如europeptides, anti-nociceptive, RCT studies.

我关心的是现代医学对针灸到底有没有一个明确的说法. 我可以理解由于诸多原因,诸如经费缺乏, 目前在针灸可能还没有足够研究投入,那么就已有的研究来说, 有没有一个在学界获得公认的说法.

其次,这个说法是否已经解释到头了, 还是揭开了进一步研究的序幕?

最后,现代科学对针灸的研究得出的结论, 如你所言,和中医的说法有所出入, 那么, 这个出入是否是对中医的否定?

再次谢谢你, 并期待你的回答.

送交者: asimpleday 于 2006-11-20, 19:12:58:

I would like to suggest sticking to the principle of logical objective reasoning in the argument. That would not only build up the credibility but also helps clarify the problem and approach to the vicinity of the truth.

Some reported observations suggests Zusanli (along the same line like hegu, etc.) is one of the few points in acupuncture which has observable effects (especially pain control: proposed mechanisms involving neuropeptides, anti-nociceptive effects, etc.) in the clinic though not really exactly as described by the Classics in the traditional Chinese medicine. I can not back up with my statement at the moment with any concrete evidence with convincing RCT studies. They may not exist I assume. However, dismissing the effect without verification is at the same time just as reckless and naive.

The existing distrust is absolutely understandable. Historically, the horrible mix of the useful and useless data with improper defective design or academic incompetence or pure academic misconducts and scandals in a large extent make a large portion of the reports from China unreliable and dubious.