From: green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein)
Subject: Re: Put up or shut up  (was: alternative medicine newsgroup)
Organization: Strawman Incorporated
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:34:43 GMT


In article <1b74v4INN48j@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>In article <1992Oct5.205204.5875@island.COM> green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>> What I was referring to in previous posts was scientific validation
>> of treatment success with Chinese medicine in order to counter the 
>> "its just a plecebo" argument. ...
>
>Again, Robert Greenstein's memory is faulty.  No one here ever
>made the argument that every treatment in traditional Chinese
>medicine was "just a placebo."  This was a strawman he created.
>In response, I posted an article explaining (1) that this was a
>strawman, (2) that it was quite likely that many treatments from
>traditional Chinese medicine *are* efficacious, but (3) that
>traditional Chinese medicine lacks the theoretical and
>experimental sophistication to help us evaluate its treatments.

You know zero about Chinese medicine, yet you argue that it lacks the
theoretical and experimental sophistication to evaluate it. How can
you say that?

>Robert Greenstein then crept back into the shadows.  Now, he
>returns, and he is writing the *same* mistakes, he is putting the
>same words into people's mouths, and he is pretending that his
>claims were never met when he first posted.  *This* is why it is
>frustrating to deal with cranks.

Both you and Steve have accused me of being evasive, but I am unfortunately 
at the mercy of a poor newfeed, which is why I fade in and out of here
frequently. So I will state once again for both of you - there are
tons of studies evaluating the efficacy of Chinese medicine, but virtually
all of the serious academic studies are done in China, and most of that
is written in Chinese language journals. Some of these are translated
and can surely be found in major U.S. libraries, like Harvard (Steve?).

In the US, little has been done due to lack of money. US medical institutions
are simply not interested. Hopefully this will change. The Research
Institute of Chinese Medicine has recently been formed in order to
undertake serious academic research into Chinese medicine in the United 
States. Dr. Wei K. Chao of the Institute has recently entered into an 
agreement with the UCLA dental school in a joint research effort to study
acupuncture's effect on pain and inflammation for post oral surgery patients.
120 wisdom teeth removal surgery patients will be divided into 3 groups
for a double-blind study with control. This study represents the first
time a major US university has sponsored research in Chinese medicine. 

I hope you understand that the research exists. It just does not exist
in the U.S. But that is not a failing of Chinese medicine. 
>In article <1992Oct5.205204.5875@island.COM> green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>> What I was referring to in previous posts was scientific validation
>> of treatment success with Chinese medicine in order to counter the 
>> "its just a plecebo" argument. ...
>
>Again, Robert Greenstein's memory is faulty.  No one here ever
>made the argument that every treatment in traditional Chinese
>medicine was "just a placebo."  This was a strawman he created.
>In response, I posted an article explaining (1) that this was a
>strawman, (2) that it was quite likely that many treatments from
>traditional Chinese medicine *are* efficacious, but (3) that
>traditional Chinese medicine lacks the theoretical and
>experimental sophistication to help us evaluate its treatments.

You know nothing about Chinese medicine, yet you argue that it lacks the
theoretical and experimental sophistication to be evaluated. How can
you say that?

>Robert Greenstein then crept back into the shadows.  Now, he
>returns, and he is writing the *same* mistakes, he is putting the
>same words into people's mouths, and he is pretending that his
>claims were never met when he first posted.  *This* is why it is
>frustrating to deal with cranks.

Both you and Steve have accused me of being evasive, but I am unfortunately 
at the mercy of a poor newfeed, which is why I fade in and out of here
frequently. So I will state once again for both of you - there are
tons of studies evaluating the efficacy of Chinese medicine, but virtually
all of the serious academic studies are done in China, and most of that
is written in Chinese language journals. Some of these are translated
and can surely be found in major U.S. libraries, like Harvard (Steve?).

In the US, little has been done due to lack of money. US medical institutions
are simply not interested. Hopefully this will change. The Research
Institute of Chinese Medicine has recently been formed in order to
undertake serious academic research into Chinese medicine in the United 
States. Dr. Wei K. Chao of the Institute has recently entered into an 
agreement with the UCLA dental school in a joint research effort to study
acupuncture's effect on pain and inflammation for post oral surgery patients.
120 wisdom teeth removal surgery patients will be divided into 3 groups
for a double-blind study with control. This study represents the first
time a major US university has sponsored research in Chinese medicine. 

I hope you understand that the research exists. It just does not exist
in the U.S. But that is not a failing of Chinese medicine. 
-- 
******************************************************************************
Robert Greenstein           What the fool cannot learn he laughs at, thinking
green@island.com            that by his laughter he shows superiority instead
                            of latent idiocy - M. Corelli