What supernatural / alternative beliefs do you have and why?

[pmoseman]

They then go and give that remedy to 100 patients who have heart burn, WITHOUT applying TCM differentiation, and the experiment fails. So they conclude TCM is a placebo, but it's because western medicine does not differentiate heartburn types.

It should still cure more than a placebo, even if it only works on a few patients.
Western medicine (WM) uses treatments that, using the set-up described, work on more patients. Thus a random variety of "differentiated" heartburns for which traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has no explanation.
They may both diagnose and treat the same disease in two different ways but who has a higher rate of positive outcomes?
There are possibly diseases one side does not cure as effectively as the other. I take it from the discussion so far that WM has entered TCM much more readily than the other way around.
It is wrong to keep medicine secret. Pointing out the other side's faults does not excuse you. Either TCM treatments have been brushed aside by ignorant westerners or are simply ineffective, but either one of those reasons is better than letting people suffer because they want to keep it a secret, probably out of fear stemming from their own ignorance.

 

[ebola?]

To explain why this would be difficult, I would have to give you lessons in TCM diagnostics. There isn't one herb for dry mouth. Dry mouth has many etiologies in TCM. In western medicine, "dry mouth" is a disease name, just like heart burn. In TCM, there are many reasons for heartburn. There's a proverb that goes: “Same disease different treatment, different treatment same disease”. Three people could all have heartburn and receive different treatments; likewise, three people with totally different diseases could receive the same treatment because the underlying etiology is the same.

Okay, but you could still allow for a variation of treatments administered and syndromes diagnosed by the TCM practitioners in a single treatment condition in the experiment, collapsing across statistical variation but still demonstrating efficacy.

Western medicine wants to know why TCM can treat SARS but the answer is that TCM is not treating "SARS", it is treating the body based on syndrome differentiation. The specific pathology is irrelevant. The syndrome is assessed on an individual basis, based on what each body needs. Correct the bodily imbalance and SARS goes away without even having to understand what SARS is.

Right, but even if TCM 'merely' demonstrates effectiveness in treating SARS, this provides (somewhat weaker) evidence in support of the alternative epistemological framework underlying TCM; the goal of science is not mainly to establish causal facts but to instead facilitate our ability to generate adaptive, useful bodies of theory (here, I would look to the framework put forth in Quine's "On the Two Dogmas of Empiricism").

In order to create a placebo, western medicine would have to compromise. i.e. let's do a placebo test for heart burn. Ok, what kind of heart burn? Liver fire attacking the stomach heartburn? Stomach yin deficiency heartburn? Food stagnation heartburn? There are different treatment protocols (herbs and acupuncture) for each of these.

Right, and here a compromise would be viable: you could run an experiment where the tested population exhibits heartburn as defined by Western medicine, TCM practitioners treating the specific type of heartburn they find, per a set of distinct syndromes diagnosed. If the study were large enough, one could use a multivariate design, to examine what types of heartburn (per TCM's typology) western medicine treats most effectively and which types TCM proves most effective for. Depending on the results, one could correlate different known syndromes in TCM with known differences in the biochemical presentation of heartburn. This would make inroads toward theoretical unification of TCM and Western medicine (albeit just as a tiny, fledgling beginning).

Western medicine is intentionally obfuscating the cure in order to justify interventions and symptom management. A lot of people with heart burn have liver issues... give them bitters to clear the liver and the heart burn goes away. Why is this simple fact, known for hundreds of years, deliberately "unknown" to western medicine. Could it be that bitters cost $5 or less, and actually fix it?

But I think that the more useful comparison (well, synthesis, I would hope) here is between Western medical science 'done right' and TCM, properly applied. I mean, it would be similarly unfair for me to demand that homeopathy be included in such a study.

AFAIK the two epistemologies cannot be unified. They can only be roughly translated. The reason is two-fold. One is that WM is pathology based whereas TCM is syndrome based. TCM can look at a healthy body and balance it further. WM needs pathology in order to do anything meaningful. The second reason is that WM is non-holistic. It looks at dysfunction in vacuo without making any attempt to draw inter-bodily relationships.

Neither of these characteristics are inherent in Western science in general though, particularly frames where ecological approaches inform methodologies in biochemistry. What you describe is analogous to the problems 'Western scientists' have talking to each other across disciplines.

