主题:【整理】马兜铃酸强致癌性再次拷问中药安全性及当局中医药政 -- 南云北望
物理和化学的进展,很大程度上都是依赖于环境和要素的简化。西医事实上也受到这种现状的局限。西医目前最擅长的是单一病菌病毒的杀灭和外科切除式的手术,这都属于最简化状态下的医疗问题。几乎所有的西医药物研究都在试图提取单一有效成分,也是这个情况。复方药物的研究虽然也有进展,很多情况下也更有效,但始终没有成为真正的主流。这种局限性实际上在医学、经济学等很多方面都体现出了其应对复杂系统和复杂作用机制下的问题。
中医的出发点从一开始就是另一个角度,如何解决复杂体系(人体和药物组合)的作用机制。这当然也是因为受到一些基础手段的影响和限制。不过这样的一套机制,显然也是复杂的,不是简简单单几年的学习就可以轻松掌握的。
一下,这才是真正的绝活
你看了半天书,连基本的事情都没搞清楚。你非要说现代科学和科学是两回事儿,而方舟子明明是认为两者是一回事儿,书中提到的科学概念上都是统一的,就是全书正文第一句话指明的那个“科学”。你现在是在玩白马非马的诡辩。
方舟子在书中花了大量篇幅去定义“科学”一词,从第一页到第九页都是在谈了个问题,你又装作看不见了。
方舟子干脆宣布古希腊自然哲学是不科学好了,废了古希腊自然哲学,把现代科学的根给挖掉嘛。
你这话说的没有逻辑,方舟子说科学来源于古希腊自然哲学,自然是说科学建立在古希腊自然科学正确的那一部分上,要废也是废古希腊自然哲学不正确的那一部分,你凭什么说要废整个古希腊自然哲学。
另外,我最反感的就是有人故意歪曲别人的意思。
方舟子在书中第四页的原话是:
你故意把“哲学”、“玄学”、“民间医术”三个词省略掉,给别人造成了方舟子完全否定中医的错觉,实际上方舟子说的很清楚,中医没有科学价值,但是可以有文化、历史价值。中医里包含的哲学思想有意义,这是方舟子一直肯定的。方舟子也承认中医的一些通过实践总结出的验方和治疗方法是有效的,值得深入研究的。
有些人不去全面理解方舟子的意思,非要单单抽出某句话或某个词,伪造、夸大或凸显方舟子对中医的仇恨,我不知道到底是为了什么?
就是中医是如何做试验证明把病给治好的?
西医可以用RCT的办法来测试,中医是用什么手段来证明呢?
也许RCT不是应对复杂系统的最佳方案,但好歹也是一个途径。不解决验证的方法,恐怕无法说服别人认可中医。
比如小儿咳嗽,一直在咳,吃了海曙中医院的药也没完全好,于是就开车去求医。
看诊的人很多,不少都是外地来的。
看诊的时候,医疗设备也就听诊器之类的,没大型设备,有名片,名片正面是联系电话姓名诊治的范围等等,背面是禁忌范围,主要是不要吃肉蛋奶鱼虾海产品。
开药呢,是这医生到里面去配药,不让外人看得,配出来都是白色粉末啥的,根本不晓得是什么东东。
一次一般配个7,8小包,一天2-3包。一般而言,配的药吃完,就OK了。
个人有次在衢州地方和朋友聚会,朋友家也有小孩子,个人就把诸暨农村的小诊所的事情说了,说以后小孩子咳嗽治不好,去诸暨好了。朋友说,他们衢州地区也有的,也是不给看配药是怎么配的,反正吃了会好。
个人就觉得说,是不是到处都有这种的,起码在浙江,各地应该都有。
会不会那些药是大量抗生素或者烈性的药,达到强力压制病变的效果,会对以后照成严重后果,个人不知道,怀疑过,但是太太家里的亲戚说很早都到那家去拿药的,当年吃药的家里的小孩子们现在都结婚生孩子了,也没听说过问题。
再补充一个,个人小学同学,小时候洗澡,用湿毛巾甩动玩耍,结果把小蛋蛋给抽中了,这了不得了,红肿,去儿童医院看去哪里看都不见复原,一个多星期没上课,他家父母就听人介绍找了一个可能连医生都不是的铁路系统的工人,开了药方,吃了去,后来OK了,人长大了,家里担心生殖仍然有问题,结果木有,结婚生的小孩子都8岁多了。
这药方里,有杉树的果子,绿绿的球,没长开的那种,因为要爬上去弄,所以那同学父母是让我们爬上去摘的。周边大人,家里有小男孩的,都很关心这事儿,有的要了药方方子和那工人的姓名住址。
如果方舟子是一分为二地唯物地来看待中医发展,他不可能提出“废医验药”这种所谓出路的,把中医理论体系废掉,那中医还算什么中医?然后中医的成果,要用现代医学(也就是方舟子式的现代西医的说法)来检验,现代医学觉得OK的,就拿去用。
他说了半天就是用中医不现代科学来混淆中医不科学。
如果是中医不现代科学,那么可以去发展中医嘛,现代化嘛。
他不是这个意思嘛,他最终要达到的目的就是中医不科学,中医科都不科学了,哪要着还有啥用?当然是废了其理论体系,再拿其成果来用。
他跟那些厉股份吴市场是一样的。
方舟子如果不是彻底根本性地否定中医,那个人就不知道谁再彻底根本否定中医了。
比如雷锋,你把他的阶级认识给隐藏了,只谈助人为乐,这已经就不是雷锋了。
为了避嫌,像麻黄、细辛、附子、防己、朱砂等等这类药不敢给外人开,只敢对亲戚家人用了。
治病有点类似刷机,刷智能手机。
