chinese medicine debased

[Guest guest]

I suppose I should defend myself. I have known Heiner Fruehauf since

1992 or early 93, when he came to lecture in my herbal formulas class at

OCOM. We then worked together at Subhuti Dharmananda's Immune

Enhancement Program throughout 1994. During that time, Heiner was

developing his materia medica and formulae text materials. As a perk,

Subhuti paid Heiner to teach us from these materials he was creating.

So for about six months, we had two hour class every two weeks, followed

by an hour more discussion at lunch. Working in the IEP clinic with

Heiner thus became like an apprenticeship where we could try out his

ideas on our patients (and these ideas did revolutionize AIDs tx at IEP,

but that's another story).

 

Anyway, a couple of years later, I worked with Heiner again setting up

the teaching clinic at NCNM over a six month period in 1997. I continue

to work with Heiner today on the software project known as IBIS, where

he is an advisor, as is Zev, BTW. Last summer, before Heiner left for

China, he handed me a folder full of articles which he said were

materials he handed out to his first year students. Included in the

folder was the Porkert article in question. Now perhaps these readings

were not " required " , per se, of that I cannot be sure. I was also not

referring to the entire text as being presented to students, but merely

the two page article. However, it does definitely reflect Heiner's

position on this subject. In fact, it is my understanding from Heiner

that this article by Porkert (5/99) influenced Heiner's own work on the

same subject published later that same year (12/99); the Porkert article

is is actually listed as a reference in this Fruehauf article, Chinese

Medicine in Crisis from the California Journal of OM

 

So I think I will not refrain from making statements on this subject,

though I welcome being being challenged on my factual errors. As for

the philosophical issue of TCM versus CCM, that was raised by Flaws

among others long before Heiner even arrived on the American teaching

scene (Flaws has a 1987 essay on this subject in Blue Poppy Essays). So

I don't consider that an issue at all related to Heiner and NCNM. He is

just the latest and most eloquent proponent of this view. But he will

also be the first to admit that the dichotomous CCM vs. TCM framework he

lays out in the above mentioned article really reflects the worst case

scenario of modern chinese medicine versus the best (in his opinion).

In reality, he says there are many shades of grey and all the professors

from chengdu have to learn the same TCM as elsewhere in china, so all

so-called CCM is layered upon a TCM foundation, by default.

 

I have really spoken and written with Heiner about this at length and

his main purpose in differentiating TCM and CCM so sharply is didactic.

The emphasis from square one is on learning to ride the dragon, to

borrow Ken's title. But just the fact that there are shades of grey

between the rigid definition of TCM at one end of the spectrum and the

classical tradition of CCM at the other end suggest to me that these

so-called styles are really on a continuum of depth. Guohui Liu at

OCOM, another chengdu professor of mine, likened what was labeled as TCM

as swimming on the surface and CCM as diving deep for pearls. But he

thought both labels were ultimately meaningless since there was only one

ocean. That is why I say that what is called CCM is nothing more than

diving deep in the same ocean that contains what is called TCM.

 

 

 

, " "

<zrosenberg@p...> wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I guess all I can offer is my familiarity with articles on the

subject,

as I have not been to China to survey the situation for myself. And

your opinion is certainly a minority position amongst those who have

spent a lot of time there (you have dismissed Porkert, but Fruehauf,

Volker Scheid, Paul Unschuld and Dagmar feel the same way). I would

like to hear from others who have surveyed the scene to flesh this

out.

Right now, I think we are like the blind man and the elephant,

perhaps.

But most of the hearsay seems to be self confirming, doesn't it?

 

 

>

> When I read this paper it does not make me either feel informed

> or worried about the state of Chinese medicine in China. It makes

> me worried about the status of authority on the subject in the

> Western world.

