Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 Andrew, Ignorance may not be an excuse in the eyes of the law but it is always excusable in the process of education. In fact, it is a primary prerequisite to education and therefore intelligence. I would say that there is no need for you to ask to be excused for being ignorant of the difference between modern medical Chinese and the language of the classics, but your question seems to fill a very real need...for me at least. I've been trying to follow the recent thread on...well, I really can't put my finger on the subject of the thread, and suddenly your question appeared and seemed to point the way towards something that I've wanted to say. And it all has to do with education and intelligence. I'll start by responding to your question. Modern medical Chinese is as different from classical Chinese as modern medical English is from Old English. I only mean that in terms of an order of magnitude comparison. I am not making points about linguistics, per se. The textbooks that Chinese students of Chinese medicine use to study, for example the Nei Jing, include the ancient text, translations into modern Chinese, and extensive interpretations and exegesis of the material. Students in China at the TCM colleges and universities (in fact at the lower level trade schools and secondary schools that specialize in TCM education as well) study courses in ancient Chinese medical language and texts. Typically this course is one semester long, although there are those students who specialize in the medical classics and go on to devote many years to the study. There is a PhD program in Chinese medical classics at Chengdu University of TCM, for example. Students in the Chinese schools acquire the modern vocabulary throughout their 4-5 (or more) year long education leading to basic certification, as they follow courses in basic theory, diagnosis, acupuncture, tui na, herbal medicine, pharmacology, and so on, learning the nomenclature of these subjects in due course. The point is that without special training or translations into modern Chinese langauge, Chinese students of Chinese medicine cannot access and thus acquire the data contained in the medical classics. Recognizing the vital importance of these data, those who design currciula in the Chinese schools always include this course in ancient Chinese medical language, Yi Gu Wen. This leads me to the more general issue of education and intelligence. Z'ev has pointed out in earlier posts that we who study, teach, practice, and research Chinese medicine in the West do so at a tremendous disadvantage if we do not acquire the skills necessary for studying in the Chinese language. I'm well aware of the range of opinions and resulting debate about whether or not this really matters. But I have yet to come in contact with any expression or manifestation of Chinese medicine from any part of the world that does not acknowledge its debt to the Chinese traditions of the past whence the subject emerged. The very simple truth is that if one is interested in knowing and understanding what Chinese medicine is all about, one had better look in the medical classics where the subject has been chronicled and archived for more than 2,000 years. This is the public record of the subject. It forms an integral part of the basis of all claims of authenticity, validity, efficacy, etc. that are made with respect to the study and practice of Chinese medicine. The medical classics by no means describe the limits of such claims, but they do represent the basis. There is, of course, a deep and strong oral transmission, rather a whole dimension of the oral traditions of medicine in Chinese history. So that the literary traditions are not the only fundamental repository of Chinese medical intelligence. But they are indispensable. Unfortunately for students who do not read and understand Chinese, and this means the classical Chinese in which these medical classics were written, this knowledge is beyond reach. The work to translate this body of knowledge into English proceeds, but it proceeds slowly. The work of learning to read and understand classical medical Chinese is taken up by a growing number of individuals, but this is a slow process as well. There will be no quick solution to the real situation here. Meanwhile I believe that it behooves people of intellectual and ethical integrity to avoid the trap that is perhaps best described in lyrics to the song, Superstition, by Stevie Wonder. " When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. " In the Dao De Jing, it says, " To know, yet appear not to, is best. To not know yet appear to is illness. " It seems to me that the path of medicine, be it traditionally Chinese or modernly Western, has as one of its most basic and stringent requirements that those who follow it be possessed of the intellectual courage and insight to know the difference between knowing something and not knowing it. The Nei Jing advises that we treat patients before they get ill. And the oldest medical wisdom reminds us, Physician, heal thyself. If we cannot comply with these most fundamental requirements, what meaning do the advanced refinements have? The demands of daily life include that we administer aid to those who need it, but this is no reason to avoid or tolerate remaining ignorant of the basic issues that form our character as a profession and the substance of our practice. It is simply a long, hard job. If the thorough study and updating of the medical literature were not vital to the processes of Chinese medical education and practice, why have the Chinese been doing so for 2,000 years? Is there really anyone on this list who could defend a position which states in essence that patients of American (or other non-Chinese) practitioners of Chinese medicine do not deserve to be treated by individuals who are as well educated as their Chinese counterparts? On what basis do people who do not read and understand Chinese medical classics go about deciding what to use from this tradition and what to discard? Just a few questions that recent discussions on the list have jogged to mind. Ken Rose > 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. > > is this situation being rectified now? is there much diffeence between modern medical chinese and that of the classical writings? [excuse ignorance]. Andrew 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 This is the public record of the subject. It forms an integralpart of the basis of all claims of authenticity, validity, efficacy, etc. that are made with respect to the study and practice of Chinese medicine. The medical classics by no means describe the limits of such claims, but they do represent the basis >>>>>>>And that is were the beauty of the scientific method comes on. I do not care what you say you know or care where you found it or which interpretation you agree with. All I have to do is look objectively at your outcome thank you very much. If you know of a great place to go in China please let me know. From what I have seen in a large TCM hospital with some famously classically trained DR I am still not as impressed as many seem to be. TCM is great has a lot to offer. We have tones to learn. And this is probably true in China as well. But we need to look at the average clinic of modernly trained TCM Dr and OBJECTIVELY evauate outcomes. That is were religion end and science begins. alon - yulong Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:00 PM Re: Re: re: literature Andrew,Ignorance may not be an excuse in the eyes of the lawbut it is always excusable in the process of education.In fact, it is a primary prerequisite to education andtherefore intelligence.I would say that there is no need for you to ask to beexcused for being ignorant of the difference between modernmedical Chinese and the language of the classics, but your questionseems to fill a very real need...for me at least.I've been trying to follow the recent thread on...well, I reallycan't put my finger on the subject of the thread, and suddenlyyour question appeared and