuncture; sham acupuncture; or a conventional approach to treating back pain using drugs, physical therapy, and exercise.

The study is the largest investigation of acupuncture vs. conventional nonsurgical treatment for lower back pain ever reported, researchers say.

"Acupuncture represents a highly promising and effective treatment option for chronic back pain," researcher Heinz Endres, MD, tells WebMD. "Patients experienced not only reduced pain intensity, but also reported improvements in the disability that often results from back pain -- and therefore in their quality of life."

I'm reading this as saying acupuncture works, but there's no difference between real and fake acupuncture. But even fake acupuncture has a more-than-placebo effect on relieving back pain.

Also, acupuncture is used for far more than just relieving back pain. What about its uses as a local anesthetic, or the more implausible claims such as allergy relief? I'd say more study is needed to discover what areas acupuncture is effective in, which areas it's just a placebo in, or what areas just jabbing needles helps (as above).

[General Zod]

I'm reading this as saying acupuncture works, but there's no difference between real and fake acupuncture. But even fake acupuncture has a more-than-placebo effect on relieving back pain.

Or not. The mind can do a lot as far as clamping down on pain goes.

"The evidence as a whole suggests that the benefits of true acupuncture over sham acupuncture are almost clinically irrelevant," Eric Manheimer, MS, of the University of Maryland Center for Integrative Medicine tells WebMD. "The reasons for this are not really clear. It may be that putting the needles anywhere stimulates some sort of analgesic effect."

Also, acupuncture is used for far more than just relieving back pain. What about its uses as a local anesthetic, or the more implausible claims such as allergy relief? I'd say more study is needed to discover what areas acupuncture is effective in, which areas it's just a placebo in, or what areas just jabbing needles helps (as above).

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that sticking needles in specific spots is any more effective at treating anything than sticking it somewhere at random. If this was the case with lower back pain why would it be any different with anything else that involves sticking needles in specific locations?

[Melchior]

In general...I want to know which part of TCM has been rejected, and which parts can be considered acceptable.

All of it. Some of the herbal remedies could be useful, but are probably already integrated in conventional, scientific, medicine.

[Mr Bean]

In general...I want to know which part of TCM has been rejected, and which parts can be considered acceptable.

All of it. Some of the herbal remedies could be useful, but are probably already integrated in conventional, scientific, medicine.

All of it, if the Herbal remedies worked we'd have found it, isolated the bit that made it work and produce it in pill form.


And that's the bottom line

[Jaepheth]

After further research and a University of Google degree in medical acupuncture, I must retract any previous claims of acupuncture's efficacy in treatment or prevention of pain.

Many of the articles I read pointed out that sham acupuncture and true acupuncture have nearly the same result. (Such as this one) This same result was mentioned in the lower back pain study quoted earlier in this thread. I tried to find data regarding whether or not the benefit of randomly poking needles in someone was any better than the result of placebo, because if there is an observation that needle poking works then the theory behind it (current acupuncture theory) may need revision but the observation would still stand. I was unable to find any such data for pain relief, but found that the needle poking effect was no better than doing nothing in the case of treating hot flashes for menopausal women

This still left General Zod's quoted article in which the researcher seemed in favor of acupuncture. After reading more statistical articles regarding acupuncture it seems most studies in the field are of low quality. The real nail in the coffin was this article regarding bias in acupuncture studies.

It does, however, seem to help prevent adults getting sick after surgery: Link, another link

[General Zod]

This still left General Zod's quoted article in which the researcher seemed in favor of acupuncture. After reading more statistical articles regarding acupuncture it seems most studies in the field are of low quality. The real nail in the coffin was this article regarding bias in acupuncture studies.

Had you bothered reading the full article I quoted, you would have seen further down where another researcher said the measurable differences between sham acupuncture and "the real deal" were effectively irrelevant.

[Jaepheth]

This still left General Zod's quoted article in which the researcher seemed in favor of acupuncture. After reading more statistical articles regarding acupuncture it seems most studies in the field are of low quality. The real nail in the coffin was this article regarding bias in acupuncture studies.

Had you bothered reading the full article I quoted, you would have seen further down where another researcher said the measurable differences between sham acupuncture and "the real deal" were effectively irrelevant.

