IMH and Acupuncture.

I read with dismay and shock that the Institute of Mental Health is now introducing acupuncture in its hospital. This is what asiaone.com reports:  "The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has become the first health-care provider here to start using acupuncture to help addicts break their drug, drink or gambling habits."  For more, please read this.

This is a first that no reputable hospital should be proud of.  Medical doctors, if they are to be true to their honourable calling, must always practise only evidence-based medicine.  Anything more than that would not be in line with the clear mandate doctors have to heal their patients.  When I see a doctor, I would be shortchanged if he performs faith-healing on me.  Even if he does not force it down my throat but politely offers faith healing as one of the "methods" of treatment to me when I go to his clinic or hospital, that would be, in my opinion, an outrageous abuse of his position as a legally recognised medical practitioner.

It is not too much for a patient to expect a registered medical practitioner to offer only evidence-based treatment recognised by his peers and validated in proper peer-reviewed journals.  Before IMH embarks on any treatment programme, it is duty bound to satisfy itself and the public that whatever programme it offers is backed by evidence and properly controlled studies and is duly referenced in peer-reviewed journals.

Let us see what evidence IMH has in starting this new acupuncture programme.  How effective is acupuncture?  I have personally gone through a huge amount of data on this question and from what I can gather, there has been not a single study that shows that acupuncture is efficacious.  No, not one.  Any study that seems to suggest even remotely that it has some efficacy is alway immediately shot down by experts in the area who point out that the study is flawed or there is no real control provided.  Almost all studies show there is absolutely zero effect in the use of acupuncture.  Of the rare studies that suggest its mild efficacy, reviews of these studies always indicate some severe flaws in the studies and any perceived efficacy is due wholly and indisputably to placebo effect. In many of the studies that proponents of acupuncture will draw your attention to excitedly, the sample size is too small for any significant conclusion in favour of acupuncture to be made.  It is also significant that the "success" of acupuncture is always in ailments that cannot be properly confirmed such as pain and the placebo effect is usually shown to be at play here.  That it is merely placebo effect is frequently confirmed when a control group is subjected to a needle prick too but they are pricked at the "wrong" point of the body and yet this control group claims to have benefitted from the procedure.

As far as science goes, it is correct to say that acupuncture has no advantage whatsoever apart from being a placebo.  That is a scientific statement of fact and I defy IMH to dispute it with evidence.

Given that acupuncture has zero advantage to the patient, can IMH argue that as long as there is no harm, it's all right to administer the procedure?  Of course not.  A hospital is not a church.  You can show statistics as I have shown in the past (click here) that prayers don't work but churches will continue to pray.  But a hospital is different.  It's obliged to do only that which can be of medical benefit to the patients.  But it's not only that.  Prayers are harmless even if they don't work but the same can't be said of acupuncture.  There are serious risk factors.

The latest study of adverse events related to acupuncture concludes that "although serious AEs associated with acupuncture are rare, acupuncture practice is not risk-free." (See Xu, Shifen, et al. (2013). "Adverse Events of Acupuncture: A Systematic Review of Case Reports"Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2013 Infection was the most common adverse event.  You may click here to read the entire paper.  Bear in mind that the paper is not addressing the question of whether acupuncture works.  The fact that acupuncture does not work is well documented in countless other papers and studies.  This paper only deals with the adverse effect of acupuncture, not its non-existent benefits.

There are many articles that you can find from respectable journals that attest to the fact that acupuncture does not work.  In fact there are at least a few hundred times more articles about the inefficacy of acupuncture than there are of the inefficacy of prayer and so technically, if IMH were to introduce prayer into its list of treatments, it would not be so outrageously wrong as if it were to introduce acupuncture.  If you are interested in reading a sample of the many articles against acupuncture as a treatment for anything at all, please click on this link.  I think I have made my point clear. Acupuncture is inefficacious and not beneficial to the patient except as a placebo. But that's not all. It also exposes the patient to unnecessary risks of adverse effects.

This is what the news report says:  "The Straits Times understands that no major scientific studies have been published on using acupuncture for behavioural addictions but the ancient method has developed in recent years outside of China as part of a combined approach to curb such disorders."  The reader is left wondering why then does IMH introduce acupuncture when no study has been done to show its efficacy on behavioural addictions and there are known adverse events?

