Guest guest Posted September 14, 2000 Report Share Posted September 14, 2000 One caveat about placebo effects. Placebo effects can lead to true healing in many FUNCTIONAL complaints. So I am all for cultivating this effect in one's practice. We just need to be clear with ourselves not to believe it is the herbs when it is more likely the faith, beliefs, dr./pt. relationship and the very REAL effects of acupuncture. If you doubt my view on dosage, next time you have a splitting headache, try and treat it by taking one flake of aspirin. Or try getting a buzz from one sip of wine. why would herbs work differently than drugs or alcohol? -- Chinese Herbal Medicine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2000 Report Share Posted September 14, 2000 on 9/14/00 10:17 AM, Todd at wrote: > > One caveat about placebo effects. Placebo effects can lead to true > healing in many FUNCTIONAL complaints. So I am all for cultivating this > effect in one's practice. We just need to be clear with ourselves not to > believe it is the herbs when it is more likely the faith, beliefs, > dr./pt. relationship and the very REAL effects of acupuncture. If you > doubt my view on dosage, next time you have a splitting headache, try > and treat it by taking one flake of aspirin. Or try getting a buzz from > one sip of wine. why would herbs work differently than drugs or alcohol? > > -- > > Director > Chinese Herbal Medicine > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare > practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing > in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, > including board approved online continuing education. > > > > Herbs work differently from drugs, because they are more complex pharmacologically, and at least at this point in time, not standardized in dosage. So even if you give larger dosages of herbs, the products are not standardized as to constituents. You also have the factors of how well decocted they are, body weight of the patient, which patents are raw ( I believe Seven Forests was using, if not now, raw herbs ground up), which cooked, etc. Biomedical treatment works, as per your example of aspirin for headache, on using the allopathic method of blocking pathways, altering secretions, or influencing the brain or nervous system. Herbal medicine is designed to work, for want of a better word, synergistically in many (if not all) cases. Therefore, to get acute relief of headache would require a large dose of herbal medicine. However, for treatment of chronic patterns, smaller dosages spread over a longer period may be more efficacious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2000 Report Share Posted September 14, 2000 Herbs work differently from drugs, because they are more complexpharmacologically, and at least at this point in time, not standardized indosage. So even if you give larger dosages of herbs, the products are notstandardized as to constituents. You also have the factors of how welldecocted they are, body weight of the patient, which patents are raw ( Ibelieve Seven Forests was using, if not now, raw herbs ground up), whichcooked, etc. Biomedical treatment works, as per your example of aspirin forheadache, on using the allopathic method of blocking pathways, alteringsecretions, or influencing the brain or nervous system. >>>>Zev I know that is what we like to say but how much of this is just talk? It sounds great, but the truth is you do not no that beyond belief alon - Thursday, September 14, 2000 11:36 AM Re: placebo effects on 9/14/00 10:17 AM, Todd at wrote:> > One caveat about placebo effects. Placebo effects can lead to true> healing in many FUNCTIONAL complaints. So I am all for cultivating this> effect in one's practice. We just need to be clear with ourselves not to> believe it is the herbs when it is more likely the faith, beliefs,> dr./pt. relationship and the very REAL effects of acupuncture. If you> doubt my view on dosage, next time you have a splitting headache, try> and treat it by taking one flake of aspirin. Or try getting a buzz from> one sip of wine. why would herbs work differently than drugs or alcohol?> > --> > Director> Chinese Herbal Medicine> http://www..org> > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare> practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing> in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,> including board approved online continuing education.> > http://www..org> > Herbs work differently from drugs, because they are more complexpharmacologically, and at least at this point in time, not standardized indosage. So even if you give larger dosages of herbs, the products are notstandardized as to constituents. You also have the factors of how welldecocted they are, body weight of the patient, which patents are raw ( Ibelieve Seven Forests was using, if not now, raw herbs ground up), whichcooked, etc. Biomedical treatment works, as per your example of aspirin forheadache, on using the allopathic method of blocking pathways, alteringsecretions, or influencing the brain or nervous system. Herbal medicine isdesigned to work, for want of a better word, synergistically in many (if notall) cases. Therefore, to get acute relief of headache would require alarge dose of herbal medicine. However, for treatment of chronic patterns,smaller dosages spread over a longer period may be more efficacious.Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2000 Report Share Posted September 14, 2000 No, Alon, It is not just belief. If you'd like a textual reference for herbal pharmacology, try " Principles and Practice of Phytotherapy " by Simon Mills and Kerry Bone (Churchill-Livingstone). On page 23: " There is a fundamental difference between administering a pure chemical and the same chemical in a plant matrix. It is this issue of the advantage of chemical complexity which is both rejected by orthodoxy as having no basis in fact and avoided by most researchers as introducing too many variables of comfortable research. " Just because it is difficult to design studies for the complex pharmacology of plant medicines or polypharmacy prescriptions doesn't mean that there are not precedents for their use, or one cannot make a case for it. I am disappointed with your response, Alon. Nothing below has to do with belief, but with observation over time. Our entire tradition of Chinese medicine is based on naked-sense observation, Alon. Herbs work differently from drugs, because they are more complex pharmacologically, and at least at this point in time, not standardized in dosage. So even if you give larger dosages of herbs, the products are not standardized as to constituents. You also have the factors of how well decocted they are, body weight of the patient, which patents are raw ( I believe Seven Forests was using, if not now, raw herbs ground up), which cooked, etc. Biomedical treatment works, as per your example of aspirin for headache, on using the allopathic method of blocking pathways, altering secretions, or influencing the brain or nervous system. >>>>Zev I know that is what we like to say but how much of this is just talk? It sounds great, but the truth is you do not no that beyond belief alon - <zrosenberg Thursday, September 14, 2000 11:36 AM Re: placebo effects on 9/14/00 10:17 AM, Todd at wrote: > > One caveat about placebo effects. Placebo effects can lead to true > healing in many FUNCTIONAL complaints. So I am all for cultivating this > effect in one's practice. We just need to be clear with ourselves not to > believe it is the herbs when it is more likely the faith, beliefs, > dr./pt. relationship and the very REAL effects of acupuncture. If you > doubt my view on dosage, next time you have a splitting headache, try > and treat it by taking one flake of aspirin. Or try getting a buzz from > one sip of wine. why would herbs work differently than drugs or alcohol? > > -- > > Director > Chinese Herbal Medicine > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare > practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing > in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, > including board approved online continuing education. > > > > Herbs work differently from drugs, because they are more complex pharmacologically, and at least at this point in time, not standardized in dosage. So even if you give larger dosages of herbs, the products are not standardized as to constituents. You also have the factors of how well decocted they are, body weight of the patient, which patents are raw ( I believe Seven Forests was using, if not now, raw herbs ground up), which cooked, etc. Biomedical treatment works, as per your example of aspirin for headache, on using the allopathic method of blocking pathways, altering secretions, or influencing the brain or nervous system. Herbal medicine is designed to work, for want of a better word, synergistically in many (if not all) cases. Therefore, to get acute relief of headache would require a large dose of herbal medicine. However, for treatment of chronic patterns, smaller dosages spread over a longer period may be more efficacious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 ----- Original Message -- It is not just belief. If you'd like a textual reference for herbal pharmacology, try "Principles and Practice of Phytotherapy" by Simon Mills and Kerry Bone (Churchill-Livingstone). On page 23: " There is a fundamental difference between administering a pure chemical and the same chemical in a plant matrix. It is this issue of the advantage of chemical complexity which is both rejected by orthodoxy as having no basis in fact and avoided by most researchers as introducing too many variables of comfortable research." Just because it is difficult to design studies for the complex pharmacology of plant medicines or polypharmacy prescriptions doesn't mean that there are not precedents for their use, or one cannot make a case for it. >>>>>Zev this paragraph is just what I am talking about. The fact that the Medical Industry- has taker over medicine in the last 50yr does not mean that herbs do not have pharmacological mechanisms and that these are their primary mode of action. It is possible to study an herb or formula and document the biological affects and mechanisms including identifying active and inert ingredients. An herb is not nessaseraly safer than a drug of similar pharmacological femely. For example, Digxin is safer than the herbal verity in equivalent therapeutic dose and Sudafed has less side-effects than Ma Huang (on equivalent effective dose). What is great about herbal therapies is the traditional diagnostic ways that allow us to see the body from a different perspective. The clinical usefulness of herbs with relatively lower active ingredients dosage with limited side-effects. It is the synergistic ways herbal formulas have been prepared that result in these affects. The same thing is beginning to be done with drug combinations and design in western medicine. It is statement that herbs function differently than drugs that you can not back up. Naked-sense observation does not take into account things like placebo, spontaneous recovery, natural course, etc. The lack of prognostic discussion of disease process in TCM is the best evidence of this problem. There are millions of pages of discussion of diagnosis (which usually means plugging in system of correspondence, which can apply to any situation) and treatment principals but little discussion on actual outcome. A naked-sense of observation which is applied through one set of filters (e.g. TCM) can miss a whole different set of problems (which is one of the problems of modern medicine today). I object to this type of approach as providing statement of truths (as western science does every day). Unless one examines the evidence from many perspectives