中医科不科学？

clonevirux

所谓科学，就是观察自然定律，举出假设，并找出有力证据来稳固假设的立场，再广泛的善用着个定律在各领域。
所以我觉得中医做到了。

随苇轻摇

喝符那项没有科学根据
五花肉之光 发表于 18-6-2011 09:27 PM

    这个不是中医。。

siang8522

西医能够用科学证明的东西就很科学吗????

justebelmont

我有经常看病的经验，吃过西药，也吃过中药，以前每次感冒看西医，都要用 4， 5 天才能好转，后来年纪渐长，每次看西医都不会好转，后来索性看中医，后来每次的感冒，一天就好转了，第二天就能上班，真是难解释，

还有每次喉咙痛，去找专科，都千篇一列的给  ANTIBIOTIK ，每次都丢掉，因为每吃一次胃就抽筋一次，而且发冷，但给中医看，他们就说有湿气，虚火上升，配了几种药水，吃了一两天就完全好了。

还有个例子，是在我舅舅身上发生的，它重来不相信中医，后来他的了肝硬化，医生叫他准备身后事，后来有人推介他去看中医，那个中医就给他吃“安公牛黄丸”，以毒攻毒，大概整个月后，他的  SPGT 回到正常水平了，现在还活的好好的。


这样要如何解释不科学的中医。

syhuang

回复 51# Spike


    “不管谁来下针，不管针灸的地点是不是穴位，不管针有没有穿入皮肤（牙签），只要病人以为是真的，就觉得有效了。”？
如果两兄弟下针，阿猪兄，阿狗弟，两兄弟都不会下针，只要骗到病人以为是真的就有效？那也可能他们跟本就没插中穴位？那又如何分辨插中穴位与不是穴位的分别？那也就是可能跟本就没找到一个经验丰富的中医来针灸咯？如果实验是公平公正的话，那应该列出参与实验的中医师资料。。。而不是所谓的一句。。“不管谁来下针”！ ？
    找来的人都是门外汉，如何做标准呢？

syhuang

回复 65# Vuvuzela


    我前贴上的列子。。。。
    有个病人，肚子一年三百六十五天都会痛的，痛足了六年多，期间看了无数医生，全部医药报告都正常，科学上如何解释？结果吃了中药“行气”药，一个星期就完全不痛了，科学上如何解释？
    如一个人精神很差，面色清白，手脚冰冷，时常怕冷，他去看医生，医生量了血压，听了心跳，正常，验了血，也正常， 就跟病人说你很健康，没事，拿些维他命吃先吧。
但这个人如果去看中医，吃些温补气血的中药，过几天他就舒服多了，这种情况，科学上都不承认他是病患，因为所有参数都正常，你还说吃了中药他会好转？又说是缪论了？
   以上所说的是中医最常见到的列子，医好的人也很广泛，不信者可去信誉良好的中医馆考察考察，看看是否垮大其词。
   另外补充，有些病人偏头痛，科学上如何解释？如何治疗？相信懂些医学的人都知道，在西医学上是没得医的，但如果用上辨证论治的方法用在偏头痛患者，效果是非常明显的。
    我的确认同，中医是不够准确的，因为它比较偏向中医个人的思考诊断，缺乏标准。但这是它的优点，也是缺点。
    如果要用辨证论治思维看证，必须要有个人思考判断，要不然就开不出药方了。

syhuang

日内瓦 -世界卫生组织在周一抨击那些声称猪流感是假的流感大流行，为制药公司的利益创建“不负责任”的批评。

Don't miss these Health stories不要错过这些健康的故事  Getty Images
格蒂图片
Plan B won't be sold OTC for young teens, US rules B计划不会被出售OTC年轻十几岁，美国规则
Plan B, the so-called "morning after pill," won't be made available over the counter, announced US Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Wednesday. 所谓的“事后避孕药上午，”B计划不会作出在柜台宣布，美国卫生和人类服务部部长凯瑟琳西贝柳斯（星期三）。

.Bioethicist: Ruling trumps good science with bad policy 生物伦理学家：执政胜过好科学与坏政策
Whine time: System tracks flu a sneeze at a time 嗲时间：一次系统跟踪流感打喷嚏
Some kids' cereals pack more sugar than a Twinkie 有的孩子“谷物包装超过一个Twinkie糖
People can smell your neuroticism 人们可以闻到你的神经质联合国卫生机构说，去年在北美新毒株的H1N1流感爆发大流行的科学特征，世卫组织从未医药行业得益于疫苗巨大的政府订单和反不当的影响病毒的药物。