If you read on further in the newspaper, we are told this which I quote from asiaone.com:

Acupuncture can enhance the standard mode of treatment, said Associate Professor Wong Kim Eng, clinical director of IMH's National Addictions Management Service, which runs the new acupuncture clinic.
It can help to relieve withdrawal symptoms, pain and cravings, as well as anxiety, he added, noting: "So far, there is no single medication that can cure addiction, or a perfect treatment programme. As an Asian society, we sought to borrow some age-old wisdom to improve treatment for our patients."

Is it right for the clinical director of IMH's National Addictions Management Service to say that acupuncture "can help to relieve withdrawal symptoms, pain and cravings, as well as anxiety"?  What I would like to know is on what basis is he making such a claim?  If a patient were to undergo such a treatment and subsequently takes legal action against IMH for subjecting him to a treatment that is not backed by evidence and proper medical opinion, what defence can IMH rely upon to show that it has acted in the best possible manner as a registered medical hospital that delivers health care services using evidence-based treatments?

The clinical director of IMH's National Addictions Management Service continues to say in that newspaper article that we are an Asian society and so they "sought to borrow some age-old wisdom".  Should we engage tangkees to perform religious rites on the patients? After all, we are an Asian society and if we are at liberty to dish out treatment even when there is no study or evidence for it, what is so wrong with having something that is perfectly consistent with our culture as an Asian society?

What I'm concerned about is the newspaper further reports that this initiative "is backed by the Ministry of Health".  Is it right for the Ministry of Health to back a treatment that is totally unsupported by evidence or any form of study?  Let's not forget that acupuncture has been shown not to have any desirable effect (except as a placebo) on a whole host of ailments that it is traditionally reputed to treat. If acupuncture has been shown not to work in ailments that it is traditionally supposed to treat, what makes IMH think that it will work in something totally new and untested, such as behavioural addiction?

Singapore is a well-known medical hub for responsible and efficient health care services. People in the surrounding countries would fly to Singapore to seek treatment and they do that because they know they can trust the doctors in Singapore to practise responsible evidence-based medicine and they know we have great expertise in the various fields of medicine.  But reputation can be lost very easily and going into treatments that are not backed by evidence is the surest way to ruin our good name.  Acupuncture may be a part of our culture but so are the offering of prayers to the Goddess of Mercy and the rituals of tangkees or temple mediums.  They may be a part of our rich cultural heritage but I sure would not want to see them practised in our hospitals.

The China workers are rightly punished

For some reason that I cannot understand, most netizens seem to oppose the government in everything it does.  A psychologist looking at this behaviour will probably understand it better but I'm not a psychologist.  It may very well be that we humans naturally take the side of the underdog and the government of any country is never seen as the underdog.

Take the example of the SMRT bus drivers from China who participated in a strike recently.  A few of them were prosecuted and some of them were repatriated.  Going on a strike is illegal in Singapore.  One may or may not agree with such a law.  The same applies to all laws.  Not everyone will agree with them.  But laws are not laws only because there is a universal consensus among all citizens.  And besides, these bus drivers are all foreigners from China.   Personally, I like many of the laws in Singapore but I don't like some.  It's the same with everyone and in every country.  But my duty to obey the law is not restricted to only laws that I personally agree with.

These China workers came to Singapore for an obvious economic reason.  They love it here.  They are paid considerably more here.  When their Malaysian counterparts are paid slightly more, they hit the roof.  They forget they are given accommodation while Malaysian bus drivers are not.  In their utter selfishness and egocentricity, they didn't factor in this additional cost.   They take it upon themselves to break Singaporean law.

I laud the government for taking a firm stand against these miscreants.  If the government hadn't done anything, it would mean that the laws in Singapore can only be broken by foreigners with impunity.  That would be totally unacceptable.  I have read what some Opposition parties have said regarding this matter and I think they should be ignored.  They will take a stand against the government anyway.  I don't care two straws about Hong Kong workers demonstrating in front of the Singaporean embassy.  They can stop work in Hong Kong for a year and demonstrate day and night for all I care.  Going on a strike and demonstrating are things up their street anywhere so they should go ahead and do what they are good at.  This is a free world.  Nobody forced these China workers to come to Singapore.  If they don't like it here, they can get the hell out and a repatriation order does precisely that - it tells them how to get the hell out in the speediest possible way.  They can't come here to work, enjoy the much higher remuneration, break the law here and hope to be let off because they are foreigners.