and documents ones conclusion in my mind it is still just a belief system. Alon -- Thursday, September 14, 2000 9:06 PM Re: placebo effects No, Alon, It is not just belief. If you'd like a textual reference for herbal pharmacology, try "Principles and Practice of Phytotherapy" by Simon Mills and Kerry Bone (Churchill-Livingstone). On page 23: " There is a fundamental difference between administering a pure chemical and the same chemical in a plant matrix. It is this issue of the advantage of chemical complexity which is both rejected by orthodoxy as having no basis in fact and avoided by most researchers as introducing too many variables of comfortable research." Just because it is difficult to design studies for the complex pharmacology of plant medicines or polypharmacy prescriptions doesn't mean that there are not precedents for their use, or one cannot make a case for it. Herbs work differently from drugs, because they are more complexpharmacologically, and at least at this point in time, not standardized indosage. So even if you give larger dosages of herbs, the products are notstandardized as to constituents. You also have the factors of how welldecocted they are, body weight of the patient, which patents are raw ( Ibelieve Seven Forests was using, if not now, raw herbs ground up), whichcooked, etc. Biomedical treatment works, as per your example of aspirin forheadache, on using the allopathic method of blocking pathways, alteringsecretions, or influencing the brain or nervous system. >>>>Zev I know that is what we like to say but how much of this is just talk? It sounds great, but the truth is you do not no that beyond beliefalon - Thursday, September 14, 2000 9:06 PM Re: placebo effects No, Alon, It is not just belief. If you'd like a textual reference for herbal pharmacology, try "Principles and Practice of Phytotherapy" by Simon Mills and Kerry Bone (Churchill-Livingstone). On page 23: " There is a fundamental difference between administering a pure chemical and the same chemical in a plant matrix. It is this issue of the advantage of chemical complexity which is both rejected by orthodoxy as having no basis in fact and avoided by most researchers as introducing too many variables of comfortable research." Just because it is difficult to design studies for the complex pharmacology of plant medicines or polypharmacy prescriptions doesn't mean that there are not precedents for their use, or one cannot make a case for it. I am disappointed with your response, Alon. Nothing below has to do with belief, but with observation over time. Our entire tradition of Chinese medicine is based on naked-sense observation, Alon. Herbs work differently from drugs, because they are more complexpharmacologically, and at least at this point in time, not standardized indosage. So even if you give larger dosages of herbs, the products are notstandardized as to constituents. You also have the factors of how welldecocted they are, body weight of the patient, which patents are raw ( Ibelieve Seven Forests was using, if not now, raw herbs ground up), whichcooked, etc. Biomedical treatment works, as per your example of aspirin forheadache, on using the allopathic method of blocking pathways, alteringsecretions, or influencing the brain or nervous system. >>>>Zev I know that is what we like to say but how much of this is just talk? It sounds great, but the truth is you do not no that beyond beliefalon - <zrosenberg Thursday, September 14, 2000 11:36 AMRe: placebo effectson 9/14/00 10:17 AM, Todd at wrote:> > One caveat about placebo effects. Placebo effects can lead to true> healing in many FUNCTIONAL complaints. So I am all for cultivating this> effect in one's practice. We just need to be clear with ourselves not to> believe it is the herbs when it is more likely the faith, beliefs,> dr./pt. relationship and the very REAL effects of acupuncture. If you> doubt my view on dosage, next time you have a splitting headache, try> and treat it by taking one flake of aspirin. Or try getting a buzz from> one sip of wine. why would herbs work differently than drugs or alcohol?> > --> > Director> Chinese Herbal Medicine> http://www..org> > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare> practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing> in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,> including board approved online continuing education.> > http://www..org> > Herbs work differently from drugs, because they are more complexpharmacologically, and at least at this point in time, not standardized indosage. So even if you give larger dosages of herbs, the products are notstandardized as to constituents. You also have the factors of how welldecocted they are, body weight of the patient, which patents are raw ( Ibelieve Seven Forests was using, if not now, raw herbs ground up), whichcooked, etc. Biomedical treatment works, as per your example of aspirin forheadache, on using the allopathic method of blocking pathways, alteringsecretions, or influencing the brain or nervous system. Herbal medicine isdesigned to work, for want of a better word, synergistically in many (if notall) cases. Therefore, to get acute relief of headache would require alarge dose of herbal medicine. However, for treatment of chronic patterns,smaller dosages spread over a longer period may be more efficacious.Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 on 9/15/00 11:05 AM, alonmarcus at alonmarcus wrote: My Groups </mygroups> | Main Page <> | Start a new group! <http://click./1/8150/11/_/542111/_/969041723/> ----- Original Message -- It is not just belief. If you'd like a textual reference for herbal pharmacology, try " Principles and Practice of Phytotherapy " by Simon Mills and Kerry Bone (Churchill-Livingstone). On page 23: " There is a fundamental difference between administering a pure chemical and the same chemical in a plant matrix. It is this issue of the advantage of chemical complexity which is both rejected by orthodoxy as having no basis in fact and avoided by most researchers as introducing too many variables of comfortable research. " Just because it is difficult to design studies for the complex pharmacology of plant medicines or polypharmacy prescriptions doesn't mean that there are not precedents for their use, or one cannot make a case for it. >>>>>Zev this paragraph is just what I am talking about. The fact that the Medical Industry- has taker over medicine in the last 50yr does not mean that herbs do not have pharmacological mechanisms and that these are their primary mode of action. It is possible to study an herb or formula and document the biological affects and mechanisms including identifying active and inert ingredients. An herb is not nessaseraly safer than a drug of similar pharmacological femely. For example, Digxin is safer than the herbal verity in equivalent therapeutic dose and Sudafed has less side-effects than Ma Huang (on equivalent effective dose). What is great about herbal therapies is the traditional diagnostic ways that allow us to see the body from a different perspective. The clinical usefulness of herbs with relatively lower active ingredients dosage with limited side-effects. It is the synergistic ways herbal formulas have been prepared that result in these affects. The same thing is beginning to be done with drug combinations and design in western medicine. It is statement that herbs function differently than drugs that you can not back up. Naked-sense observation does not take into account things like placebo, spontaneous recovery, natural course, etc. The lack of prognostic discussion of disease process in TCM is the best evidence of this problem. There are millions of pages of discussion of diagnosis (which usually means plugging in system of correspondence, which can apply to any situation) and treatment principals but little discussion on actual outcome. A naked-sense of observation which is applied through one set of filters (e.g. TCM) can miss a whole different set of problems (which is one of the problems of modern medicine today). I object to this type of approach as providing statement of truths (as western science does every day). Unless one examines the evidence from many perspectives and documents ones conclusion in my mind it is still just a belief system. Alon Alon, There IS a difference between using plant medicines and synthetic pharmaceutical drugs. If you want to reduce the use of herbal medicines by traditional systems to modern pharmacology, that's fine with me. Just don't impose it on the profession. I stand by the statements made above. So-called 'inert ingredients' is a concept like 'junk DNA " . . . .they are 'useful',. just in a different way. Modern pharmacology may have rigorous methods for examining all types of medicinal substances, but the biochemical paradigm is still a limited one. Why impose it as the gold standard on herbal pharmaceuticals? You seem to buy into the dogma that traditional medical systems need to be 'explained' by modern science to be valid. While biomedicine is starting to examine therapeutic combinations of drugs, the inadvertent combination of drugs by typical physicians has been disastrous, increasing toxicity many-fold. What is your rationale for comparing sudafed and ma huang? How do you compare the pharmacology of the two? How do you consider dosage, or the fact that ma huang is NEVER used alone in Chinese medicine? You are absolutely wrong about the lack of prognosis in Chinese medicine. . . ..I have seen practitioners such as Michael Broffman accurately predict development and outcome of diseases over and over again. It is too bad that you have not been exposed to this side of Chinese medicine. To say this is simply irresponsible. You cannot be a voice for Chinese medicine with such uninformed views. Placebo effect IS documented in Chinese medicine. . . .in the case history literature and elsewhere. As in a famous Chinese medical statement, " the inferior physician will cure 30% of his patients, as they will have gotten better anyway. " There are other perspectives than biomedicine as well. . . .homeopathic medicine has a completely different view on therapeutic doses. Why limit yourself to a biomedical perspective when discussing Chinese medicinals? Again, I am disappointed. We have a rich tradition, barely tapped at our fingertips, and so many individuals like yourself draw hasty conclusions about it, without exposure to much of the material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 Modern pharmacology may have rigorous methods for examining all types of medicinal substances, but the biochemical paradigm is still a limited one. Why impose it as the gold standard on herbal pharmaceuticals? You seem to buy into the dogma that traditional medical systems need to be 'explained' by modern science to be valid. >>>>>Not true. There is a difference between imposing one method over another and using two methods for deeper understanding. When one has only a hammer everything looks like a nail. There is two much to be missed if only Modern or TCM paradigms are used exclusively. Personally I believe that 21ed century medicine will do just that and will incorporated host individuality into medicine and thus will incorporate many of the advantages of other medical systems. While biomedicine is starting to examine therapeutic combinations of drugs, the inadvertent combination of drugs by typical physicians has been disastrous, increasing toxicity many-fold. >>>>That is because the combination of drugs has never been a significant part of western modern medicine. MD prescribe combination of medicine w/out having any ide of what occurs. Most cant remember what is already known on the subject even though it is in its infancy. The result is that medicine is the 4th largest cause of death in