你不了解这手机里面到底怎么倒腾出来的,反正网上有各种教程和刷机包,够勇气,就去刷。
刷得好,OK,刷出鬼来了,砖机了,就内牛满面。
接着再想办法,网上查,再想办法挽救,救回来了,OK,救不回来,请高人朋友去救,或者交给JS,横竖伸头一刀。
个人想来,就算是开发制造这智能机的工程师,总工好了,他就很了解这机子,透彻地了解?机友们各种犯浑把机子刷得各类不堪的状况,他都能救回来?
这还只是软件上刷出问题了,如果硬件有些问题,纠结在一起,各类问题,谁可宣言,他是通透的,写保票给弄好?
依个人经验,是没有,哪怕是最了解这智能机的人,这智能机是他主持开发的,哪怕他对硬软件都主管,很了解,但仍然面临黑箱问题---某个毛病,是怎么个回事在这机子里发生的,怎么解决?
个人认为,中医西医传统的现代的,都面临同样的情况,人就是黑箱之一。
就传统中医而言,个人觉得李约瑟难题的观察,是言之有物的:
个人认为,传统中医就是存在长期大致停留经验阶段和只有原始型中古的理论这样一个状况,需要升级转型,需要引入现代科学的有利因素和条件。
安东尼奥尼拍《中国》,有个孕妇接受针灸麻醉剖腹产,不打麻药,镜头就很长时间拍孕妇面部特写,看是不是装的。小宝宝剖产出来了,孕妇一直都OK的。
这个问题,就是黑箱呀,搞不清楚呀,是的,效果是在的,问题在于怎么解释?用阴阳五行任督二脉啥?好象不妥吧,以前条件不够,这么解释,有说服力,可以指导实践,但现在能不能转型升级一下,到细胞级分子级的,会解释得更有说服力一些,更有效正确地指导实践呢?
当然能的呀,中医完全有道理去做这样的研究工作呀,空间很大课题很多咧。个人相信,现在肯定有这方面工作在大量进行的。
中医完全可以兼容并包去汲取一切有利于更好解决黑箱问题的思想技术手段呀。
我们可不可以拥有一种有根基有创新有升级的中医理论和实践,当然可以有的呀。
个人站在这个层面上,这么思考,所以就觉得方舟子的《批评中医》非常地匪夷所思,违反思维规律,是有心故意。
比如美国医疗体系不认定中医是医学,方舟子也不认为是,中医是不科学的。方舟子没这么小白兔,这么小清新吧,美国现代医疗体系怎么可能宽容接纳中医呢,一是不了解,二是利益冲突,这明摆着的事么。
方舟子当然不是小白兔小清新,如果他的:中医不科学---》废医验药的主线,中国还接受了,认可了,开始自戕了,比如颁布个医生医药资格认定的法律法规,把中医药排除在外,西医药就口蜜腹剑可以人挡杀人佛挡杀佛了。
这好比刷机的两个店,一个店把另一个店软硬兼施给关张了。
个人是不懂刷机和治病的,但是,不好意思,个人觉得还是两个店比较好,充分竞争嘛,相互交流嘛。
个人觉得,最好啊,把那些神医乃至神棍,都要从中医药的队伍里清理出去,要整风,纯洁队伍,对于那些确有疗效,副作用小的赤脚医生民间高手,可以另外颁发牌照。
噶否则,一大堆牛鬼蛇神混到中医的旗帜之下,不是白白变成了什么巫术民间医术哲学玄学啥的混合体了么,白白要被精明精算的方舟子来修理,这划不来嘛。
方舟子来批评来抨击,也好的,当作促进鞭策嘛,从经验阶段进入实证阶段,从原始型中古型的理论进入到现代型的理论嘛。
中医药若有大跃进,长足有后劲的发展,鲜花着锦烈火烹油,中医药界不要忘了给方舟子颁发一个特别的奖项。
Occasionally, but not often, positive things happen in the field of cancer prevention science to popular, good-tasting foods. Cruciferous vegetables have been the subject of intense study, but these foods might be—to modify the expression—an easy pill but a hard food for the public to swallow. By contrast, tomatoes (scientifically classified as a fruit) have overcome their earlier reputation as an inedible and possibly toxic food to become one of the most heavily consumed fruits or vegetables in the Western diet—mostly in the form of pizza, salsa, chili, pasta sauce, and ketchup. Americans consume an average of 91 pounds of tomatoes per capita per year, second only to potatoes among all fruits and vegetables.
