Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 > Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:47:00 -0800 (PST) > Nicole Hohmann <nicolehohmann >.... >And in response to the idea of using only western >concepts/scientific language to describe what we do - >I feel this is incomplete. I think it is crucial to >be able to explain it in western/scientific terms AND >ALSO describe TCM in terms of QI, balance, etc. In my >experience people -even medical residents do >understand these concepts intuitively and need to >accept that there is more than one paradigm. We need >to be bilingual in this respect. I'm in agreement. Consider that western med language has advantages of analytical power, and a wealth (or morass) of detailed information, and eastern traditions\ have a metaphoric bent and something of an ability to see the forest for the trees. But the bottom line is knowledge of and experience with interpreting and treating individual cases. When communicating about actual situations, there's a good possibility that some mutual recognition of an accurate description of a patient's situation can be reached, thereby furthering the picking up the gist of otherwise unaccustomed terminology. When school students of the two traditions try to communicate, in tbe absence of a common reference in the reality of life situations, it might tend to be an academic, uphill trek. At various places in Leon Hammer's books and articles, he speaks eloquently, freely combining bio-medical and CTM (his term -- Chinese Traditional Medicine -- for a (his) non-TCM-bound view of the tradition) concepts and viewpoints, because he's not centering on the frameworks but on the phenomena of the medical situation. (For instance in the article " Towards a Unified Field Theory of Chronic Disease With Regard to the Separation of Yin and Yang and `The Qi is Wild' " (on-line at http://www.dragonrises.org/, or at www.dragonrises.net, at both under articles'). I was reminded of this also a bit back in the What-is-Qi discussion. Namely, I believe that the basis for poetry and wonderment doesn't lie in the Chinese-ness or Western-ness of a statement or discussion, but rather in what sees about the nature and problems of human living. A medical theoretical viewpoint doesn't ultimately get validated in it''s own terms, but in providing useful insight into cases at hand (or in various depress of generalization from actual cases). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 uphill trek... I received a letter from the FDA last week stating I was in violation of promoting Ginseng as a drug. I had referenced Ginseng in western speak: addressing western defined diseases. I did not make any claims myself. I directly quoted studies/research done in Japan, China, Europe and America. FDA specifically cited these statements; " ome herbal specialists may consider ginseng as part of the treatment for depression " " Severe chronic respiratory diseases (such as emphysema or chronic bronchitis), daily treatment with ginseng improved respiratory function... " " Diabetes: oth Chinese and American ginsengs appear to lower blood sugar (glucose) levels... " continuing the quote ... " Furthermore, FDA has no information that your products are generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions and therefore, the products may also be " new drugs " under section 201 (p) of the Act [21 USC 321 (p)]. .. " Now, If I spoke TCMese and said " Ginseng Tonifies Qi " and maybe for those who do not understand TCMese when on to explain " Ginseng helps the Kidneys Grasp the Qi, aids the Lung Qi (Breath) and Builds the Qi (Energy) of the Body " . ... no problems. Another one of my products (Colloidal Silver) which I promote as a dietary supplement, ran afoul of the FDA where I stated " Apply liberally and directly to cuts, scrapes, and open sores. " -- The FDA here states " only products that are intended for ingestion may be lawfully marketed as dietary supplements. Topical products and products ... are not dietary supplements. For these products, both disease and structure/function claims may cause them to be new drugs. " How does this apply to those Chinese herbs that may ONLY be applied topically? According to Cali-fornia acupuncturists/herbalist may only prescribe dietary supplements. Now it appears the FDA is re-defining what is a or may be a dietary supplement. All this is simply politics and has nothing to do with truth. acupuncturists/herbalist do not diagnosis nor treat [cancer] or any western disease. acupuncturists/herbalist do not do diet supplements we diagnosis and prescribe herbal medicine safely, honestly, and responsibly (with accountability) to restore health and ability. just my remaining 2 cents. Ed Kasper LAc., Santa Cruz, CA subject: Re: influencing medicine > Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:47:00 -0800 (PST) > Nicole Hohmann <nicolehohmann >.... >And in response to the idea of using only western >concepts/scientific language to describe what we do - >I feel this is incomplete. I think it is crucial to >be able to explain it in western/scientific terms AND >ALSO describe TCM in terms of QI, balance, etc. In my >experience people -even medical residents do >understand these concepts intuitively and need to >accept that there is more than one paradigm. We need >to be bilingual in this respect. I'm in agreement. Consider that western med language has advantages of analytical power, and a wealth (or morass) of detailed information, and eastern traditions\ have a metaphoric bent and something of an ability to see the forest for the trees. But the bottom line is knowledge of and experience with interpreting and treating individual cases. When communicating about actual situations, there's a good possibility that some mutual recognition of an accurate description of a patient's situation can be reached, thereby furthering the picking up the gist of otherwise unaccustomed terminology. When school students of the two traditions try to communicate, in tbe absence of a common reference in the reality of life situations, it might tend to be an academic, uphill trek. At various places in Leon Hammer's books and articles, he speaks eloquently, freely combining bio-medical and CTM (his term -- Chinese Traditional Medicine -- for a (his) non-TCM-bound view of the tradition) concepts and viewpoints, because he's not centering on the frameworks but on the phenomena of the medical situation. (For instance in the article " Towards a Unified Field Theory of Chronic Disease With Regard to the Separation of Yin and Yang and `The Qi is Wild' " (on-line at http://www.dragonrises.org/, or at www.dragonrises.net, at both under articles'). I was reminded of this also a bit back in the What-is-Qi discussion. Namely, I believe that the basis for poetry and wonderment doesn't lie in the Chinese-ness or Western-ness of a statement or discussion, but rather in what sees about the nature and problems of human living. A medical theoretical viewpoint doesn't ultimately get validated in it''s own terms, but in providing useful insight into cases at hand (or in various depress of generalization from actual cases). -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.209 / Virus Database: 261.6.1 - Release 1/8/2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.