Traditional Chinese Medicine doesn’t identify the brain as an organ, it was never studied as I understand it, so on what basis do they treat schizophrenia?
I understand the Chinese Medicine has evolved over the years and is still evolving, just as Western Medicine is, and they do recognise the brain now, but it is still not part of the theoretical system of organs as I understand it.
So does anyone know the theory for treating schizophrenia that they use? Has anyone had success with it? A Chinese Medicine doctor I know claimed to be able to have success with people coming off their meds by treating them with acupuncture and herbs, but I don’t really see that this is any better, just substituting one treatment for another. What do people think?
Thanks Bchan, as I said, systems of medicine are evolving all the time, as are classifications of diseases. I saw a book written in Mandarin linking Schizophrenia to Capitalism, something that has been done by some psychiatrists in the West as well, mostly in the 60s. At any rate, I don’t think it is an unheard of condition in China, far from it, but I don’t know how mental health is dealt with in general by TCM let alone Schizophrenia and obviously there is Western medicine in China as well. I really want to know what theories are used. Schizophrenia is poorly understood in all systems of medicine I have come across, although some things, like meds, do help.
Well it may well be that TCM doesn’t deal with Schizophrenia at all, just tries to optimise the health of the body in order to give the mind a chance to heal. Note I say mind as, as far as I know, TCM never recognised the brain as significant in the past. On the other hand, it never recognised muscles either, but in the past century massage therapies based on TCM have incorporated the structures of muscles into their theory, so modern TCM may attempt to deal with the brain now. Western medicine splits the treatment into mind (psychology) and brain (psychiatry) and sometimes more recently body (nutrition) though the latter is still thought of as somewhat alternative. The theories of TCM and Western medicine for the body and cause of sickness are wildly divergent at a foundational level, though there are quite a lot of attempts to integrate them at a more superficial level. Whether this is useful of not depends on your point of view.
Avicenna’s system of medicine was completely distinct to what is the case now.
His ideas are interesting. To read Avicenna means to immerse oneself in a completely different world. Nevertheless, his observations and ideas may be studied in order to advance modern medicine, and thought, in general.
The presupposition by the Biologists, Physicists, and Mathematicians is that the modern method of scientific inquiry is always true and, thus, renders past work to antiquity.
There are, however, deep-rooted philosophical questions, that, say, arise within the study of Statistics. These problems elucidate that the nature of modern inquiry doesn’t rest on very strong foundations. All of scientific study is based on tests of significance in Statistics, or other assumptions behind Statistical models, which may or may not best capture the phenomenon of the real world.
It is curious that the first chapter that deals with probability theory has a disagreement amongst the mathematicians/statisticians regarding an axiom, and some accept it, and some don’t.
That’s a load of hogwash, and probably about as effective as drinking your own urine or sunbathing your anus. Don’t believe everything people tell you.
Quite possibly, he was contracted to work for the NHS as a trial and they stopped the funding, for reasons that he claims were lack of resources rather than success of treatment. He claims all his patients wrote letters protesting that their treatment via TCM had been stopped.
Statistics is a science, and science involves discussion, not blind acceptance of traditions and dogmas. If you read a statistics textbook you will understand why there is disagreement and why statistics works.
Your big words does not make this any more accurate. The real scientific evidence is not statistics, it is replication. Statistics is just a measure of probability, and one that is usually used conservatily, so as to rather underestimate than overestimate. Statistics alone does not prove a hypothesis. Consistent replication across studies with different methodologies is the best evidence.
Treebeard you are correct, but I have worked as a health economist briefly and can tell you that much of medical knowledge has only been verified statistically. This is why a doctors best judgment based on his/her experience is still valued so highly and people often have to experiment (in conjunction with a doctor) as to the best course of treatment for them. In the case of theoretical understanding of Schizophrenia, very little is known, and the assessment of treatment is still based mostly on statistics and people’s experiences.
The use of statistics is not a problem, and there are scientific methods that don’t rely on statistics that are still used to study schizophrenia and other illnesses. To say that it has “only been verified statistically” shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Statistics are only there to show the likeliness that the particular effect shown under those particular circumstances it was shown in was entirely due to chance. It cannot “verify” anything, only disconfirm it. Through repeated replication, that finding becomes likely, and repeated replication is the fundament of basically any claim you will read in a medical textbook that is presented with some certainty.