Singaporeans who take the side of these migrant workers should ask themselves what it is they really want.  Are we cutting our nose to spite our face?  I know there is a rabid, anti-government and anti-establishment culture among netizens everywhere in the world.  Let's be rational.  If we oppose a particular law, it's Parliament that should change it.  To allow foreign workers who come here for monetary reasons to break the law with impunity is to show scant respect for the process of law in Singapore.  The voice that decries our easy immigration policy and denounces foreign talent is the same voice that now says it's all right for foreigners to break our law.  Even if we must be insanely anti-establishment and contrary, we should at least, be consistent.

Shakespeare and the Bible

Anthony Burgess and W. Somerset Maugham, the two novelists who meant a lot to me as a boy, lived for a time in Malaya and they wrote extensively about life in Malaya then.  Their novels evoke all the romanticism of the Far East so that as you read them, you can almost hear the crickets after a torrential thunderstorm and smell the fresh wild frangipani, the aroma of which the tropical breeze wafts pleasantly into your bedroom through the verandah of your attap-roofed house on stilts.  On my 16th birthday, my Mum got me his latest book which I devoured like I did all his other novels.  I won't reveal the title of the book because that would give away my age and I want this blog to remain totally anonymous so that even my age and gender remain a mystery but I will say this of the book my Mum bought for me - if she had known that the novel contained a re-writing of the creation story in Genesis so that the Adam and Eve union became a gay union, she would never have bought it.  The book also led a lot of people to assume that Burgess was gay but he denied that in his 2-volume autobiography.  But W. Somerset Maugham was subsequently found to be gay and I remember being rather disappointed when I read that he was a closet homosexual and when I read in one of his novels a long description of a naked young man on an Indonesian island, I could not help wondering if he might not have been motivated in his vivid description by homosexual lasciviousness which was of course unjust of me since it bothered me not one bit if descriptions of naked females by heterosexual male writers were motivated by heterosexual lasciviousness.  Those were the days when I, together with most of the world, was ignorant of what sexuality really meant and I mistook a different sexual orientation for immorality, a judgment that I am today ashamed of and I would only go so far as to raise for myself the defence of youth and ignorance if anyone should lay at my door the charge of homophobia.

But let's get back to Anthony Burgess who died in the early 1990s and whom I caught a glimpse of just before his death, signing books for fans at Waterstones.  He was dying of lung cancer and would cough ever so often but still he soldiered on stoically, signing books.

In one of his studies on Shakespeare, Burgess gives his opinion that Shakespeare was in all probability one of those in the august panel of translators of the greatest version of the Bible that the world has ever known, the King James Version, also called the AV or Authorised Version.  This version of the BIble soon became the definitive Bible in the English-speaking world as it pushed Roman Catholic versions into obscurity and ensured the supremacy of Protestantism as the dominant religion of English-speaking countries and it relegated Roman Catholicism to being at best a "foreign" (ie. Italian or French speaking) religion or at least it seemed to most of us in the former colonies.  Quotations from any other versions of the Bible would raise eyebrows in literary circles and were generally regarded with suspicion because of their inelegance when compared with the King James Version which became the indisputable authority on the English language, alongside Shakespeare and Milton.  The Roman Catholics started a poor imitation of this Bible which they called the Douay-Rheims Bible but it is nothing more than a poor imitation which nobody has really heard of.  The King James Version is so elegant in its simplicity and vivid in its imagery that when it's read in a cavernous cathedral, the echo of its beautiful lines resonates as if God himself is giving utterance.  It defies belief that a work of such immense beauty could have been composed without the aid of the Bard himself.  Burgess gives some rather fanciful evidence for Shakespeare's authorship of the King James Version but I won't repeat it here.