seemed to point the way towardssomething that I've wanted to say.And it all has to do with education and intelligence.I'll start by responding to your question.Modern medical Chinese is as different from classicalChinese as modern medical English is from Old English.I only mean that in terms of an order of magnitudecomparison. I am not making points about linguistics, per se. The textbooks that Chinese students of Chinesemedicine use to study, for example the Nei Jing, includethe ancient text, translations into modern Chinese, andextensive interpretations and exegesis of the material.Students in China at the TCM colleges and universities (in factat the lower level trade schools and secondary schools thatspecialize in TCM education as well) study courses inancient Chinese medical language and texts. Typicallythis course is one semester long, although there arethose students who specialize in the medical classicsand go on to devote many years to the study. There isa PhD program in Chinese medical classics at ChengduUniversity of TCM, for example.Students in the Chinese schools acquire the modernvocabulary throughout their 4-5 (or more) year longeducation leading to basic certification, as theyfollow courses in basic theory, diagnosis, acupuncture,tui na, herbal medicine, pharmacology, and so on, learning the nomenclature of these subjects in duecourse.The point is that without special training or translationsinto modern Chinese langauge, Chinese students of Chinese medicine cannot access and thus acquire the data contained in the medical classics. Recognizing the vital importance of these data, those who design currciula in the Chinese schools alwaysinclude this course in ancient Chinese medical language,Yi Gu Wen.This leads me to the more general issue of educationand intelligence. Z'ev has pointed out in earlier poststhat we who study, teach, practice, and research Chinesemedicine in the West do so at a tremendous disadvantageif we do not acquire the skills necessary for studyingin the Chinese language. I'm well aware of the range ofopinions and resulting debate about whether or not thisreally matters. But I have yet to come in contact withany expression or manifestation of Chinese medicine fromany part of the world that does not acknowledge its debtto the Chinese traditions of the past whence the subjectemerged.The very simple truth is that if one is interested inknowing and understanding what Chinese medicine is allabout, one had better look in the medical classics wherethe subject has been chronicled and archived for more than2,000 years. This is the public record of the subject. It forms an integralpart of the basis of all claims of authenticity, validity, efficacy, etc. that are made with respect to the study and practice of Chinese medicine. The medical classics by no means describe the limits of such claims, but they do represent the basis.There is, of course, a deep and strong oral transmission,rather a whole dimension of the oral traditions of medicinein Chinese history. So that the literary traditions arenot the only fundamental repository of Chinese medicalintelligence. But they are indispensable.Unfortunately for students who do not read and understand Chinese, and this means the classical Chinese in which these medical classics were written, this knowledge is beyond reach.The work to translate this body of knowledge into English proceeds,but it proceeds slowly. The work of learning to read and understandclassical medical Chinese is taken up by a growing number of individuals, but this is a slow process as well.There will be no quick solution to the real situation here.Meanwhile I believe that it behooves people of intellectualand ethical integrity to avoid the trap that is perhapsbest described in lyrics to the song, Superstition, byStevie Wonder. "When you believe in things that you don'tunderstand, then you suffer."In the Dao De Jing, it says, "To know, yet appear not to, isbest. To not know yet appear to is illness."It seems to me that the path of medicine, be it traditionallyChinese or modernly Western, has as one of its most basicand stringent requirements that those who follow it bepossessed of the intellectual courage and insight to knowthe difference between knowing something and not knowing it.The Nei Jing advises that we treat patients before theyget ill. And the oldest medical wisdom reminds us, Physician,heal thyself.If we cannot comply with these most fundamental requirements,what meaning do the advanced refinements have?The demands of daily life include that we administeraid to those who need it, but this is no reason toavoid or tolerate remaining ignorant of the basicissues that form our character as a profession andthe substance of our practice.It is simply a long, hard job. If the thoroughstudy and updating of the medical literaturewere not vital to the processes of Chinesemedical education and practice, why have theChinese been doing so for 2,000 years?Is there really anyone on this list who coulddefend a position which states in essence thatpatients of American (or other non-Chinese)practitioners of Chinese medicine do not deserveto be treated by individuals who are as welleducated as their Chinese counterparts?On what basis do people who do not readand understand Chinese medical classicsgo about deciding what to use from thistradition and what to discard?Just a few questions that recent discussionson the list have jogged to mind.Ken Rose> One of the serious gaps we have, in our clinical practice in theWest,> 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.>> is this situation being rectified now? is there much diffeence betweenmodern medical chinese and that of the classical writings? [excuseignorance].AndrewChinese 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..orgThe 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. Original Message ----- yulong Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:00 PM Re: Re: re: literature Andrew,Ignorance may not be an excuse in the eyes of the lawbut it is always excusable in the process of education.In fact, it is a primary prerequisite to education andtherefore intelligence.I would say that there is no need for you to ask to beexcused for being ignorant of the difference between modernmedical Chinese and the language of the classics, but your questionseems to fill a very real need...for me at least.I've been trying to follow the recent thread on...well, I reallycan't put my finger on the subject of the thread, and suddenlyyour question appeared and seemed to point the way towardssomething that I've wanted to say.And it all has to do with education and intelligence.I'll start by responding to your question.Modern medical Chinese is as different from classicalChinese as modern medical English is from Old English.I only mean that in terms of an order of magnitudecomparison. I am not making points about linguistics, per se. The textbooks that Chinese students of Chinesemedicine use to study, for example the Nei Jing, includethe ancient text, translations into modern Chinese, andextensive interpretations and exegesis of the material.Students in China at the TCM colleges and universities (in factat the lower level trade schools and secondary schools thatspecialize in TCM education as well) study courses inancient Chinese medical language and texts. Typicallythis course is one semester long, although there arethose students who specialize in the medical classicsand go on to devote many years to the study. There isa PhD program in Chinese medical classics at ChengduUniversity of TCM, for example.Students in the Chinese schools acquire the modernvocabulary throughout their 4-5 (or more) year longeducation leading to basic certification, as theyfollow courses in basic theory, diagnosis, acupuncture,tui na, herbal medicine, pharmacology, and so on, learning the nomenclature of these subjects in duecourse.The point is that without special training or translationsinto modern Chinese langauge, Chinese students of Chinese medicine cannot access and thus acquire the data contained in the medical classics. Recognizing the