Guest guest Posted April 27, 2010 Report Share Posted April 27, 2010 In your opinion one thing is important To another person another thing is important. I think that herb-drug interactions are worth A class in a masters program. But really how important is it to know all of the chemicals Inside of each herb since we don't treat patients Based on this kind of info? I think the classical literature is more informative In this regard since it's the cumulative knowledge Of thousands of practitioners speaking the same language, While biomedicines understanding of Chinese herbology is relatively Minute and absolutely experimental. K Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2010, at 11:21 PM, " Mercurius Trismegistus " <magisterium_magnum > wrote: > So if we want to find some additional curriculum, other than > classical Chinese literature and extra intern hours, how about a > curriculum on herbal pharmacology? > This is something I know for a fact that people are interested in, > and imo, it's much more relevant than Chinese literature. Any > thoughts? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2010 Report Share Posted April 27, 2010 So if we want to find some additional curriculum, other than classical Chinese literature and extra intern hours, how about a curriculum on herbal pharmacology? This is something I know for a fact that people are interested in, and imo, it's much more relevant than Chinese literature. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2010 Report Share Posted April 27, 2010 MT, I thought there was nothing else. Just kidding. If by herbal pharmacology you mean greater in-depth study of Chinese herbs and formulations, then I would agree. I think that many of the DAOM's have this into their training. I would say that in order to better understand classical Chinese herbal formulations, we need to better grasp the relevant classical texts of the time period. Craig Mitchel makes a similar point in his SHL translation where he cautions us from using terminology from other time periods or textbooks. I am also confused about your term of " classical Chinese literature " . Are you refering to the classical Chinese medical literature or some other works, such as story books or poetry? To have a better handle on understanding the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shang Han Lun is priceless and very important. Many graduates/students struggle with the mixed TCM system as it is confusing. Greater knowledge of the classics is vital to being an all-around better clinician. This is one profession where the old stuff is quite important. Then you can add to it like TCM does. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine magisterium_magnum Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:21:13 -0700 Herbal Pharmacology So if we want to find some additional curriculum, other than classical Chinese literature and extra intern hours, how about a curriculum on herbal pharmacology? This is something I know for a fact that people are interested in, and imo, it's much more relevant than Chinese literature. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Mercurius: the classics are important... But again, that's not TCM. If you want to do literary studies and translations, that's great, but that's not TCM Stephen: Can you clarify what you mean here? how are you defining " TCM " ? -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Mercurius, preparation of herbs, cultivation, harvesting etc was once taught in TCM schools: read " Sixty Years in Search of Cures " by Fung Fung, who went through this education in a Chinese medicine college before WWII. .... grow the herbs in summer and learn about them in winter... Otherwise, there are very few people anywhere that I think could teach this aspect very in-depth, except for a few exceptions such as maybe Andy Ellis, Robert Newman etc. In China, I have the impression that people are either growers or prescribers, not both. The difference between capsules, pills, powders, tablets etc. is usually taught in a " patent medicines class " which should be called " prepared medicines " ... read Bob Flaws on this... " patent " was a term that was a label for snake-oil medicines or pharmaceuticals, which are the closest things to being patented. If it's not taught in that class, it's taught in " TCM pharmacology " . When I was in school, both classes were available. K On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Mercurius Trismegistus < magisterium_magnum wrote: > > > Yeah, the classics are important. It would be great to have them > translated. But again, that's not TCM. What I'm mainly talking about is > preparation of the herbs. How to cultivate, harvest and prepare herbs. > Making concentrate powders, teapills, capsules and whatnot. How different > modes of preparation result in a different final product. That sort of > thing. This sort of thing doesn't seem to be touched on much, unless you > find a prof with the knowledge and follow them around asking stupid > questions for a year or two. > For some herbs, you use a leaf. For some, the root. For some, both, but > they each have different properties. I bet there are some Chinese classics > on this. I know there are such Western classics. > > > - > " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>> > To: <Chinese Traditional Medicine <Chinese Traditional Medicine%40yah\ oogroups.com> > > > Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:19 AM > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > MT, > > > > I thought there was nothing else. Just kidding. If by herbal > > pharmacology you mean greater in-depth study of Chinese herbs and > > formulations, then I would agree. I think that many of the DAOM's have > > this into their training. I would say that in order to better understand > > classical Chinese herbal formulations, we need to better grasp the > > relevant classical texts of the time period. Craig Mitchel makes a > > similar point in his SHL translation where he cautions us from using > > terminology from other time periods or textbooks. I am also confused > > about your term of " classical Chinese literature " . Are you refering to > > the classical Chinese medical literature or some other works, such as > > story books or poetry? > > > > To have a better handle on understanding the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shang > Han > > Lun is priceless and very important. Many graduates/students struggle > > with the mixed TCM system as it is confusing. Greater knowledge of the > > classics is vital to being an all-around better clinician. This is one > > profession where the old stuff is quite important. Then you can add to it > > > like TCM does. > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > > magisterium_magnum <magisterium_magnum%40comcast.net> > > Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:21:13 -0700 > > Herbal Pharmacology > > > -- "" www.tcmreview.