What motivated me to write this post is a book I recently started to read again after having chanced upon it on one of my shelves.  I had been looking for this book for a while but because my books have outgrown my house and they lie strewn all over my bedroom and the sitting room, looking for a book can be quite a daunting task.  Here's the book:

 

The extensive pencil markings on almost every page of the book bear testimony to the fact that I used to read it in my student days.  But for all the time spent poring over this book something in it completely escaped my attention then.  What totally missed my attention but which I've only discovered recently is that in one of Shakespeare's plays, a reference is made to something quite profound about the Bible.

Before you get the wrong impression, let me explain a little more about the book.  Frank Kermode was a renowned Shakespearean scholar.  He was born around this time about 9 decades ago and he died two years ago.  His book, as the title states clearly, is about Shakespeare's language.  It takes no interest in biblical contradictions.  That is the reason why the small little point about biblical contradictions escaped my attention when I first read it as a part of my undergraduate course on Shakespeare.  Today, with no more examinations to sit, I couldn't care less what a stichomythia and all its variants are.  Tracing Shakespeare's increasing sophistication in his use of imagery from his early plays to his more mature later plays is something that I can read today and forget tomorrow without any serious consequences.  So I have more time to look out for things that don't interest the Shakespearean scholar but are fascinating to me and if you have read my blog, matters concerning my religion have a way of gripping my interest that no other subject can.

First a little book review.  Frank Kermode's book is excellent in its comprehensive coverage of not just all of Shakespeare's plays but his poems too.  I highly recommend it to anyone who truly loves Shakespeare and who has read most of his plays and poems.  I think it would be awfully boring if all the Shakespeare you have read are the texts you did at O levels and A levels.  The book is easy reading for the general reader but the writer does not waste his time explaining the background to the plays and poems he writes about.  He quite rightly expects the reader of such a book to be at least familiar with most of Shakespeare's works.

We must remember that there was heavy censorship in the days of Shakespeare and any open statement about contradictions in the Holy Bible would mean immediate arrest and imprisonment.  All stage plays had to go through the scrutiny of the Master of the Revels whose job it was to look out for unholy profanities and ungodly lines.  Shakespeare could not do a Richard Dawkins in his plays but then again, he did not show much interest or knowledge in religion in the first place and there were no atheists in those days.  But that one remark is enough to suggest to me that perhaps Shakespeare wasn't that ignorant about the Bible which he might very well have helped in the translation process.  He was not unaware of the many problems in the Bible and the numerous contradictions.

The remark I'm talking about appears in one of the soliloquies where a direct reference is made to contradictions in the Holy Gospels or, as Shakespeare puts it, "the word is set against the word" and for an example, he gives the free and welcoming invitation Jesus gives to all children to go to him on the one hand and his harsh insistence that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  This isn't the sort of contradiction that any atheist would pick on today.  This isn't even a real contradiction and if an atheist wants to attack the Holy Bible, there are far more damning contradictions to pick.

But let's look at these two examples that the Bard cites.  Christ's welcome to children to go to him does in some way contradict his blanket rejection of rich people from the kingdom of heaven.  Presumably, some of these children may very well grow to be wealthy men and women and it does appear petty to be so effusive in welcoming them as kids but to reject them when they become adults.  But in the time of Christ, the children were probably poor and would grow up to be poor men and women.  Society was very much stratified and historians tell us that one of the criticisms of Christianity in the first century was it was the religion of the poor and uneducated.  Given that setting, the children Christ welcomed must have been children from poor families and they would most certainly grow up to be as poor as their parents.  When Christ gave his condemning remarks about the rich, he was addressing the rich young ruler, one of the few occasions he actually addressed anyone who wasn't poor.

But of course the church had to quickly reinterpret Christ's aversion to the wealthy.  Christianity soon grew from its humble roots and became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, particularly when the Emperor himself espoused the religion.  Negative remarks against wealth had to be given a fresh interpretation so that Christ's sharp and unequivocal condemnation of the rich is somewhat blunted.  The usual "although Christ said this, he didn't mean it this way" is how the church today interprets any verse that does not seem to square with our understanding of what is right and wrong.  That is how we ignore biblical support for slavery and reinterpret verses which clearly show slavery to be a holy institution of God which received the full support and active encouragement of St Paul.  Morality is fluid and it changes with time, place and culture and every religion needs to be able to reinterpret its holy books.  Failure to give a fresh interpretation to verses in a holy book can lead to very serious trouble especially when fanatics insist on their literal meaning.  In some instances and for some verses, this can mean discrimination and even cruelty to women, violence against non-believers and even the terrorism we see in recent years.  It's the duty of the church and every religious organisation to review its holy book regularly and to prune the parts that need pruning and to give a whole new meaning to verses which may be outdated or just downright evil.

