Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Al, I downloaded the article and read it this evening. While certainly interesting to read about essential biomedical information on anthrax, and the effects of immuno-enhancing Chinese medicinals and medicinals with 'antibiotic effects', it says nothing about the TCM understanding of anthrax. Applying Chinese medicinals to strengthen the immune system or treat bacterial infection is interesting, but it is not the practice of Chinese medicine. Chinese medicine is understanding the signs and symptoms of the disease ( in this case a yi4 bing4, epidemic disease) and treating it according to pattern with Chinese medicinals and/or acumoxa. I would like to see more information on this. Chinese medicine has a rich literature on epidemic diseases, especially in the Wen Bing literature. Even if TCM plays only a supportive rather than primary role in anthrax treatment (because of socio-economic factors, and lack of training), we cannot just give 'immuno-enhancing' herbs indiscriminately to patients. Also, the indiscriminate use of heat-clearing medicinals in spleen qi xu or yang xu cold patients will weaken the patient. There are too many of us who are looking for easy solutions to difficult problems, and symptomatic treatments for serious diseases. Depending on the stage and nature of the contraction, Chinese medicinals have to be applied individually and according to pattern diagnosis. Otherwise, we will only show our ineffectiveness and incompetence. On Monday, October 15, 2001, at 06:59 PM, Al Stone wrote: > John Chen did his homework and came up with this: > http://acupuncture.com/Herbology/antrax.htm > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2001 Report Share Posted October 15, 2001 John Chen did his homework and came up with this: http://acupuncture.com/Herbology/antrax.htm -- Al Stone L.Ac. <AlStone http://www.BeyondWellBeing.com Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2001 Report Share Posted October 15, 2001 Al: Z'ev articulates some very real concerns, considering that it is a life or death matter. While the research shows that the herbs have antibacterial affects in vitro, did John Chen also anywhere include case histories to show their effectiveness in humans, too? Or a way to combine the herbs together into an effective formula and dosage? Jim Ramholz , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > Al, > I downloaded the article and read it this evening. While certainly > interesting to read about essential biomedical information on anthrax, > and the effects of immuno-enhancing Chinese medicinals and medicinals > with 'antibiotic effects', it says nothing about the TCM understanding > of anthrax. Applying Chinese medicinals to strengthen the immune system > or treat bacterial infection is interesting, but it is not the practice > of Chinese medicine. Chinese medicine is understanding the signs and > symptoms of the disease ( in this case a yi4 bing4, epidemic disease) > and treating it according to pattern with Chinese medicinals and/or > acumoxa. I would like to see more information on this. Chinese > medicine has a rich literature on epidemic diseases, especially in the > Wen Bing literature. Even if TCM plays only a supportive rather than > primary role in anthrax treatment (because of socio-economic factors, > and lack of training), we cannot just give 'immuno-enhancing' herbs > indiscriminately to patients. Also, the indiscriminate use of > heat-clearing medicinals in spleen qi xu or yang xu cold patients will > weaken the patient. There are too many of us who are looking for easy > solutions to difficult problems, and symptomatic treatments for serious > diseases. Depending on the stage and nature of the contraction, Chinese > medicinals have to be applied individually and according to pattern > diagnosis. Otherwise, we will only show our ineffectiveness and > incompetence. > > > On Monday, October 15, 2001, at 06:59 PM, Al Stone wrote: > > > John Chen did his homework and came up with this: > > http://acupuncture.com/Herbology/antrax.htm > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 Z'ev, I think your point is well taken. Many of the most popular teachers within our profession are not teaching Chinese medicine as a system. I agree with you that treatment based on pattern discrimination is the most important aspect of professional Chinese medicine. To me, what these people are teaching is, methodologically speaking, Western medicine using medicinals and modalities that happen to come from China. That happened this weekend here in Colorado at a meeting attended by more than 100 people. Everybody loved the teacher, but there was no mention of patterns or treatment based on patterns at all. It was all Western medicine. I really worry about this. Personally, I believe that these two systems can and must become integrated. Blue Poppy Press's Chinese Medical Psychiatry, our new book, The Treatment of Modern Western Medical Diseases with , and our forthcoming, The Treatment of Diabetes & Its Many Complications with , all are based on this belief in and desirability of the inevitable integration of these two systems of medicine. This is why these books were co-authored and/or have undergone peer review and technical editing by Western MDs. However, I believe that Chinese medical treatment based on pattern discrimination needs to be added to Western medicine. Instead, all too often what I see is Western medical treatment based on disease diagnosis taking the place of treatment based on pattern discrimination. Anyone care to comment on this? I think this is one of, if not the, most important issues facing our profession today. To me, losing treatment based on pattern discrimination would be a catastrophe of the greatest magnitude. Unfortunately, many members of our profession are not sensitive to this issue. I only know of one person at this weekend's Colorado meeting who even noted that the teacher never once discussed treatment based on pattern discrimination. Bob , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > Al, > I downloaded the article and read it this evening. While certainly > interesting to read about essential biomedical information on anthrax, > and the effects of immuno-enhancing Chinese medicinals and medicinals > with 'antibiotic effects', it says nothing about the TCM understanding > of anthrax. Applying Chinese medicinals to strengthen the immune system > or treat bacterial infection is interesting, but it is not the practice > of Chinese medicine. Chinese medicine is understanding the signs and > symptoms of the disease ( in this case a yi4 bing4, epidemic disease) > and treating it according to pattern with Chinese medicinals and/or > acumoxa. I would like to see more information on this. Chinese > medicine has a rich literature on epidemic diseases, especially in the > Wen Bing literature. Even if TCM plays only a supportive rather than > primary role in anthrax treatment (because of socio-economic factors, > and lack of training), we cannot just give 'immuno-enhancing' herbs > indiscriminately to patients. Also, the indiscriminate use of > heat-clearing medicinals in spleen qi xu or yang xu cold patients will > weaken the patient. There are too many of us who are looking for easy > solutions to difficult problems, and symptomatic treatments for serious > diseases. Depending on the stage and nature of the contraction, Chinese > medicinals have to be applied individually and according to pattern > diagnosis. Otherwise, we will only show our ineffectiveness and > incompetence. > > > On Monday, October 15, 2001, at 06:59 PM, Al Stone wrote: > > > John Chen did his homework and came up with this: > > http://acupuncture.com/Herbology/antrax.htm > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 , pemachophel2001 wrote: > Z'ev, > > I think your point is well taken. Many of the most popular teachers > within our profession are not teaching Chinese medicine as a system. Bob I am also very concerned about this and it may reflect something Ken mentioned the other day which many of us also know to be true. Many (but not all) of our chinese teachers in this country are actually MD's with varying degrees of training in TCM. they are not fully trained TCM doctors. Some were unable to pass their foreign medical exams and thus used acupuncture as a route to medical licensure. I know about a dozen folks who fit this bill. This may explain a lack of training in pulse as well as an allopathic emphasis in treatment. We owe it to the public and our profession to carefully investigate the credentials of those who are teaching us. One school I was associated with discovered after two years that their formulas professor was actually an MD cardiologist with about 100 hours of TCM training. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 Bob, It is indeed a grave time for the transmission of . It appears that the growing pains of incorporating the principles and thought of CM is leading a good number of very well intentioned practitioners to ease the discomfort and travail by choosing the short cut of "instant gratification". Slowly but surely inanimate devices that promise the nirvana of accurate and immediate diagnosis and treatment as well as the tendency to accept a mish-mash of fragments of different OM traditions are being incorporated in the every day practice of most. Interposing machinery between practitioner and patient and using set formulas of treatment may obtain fast results in the patient but will negate that which makes OM different and special. By being impatient we may simply achieve only an adequate "barefoot doctor" level. Mihail pemachophel2001 wrote: Z'ev, I think your point is well taken. Many of the most popular teachers within our profession are not teaching Chinese medicine as a system. I agree with you that treatment based on pattern discrimination is the most important aspect of professional Chinese medicine. To me, what these people are teaching is, methodologically speaking, Western medicine using medicinals and modalities that happen to come from China. That happened this weekend here in Colorado at a meeting attended by more than 100 people. Everybody loved the teacher, but there was no mention of patterns or treatment based on patterns at all. It was all Western medicine. I really worry about this. Personally, I believe that these two systems can and must become integrated. Blue Poppy Press's Chinese Medical Psychiatry, our new book, The Treatment of Modern Western Medical Diseases with , and our forthcoming, The Treatment of Diabetes & Its Many Complications with Chinese Medicine, all are based on this belief in and desirability of the inevitable integration of these two systems of medicine. This is why these books were co-authored and/or have undergone peer review and technical editing by Western MDs. However, I believe that Chinese medical treatment based on pattern discrimination needs to be added to Western medicine. Instead, all too often what I see is Western medical treatment based on disease diagnosis taking the place of treatment based on pattern discrimination. Anyone care to comment on this? I think this is one of, if not the, most important issues facing our profession today. To me, losing treatment based on pattern discrimination would be a catastrophe of the greatest magnitude. Unfortunately, many members of our profession are not sensitive to this issue. I only know of one person at this weekend's Colorado meeting who even noted that the teacher never once discussed treatment based on pattern discrimination. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 The problem is that graduate and many veteran practioners do not understand TCM and can not do differential diagnosis. They there for are looking for alternatives that they can use. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 and using set formulas of treatment may obtain fast results in the patient >>>If the results are truly good and fast than there is no need for change. After all that is all that matters. But I wonder. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 I too know a number of Chinese doctors who fit this description. However, I actually was describing a number of Western teachers of Chinese medicine. I don't think this problem is necessarily a " Chinese " problem. I think it is much larger, more insidious, and more prevasive than that. Bob , @i... wrote: > , pemachophel2001 wrote: > > Z'ev, > > > > I think your point is well taken. Many of the most popular teachers > > within our profession are not teaching Chinese medicine as a system. > > Bob > > I am also very concerned about this and it may reflect something Ken > mentioned the other day which many of us also know to be true. Many > (but not all) of our chinese teachers in this country are actually MD's > with varying degrees of training in TCM. they are not fully trained > TCM doctors. Some were unable to pass their foreign medical exams and > thus used acupuncture as a route to medical licensure. I know about a > dozen folks who fit this bill. This may explain a lack of training in > pulse as well as an allopathic emphasis in treatment. We owe it to the > public and our profession to carefully investigate the credentials of > those who are teaching us. One school I was associated with discovered > after two years that their formulas professor was actually an MD > cardiologist with about 100 hours of TCM training. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 > >However, I believe that Chinese medical > > treatment based on pattern discrimination needs to be added to Western > > > > medicine. Instead, all too often what I see is Western medical > > treatment based on disease diagnosis taking the place of treatment > > based on pattern discrimination. > > > > Anyone care to comment on this? I think this is one of, if not the, > > most important issues facing our profession today. To me, losing > > treatment based on pattern discrimination would be a catastrophe of > > the greatest magnitude. Unfortunately, many members of our profession > > are not sensitive to this issue. > > > Bob Western medicine has standards set by the profession. The MDs do not have burden to establish standards in practice. Simply following the western medicine's standards, and nothing wrong will happen. On the contrary, OMDs should set up his/her own standards for each patient. When it works, it's better than Western medicine. When it does not work, it's losing face, or even run into trouble. To avoid the pain and risk to establish own standards, people tend to westernize TCM: It's easy to learn, it's simple to apply, and it has a crown of being scientific. In the end, TCM does not exist at all. Bob Xu _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Share Posted October 17, 2001 On Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 07:53 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote: > > > I really worry about this. Personally, I believe that these two > systems can and must become integrated. Blue Poppy Press's Chinese > Medical Psychiatry, our new book, The Treatment of Modern Western > Medical Diseases with , and our forthcoming, The > Treatment of Diabetes & Its Many Complications with , > all are based on this belief in and desirability of the inevitable > integration of these two systems of medicine. This is why these books > were co-authored and/or have undergone peer review and technical > editing by Western MDs. However, I believe that Chinese medical > treatment based on pattern discrimination needs to be added to Western > medicine. Instead, all too often what I see is Western medical > treatment based on disease diagnosis taking the place of treatment > based on pattern discrimination. (Z'ev) I am not so sure about the absolute integration of Chinese and Western medicine. Cooperation, yes, but to meld the two structures together I think would keep Western medicine intact, but compromise significant elements of Chinese medicine. Specifically, while some patients have specific biomedical diseases, and an integrative approach can be useful, many patients have either 1) complex pattern scenarios that cannot be diagnosed as a Western disease or 2) have symptoms that are not part of their diagnosed Western disease that significantly effects them. The richness of pattern diagnosis, especially in Li-Zhu medicine is valuable when dealing with complex chronic disorders, largely because it recognizes and treats aspects of symptom patterns that are 'off the map' for Western medicine. Also, many chronic diseases become resistant to biomedical treatment. Most attempts I have seen in the literature to " zhong xi yi jie he " (combined Western/Chinese medicine) try to simplify and 'fix' the pattern diagnoses by reducing the number of possible patterns, and making it seem that only these patterns will appear in a particular biomedical disease. It reduces the information available to the practitioner, and reduces the flexibility of choice of diagnosis and treatment. It plays into the hands of those who want a " quick and easy " diagnosis and treatment plan, without spending the proper time taking the case,feeling the pulse, and designing treatment strategies. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Share Posted October 17, 2001 Most attempts I have seen in the literature to "zhong xi yi jie he" (combined Western/Chinese medicine) try to simplify and 'fix' the pattern diagnoses by reducing the number of possible patterns, and making it seem that only these patterns will appear in a particular biomedical disease. >>>>>That is very correct. However, it may allow for a begining. Also I just read a section Bob wrote in his web on Yin Fire were he states that one chooses a main formula from the main clinical category that fits the patient, and then modifies it according to the patient symptoms as well as the several categories which suppository are always there. That sounds to me like normal prescription alteration and not unique, except for these preconceived disease mechanisms. Alon - Wednesday, October 17, 2001 7:55 AM Re: Re: Anthrax and TCM On Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 07:53 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote: I really worry about this. Personally, I believe that these twosystems can and must become integrated. Blue Poppy Press's ChineseMedical Psychiatry, our new book, The Treatment of Modern WesternMedical Diseases with , and our forthcoming, TheTreatment of Diabetes & Its Many Complications with ,all are based on this belief in and desirability of the inevitableintegration of these two systems of medicine. This is why these bookswere co-authored and/or have undergone peer review and technicalediting by Western MDs. However, I believe that Chinese medicaltreatment based on pattern discrimination needs to be added to Westernmedicine. Instead, all too often what I see is Western medicaltreatment based on disease diagnosis taking the place of treatmentbased on pattern discrimination.