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Yeah, the classics are important. It would be great to have them translated. But again, that's not TCM. What I'm mainly talking about is preparation of the herbs. How to cultivate, harvest and prepare herbs. Making concentrate powders, teapills, capsules and whatnot. How different modes of preparation result in a different final product. That sort of thing. This sort of thing doesn't seem to be touched on much, unless you find a prof with the knowledge and follow them around asking stupid questions for a year or two. For some herbs, you use a leaf. For some, the root. For some, both, but they each have different properties. I bet there are some Chinese classics on this. I know there are such Western classics. - " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 <Chinese Traditional Medicine > Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:19 AM RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > MT, > > I thought there was nothing else. Just kidding. If by herbal > pharmacology you mean greater in-depth study of Chinese herbs and > formulations, then I would agree. I think that many of the DAOM's have > this into their training. I would say that in order to better understand > classical Chinese herbal formulations, we need to better grasp the > relevant classical texts of the time period. Craig Mitchel makes a > similar point in his SHL translation where he cautions us from using > terminology from other time periods or textbooks. I am also confused > about your term of " classical Chinese literature " . Are you refering to > the classical Chinese medical literature or some other works, such as > story books or poetry? > > To have a better handle on understanding the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shang Han > Lun is priceless and very important. Many graduates/students struggle > with the mixed TCM system as it is confusing. Greater knowledge of the > classics is vital to being an all-around better clinician. This is one > profession where the old stuff is quite important. Then you can add to it > like TCM does. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Chinese Medicine > magisterium_magnum > Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:21:13 -0700 > Herbal Pharmacology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 TCM is a standardized version of " Traditional , " which was consolidated and developed under Mao in the 50s and 60s and is now recognized as a legitimate modality by the World Health Organization. Perhaps we should read Marx in the orginal as well. LOL. - " stephen woodley " <learntcm <Chinese Medicine > Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:11 PM Re: Herbal Pharmacology > Mercurius: > the classics are important... But again, that's not TCM. > If you want to do literary studies and translations, that's > great, but that's not TCM > > Stephen: > Can you clarify what you mean here? > how are you defining " TCM " ? > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an > unladen european swallow > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Our patent medicine class is just an overview of all the major patent formulas available. We don't have a TCM pharmacology class. There's gotta be SOMEONE who could teach this. Bring em over from China! I think there would be alot of interest. Thanks for the references, btw. Always appreciated. - " " <johnkokko <Chinese Medicine > Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:39 PM Re: Herbal Pharmacology > Mercurius, > preparation of herbs, cultivation, harvesting etc was once taught in TCM > schools: > read " Sixty Years in Search of Cures " by Fung Fung, > who went through this education in a Chinese medicine college before WWII. > ... grow the herbs in summer and learn about them in winter... > > Otherwise, there are very few people anywhere that I think could teach > this > aspect very in-depth, > except for a few exceptions such as maybe Andy Ellis, Robert Newman etc. > In China, I have the impression that people are either growers or > prescribers, not both. > > The difference between capsules, pills, powders, tablets etc. > is usually taught in a " patent medicines class " which should be called > " prepared medicines " ... read Bob Flaws on this... " patent " was a term that > was a label for snake-oil medicines > or pharmaceuticals, which are the closest things to being patented. > If it's not taught in that class, it's taught in " TCM pharmacology " . > When I was in school, both classes were available. > > K > > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Mercurius Trismegistus < > magisterium_magnum wrote: > >> >> >> Yeah, the classics are important. It would be great to have them >> translated. But again, that's not TCM. What I'm mainly talking about is >> preparation of the herbs. How to cultivate, harvest and prepare herbs. >> Making concentrate powders, teapills, capsules and whatnot. How different >> modes of preparation result in a different final product. That sort of >> thing. This sort of thing doesn't seem to be touched on much, unless you >> find a prof with the knowledge and follow them around asking stupid >> questions for a year or two. >> For some herbs, you use a leaf. For some, the root. For some, both, but >> they each have different properties. I bet there are some Chinese >> classics >> on this. I know there are such Western classics. >> >> >> - >> " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>> >> To: >> <Chinese Traditional Medicine <Chinese Traditional Medicine%40yah\ oogroups.com> >> > >> Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:19 AM >> RE: Herbal Pharmacology >> >> > >> > MT, >> > >> > I thought there was nothing else. Just kidding. If by herbal >> > pharmacology you mean greater in-depth study of Chinese herbs and >> > formulations, then I would agree. I think that many of the DAOM's have >> > this into their training. I