vital importance of these data, those who design currciula in the Chinese schools alwaysinclude this course in ancient Chinese medical language,Yi Gu Wen.This leads me to the more general issue of educationand intelligence. Z'ev has pointed out in earlier poststhat we who study, teach, practice, and research Chinesemedicine in the West do so at a tremendous disadvantageif we do not acquire the skills necessary for studyingin the Chinese language. I'm well aware of the range ofopinions and resulting debate about whether or not thisreally matters. But I have yet to come in contact withany expression or manifestation of Chinese medicine fromany part of the world that does not acknowledge its debtto the Chinese traditions of the past whence the subjectemerged.The very simple truth is that if one is interested inknowing and understanding what Chinese medicine is allabout, one had better look in the medical classics wherethe subject has been chronicled and archived for more than2,000 years. This is the public record of the subject. It forms an integralpart of the basis of all claims of authenticity, validity, efficacy, etc. that are made with respect to the study and practice of Chinese medicine. The medical classics by no means describe the limits of such claims, but they do represent the basis.There is, of course, a deep and strong oral transmission,rather a whole dimension of the oral traditions of medicinein Chinese history. So that the literary traditions arenot the only fundamental repository of Chinese medicalintelligence. But they are indispensable.Unfortunately for students who do not read and understand Chinese, and this means the classical Chinese in which these medical classics were written, this knowledge is beyond reach.The work to translate this body of knowledge into English proceeds,but it proceeds slowly. The work of learning to read and understandclassical medical Chinese is taken up by a growing number of individuals, but this is a slow process as well.There will be no quick solution to the real situation here.Meanwhile I believe that it behooves people of intellectualand ethical integrity to avoid the trap that is perhapsbest described in lyrics to the song, Superstition, byStevie Wonder. "When you believe in things that you don'tunderstand, then you suffer."In the Dao De Jing, it says, "To know, yet appear not to, isbest. To not know yet appear to is illness."It seems to me that the path of medicine, be it traditionallyChinese or modernly Western, has as one of its most basicand stringent requirements that those who follow it bepossessed of the intellectual courage and insight to knowthe difference between knowing something and not knowing it.The Nei Jing advises that we treat patients before theyget ill. And the oldest medical wisdom reminds us, Physician,heal thyself.If we cannot comply with these most fundamental requirements,what meaning do the advanced refinements have?The demands of daily life include that we administeraid to those who need it, but this is no reason toavoid or tolerate remaining ignorant of the basicissues that form our character as a profession andthe substance of our practice.It is simply a long, hard job. If the thoroughstudy and updating of the medical literaturewere not vital to the processes of Chinesemedical education and practice, why have theChinese been doing so for 2,000 years?Is there really anyone on this list who coulddefend a position which states in essence thatpatients of American (or other non-Chinese)practitioners of Chinese medicine do not deserveto be treated by individuals who are as welleducated as their Chinese counterparts?On what basis do people who do not readand understand Chinese medical classicsgo about deciding what to use from thistradition and what to discard?Just a few questions that recent discussionson the list have jogged to mind.Ken Rose> One of the serious gaps we have, in our clinical practice in theWest,> 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.>> is this situation being rectified now? is there much diffeence betweenmodern medical chinese and that of the classical writings? [excuseignorance].AndrewChinese 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..orgThe 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 Alon, I continue to be somewhat mystified by this thread. It seems as if there's an argument of some sort taking place, but I'll be darned if I can figure out exactly who is arguing what. I certainly do not disagree with the notion that we need to see the emergence of sound clinical trials in adequate quantities to satisfy the needs of medical researchers, doctors, insurance companies, regulators, policy makers, and the general public. I don't recall what your experience in China has been, if you've mentioned it before. All I can say is that it's too bad that you weren't impressed. I've always been impressed with the operation of clinics in the hospital attached to the TCM university in Chengdu and never hesitate to recommend it as a worthwhile place to go for people who want to experience Chinese medicine functioning at high volume. Sure they have weaknesses and areas that need to be improved upon. China is a Third World country with a population of some 900 million peasants. There's an awful lot of sick and injured people and pitifully little money to go around. But the throughput of patients is enormous in the clinics that I'm familiar with and the quality of care is very good overall. But one really big difference in China is that people who study and practice Chinese medicine are able to read the literature and can thus rely upon their own evaluation of source materials to develop understanding and skill. If you weren't impressed with what you saw in China, where did you develop the idea that TCM is great? Ken >>>>>>>And that is were the beauty of the scientific method comes on. I do not care what you say you know or care where you found it or which interpretation you agree with. All I have to do is look objectively at your outcome thank you very much. If you know of a great place to go in China please let me know. From what I have seen in a large TCM hospital with some famously classically trained DR I am still not as impressed as many seem to be. TCM is great has a lot to offer. We have tones to learn. And this is probably true in China as well. But we need to look at the average clinic of modernly trained TCM Dr and OBJECTIVELY evauate outcomes. That is were religion end and science begins. alon - <A TARGET= " Link " title=yulong href= " yulong " >yulong</A> <A TARGET= " Link " title= href= " " > </A> Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:00 PM Re: Re: re: literature > > <P>Andrew, > > Ignorance may not be an excuse in the eyes of the law > but it is always excusable in the process of education. > In fact, it is a primary prerequisite to education and > therefore intelligence. > > I would say that there is no need for you to ask to be > excused for being ignorant of the difference between modern > medical Chinese and the language of the classics, but your question > seems to fill a very real need...for me at least. > > I've been trying to follow the recent thread on...well, I really > can't put my finger on the subject of the thread, and suddenly > your question appeared and seemed to point the way towards > something that I've wanted to say. > > And it all has to do with education and intelligence. > > I'll start by responding to your question. > > Modern medical Chinese is as different from classical > Chinese as modern medical English is from Old English. > > I only mean that in terms of an order of magnitude > comparison. I am not making points about linguistics, > per se. The textbooks that Chinese students of Chinese > medicine use to study, for example the Nei Jing, include > the ancient text, translations into modern Chinese, and > extensive interpretations and exegesis of the material. > > Students in China at the TCM colleges and universities (in fact > at the lower level trade schools and secondary schools that > specialize in TCM education as well) study