Western herbalists are now appropriating TCM herbs in their practices with no understanding of how they work, all because they are reading pubmed explanations of what the herbs do. I'm sorry, but TCM has way more experience with these materials, and the knowledge can only be found in their 3000+ years of clinical experience in THEIR epistemology.

And it's here that I'd like to know more about the epistemology and ontology underlying TCM. What is the generalized theoretically framework that in-forms TCM? What processes are used to differentiate effective treatment from ineffective ritual?

It's really that simple. European colonialism has propagated the idea that their science is the most advanced and complete system and is therefore capable of deconstructing and integrating all other systems, but it isn't. Assimilation is not integration. It's like trying to explain a foreign culture in English and claim that you've captured it all, when that culture has an inherent essence and world view which sees things in a way you will never be able to express in English. You can try to make TCM speak WM all you want but a great volume of knowledge will be lost in that cultural exchange.

But all cultural frameworks are generated via genealogical hybridization over time. Otherwise, we would just be left with a set of discrete, essentialized cultures that evolved in vacuo, unable to talk to each other at all. There is no better time to overcome Orientalism (in the Saidian sense...where Orientalism is Western hegemonic dominance) than now.

It's cultural protectionism. The real solution here is to create a third system that is based on a combo of both TCM and WM, which is what some practitioners are now starting to do. Problem is, western science will never make this leap because it has to give up material reductionism.

But this is not a problem inherent in Western science in principle. I know this quite well as a sociologist with disdain for reduction of social structure and culture to individual psychology. And ecologists know this quite well in their resistance toward mechanistic biochemistry and the general trend of reduction of everything to physics.

The traditionalists are tired of being ridiculed by western science which makes little attempt to bridge the gap with mutual cooperation. It's always about TCM coming to meet WM and that's not how it works.

I think that I'm proposing something different here.

The fact that modern pharmaceutical companies have not already done this is evidence in of itself that TCM and WM are not compatible ideologically, otherwise the west would already be profiting enormously on this ancient knowledge. Since they can't do that, and they can't patent it either, they simply dismiss it as charlatanism...

This sounds to me more like WM declaring that it shouldn't engage TCM on legitimate grounds rather than declaring that it can't.

You can't assume that all the contents of TCM = WM anymore than you can assume that all the contents of English = Mandarin. Every culture has unique knowledge and experience that others don't, coded in its traditions, language, and worldviews, and not all of it is going to come to you on your terms. Some of it may even be more advanced than your native system is prepared to deal with, hence all the dismissals.

Who is the "you" in this discussion? I'm pretty sure that it's not me.

ebola

 

[Foreigner]

Okay, but you could still allow for a variation of treatments administered and syndromes diagnosed by the TCM practitioners in a single treatment condition in the experiment, collapsing across statistical variation but still demonstrating efficacy.

Right, but even if TCM 'merely' demonstrates effectiveness in treating SARS, this provides (somewhat weaker) evidence in support of the alternative epistemological framework underlying TCM; the goal of science is not mainly to establish causal facts but to instead facilitate our ability to generate adaptive, useful bodies of theory (here, I would look to the framework put forth in Quine's "On the Two Dogmas of Empiricism").

Right, and here a compromise would be viable: you could run an experiment where the tested population exhibits heartburn as defined by Western medicine, TCM practitioners treating the specific type of heartburn they find, per a set of distinct syndromes diagnosed. If the study were large enough, one could use a multivariate design, to examine what types of heartburn (per TCM's typology) western medicine treats most effectively and which types TCM proves most effective for. Depending on the results, one could correlate different known syndromes in TCM with known differences in the biochemical presentation of heartburn. This would make inroads toward theoretical unification of TCM and Western medicine (albeit just as a tiny, fledgling beginning).

But I think that the more useful comparison (well, synthesis, I would hope) here is between Western medical science 'done right' and TCM, properly applied. I mean, it would be similarly unfair for me to demand that homeopathy be included in such a study.

Neither of these characteristics are inherent in Western science in general though, particularly frames where ecological approaches inform methodologies in biochemistry. What you describe is analogous to the problems 'Western scientists' have talking to each other across disciplines.

And it's here that I'd like to know more about the epistemology and ontology underlying TCM. What is the generalized theoretically framework that in-forms TCM? What processes are used to differentiate effective treatment from ineffective ritual?

But all cultural frameworks are generated via genealogical hybridization over time. Otherwise, we would just be left with a set of discrete, essentialized cultures that evolved in vacuo, unable to talk to each other at all. There is no better time to overcome Orientalism (in the Saidian sense...where Orientalism is Western hegemonic dominance) than now.