would say that in order to better >> > understand >> > classical Chinese herbal formulations, we need to better grasp the >> > relevant classical texts of the time period. Craig Mitchel makes a >> > similar point in his SHL translation where he cautions us from using >> > terminology from other time periods or textbooks. I am also confused >> > about your term of " classical Chinese literature " . Are you refering to >> > the classical Chinese medical literature or some other works, such as >> > story books or poetry? >> > >> > To have a better handle on understanding the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shang >> Han >> > Lun is priceless and very important. Many graduates/students struggle >> > with the mixed TCM system as it is confusing. Greater knowledge of the >> > classics is vital to being an all-around better clinician. This is one >> > profession where the old stuff is quite important. Then you can add to >> > it >> >> > like TCM does. >> > >> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc >> > >> > >> > >> > To: >> > Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> >> > magisterium_magnum <magisterium_magnum%40comcast.net> >> > Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:21:13 -0700 >> > Herbal Pharmacology >> >> >> > > > > -- > > > "" > > > www.tcmreview.com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Michael Glad you called it a profession because there are those (some who are at the head of state TCM associations) who WISH to stay ONLY as technicians and who call this an " industry " . So it appears that drastically different opinions are at work in areas of the profession...not to forget the cottage-industry-money-grubbing schools. Richard In a message dated 4/28/2010 11:04:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: We need to stop this either or thinking, as it tends to harm us in the end. This is a profession and we need to have well-rounded practitioners that understand many areas that relate to our profession, not simply the ones that deal with treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 MT said, “Yeah, the classics are important…. But again, that's not TCM.” Really?? again, quite ridiculous... -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Mercurius Trismegistus Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:01 AM Chinese Medicine Re: Herbal Pharmacology Yeah, the classics are important. It would be great to have them translated. But again, that's not TCM. What I'm mainly talking about is preparation of the herbs. How to cultivate, harvest and prepare herbs. Making concentrate powders, teapills, capsules and whatnot. How different modes of preparation result in a different final product. That sort of thing. This sort of thing doesn't seem to be touched on much, unless you find a prof with the knowledge and follow them around asking stupid questions for a year or two. For some herbs, you use a leaf. For some, the root. For some, both, but they each have different properties. I bet there are some Chinese classics on this. I know there are such Western classics. - " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com> > <Chinese Traditional Medicine <Chinese Traditional Medicine%40> > Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:19 AM RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > MT, > > I thought there was nothing else. Just kidding. If by herbal > pharmacology you mean greater in-depth study of Chinese herbs and > formulations, then I would agree. I think that many of the DAOM's have > this into their training. I would say that in order to better understand > classical Chinese herbal formulations, we need to better grasp the > relevant classical texts of the time period. Craig Mitchel makes a > similar point in his SHL translation where he cautions us from using > terminology from other time periods or textbooks. I am also confused > about your term of " classical Chinese literature " . Are you refering to > the classical Chinese medical literature or some other works, such as > story books or poetry? > > To have a better handle on understanding the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shang Han > Lun is priceless and very important. Many graduates/students struggle > with the mixed TCM system as it is confusing. Greater knowledge of the > classics is vital to being an all-around better clinician. This is one > profession where the old stuff is quite important. Then you can add to it > like TCM does. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40> > magisterium_magnum <magisterium_magnum%40comcast.net> > Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:21:13 -0700 > Herbal Pharmacology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 I tend to agree. I have been confused about how people use the term " TCM " . I have noticed that for some it simply means all of CM. I think that is an over-simplification and neglects the integration of the two that is currently happening. I have no issues with the concept of integration but then, I feel, it should be done following a training in the historical concepts and classics. A solid foundation should be had before making changes by combining newer ideas or modalities. This gets to the whole idea of understanding of classical theory and then adding to it. Newer ideas would be better utilized in this way and classical understanding more emphasized. A huge win-win for all. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine magisterium_magnum Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:51:54 -0700 Re: Herbal Pharmacology TCM is a standardized version of " Traditional , " which was consolidated and developed under Mao in the 50s and 60s and is now recognized as a legitimate modality by the World Health Organization. Perhaps we should read Marx in the orginal as well. LOL. - " stephen woodley " <learntcm <Chinese Medicine > Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:11 PM Re: Herbal Pharmacology > Mercurius: > the classics are important... But again, that's not TCM. > If you want to do literary studies and translations, that's > great, but that's not TCM > > Stephen: > Can you clarify what you mean here? > how are you defining " TCM " ? > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an > unladen european swallow > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Someone mentioned an issue with learning about herbal chemistry as not really important. That issue and herbal cultivation are non-starters for many students, who will never use this info. From a scholastic perspective, I consider both areas important as we cannot rely upon other professions to be the go between we need. We need to have professionals within that have this other knowledge and possibly dual degreed. I would suggest Dr. John Chen, OMD, PharmD, as one that has published on the herbal compounds for us. Thanks John. We need to stop this either or thinking, as it tends to harm us in the end. This is a profession and we need to have well-rounded practitioners that understand many areas that relate to our profession, not simply the ones that deal with treatment. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Medicine > johnkokko > Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:39:14 -0500 > Re: Herbal Pharmacology > > Mercurius, > preparation of herbs, cultivation, harvesting etc was once taught in TCM > schools: > read " Sixty Years in Search of Cures " by Fung Fung, > who went through this education in a Chinese medicine college before WWII. > ... grow the herbs in summer and learn about them in winter... > > Otherwise, there are very few people anywhere that I think could teach this > aspect very in-depth, > except for a few exceptions such as maybe Andy Ellis, Robert Newman etc. > In China, I have the impression that people are either growers or > prescribers, not both. > > The difference between capsules, pills, powders, tablets etc. > is usually taught in a " patent medicines class " which should be called > " prepared medicines " ... read Bob Flaws on this... " patent " was a term that > was a label for snake-oil medicines > or pharmaceuticals, which are the closest things to being patented. > If it's not taught in that class, it's taught in " TCM pharmacology " . > When I was in school, both classes were available. > > K > > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Mercurius Trismegistus < > magisterium_magnum wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, the classics are important. It would be great to have them > > translated. But again, that's not TCM. What I'm mainly talking about is > > preparation of the herbs. How to cultivate, harvest and prepare herbs. > > Making concentrate powders, teapills, capsules and whatnot. How different > > modes of preparation result in a different final product. That sort of > > thing. This sort of thing doesn't seem to be touched on much, unless you > > find a prof with the knowledge and follow them around asking stupid > > questions for a year or two. > > For some herbs, you use a leaf. For some, the root. For some, both, but > > they each have different properties. I bet there are some Chinese classics > > on this. I know there are such Western classics. > > > > > > - > > " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>> > > To: <Chinese Traditional Medicine <Chinese Traditional Medicine%40yah\ oogroups.com> > > > > > Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:19 AM > > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > > > > MT, > > > > > > I thought there was nothing else. Just kidding. If by herbal > > > pharmacology you mean greater in-depth study of Chinese herbs and > > > formulations, then I would agree. I think that many of the DAOM's have > > > this into their training. I would say that in order to better understand > > > classical Chinese herbal formulations, we need to better grasp the > > > relevant classical texts of the time period. Craig Mitchel makes a > > > similar point in his SHL translation where he cautions us from using > > > terminology from other time periods or textbooks. I am also confused > > > about your term of " classical Chinese literature " . Are you refering to > > > the classical Chinese medical literature or some other works, such as > > > story books or poetry? > > > > > > To have a better handle on understanding the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shang > > Han > > > Lun is priceless and very important. Many graduates/students struggle > > > with the mixed TCM system as it is confusing. Greater knowledge of the > > > classics is vital to being an all-around better clinician. This is one > > > profession where the old stuff is quite important. Then you can add to it > > > > > like TCM does. > > > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > > > magisterium_magnum <magisterium_magnum%40comcast.net> > > > Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:21:13 -0700 > > > Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "" > > > www.tcmreview.com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Hi Mike: -Mike-- I have no issues with the concept of integration but then, I feel, it should be done following a training in the historical concepts and classics. --- I agree with the order that you propose, and I would add that there are, however, serious problems with the concept of " integration " . Collaboration is a more appropriate endeavour. The danger occurs when we begin to feel that there are not two medical professions, but rather only one. This division, or boundary, is a necessary and healthy aspect of collaboration, but with integration, the loss of a boundary permits co-optation. Again, we have seen a failure of integration in both China and India with their respective indigenous medicines, and we will see it fail here to unless we learn the lessons. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Actually I guess I could have called it an industry, like some that say health care industry. We appear to have a large population of technicians that do not understand we can have more and what that could mean for all of us. We need to be thinking of creating more options, not fewer. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:08:32 -0400 Re: Herbal Pharmacology Michael Glad you called it a profession because there are those (some who are at the head of state TCM associations) who WISH to stay ONLY as technicians and who call this an " industry " . So it appears that drastically different opinions are at work in areas of the profession...not to forget the cottage-industry-money-grubbing schools. Richard In a message dated 4/28/2010 11:04:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: We need to stop this either or thinking, as it tends to harm us in the end. This is a profession and we need to have well-rounded practitioners that understand many areas that relate to our profession, not simply the ones that deal with treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Hugo, This issue becomes more problematic when one practitioner has dual licensing and education. This trend can be observed with many Asian-trained practitioners that come and teach here. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine subincor Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:31:03 +0000 Re: Herbal Pharmacology Hi Mike: -Mike-- I have no issues with the concept of integration but then, I feel, it should be done following a training in the historical concepts and classics. --- I agree with the order that you propose, and I would add that there are, however, serious problems with the concept of " integration " . Collaboration is a more appropriate endeavour. The danger occurs when we begin to feel that there are not two medical professions, but rather only one. This division, or boundary, is a necessary and healthy aspect of collaboration, but with integration, the loss of a boundary permits co-optation. Again, we have seen a failure of integration in both China and India with their respective indigenous medicines, and we will see it fail here to unless we learn the lessons. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Hi Mike: Yes, this is so. The biggest dangers come from *systematic* integration however. Attempts at integration at an individual level are not as potentially dangerous. I feel that soem individuals can successfully claim certain forms of integration. For a system to claim it, however, is another matter. This may be mroe a reflection of current political struggles rather than the actual possibility of integration, but that's where we are now. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 Chinese Traditional Medicine Wed, 28 April, 2010 13:52:03 RE: Herbal Pharmacology Hugo, This issue becomes more problematic when one practitioner has dual licensing and education. This trend can be observed with many Asian-trained practitioners that come and teach here. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine subincor Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:31:03 +0000 Re: Herbal Pharmacology Hi Mike: -Mike-- I have no issues with the concept of integration but then, I feel, it should be done following a training in the historical concepts and classics. --- I agree with the order that you propose, and I would add that there are, however, serious problems with the concept of " integration " . Collaboration is a more appropriate endeavour. The danger occurs when we begin to feel that there are not two medical professions, but rather only one. This division, or boundary, is a necessary and healthy aspect of collaboration, but with integration, the loss of a boundary permits co-optation. Again, we have seen a failure of integration in both China and India with their respective indigenous medicines, and we will see it fail here to unless we learn the lessons. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 I practice integrated medicine and I don't define it either way. What I practice; and what I call integrated medicine, is this: I combine (integrate, if you will) AOM, microcurrent electrical therapy (frequency specific), and Russian SCENAR therapy. I do these in specific sequence with specific methodology with a 95%+ efficacy, and usually the results are permanent (95%+). This, to me, is integrated medicine and I consult with no one else. However, if the patient must have spinal adjustment, or any other specialty therapy, I refer them out with the caveat that them must see me within 30 minutes of the prescribed therapy. I will then make that therapy " stick " . This is, to me, true integrated medicine. My two cents. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > Chinese Traditional Medicine > naturaldoc1 > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:52:03 +0000 > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > > Hugo, > > This issue becomes more problematic when one practitioner has dual licensing and education. This trend can be observed with many Asian-trained practitioners that come and teach here. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Medicine > subincor > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:31:03 +0000 > Re: Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mike: > > > > -Mike-- > > > > I have no issues with the concept of integration but then, I feel, it should be done following a training in the historical concepts and classics. > > --- > > > > I agree with the order that you propose, and I would add that there are, however, serious problems with the concept of " integration " . Collaboration is a more appropriate endeavour. The danger occurs when we begin to feel that there are not two medical professions, but rather only one. This division, or boundary, is a necessary and healthy aspect of collaboration, but with integration, the loss of a boundary permits co-optation. Again, we have seen a failure of integration in both China and India with their respective indigenous medicines, and we will see it fail here to unless we learn the lessons. > > > > Hugo > > > > ________________________________ > > Hugo Ramiro > > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Nice to hear success with your treatment plan. I am also interested in Scenar and wonder about courses, machine, etc. This is what I think many of us are hoping to glean some aspect(s) of treatment plan that work well together and how to pull it off. I am making a huge effort to expand my knowledge base. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Traditional Medicine don83407 Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:06:40 -0500 RE: Herbal Pharmacology I practice integrated medicine and I don't define it either way. What I practice; and what I call integrated medicine, is this: I combine (integrate, if you will) AOM, microcurrent electrical therapy (frequency specific), and Russian SCENAR therapy. I do these in specific sequence with specific methodology with a 95%+ efficacy, and usually the results are permanent (95%+). This, to me, is integrated medicine and I consult with no one else. However, if the patient must have spinal adjustment, or any other specialty therapy, I refer them out with the caveat that them must see me within 30 minutes of the prescribed therapy. I will then make that therapy " stick " . This is, to me, true integrated medicine. My two cents. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > Chinese Traditional Medicine > naturaldoc1 > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:52:03 +0000 > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > > Hugo, > > This issue becomes more problematic when one practitioner has dual licensing and education. This trend can be observed with many Asian-trained practitioners that come and teach here. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Medicine > subincor > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:31:03 +0000 > Re: Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mike: > > > > -Mike-- > > > > I have no issues with the concept of integration but then, I feel, it should be done following a training in the historical concepts and classics. > > --- > > > > I agree with the order that you propose, and I would add that there are, however, serious problems with the concept of " integration " . Collaboration is a more appropriate endeavour. The danger occurs when we begin to feel that there are not two medical professions, but rather only one. This division, or boundary, is a necessary and healthy aspect of collaboration, but with integration, the loss of a boundary permits co-optation. Again, we have seen a failure of integration in both China and India with their respective indigenous medicines, and we will see it fail here to unless we learn the lessons. > > > > Hugo > > > > ________________________________ > > Hugo Ramiro > > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 Michael, I will be most happy to discuss this off-line. But I don't want to share this with others (since they aren't interested). It is somewhat time consuming. Sincerely, Don Snow > Chinese Traditional Medicine > naturaldoc1 > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:08:55 +0000 > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > > Nice to hear success with your treatment plan. I am also interested in Scenar and wonder about courses, machine, etc. This is what I think many of us are hoping to glean some aspect(s) of treatment plan that work well together and how to pull it off. I am making a huge effort to expand my knowledge base. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Chinese Traditional Medicine > don83407 > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:06:40 -0500 > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I practice integrated medicine and I don't define it either way. What I practice; and what I call integrated medicine, is this: > > > > I combine (integrate, if you will) AOM, microcurrent electrical therapy (frequency specific), and Russian SCENAR therapy. I do these in specific sequence with specific methodology with a 95%+ efficacy, and usually the results are permanent (95%+). This, to me, is integrated medicine and I consult with no one else. However, if the patient must have spinal adjustment, or any other specialty therapy, I refer them out with the caveat that them must see me within 30 minutes of the prescribed therapy. I will then make that therapy " stick " . > > > > This is, to me, true integrated medicine. > > > > My two cents. > > > > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > Chinese Traditional Medicine > > > naturaldoc1 > > > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:52:03 +0000 > > > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > > > > > Hugo, > > > > > > This issue becomes more problematic when one practitioner has dual licensing and education. This trend can be observed with many Asian-trained practitioners that come and teach here. > > > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > subincor > > > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:31:03 +0000 > > > Re: Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mike: > > > > > > > > > > > > -Mike-- > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no issues with the concept of integration but then, I feel, it should be done following a training in the historical concepts and classics. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with the order that you propose, and I would add that there are, however, serious problems with the concept of " integration " . Collaboration is a more appropriate endeavour. The danger occurs when we begin to feel that there are not two medical professions, but rather only one. This division, or boundary, is a necessary and healthy aspect of collaboration, but with integration, the loss of a boundary permits co-optation. Again, we have seen a failure of integration in both China and India with their respective indigenous medicines, and we will see it fail here to unless we learn the lessons. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hugo > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > Hugo Ramiro > > > > > > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > > > > > > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 Jason, Yes... TCM is a summary of the classics, kind of like the " cliff notes " version, without the poetry but still informed by the classics. This points to a larger question... what's the difference between classical medicine and traditional medicine? K On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:26 AM, < > wrote: > > > MT said, “Yeah, the classics are important…. But again, that's not TCM.” > > Really?? again, quite ridiculous... > > -Jason > > Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > [Chinese Medicine <Traditional_Chinese_Medicin\ e%40>] > On Behalf Of Mercurius > Trismegistus > Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:01 AM > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > Re: Herbal Pharmacology > > Yeah, the classics are important. It would be great to have them > translated. But again, that's not TCM. What I'm mainly talking about is > preparation of the herbs. How to cultivate, harvest and prepare herbs. > Making concentrate powders, teapills, capsules and whatnot. How different > modes of preparation result in a different final product. That sort of > thing. This sort of thing doesn't seem to be touched on much, unless you > find a prof with the knowledge and follow them around asking stupid > questions for a year or two. > For some herbs, you use a leaf. For some, the root. For some, both, but > they each have different properties. I bet there are some Chinese classics > on this. I know there are such Western