courses in > ancient Chinese medical language and texts. Typically > this course is one semester long, although there are > those students who specialize in the medical classics > and go on to devote many years to the study. There is > a PhD program in Chinese medical classics at Chengdu > University of TCM, for example. > > Students in the Chinese schools acquire the modern > vocabulary throughout their 4-5 (or more) year long > education leading to basic certification, as they > follow courses in basic theory, diagnosis, acupuncture, > tui na, herbal medicine, pharmacology, and so on, > learning the nomenclature of these subjects in due > course. > > The point is that without special training or translations > into modern Chinese langauge, Chinese students of Chinese > medicine cannot access and thus acquire the data contained > in the medical classics. Recognizing the vital importance of these data, those who design currciula in the Chinese schools always > include this course in ancient Chinese medical language, > Yi Gu Wen. > > This leads me to the more general issue of education > and intelligence. Z'ev has pointed out in earlier posts > that we who study, teach, practice, and research Chinese > medicine in the West do so at a tremendous disadvantage > if we do not acquire the skills necessary for studying > in the Chinese language. I'm well aware of the range of > opinions and resulting debate about whether or not this > really matters. But I have yet to come in contact with > any expression or manifestation of Chinese medicine from > any part of the world that does not acknowledge its debt > to the Chinese traditions of the past whence the subject > emerged. > > The very simple truth is that if one is interested in > knowing and understanding what Chinese medicine is all > about, one had better look in the medical classics where > the subject has been chronicled and archived for more than > 2,000 years. > > This is the public record of the subject. It forms an integral > part of the basis of all claims of authenticity, validity, > efficacy, etc. that are made with respect to the study and > practice of Chinese medicine. The medical classics by no means describe the limits of such claims, but they do represent the basis. > > There is, of course, a deep and strong oral transmission, > rather a whole dimension of the oral traditions of medicine > in Chinese history. So that the literary traditions are > not the only fundamental repository of Chinese medical > intelligence. But they are indispensable. > > Unfortunately for students who do not read and understand Chinese, > and this means the classical Chinese in which these medical > classics were written, this knowledge is beyond reach. > > The work to translate this body of knowledge into English proceeds, > but it proceeds slowly. The work of learning to read and understand > classical medical Chinese is taken up by a growing number of individuals, but this is a slow process as well. > > There will be no quick solution to the real situation here. > > Meanwhile I believe that it behooves people of intellectual > and ethical integrity to avoid the trap that is perhaps > best described in lyrics to the song, Superstition, by > Stevie Wonder. " When you believe in things that you don't > understand, then you suffer. " > > In the Dao De Jing, it says, " To know, yet appear not to, is > best. To not know yet appear to is illness. " > > It seems to me that the path of medicine, be it traditionally > Chinese or modernly Western, has as one of its most basic > and stringent requirements that those who follow it be > possessed of the intellectual courage and insight to know > the difference between knowing something and not knowing it. > > The Nei Jing advises that we treat patients before they > get ill. And the oldest medical wisdom reminds us, Physician, > heal thyself. > > If we cannot comply with these most fundamental requirements, > what meaning do the advanced refinements have? > > The demands of daily life include that we administer > aid to those who need it, but this is no reason to > avoid or tolerate remaining ignorant of the basic > issues that form our character as a profession and > the substance of our practice. > > It is simply a long, hard job. If the thorough > study and updating of the medical literature > were not vital to the processes of Chinese > medical education and practice, why have the > Chinese been doing so for 2,000 years? > > Is there really anyone on this list who could > defend a position which states in essence that > patients of American (or other non-Chinese) > practitioners of Chinese medicine do not deserve > to be treated by individuals who are as well > educated as their Chinese counterparts? > > On what basis do people who do not read > and understand Chinese medical classics > go about deciding what to use from this > tradition and what to discard? > > > Just a few questions that recent discussions > on the list have jogged to mind. > > Ken Rose > 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. > > > > Z'ev Rosenberg > > is this situation being rectified now? is there much diffeence between > modern medical chinese and that of the classical writings? [excuse > ignorance]. > > Andrew > > > The Chinese Herb Academy, 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</A> > > > > 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</A> > Original Message ----- <A TARGET= " Link " title=yulong href= " yulong " >yulong</A> <A TARGET= " Link " title= href= " " > </A> Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:00 PM Re: Re: re: literature > > <P>Andrew, > > Ignorance may not be an excuse in the eyes of the law > but it is always excusable in the process of education. > In fact, it is a primary prerequisite to education and > therefore intelligence. > > I would say that there is no need for you to ask to be > excused for being ignorant of the difference between modern > medical Chinese and the language of the classics, but your question > seems to fill a very real need...for me at least. > > I've been trying to follow the recent thread on...well, I really > can't put my finger on the subject of the thread, and suddenly > your question appeared and seemed to point the way towards > something that I've wanted to say. > > And it all has to do with education and intelligence. > > I'll start by responding to your question. > > Modern medical Chinese is as different from classical > Chinese as modern medical English is from Old English. > > I only mean that in terms of an order of magnitude > comparison. I am not making points about linguistics, > per se. The textbooks that Chinese students of Chinese > medicine use to study, for example the Nei Jing, include > the ancient text, translations into modern Chinese, and > extensive interpretations and exegesis of the material. > > Students in China at the TCM colleges and universities (in fact > at the lower level trade schools and secondary schools that > specialize in TCM education as well) study courses in > ancient Chinese medical language and texts. Typically > this course is one semester long, although there are > those students who specialize in the medical classics > and go on to devote many years to the study. There is > a PhD program in Chinese medical classics at Chengdu > University of TCM, for example. > > Students in the Chinese schools acquire the modern > vocabulary throughout their 4-5 (or more) year long > education leading to basic certification, as they > follow courses in basic theory, diagnosis, acupuncture, > tui na, herbal medicine, pharmacology, and so on, > learning the nomenclature of these subjects in due > course. > > The point is that without special training or translations > into modern Chinese langauge, Chinese students of Chinese > medicine cannot access and thus acquire the data contained > in the medical classics. Recognizing the vital importance of these data, those who design currciula in the Chinese schools always > include this course in ancient Chinese medical language, > Yi Gu Wen. > > This leads me to the more