But this is not a problem inherent in Western science in principle. I know this quite well as a sociologist with disdain for reduction of social structure and culture to individual psychology. And ecologists know this quite well in their resistance toward mechanistic biochemistry and the general trend of reduction of everything to physics.

I think that I'm proposing something different here.

This sounds to me more like WM declaring that it shouldn't engage TCM on legitimate grounds rather than declaring that it can't.

Who is the "you" in this discussion? I'm pretty sure that it's not me.

ebola

Sorry for not replying sooner. Been busy and I just don't have the time to give this the lengthy reply I did last time.

I'm being forced to conclude that this discussion is futile because I can't transmit to you, on your terms, years and years worth of study and practice on my part. Maybe a different practitioner could do it. I think the reason why western empiricists can't get it is because there is a language and culture divide, and in addition to those, there is an epistemological one. Someone like Terence McKenna might have better luck finagling this. Before I studied TCM I was science-minded and thought that science would explain everything. After TCM, I now know that western science, as we put it forward, is one view among thousands in the world, and that it has its confines.

Some of the questions you ask would take a long time to explain, and even longer for you to process. My foundational TCM training took half a year to really sink in because it required me to observe my reality through a different lens. TCM has a specific method, but its ideology is more artistic. Like Daoism, it flows and adapts to circumstance. The issue is not just with understanding, it's accepting. In my original school program, the people who had the hardest time succeeding were the hard left-brained science types. Many of them got it eventually and maybe they could explain this better to you than I could, but some dropped out. We also had medical doctors. It's not that TCM is BS it's that it's a pre-modern way of looking at the universe, and one that you MUST understand if you want to understand what acupuncture is actually doing. If you understand and accept this, then when you read the various skeptic papers you will see that their methodologies are based on primitive understandings.

I'm sorry, but this will never be translated to western medicine. It simply can't. Best thing I can suggest is that you find a master acupuncturist and take your rational brain into an appointment. Let them perform their art on you, see what it does to your being, and then decide for yourself. I don't have much respect for pseudoskeptics who dismiss something based on research that is merely a biased confirmation of their own world view. There are a million papers for and against acupuncture in the research world, and many are steeped in power politics. You have to try it for yourself with someone skilled to know. My modern western mind is enjoying the many mysteries I've witnessed, but my eastern trained mind has many understandings of what is happening.

Reality is perception.

 

[Keith_Bandit]

Karma is the only one you can say has some kind of actual proof to it considering good and bad things will happen to everyone yet we all have different views on morality. I treat people with respect, but that's under my definition of "respect". If I feel like you deserve some karma for going against my views on morality, I will at least try to balance the scales.

You guys bring up a lot of good points talking about whatever the last couple pages were about. I'll be honest, I didnt read a second of that but only because I couldn't pronounce most of the words. There were probably good points though

 

[ebola?]

Karma is the only one you can say has some kind of actual proof to it considering good and bad things will happen to everyone yet we all have different views on morality. I treat people with respect, but that's under my definition of "respect". If I feel like you deserve some karma for going against my views on morality, I will at least try to balance the scales.

This is not really how I interpret Karma. Rather, I think that the idea is that humans occupy a a position within a total system which encompasses at least the visible universe as a whole (or at least the space included within particular perspective's physical light-cone). In this way, because we inhere in a dynamic system, any causal action will spread through the entire system as a whole, 'reverberating' back to us; it is in this way that 'what goes around comes around', that we reap the consequences of what we do to others, but in a fundamentally unpredictable way (as this type of picture is irreducible to any mechanistic framework that we usually apply to physics). However, this does not suggest that there's some sort of 'ethical accounting' that occurs whereby good and bad yield proportionate consequences.

You guys bring up a lot of good points talking about whatever the last couple pages were about. I'll be honest, I didnt read a second of that but only because I couldn't pronounce most of the words. There were probably good points though

While I appreciate the compliment, doesn't this also imply that for all you know, our discussion above might just totally suck (I'd disagree, but I'm biased in this respect )?

ebola

 

[sekio]

I'm sorry, but this will never be translated to western medicine. It simply can't

What do you call a doctor who graduated in the bottom 5% of his class? Doctor.

Let's be rational here. It seems you have certainly been indoctrinated enough to the idea that "western medicine" is naught but a profit center, unconcerned with its patients and only serving to mollify their needs in the short term. I'm not going to dispute that there are doctors out there that do this. But this is no reason to ignore the doctors who genuinely have care for their patients and doctors who have a much more holistic sense of wellness.

