Joke Dezhou

For Dr. Gong Xiaoming's My Views on Traditional Chinese Medicine, it is a question and answer: Are you willing to eat shit? Someone is willing.

Generally speaking, the so-called sharpshooter refers to those who can point wherever they can. But a Texan shot a lot of bullets into his barn, drew a circle at the densest bullet hole, and then called himself a sharpshooter. We call this sharpshooter "Texas Gunner".

The joke is over. Let's talk about Chinese medicine. Some people advocate treating Chinese medicine with "taking its essence and removing its dross" (also called "removing weeds and preserving essence"). They believe that "eliminating weeds and preserving essence" is a reliable method, which can be used to operate Chinese medicine, retain the "essence" part of Chinese medicine and remove the "dross" part.

But I don't agree.

You don't need to be smart, you just need to be honest with your heart, and it's not hard to find it if you think about it carefully. This operation is actually difficult to operate. The biggest question is, how to judge what is "essence"? Some doctors will think that the effective part is the essence. For example, Dr. Gong Xiaoming wrote in My Views on Traditional Chinese Medicine:

Regardless of the content of these examples, it is not a scientific attitude and method to illustrate this behavior itself. I don't want to discuss the level of evidence here. Anyone who can understand this article is understood and recognized by default. What I want to say is that it's as absurd as a Texas gunman's choice of examples, although he seems to be as diligent as a sharpshooter in "proving" to get the presupposition of "effective" position by relying on a few examples, and then use RCT to find the so-called "effective" evidence to verify the previous "effective" presupposition.

However, this absurd logic is absurdly accepted by many doctors.

I have seen many people who eat melons and doctors think that "Chinese medicine has many merits", which must be what Chinese medicine calls "curative effect", so "more research and development is needed". This is actually a saying of muddling along, because this view itself is a preset position. Think "effective" first, then "find evidence". What if I can't find evidence? That's your level. You need to find it again. So you never know where the boundary is and how to "get rid of the weeds and keep the essence".

It is ridiculous to think that it is effective without scientific evidence, and then try to find evidence and prove it to be effective by scientific methods. So since examples cannot be "valid" evidence, common sense should be invalid by default. Since it is invalid, why use RCT to find "valid" evidence? This folk logic is widely spread and used in scientific research and clinic, which reminds me of a joke "Where to play?"

But I can't laugh.

Because Dr Gong Xiaoming said:

Whether TCM has a huge treasure house or a huge garbage bank, whether it should be excavated or abandoned, can be discussed. Look at the words, said:

This view is logically rigorous, but it is meaningless to "invest in more research" from this big junk bank with only a few examples of whether it is effective or not. This is not only a waste of money, but also a waste of talent and time. I don't agree.

Since Gong Xiaoming wants to prove that Chinese medicine is a treasure house with artemisinin from Tu Youyou, let's take a look at this fact:

Fang did not say that this plant is called Artemisia ordosica. In order to make artemisinin the achievement of traditional Chinese medicine, Chinese academic circles did not hesitate to rename the original Artemisia annua L. as Artemisia annua L., which is beside the point. However, we can still see that it is really meaningless to invest so much money to dig for treasures in TCM, such as finding protein in feces, although we can find something. Do you want to eat shit?

Someone is willing.

At the end of the article, Gong Xiaoming said this:

It doesn't make sense in theory, but it still insists on integration. It can't be explained, and it has to be eaten in various positions. The essence of this spirit of "going forward if you have difficulties, and going forward if you create difficulties" is the spirit of "Texas gunman", that is, taking out your gun and shooting at the barn to see what you hit. It is the preset "where to fight" after the "black-box operation is effective", and it is the national confidence of political correctness.

The paradigm of science is to observe carefully first, then make reasonable assumptions, and then strictly verify them. In this article, Dr. Gong Xiaoming has not only logical problems, but also unqualified observations. Middle school students who have studied physics in junior high school know that when designing experiments, we should try our best to get rid of variables and make the constant and the result show causal relationship. However, as a doctor of medicine, this doctor can sigh the "magical effect" with only a few examples with incomplete information, and many doctors will have this cognitive defect. The observation is not rigorous and the logic is not self-consistent, which makes me sigh secretly. These doctors are probably not without common sense, but on purpose.

But I must admit that there is no evidence for me to say so. I dare to say this because I am not in the "aristocratic circle" and because I don't care about offending the "aristocratic circle".