Digest Number 910

[Guest guest]

>

 

I'll just make the observation that as a posting on this list gets more specific

(a true herb/case question) the more likely it is to turn into a big

" meta-discussion " about the issues. No matter how much time a person may put

into a presentation, respondees usually whip out a

top of the head reponse before moving to the next e-mail. May just be the nature

of the beast.

 

> Bob wrote:

> I

> would hate for such a list as I originally proposed to become a

> rigid,

> doctrinaire cudgel for beating people down. I'd be the first to say

> that there are times when you must go beyond your initial training.

> Otherwise you don't grow. However, there has to be some perspicacity

> involved to temper unalloyed enthusiasm. Without such perspicacity,

> there is foolhardiness.

[Guest guest]

CM can neither diagnosis nor treat a problem that occurs at the

molecular level; it's below the threshold of what we can know and what

we can directly affect.

 

 

Perhaps CM cannot diagnose at a molecular level, but it certainly treats

at a molecular level. There is no other way for it to treat. Even if CM

is used to treat on an energetic level, this will affect the molecules.

We are made up atoms that combine to make molecules which in turn

combine to make organelles, which come together to make cells, cells

make organs and many organs make an organism. Any protocol that will,

for example, regulate a woman's hormones acts on a molecular level. CM

certainly does not say that the treatment is altering the hormone

balance or changing molecules but rather that free flow of qi is being

restored or blood is being nourished or whatever the particular

treatment is doing.

 

Can TCM correct an error in the genetic code that appeared at birth -

you are correct I doubt that we can do this. I even have doubts that it

can be corrected biomedically, but that is another issue. I think this

is what you were trying to say but I just wanted to make a

clarification.

 

Colleen

[Guest guest]

Colleen:

 

If you put together an herbal formula based on the chemical

constituents of the herbs in order to " directly affect " a patient's

hormones, then it's not really CM medicine so much as it is a way of

using herbs to deliver a drug or a chemical. Strictly speaking, this

is usually outside the scope of legal practice---and CM theory. This

complication arises due to 20th century information, and it is one

of the arguments that WM uses to regulate and restrict herbs. There

are no atoms or cells in pre-20th century CM. Hormones were unknown

and unthinkable when the herbal formula designed to " regulate " them

was developed. What we know and what we do may require different

ways of speaking.

 

But like you, I think that many aspects of CM and WM can be

integrated---it is an inevitable consequence of our time and culture

in general (and certainly a motivation of 'medical acupuncturists'

in particular). For example, in our pulse system, we often talk in

Western physiological terms about observations found in the pulse.

But then it is no longer strictly CM; and it is an example of the

way Western culture is integrating and changing the character of CM.

While I welcome Ken and others' efforts to establish an orthodoxy

based only on classical teachings, it is not the only avenue of

study.

 

I think the cautions about saying what we can treat and cure are

understandable given the political situation. It is a red flag to

those who would want to restrict or stop our profession.

 

The question is " How freely can we talk on this forum and in the

profession altogether before the political and legal restrictions

limit us? "

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " Colleen Morris " <colleen@d...>

wrote:

> CM can neither diagnosis nor treat a problem that occurs at the

> molecular level; it's below the threshold of what we can know and

what we can directly affect.

>

>

> Perhaps CM cannot diagnose at a molecular level, but it certainly

treats

> at a molecular level. There is no other way for it to treat. Even

if CM

> is used to treat on an energetic level, this will affect the

molecules.

> We are made up atoms that combine to make molecules which in turn

> combine to make organelles, which come together to make cells,

cells

> make organs and many organs make an organism. Any protocol that

will,

> for example, regulate a woman's hormones acts on a molecular

level. CM

> certainly does not say that the treatment is altering the hormone

> balance or changing molecules but rather that free flow of qi is

being

> restored or blood is being nourished or whatever the particular

> treatment is doing.

>

> Can TCM correct an error in the genetic code that appeared at

birth -

> you are correct I doubt that we can do this. I even have doubts

that it

> can be corrected biomedically, but that is another issue. I think

this

> is what you were trying to say but I just wanted to make a

> clarification.

>

> Colleen

[Guest guest]

, " Colleen Morris " <colleen@d...> wrote:

 

>

>

> Perhaps CM cannot diagnose at a molecular level, but it certainly treats

> at a molecular level. There is no other way for it to treat.

 

I completely agree.

 

[Guest guest]

, " jramholz " <jramholz> wrote:

> Colleen:

>

> If you put together an herbal formula based on the chemical

> constituents of the herbs in order to " directly affect " a patient's

> hormones, then it's not really CM medicine so much as it is a way of

> using herbs to deliver a drug or a chemical.

 

I am not sure that is what Colleen is saying. From my perspective, the

chinese description of drug and herb action does not demonstrate an

alternate mode of action distinct from modern physiology and

pharamcology. I thinkit is merely the difference between looking at

the action from either an organiusmic (TCM) or molecular (WM) level.

But both modes of action are involved in any use of herbs regardless of

which description one relies upon. So while CM does not make dx on a

molecular level, there is no doubt that whatever else herbs may be

doing from the perspective of complexity theory or systems biology,

they are also always affecting molecular changes. In fact, the

molecular changes have been amply demonstrated in volumes of research,

while the organismic actions are barely yet understood. In addition,

if one removes the pharmacological constituents from an herb, the herb

will have no action of any kind. I know some people will say, " what

about homeopathy? " I direct people again to ITM where subhuti did a

meta analysis of studies that purportedly demonstrate some measurable

action from homeopathics. You may find the results surprising.