This issue of the Journal brings good news to tomato eaters. Boileau et al. (1) report, in a well-controlled study using the N-methyl-N-nitrosourea (NMU)-androgen rat carcinogenesis model, that a diet containing whole tomato powder inhibited the development of prostate cancer compared with a control diet, whereas a diet containing a pure synthetic lycopene supplement did not. In the tomato powder group, the risk of developing lethal prostate cancer was reduced by a statistically significant 26% compared with that in control rats; by contrast, the group receiving lycopene experienced only a 9% (and not statistically significant) risk reduction compared with controls. Using a factorial design, the investigators also measured the effect of a 20% dietary calorie restriction on the risk of dying with prostate cancer. The authors found that this restriction on energy intake produced a 32% reduction in prostate cancer mortality that was independent of (i.e., additive to) the effect of tomato powder.
This new study is important and provocative on several levels. Perhaps most important, it weighs heavily in the debate about whether cancer prevention is best achieved via whole foods versus via single compounds. Readers are no doubt familiar with the β-carotene story: After years of research indicating a possible benefit of supplemental β-carotene against lung cancer, two phase 3 randomized trials found that a β-carotene supplement was not only ineffective but actually appeared to increase lung cancer risk, primarily among smokers (2). This is the best known but not the only adverse experience in humans taking carotenoid supplements. For example, canthaxanthin, another carotenoid that is still marketed as an artificial tanning agent, is known to cause a reversible crystalline retinopathy in people who take high doses (3). A possible reason for the misleading observational results on β-carotene is that, given the sources of β-carotene in the diet, people who eat a lot of it (and therefore who also have higher concentrations in their serum) tend to have healthier diets and lifestyles. Lycopene/tomato research is not plagued by this difficulty—in fact, heavy lycopene consumers in the United States have essentially the same patterns of exercise, body weight, and smoking as lighter consumers (4). Given this background, it is important to note that most observational and indeed human experimental evidence to date concerning the possible benefit of lycopene versus prostate cancer is actually based on consumption of lycopene-rich foods such as tomatoes rather than lycopene itself, which has not been used as a supplement long enough or widely enough to facilitate epidemiologic research. In studies relating serum or plasma concentrations to risk, lycopene concentrations might only serve as a marker for consumption of the relevant foods (5).
The ultimate biologic activity of a given food or nutrient depends on a large number of variables, including food processing and preparation method, gastrointestinal tract physiology, interactions between compounds in the food, and interactions between foods eaten together at the same meal. The biologic effect of a given food might even be influenced by how rapidly we eat it, as is seen in the literature on glycemic load. It has already been established that heat, mechanical processing, and ingestion together with oil or fat alters the bioavailability of lycopene and similar compounds by releasing them from intracellular compartments and promoting intestinal absorption (6). In addition to lycopene, known carotenoids in tomatoes and tomato-based products include β-carotene, γ-carotene, ζ-carotene, phytofluene, and phytoene, all of which are among the 10 major carotenoids that have been found to accumulate in human prostate tissue (7). The article by Boileau et al. does not present detailed qualitative and quantitative analyses of these carotenoids in tomato powder, plasma, and prostate tissues of the treated rats—such analyses, in view of the results of the experiment, would be useful in clarifying the possible role of other tomato carotenoids that may exert their biologic effects in concert with lycopene. As the authors mention, there are also numerous non-carotenoid compounds in tomatoes that have potentially relevant activity, and certainly a large number of unknown phytochemicals as well.