Being a bad doctor has nothing to do with what pharmacopeia and treatment set you choose. Both TCM and "western" doctors have an array of treatments and remedies. Both are meant to consider many factors when treating the patient - in western medicine, we have individual intolerances and allergies to drugs, drug interactions, genetic polymorphisms that alter efficacy, and so on. A good doctor, like you said, should consider the situation and time course of the ailment in question, and preferably examine for certain signs, or run tests, to determine an appropriate treatment course. In essence, both are reducible to the same decision graph - they just have different toolsets available. Western medicine draws a lot from the 'classical' system of medicine the Greeks and Romans practiced some thousands of years ago, so it's got a history to match TCM. There are charlatans and fakers in WM as well as TCM.

Western herbalists are now appropriating TCM herbs in their practices with no understanding of how they work, all because they are reading pubmed explanations of what the herbs do. I'm sorry, but TCM has way more experience with these materials, and the knowledge can only be found in their 3000+ years of clinical experience in THEIR epistemology.

How, if not by experiment, did TCM build up its pharmacopeia? Why can TCM, and not WM, provide a framework to empirically validate claims about the efficacy of various treatments? What about "dual practitioners", who adapt to 'fill the gaps' of WM/TCM with the other?

The core similarity is: both are supposed to be concerned with patient wellbeing. If your practicioner isn't, he's not practicing medicine, he's a quack!

 

[Foreigner]

What do you call a doctor who graduated in the bottom 5% of his class? Doctor.

Let's be rational here. It seems you have certainly been indoctrinated enough to the idea that "western medicine" is naught but a profit center, unconcerned with its patients and only serving to mollify their needs in the short term. I'm not going to dispute that there are doctors out there that do this. But this is no reason to ignore the doctors who genuinely have care for their patients and doctors who have a much more holistic sense of wellness.

I'm a moderate which means I tend to go to the other side of the spectrum when faced with extremity. I actually have a lot of respect for modern medicine and I still use it. One of my closest friends is an MD. I don't believe it's an either/or system, but that different systems of medicine have different values, strengths, and weaknesses. If I was dying I would go to western medicine; if I broke a bone or needed surgery, western medicine. Care for most chronic conditions? Nope.

Being a bad doctor has nothing to do with what pharmacopeia and treatment set you choose. Both TCM and "western" doctors have an array of treatments and remedies. Both are meant to consider many factors when treating the patient - in western medicine, we have individual intolerances and allergies to drugs, drug interactions, genetic polymorphisms that alter efficacy, and so on. A good doctor, like you said, should consider the situation and time course of the ailment in question, and preferably examine for certain signs, or run tests, to determine an appropriate treatment course. In essence, both are reducible to the same decision graph - they just have different toolsets available. Western medicine draws a lot from the 'classical' system of medicine the Greeks and Romans practiced some thousands of years ago, so it's got a history to match TCM. There are charlatans and fakers in WM as well as TCM.

Agreed 100%... which is why I have spent pages battling the mischaracterization of TCM as fake medicine or placebo. Like you said, it's the practitioner, not necessarily the toolset.

How, if not by experiment, did TCM build up its pharmacopeia?

It did use experimentation, but it used inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning, over thousands of years, which is why there is an intellectual conflict between western science and practitioners of TCM.

Why can TCM, and not WM, provide a framework to empirically validate claims about the efficacy of various treatments?

They have a framework, a very complicated and dedicated one. TCM validates its medicine within its own framework as modern western medicine does. They are using the same rational faculties but within different worldviews. That's what I've been trying to convey here. One speaks DOS and one speaks MAC OS/X. Neither are invalid unless specific observers make unfair demands and conclude falsity when demands are not met.

What about "dual practitioners", who adapt to 'fill the gaps' of WM/TCM with the other?

They're cropping up more and more. In my school program we had several MDs. One of my teachers was dual. My program required us to learn a lot about modern medicine, and I can see the inter-relationship, but it's one that is hard to express intellectually. My generation is part of the new dual generation that has to bridge this gap, and doing this is very difficult. Part of it is breaking the staunch conservatism and traditionalism on both sides. Both sides need to accept that they don't know something that the other does. Modern western medicine was created with the political and intellectual understanding that its methods were superior in all the world. Well guess what, TCM has the same political crap embedded in it from thousands of years of Chinese traditionalism. If you only know one and not the other, you can't appreciate the complexity of the relationship, nor the gold mine of valuable practice that comes from their synergy.