>

[Guest guest]

 

 

> I guess all I can offer is my familiarity with articles on the

> subject,

> as I have not been to China to survey the situation for myself. And

> your opinion is certainly a minority position amongst those who have

> spent a lot of time there

 

I know many Chinese who have spent a lot of time there and who

would, like myself, willingly acknowledge that there are major problems

facing the ongoing development of Chinese medicine in China. If we

put statements such as - all seriously ill patients are referred to Western

medical practitioners for treatments; and the Chinese practice Chinese

medicine as a sham to try and convince people that this old tradition

still survives - to a vote, I can only assume that the majority of people

who have ever been in a TCM hospital would find them as ludicrous as I

do.

 

I'm not sure what my opinion is on the overall issue. As I've said

over and over, I am really only familiar with the scene in Chengdu. I

think it is entirely proper for people to go, look around, and report

on their experiences. I think it's important to criticize everything.

But if we don't insist upon a higher standard of proof than the one

reflected by the article in question, I submit we will never come

anywhere near the truth of the matter.

 

> (you have dismissed Porkert, but Fruehauf,

> Volker Scheid, Paul Unschuld and Dagmar feel the same way).

 

I am not familiar with what Fruehauf, Scheid, and Unschuld say

about this subject in detail. I'll have to remedy this.

 

> I would

> like to hear from others who have surveyed the scene to flesh this

> out.

 

I would, too. I hope and urge that those who present information

pay some attention to science and methodology.

 

> Right now, I think we are like the blind man and the elephant,

> perhaps.

 

Well, I am not blind. I spent years in TCM clinics in Chengdu

studying and working alongside doctors and their apprentices

and interns who knew basic theories, knew how to take pulses,

understood how to assess patients' conditions and how to

treat them effectively using methods that a broad consensus of

scholars and experts could easily agree upon as Chinese medicine.

Until I read that article, I had never encountered the idea of all

this activity somehow being a sham.

 

 

> But most of the hearsay seems to be self confirming, doesn't it?

 

As I said, I'm not familiar with these other sources on this subject,

so I can't comment. And I have already made my thoughts on

the one article clear, I think. Far from confirming anything, it

severely undermines the whole effort to get at what the real

situation is.

 

Again, I think it is a valid and vitally important subject to discuss.

I'd just like to see the discussion focus on facts.

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Wow. When I received Thad's email, it didn't have the gibberish and " nbsp " s

in it -- but when I saw Z'ev's, it did. How does that happen? I do wish all

would take the time to spell check their messages. After all, we are about

education.

 

Julie

[Guest guest]

Luke, yes, I had noticed that you didn't have one (smile). In my system,

there is a spellchecker available just as if I were sending an email to an

individual.

 

Julie

[Guest guest]

Hello, Julie,

 

I haven't discovered a spellcheck tool when replying directly via

. Is there this option?

 

luke

 

 

, juliej8@a... wrote:

> Wow. When I received Thad's email, it didn't have the gibberish

and " nbsp " s

> in it -- but when I saw Z'ev's, it did. How does that happen? I do

wish all

> would take the time to spell check their messages. After all, we

are about

> education.

>

> Julie

[Guest guest]

" Guohui Liu at

OCOM, another chengdu professor of mine, likened what was labeled as TCM

as swimming on the surface and CCM as diving deep for pearls. But he

thought both labels were ultimately meaningless since there was only one

ocean. That is why I say that what is called CCM is nothing more than

diving deep in the same ocean that contains what is called TCM. "

 

I have something to say about the " one ocean " concept as presented by Todd

here. Really, there is one ocean as far as ALL knowledge is concerned.

However, I think that humanity will never fully grasp the infinite reaches

of this knowledge. To say that there is really only one Chinese medicine

(TCM) is ludicrous. I've never been to China (yet) but it is my

understanding that there are many, many forms of health care practice; not

unlike here in the United States. For example, I am a naturopathic

physician, a graduate of a four-year medical program which includes

extensive training in modern medical sciences as well as

" traditional/classical " ones. I most definitely would not compare the form

of health care that I practice as " the same, but an only deeper " Western

medical approach. Supposedly, naturopathic medicine and contemporary

Western medicine share the same philosophical foundations (sound familiar?),

but for some reason the difference between treatment approaches is like

comparing night and day.