Carotenoids generally occur in the plant for a purpose, for example, to protect seeds in fruit from photodegradation and oxidative damage. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that plants would develop sets of interacting compounds to accomplish these functions rather than relying on single compounds. This strategy provides redundancy and allows for a more subtle play of natural selection, because minor modifications in an enzyme could affect a web of active metabolites or interacting compounds. Such complexity is not unreasonable when you consider, to paraphrase the author Michael Pollan in his recent book The Botany of Desire (8), that while humans were learning how to walk upright, plants were continuing the process—hundreds of millions of years old—of developing intricate chemical methods to compensate for their relative immobility. Even biochemical systems that appear to have evolved for a simple straightforward effect, such as toxins, are in fact quite complex. Snakes, for example, which are ancient in comparison to most animals but are newly arrived by plant standards, have evolved venoms that are strikingly complex. We have barely begun to scratch the surface of understanding how the compounds within tomatoes interact within biologic systems. Studies such as that by Pastori et al. (9) on the interaction of lycopene and α-tocopherol in prostate cell cultures stand as testimony to how limited this knowledge is so far. Given the potential complexity of the relevant effects in humans, untangling these interactions in the laboratory—essentially subjecting them to reductionist analysis—could be a long and tedious process.
The timely study by Boileau et al. is well-designed and conducted, especially considering the challenges posed by animal models for prostate cancer and the general demands of dietary intervention studies. Nevertheless, given the importance of the results, alternative explanations, even relatively unlikely ones, should be considered. The study was designed to deliver considerably more lycopene to the pure lycopene group than to the tomato powder group, but perhaps coincidentally, the plasma lycopene concentrations came out nearly equal. Although the plasma compartment might have been saturated for lycopene, we do not know the relative concentrations in tissue, and it is conceivable that the biologically effective dose in tissue was too high to inhibit tumor growth in the lycopene group. This possibility should be explored as an alternative explanation for the lower efficacy of lycopene than of whole tomato powder, because nonmonotonic and even U-shaped dose-response curves have been reported for protection against cell damage by both lycopene and β-carotene (10). It also appears that a substantial amount of lycopene in both the lycopene and tomato powder diets was lost after exposure to the light, atmosphere, and temperature of the rat cages, which is somewhat surprising for the lycopene diet, because the lycopene was present as beadlets, which are normally stable. Lycopene breakdown products consist of a number of in-chain cleavage products, such as apolycopenones, apolycopenals, and apolycopenoic acids. In addition, it has been shown that acycloretinal, one of the oxidation products of lycopene, can be converted to acycloretinoic acid in the presence of pig liver homogenate (11). Although the biologic properties of lycopene degradation products are not known at present, different rates or patterns of degradation between diets would result in the formation of a number of breakdown products that could be responsible for the enhanced efficacy of tomato powder compared with lycopene. This situation can become even more complex because other tomato carotenoids may be similarly subjected to degradation to smaller molecules with unknown biologic properties. Carefully controlled stability studies throughout preparation and storage of the diet would be needed to eliminate these uncertainties.
An unusual and methodologically significant aspect of this study is the use of morbidity (presumably due to prostate cancer) as an endpoint rather than scheduled sacrifice of the animals at fixed intervals. This design permitted a survival (time-to-event) analysis that closely mimics a human trial that could have been conducted in the pre-prostate-specific antigen era. The main advantage of this design feature is that it evaluates the effect of treatment on prostate cancer that is undoubtedly biologically important, albeit to a rat. Recent problems with interpretation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial of finasteride foretell how difficult it will be in human trials to identify clinically significant effects on prostate cancer incidence in the face of prostate-specific antigen surveillance and biopsy at fixed timepoints (12). The main risk of this design aspect, however, is that it can introduce bias if the morbidity that triggers vivisection of the animals is not always due to prostate cancer, and if the groups receiving different treatments differ in their likelihood of getting sick due to causes other than prostate cancer. Information on the attribution of morbidity leading to vivisection, and on the blinding of technicians responsible for this decision, should be discussed as the results of the study are examined further.
Although this one study—like one molecule—is not likely to be definitive, it will, as all important studies do, open and clarify avenues for research. The mechanisms of action of tomato powder in the NMU model can be explored fruitfully (for example, effects on the androgen and insulin-like growth factor systems), as can the efficacy of this agent in other types of rodent models, including xenografts and transgenics. Investigators designing phase 2 trials in humans can also take note of these findings and begin testing foods and food derivatives in addition to pure lycopene. Successful completion of these studies could mean that a phase 3 trial is not far off. It is important to remember the somewhat obvious point that whole food or dietary trials in humans cannot be placebo controlled. In dealing with the relationship of diet to cancer causation or prevention, we would do well to emulate the “wisdom” of the evolutionary process and use only as much reductionism as is necessary to understand where we are and where we are going.