Today is World Philosophy Day

Photo: by UNESCO

Happy World Philosophy Day!  Today is designated World Philosophy Day for 2012 by UNESCO's General Conference.

This is what UNESCO says:

In establishing World Philosophy Day in 2005, the General Conference highlighted the importance of this discipline, especially for young people, underlining that “philosophy is a discipline that encourages critical and independent thought and is capable of working towards a better understanding of the world and promoting tolerance and peace”.

Can anyone dispute that?

Why I love this island so!

Religious violence is something you see every day on the news.  If it's not Nigerian churches being torched by the Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram, it's probably the tension between Hindu militants and Muslim extremists in India.

All the violence we read about is absolutely foreign to us who live in Singapore.  Whatever Western critics may say about a "totalitarian" government (which isn't true at all) or the lack of freedom (I don't know about you but I can do without the freedom to get killed or maimed), my advice to the critics is this - you remain in YOUR country and I'll live here.  On the other hand, if you happen to live here and you really don't like it at all, it's a free world and you can always go where you think the grass is greener.  Lately, there have been a lot of foreigners who come to Singapore and avail themselves of the goodness of the land but post offensive and abusive remarks against the country they're milking from.  Here is where Singapore should show its "totalitarian" strength and send these ungrateful chaps packing.

Anyway, this morning, after a very early breakfast in Little India, I cycled round this lovely part of Singapore and took pics of the various places of worship.  I had intended for this post to be a wordless post with pics alone to tell the tale but alas, it's hard to remain silent when what I see through my camera lens is nothing but perfect peace and beauty.  Mind you, these places of worship are of the four major different world faiths and here they stand, no more than 100 metres from one another in perfect harmony, wonderfully tolerant and a great picture of what faith truly means as they each proclaim its gospel of peace and goodwill to all men.

It's when I see such peace and harmony of these four great faiths in close proximity to one another that I know in my heart of hearts that God is in his heaven and all's right with the world.  May God bless Singapore and its far-sighted leaders!  OK, I'll be silent from here on.  Enjoy the pics!

As I was busy snapping a pic of the Hindu temple, a bell suddenly broke the silence of the morning and religious music could be heard within the temple.  I took a quick video of the worship session from the road.  The video is a little shaky; I had to balance my bicycle against my body, remove my gloves and hold them with my teeth and use both hands to take the video.  If you watch the video carefully, you will see a guy in a pink shirt, slightly to the right playing a wind instrument but he stands in the shade so it's very hard to make out the instrument he's playing.  It closely resembles the clarinet but it's much larger and the bell is way too large for a clarinet.  But it's definitely a reed instrument because I saw the reed - placed on the mouthpiece just as in a clarinet.  It's the only wind instrument that you can hear in the video.  I really wonder what instrument it is.

Will Europeans stop eating dog meat?

When my daughter attended classes in Germany some years ago, a German girl asked her if she ate dog meat.  My daughter was of course horrified and said she had never heard of anything so disgusting.  The girl insisted that she had read on the internet that people in China ate dog meat.  Of course my daughter found it hard to believe since most of her friends were of Chinese descent and the thought of eating dog meat was so repulsive to the collective conscience of the people of our country that she was certain the girl must have read about some isolated minority tribe in China.  But the girl insisted that all Chinese people ate dogs.  My daughter was annoyed and responded by asking the German girl if she used soap made from Jewish fat.  She said she read accounts of Nazis in Germany gassing large groups of Jews and using their fat to make soap.  That shut the girl up.

My daughter then asked me if it was true that there were Chinese people who ate dog meat.  I do not know a single person who eats dog meat.  Honestly, I would find it very hard to be friends with anyone who eats it.  Call me prejudiced or bigoted if you must but I really would find it very hard to have a chat over a cup of coffee with a dog eater.  Every Chinese person I know has never eaten dog meat.  No relation of mine has eaten this forbidden meat.  I know someone who is very adventurous and has eaten exotic food including crocodile meat, snake meat and wild game.  But he would never dream of eating a dog because as he rightly points out, dogs are pets and friends.  Eating a dog is like eating a human child.  It's repulsive and an absolute taboo.  And he is of Chinese descent.