the USA. What is your rationale for comparing Sudafed and ma Huang? How do you compare the pharmacology of the two? How do you consider dosage, or the fact that ma Hung is NEVER used alone in Chinese medicine?. >>>>>First you have to look at a large population being treated w/ Sudafed and TCM formulas contain ma huang. You need to be able to have objective parameters to compare. You need to take out belief system out of the picture by using blind techniques. And you have to track all reported and measurable side-effects. When looking at ma huang as a single herb you have to look at the effects of the whole drug which for example is much more likely to increase blood pressure. You are absolutely wrong about the lack of prognosis in Chinese medicine. . . ..I have seen practitioners such as Michael Broffman accurately predict development and outcome of diseases over and over again. It is too bad that you have not been exposed to this side of Chinese medicine. To say this is simply irresponsible. You cannot be a voice for Chinese medicine with such uninformed views. >>>>I have worked in China and Japan, studied with Miriam Lee for 2 years, Angela wu for Six months, followed Dr Yat Kai Lai for 1yr. And w/ all of them took notes as well as phone numbers of patients that I followed. A year following the termination of their treatments I called and followed up on many of them. These are all very well known practitioners with great reputations. I did as much follow up as I could in China as well. You will be very surprise if you new what was promised or predicated by the above practitioners and what I found on follow-up. I have also seen over 2 dozens of Michael Broffman patients and read many of their written reports (or more accurately poems) most of which to my reading were not impressive at all. They can be interpreted in many ways and do not give a clear clinical diagnosis prognosis and often even treatments. You can project on to them what ever you want and thus ether confirm what you want or reject other points. As in a famous Chinese medical statement, "the inferior physician will cure 30% of his patients, as they will have gotten better anyway." >>>>Yes there are many such general statements but that does not cut it for me. I believe in OM very much, however, I am not willing to just except old writings, especially when considering the great amount of cultural exaggeration found in Chinese poems and other old writings Alon - Friday, September 15, 2000 11:57 AM Re: placebo effects on 9/15/00 11:05 AM, alonmarcus at alonmarcus wrote: My Groups </mygroups> | Main Page <> | Start a new group! <http://click./1/8150/11/_/542111/_/969041723/> ----- Original Message -- It is not just belief. If you'd like a textual reference for herbal pharmacology, try "Principles and Practice of Phytotherapy" by Simon Mills and Kerry Bone (Churchill-Livingstone). On page 23: " There is a fundamental difference between administering a pure chemical and the same chemical in a plant matrix. It is this issue of the advantage of chemical complexity which is both rejected by orthodoxy as having no basis in fact and avoided by most researchers as introducing too many variables of comfortable research." Just because it is difficult to design studies for the complex pharmacology of plant medicines or polypharmacy prescriptions doesn't mean that there are not precedents for their use, or one cannot make a case for it. >>>>>Zev this paragraph is just what I am talking about. The fact that the Medical Industry- has taker over medicine in the last 50yr does not mean that herbs do not have pharmacological mechanisms and that these are their primary mode of action. It is possible to study an herb or formula and document the biological affects and mechanisms including identifying active and inert ingredients. An herb is not nessaseraly safer than a drug of similar pharmacological femely. For example, Digxin is safer than the herbal verity in equivalent therapeutic dose and Sudafed has less side-effects than Ma Huang (on equivalent effective dose). What is great about herbal therapies is the traditional diagnostic ways that allow us to see the body from a different perspective. The clinical usefulness of herbs with relatively lower active ingredients dosage with limited side-effects. It is the synergistic ways herbal formulas have been prepared that result in these affects. The same thing is beginning to be done with drug combinations and design in western medicine. It is statement that herbs function differently than drugs that you can not back up. Naked-sense observation does not take into account things like placebo, spontaneous recovery, natural course, etc. The lack of prognostic discussion of disease process in TCM is the best evidence of this problem. There are millions of pages of discussion of diagnosis (which usually means plugging in system of correspondence, which can apply to any situation) and treatment principals but little discussion on actual outcome. A naked-sense of observation which is applied throu! gh one set of filters (e.g. TCM) can miss a whole different set of problems (which is one of the problems of modern medicine today). I object to this type of approach as providing statement of truths (as western science does every day). Unless one examines the evidence from many perspectives and documents ones conclusion in my mind it is still just a belief system.AlonAlon, There IS a difference between using plant medicines and synthetic pharmaceutical drugs. If you want to reduce the use of herbal medicines by traditional systems to modern pharmacology, that's fine with me. Just don't impose it on the profession. I stand by the statements made above. So-called 'inert ingredients' is a concept like 'junk DNA". . . .they are 'useful',. just in a different way. Modern pharmacology may have rigorous methods for examining all types of medicinal substances, but the biochemical paradigm is still a limited one. Why impose it as the gold standard on herbal pharmaceuticals? You seem to buy into the dogma that traditional medical systems need to be 'explained' by modern science to be valid. While biomedicine is starting to examine therapeutic combinations of drugs, the inadvertent combination of drugs by typical physicians has been disastrous, increasing toxicity many-fold. What is your rationale for comparing sudafed and ma huang? How do you compare the pharmacology of the two? How do you consider dosage, or the fact that ma huang is NEVER used alone in Chinese medicine? You are absolutely wrong about the lack of prognosis in Chinese medicine. . . ..I have seen practitioners such as Michael Broffman accurately predict development and outcome of diseases over and over again. It is too bad that you have not been exposed to this side of Chinese medicine. To say this is simply irresponsible. You cannot be a voice for Chinese medicine with such uninformed views. Placebo effect IS documented in Chinese medicine. . . .in the case history literature and elsewhere. As in a famous Chinese medical statement, "the inferior physician will cure 30% of his patients, as they will have gotten better anyway." There are other perspectives than biomedicine as well. . . .homeopathic medicine has a completely different view on therapeutic doses. Why limit yourself to a biomedical perspective when discussing Chinese medicinals? Again, I am disappointed. We have a rich tradition, barely tapped at our fingertips, and so many individuals like yourself draw hasty conclusions about it, without exposure to much of the material. Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 Richard- Could you crosspost your discussion on yi and fa from Casalist? Karen Vaughan CreationsGarden *************************************** Email advice is not a substitute for medical treatment. Man, surrounded by facts, permitting himself no suprise, no intuitive flash, no great hypothesis, no risk, is in a locked cell. " -Lillian Smith ______________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 What is Casalist? Catherine - Karen S Vaughan Friday, September 15, 2000 5:36 PM Re: placebo effects Richard-Could you crosspost your discussion on yi and fa from Casalist?Karen VaughanCreationsGarden***************************************Email advice is not a substitute for medical treatment.Man, surrounded by facts, permitting himself no suprise, no intuitiveflash, no great hypothesis, no risk, is in a locked cell." -LillianSmith______________YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.The Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2000 Report Share Posted September 16, 2000 What is your rationale for comparing Sudafed and ma Huang? How do you compare the pharmacology of the two? How do you consider dosage, or the fact that ma Hung is NEVER used alone in Chinese medicine?. >>>>>First you have to look at a large population being treated w/ Sudafed and TCM formulas contain ma huang. You need to be able to have objective parameters to compare. You need to take out belief system out of the picture by using blind techniques. And you have to track all reported and measurable side-effects. When looking at ma huang as a single herb you have to look at the effects of the whole drug which for example is much more likely to increase blood pressure. The problem with using 'blind techniques' is that it violates one of the core principles of Chinese medicine, which is individualizing the prescription for individual patients. The actions of medicines are modified by climate, body type, and disease. For example, Tao Hong-jing states that in northern China, the people are more thick-skinned, and the weather cold. One needs to use 9-12 gms. of ma huang per dose to induce sweating and disperse wind cold. In southern regions, the people have less body fat, sweat easily, therefore, if used at all, ma huang should be used in 2-3 gm. dosage. How can you get out of belief systems of medicine if you use a clinical trial method established by biomedicine? >>>>I have worked in China and Japan, studied with Miriam Lee for 2 years, Angela wu for Six months, followed Dr Yat Kai Lai for 1yr. And w/ all of them took notes as well as phone numbers of patients that I followed. A year following the termination of their treatments I called and followed up on many of them. These are all very well known practitioners with great reputations. I did as much follow up as I could in China as well. You will be very surprise if you new what was promised or predicated by the above practitioners and what I found on follow-up. I have also seen over 2 dozens of Michael Broffman patients and read many of their written reports (or more accurately poems) most of which to my reading were not impressive at all. They can be interpreted in many ways and do not give a clear clinical diagnosis prognosis and often even treatments. You can project on to them what ever you want and thus ether confirm what you want or reject other points. As in a famous Chinese medical statement, " the inferior physician will cure 30% of his patients, as they will have gotten better anyway. " >>>>Yes there are many such general statements but that does not cut it for me. I believe in OM very much, however, I am not willing to just except old writings, especially when considering the great amount of cultural exaggeration found in Chinese poems and other old writings Alon Alon, If you think Michael Broffman's case histories are poems, and not clear, and that 'old writings' are culturally exaggerated, there really is not much else to discuss in this forum. The principles of Chinese medicine are sound, well established, and worthy of study. This is a subject we have only scratched the surface of. . . .if you don't want to examine this further, I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2000 Report