Please don't misunderstand my arguments against WM as me being against WM. I naturally defend the underdog in most debates, and when it comes to skeptics who are steeped in modern western science I'm often reacting to their harshness.

The core similarity is: both are supposed to be concerned with patient wellbeing. If your practicioner isn't, he's not practicing medicine, he's a quack!

Basically. Also, TCM is a very individualized system. Every patient I deal with has a very unique treatment schedule and requirements. I think modern medicine could be infinitely more powerful if it had this strong individuation happening, and I believe genetics will pave the way for that kind of custom tailored medicine in the future. There are some people who come to see me who I send away because TCM is not right for them. They need something different. I am both legally and ethically bound to weigh such considerations.

 

[ebola?]

I'm being forced to conclude that this discussion is futile because I can't transmit to you, on your terms

I'm sort of wondering what "on your terms" means here. Which preconceptions do I need to shed to properly understand the epistemological machinery undergirding TCM?

I'm sorry, but this will never be translated to western medicine.

I tried to explain that I'm not yearning for this but rather some novel unifying theoretical framework that would come out of dialogue between the two fields.

It did use experimentation, but it used inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning, over thousands of years, which is why there is an intellectual conflict between western science and practitioners of TCM.

I would be interested in further explanation. The dominant scientific method involves induction and deduction locked in a dialectical process, speaking to each other, and spontaneous creativity for hypothesis generation--it is not solely "deductive". So how does the inductive method underlying TCM work at its core? Simple 'Western' deduction merely generalizes from particulars to assignment of general characteristics or extrapolate predictions of trends, given present observed patterns of measurement. It can't really operate on its own, as it is bound with how the empirical object is constructed in the first place and cannot verify causal mechanisms without concurrent, iterative use of deduction.

As a sociologist, I actually employed an alternative epistemological framework in my work, one assigning distinct ontological properties to its objects of studies and findings. So I am open to alternative methodologies.

ebola

 

[Foreigner]

^ Here you go: http://www.sacredlotus.com/theory/

If you have any questions please ask. We could even split this off and make a new thread.

 

[teological]

A god, a higher creator/power, exists. 100%. Just have a look at how the planets are aligned with each other. The rules they follow. Look at how we use earth and its resources so efficiently. It is meant to be. There is a higher power here.

Just say we lived in another universe, and I told you all that a planet exists where a giant circular fireball in space gives that place light at a level of complete perfection, would you believe it? A giant bloody fireball, in space. Sure we can create fire on earth, but this thing is in space just kicking back. There is more to this universe than meets the new age human eye. We are not impressed easily anymore.

I do not believe in Karma. Sure, living in the comfort of a first world country, it may lead you to believe such a thing exists. Try living in a war torn country, or a part of the world that is ravaged by violence and your thoughts will quickly dissipate.

 

[Psyduck]

What beliefs do you hold Psyduck? I don't think I've ever seen you mention them.

Negative definition

God is not a creator existing priori to the (created) universe, God is not almighty, God is not all-knowing, God's will does not intervene in the world. God does not perform miracles. God is not responsible for the order in the natural world. God is not responsible for the order in the moral world. God does not have a preconceived plan for the universe. God does not punish/judge people. God is not an "entity" (a something).

Positive definition

Evolutionary panentheism:
The view of that the divine is both transcendent to and immanent in the universe and every-thing is an evolving expression of that divine consciousness delighting in its creation.

 

[rickolasnice]

Why can't TCM stand the tests of clinical trials?

I know some work, but most either don't or are less affective than western medicine..

Here's some TCM ingredients:

Human penis
Deer penis which according to TCM must be extracted from the deer while still alive
Rhino horn
Tiger penis
Human pubic hair (cures snakebite, difficult birth and abnormal urination apparently)
Toad (Bufo spp.) secretions are an ingredient used in Traditional Chinese teas and have been found to be highly toxic and possibly lethal
Shark fin soup
Chinese beetle (Mylabris phalerata, Ban mao) is believed under TCM to treat skin lesions, because it causes them. It contains the toxic chemical cantharidin.
Powdered centipede (wu gong) is believed under TCM to treat lockjaw, seizures, convulsions, skin lesions, and pain. It is toxic
Leech (shui zhi) is used in TCM to treat amenorrhea, abdominal and chest pain, and constipation. It is toxic and so is believed under TCM to treat toxics

