discourse

[Guest guest]

Listers,

 

I am not happy about how easily controversial topics turn into flaming

wars on this list. This is a list for herbal medicine and it is quite

clear that it is peripheral subjects like education, censorship and

non-herbal modalities that stir up the most rancor. However, I still

maintain that hese topics are relevant when they somehow impact our

practices as herbalists. Now education and censorship clearly are

relevant topics, since we must decide as a professional community what

standards, if any, should exist in these areas. As to non-herbal

modalities, those discussions are also relevant when there is some

overlap with herbal practice or theory. In the case of non-traditional

diagnostic methods like naet, muscle testing, etc., these become

relevant if they are being used to select herbs or promote an

interpretation of TCM theory used by herbalists, such as the nature of

qi.

 

I got into TCM because it, like several other well defined systems, has

a basis for assessing a patient's progress. that basis is the four

exams. With the four exams, we can tell if a particular method is

helping or hurting the patient. Once we dispense with this rational

assessment of patterns, we have dispensed with the great tradition of

TCM (for more on this, see http://www.spiritone.com/~herb-t/open.html

and http://www.spiritone.com/~herb-t/tcm.html)

 

Maybe in 1800 years, NAET will turn out to have survived the test of

time, but if it can't stand the test of bian zheng now, I can't wait

that long nor risk my patients to find out.

 

Personally, I find the methods espoused by Li dong yuan to be extremely

effective in the treatment of allergies. This approach can be explained

by TCM theory, yet it is not well known or taught in schools (see

http://www.bluepoppy.com/press/download/articles/autoimmune.html ). Is

the trend towards methods like naet because what we learn in school

doesn't work in practice? We need to go deeper, then. TCM does work,

but not in the superficial textbook kind of way. I think people must

get frustrated that they can't make TCM work right out of school, so

they move on to other approaches.

 

I also have to strongly and respectfully disagree with the idea that our

patient's satisfaction with their symptom relief is a firm basis for

proper treatment. Consider that caffeine relieves fatigue and opium

relieves pain and cannabis relieves depression. Why not just bag TCM

and let people just go on drinking coffee, smoking pot and taking

painkiller drugs? Because symptom relief may lead to worsening health

if chosen without bian zheng in mind.

 

For newcomers, I include in the term bian zheng all pattern

differentiation medicines, such as ayurveda and homeopathy, but exclude

modern energy medicines, because they are focused not on patterns but on

an interpretation that equates qi with some nebulous bioenergy. Since

the initial premise of energy medicine is incorrect in my opinion,

assumptions based on that premise have no rational basis. So while

energy medicine techniques may relieve symptoms, there is no sound basis

for incorporating these methodologies into TCM, either as diagnostics or

therapeutics. And there is no credible evidence that the reported

patient satisfaction is any more than placebo effect.

 

I want to be sure everyone understands that no one on this list will be

expected to hold their tongues with regard to the efficacy or mechanism

of a medical practice because someone might be offended. While I

certainly defend the right of anyone to maintain their private

political, cultural and religious beliefs, medicine is wholly outside

this domain. We have a big problem if we defend a form of medicine just

in order to avoid offending a practitioner or because we feel obligated

to accept all these diverse practices as having inherent value.

Medicine needs to be scrutinized, not taken on faith. TCM stands up

well to this scrutiny, as does much of naturopathy, western herbalism,

ayurveda, etc. The entire public takes it on faith that western

medicine is the best approach with our methods being dubbed as

alternative (read: last ditch for most folks and you all know it). If

we scrutinize the whole kit and kaboodle, we will discover there is

immense value and piles of worthless garbage in both alternative and

conventional medicine. I, for one, am willing to take that chance and

go under the microscope.

 

So hopefully, it is clear that this list is not a place to find open

armed acceptance for whatever you may do in this field. If you take an

unpopular or unusual position, be prepared to defend it rationally or

stay out of the fray. Over the past year, I have been very enlightened

by knowledgeable folks on this list who have greatly expanded my narrow

understanding of alchemy, japanese kanpo schools, herb production

methods and more. I came to new understandings by having these

positions well presented with either scientific, historical

documentation or both. It is not necessary to show us double blind

clinical studies, but where is the basic research, the historical

precedents or even documented anecdotes?

 

When a new theory develops in TCM, it is always grounded in some

rational methodology, some reference to literature or research. It most

certainly does not come out of thin air. So that argument is facile.

Though perhaps the (inadvertent?) admission that naet and muscle testing

just did come out of thin air themselves will make others think twice

before they are seduced by this type of pseudoscience.