"The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible," the WHO said in a strongly worded statement Monday. “世界正在经历一个真正的大流行，把它作为一个虚假的描述是错误的和不负责任的，”世卫组织在一份措辞强烈的声明说，星期一。

A WHO spokesman declined to spell out who the World Health Organization was responding to in its statement, saying only that "this applies to anyone who believes it is not a real pandemic."一个世卫组织发言人拒绝阐明世界卫生组织应对在其声明中，只说，“这适用于任何人认为它不是一个真正的大流行。”

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog based in Strasbourg, France, recently recommended that the EU investigate WHO's swine flu pandemic declaration to see if the health agency acted under undue influence.最近，总部设在法国斯特拉斯堡人权看门狗，欧洲委员会议会大会建议，欧盟调查世卫组织猪流感声明，如果卫生机构的不当影响下行事。 WHO officials are due to meet Tuesday with the Council of Europe, which is not an official European Union body and has no power to act against WHO.世卫组织的官员，以满足欧洲理事会，这是不是一个正式的欧盟机构，没有权力违背世界卫生组织星​​期二。

According to a WHO tally dated Jan. 17, more than 209 countries and territories have reported laboratory confirmed cases of swine flu, including at least 14,142 deaths.据世卫组织理货月17日，超过209个国家和地区报告了经实验室确认的猪流感病例，包括至少14142人死亡。 This is far fewer than would be expected to die each year from seasonal flu, but the figure is likely to exclude many unreported cases, according to WHO.这是每年死于季节性流感比预期的要少得多，但可能排除许多未报告的情况下，这个数字是根据世界卫生组织的。

WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl said the relatively low number of confirmed deaths from swine flu didn't mean the virus wasn't a pandemic.世界卫生组织发言人格雷戈里Hartl说，猪流感证实死亡的数量相对较少，并不意味着病毒大流行。

Advertise | AdChoices 广告 | AdChoices Advertise | AdChoices 广告 | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices 广告 | AdChoices
."A pandemic has nothing to do with severity or number of deaths," he told The Associated Press. “大流行严重程度或死亡人数无关，”他告诉美联社记者。 "A pandemic literally is a global spread of a disease." “大流行的字面是一种疾病在全球蔓延。”

He said WHO was "always very measured and sober in what we said and we always described the virus as causing overwhelmingly mild disease. "We cannot control how people react to this information," he added.他说，世卫组织“总是很有分寸，在我们所说的清醒，我们总是形容为病毒，导致绝大多数轻度的疾病。”我们无法控制人们如何作出反应，这个信息，他补充说。“

In its statement, WHO said it had put in place numerous safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest among its advisers, including requiring them to provide a signed declaration detailing any professional or financial interest that could affect their impartiality.在其声明中，世卫组织说，它已在众多的保障措施来防止及其顾问，其中包括要求他们提供签署的声明，详细说明任何可能影响其公正性的专业或经济利益之间的利益冲突。

"WHO takes allegations of conflict of interest seriously and is confident of its decision-making independence regarding the pandemic influenza," it said. “世卫组织的利益冲突的指控严重，其关于流感大流行的独立决策充满信心，”它说。

