| |
|
|
LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR
To the Editor: Just
a short note to let you know how much our society here in South Africa
appreciates the Medical Acupuncture journal that you post to me every
few months. My colleagues and I have gained valuable information that
we glean from your interesting case studies and excellent editorials.
We are too small a country to be able to spend money on research and
have an institution such as yours.
- Bryan N. Welch, MD
Rooihuiskraal, South Africa
To the Editor: Grabacz and Marshall wrote a wonderful article
for Medical Acupuncture's Fall/Winter 2000/2001, Vol. 12/No. 2. The
article includes wonderful figures to further illustrate the authors'
points. I am writing to point out that there is an error regarding the
use of Chinese characters in Figure 3. Figure 3 lists tu as . However,
Chinese character tu, meaning Earth, should have a longer bottom line:
(tu; Earth) is different from (shi;Scholar).
-Yoon-Hang Kim, MD
Oceanside, California
To the Editor: The articles in our journal will always be primarily
clinically oriented, and rightly so. The majority of our colleagues
who have not trained in Medical Acupuncture will be attached inflexibly
to the scientific paradigm. We all know that acupuncture operates outside
the realm of Newtonian physics, yet its effects are manifested in that
realm. Though we should perform certain appropriate studies (such as
treating carpal tunnel syndrome or migraines) to demonstrate validity
based on statistical methodology to our friends who still believe the
myth that for something to be "real," it must be scientifically
demonstrated, we must realize that our journal can never be a mirror
of traditional medical journals. We are at the forefront of the new
paradigm and should take criticism from those with more limited thinking
with a grain of salt. Remember that it was heresy to believe that the
earth was not the center of the universe and that it was round instead
of flat! Some were burned at the stake for expounding those beliefs,
but time demonstrated validity. There is an underlying fear to step
out from the "Holy Western Medical Church" and acknowledge
that there is much more to healing than can be explained through the
double-blind, randomized statistical study. The bottom line is that
the patient gets better. Our colleagues are far too obsessed with "mechanisms."
When the outcome of our treatments are shown to other physicians, it
may serve to soften the knot of their contraction to have to prove everything
through some man-made construct i.e., the scientific method. Isn't it
a joy to be a pioneer? So many are wasting time searching for and worrying
about mechanisms, while our patients are getting well.
- Lowell Kobrin, MD, PhD
Coos Bay, Oregon
|
|
|
|