这样的?太多了。你可以自己去寻找一些相关资料嘛
蛋白质摄入量方面你可以了解一下美国饮食营养协会的运动员推荐蛋白质日摄入量变更的历史
在1987年是每日每千克1.0克,同时他们指出,对于运动员而言,远超普通人的蛋白质摄入量是没有促进作用的,然而到了1993年,他们却认为最大氮平衡水平的日所需蛋白质为1.5克,进入二十一世纪,他们推荐力量类型运动员的蛋白质日摄入量为1.7克
Rennie 与Tipton 曾经比较过0.8克每天与1.6克每天的两组人群进行12周运动后的氮平衡水平,结论是没有显著差异
懂一点历史,你就会发现,权威部门提供的营养指南,那里面的很多数据就是拟周期运动啊
说白了,所谓的指南手册。就是一群人,一堆结果迥异的研究,然后互相扯皮妥协之后的结果,很多时候这里面还有些政治经济因素在内,你认为它有多少指导意义吗?
根据你的说法,首先是通过RCT发现了番茄的益处,这就是RCT实验的结果了。正如我之前说过的,RCT实验就是个“黑箱”实验,它不可能直接得出理论机理,反之,不知道理论机理也可以通过RCT得出结论。RCT实验并没有得出是番茄红素发挥作用的结论,番茄红素发挥作用只是一个猜想,并且最终被科学证明是错误的。这里是你自己把RCT得出的结论搞错了。
想想看,这个错误也是很容易犯的,因为好像很说得通,因为已经知道番茄有益处,而番茄红素又是番茄的一种特有成份,是很容易认为番茄红素有什么益处。这个例子再次突出了理论应该来自实践,而不是来自推理的重要性。在这个例子里,理论基础很坚实—番茄是有益的,推导逻辑看越来也很可靠—番茄红素是番茄的特有成份,但是结论却是错误的。而中医就是一种典型的推理理论,其理论基础“阴阳五行”“复方辩证”之类就非常不可靠了,推导过程也常常是“体性凉、药性热”之类,就认为可以治病了。看到番茄红素问题的你难道完全没有想到中医的理论推导也会出错的吗?
医学本质上就是一种实践,对于每一种治疗方法,实实在在拿出疗效才是最说明问题的,只有通过确实的实践验证,才能找出真正有效的方法,而不是靠猜想、推论。你可能认为事物的因果机制不可认识,只能交给上帝,但是理性的人是要通过踏踏实实的实践来寻找的,这个过程不会一帆风顺,会有错误,但是只有这样才能取得真正的成就。
之前有位理论程序员跟我谈黑箱理论,谈封装,我懒了点,没有回复,在这里写一下吧。
我相信,只要给足够的时间人手,绝对可以救回这个机子。理由如下:
所谓黑箱,其实是针对用户而言的,用户确实不知道智能机里的某个芯片,或者操作系统内核的细节,但是,这不代表没有人知道!
操作系统也是程序员写出来的,也许没有人清楚地了解所有的模块,但是,每一个模块都有人可以了解得清清楚楚!好吧,就算某个模块的程序员去世了,但程序还在,给一定的时间,接手的程序员照样可以把这个模块了解透彻,需要除错的话,一点问题都没有。
好吧,对写操作系统的人来说,CPU可以说是一个黑箱,可是CPU也是人设计出来的,如果需要知道CPU里某个模块的设计细节,照样可以找到人来了解。
再往下推,设计CPU很依赖软件,CPU设计者不知道所用的软件里的细节,但是,CPU的设计软件,也是由人写出来的,想了解这个软件的细节,100%可以找到人来解答。
所以说,智能机也好,电脑也好,每一个细节,都可以找到人来解释得清清楚楚,只是看有没有需要而已,何来黑箱之说?
打个比方,如果智能机象你说的:
我们可能每两分钟就得重启一下手机。
再扯回中医,把中医比喻为黑箱理论,我倒不反对,没有手术刀与显微镜,怎么也谈不上白箱。
但是,一个在缺乏手术刀,显微镜,统计学等等工具的年代,所创立的医学理论,真的可以算得上科学理论吗?
用了什么中医理论?配了什么中医医典载明的药?药理作用?适用范围?
要知道,不但是中医,在世界各地都有各种各样的偏方,能治好病的有很多。但这是中医吗?