Guest guest Posted March 29, 2010 Report Share Posted March 29, 2010 Hi All, & Hugo, Hugo wrote: > There are several reasons Zhu Sha's use should not be discontinued. > Here are three big ones. 1. Zhu Sha is one of the most important > medicinals for the treatment of Heart fire. We do not see much of this > because we do not generally see psychiatric patients. But we must > continue working to fulfill our actual scope of practice. 2. Slicing > parts of ourselves off because of an *idea* that what we do is > dangerous is simply kow-towing to powers who wish for nothing mroe > than for us to be weak. 3. I have biochem research somewhwere on my > hard drive which I would provide if my google desktop weren't fritzing > which proves Zhu Sha to be metabolised quickly and efficiently, not > staying in the body in any detectable sense, unlike other mercuric > compounds. Zhu Sha is *safe for use within its traditional bounds*. > I'd like to emphasize that " ideas " (delusional accusations in the > sense I am using) of danger are themselves dangerous. Delusional > accusations of poor ethics are themselves unethical. Zhu Sha is proven > safe from several angles. To continue to look at the question is > ethical, to eliminate this very useful medicinal is not. To look at > bear bile farms and consider whether their existence is warranted is > ethical. To contemplate sustainable harvesting of herbs is ethical. > The latter two examples have evident problems associated with them > which must be considered, unlike the " problem " of Zhu Sha, which just > *sounds* scary to modern western ears and has no evidence associated > with it. That said, there was an excellent documentary I saw last > fall on research carried out in Borden Ontario related to long term > exposure of mercury, which both highlighted why mercury is dangerous > and why Zhu Sha isn't. Maybe I'll summarise it at a later date. See: http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/233/7/810 agrees with Hugo's conclusion. Best regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2010 Report Share Posted March 29, 2010 Hugo, To advise caution in the internal use of mercury compounds is not fear-mongering. It is simple caution based on common sense and current knowledge. I am familiar with the article supplied by Phil. It supports the idea that zhu sha is less absorbable than other forms of mercury. No argument there. It does NOT support the idea that it is safe. Here is a quote from the article itself: " More than 12 cinnabar-containing Chinese medicines are used in pediatrics, mainly for their sedative and hypnotic effects. Sudden death, liver toxicity, and renal failure have been reported from inappropriate use of cinnabar and cinnabar-containing medicines in infants and preschool children " . Is this really something we want to promote? A slight error in dosage or administration can be extremely dangerous. Arguing in favor of zhu sha ignores the ramifications for our profession, both in the media and in our insurance premiums. What to speak of getting some rights within the new healthcare law. In the case of a toxic heavy metal, it is better to err on the side of caution. - Bill Chinese Medicine , " " < wrote: > > Hi All, & Hugo, > > Hugo wrote: > > There are several reasons Zhu Sha's use should not be discontinued. > > Here are three big ones. 1. Zhu Sha is one of the most important > > medicinals for the treatment of Heart fire. We do not see much of this > > because we do not generally see psychiatric patients. But we must > > continue working to fulfill our actual scope of practice. 2. Slicing > > parts of ourselves off because of an *idea* that what we do is > > dangerous is simply kow-towing to powers who wish for nothing mroe > > than for us to be weak. 3. I have biochem research somewhwere on my > > hard drive which I would provide if my google desktop weren't fritzing > > which proves Zhu Sha to be metabolised quickly and efficiently, not > > staying in the body in any detectable sense, unlike other mercuric > > compounds. Zhu Sha is *safe for use within its traditional bounds*. > > I'd like to emphasize that " ideas " (delusional accusations in the > > sense I am using) of danger are themselves dangerous. Delusional > > accusations of poor ethics are themselves unethical. Zhu Sha is proven > > safe from several angles. To continue to look at the question is > > ethical, to eliminate this very useful medicinal is not. To look at > > bear bile farms and consider whether their existence is warranted is > > ethical. To contemplate sustainable harvesting of herbs is ethical. > > The latter two examples have evident problems associated with them > > which must be considered, unlike the " problem " of Zhu Sha, which just > > *sounds* scary to modern western ears and has no evidence associated > > with it. That said, there was an excellent documentary I saw last > > fall on research carried out in Borden Ontario related to long term > > exposure of mercury, which both highlighted why mercury is dangerous > > and why Zhu Sha isn't. Maybe I'll summarise it at a later date. > > See: http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/233/7/810 agrees with Hugo's conclusion. > > Best regards, > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2010 Report Share Posted March 29, 2010 What if the child has a genetic problem that prevents proper mercury removal from the brain? Would we really want to open our profession up to this issue in the media? That might be enough to remove us from being able to acquire and prescribe Chinese herbal medicines. The media coverage alone would be disastrous. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine plantmed2 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:33:43 +0000 Re: Zhusha-Cinnabar Hugo, To advise caution in the internal use of mercury compounds is not fear-mongering. It is simple caution based on common sense and current knowledge. I am familiar with the article supplied by Phil. It supports the idea that zhu sha is less absorbable than other forms of mercury. No argument there. It does NOT support the idea that it is safe. Here is a quote from the article itself: " More than 12 cinnabar-containing Chinese medicines are used in pediatrics, mainly for their sedative and hypnotic effects. Sudden death, liver toxicity, and renal failure have been reported from inappropriate use of cinnabar and cinnabar-containing medicines in infants and preschool children " . Is this really something we want to promote? A slight error in dosage or administration can be extremely dangerous. Arguing in favor of zhu sha ignores the ramifications for our profession, both in the media and in our insurance premiums. What to speak of getting some rights within the new healthcare law. In the case of a toxic heavy metal, it is better to err on the side of caution. - Bill Chinese Medicine , " " < wrote: > > Hi All, & Hugo, > > Hugo wrote: > > There are several reasons Zhu Sha's use should not be discontinued. > > Here are three big ones. 1. Zhu Sha is one of the most important > > medicinals for the treatment of Heart fire. We do not see much of this > > because we do not generally see psychiatric patients. But we must > > continue working to fulfill our actual scope of practice. 2. Slicing > > parts of ourselves off because of an *idea* that what we do is > > dangerous is simply kow-towing to powers who wish for nothing mroe > > than for us to be weak. 3. I have biochem research somewhwere on my > > hard drive which I would provide if my google desktop weren't fritzing > > which proves Zhu Sha to be metabolised quickly and efficiently, not > > staying in the body in any detectable sense, unlike other mercuric > > compounds. Zhu Sha is *safe for use within its traditional bounds*. > > I'd like to emphasize that " ideas " (delusional accusations in the > > sense I am using) of danger are themselves dangerous. Delusional > > accusations of poor ethics are themselves unethical. Zhu Sha is proven > > safe from several angles. To continue to look at the question is > > ethical, to eliminate this very useful medicinal is not. To look at > > bear bile farms and consider whether their existence is warranted is > > ethical. To contemplate sustainable harvesting of herbs is ethical. > > The latter two examples have evident problems associated with them > > which must be considered, unlike the " problem " of Zhu Sha, which just > > *sounds* scary to modern western ears and has no evidence associated > > with it. That said, there was an excellent documentary I saw last > > fall on research carried out in Borden Ontario related to long term > > exposure of mercury, which both highlighted why mercury is dangerous > > and why Zhu Sha isn't. Maybe I'll summarise it at a later date. > > See: http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/233/7/810 agrees with Hugo's conclusion. > > Best regards, > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2010 Report Share Posted March 29, 2010  I don't get how this is significantly worse than killing someone by stabbing an acupuncture needle through the heart, or the episode of house where chinese parents tried to kill their child by inserting, wait for it, acupuncture needles into the kid's brain. Being " safer " in an immensely safe profession will not stop those who want to make us look bad. We *already* have a safety profile that beats out similar western interventions. We must fulfill OUR medical ethics and continue to develop them, but kneejerk reactions based on a culture's fears won't take us down the right road.  Hugo  ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 Chinese Traditional Medicine Mon, 29 March, 2010 17:24:58 RE: Re: Zhusha-Cinnabar What if the child has a genetic problem that prevents proper mercury removal from the brain? Would we really want to open our profession up to this issue in the media? That might be enough to remove us from being able to acquire and prescribe Chinese herbal medicines. The media coverage alone would be disastrous. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine plantmed2 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:33:43 +0000 TCM - Re: Zhusha-Cinnabar             Hugo, To advise caution in the internal use of mercury compounds is not fear-mongering. It is simple caution based on common sense and current knowledge. I am familiar with the article supplied by Phil. It supports the idea that zhu sha is less absorbable than other forms of mercury. No argument there. It does NOT support the idea that it is safe. Here is a quote from the article itself: " More than 12 cinnabar-containing Chinese medicines are used in pediatrics, mainly for their sedative and hypnotic effects. Sudden death, liver toxicity, and renal failure have been reported from inappropriate use of cinnabar and cinnabar-containing medicines in infants and preschool children " . Is this really something we want to promote? A slight error in dosage or administration can be extremely dangerous. Arguing in favor of zhu sha ignores the ramifications for our profession, both in the media and in our insurance premiums. What to speak of getting some rights within the new healthcare law. In the case of a toxic heavy metal, it is better to err on the side of caution. - Bill Chinese Medicine , " " < wrote: > > Hi All, & Hugo, > > Hugo wrote: > > There are several reasons Zhu Sha's use should not be discontinued. > > Here are three big ones. 1. Zhu Sha is one of the most important > > medicinals for the treatment of Heart fire. We do not see much of this > > because we do not generally see psychiatric patients. But we must > > continue working to fulfill our actual scope of practice. 2. Slicing > > parts of ourselves off because of an *idea* that what we do is > > dangerous is simply kow-towing to powers who wish for nothing mroe > > than for us to be weak. 3. I have biochem research somewhwere on my > > hard drive which I would provide if my google desktop weren't fritzing > > which proves Zhu Sha to be metabolised quickly and efficiently, not > > staying in the body in any detectable sense, unlike other mercuric > > compounds. Zhu Sha is *safe for use within its traditional bounds*. > > I'd like to emphasize that " ideas " (delusional accusations in the > > sense I am using) of danger are themselves dangerous. Delusional > > accusations of poor ethics are themselves unethical. Zhu Sha is proven > > safe from several angles. To continue to look at the question is > > ethical, to eliminate this very useful medicinal is not. To look at > > bear bile farms and consider whether their existence is warranted is > > ethical. To contemplate sustainable harvesting of herbs is ethical. > > The latter two examples have evident problems associated with them > > which must be considered, unlike the " problem " of Zhu Sha, which just > > *sounds* scary to modern western ears and has no evidence associated > > with it. That said, there was an excellent documentary I saw last > > fall on research carried out in Borden Ontario related to long term > > exposure of mercury, which both highlighted why mercury is dangerous > > and why Zhu Sha isn't. Maybe I'll summarise it at a later date. > > See: http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/233/7/810 agrees with Hugo's conclusion. > > Best regards, > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2010 Report Share Posted March 29, 2010 Hi Bill, you need to review the literature you sent me and the group more carefully. It does not support your position. You keep repeating the word " safe " . WHat does that mean, please? The literature you cited showed very low risk for use of Zhu Sha in organic systems - and these were largely systems that did not even display Heart Fire, meaning that these were almost all studies carried on on overdosage and innapropriate prescription. Of course innapropriate use of zhi sha causes big problems, as does almost any herb, substance or behaviour. Do we want to promote it? That's not the question - the question is, who will decide whether we stop using it (or start using it again)? Biomedicine? I hope my points are clearer. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org I am familiar with the article supplied by Phil. It supports the idea that zhu sha is less absorbable than other forms of mercury. No argument there. It does NOT support the idea that it is safe. Here is a quote from the article itself: " More than 12 cinnabar-containing Chinese medicines are used in pediatrics, mainly for their sedative and hypnotic effects. Sudden death, liver toxicity, and renal failure have been reported from inappropriate use of cinnabar and cinnabar-containing medicines in infants and preschool children " . Is this really something we want to promote? A slight error in dosage or administration can be extremely dangerous. Arguing in favor of zhu sha ignores the ramifications for our profession, both in the media and in our insurance premiums. What to speak of getting some rights within the new healthcare law. In the case of a toxic heavy metal, it is better to err on the side of caution. - Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2010 Report Share Posted March 29, 2010 I have reviewed the literature very carefully, Hugo. I have no problem with zhu sha being banned, based on the preponderance of evidence. If you want to use it, that's your choice. - Bill Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Hi Bill, you need to review the literature you sent me and the group more carefully. It does not support your position. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Hi Bill, I won't be able to use it as my choice if it is banned. The evidence is *for* its safety when used with discretion, which is rarely, and in no way do I support zhu sha containign medicinals being available over the counter. They are to be prescribed by doctors of chinese medicine. Potentially dangerous medicinals *are an inextricable part of medicine*. The following has not been given its due attention: Mercury in Traditional Medicines: Is Cinnabar Toxicologically Similar to Common Mercurials? Jie Liu*1, Jing-Zheng Shi, Li-Mei Yu, Robert A. Goyer* and Michael P. Waalkes* " Once absorbed into the blood, the mercury disposition from cinnabarfollows the pattern for inorganic mercury salts and preferentiallydistributed to the kidneys, with a small portion to the brain.The heating, overdose and the long-term use of cinnabar aremajor causes of mercury intoxication, but at the therapeuticdoses, the adverse effects cinnabar-containing traditional medicinesseem to be tolerable and reversible. " It must be understood that these are studies in animals that had no need of zhu sha, so the above research is *still* describing overdose and overuse in the last line. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ bill_schoenbart <plantmed2 Chinese Medicine Mon, 29 March, 2010 18:32:44 Re: Zhusha-Cinnabar I have reviewed the literature very carefully, Hugo. I have no problem with zhu sha being banned, based on the preponderance of evidence. If you want to use it, that's your choice. - Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Bill, Is it really a choice for us? Is this more of an EPA safety issue? Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine plantmed2 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:32:44 +0000 Re: Zhusha-Cinnabar I have reviewed the literature very carefully, Hugo. I have no problem with zhu sha being banned, based on the preponderance of evidence. If you want to use it, that's your choice. - Bill Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Hi Bill, you need to review the literature you sent me and the group more carefully. It does not support your position. > _______________ The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:032010_3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Hugo, It is quite simple actually. The media would crusify us and legislators and public safety officials would shut us down. If you think this through, then you will find the conclusion is an unacceptable one. How do you defend giving more mercury (Zhu Sha) to an autistic child, when more research is showing that they appear to have a genetic predisposition to accumulate it in their CNS (Geier). Neither choice is acceptable but one may be due to accident (acupuncture heart), while the other is due to blatant malpractice (Zhu Sha). Our reality is no longer about separation and making our own rules but about being part of a larger society, where we need to play by the rules that are placed upon us by our regulators. Our safety profile does not include mercury containing compounds. This is not knee jerk but based upon solid understanding of human toxicology. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine subincor Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:48:16 -0700 Re: Re: Zhusha-Cinnabar I don't get how this is significantly worse than killing someone by stabbing an acupuncture needle through the heart, or the episode of house where chinese parents tried to kill their child by inserting, wait for it, acupuncture needles into the kid's brain. Being " safer " in an immensely safe profession will not stop those who want to make us look bad. We *already* have a safety profile that beats out similar western interventions. We must fulfill OUR medical ethics and continue to develop them, but kneejerk reactions based on a culture's fears won't take us down the right road. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 Chinese Traditional Medicine Mon, 29 March, 2010 17:24:58 RE: Re: Zhusha-Cinnabar What if the child has a genetic problem that prevents proper mercury removal from the brain? Would we really want to open our profession up to this issue in the media? That might be enough to remove us from being able to acquire and prescribe Chinese herbal medicines. The media coverage alone would be disastrous. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine plantmed2 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:33:43 +0000 Re: Zhusha-Cinnabar Hugo, To advise caution in the internal use of mercury compounds is not fear-mongering. It is simple caution based on common sense and current knowledge. I am familiar with the article supplied by Phil. It supports the idea that zhu sha is less absorbable than other forms of mercury. No argument there. It does NOT support the idea that it is safe. Here is a quote from the article itself: " More than 12 cinnabar-containing Chinese medicines are used in pediatrics, mainly for their sedative and hypnotic effects. Sudden death, liver toxicity, and renal failure have been reported from inappropriate use of cinnabar and cinnabar-containing medicines in infants and preschool children " . Is this really something we want to promote? A slight error in dosage or administration can be extremely dangerous. Arguing in favor of zhu sha ignores the ramifications for our profession, both in the media and in our insurance premiums. What to speak of getting some rights within the new healthcare law. In the case of a toxic heavy metal, it is better to err on the side of caution. - Bill Chinese Medicine , " " < wrote: > > Hi All, & Hugo, > > Hugo wrote: > > There are several reasons Zhu Sha's use should not be discontinued. > > Here are three big ones. 1. Zhu Sha is one of the most important > > medicinals for the treatment of Heart fire. We do not see much of this > > because we do not generally see psychiatric patients. But we must > > continue working to fulfill our actual scope of practice. 2. Slicing > > parts of ourselves off because of an *idea* that what we do is > > dangerous is simply kow-towing to powers who wish for nothing mroe > > than for us to be weak. 3. I have biochem research somewhwere on my > > hard drive which I would provide if my google desktop weren't fritzing > > which proves Zhu Sha to be metabolised quickly and efficiently, not > > staying in the body in any detectable sense, unlike other mercuric > > compounds. Zhu Sha is *safe for use within its traditional bounds*. > > I'd like to emphasize that " ideas " (delusional accusations in the > > sense I am using) of danger are themselves dangerous. Delusional > > accusations of poor ethics are themselves unethical. Zhu Sha is proven > > safe from several angles. To continue to look at the question is > > ethical, to eliminate this very useful medicinal is not. To look at > > bear bile farms and consider whether their existence is warranted is > > ethical. To contemplate sustainable harvesting of herbs is ethical. > > The latter two examples have evident problems associated with them > > which must be considered, unlike the " problem " of Zhu Sha, which just > > *sounds* scary to modern western ears and has no evidence associated > > with it. That said, there was an excellent documentary I saw last > > fall on research carried out in Borden Ontario related to long term > > exposure of mercury, which both highlighted why mercury is dangerous > > and why Zhu Sha isn't. Maybe I'll summarise it at a later date. > > See: http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/233/7/810 agrees with Hugo's conclusion. > > Best regards, > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Hugo Ramiro and Phil , My deepest condolences regarding this exchange. It's the exchange that challenges the profession, not the Eastern or Western science which both supports Hugo's view. By rejection of both Chinese medicine in normal usage and well as the called for scientific papers, it seems there will always be people want it both ways in hanging on to their suspicions. And yet no one actually discusses bioassay. They only discuss chemical assay. Orlon fabric sweaters are by weight half cyanide. And they are on the shelves of second hand stores world wide. Superglue is about 1/3 cyanide as a sidechain. Then there's organic whole wheat bread in California that must carry the Prop 65 label because lead and mercury can be found now by fluorescence spectroscopy at small parts per billion. My friends in local labs can by dilutions find things in parts per trillions. Back in 1984 at the writing of the Prop 65 no one could have imagined we could find toxins at that level, which by biological standards not toxic. Luckily municipal water was exempted. I do agree that there is no cure for the imagination, and you'd do better to let your words stand where they are. Everyone's commentary has revealed where they are with regard to their grasp (or non-grasp) of what toxicity is in terms of bioassay and their grasp of how to have professional standards. The standards both East and West have been rejected. I suspect some are practicing the consensus medicine of what ever can be advertised. Gratefully, Em Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 So how is it that " western " pharmaceutical manufacturers and formulators continue to use thermisol as a perservative and adjuant in everything from things we put in our eyes (contact lens cleaning solution and rinsing agents) to things others would have us put directly into our bloodstreams ( " vaccines " )?? Anytime the subject comes up we hear how there is absolutely no evidence linking this mercury containing product with ANY ill-effect to users' health. Curious mind wants to know. Mark Zaranski Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: How do you defend giving more mercury (Zhu Sha) to an autistic child, when more research is showing that they appear to have a genetic predisposition to accumulate it in their CNS (Geier).................. Our safety profile does not include mercury containing compounds. This is not knee jerk but based upon solid understanding of human toxicology. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Maerk, Lesgislative power, paid for research and propaganda. Vaccine mfg are hard to get at due to this immunity. People have been trying to remove this for decades. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine zaranski Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:26:15 +0000 Re: Zhusha-Cinnabar So how is it that " western " pharmaceutical manufacturers and formulators continue to use thermisol as a perservative and adjuant in everything from things we put in our eyes (contact lens cleaning solution and rinsing agents) to things others would have us put directly into our bloodstreams ( " vaccines " )?? Anytime the subject comes up we hear how there is absolutely no evidence linking this mercury containing product with ANY ill-effect to users' health. Curious mind wants to know. Mark Zaranski Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: How do you defend giving more mercury (Zhu Sha) to an autistic child, when more research is showing that they appear to have a genetic predisposition to accumulate it in their CNS (Geier).................. Our safety profile does not include mercury containing compounds. This is not knee jerk but based upon solid understanding of human toxicology. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > _______________ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:032010_1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Emmanuel, Your argument is emotional, not scientific. We don't eat Orlon sweaters or Superglue. And zhu sha doesn't have mercury in a few parts per billion. It has hundreds of millions of parts per billion. You asked for bioassays. That is why I posted the animal studies, such as this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11370760 . Yes, the animals were given higher than normal doses of zhu sha, but the point is that it was absorbed through the GI tract and deposited in the brain. Even the article that purportedly claimed that zhu sha is safe mentioned poisonings in the past. Since NO amount of mercury is safe, this should raise a red flag. To argue passionately in support of using zhu sha places enormous faith in a human discovery from over 1000 years ago and ignores the discoveries in modern times. Yes, I am very familiar with people misusing science and making false claims about herb toxicity. That is not what is happening in the case of this mercury-based mineral. - Bill Chinese Medicine , " E. Segmen " <esegmen wrote: > > Hugo Ramiro and Phil , > > My deepest condolences regarding this exchange. It's the exchange that challenges the profession, not the Eastern or Western science which both supports Hugo's view. By rejection of both Chinese medicine in normal usage and well as the called for scientific papers, it seems there will always be people want it both ways in hanging on to their suspicions. And yet no one actually discusses bioassay. They only discuss chemical assay. Orlon fabric sweaters are by weight half cyanide. And they are on the shelves of second hand stores world wide. Superglue is about 1/3 cyanide as a sidechain. Then there's organic whole wheat bread in California that must carry the Prop 65 label because lead and mercury can be found now by fluorescence spectroscopy at small parts per billion. My friends in local labs can by dilutions find things in parts per trillions. Back in 1984 at the writing of the Prop 65 no one could have imagined we could find toxins at that level, which by biological standards not toxic. Luckily municipal water was exempted. > > I do agree that there is no cure for the imagination, and you'd do better to let your words stand where they are. Everyone's commentary has revealed where they are with regard to their grasp (or non-grasp) of what toxicity is in terms of bioassay and their grasp of how to have professional standards. The standards both East and West have been rejected. I suspect some are practicing the consensus medicine of what ever can be advertised. > > Gratefully, > > Em Segmen > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2010 Report Share Posted April 1, 2010 Yup and in the name of protecting their offspring, pediatricians bully young parents into approving the injection of this crap directly into the bloodstreams of their newborns, babys, toddlers and children. And the " medical profession " has the balls to plant the fear of acupuncture... naturaldoc1 wrote: > Lesgislative power, paid for research and propaganda. Vaccine mfg are hard to get at due to this immunity. People have been trying to remove this for decades. 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.