Forums:
After quoting this excerpt from "The Web That Has No Weaver", I thought it was worth reposting. I welcome any comments. Unless Eastern, and Western including "Alternative" doctors, such as those practicing "functional" Medicine" and who are attempting to treat the whole person start talking to one another, I worry there will never be hope for the millions of IC sufferers that are not priviledged to work with Dr. Brizman.
From the Web that has no Weaver, pp 3-4:
"Biomedicine, a more accurate name for Western medicine, is primarily concerned with isolable disease categories or agents of disease, which it zeroes in on, isolates and tries to change, control, or destroy. An ontologically circumscribed entity is the privilieged ideal of the system. The Western physician starts with a symptoms, then searches for the underlying mechanism-a precise cause fora specific disease.......The Chinese phusician, in contrast, directs his or her attention to the complete physiological and phsychological individual. All relevant information, including the symptom as well as the patients other general characteristics, is gathered and woven toether until it forms what Chinese medicine calls a pattern of disharmony.....The question of cause and effect is always secondary to the overall pattern. One does not ask "What X is causing Y? but rather, "What is the relationship between X and Y."
Someone banks on sick people with chronic conditions. Investor's dream - chronically ill patient, once sick is always sick. Just keep switching medications. Who is going to pay for research to make people healthy? The goal is to mask symptoms, so the patient remains alive with less discomfort and in need to come back for more.
To add, pharmaceutical companies control curriculum of medical schools, too. Western practitioners lack critical thinking skills because they're not supposed to think, only administer procedures and dispense medications, the more the better.
Hi-
Hi-
Most research is not funded by big pharma, that is a terrible misconception. Of course they do their own randomized controlled trials for their products as well as more observational studies to look at potential long term usage risk. However, The National Institue of Health (NIH) funds the majority of academic research, and is responsible for those big nutritional studies you see in the news. Furthermore, there is an entire branch of the NIH dedicated to evidence based alternative medicine. There are also many alternative medicine journals such as: evidence based complementary alternative medicine, the journal of alternative medicine etc. Furthermore there is a *lot* of research on diet and lifestyle. Maybe it isn't from the perspective you want to hear i.e. it is often low fat etc. but new research is coming out as more people get into paleo and other lifestyle stuff.
Here is NCCAM's website (the NIH complementary alt med branch): http://nccam.nih.gov
Here is pubmed, where you can search for abstracts for free (and also look at the complementary alt med journals): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Lastly, I know Matia loves that book, but just so you know Dr. Kaptchuk does not actually believe in TCM. He started the placebo studies institute at Harvard. They produce a TON of fascinating research.
http://programinplacebostudies.org/about/people/
Pharmaceutical companies and NIH have very little intersession doing business. Two operate in different environments with specific business objectives.
This is a GREAT discussion!
This is a GREAT discussion! Exactly what I wanted.n:) Thanks all.
Reasearchnerd, you are saying the The Web author does not believe in TCM? His updated introduction to the Web would be very misleading then. It seems his work is very inspired by TCM as he writes in the intro?? He is an OMD. I have not read the whole book so cant speak to all of this but wondered where you got the info that he doesnt beleive in TCM when in fact he is an OMD?
If we don't excel at health, the only other option is disease.
Hi All,
Hi All,
This discussion is very interesting. I've been wondering about Ted Kaptchuck's POV myself for a couple of reasons. One is that I read "The Web that has no Weaver" and was then talking about it with my former acupuncturist and friend because I'm considering going for training in acupuncture/herbal medicine. My acupuncturist is a friend of Ted's and had a lot of positive things to say about his work and perspective. However, she does not practice TCM, she practices 5-element acupuncture, which has some major differences from TCM.
There seems to be this intense divide between 5-element and TCM theories and practices, which I find rather frustrating and sad. As I've worked to try and decide which avenue I'd be more interested in pursuing (as I've had good experiences with both kinds of practitioners) I'm disturbed by how divisive so much of the dialog is about these similar, yet distinctive modalities.
From what I can glean from Matia's thesis, she uses elements of both practices in her own work. 5-element has a lot in common with ancient, or classical Chinese medicine, which was then (apparently) overhauled during Mao's time of power in China and was standardized into what is now considered TCM. At least I think this is what I understand. I see benefits of both 5-element and TCM schools of thought, and am curious as to where Kaptchuk falls on the spectrum of beliefs about these modalities. Maybe he's totally dedicated to studying the placebo effect at this point, I don't know.
Does anyone else have a better sense of this than I do? I'd love your 2 cents.
Claire
I don't have any information
I don't have any information on this, but I do agree that Dr. Brizman seems to use both in her dissertation. It would be nice if she could do a blog post on these different approaches and where she falls and why. I can ask her at my appt. next week.
Claire keep us posted. Whatever path you choose you will make a great contribution!!
If we don't excel at health, the only other option is disease.
I would add that in China,
I would add that in China, there is a complementary approach in the hospital between east and west. There are huge problems with Western medicine, however, there are also promsing things coming down the pike like stem cells etc; What happens when we need a surgery in older age or a procedure that Chinese medicine cannot administer? There has to be some way for each to learn from the other. And I understand about corruption and people buying docs and insurance medicine and all of that terrible stuff. But science and medicine have also done a lot of good.
Weird. I mean he started the
Weird. I mean he started the placebo studies program after he treated a woman for a sore throat and a problem she was about to have surgery for went away. In an interview (link below) he stated that he is very critical of alternative medicine. If you go onto pubmed, and put his name in, his current research will come up. PM me if you want me to get the full articles for you.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1307/features/kaptchuk.htm (under what are you research interests now)
Also while the majority of scientific research as a whole is R & D, the majority of research published in journals is government funded--especially JAME NEJM Circulation (the journals with the big impact factors). In theory, journals should be what informs medical practice. Its not that big pharma doesn't infilitrate in other ways, but your perception of medical research is a little skewed. There is plenty going on to investigate alternative ways of treating and preventing illness. Unfortunately, randomized control trials are VERY expensive and are best for treatments with short induction times. This treatment in particular would be almost impossible to take to trial due to the fact that it can take up to two years to see any changes.