Why then do some Westerners insist that Chinese people eat dog meat?  A simple search on the internet reveals posts of Chinese, Koreans and Japanese eating dog meat.  How reliable are these posts?  I have also seen a photograph of a Chinese-looking man eating a well-formed human foetus.  Of course there are all kinds of strange people eating strange meat but they are not limited to Chinese people only.  Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal wasn't he?

I did a search on the internet and guess what?  Many Europeans have a tradition of eating dog meat too!  Let's look at what different Europeans do with man's best friend.

 1910 photo taken in Paris.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grande_Boucherie_Canine_a_Paris.jpg

Let us explore this dog-eating habit country by country.  Let's begin with.....

USA

The terms "sausage" and "dog" have been used as synonyms since 1884 and accusations that dog meat was used in the making of sausages dated to at least 1845.  These accusations were sometimes justified.


France

Dog meat has only become taboo in France today.  In the past, it was not so.  See the photo above of a dog butcher in Paris taken in 1910.  French Press described dog meat in the late 19th century as "beautiful and light" and ran stories of people buying dog meat in France.


Germany

Germans have eaten dog meat since the time of Frederick the Great and it's commonly called "blockade mutton".  Dog meat continued to be eaten in the 1920s.  Even a meat inspection law in 1937 mentioned the following animals as commonly used for meat: "pigs, dogs, boars, foxes, badgers..."   It was only in 1986 that Germany prohibited the consumption of dog meat.


Belgium

In the early 20th century, dog meat was widely sold in Belgium.  The average price was 12 francs a kilo ($1.30 per pound) in 1916.  Even the Council of the Veterinary School of Belgium recommended dog meat for human food.


Poland

In Poland, the meat of dogs is culturally not eaten; it's considered taboo.  However, in some rural areas in Poland, there is a tradition of eating dog fat in place of lard.  Dog fat is considered beneficial to one's health, particularly the lungs.  As recently as 2009, a farm near Częstochowa was discovered to keep dogs which were subsequently killed and turned into lard.

Switzerland

Switzerland has a long tradition of eating dog meat.  Eating dog meat is not illegal in Switzerland.  Less than 7 years ago, Switzerland enacted a law merely to prohibit the production of food from dog meat for commercial purposes.  This is provided for in Ordinance of 23 November 2005 on food of animal origin. 

Wikipedia puts it most succinctly and I attach a screen shot from wikipedia:

Source:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

So, the next time you are asked by a European if you eat dogs, you should feel perfectly justified in turning the tables on him.  After all, he has a rich tradition of eating dog meat whereas for the Chinese, it's a recent madness that has affected only a few people.


EDITOR (added on 29 November 2014):

See this news article on the BBC about the tradition of eating dogs and cats in Switzerland:

Stop eating cats and dogs say animal rights campaigners in Switzerland

Hungry Ghosts Festival

Is this the preparation to the Festival of the Hungry Ghosts?

 But isn't the Hungry Ghosts' Month in August?

We and the North Koreans

See this and ask yourselves honestly if this is not pathetic.  We should then reflect on our own religious beliefs and ask ourselves if we are not similar to a large extent to the North Koreans.

Click here to view the video 


EDIT [21 June 2012]:
The video has been removed from youtube.  I wish I had saved it and posted it here separately.  It's about a US eye surgeon who went to North Korea to treat 100 people with blindness that is treatable by simple surgery.  The bandages over their eyes were removed in a large hall, one by one, and most of them reacted with tears of gratitude but not for the surgeon. They were only grateful to their "dear leader".  One by one of them would go to a portrait of their leader and make obeisance before the portrait and they would vow loyalty and devotion.  It was too frighteningly familiar to me.

Mannequins in Iran have to undergo mastectomy

How true is this?  Here's a pic. The poor mannequins look pretty despondent.

My sources:

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/pic-breasts-removed-from-mannequins-in-islamic-iran/

The original photograph is from an Arabic website. Sorry, there are no English translations:
http://pic.0111tm.com/ftopicp-22835.html