As far as the ocean is concerned, naturopathic medicine is one fish, modern

Western medicine another, TCM another and CCM, also, another. So is it the

case for modern physics, chemistry and other natural sciences thought they

constantly change, recreate and permutate. The designation of a Chinese

medicine program as being CCM merely highlights that state of the so-called

" one ocean " of Chinese medicine today. There IS no medicine " ocean, " just

different fish within the great ocean of all knowledge.

Thaddeus Jacobs, N. D.

 

- <herb-t

cha

Tuesday, June 06, 2000 1:55 AM

chinese medicine debased

 

 

> I suppose I should defend myself. I have known Heiner Fruehauf since

> 1992 or early 93, when he came to lecture in my herbal formulas class at

> OCOM. We then worked together at Subhuti Dharmananda's Immune

> Enhancement Program throughout 1994. During that time, Heiner was

> developing his materia medica and formulae text materials. As a perk,

> Subhuti paid Heiner to teach us from these materials he was creating.

> So for about six months, we had two hour class every two weeks, followed

> by an hour more discussion at lunch. Working in the IEP clinic with

> Heiner thus became like an apprenticeship where we could try out his

> ideas on our patients (and these ideas did revolutionize AIDs tx at IEP,

> but that's another story).

>

> Anyway, a couple of years later, I worked with Heiner again setting up

> the teaching clinic at NCNM over a six month period in 1997. I continue

> to work with Heiner today on the software project known as IBIS, where

> he is an advisor, as is Zev, BTW. Last summer, before Heiner left for

> China, he handed me a folder full of articles which he said were

> materials he handed out to his first year students. Included in the

> folder was the Porkert article in question. Now perhaps these readings

> were not " required " , per se, of that I cannot be sure. I was also not

> referring to the entire text as being presented to students, but merely

> the two page article. However, it does definitely reflect Heiner's

> position on this subject. In fact, it is my understanding from Heiner

> that this article by Porkert (5/99) influenced Heiner's own work on the

> same subject published later that same year (12/99); the Porkert article

> is is actually listed as a reference in this Fruehauf article, Chinese

> Medicine in Crisis from the California Journal of OM

>

> So I think I will not refrain from making statements on this subject,

> though I welcome being being challenged on my factual errors. As for

> the philosophical issue of TCM versus CCM, that was raised by Flaws

> among others long before Heiner even arrived on the American teaching

> scene (Flaws has a 1987 essay on this subject in Blue Poppy Essays). So

> I don't consider that an issue at all related to Heiner and NCNM. He is

> just the latest and most eloquent proponent of this view. But he will

> also be the first to admit that the dichotomous CCM vs. TCM framework he

> lays out in the above mentioned article really reflects the worst case

> scenario of modern chinese medicine versus the best (in his opinion).

> In reality, he says there are many shades of grey and all the professors

> from chengdu have to learn the same TCM as elsewhere in china, so all

> so-called CCM is layered upon a TCM foundation, by default.

>

> I have really spoken and written with Heiner about this at length and

> his main purpose in differentiating TCM and CCM so sharply is didactic.

> The emphasis from square one is on learning to ride the dragon, to

> borrow Ken's title. But just the fact that there are shades of grey

> between the rigid definition of TCM at one end of the spectrum and the

> classical tradition of CCM at the other end suggest to me that these

> so-called styles are really on a continuum of depth. Guohui Liu at

> OCOM, another chengdu professor of mine, likened what was labeled as TCM

> as swimming on the surface and CCM as diving deep for pearls. But he

> thought both labels were ultimately meaningless since there was only one

> ocean. That is why I say that what is called CCM is nothing more than

> diving deep in the same ocean that contains what is called TCM.

>

 

>

>

>

> , " "

> <zrosenberg@p...> wrote:

> >

>

>

> ------

> Old school buds here:

> http://click./1/4057/9/_/542111/_/960281771/

> ------

>

> Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

>