Share Posted September 16, 2000 I've wanted to stay out of this but... Alon seems to take a position that I see many of my colleagues and students take. There is a frustration which frankly I don't see. As for me, and perhaps many of us, I came to this medicine as an artist, interested in the philosophical paradigms and ended up to some extent another kind of healer. If I were 20 again and knew what I was going to be doing 25 years later I don't know if I would have changed things, gritted my teeth, put on a stethoscope and turned M.D. But right now, today.. no regrets. When I was deep into making art, the point was to go beyond the present, stretch the boundaries and push into new frontiers. Now I accept that is accepting the ancient. (Maybe this is my Yin to my former Yang.) I don't think that one can do without this acceptance. You can USE but there has to be that leap of fate. As Kaptchuk said, it will be Western Medicine that will accept but never the other way around. I'm very comfortable with that. I don't know why Alon continues to do medicine if the results from his mentors were so poor. Gee, that would be extremely discouraging. I'm amazed at the miracles I've pulled off, on cases that I thought would take months if at all, and frustrated at the " easy " stuff that just won't respond. But I'll continue, seems like I have no other choice and the patients aren't complaining, (at least the ones that come back). ;-) I'm reminded of another Kaptchuk story from his " other " book: Some M.D.'s did a trial where they did a heart procedure on some patients and just made an incision on others, fooling them into thinking they had the procedure. Both groups improved their condition to a great extent but because the " placebo " (Ren 17?) worked just as well as the actual procedure it was felt that it wasn't a legitimate therapy and BOTH the operation and the " placebo " were discontinued. Now there is Western thought for you. >>>>Yes there are many such general statements but that does not cut it for me. I believe in OM very much, however, I am not willing to just except old writings, especially when considering the great amount of cultural exaggeration found in Chinese poems and other old writings Alon Alon, If you think Michael Broffman's case histories are poems, and not clear, and that 'old writings' are culturally exaggerated, there really is not much else to discuss in this forum. The principles of Chinese medicine are sound, well established, and worthy of study. This is a subject we have only scratched the surface of. . . .if you don't want to examine this further, I rest my case. Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. L.Ac. acupuncture & herbs safe, compassionate care 1823 Wilshire Blvd. #610 Santa Monica, CA 90403 310 264-9197 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 I think people may be missing Alon's point and they are certainly missing mine on this subject. I would not suggest to practice TCM according to biomedical parameters nor reduce the understanding of herbs to the current scientific paradigm. However, I stand by my original statements. I believe herbs are dose dependent in function. I have seen no reliable evidence that homeopathy does anything beyond placebo effect. And when I say evidence, I refer to actual measures of outcome. I do not see how measuring an outcome using objective modern parameters does anything but assess TCM. It does not impact the practice of TCM to step back and assess a purely traditional and classical approach. If we claim to be able to help seriously ill patients recover, then in those cases where an objective measure exists, then should not this measure change over the course of a successful traditional treatment? If not, what basis do we ultimately use to determine cure? If we change the tongue and pulse to our satisfaction, but the patient's tumor meanwhile metastasizes, then I consider that a failure. Or perhaps proteinuria in kidney disease increases and the patient needs dialysis. Again failure. And I think this sort of confirmation should make one reconsider whether they have chosen the correct therapy. One may still have accomplished the more nebulous goals of art or healing, but in my experience, patients themselves are rather looking to survive or be relieved of immense physical suffering. I also know from examining thousands of clinical abstracts from china over the years that such objective measures typically go hand in hand with cures as assessed by a group of TCM experts. This does nothing to rend the conceptual fabric of TCM, however it does everything to legitimize TCM to mainstream critics. Perhaps some master physician whom I've never met could actually rely on naked sense observation alone and be right every time, but I defer to something outside myself for proof. Likewise, though I have spent thousands and thousands of hours handling bulk herbs, I think I know a good quality herb from a bad one, but I lay any odds that I would not be able to assess the actual potency of any given batch without actually ingesting a sample and feeling its effects. -- Chinese Herbal Medicine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 I absolutely don't want to be a part of this discussion but feel compelled to mention my sense that Z'ev, whose comments about the particulars of Chinese medicine I have much admired in the past sounds almightily religious about our form of medicine. His current arguments remind me of the lectures I've given to groups of MD's. In this setting there is often a clear divide between the younger MD's who are interested in many forms of healing and how they can interact and the more dogmatic older doctors who thing that anything besides their form of medicine is quackery. While I believe (and sense that Alon does as well) that TCM has an enormous amount to offer the world and that we all have a long way to go to fully master this ancient and comprehensive system of healing, it is also true that western medicine has done absolutely miraculous things to further quality and quantity of life throughout the world (including China). There are things that we can each do for our patients that the other can't do and lots of situations where both systems can be useful. TCM practiced by the most skilled practitioner in the world, past or present, will never be a panacea for everyone. Neither will western medicine. My sense from reading about ancient and modern herbal masters in China is that they will use ANY information about herbs and formulae in order to improve their technique. Whether that data is from another epoch, another province, or another medical system. Why should we in the west be any different? Ultimately, western medical practitioners and TCM practitioners are talking about the same body, just using a different jargon to describe the disharmony. Many scientific techniques can be used to look at TCM and to suggest otherwise is to look at Chinese medicine as magic. The Chinese don't take this approach, why should we? This is not to say that you can comprehensively reduce our medicine via these tools, but you can get interesting data from studies. I, personally, will take western pharmaceutical data into account when considering an herb for a patient. I don't weight it as heavily as I would for a materia medica entry on the herb because of the lack of context and history of the scientific data. However it is still often usable information. Blah blah blah. This arguement could go on forever. I hope it doesn't since I don't believe anything usable will come from hammering away at this issue. Merely a reinforcement of faith issues. Mark Reese - Saturday, September 16, 2000 9:53 PM Re: placebo effects What is your rationale for comparing Sudafed and ma Huang? How do you compare the pharmacology of the two? How do you consider dosage, or the fact that ma Hung is NEVER used alone in Chinese medicine?.>>>>>First you have to look at a large population being treated w/ Sudafed and TCM formulas contain ma huang. You need to be able to have objective parameters to compare. You need to take out belief system out of the picture by using blind techniques. And you have to track all reported and measurable side-effects. When looking at ma huang as a single herb you have to look at the effects of the whole drug which for example is much more likely to increase blood pressure.The problem with using 'blind techniques' is that it violates one of the core principles of Chinese medicine, which is individualizing the prescription for individual patients. The actions of medicines are modified by climate, body type, and disease. For example, Tao Hong-jing states that in northern China, the people are more thick-skinned, and the weather cold. One needs to use 9-12 gms. of ma huang per dose to induce sweating and disperse wind cold. In southern regions, the people have less body fat, sweat easily, therefore, if used at all, ma huang should be used in 2-3 gm. dosage. How can you get out of belief systems of medicine if you use a clinical trial method established by biomedicine? >>>>I have worked in China and Japan, studied with Miriam Lee for 2 years, Angela wu for Six months, followed Dr Yat Kai Lai for 1yr. And w/ all of them took notes as well as phone numbers of patients that I followed. A year following the termination of their treatments I called and followed up on many of them. These are all very well known practitioners with great reputations. I did as much follow up as I could in China as well. You will be very surprise if you new what was promised or predicated by the above practitioners and what I found on follow-up. I have also seen over 2 dozens of Michael Broffmanpatients and read many of their written reports (or more accurately poems) most of which to my reading were not impressive at all. They can be interpreted in many ways and do not give a clear clinical diagnosis prognosis and often even treatments. You can project on to them what ever you want and thus ether confirm what you want or reject other points. As in a famous Chinese medical statement, "the inferior physician will cure 30% of his patients, as they will have gotten better anyway.">>>>Yes there are many such general statements but that does not cut it for me.I believe in OM very much, however, I am not willing to just except old writings, especially when considering the great amount of cultural exaggeration found in Chinese poems and other old writingsAlonAlon, If you think Michael Broffman's case histories are poems, and not clear, and that 'old writings' are culturally exaggerated, there really is not much else to discuss in this forum. The principles of Chinese medicine are sound, well established, and worthy of study. This is a subject we have only scratched the surface of. . . .if you don't want to examine this further, I rest my case. Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 Amen. You've said it so much better than I just attempted to. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 While I believe (and sense that Alon does as well) that TCM has an enormous amount to offer the world and that we all have a long way to go to fully master this ancient and comprehensive system of healing, it is also true that western medicine has done absolutely miraculous things to further quality and quantity of life throughout the world I think the tension here is where TCM NEEDS Western Medicine to be more successful. Obviously I don't think so although Western Medicine is definitely needed in many cases. And, yes, TCM can learn from modern research of course. Ultimately, western medical practitioners and TCM practitioners are talking about the same body, just using a different jargon to describe the disharmony. I'm not always certain we are looking at the same body. Maybe we look at a person not a body (sorry, it just came out). Many scientific techniques can be used to look at TCM and to suggest otherwise is to look at Chinese medicine as magic. The Chinese don't take this approach, why should we? The official Chinese TCM definitely looks at their medicine scientifically. But many people here are looking for another way of approaching their bodies. This is not to say that you can comprehensively reduce our medicine via these tools, but you can get interesting data from studies. However it is still often usable information. Blah blah blah. This arguement could go on forever. Yes, it will. By the way, what's the difference between angelica japonica and sinesis? L.Ac. acupuncture & herbs safe, compassionate care 1823 Wilshire Blvd. #610 Santa Monica, CA 90403 310 264-9197 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 on 9/17/00 12:22 AM, Todd at wrote: > > I think people may be missing Alon's point and they are certainly > missing mine on this subject. I would not suggest to practice TCM > according to biomedical parameters nor reduce the understanding of herbs > to the current scientific paradigm. However, I stand by my original > statements. I believe herbs are dose dependent in function. Dose dependent, perhaps. . . ..but there are several factors, that I mentioned in my post that are also important influences, again, body weight, pattern, use of herb in a prescription, processing of the medicinal, use in acute and chronic situations, etc. This must be factored into discussions on therapeutic efficacy when measuring such things. I myself rely on the traditionally recommended dosages for herbal medicines. I have > seen no reliable evidence that homeopathy does anything beyond placebo > effect. And when I say evidence, I refer to actual measures of > outcome. While I do not advocate 'homeopathic dosages' of Chinese herbal medicinals, especially prescriptions, there IS a great deal of outcome-based research on homeopathy, available. I can give you some leads if you are interested. I do not see how measuring an outcome using objective modern > parameters does anything but assess TCM. It does not impact the > practice of TCM to step back and assess a purely traditional and > classical approach. If we claim to be able to help seriously ill > patients recover, then in those cases where an objective measure exists, > then should not this measure change over the course of a successful > traditional treatment? If not, what basis do we ultimately use to > determine cure? I think the outcome-based studies in mainland China can be used as a basis, although many tend to be shoddy in execution. Perhaps we can improve on that here in the States, if funding materializes. If we change the tongue and pulse to our satisfaction, > but the patient's tumor meanwhile metastasizes, then I consider that a > failure. Or perhaps proteinuria in kidney disease increases and the > patient needs dialysis. Again failure. And I think this sort of > confirmation should make one reconsider whether they have chosen the > correct therapy. One may still have accomplished the more nebulous > goals of art or healing, but in my experience, patients themselves are > rather looking to survive or be relieved of immense physical suffering. I think perhaps there is a problem here in perception. I seriously doubt that the tongue and pulse will improve in a situation where the patient's condition is getting worse, although you give extreme examples here. I've never once seen that situation happen in my clinical practice over the last eighteen years. However, yes, it is possible to MISS something. . . .as the Wen Bing literature points out, in latent evils, sometimes the pulse and tongue will fail to register the pathogen, because it is so deep-lying and asymptomatic. Here, blood testing or other biomedical testing may be an excellant adjunct. If I suspect something, I send them out for the blood test. Or, if I want to monitor hepatitis C patients. > I also know from examining thousands of clinical abstracts from china > over the years that such objective measures typically go hand in hand > with cures as assessed by a group of TCM experts. This does nothing to > rend the conceptual fabric of TCM, however it does everything to > legitimize TCM to mainstream critics. Perhaps some master physician > whom I've never met could actually rely on naked sense observation alone > and be right every time, but I defer to something outside myself for > proof. Likewise, though I have spent thousands and thousands of hours > handling bulk herbs, I think I know a good quality herb from a bad one, > but I lay any odds that I would not be able to assess the actual potency > of any given batch without actually ingesting a sample and feeling its > effects. One of the serious gaps we have, in our clinical practice in the West, is that there is a vast body of case history literature in Chinese, both modern and classical, which has not yet been translated. I think this would clarify a lot of the issues that are being discussed here. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 I absolutely don't want to be a part of this discussion but feel compelled to mention my sense that Z'ev, whose comments about the particulars of Chinese medicine I have much admired in the past sounds almightily religious about our form of medicine. His current arguments remind me of the lectures I've given to groups of MD's. In this setting there is often a clear divide between the younger MD's who are interested in many forms of healing and how they can interact and the more dogmatic older doctors who thing that anything besides their form of medicine is quackery. >I resent, Mark, your implications that somehow I am 'religious' about TCM. I am Jewish, Chinese medicine is my profession. I am simply rigorous about one important point: that we tend to fill in the gaps in our understanding of Chinese medicine with biomedical information. Biomedicine has a huge data base of information, easily accessible to anyone in English, huge money and influence. Chinese medicine simply does not. There is relatively little in English to support the amount of detail necessary to establish the profession properly on solid ground. We talk as if we know all we need to know about Chinese medicine. . . .that simply is not true. While I believe (and sense that Alon does as well) that TCM has an enormous amount to offer the world and that we all have a long way to go to fully master this ancient and comprehensive system of healing, it is also true that western medicine has done absolutely miraculous things to further quality and quantity of life throughout the world (including China). There are things that we can each do for our patients that the other can't do and lots of situations where both systems can be useful. TCM practiced by the most skilled practitioner in the world, past or present, will never be a panacea for everyone. Neither will western medicine. There are no panaceas in medicine or in this world. And, yes, both systems have a lot to offer people. But I am a practitioner of Chinese medicine. I have no degree in Western medicine. I offer what I am best at. . . .I think my patients know where to go if they need a Western M.D., nurse, or other biomedical practitioner. There have also been many abuses documented in Western medicine as well. . . .and glaring flaws. There seems to be a reluctance to criticize these issues, perhaps to the TCM community this is not 'politically correct'? My sense from reading about ancient and modern herbal masters in China is that they will use ANY information about herbs and formulae in order to improve their technique. Whether that data is from another epoch, another province, or another medical system. Why should we in the west be any different? It is different in the West because we don't read Chinese and don't have access to either classical or modern literature on the subject. For example, the zhong yao ci dian/Great Dictionary of Chinese Medicinals has 4500 herbs, with vastly more information, both classical and pharmacological, then anything in English on each entry. I see that erroneous conclusions are drawn by many practitioners from a lack of clear information. If you just have the Bensky book, your knowledge of Chinese herbal medicine is woefully incomplete. Ultimately, western medical practitioners and TCM practitioners are talking about the same body, just using a different jargon to describe the disharmony. Many scientific techniques can be used to look at TCM and to suggest otherwise is to look at Chinese medicine as magic. The Chinese don't take this approach, why should we? This is not to say that you can comprehensively reduce our medicine via these tools, but you can get interesting data from studies. I, personally, will take western pharmaceutical data into account when considering an herb for a patient. I don't weight it as heavily as I would for a materia medica entry on the herb because of the lack of context and history of the scientific data. However it is still often usable information. This 'lecture' is unnecessary, Mark. I think most of us already do this. Again, we simply need more access to the tradition before altering it to suit our Western preconceptions. What is your rationale for comparing Sudafed and ma Huang? How do you compare the pharmacology of the two? How do you consider dosage, or the fact that ma Hung is NEVER used alone in Chinese medicine?. >>>>>First you have to look at a large population being treated w/ Sudafed and TCM formulas contain ma huang. You need to be able to have objective parameters to compare. You need to take out belief system out of the picture by using blind techniques. And you have to track all reported and measurable side-effects. When looking at ma huang as a single herb you have to look at the effects of the whole drug which for example is much more likely to increase blood pressure. The problem with using 'blind techniques' is that it violates one of the core principles of Chinese medicine, which is individualizing the prescription for individual patients. The actions of medicines are modified by climate, body type, and disease. For example, Tao Hong-jing states that in northern China, the people are more thick-skinned, and the weather cold. One needs to use 9-12 gms. of ma huang per dose to induce sweating and disperse wind cold. In southern regions, the people have less body fat, sweat easily, therefore, if used at all, ma huang should be used in 2-3 gm. dosage. How can you get out of belief systems of medicine if you use a clinical trial method established by biomedicine? >>>>I have worked in China and Japan, studied with Miriam Lee for 2 years, Angela wu for Six months, followed Dr Yat Kai Lai for 1yr. And w/ all of them took notes as well as phone numbers of patients that I followed. A year following the termination of their treatments I called and followed up on many of them. These are all very well known practitioners with great reputations. I did as much follow up as I could in China as well. You will be very surprise if you new what was promised or predicated by the above practitioners and what I found on follow-up. I have also seen over 2 dozens of Michael Broffman patients and read many of their written reports (or more accurately poems) most of which to my reading were not impressive at all. They can be interpreted in many ways and do not give a clear clinical diagnosis prognosis and often even treatments. You can project on to them what ever you want and thus ether confirm what you want or reject other points. As in a famous Chinese medical statement, " the inferior physician will cure 30% of his patients, as they will have gotten better anyway. " >>>>Yes there are many such general statements but that does not cut it for me. I believe in OM very