syhuang

http://translate.google.com/tran ... WHO-credibility.htm

syhuang

WTO 否认申明。。。。http://www.who.int/mediacentre/n ... 00122/zh/index.html

syhuang

一周年之际，世界卫生组织（WHO）的一个完整的“第6期”大流行的声明，2010年6月11日。 There were only a few anniversary stories.只有少数周年故事。
This site's Swine Flu Pandemic Communication Update about the Phase 6 declaration, posted on June 17, 2009, was entitled “ Would you like another wakeup call? ” It noted that: “For those who were already awake to pandemic realities and possibilities, [the WHO pandemic declaration] was basically a nonevent – a welcome if belated confirmation of what we knew.”此网站的猪流感大流行有关的第一阶段6声明张贴于六月17，2009，，的通信更新了题为“？是否喜欢另一个唤醒呼叫“它指出的：”对于那些谁是已经醒了大流行的现实和可能性，[的世卫组织流感大流行的声明基本上是一个nonevent - 一个值得欢迎的，如果迟来的确认，我们知道什么“。
But in retrospect, the WHO pandemic declaration a year ago looks to many (though not to us) like a big mistake, or even an intentional deception.但回想起来，世卫组织流感大流行宣言一年前看起来就像一个大错误，甚至是故意欺骗的许多（虽然不是我们）。 It was already pretty clear by mid-June 2009 that the pandemic was mild so far, more like the last two pandemics than like the nightmare possibility experts had warned about.这是已经很清楚，2009年6月中旬，是温和的大流行至今，更像是过去两年大流行，而不是像噩梦般的可能性专家警告。 But it was early days yet.但它是尚早。 It was perfectly possible that the pandemic could become much more virulent.这是完全可能的大流行可能变得更加致命。 (The first wave of 1918's horrific pandemic was also mild.) Now, a year later, that possibility looks much slimmer. （1918年的可怕的大流行第一波也温和。）现在，一年后，这种可能性看起来非常渺茫。 It can't yet be ruled out; flu is famously unpredictable.它尚未能排除;感是著名的不可预知的。 But at this point it would be a big surprise.但在这一点上，这将是一个巨大的惊喜。 And so, with 20-20 hindsight, a lot of people think the initial pandemic declaration was unjustified.所以，事后诸葛亮，很多人认为最初的大流行宣言是没有道理的。
Four things happened in early June 2010 that make this a compelling risk communication story, a fit but sad ending to the saga of Swine Flu Pandemic Risk Communication (Volume One).四件事情发生在2010年6月初，这是一个引人注目的风险沟通的故事，一个合适的，但悲伤的结局猪流感风险沟通的传奇（第一册）。
WHO sticks to Phase 6.谁坚持到第6期。 On June 3, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan issued a statement summarizing the results of a June 1 teleconference meeting of the Emergency Committee that advises WHO on the H1N1 pandemic. 6月3日，世卫组织总干事陈冯富珍发出的一份声明中，总结了6月1日紧急委员会建议世卫组织对H1N1流感大流行的电视电话会议的结果。
Dr. Chan said that “while pandemic activity is continuing, the period of most intense pandemic activity appears likely to have passed for many parts of the world.” That wasn't sufficient, however, to persuade the committee to advise her to downgrade the pandemic to WHO's “ post-peak ” phase, when “pandemic activity appears to be decreasing” but “it is uncertain if additional waves will occur.” All of the supporting data in the June 3 statement would seem to match the WHO definition of “post-peak,” but WHO did not stand down from Phase 6.陈博士说，“而大流行的活动仍在继续，最激烈的大流行活动期间出现为世界上许多地方有可能通过。”这样做还不够，但是，说服委员会劝她降级流感大流行世卫组织“峰后“阶段，当”大流行的活动出现到被降低“，但”它是不确定的，如果额外的波将发生。“所有在该年6月3语句的支持数据会似乎匹配的世界卫生组织的定义， “峰后“，但谁没有受不了，从第6期。
Nor did WHO seize the opportunity to stand down from its insistence that the H1N1 pandemic has been “moderate” so far, as opposed to “mild.”也没有抓住机遇，站在坚持H1N1流感大流行已“温和”到目前为止，作为反对“温和的。”
The Council of Europe attacks WHO.欧洲理事会攻击谁。 Also on June 3, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe published an utterly bizarre report 6月3日，欧洲委员会议会大会发表一个完全离奇的报告  reiterating charges that WHO had foisted on the public a fake pandemic, and had done so partly in order to enrich the pharmaceutical industry.重申世卫组织强加给公众假的流感大流行，并这样做的部分，以丰富的医药行业的收费。 To facilitate this deception, the report claimed, WHO changed its definition of the term “pandemic” and systematically avoided transparency and accountability mechanisms that would have publicly exposed the conflicts of interest that underlay the fraud.为了促进这种欺骗，该报告声称，谁改变其“大流行”一词的定义和系统避免了透明度和问责机制，公开的利益冲突，底图的欺诈。