general issue of education > and intelligence. Z'ev has pointed out in earlier posts > that we who study, teach, practice, and research Chinese > medicine in the West do so at a tremendous disadvantage > if we do not acquire the skills necessary for studying > in the Chinese language. I'm well aware of the range of > opinions and resulting debate about whether or not this > really matters. But I have yet to come in contact with > any expression or manifestation of Chinese medicine from > any part of the world that does not acknowledge its debt > to the Chinese traditions of the past whence the subject > emerged. > > The very simple truth is that if one is interested in > knowing and understanding what Chinese medicine is all > about, one had better look in the medical classics where > the subject has been chronicled and archived for more than > 2,000 years. > > This is the public record of the subject. It forms an integral > part of the basis of all claims of authenticity, validity, > efficacy, etc. that are made with respect to the study and > practice of Chinese medicine. The medical classics by no means describe the limits of such claims, but they do represent the basis. > > There is, of course, a deep and strong oral transmission, > rather a whole dimension of the oral traditions of medicine > in Chinese history. So that the literary traditions are > not the only fundamental repository of Chinese medical > intelligence. But they are indispensable. > > Unfortunately for students who do not read and understand Chinese, > and this means the classical Chinese in which these medical > classics were written, this knowledge is beyond reach. > > The work to translate this body of knowledge into English proceeds, > but it proceeds slowly. The work of learning to read and understand > classical medical Chinese is taken up by a growing number of individuals, but this is a slow process as well. > > There will be no quick solution to the real situation here. > > Meanwhile I believe that it behooves people of intellectual > and ethical integrity to avoid the trap that is perhaps > best described in lyrics to the song, Superstition, by > Stevie Wonder. " When you believe in things that you don't > understand, then you suffer. " > > In the Dao De Jing, it says, " To know, yet appear not to, is > best. To not know yet appear to is illness. " > > It seems to me that the path of medicine, be it traditionally > Chinese or modernly Western, has as one of its most basic > and stringent requirements that those who follow it be > possessed of the intellectual courage and insight to know > the difference between knowing something and not knowing it. > > The Nei Jing advises that we treat patients before they > get ill. And the oldest medical wisdom reminds us, Physician, > heal thyself. > > If we cannot comply with these most fundamental requirements, > what meaning do the advanced refinements have? > > The demands of daily life include that we administer > aid to those who need it, but this is no reason to > avoid or tolerate remaining ignorant of the basic > issues that form our character as a profession and > the substance of our practice. > > It is simply a long, hard job. If the thorough > study and updating of the medical literature > were not vital to the processes of Chinese > medical education and practice, why have the > Chinese been doing so for 2,000 years? > > Is there really anyone on this list who could > defend a position which states in essence that > patients of American (or other non-Chinese) > practitioners of Chinese medicine do not deserve > to be treated by individuals who are as well > educated as their Chinese counterparts? > > On what basis do people who do not read > and understand Chinese medical classics > go about deciding what to use from this > tradition and what to discard? > > > Just a few questions that recent discussions > on the list have jogged to mind. > > Ken Rose > 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. > > > > Z'ev Rosenberg > > is this situation being rectified now? is there much diffeence between > modern medical chinese and that of the classical writings? [excuse > ignorance]. > > Andrew > > > The Chinese Herb Academy, 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</A> > > > > 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</A> > > 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</A> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2000 Report Share Posted September 17, 2000 > 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. > > is this situation being rectified now? is there much diffeence between modern medical chinese and that of the classical writings? [excuse ignorance]. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2000 Report Share Posted September 18, 2000 If you weren't impressed with what you saw in China, where did you develop the idea that TCM is great? >>>There is great things within the medicine as well as a lot of boll in my opinion. I am not saying all I saw was negative. But for me it is always a game of numbers and when I looked backward at the hundreds of cases I followed it was generally disappointing. I like many of the tools in OM and adapted them in my practice. Nothing is black and white alon - <yulong Sunday, September 17, 2000 10:37 PM Re: Re: Re: re: literature Alon, I continue to be somewhat mystified by this thread. It seems as if there's an argument of some sort taking place, but I'll be darned if I can figure out exactly who is arguing what. I certainly do not disagree with the notion that we need to see the emergence of sound clinical trials in adequate quantities to satisfy the needs of medical researchers, doctors, insurance companies, regulators, policy makers, and the general public. I don't recall what your experience in China has been, if you've mentioned it before. All I can say is that it's too bad that you weren't impressed. I've always been impressed with the operation of clinics in the hospital attached to the TCM university in Chengdu and never hesitate to recommend it as a worthwhile place to go for people who want to experience Chinese medicine functioning at high volume. Sure they have weaknesses and areas that need to be improved upon. China is a Third World country with a population of some 900 million peasants. There's an awful lot of sick and injured people and pitifully little money to go around. But the throughput of patients is enormous in the clinics that I'm familiar with and the quality of care is very good overall. But one really big difference in China is that people who study and practice Chinese medicine are able to read the literature and can thus rely upon their own evaluation of source materials to develop understanding and skill. If you weren't impressed with what you saw in China, where did you develop the idea that TCM is great? Ken >>>>>>>And that is were the beauty of the scientific method comes on. I do not care what you say you know or care where you found it or which interpretation you agree with. All I have to do is look objectively at your outcome thank you very much. If you know of a great place to go in China please let me know. From what I have seen in a large TCM hospital with some famously classically trained DR I am still not as impressed as many seem to be. TCM is great has a lot to offer. We have tones to learn. And this is probably true in China as well. But we need to look at the average clinic of modernly trained TCM Dr and OBJECTIVELY evauate outcomes. That is were religion end and science begins. alon - <A TARGET= " Link " title=yulong href= " yulong " >yulong</A> <A TARGET= " Link " title= href= " " > < /A> Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:00 PM Re: Re: re: literature > > <P>Andrew, > > Ignorance may not be an excuse in the eyes of the law > but it is always excusable in the process of education. > In fact, it is a primary prerequisite to education and > therefore intelligence. > > I would say that there is no need for you to ask to be > excused for being ignorant of the difference between modern > medical Chinese and the