much, however, I am not willing to just except old writings, especially when considering the great amount of cultural exaggeration found in Chinese poems and other old writings Alon Alon, If you think Michael Broffman's case histories are poems, and not clear, and that 'old writings' are culturally exaggerated, there really is not much else to discuss in this forum. The principles of Chinese medicine are sound, well established, and worthy of study. This is a subject we have only scratched the surface of. . . .if you don't want to examine this further, I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 The problem with using 'blind techniques' is that it violates one of the core principles of Chinese medicine, which is individualizing the prescription for individual patients. The actions of medicines are modified by climate, body type, and disease. For example, Tao Hong-jing states that in northern China, the people are more thick-skinned, and the weather cold. One needs to use 9-12 gms. of ma huang per dose to induce sweating and disperse wind cold. In southern regions, the people have less body fat, sweat easily, therefore, if used at all, ma huang should be used in 2-3 gm. dosage. >>>All you have to do is find a group with a similar TCM Dx. with the main "disease" being a runny nose or allergy. Give an excepted formula and compare results and sideeffects. Another group can receive individualized formulas but prepared as real or fake medicine and compare this group as well If you think Michael Broffman's case histories are poems, and not clear, and that 'old writings' are culturally exaggerated, there really is not much else to discuss in this forum. The principles of Chinese medicine are sound, well established, and worthy of study. This is a subject we have only scratched the surface of. . . .if you don't want to examine this further, I rest my case >>>A report to me is a clear statement of findings diagnosis, proposed treatment and prognosis. Not some patic statements that can be interpreted in many ways. Many old Chinese poems use language like a mile long beard to describe a long beard etc. alon - Saturday, September 16, 2000 7:53 PM Re: placebo effects What is your rationale for comparing Sudafed and ma Huang? How do you compare the pharmacology of the two? How do you consider dosage, or the fact that ma Hung is NEVER used alone in Chinese medicine?.>>>>>First you have to look at a large population being treated w/ Sudafed and TCM formulas contain ma huang. You need to be able to have objective parameters to compare. You need to take out belief system out of the picture by using blind techniques. And you have to track all reported and measurable side-effects. When looking at ma huang as a single herb you have to look at the effects of the whole drug which for example is much more likely to increase blood pressure.The problem with using 'blind techniques' is that it violates one of the core principles of Chinese medicine, which is individualizing the prescription for individual patients. The actions of medicines are modified by climate, body type, and disease. For example, Tao Hong-jing states that in northern China, the people are more thick-skinned, and the weather cold. One needs to use 9-12 gms. of ma huang per dose to induce sweating and disperse wind cold. In southern regions, the people have less body fat, sweat easily, therefore, if used at all, ma huang should be used in 2-3 gm. dosage. How can you get out of belief systems of medicine if you use a clinical trial method established by biomedicine? >>>>I have worked in China and Japan, studied with Miriam Lee for 2 years, Angela wu for Six months, followed Dr Yat Kai Lai for 1yr. And w/ all of them took notes as well as phone numbers of patients that I followed. A year following the termination of their treatments I called and followed up on many of them. These are all very well known practitioners with great reputations. I did as much follow up as I could in China as well. You will be very surprise if you new what was promised or predicated by the above practitioners and what I found on follow-up. I have also seen over 2 dozens of Michael Broffmanpatients and read many of their written reports (or more accurately poems) most of which to my reading were not impressive at all. They can be interpreted in many ways and do not give a clear clinical diagnosis prognosis and often even treatments. You can project on to them what ever you want and thus ether confirm what you want or reject other points. As in a famous Chinese medical statement, "the inferior physician will cure 30% of his patients, as they will have gotten better anyway.">>>>Yes there are many such general statements but that does not cut it for me.I believe in OM very much, however, I am not willing to just except old writings, especially when considering the great amount of cultural exaggeration found in Chinese poems and other old writingsAlonAlon, If you think Michael Broffman's case histories are poems, and not clear, and that 'old writings' are culturally exaggerated, there really is not much else to discuss in this forum. The principles of Chinese medicine are sound, well established, and worthy of study. This is a subject we have only scratched the surface of. . . .if you don't want to examine this further, I rest my case. Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 I don't know why Alon continues to do medicine if the results from his mentors were so poor. Gee, that would be extremely discouraging. I'm amazed at the miracles I've pulled off, on cases that I thought would take months if at all, and frustrated at the "easy" stuff that just won't respond. But I'll continue, seems like I have no other choice and the patients aren't complaining, (at least the ones that come back). ;-)>>>In many ways it was very difficult for me. I was very depressed when I came back from China. Later I went my own way combined many things from OM with other things I learned and now I get much better results. Does anybody outthere believe all these Mainland studies with every body getting cured almost with any known disease? Please let me know. It is interesting to me to see such extreme resistance for trying to develop the most objective ways to evaluate OM as well as biomedicine methods. At no time I have suggested that the current way the gold standards of biomedical research is the only way to go. But again when I see blind beliefs and ignoring so much of what is clearly questionable information coming from China I have to believe there is too much dogma going on here I'm reminded of another Kaptchuk story from his "other" book: Some M.D.'s did a trial where they did a heart procedure on some patients and just made an incision on others, fooling them into thinking they had the procedure. Both groups improved their condition to a great extent but because the "placebo" (Ren 17?) worked just as well as the actual procedure it was felt that it wasn't a legitimate therapy and BOTH the operation and the "placebo" were discontinued. Now there is Western thought for you. >>Placebo is very powerful and I do not discount it. But it is best to be onset with your self . Also placebos usually only last a limited time. alon - L.Ac. Saturday, September 16, 2000 9:46 PM Re: placebo effects I've wanted to stay out of this but... Alon seems to take a position that I see many of my colleagues and students take. There is a frustration which frankly I don't see. As for me, and perhaps many of us, I came to this medicine as an artist, interested in the philosophical paradigms and ended up to some extent another kind of healer. If I were 20 again and knew what I was going to be doing 25 years later I don't know if I would have changed things, gritted my teeth, put on a stethoscope and turned M.D. But right now, today.. no regrets. When I was deep into making art, the point was to go beyond the present, stretch the boundaries and push into new frontiers. Now I accept that is accepting the ancient. (Maybe this is my Yin to my former Yang.) I don't think that one can do without this acceptance. You can USE but there has to be that leap of fate. As Kaptchuk said, it will be Western Medicine that will accept but never the other way around. I'm very comfortable with that. I don't know why Alon continues to do medicine if the results from his mentors were so poor. Gee, that would be extremely discouraging. I'm amazed at the miracles I've pulled off, on cases that I thought would take months if at all, and frustrated at the "easy" stuff that just won't respond. But I'll continue, seems like I have no other choice and the patients aren't complaining, (at least the ones that come back). ;-) I'm reminded of another Kaptchuk story from his "other" book: Some M.D.'s did a trial where they did a heart procedure on some patients and just made an incision on others, fooling them into thinking they had the procedure. Both groups improved their condition to a great extent but because the "placebo" (Ren 17?) worked just as well as the actual procedure it was felt that it wasn't a legitimate therapy and BOTH the operation and the "placebo" were discontinued. Now there is Western thought for you. >>>>Yes there are many such general statements but that does not cut it for me. I believe in OM very much, however, I am not willing to just except old writings, especially when considering the great amount of cultural exaggeration found in Chinese poems and other old writings Alon Alon, If you think Michael Broffman's case histories are poems, and not clear, and that 'old writings' are culturally exaggerated, there really is not much else to discuss in this forum. The principles of Chinese medicine are sound, well established, and worthy of study. This is a subject we have only scratched the surface of. . . .if you don't want to examine this further, I rest my case. Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. L.Ac.acupuncture & herbssafe, compassionate care1823 Wilshire Blvd. #610Santa Monica, CA90403310 264-9197 Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 I'm reminded of another Kaptchuk story from his "other" book: Some M.D.'s did a trial where they did a heart procedure on some patients and just made an incision on others, fooling them into thinking they had the procedure. Both groups improved their condition to a great extent but because the "placebo" (Ren 17?) worked just as well as the actual procedure it was felt that it wasn't a legitimate therapy and BOTH the operation and the "placebo" were discontinued. Now there is Western thought for you. >>>>>Thank you Todd I thought I was talking to myself. Everybody's answers was totally ignoring what I was trying to say Thanks again alon - cha Sunday, September 17, 2000 12:22 AM re: placebo effects I think people may be missing Alon's point and they are certainlymissing mine on this subject. I would not suggest to practice TCMaccording to biomedical parameters nor reduce the understanding of herbsto the current scientific paradigm. However, I stand by my originalstatements. I believe herbs are dose dependent in function. I haveseen no reliable evidence that homeopathy does anything beyond placeboeffect. And when I say evidence, I refer to actual measures ofoutcome. I do not see how measuring an outcome using objective modernparameters does anything but assess TCM. It does not impact thepractice of TCM to step back and assess a purely traditional andclassical approach. If we claim to be able to help seriously illpatients recover, then in those cases where an objective measure exists,then should not this measure change over the course of a successfultraditional treatment? If not, what basis do we ultimately use todetermine cure? If we change the tongue and pulse to our satisfaction,but the patient's tumor meanwhile metastasizes, then I consider that afailure. Or perhaps proteinuria in kidney disease increases and thepatient needs dialysis. Again failure. And I think this sort ofconfirmation should make one reconsider whether they have chosen thecorrect therapy. One may still have accomplished the more nebulousgoals of art or healing, but in my experience, patients themselves arerather looking to survive or be relieved of immense physical suffering.I also know from examining thousands of clinical abstracts from chinaover the years that such objective measures typically go hand in handwith cures as assessed by a group of TCM experts. This does nothing torend the conceptual fabric of TCM, however it does everything tolegitimize TCM to mainstream critics. Perhaps some master physicianwhom I've never met could actually rely on naked sense observation aloneand be right every time, but I defer to something outside myself forproof. Likewise, though I have spent thousands and thousands of hourshandling bulk herbs, I think I know a good quality herb from a bad one,but I lay any odds that I would not be able to assess the actual potencyof any given batch without actually ingesting a sample and feeling itseffects.