The charges in the report were not unexpected, since they had been ventilated months earlier in public statements, a formal motion, and a hearing – at which WHO Special Advisor on Pandemic Influenza Keiji Fukuda was questioned.在报告中指控并不令人意外，因为他们已经在公开声明中，正式的议案，并举行听证会通风几个月前 - 世卫组织大流行性流感的福田敬二的特别顾问提出了质疑。 Still, publication of the report demonstrated Council support for the charges, even after hearing Dr. Fukuda's defense.不过，公布的报告显示的收费会的支持，即使经过听证会福田博士的国防。 The Council of Europe isn't part of the European Union; its decisions aren't binding.欧洲委员会是欧洲联盟的一部分，其决定不具有约束力。 But with 47 member states, it does influence public debate and sometimes future government decision-making.但与47个会员国，它不影响公众的辩论和有时未来的政府决策。
BMJ joins the attack. 英国医学杂志加入攻击。 On the same day, BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal ) published an article charging that WHO committee members often have conflicts of interest that are not revealed to the public.就在同一天， 英国医学杂志 （前身为“英国医学杂志” ）发表了一篇文章，收费，世卫组织委员会的成员往往有利益冲突，不向公众透露。 The article was written jointly by the journal's features editor and a journalist from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism , a nonprofit group launched on April 26, 2010, “to expose the exploitation of the weak by the strong” and “to reveal the failures of those in power to fulfill the trust placed in them.” The article focused on three members of an earlier WHO committee that in 2004 had advised WHO to recommend large national pre-pandemic stockpiles of antiviral drugs.文章被写入该杂志的功能编辑器，并从记者的联合新闻调查局，一个非营利性组于四月26，2010推出的，公开的强烈剥削弱者“和”揭示这些失败在权力，履行他们的信任。“文章集中于较早的世卫组织委员会，在2004年曾表示世卫组织建议大国家大流行前的抗病毒药物库存的三名成员。 It pointed out some connections between those three committee members and the companies that manufacture and sell antivirals.它指出，这三个委员会成员和公司，生产和销售抗病毒药物之间的一些连接。
Publication of the BMJ article and the Council of Europe report was coordinated.出版的英国医学杂志的文章和欧洲委员会的报告进行了协调。 On June 4 the principal author of the latter, Paul Flynn, posted on his blog : “One of the joys today was giving evidence with the editor of the splendid British Medical Journal . 6月4日后者，保罗-弗林发布，主要作者，他的博客：“今天的乐趣之一是灿烂的英国医学杂志的编辑提供的证据。 We have never met before but we cooed in harmony and just avoided saying it was the Pharmas that did it.”我们从来没有遇到过，但我们在和谐cooed的，只是避免说这是制药公司没有。“
WHO responds to its critics.世卫组织回应其批评。 WHO responded to the charges in a June 8 open letter to BMJ , and again in a June 10 response to both organizations .世卫组织在6月8日的公开信 ，以英国医学杂志收费，并再次在6月10日这两个组织的响应。 It asserted that the pandemic was real, that the definition of a pandemic had not changed, and that WHO's pandemic decision-making was completely uninfluenced by commercial interests.它声称，是真正的大流行，大流行的定义并没有改变，和世卫组织的流感大流行的决策是完全由商业利益不受影响。 But it conceded that changes were needed in transparency policies regarding conflict of interest.但它承认的透明度，利益冲突的政策需要改变。
That's the big swine flu risk communication story now, the biggest in months: In June 2010, the credibility of the World Health Organization crashed and burned.这就是现在的大猪流感的风险沟通的故事，在个月来最大：2010年6月，世界卫生组织的信誉崩溃和烧毁。 Charges that it had manufactured a fake pandemic in deference to the economic interests of Big Pharma gained mainstream attention.它制造了一个假的流感大流行，在尊重的大型制药企业的经济利益的收费，获得了主流的关注。
These charges gained traction at this time, in our judgment, not because they are valid (they are not) but because WHO has badly mishandled certain aspects of its pandemic risk communications.这些费用上涨，此时的牵引，在我们的判断，而不是因为它们是有效的（他们没有），但由于世卫组织已严重处理不当，其大流行的危险通讯的某些方面。

lhp_0123

当西医已经对你的病束手无策时，

又被中医治好

你就会相信中医是很科学的...

t-muffin

看中医不再给药草了、直接给你几粒药丸和药水

小鋒

看中医不再给药草了、直接给你几粒药丸和药水
t-muffin 发表于 12-1-2012 05:52 PM

那叫中成药。。。要与时并进嘛，自己煲药很费时。。。

完颜阿骨打

没有人说阴阳是什么。 那我来说：

中医的基础是五行， 那五行是不是最基本的东西呢？

1） 金： 是的，化学周期表有金。
2） 水： 不是， 它是hydrogen 和 oxygen 组成的。
3）木： 更不是， 它已经是复杂分子结构。
4）火： 不是， 它是electromagnetic wave. Photon 本质上就是 electromagnetic wave.它是force, basic 4 types of natural force.
5)  土：不是,  什么都有。

结论： 中医不是科学， 它连 element, force, molecules 都分不清楚。

阿俊Edjun

五花肉之光 发表于 18-6-2011 09:27 PM
喝符那项没有科学根据

这个，不是中医吧？

limlaijie

中医是“未来科学”，人类目前的科学还没达到了解中医的程度。就好像以前的人不会相信wifi的存在一样。