Double blindness is only superficial knowledge; the nature of things is not known with double blindness. What can a blind man find out by feeling an elephant?

If the subject is not doing research in the field of medicine, it is understandable to mention that question.

1. It is undeniable that double-blinding is the gold standard for whether a drug study is effective or not. Therefore, this standard is now being used in the research of new Chinese medicines.

2, whether Chinese medicine, or Western medicine, in the treatment of disease, will not go to use double-blind. Double blinding can only be used in research.

3. Double-blinding has limitations. To do a double-blind experiment, careful deliberation is needed on the evaluation indicators; otherwise, hundreds of millions of dollars spent may go down the drain, but perhaps the drug being evaluated does work.

4. Double blinding is very demanding when it comes to case selection. The purpose is to exclude interference. Therefore, the double-blind experiment proves that it is effective and safe in a special human environment. But the double-blind experiment can't prove whether it is effective and safe under non-special environment (e.g., the patient suffers from multiple diseases at the same time, the patient uses other drugs before using the drug, the patient's mood is not good today). But when the actual doctor is using the drug, the conditions of use are much more relaxed, and its effectiveness and safety cannot be proved.

5. Double-blind experiments are evaluated with probability, interval, and significance. A control group is used to avoid false positives or false negatives due to psychological factors in patients. A treatment group with a statistically significant difference indicates that the drug is effective. This indicates that the drug being studied is only effective for the majority of the population and not necessarily for a small percentage of the population. It shows that double-blind trials still have limitations.

6. Currently, in drug research, double-blind experiments are used to evaluate their effectiveness. This is because there is no better way than double-blind experiments.

7, to summarize: double-blind experiments to observe things are not as accurate as imagined, Chinese medicine, Western medicine to cure the disease will not use double-blind, proprietary Chinese medicine, Western medicine research should be over the double-blind.

So TCM prescriptions aren't proven effective by double blinding, huh? That may be the question the subject is trying to ask.

I can only answer you that the Chinese civilization of thousands of years is no accident. There are thousands of stories behind it. But I think Chinese medicine would be one of them. Maybe when Shen Nong tasted all kinds of herbs, he used double blindness.

Double-blind trials, the more you think about it, the more scientific it becomes.

The problem comes when it comes to clinical application:

1. A drug that passes a double-blind test, assuming 90% effectiveness, will not be the ineffective 10% when applied, a staggering number of people according to the Large Numbers Theorem.

2. Individual differences are labeled in kilograms of body weight, which is too simple; are individual differences just weight differences?

3. What if there is no trial basis for combining drugs for multiple diseases?

4. The elimination rate of 90% for marketed western drugs that have passed the double-blind is highly anomalous, and science must be rigorous.

Take the patient's life to test this only Western medicine can do it, Chinese medicine is the healer to test the medicine, Western doctors and nurses to test the toxic side effects of the medicine? Do not dare, do not mention, Chinese medicine of course can not be close to the low grade! After all, Chinese medicine has 5,000 civilizations. Western medicine has how many?

No matter what the medication is, whether it's herbal or western.

All must be proven to have real therapeutic effect and not have serious toxic side effects and safety before they can be given to patients.

To go on emphasizing all kinds of reasons without even testing the most basic validity and safety, this kind of medicine is extremely irresponsible medicine and medicine with no way out.

Strange, is the anti-Chinese medicine rhetoric in full swing again? I've seen quite a lot of similar stuff over the past few days. Who is the originator? Who is the mastermind behind it?

Now that statistical tests have been refuted and are afraid to speak out, they're bringing up double blindness?

Isn't double blinding based on statistical tests? Can it be separated from statistical testing?

Statistical tests can't solve the problem of clinical elimination rates of up to 90 percent for Western medicines, and double-blind doesn't rely on statistical tests to get out of the fate of clinical elimination rates of up to 90 percent? Lie to yourself!

Western medicines are highly purified artificial products, and such highly concentrated and highly purified items simply do not exist in nature, so they have a huge impact on people!

Statistical testing and double blinding, while not stopping the proliferation of ineffective Western drugs (to the point of a 90 percent clinical elimination rate), can to some extent serve as the first hurdle in the protection of the blessed.

The ultimate test of Western medicine is always the clinical front line, and practice is the ultimate test of the sharp weapon!

Chinese medicine has been practiced for thousands of years, all of it!

Chinese medicine black brain how much paste, only to think not understand the practice of Chinese medicine and Western medicine clinical, are the same practice, are testing process! Fools can understand things, Chinese medicine black always hold on to, is wrestling stupid? Or the double standard becomes natural!

Besides, double-blindness is based on "observing things"? Where's the data analysis, the statistics? Did you eat it? Come on, get your head out of your ass and ask questions! There is no double-blind testing without statistical testing! The same loopholes that statistical tests have for drugs exist double-blind!

Clinical practice is what it is, to put it bluntly, testing with actual patient use!

Chinese medicine has been used for a long time, far more than the phase IV clinical 2-3 years of testing of Western medicine, even if the entire history of Western medicine 200 years, but also can not withstand the years of use of Chinese medicine! Not to mention modern Western medicine, since antibiotics, less than a century! Compared to thousands of years of Chinese medicine practice, it's nothing! Aspirin, even if it is old and not obsolete in Western medicine, can be compared to the years of use of Chinese medicine!

Isn't Chinese medicine, which hasn't been eliminated by clinical practice for thousands of years, much more reliable than Western medicine, which has only been used for a few years and decades? Silly, Chinese medicine is black!

Chinese medicine is so in line with the "accurate observation" in your question, the contrast after taking the medicine is very obvious. The contrast between the moribund before taking the medicine and the vigorous afterward is so obvious that only a fool would fail to see it!

If you have the ability to Chinese medicine black don't take drugs, stay up! Experience for yourself what is called treatment. Whether Chinese or Western medicine, after eating their own do not feel? That is really stupid!

It's better to have fewer questions of this kind of posturing and provocation!

The vast majority of Western medicines have been tested in double-blind experiments, but none of them can stand the test of time. Not to mention thousands of years, not even a decade.

Either because of drug resistance or side effects out of history. Time is the best test!

Double-blind experiments can show up all the miracle drugs that don't work!

Use your brain, Chinese medicine has been around for thousands of years, never changed, experimented on real people, so why is it still so stupid to be double blind?

Chinese medicine is all about experiments with real people, and treatments are based on efficacy, because it's been long enough for countless generations to accumulate, so the efficacy of the treatments are very real deposits.

There are also traditional Chinese medicine practitioners who are compassionate, all of them taste the drugs themselves first, understand the medicinal properties, and find the efficacy of the treatment, such as the myth of Shennong tasting a hundred herbs before, and Li Shizhen writing the Compendium of Materia Medica with the self-experimentation of herbs afterward.

Chinese medicine is about dialectical treatment, different treatment for the same disease and the same treatment for different diseases. How can such a medical theory system be double-blind and grouped?

In the treatment of pneumonia caused by different pathogenic microorganisms, the metallurgical therapy adopted by Chinese medicine practitioners does not target specific pathogenic microorganisms and kill or inhibit them with medicines, but rather mobilizes the organism by supporting the right, consolidating the root cause and dispelling the evil, or helps the organism to fight against the evil, and ultimately to overcome the disease.

The theories of Chinese medicine are too profound to be simply one is one, two is two, or one plus one equals two. Existence is reason, thousands of years of history is enough to explain the charm of Chinese medicine, no one can use the so-called science to attack Chinese medicine. Chinese medicine is not a scientific methodology, and science is never the truth, but only constantly in the self-denial of progress, superstitious science is equally superstitious.