--DirectorChinese Herbal Medicinehttp://www..orgChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 While I believe (and sense that Alon does as well) that TCM has an enormous amount to offer the world and that we all have a long way to go to fully master this ancient and comprehensive system of healing, it is also true that western medicine has done absolutely miraculous things to further quality and quantity of life throughout the world (including China). There are things that we can each do for our patients that the other can't do and lots of situations where both systems can be useful. TCM practiced by the most skilled practitioner in the world, past or present, will never be a panacea for everyone. Neither will western medicine. My sense from reading about ancient and modern herbal masters in China is that they will use ANY information about herbs and formulae in order to improve their technique. Whether that data is from another epoch, another province, or another medical system. Why should we in the west be any different? Ultimately, western medical practitioners and TCM practitioners are talking about the same body, just using a different jargon to describe the disharmony. Many scientific techniques can be used to look at TCM and to suggest otherwise is to look at Chinese medicine as magic. The Chinese don't take this approach, why should we? This is not to say that you can comprehensively reduce our medicine via these tools, but you can get interesting data from studies. I, personally, will take western pharmaceutical data into account when considering an herb for a patient. I don't weight it as heavily as I would for a materia medic entry on the herb because of the lack of context and history of the scientific data. However it is still often usable information. >>>>>It is great to here some voices of reason thanks alon - Mark Reese Sunday, September 17, 2000 11:09 AM Re: placebo effects I absolutely don't want to be a part of this discussion but feel compelled to mention my sense that Z'ev, whose comments about the particulars of Chinese medicine I have much admired in the past sounds almightily religious about our form of medicine. His current arguments remind me of the lectures I've given to groups of MD's. In this setting there is often a clear divide between the younger MD's who are interested in many forms of healing and how they can interact and the more dogmatic older doctors who thing that anything besides their form of medicine is quackery. While I believe (and sense that Alon does as well) that TCM has an enormous amount to offer the world and that we all have a long way to go to fully master this ancient and comprehensive system of healing, it is also true that western medicine has done absolutely miraculous things to further quality and quantity of life throughout the world (including China). There are things that we can each do for our patients that the other can't do and lots of situations where both systems can be useful. TCM practiced by the most skilled practitioner in the world, past or present, will never be a panacea for everyone. Neither will western medicine. My sense from reading about ancient and modern herbal masters in China is that they will use ANY information about herbs and formulae in order to improve their technique. Whether that data is from another epoch, another province, or another medical system. Why should we in the west be any different? Ultimately, western medical practitioners and TCM practitioners are talking about the same body, just using a different jargon to describe the disharmony. Many scientific techniques can be used to look at TCM and to suggest otherwise is to look at Chinese medicine as magic. The Chinese don't take this approach, why should we? This is not to say that you can comprehensively reduce our medicine via these tools, but you can get interesting data from studies. I, personally, will take western pharmaceutical data into account when considering an herb for a patient. I don't weight it as heavily as I would for a materia medica entry on the herb because of the lack of context and history of the scientific data. However it is still often usable information. Blah blah blah. This arguement could go on forever. I hope it doesn't since I don't believe anything usable will come from hammering away at this issue. Merely a reinforcement of faith issues. Mark Reese - Saturday, September 16, 2000 9:53 PM Re: placebo effects What is your rationale for comparing Sudafed and ma Huang? How do you compare the pharmacology of the two? How do you consider dosage, or the fact that ma Hung is NEVER used alone in Chinese medicine?.>>>>>First you have to look at a large population being treated w/ Sudafed and TCM formulas contain ma huang. You need to be able to have objective parameters to compare. You need to take out belief system out of the picture by using blind techniques. And you have to track all reported and measurable side-effects. When looking at ma huang as a single herb you have to look at the effects of the whole drug which for example is much more likely to increase blood pressure.The problem with using 'blind techniques' is that it violates one of the core principles of Chinese medicine, which is individualizing the prescription for individual patients. The actions of medicines are modified by climate, body type, and disease. For example, Tao Hong-jing states that in northern China, the people are more thick-skinned, and the weather cold. One needs to use 9-12 gms. of ma huang per dose to induce sweating and disperse wind cold. In southern regions, the people have less body fat, sweat easily, therefore, if used at all, ma huang should be used in 2-3 gm. dosage. How can you get out of belief systems of medicine if you use a clinical trial method established by biomedicine? >>>>I have worked in China and Japan, studied with Miriam Lee for 2 years, Angela wu for Six months, followed Dr Yat Kai Lai for 1yr. And w/ all of them took notes as well as phone numbers of patients that I followed. A year following the termination of their treatments I called and followed up on many of them. These are all very well known practitioners with great reputations. I did as much follow up as I could in China as well. You will be very surprise if you new what was promised or predicated by the above practitioners and what I found on follow-up. I have also seen over 2 dozens of Michael Broffmanpatients and read many of their written reports (or more accurately poems) most of which to my reading were not impressive at all. They can be interpreted in many ways and do not give a clear clinical diagnosis prognosis and often even treatments. You can project on to them what ever you want and thus ether confirm what you want or reject other points. As in a famous Chinese medical statement, "the inferior physician will cure 30% of his patients, as they will have gotten better anyway.">>>>Yes there are many such general statements but that does not cut it for me.I believe in OM very much, however, I am not willing to just except old writings, especially when considering the great amount of cultural exaggeration found in Chinese poems and other old writingsAlonAlon, If you think Michael Broffman's case histories are poems, and not clear, and that 'old writings' are culturally exaggerated, there really is not much else to discuss in this forum. The principles of Chinese medicine are sound, well established, and worthy of study. This is a subject we have only scratched the surface of. . . .if you don't want to examine this further, I rest my case. Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 I don't know why Alon continues to do medicine if the results from his mentors were so poor. Gee, that would be extremely discouraging. I'm amazed at the miracles I've pulled off, on cases that I thought would take months if at all, and frustrated at the " easy " stuff that just won't respond. But I'll continue, seems like I have no other choice and the patients aren't complaining, (at least the ones that come back). ;-) >>>In many ways it was very difficult for me. I was very depressed when I came back from China. Later I went my own way combined many things from OM with other things I learned and now I get much better results. Does anybody outthere believe all these Mainland studies with every body getting cured almost with any known disease? Please let me know. It is interesting to me to see such extreme resistance for trying to develop the most objective ways to evaluate OM as well as biomedicine methods. At no time I have suggested that the current way the gold standards of biomedical research is the only way to go. But again when I see blind beliefs and ignoring so much of what is clearly questionable information coming from China I have to believe there is too much dogma going on here Alon, I am glad you shared this info with us. I am not against studies, I am for well-designed ones, something of a rare bird for Chinese medicine (although Richard Hammerschlag deserves kudos for his work). I am also disappointed with much coming out of the mainland in the way of studies. While there are honest, outcome based studies, there are also those that are deeply flawed (some of the breast cancer studies I've seen), and others where everyone gets cured. The classical case study literature, that which I've seen, seems more honest and objective. . . .however, these are not group studies, but one-on-one case histories. I look at modern Chinese medicine with an objective eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 >I resent, Mark, your implications that somehow I am 'religious' about TCM. I am Jewish, Chinese medicine is my profession. I am simply rigorous about one important point: that we tend to fill in the gaps in our understanding of Chinese medicine with biomedical information. Biomedicine has a huge data base of information, easily accessible to anyone in English, huge money and influence. Chinese medicine simply does not. There is relatively little in English to support the amount of detail necessary to establish the profession properly on solid ground. We talk as if we know all we need to know about Chinese medicine. >>>>>>> Did you ever here me saying we should not learn more? Certainly we need to improve our knowledge. But, I have to assume that the Dr I followed in China are very well trained as most of them were first family trained and then collage trained in major TCM schools in china. If they are not then what can we say about the our future at understanding TCM. Yat Kai Lai is the official personally trained follower of a very well known master in