From the earliest records regarding the use of medicinals to today, the toxicity of certain substances has been described in all Chinese materiae medicae.[15] Since TCM has become more popular in the Western world, there are increasing concerns about the potential toxicity of many traditional Chinese medicinals including plants, animal parts and minerals.[4] For most medicinals, efficacy and toxicity testing are based on traditional knowledge rather than laboratory analysis.[4] The toxicity in some cases could be confirmed by modern research (i.e., in scorpion); in some cases it couldn't (i.e., in Curculigo).[15] Traditional Chinese medicine preparations "remain a cause for concern and require strict control" because "they may contain significant amounts of mercury, arsenic or lead."[88]
Substances known to be potentially dangerous include Aconitum,[15] secretions from the Asiatic toad,[89] powdered centipede,[90] the Chinese beetle (Mylabris phalerata, ban mao),[91] certain fungi,[92] Aristolochia,[4] and Aconitum.[4] To avoid its toxic adverse effects Xanthium sibiricum must be processed.[4] Hepatotoxicity has been reported with products containing Polygonum multiflorum, glycyrrhizin, Senecio and Symphytum.[4] The evidence suggests that hepatotoxic herbs also include Dictamnus dasycarpus, Astragalus membranaceous, and Paeonia lactiflora; although there is no evidence that they cause liver damage.[4] Contrary to popular belief, Ganoderma lucidum mushroom extract, as an adjuvant for cancer immunotherapy, appears to have the potential for toxicity.[93]
A 2013 review suggested that although the antimalarial herb Artemisia annua may not cause hepatotoxicity, haematotoxicity, or hyperlipidemia, it should be used cautiously during pregnancy due to a potential risk of embryotoxicity at a high dose.[94]
However, many adverse reactions are due misuse or abuse of Chinese medicine.[4] For example, the misuse of the dietary supplement Ephedra (containing ephedrine) can lead to adverse events including gastrointestinal problems as well as sudden death from cardiomyopathy.[4] Products adulterated with pharmaceuticals for weight loss or erectile dysfunction are one of the main concerns.[4] Chinese herbal medicine has been a major cause of acute liver failure in China.[95]

In traditional Chinese medicine, there are roughly 13,000 medicinals used in China and over 100,000 medicinal recipes recorded in the ancient literature...

So yeah, obviously, some would be effective.. But the Chinese have literally grabbed every plant, fungus and animal dick, made up a bunch of uses for it and thrown it in the medicine books.

 

[rickolasnice]

A god, a higher creator/power, exists. 100%. Just have a look at how the planets are aligned with each other. The rules they follow. Look at how we use earth and its resources so efficiently. It is meant to be. There is a higher power here.

Just say we lived in another universe, and I told you all that a planet exists where a giant circular fireball in space gives that place light at a level of complete perfection, would you believe it? A giant bloody fireball, in space. Sure we can create fire on earth, but this thing is in space just kicking back. There is more to this universe than meets the new age human eye. We are not impressed easily anymore.

I do not believe in Karma. Sure, living in the comfort of a first world country, it may lead you to believe such a thing exists. Try living in a war torn country, or a part of the world that is ravaged by violence and your thoughts will quickly dissipate.

I suggest you go and read some basic texts books.

And read up on http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/anthropic-principle.htm

 

[Foreigner]

Why can't TCM stand the tests of clinical trials?

I know some work, but most either don't or are less affective than western medicine..

Here's some TCM ingredients:

Human penis
Deer penis which according to TCM must be extracted from the deer while still alive
Rhino horn
Tiger penis
Human pubic hair (cures snakebite, difficult birth and abnormal urination apparently)
Toad (Bufo spp.) secretions are an ingredient used in Traditional Chinese teas and have been found to be highly toxic and possibly lethal
Shark fin soup
Chinese beetle (Mylabris phalerata, Ban mao) is believed under TCM to treat skin lesions, because it causes them. It contains the toxic chemical cantharidin.
Powdered centipede (wu gong) is believed under TCM to treat lockjaw, seizures, convulsions, skin lesions, and pain. It is toxic
Leech (shui zhi) is used in TCM to treat amenorrhea, abdominal and chest pain, and constipation. It is toxic and so is believed under TCM to treat toxics



In traditional Chinese medicine, there are roughly 13,000 medicinals used in China and over 100,000 medicinal recipes recorded in the ancient literature...

