2. 關於非典

　　中醫治乙腦，我沒有讀到過相關的文章，沒法評論。而且是解放初期的事情，
什麼神話都有。比如北京好多中醫都吹自己的祖上曾經給毛澤東看過病，但是具
有諷刺意味的是，毛澤東警衛員回憶錄中說，毛自己清楚說過，自己不信中醫，
雖然是他把中醫神化的。這種東西都是無法查證的了，中醫你就他媽的瞎吹吧。

　　但是對於非典，情況就不同了。我在新語絲上看過大量文章。大致說是在早
期全部是西醫治的，中醫根本不敢碰。後來等到疫情穩定，激素療法被驗證之後，
中醫立馬就上了，立馬就功效無比，又開始包治百病了。

　　我們還是回到這個帖子裡面說的內容：“2003年10月8日，由世界衛生組織
（WHO）和國家中醫藥管理局聯合主辦的“中醫、中西醫結合治療SARS國際研討會
“。“然後是中醫抗非典的一大堆好話。。。。。。。

　　用google一搜，確實有這麼一個會議，還有一個報告：
　　
http://www.who.int/medicinedocs/index.fcgi?sid=zNnGhaRZ9ee80ca60000000
0476162bf&a=d&d=Js6170e

　　我down下來看了一下。

　　首先介紹一下背景：
　　In order to better understand the potential of complementary
treatment for patients with SARS and to encourage robust clinical
research on SARS and its treatment with traditional medicine, the
Chinese Government requested the guidance of WHO and support for 13
clinical trials of integrated treatment with TCM and Western medicine
for SARS patients. The Nippon Foundation provided the financial
support for WHO to organize an International Expert Meeting on Review
of Treatment of SARS by Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the
Integration of Traditional Chinese Medicine with Western Medicine, in
Beijing, China from 8 to 10 October 2003. Sixty-eight experts from
seven countriesincluding Hong Kong SAR, Japan, the Netherlands, the
People‘s Republic of China, Thailand, Viet Nam and the United States
of America, attended the meeting (Annex 1: list of participants).

　　原來是應中國政府的請求，為了potential of complementary treatment而
開的一個會議，討論的也是integrate d treatment with TCM and Western
medicine for SARS patients（中西醫結合），報告都是有中國政府提供的（大
陸10個，香港3個，在報告後面提到的。）

　　我們再來看看人家的的review意見和結論：

　　Results of research based on the level of evidence
　　First level
　　There were sufficient data in the clinical reports to show that
integrated treatment with TCM and Western medicine for patients with
SARS is safe.
　　（第一個層次上來說是安全的）

　　Second level
　　Of the reported trials, only two clinical trials included patients
who were randomly selected for the studies, the others were
prospective cohort studies or retrospective studies. The experts
considered that the data were insufficient although it was concluded
that there could be potential clinical benefits from integrated
treatment with TCM and Western medicine for patients with SARS.
　　（第二個層次上說，這些實驗中只有兩個是包含了隨機選取的病例，其他的
都是不嚴格的科學實驗；專家們認為，數據是不夠充分的，雖然可以認為採用中
西醫結合會有一些潛在的好處）

　　Third level
　　The experts noted that the data in the reports were inconclusive.
An example of this is the clinical observation that the mortality rate
is lower for the patients treated with integrated TCM and Western
medicine than for those treated with Western medicine alone. As the
diagnosis of SARS is very difficult to confirm, and some cases may be
misdiagnosed, this could lead to a lower recorded mortality rate. In
the prevention studies, the response rate to the questionnaires was
only 40% among those subjects who had taken the prevention formula;
this was too low to enable an accurate assessment of its effects. In
the study on convalescence, the comparison was made between only two
groups, one treated with TCM and one with exercise. There was no
comparison group that received neither treatment nor exercise
programmes.

　　（專家認為報告中的數據是inconclusive的，也就是無法用來做定論用的。
而且他們特別批判了中醫吹的最大的一個牛皮：中西醫結合的死亡率低於僅用西
醫治療的。）

　　總而言之，WHO專家的結論是：中西醫結合治非典是安全的，可能有潛在的
好處。其他的就沒有了。我就根本看不出來毛嘉陵文章中鼓吹的那麼牛B的中醫
能夠治非典的描述。

　　而且除了結論之外，人家還說的很清楚：
　　Currently, the major challenges for the treatment of SARS are:
　　the source of the SARS virus and mode of transmission are still
not well understood;
　　there are problems with diagnostic tools;
　　there is no effective treatment; and
　　there is no vaccine for SARS.
　　The above-mentioned difficulties and challenges have motivated
national authorities, health workers and scientists to explore the
potential of complementary treatment.
　　最後一句話there is no vaccine for SARS 就是狠狠的抽了毛嘉陵一個嘴
巴。（毛嘉陵在文章中居然敢批判現代醫學針對病毒研發疫苗的策略。他根本就
不知道對付這些流行性的病毒感染最有效的方法就是疫苗。）

　　統觀全文，人家的報告對於中醫的作用的評價說的再清楚不過了，就是個
potential clinical benefits （而且是在中西醫結合治療的基礎上），對於中
國政府提供的10份報告的評價其實再負面不過了。如果一般的博士論文要是攤上
insufficient， inconclusive的字眼，應該都是畢不了業的(我自己的理解，未
必正確。)但是中醫的信徒們，從報告中摘出隻言片語來吹牛，更是暴露了中醫
信徒的無恥！！

　　Ps: 我還順便看了一下香港的第3份報告的abstract，第一份說的是藥方，
看不懂。第二個和第三個報告都說得是在SARS病人康復階段用中醫藥可能會有一
些效果。

　　其中第二份報告開篇第一句：
　　It is unknown whether Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) can
affect the course of recovery of patients with severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS).
　　（不知道中醫對於SARS病人康復是否有作用）

　　其中第三份報告開篇第一句：
　　Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is not the first-line treatment
for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (SAR).
　　（中醫從來不是SARS治療的首要手段）

　　從這個角度看，香港人說的還是相對客觀些。

　　大陸提供的一份都沒有看，但是想必WHO專家專門批判的中醫治療SARS死亡
率低於西醫的觀點應該出自這10份報告中。所以根本不值得細看。

　　我還有一個感覺：中國政府提供這些素材，請WHO開了這個一個會，是不是
有點自取其辱的味道？