China. I believe he started studying at the age of 6. Although I some very good and impressive outcomes following up on his patients I have to say that looking at statistics of close to 100 patients was disappointing. Same with Miriam Lee and she is by far the best acupuncturist I ever followed. In China I spent 2/3 of my time in the inpatient clinic since I could really see what was going on with the patients. I was able to see what ever I wanted to see since we had some 7000 patients go through the hospital per day. As you can already see I have a skeptical personality and I need to see proof before I except a statement. What I saw was very troubling to me. No were near the published results we read every day in Chinese Journals. I am very troubled by the fact that there is so little discussion of this here is the west. So although we must improve our understanding of OM we must do this with a skeptical mind not a sponge. There have also been many abuses documented in Western medicine as well. . . .and glaring flaws. There seems to be a reluctance to criticize these issues, perhaps to the TCM community this is not 'politically correct'? >>>that is BOOL saying that the fourth cause of death in the US is medically induced is probably the worst critique one can ever do. And this is in the mainstream media. But for some reason it sounds like you want a free ride for TCM alon - Sunday, September 17, 2000 12:59 PM Re: placebo effects I absolutely don't want to be a part of this discussion but feel compelled to mention my sense that Z'ev, whose comments about the particulars of Chinese medicine I have much admired in the past sounds almightily religious about our form of medicine. His current arguments remind me of the lectures I've given to groups of MD's. In this setting there is often a clear divide between the younger MD's who are interested in many forms of healing and how they can interact and the more dogmatic older doctors who thing that anything besides their form of medicine is quackery. >I resent, Mark, your implications that somehow I am 'religious' about TCM. I am Jewish, Chinese medicine is my profession. I am simply rigorous about one important point: that we tend to fill in the gaps in our understanding of Chinese medicine with biomedical information. Biomedicine has a huge data base of information, easily accessible to anyone in English, huge money and influence. Chinese medicine simply does not. There is relatively little in English to support the amount of detail necessary to establish the profession properly on solid ground. We talk as if we know all we need to know about Chinese medicine. . . .that simply is not true. While I believe (and sense that Alon does as well) that TCM has an enormous amount to offer the world and that we all have a long way to go to fully master this ancient and comprehensive system of healing, it is also true that western medicine has done absolutely miraculous things to further quality and quantity of life throughout the world (including China). There are things that we can each do for our patients that the other can't do and lots of situations where both systems can be useful. TCM practiced by the most skilled practitioner in the world, past or present, will never be a panacea for everyone. Neither will western medicine. There are no panaceas in medicine or in this world. And, yes, both systems have a lot to offer people. But I am a practitioner of Chinese medicine. I have no degree in Western medicine. I offer what I am best at. . . .I think my patients know where to go if they need a Western M.D., nurse, or other biomedical practitioner.There have also been many abuses documented in Western medicine as well. . . .and glaring flaws. There seems to be a reluctance to criticize these issues, perhaps to the TCM community this is not 'politically correct'?My sense from reading about ancient and modern herbal masters in China is that they will use ANY information about herbs and formulae in order to improve their technique. Whether that data is from another epoch, another province, or another medical system. Why should we in the west be any different? It is different in the West because we don't read Chinese and don't have access to either classical or modern literature on the subject. For example, the zhong yao ci dian/Great Dictionary of Chinese Medicinals has 4500 herbs, with vastly more information, both classical and pharmacological, then anything in English on each entry. I see that erroneous conclusions are drawn by many practitioners from a lack of clear information. If you just have the Bensky book, your knowledge of Chinese herbal medicine is woefully incomplete.Ultimately, western medical practitioners and TCM practitioners are talking about the same body, just using a different jargon to describe the disharmony. Many scientific techniques can be used to look at TCM and to suggest otherwise is to look at Chinese medicine as magic. The Chinese don't take this approach, why should we? This is not to say that you can comprehensively reduce our medicine via these tools, but you can get interesting data from studies. I, personally, will take western pharmaceutical data into account when considering an herb for a patient. I don't weight it as heavily as I would for a materia medica entry on the herb because of the lack of context and history of the scientific data. However it is still often usable information. This 'lecture' is unnecessary, Mark. I think most of us already do this. Again, we simply need more access to the tradition before altering it to suit our Western preconceptions. What is your rationale for comparing Sudafed and ma Huang? How do you compare the pharmacology of the two? How do you consider dosage, or the fact that ma Hung is NEVER used alone in Chinese medicine?.>>>>>First you have to look at a large population being treated w/ Sudafed and TCM formulas contain ma huang. You need to be able to have objective parameters to compare. You need to take out belief system out of the picture by using blind techniques. And you have to track all reported and measurable side-effects. When looking at ma huang as a single herb you have to look at the effects of the whole drug which for example is much more likely to increase blood pressure.The problem with using 'blind techniques' is that it violates one of the core principles of Chinese medicine, which is individualizing the prescription for individual patients. The actions of medicines are modified by climate, body type, and disease. For example, Tao Hong-jing states that in northern China, the people are more thick-skinned, and the weather cold. One needs to use 9-12 gms. of ma huang per dose to induce sweating and disperse wind cold. In southern regions, the people have less body fat, sweat easily, therefore, if used at all, ma huang should be used in 2-3 gm. dosage. How can you get out of belief systems of medicine if you use a clinical trial method established by biomedicine?>>>>I have worked in China and Japan, studied with Miriam Lee for 2 years, Angela wu for Six months, followed Dr Yat Kai Lai for 1yr. And w/ all of them took notes as well as phone numbers of patients that I followed. A year following the termination of their treatments I called and followed up on many of them. These are all very well known practitioners with great reputations. I did as much follow up as I could in China as well. You will be very surprise if you new what was promised or predicated by the above practitioners and what I found on follow-up. I have also seen over 2 dozens of Michael Broffmanpatients and read many of their written reports (or more accurately poems) most of which to my reading were not impressive at all. They can be interpreted in many ways and do not give a clear clinical diagnosis prognosis and often even treatments. You can project on to them what ever you want and thus ether confirm what you want or reject other points. As in a famous Chinese medical statement, "the inferior physician will cure 30% of his patients, as they will have gotten better anyway.">>>>Yes there are many such general statements but that does not cut it for me.I believe in OM very much, however, I am not willing to just except old writings, especially when considering the great amount of cultural exaggeration found in Chinese poems and other old writingsAlonAlon, If you think Michael Broffman's case histories are poems, and not clear, and that 'old writings' are culturally exaggerated, there really is not much else to discuss in this forum. The principles of Chinese medicine are sound, well established, and worthy of study. This is a subject we have only scratched the surface of. . . .if you don't want to examine this further, I rest my case. Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 >>>>>>> Did you ever here me saying we should not learn more? Certainly we need to improve our knowledge. But, I have to assume that the Dr I followed in China are very well trained as most of them were first family trained and then collage trained in major TCM schools in china. If they are not then what can we say about the our future at understanding TCM. Yat Kai Lai is the official personally trained follower of a very well known master in China. I believe he started studying at the age of 6. Although I some very good and impressive outcomes following up on his patients I have to say that looking at statistics of close to 100 patients was disappointing. Same with Miriam Lee and she is by far the best acupuncturist I ever followed. In China I spent 2/3 of my time in the inpatient clinic since I could really see what was going on with the patients. I was able to see what ever I wanted to see since we had some 7000 patients go through the hospital per day. As you can already see I have a skeptical personality and I need to see proof before I except a statement. What I saw was very troubling to me. No were near the published results we read every day in Chinese Journals. I am very troubled by the fact that there is so little discussion of this here is the west. So although we must improve our understanding of OM we must do this with a skeptical mind not a sponge. I share much of your skepticism on what is practiced and reported. . . .this certainly is not the golden age of Chinese medicine, but we do have the potential of a renaissance. .I do NOT share your skepticism on the classical literature. It is the lifeblood of the medicine, not dissimilar to how the ORGANON is the lifeblood of homeopathy, or, (l'havdil) the Torah as the lifeblood of Judaism. There have also been many abuses documented in Western medicine as well. . . .and glaring flaws. There seems to be a reluctance to criticize these issues, perhaps to the TCM community this is not 'politically correct'? >>>that is BOOL saying that the fourth cause of death in the US is medically induced is probably the worst critique one can ever do. And this is in the mainstream media. But for some reason it sounds like you want a free ride for TCM I wasn't referring to you personally, Alon. There seems to be in certain quarters of the TCM community a tendency to uncritically praise modern medicine and completely overlook its shortcomings and mistakes, while feeling inferior in comparison to modern medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 Andrew, is this kind of one-on-one master-disciple training largely gone these days? or is still availbale in China? It is very much available in China. Even within the university hospital the principal method of clinical instruction is essentially a master-student relationship. Many doctors operate private clinics and have private students. There is an enormous variety of approaches to the teaching and practice of traditional medicine in China. Ken 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.