 

[Guest guest]

I know some people will say,"what about homeopathy?" I direct people again to ITM where subhuti did a meta analysis of studies that purportedly demonstrate some measurable action from homeopathics. You may find the results surprising

>>>>In life if something is too good to be true it usually is not

Alon

[Guest guest]

Todd:

 

That is a correct answer [and one I personally to]

philosophically, but not politically---especially in the context

that some diseases in this culture are only defined biomedically at

the molecular level.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

, " 1 " <@i...> wrote:

From my perspective, the chinese description of drug and herb action

does not demonstrate an alternate mode of action distinct from

modern physiology and pharamcology. I think it is merely the

difference between looking at the action from either an organiusmic

(TCM) or molecular (WM) level. But both modes of action are involved

in any use of herbs regardless of which description one relies

upon. So while CM does not make dx on a molecular level, there is

no doubt that whatever else herbs may be doing from the perspective

of complexity theory or systems biology, they are also always

affecting molecular changes.

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> If you put together an herbal formula based on the chemical

> constituents of the herbs in order to " directly affect " a patient's

> hormones, then it's not really CM medicine so much as it is a way

of

> using herbs to deliver a drug or a chemical. Strictly speaking,

this

> is usually outside the scope of legal practice---and CM theory.

This

> complication arises due to 20th century information, and it is one

> of the arguments that WM uses to regulate and restrict herbs. There

> are no atoms or cells in pre-20th century CM. Hormones were unknown

> and unthinkable when the herbal formula designed to " regulate " them

> was developed. What we know and what we do may require different

> ways of speaking.

 

I think that the reasons why this kind

of disconnect or complication arises are

more precisely identifiable. I think one

of the main factors involved in the failure

of Chinese medical theory to have become

more well integrated into conventional

medical models and systems lies in the

positioning of the whole subject and the

field that has grown up around it as " alternative "

and more lately " complementary " . This

is yet another instance of the imprecise

adoption of terms because of their convenience

or mere familiarity without adequate consideration

paid to the consequences. The designation of

Chinese medicine as " alternative " is more or

less arbitrary and forwards a supposed dichotomy

that I find far more vivid in people's imaginations

than in the experiences I have with medical

professionals of all description in all

parts of the world.

 

I think another factor that gives rise to

the kind of complications you're describing

is the fact of the slipshod treatment that

the nomenclature of the subject received in

the English literature for nearly two decades

during which the field was estabilshing itself.

 

How can you hope to have effective communication

between professional disciplines, when the

members of one cannot begin to agree with

one another concerning the meanings of

their most fundamental terms. And while

folks flail their arms about the discomfort

of saying the word " vacuity " they utterly

miss the fact that Wiseman's body of work

is a key that has been missing until its

appearance. The communication between

Chinese medical personnel and researchers

from other fields can proceed in a

much more well organized and effective

way when all involved share a well defined

set of terms.

>

> But like you, I think that many aspects of CM and WM can be

> integrated---it is an inevitable consequence of our time and

culture

> in general (and certainly a motivation of 'medical acupuncturists'

> in particular). For example, in our pulse system, we often talk in

> Western physiological terms about observations found in the pulse.

> But then it is no longer strictly CM; and it is an example of the

> way Western culture is integrating and changing the character of

CM.

> While I welcome Ken and others' efforts to establish an orthodoxy

> based only on classical teachings, it is not the only avenue of

> study.

 

As I said on the other list, the only

orthodoxy that I would either work to

establish or to is one that

holds that people should know what the

words mean that they read, write, and

say to each other as well as to patients.

 

>

> I think the cautions about saying what we can treat and cure are

> understandable given the political situation. It is a red flag to

> those who would want to restrict or stop our profession.

>

> The question is " How freely can we talk on this forum and in the

> profession altogether before the political and legal restrictions

> limit us? "

>

One of the key factors regulating the freedom

of communication is the capacity of all involved

to understand what is being said.

 

And I believe that solutions to the challenges

and complications that you have described can

be developed by bringing into existence a

cohort of individuals who do understand the

subject in a profound way based upon a comprehensive

grasp of contemporary circumstances and issues

and the long-established values contained in

the literary and other traditional transmissions.

 

That is what I think the aim of the educational

system should become. And again, it's simply

a matter of people changing their minds. Given

precisely the extant educational infrastructure,

a revolution in the study and comparison of

this conceptual system of medicine (to use Unschuld's

phrase) could begin today...if the individuals

involved simply demanded of themselves and

one another not lowest common denomiator

qualification but adherance to the highest

possible standards.

 

It is not reasonable to presume that individuals

who are not urged and taught to set high

standards as students should somehow learn

to do so as graduates and professionals.

 

I don't imagine it is realistic to think

that such a revolution will begin among

school owners or administrators, but as

Will recently pointed out, if the will

to learn is present in the students, the

schools will respond.

 

In a growing profession, students should

be thinking long and hard about how to

distinguish themselves from the crowd.

Excellence usually works, particularly

when you're ill and need medical help.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/30/03 5:57:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Chinese Traditional Medicine writes:

 

 

> > Hi all,

> > > Can anyone point me to any resources on the web or books/articles on

> > > chronoacupuncture?

 

The Time-Honored Chinese Techniques of Acupuncture by Dr. H. C. Lu, The

Academy of Oriental Heritage, P.O. Box 35057, Station E, Vancouver B.C., V6M

4G1,

Canada