classics. > > - > " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com> > <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com <naturaldoc1%2540hotmail.com>> > > To: <Chinese Traditional Medicine <Chinese Traditional Medicine%40yah\ oogroups.com> > <Chinese Traditional Medicine%40<traditional_chinese_medic\ ine%2540>> > > > Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:19 AM > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > MT, > > > > I thought there was nothing else. Just kidding. If by herbal > > pharmacology you mean greater in-depth study of Chinese herbs and > > formulations, then I would agree. I think that many of the DAOM's have > > this into their training. I would say that in order to better understand > > classical Chinese herbal formulations, we need to better grasp the > > relevant classical texts of the time period. Craig Mitchel makes a > > similar point in his SHL translation where he cautions us from using > > terminology from other time periods or textbooks. I am also confused > > about your term of " classical Chinese literature " . Are you refering to > > the classical Chinese medical literature or some other works, such as > > story books or poetry? > > > > To have a better handle on understanding the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shang > Han > > > Lun is priceless and very important. Many graduates/students struggle > > with the mixed TCM system as it is confusing. Greater knowledge of the > > classics is vital to being an all-around better clinician. This is one > > profession where the old stuff is quite important. Then you can add to it > > > like TCM does. > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > <Chinese Medicine%40<Traditional_Chinese_Medic\ ine%2540>> > > > magisterium_magnum <magisterium_magnum%40comcast.net> > <magisterium_magnum%40comcast.net<magisterium_magnum%2540comcast.net>> > > > Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:21:13 -0700 > > Herbal Pharmacology > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 Electroherbalism!?!?!?!?!?! I thought we were supposed to be practicing Chinese medicine!!!!! Call me a purist, but these post-modern therapies only serve to distort our patients' vision of what Chinese medicine is. Also, i would go farther and argue that for us to call on these modalities undermines the trust that we have in ourselves and our medicine, and can become an excuse to look elsewhere instead of digging deeeper and studying more. The great beauty of Chinese medicine is that it is an ecological medicine, with a theory based on the obeservation of natural rythms. The great challenge of the doctor is to see and interpret these and their reverberations into patients. To use electric devices, separates us from our patients in the very place where we need to make a connection: by the careful crafting of a formula, by touch, by meditation. And the neologism 'electro-herbalism' is just plain wrong... i want nothing to do with it. Herbs are Wood drawing Water up to Fire, producing steam that rains onto the Earth and goes back down to Water... they should have nothing to do with EMF's... If you are getting great results, great... but i certainly hope you are not advertizing this as Chinese medicine?!?! ________________________________ Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum Chinese Medicine Wed, April 28, 2010 10:19:37 PM Re: Herbal Pharmacology  I'd love to try a Scenar. I've had amazing success with electroherbalism. www.electroherbalis m.com - " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@ hotmail.com> <traditional_ chinese_medicine > Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:08 PM RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > Nice to hear success with your treatment plan. I am also interested in > Scenar and wonder about courses, machine, etc. This is what I think many > of us are hoping to glean some aspect(s) of treatment plan that work well > together and how to pull it off. I am making a huge effort to expand my > knowledge base. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > traditional_ chinese_medicine > don83407 (AT) msn (DOT) com > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:06:40 -0500 > RE: Herbal Pharmacology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 I'd love to try a Scenar. I've had amazing success with electroherbalism. www.electroherbalism.com - " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 <Chinese Traditional Medicine > Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:08 PM RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > Nice to hear success with your treatment plan. I am also interested in > Scenar and wonder about courses, machine, etc. This is what I think many > of us are hoping to glean some aspect(s) of treatment plan that work well > together and how to pull it off. I am making a huge effort to expand my > knowledge base. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Chinese Traditional Medicine > don83407 > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:06:40 -0500 > RE: Herbal Pharmacology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 Right on target, Martha. . . On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Martha Cooley wrote: > Electroherbalism!?!?!?!?!?! > I thought we were supposed to be practicing Chinese medicine!!!!! > > Call me a purist, but these post-modern therapies only serve to distort our patients' vision of what Chinese medicine is. > Also, i would go farther and argue that for us to call on these modalities undermines the trust that we have in ourselves and our medicine, and can become an excuse to look elsewhere instead of digging deeeper and studying more. > > The great beauty of Chinese medicine is that it is an ecological medicine, with a theory based on the obeservation of natural rythms. The great challenge of the doctor is to see and interpret these and their reverberations into patients. > > To use electric devices, separates us from our patients in the very place where we need to make a connection: by the careful crafting of a formula, by touch, by meditation. > And the neologism 'electro-herbalism' is just plain wrong... i want nothing to do with it. Herbs are Wood drawing Water up to Fire, producing steam that rains onto the Earth and goes back down to Water... they should have nothing to do with EMF's... > > If you are getting great results, great... but i certainly hope you are not advertizing this