language of the classics, but your question > seems to fill a very real need...for me at least. > > I've been trying to follow the recent thread on...well, I really > can't put my finger on the subject of the thread, and suddenly > your question appeared and seemed to point the way towards > something that I've wanted to say. > > And it all has to do with education and intelligence. > > I'll start by responding to your question. > > Modern medical Chinese is as different from classical > Chinese as modern medical English is from Old English. > > I only mean that in terms of an order of magnitude > comparison. I am not making points about linguistics, > per se. The textbooks that Chinese students of Chinese > medicine use to study, for example the Nei Jing, include > the ancient text, translations into modern Chinese, and > extensive interpretations and exegesis of the material. > > Students in China at the TCM colleges and universities (in fact > at the lower level trade schools and secondary schools that > specialize in TCM education as well) study courses in > ancient Chinese medical language and texts. Typically > this course is one semester long, although there are > those students who specialize in the medical classics > and go on to devote many years to the study. There is > a PhD program in Chinese medical classics at Chengdu > University of TCM, for example. > > Students in the Chinese schools acquire the modern > vocabulary throughout their 4-5 (or more) year long > education leading to basic certification, as they > follow courses in basic theory, diagnosis, acupuncture, > tui na, herbal medicine, pharmacology, and so on, > learning the nomenclature of these subjects in due > course. > > The point is that without special training or translations > into modern Chinese langauge, Chinese students of Chinese > medicine cannot access and thus acquire the data contained > in the medical classics. Recognizing the vital importance of these data, those who design currciula in the Chinese schools always > include this course in ancient Chinese medical language, > Yi Gu Wen. > > This leads me to the more general issue of education > and intelligence. Z'ev has pointed out in earlier posts > that we who study, teach, practice, and research Chinese > medicine in the West do so at a tremendous disadvantage > if we do not acquire the skills necessary for studying > in the Chinese language. I'm well aware of the range of > opinions and resulting debate about whether or not this > really matters. But I have yet to come in contact with > any expression or manifestation of Chinese medicine from > any part of the world that does not acknowledge its debt > to the Chinese traditions of the past whence the subject > emerged. > > The very simple truth is that if one is interested in > knowing and understanding what Chinese medicine is all > about, one had better look in the medical classics where > the subject has been chronicled and archived for more than > 2,000 years. > > This is the public record of the subject. It forms an integral > part of the basis of all claims of authenticity, validity, > efficacy, etc. that are made with respect to the study and > practice of Chinese medicine. The medical classics by no means describe the limits of such claims, but they do represent the basis. > > There is, of course, a deep and strong oral transmission, > rather a whole dimension of the oral traditions of medicine > in Chinese history. So that the literary traditions are > not the only fundamental repository of Chinese medical > intelligence. But they are indispensable. > > Unfortunately for students who do not read and understand Chinese, > and this means the classical Chinese in which these medical > classics were written, this knowledge is beyond reach. > > The work to translate this body of knowledge into English proceeds, > but it proceeds slowly. The work of learning to read and understand > classical medical Chinese is taken up by a growing number of individuals, but this is a slow process as well. > > There will be no quick solution to the real situation here. > > Meanwhile I believe that it behooves people of intellectual > and ethical integrity to avoid the trap that is perhaps > best described in lyrics to the song, Superstition, by > Stevie Wonder. " When you believe in things that you don't > understand, then you suffer. " > > In the Dao De Jing, it says, " To know, yet appear not to, is > best. To not know yet appear to is illness. " > > It seems to me that the path of medicine, be it traditionally > Chinese or modernly Western, has as one of its most basic > and stringent requirements that those who follow it be > possessed of the intellectual courage and insight to know > the difference between knowing something and not knowing it. > > The Nei Jing advises that we treat patients before they > get ill. And the oldest medical wisdom reminds us, Physician, > heal thyself. > > If we cannot comply with these most fundamental requirements, > what meaning do the advanced refinements have? > > The demands of daily life include that we administer > aid to those who need it, but this is no reason to > avoid or tolerate remaining ignorant of the basic > issues that form our character as a profession and > the substance of our practice. > > It is simply a long, hard job. If the thorough > study and updating of the medical literature > were not vital to the processes of Chinese > medical education and practice, why have the > Chinese been doing so for 2,000 years? > > Is there really anyone on this list who could > defend a position which states in essence that > patients of American (or other non-Chinese) > practitioners of Chinese medicine do not deserve > to be treated by individuals who are as well > educated as their Chinese counterparts? > > On what basis do people who do not read > and understand Chinese medical classics > go about deciding what to use from this > tradition and what to discard? > > > Just a few questions that recent discussions > on the list have jogged to mind. > > Ken Rose > 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. > > > > Z'ev Rosenberg > > is this situation being rectified now? is there much diffeence between > modern medical chinese and that of the classical writings? [excuse > ignorance]. > > Andrew > > > The Chinese Herb Academy, 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</ A> > > > > 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</ A> > Original Message ----- <A TARGET= " Link " title=yulong href= " yulong " >yulong</A> <A TARGET= " Link " title= href= " " > < /A> Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:00 PM Re: Re: re: literature > > <P>Andrew, > > Ignorance may not be an excuse in the eyes of the law > but it is always excusable in the process of education. > In fact, it is a primary prerequisite to education and > therefore intelligence. > > I would say that there is no need for you to ask to be > excused for being ignorant of the difference between modern > medical Chinese and the language of the classics, but your question > seems to fill a very real need...for me at least. > > I've been trying to follow the recent thread on...well, I really > can't put my finger on the subject of the thread, and suddenly > your question appeared and seemed to point the way towards > something that I've wanted to say. > > And it all has to do with education and intelligence. > > I'll start by responding to your question. > > Modern medical Chinese is as different from classical > Chinese as modern medical English is from Old English. > > I only mean that in terms of an order of magnitude > comparison. I am not making points about linguistics, > per se. The textbooks that Chinese students of Chinese > medicine use to study, for example the Nei Jing, include > the ancient text, translations into modern Chinese, and > extensive interpretations and exegesis of the material. > > Students in China at the TCM colleges and universities (in fact > at the lower level trade schools and secondary schools that > specialize in TCM education as well) study courses