So yeah, obviously, some would be effective.. But the Chinese have literally grabbed every plant, fungus and animal dick, made up a bunch of uses for it and thrown it in the medicine books.

Are you trying to be deliberately antagonistic or something? You're cherry picking damning reports just because it suits you.

There are NOT 13,000 medicinal singles used in China and over 100,000 recipes IN USE today, or in the past 500 years. Where are you getting your information from?

Most of the exotic ingredients you mentioned above are no longer used, either because they are illegal or because more research IN CHINA has deemed them unimportant, or because there are less invasive substitutes. How do I know this? Because I read Mandarin, I read the Chinese journals, and the western ones, and I've immersed myself in this medicine for the past 5 years.

All of the medicinals used in TCM today have specific indications and contraindications within both the ancient and modern literature. Claiming that the Chinese just "grabbed" plants and fabricated meanings is simply ignorant and demonstrates a total lack of respect.

I could go through that whole list and tell you why each is useful because I have clinical experience with all of them from living in China, but I don't use them, and besides, I think you will be deaf to such information.

Look rick... if you want to flame, then I really have no interest in discussing things further with you. You want people to digest information for you, on your terms, yet you can't offer them the same courtesy. Why should I care?

 

[Ubi]

I believe in the feeling i get when roaming through Old Growth Forest. I believe that we are all connected in ways that will never be proven.
I believe in non bias belief and the good that can become of it so long as our minds remain open....

I do not believe in religions getting stuffed into societies or the 'my way' or 'no way' mentality that this all too often concludes.

I believe in the natural World and hope that one day, we will re connect on a massive scale with it again as our lives and the lives of our children's children depend on it.

I believe in food and the hope that we'll stop our greedy ways and feed All.

I do not believe in so called bible thumpers who don't even recycle while they praise their 'God' behind a self righteous veil.
I do not believe in the Vatican and its gold walls while Nations starve.

I believe in those of us of the non human variety, from Oceans to mountains and all areas in between.

We are a selfish species. This is going to bite us in the ass.

 

[rickolasnice]

Homeopathic medicine recalled as they may contain actual medicine:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-an...lled-because-they-might-contain-real-medicine

Foreigner.. That was from wikipedia.. but fair enough.

 

[herbavore]

I believe in the feeling i get when roaming through Old Growth Forest. I believe that we are all connected in ways that will never be proven.
I believe in non bias belief and the good that can become of it so long as our minds remain open....

I do not believe in religions getting stuffed into societies or the 'my way' or 'no way' mentality that this all too often concludes.

I believe in the natural World and hope that one day, we will re connect on a massive scale with it again as our lives and the lives of our children's children depend on it.

I believe in food and the hope that we'll stop our greedy ways and feed All.

I do not believe in so called bible thumpers who don't even recycle while they praise their 'God' behind a self righteous veil.
I do not believe in the Vatican and its gold walls while Nations starve.

I believe in those of us of the non human variety, from Oceans to mountains and all areas in between.

We are a selfish species. This is going to bite us in the ass.

I like the way you said that, Ubi. I believe in a life force that connects all living things. I believe that there is more that I can't see than what I can see. I do not believe in a god as creator but I believe that the life force itself may be an eternal consciousness that we are all part of, before birth, during life as we know it and after our deaths (as it is experienced by others a death). I believe that evolution itself is quite miraculous but by that I only mean mind boggling in elegance and intricacy. I believe that the mystery that we are part of as humans on this planet is far greater than this time and place only but beyond that I don't hold particular beliefs about the mystery.

 

[pmoseman]

Try living in a war torn country, or a part of the world that is ravaged by violence and your thoughts will quickly dissipate.

You don't think Karma survives war?
That seems surprising given India's history and multiculturalism.

 

[ebola?]

What, precisely, do you mean by "karma"?

ebola

 

[TheDevil]

God did programmed the earth a little. He made it so, for special ppl to have a need of real life person personalities and use them as ghosts.. Mostly female. God did programmed earth but not the universe. There is only one ruler of the universe "space" and that are alien ppl. Alien control Space. The Supernatural, Full 100% Reptile DNA that can show r espect to alien, extraterrestrial beings.. That are the ones controlling Space. You better try to activate your alien in and create a new planet for yourself alone. Just be sure that you are a Hybrid-being and have some strong Mind Control Slaves to protect you, Have a good time and enjoy life.