I did read that part, I had to un-red color it when I requoted the article from you.

What I meant was the quote, "Acupuncture represents a highly promising and effective treatment option for chronic back pain." Seems to indicate that if acupuncture is promising and effective and sham acupuncture is as effective as true acupuncture then sham acupuncture is also promising and effective.

[General Zod]

I did read that part, I had to un-red color it when I requoted the article from you.

What I meant was the quote, "Acupuncture represents a highly promising and effective treatment option for chronic back pain." Seems to indicate that if acupuncture is promising and effective and sham acupuncture is as effective as true acupuncture then sham acupuncture is also promising and effective.

Considering the overall tone of the article I'm not sure how you can get that without ignoring everything else. Especially when the rest of it goes on to say how there's no perceivable difference between the two treatments when sham acupuncture just stuck people in random spots with no apparent system that "real" acupuncture has. To me this indicates some kind of placebo effect going on, because otherwise it shouldn't be producing the same results.

[Jaepheth]

Considering the overall tone of the article I'm not sure how you can get that without ignoring everything else. Especially when the rest of it goes on to say how there's no perceivable difference between the two treatments when sham acupuncture just stuck people in random spots with no apparent system that "real" acupuncture has. To me this indicates some kind of placebo effect going on, because otherwise it shouldn't be producing the same results.

The tone of the article is overwhelmingly in favor of acupuncture.

Endres says acupuncture is a clearly useful treatment for low back pain, even if we don't understand why.

"Just because we cannot explain exactly the mechanism by which a treatment works, doesn't mean that it doesn't work," he says.

Hell, the title of the article is "Acupuncture Eases Low Back Pain"

[General Zod]

Endres says acupuncture is a clearly useful treatment for low back pain, even if we don't understand why.

"Just because we cannot explain exactly the mechanism by which a treatment works, doesn't mean that it doesn't work," he says.

Hell, the title of the article is "Acupuncture Eases Low Back Pain"

You still have to ignore the part that says there's no measurable difference between the sham and "real" acupuncture. It might indeed help lower back pain, (even if only as a placebo) but it can't be claimed it was necessarily due to Chinese ingenuity in medicine when sticking the needles anywhere produces the exact same result.

[Jaepheth]

You still have to ignore the part that says there's no measurable difference between the sham and "real" acupuncture. It might indeed help lower back pain, (even if only as a placebo) but it can't be claimed it was necessarily due to Chinese ingenuity in medicine when sticking the needles anywhere produces the exact same result.

Well then, I'm glad I never ignored the part where they said real acupuncture was no different from fake acupuncture.

Though I will say that in a round about way ancient Chinese ingenuity is responsible. Because if it is a placebo affect, then thousands of years of tradition would only strengthen it's effect. And if there really is something to it, then they found that jabbing needles into people made them feel better, even if their theories as to the best stabbing locations were wrong and unnecessary. And their discovery led to current research in the area.

[Gullible Jones]

Speaking from personal experience... It's pretty crappy. I've seen acupuncture work for muscle aches, but that could be little more than placebo effect; and the various herbal concoctions, when they actually do something significant, generally don't do what they're supposed to. (Usually, they just give you diarrhea.)

Not everything about it is crap (e.g. ginger seems effective against motion sickness) but I would generally steer clear of it, especially given how so many practitioners stick with a physiologicaly model that was garbage two thousand years ago.

[Melchior]

Now, I can't back this up, but the reason behind the strong placebo effect of acupuncture could be related to the strong emotional response typically associated with the idea of being jabbed with needles; it is just a particularly effective/believable empty ritual and the needles have no actual direct effect.

[Mr Bean]

Now, I can't back this up, but the reason behind the strong placebo effect of acupuncture could be related to the strong emotional response typically associated with the idea of being jabbed with needles; it is just a particularly effective/believable empty ritual and the needles have no actual direct effect.

If you ever been to a place when acupuntcutre is preformed it can best be described as a "spa like atomsphere", very nice people, strong (But not bad) smells such as flower scented candles, insesne and very conformable padded tables.

If your in a nice place with nice people who cater to to every whim you will come out feeling better, the fact that your there to have needles jamed into you is meaningless when you consider how they present it.

The Placebo effect is well know and well documented.