in > ancient Chinese medical language and texts. Typically > this course is one semester long, although there are > those students who specialize in the medical classics > and go on to devote many years to the study. There is > a PhD program in Chinese medical classics at Chengdu > University of TCM, for example. > > Students in the Chinese schools acquire the modern > vocabulary throughout their 4-5 (or more) year long > education leading to basic certification, as they > follow courses in basic theory, diagnosis, acupuncture, > tui na, herbal medicine, pharmacology, and so on, > learning the nomenclature of these subjects in due > course. > > The point is that without special training or translations > into modern Chinese langauge, Chinese students of Chinese > medicine cannot access and thus acquire the data contained > in the medical classics. Recognizing the vital importance of these data, those who design currciula in the Chinese schools always > include this course in ancient Chinese medical language, > Yi Gu Wen. > > This leads me to the more general issue of education > and intelligence. Z'ev has pointed out in earlier posts > that we who study, teach, practice, and research Chinese > medicine in the West do so at a tremendous disadvantage > if we do not acquire the skills necessary for studying > in the Chinese language. I'm well aware of the range of > opinions and resulting debate about whether or not this > really matters. But I have yet to come in contact with > any expression or manifestation of Chinese medicine from > any part of the world that does not acknowledge its debt > to the Chinese traditions of the past whence the subject > emerged. > > The very simple truth is that if one is interested in > knowing and understanding what Chinese medicine is all > about, one had better look in the medical classics where > the subject has been chronicled and archived for more than > 2,000 years. > > This is the public record of the subject. It forms an integral > part of the basis of all claims of authenticity, validity, > efficacy, etc. that are made with respect to the study and > practice of Chinese medicine. The medical classics by no means describe the limits of such claims, but they do represent the basis. > > There is, of course, a deep and strong oral transmission, > rather a whole dimension of the oral traditions of medicine > in Chinese history. So that the literary traditions are > not the only fundamental repository of Chinese medical > intelligence. But they are indispensable. > > Unfortunately for students who do not read and understand Chinese, > and this means the classical Chinese in which these medical > classics were written, this knowledge is beyond reach. > > The work to translate this body of knowledge into English proceeds, > but it proceeds slowly. The work of learning to read and understand > classical medical Chinese is taken up by a growing number of individuals, but this is a slow process as well. > > There will be no quick solution to the real situation here. > > Meanwhile I believe that it behooves people of intellectual > and ethical integrity to avoid the trap that is perhaps > best described in lyrics to the song, Superstition, by > Stevie Wonder. " When you believe in things that you don't > understand, then you suffer. " > > In the Dao De Jing, it says, " To know, yet appear not to, is > best. To not know yet appear to is illness. " > > It seems to me that the path of medicine, be it traditionally > Chinese or modernly Western, has as one of its most basic > and stringent requirements that those who follow it be > possessed of the intellectual courage and insight to know > the difference between knowing something and not knowing it. > > The Nei Jing advises that we treat patients before they > get ill. And the oldest medical wisdom reminds us, Physician, > heal thyself. > > If we cannot comply with these most fundamental requirements, > what meaning do the advanced refinements have? > > The demands of daily life include that we administer > aid to those who need it, but this is no reason to > avoid or tolerate remaining ignorant of the basic > issues that form our character as a profession and > the substance of our practice. > > It is simply a long, hard job. If the thorough > study and updating of the medical literature > were not vital to the processes of Chinese > medical education and practice, why have the > Chinese been doing so for 2,000 years? > > Is there really anyone on this list who could > defend a position which states in essence that > patients of American (or other non-Chinese) > practitioners of Chinese medicine do not deserve > to be treated by individuals who are as well > educated as their Chinese counterparts? > > On what basis do people who do not read > and understand Chinese medical classics > go about deciding what to use from this > tradition and what to discard? > > > Just a few questions that recent discussions > on the list have jogged to mind. > > Ken Rose > 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. > > > > Z'ev Rosenberg > > is this situation being rectified now? is there much diffeence between > modern medical chinese and that of the classical writings? [excuse > ignorance]. > > Andrew > > > The Chinese Herb Academy, 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</ A> > > > > 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</ A> > > 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. > > <A TARGET= " Link " href= " http://www..org " >http://www..org</ A> > 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 18, 2000 Report Share Posted September 18, 2000 What exactly where the #'s? Just to point out, it is my understanding, that in P-Drug research, all that they try to do it beat placebo, if they beat it by .5-1% then the product is usable, (which then is approximately 31% success rate)... BTW - again I will mention that arnica (homeopathic remedy) in the latest meta-analysis did not even beat placebo. Any valid therapy (if valid) should be able to beat placebo, I am unsure how one can rationalize its validity if it can't. (Given that the study is well designed)... - > If you weren't impressed with what you saw in > China, where did you develop the idea that > TCM is great? > >>>There is great things within the medicine as well as a lot of > boll in my > opinion. I am not saying all I saw was negative. But for me it is always a > game of numbers and when I looked backward at the hundreds of cases I > followed it was generally disappointing. I like many of the tools > in OM and > adapted them in my practice. Nothing is black and white > alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2000 Report Share Posted September 18, 2000 Jason, I think that one study doesn't negate 200 years of using a remedy to treat disease, in both animals and humans. Also, the study has to be designed in homeopathy according to a very specific symptom pattern, called rubrics, not symptomatically. To say that 'homeopathy doesn't work' based on such a flawed study is just the kind of brush-off I am worried about with Chinese medicine with poorly designed, so-called 'objective' studies. > > What exactly where the #'s? Just to point out, it is my understanding, that > in P-Drug research, all that they try to do it beat placebo, if they beat it > by .5-1% then the product is usable, (which then is approximately 31% > success rate)... > BTW - again I will mention that arnica (homeopathic remedy) in the latest > meta-analysis did not even beat placebo. > Any valid therapy (if valid) should be able to beat placebo, I am unsure > how one can rationalize its validity if it can't. (Given that the study is > well designed)... > > - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2000 Report Share Posted September 18, 2000 NEver once said that homeopathy does not work... -JAson (SEE NEXT POST) > Jason, > I think that one study doesn't negate 200 years of using a remedy to > treat disease, in both animals and humans. Also, the study has to be > designed in homeopathy according to a very specific symptom > pattern, called > rubrics, not symptomatically. To say that 'homeopathy doesn't work' based > on such a flawed study is just the kind of brush-off I am worried > about with > Chinese medicine with poorly designed, so-called 'objective' studies. > > > > > > What exactly where the #'s? Just to point out, it is my > understanding, that > > in P-Drug research, all that they try to do it beat placebo, if > they beat it > > by .5-1% then the product is usable, (which then is approximately 31% > > success rate)... > > BTW - again I will mention that arnica (homeopathic remedy) in > the latest > > meta-analysis did not even beat placebo. > > Any valid therapy (if valid) should be able to beat placebo, I > am unsure > > how one can rationalize its validity if it can't. (Given that > the study is > > well designed)... > > > > - > > > > > > > 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 18, 2000 Report Share Posted September 18, 2000 > Jason, > I think that one study doesn't negate 200 years of using a remedy to > treat disease, in both animals and humans. Also, the study has to be > designed in homeopathy according to a very specific symptom > pattern, called > rubrics, not symptomatically. To say that 'homeopathy doesn't work' based > on such a flawed study is just the kind of brush-off I am worried > about with > Chinese medicine with poorly designed, so-called 'objective' studies. > > A Meta-Analysis is all current 'non-flawed' studies combined into one statistical analysis/ report. They are proving to be the most reliable means to prove efficacy for therapies, drugs etc., for obvious reasons. The beauty is that they are not looking at one report (which could have any number of errors, alterations, or blatant fabrications. So.. it did not beat placebo, does this mean anything? I don't know? But 200 years of use does not mean anything to me, physicians used mercury baths, for who know how many years, and it was killing people left and right, and it still took years to stop its use. sugar pills harm no one. I say lets see some studies... Lets see practitioners go against Western stats, or better yet just try to beat the placebo. Drugs have to, and do, why can't we? Can't we have 1 practitioner do anything he wants to try to beat it (herbs, acu, snake oil, chants) or whatever. Get 50 asthma patients test them at the beginning and see how they are doing in 6 months, 1 year..? Then there will be no complaints about individualized treatments. Better yet just use acupuncture, and start with 10 patients. NOTE: sham acu points faired as well as NADA protocol in one study. How come we rarely hear that any therapy did not work for a given the disease pattern? How come we only hear of the successes? (A perfect example is Miriam Lee's book) Is it our ego that is getting in the way out our patients health? I have already caught myself doing this. I was writing down all these formulas that have worked for various situations. I then questioned: where are the formulas that have not worked? Studies are known to many times be flawed (many times data fabrications exist) because of monetary and/or egotistical concerns. I see that anecdotal evidence can be filled with this same type of flaw. We want our system to work? why? As far as Z'ev's comment about rubrics, I am unsure that this is relevant in the meta-analysis. Arnica was being tested for trauma, and the way that it is prescribed, correct me if I am wrong, is for symptomatic relief. You have a trauma, you take arnica, it heals quicker, (i.e. swelling goes down etc.) -- this seems pretty cut and dry, especially since arnica is the most popular homeopathic remedy in use (this is an anecdotal statistic) -- although it definitely is the most tested homeopathic remedy. FACT: acupuncture (or herbs) is not BEST for EVERYTHING! so what is it best at? I do not know? We should be compelled to find out... I am. Isn't it in the best interest of our patients to do what is best for them. If homeopathy is better at treating anxiety than herbs should we not refer them out? 200 years? -- is this really that long? I believe that there are numerous errors in TCM, that went on much longer than 200 years before they were resolved. Something that has zero studies does not mean that it works! Something that has 100 studies does not mean that it works! I question everything, and currently I do not recommend homeopathy to anyone. I do not disbelieve in it. Although, if there are studies that I am unaware of that are rigorous, complete and prove that a certain homeopathic remedy is efficacious for (fill in the blank), then by all means let me know, I would like to read them (plural). Final note: these are modern times, modern diseases (hopefully no argument) Western TCM -- is a modern medicine, it is not practiced anywhere near the classic literature/times -- for example, modern herbal preparations: extracts, tinctures, strange preparation methods for pills, different variety of plants, pesticides, etc. -- how come in China past and present many practitioners would never needle during lightning? Yet I personally know many who do not mind. So we have a modern era (diseases and treatment procedures and substances) this combination is not time-tested, theory is theory is theory is theory... we do not know what works and what doesn't: the nei jing does not tell us this, the shan hun lun / jin gui does not tell us this. If so i would like to see where... We have ideas of what has worked in the past to hopefully give us insight into the present. How many practitioners prepare formulas the same way that Dr. Zhang Zhong Jing recommended? or follow all the instructions he gives? Are the instructions just there for fun? who knows.. Enough babble....... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2000 Report Share Posted September 18, 2000 on 9/18/00 9:48 PM, at wrote: > sham acu points > faired as well as NADA protocol in one study. Not surprising. . . .no pattern diagnosis, no TCM diagnosis at all, using a modern auricular system that is not originally part of Chinese medicine. >How come we rarely hear that any therapy did not work for a given the >disease pattern? How come we only hear of the successes? (A perfect >example is Miriam Lee's book) Is it our ego that is getting in the way out >our patients health? I have already caught myself doing this. I was >writing down all these formulas that have worked for various situations. I >then questioned: where are the formulas that have not worked? Studies are >known to many times be flawed (many times data fabrications exist) because >of monetary and/or egotistical concerns. I see that anecdotal evidence can >be filled with this same type of flaw. We want our system to work? why? Actually, there are many case histories you can find in the classical literature of screwups. . . .. this failure denial seems to be part of the modern literature, or a lack of followup on cases. The Shang Han Lun is largely concerned with erroneous treatment of wind/cold patterns by precipitation, excessive use of sweating, or using moxa inappropriately. Chip Chace's book on case histories (unfortunately out of print), and one of his past articles deals with his own case screwups. I have tried to give some of my own in classes as well. The more you study, the more you uncover. Medicine is a vast sea, and we are divers looking for pearls. If you are looking for something, you will usually find it if you keep searching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2000 Report Share Posted September 19, 2000 > Jason, > I think that one study doesn't negate 200 years of using a remedy to > treat disease, in both animals and humans. Also, the study has to be > designed in homeopathy according to a very specific symptom pattern, called > rubrics, not symptomatically. a few studies have appeared in the Lancet confirming effectiveness of homeopathy, using double-blind placebo trials. The latest one was done through Edinburgh uni i think. its not really a matter of dispute anymore, just a case of reading the literature. Andrew 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.