as Chinese medicine?!?! > > ________________________________ > Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum > Chinese Medicine > Wed, April 28, 2010 10:19:37 PM > Re: Herbal Pharmacology > > > I'd love to try a Scenar. I've had amazing success with electroherbalism. > www.electroherbalis m.com > > - > " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@ hotmail.com> > <traditional_ chinese_medicine > > Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:08 PM > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > > > > Nice to hear success with your treatment plan. I am also interested in > > Scenar and wonder about courses, machine, etc. This is what I think many > > of us are hoping to glean some aspect(s) of treatment plan that work well > > together and how to pull it off. I am making a huge effort to expand my > > knowledge base. > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > traditional_ chinese_medicine > > don83407 (AT) msn (DOT) com > > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:06:40 -0500 > > RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 I use that on my own. I call it electroherbalism. They don't let us use anything but TCM in the student clinic. You ever kill a 6 month long systemic MRSA infection in 45 minutes? - " Martha Cooley " <marthacooleylac <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:23 PM Re: Herbal Pharmacology Electroherbalism!?!?!?!?!?! I thought we were supposed to be practicing Chinese medicine!!!!! Call me a purist, but these post-modern therapies only serve to distort our patients' vision of what Chinese medicine is. Also, i would go farther and argue that for us to call on these modalities undermines the trust that we have in ourselves and our medicine, and can become an excuse to look elsewhere instead of digging deeeper and studying more. The great beauty of Chinese medicine is that it is an ecological medicine, with a theory based on the obeservation of natural rythms. The great challenge of the doctor is to see and interpret these and their reverberations into patients. To use electric devices, separates us from our patients in the very place where we need to make a connection: by the careful crafting of a formula, by touch, by meditation. And the neologism 'electro-herbalism' is just plain wrong... i want nothing to do with it. Herbs are Wood drawing Water up to Fire, producing steam that rains onto the Earth and goes back down to Water... they should have nothing to do with EMF's... If you are getting great results, great... but i certainly hope you are not advertizing this as Chinese medicine?!?! ________________________________ Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum Chinese Medicine Wed, April 28, 2010 10:19:37 PM Re: Herbal Pharmacology I'd love to try a Scenar. I've had amazing success with electroherbalism. www.electroherbalis m.com - " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@ hotmail.com> <traditional_ chinese_medicine > Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:08 PM RE: Herbal Pharmacology > > Nice to hear success with your treatment plan. I am also interested in > Scenar and wonder about courses, machine, etc. This is what I think many > of us are hoping to glean some aspect(s) of treatment plan that work well > together and how to pull it off. I am making a huge effort to expand my > knowledge base. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > traditional_ chinese_medicine > don83407 (AT) msn (DOT) com > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:06:40 -0500 > RE: Herbal Pharmacology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 If I can find someone who will invent me an electro-acupuncture device which I can program to various frequencies, I'll just use that. Until then, I use copper plates. - " " <zrosenbe <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:01 PM Re: Herbal Pharmacology > Right on target, Martha. . . > > > On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Martha Cooley wrote: > >> Electroherbalism!?!?!?!?!?! >> I thought we were supposed to be practicing Chinese medicine!!!!! >> >> Call me a purist, but these post-modern therapies only serve to distort >> our patients' vision of what Chinese medicine is. >> Also, i would go farther and argue that for us to call on these >> modalities undermines the trust that we have in ourselves and our >> medicine, and can become an excuse to look elsewhere instead of digging >> deeeper and studying more. >> >> The great beauty of Chinese medicine is that it is an ecological >> medicine, with a theory based on the obeservation of natural rythms. The >> great challenge of the doctor is to see and interpret these and their >> reverberations into patients. >> >> To use electric devices, separates us from our patients in the very place >> where we need to make a connection: by the careful crafting of a formula, >> by touch, by meditation. >> And the neologism 'electro-herbalism' is just plain wrong... i want >> nothing to do with it. Herbs are Wood drawing Water up to Fire, producing >> steam that rains onto the Earth and goes back down to Water... they >> should have nothing to do with EMF's... >> >> If you are getting great results, great... but i certainly hope you are >> not advertizing this as Chinese medicine?!?! >> >> ________________________________ >> Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum >> Chinese Medicine >> Wed, April 28, 2010 10:19:37 PM >> Re: Herbal Pharmacology >> >> >> I'd love to try a Scenar. I've had amazing success with electroherbalism. >> www.electroherbalis m.com >> >> - >> " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@ hotmail.com> >> <traditional_ chinese_medicine > >> Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:08 PM >> RE: Herbal Pharmacology >> >> > >> > Nice to hear success with your treatment plan. I am also interested in >> > Scenar and wonder about courses, machine, etc. This is what I think >> > many >> > of us are hoping to glean some aspect(s) of treatment plan that work >> > well >> > together and how to pull it off. I am making a huge effort to expand my >> > knowledge base. >> > >> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc >> > >> > >> > >> > traditional_ chinese_medicine >> > don83407 (AT) msn (DOT) com >> > Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:06:40 -0500 >> > RE: Herbal Pharmacology >> >> 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.