(Z'ev) I am not so sure about the absolute integration of Chinese and Western medicine. Cooperation, yes, but to meld the two structures together I think would keep Western medicine intact, but compromise significant elements of Chinese medicine. Specifically, while some patients have specific biomedical diseases, and an integrative approach can be useful, many patients have either 1) complex pattern scenarios that cannot be diagnosed as a Western disease or 2) have symptoms that are not part of their diagnosed Western disease that significantly effects them.The richness of pattern diagnosis, especially in Li-Zhu medicine is valuable when dealing with complex chronic disorders, largely because it recognizes and treats aspects of symptom patterns that are 'off the map' for Western medicine. Also, many chronic diseases become resistant to biomedical treatment.Most attempts I have seen in the literature to "zhong xi yi jie he" (combined Western/Chinese medicine) try to simplify and 'fix' the pattern diagnoses by reducing the number of possible patterns, and making it seem that only these patterns will appear in a particular biomedical disease. It reduces the information available to the practitioner, and reduces the flexibility of choice of diagnosis and treatment. It plays into the hands of those who want a "quick and easy" diagnosis and treatment plan, without spending the proper time taking the case,feeling the pulse, and designing treatment strategies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 Z'ev, I deal with just some of these issues in the Introduction to our new The Treatment of Modern Western Medical Diseases with Chinese Medicine. I think your description of the Chinese pattern discrimination of modern Western diseases (which is definitely not limited to the zhong xi yi jie literature but forms a substantial part of the contemporary zhong yi literature) is a misapprehension of the intention and the actual clinical usage of such books and articles. Having researched a very large number of these 9you can check out the bibliography in the above-mentioned book), I do not think their intention is to " fix " anything. They are merely records of particular doctors' personal experiences with patients with certain Western diseases. One has to read and compare a large number of these in order to get a fuller, more complete understanding. Being an educated person typically means being well, i.e., widely, read. However, even then, it is my experience that any good Chinese doctor would agree that one will inevitably have to mix and match these patterns and modify such protocols in real-life practice. In other words, the finger is not the moon it is pointing at, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the finger nor the act of pointing. Part of the problem, as I see it, is a misapprehension of the role of the kinds of textbooks and articles that you appear to be criticizing. Such textbooks are only meant as a step or stage within the complete literature of Chinese medicine. These textbooks can, by their very nature, only accomplish certain things. They can only give one point of view of a very multifaceted reality. Therefore, the information that they convey must be supplemented and extended by case histories and medical essays, two other important genres within the Chinese medical literature (which, unfortunately, Western publishers have learned through trial and error there is not yet a large or sophisticated enough market to support). Further, all written materials must be elucidated and commented on by knowledgeable and experienced clinical mentors. I totally agree that textbooks do not convey the real-life process of Chinese medicine. However, as the author and translator of more of these than any other Westerner I can think of, I don't think that's what they are intended to do. I see them only as a guide for beginning how to think about things. They are always oversimplifications. In fact, they are intentionally meant as simplifications. In general, the process of methodoligical, progressive education is to begin with the simple and move towards the ever more complex. While the beginning is not the end, one does have to begin somewhere. As I see it, part of the problem here in the West is that we are more dependent on textbooks than we probably should be. Too many classes at too many Western CM schools rely on a single textbook per course. There's no depth, no breadth to that kind of educational process. That is certainly not the modus operandi in any of the truly MS level programs with which I am familiar. However, to a large extent, unless one personally reads Chinese, one is divorced from the rest of the literature which builds on the basis of beginner's textbooks. In addition, all too often, we do not have on-going mentoring relationships with " old Chinese doctors. " That means that too many of us rely too heavily on textbooks and then criticize them for not doing what they were never meant to do. Personally, I see that as more our problem as students of Chinese medicine than as a problem with the textbooks. I would also point out that, from my point of view, there is no logical conceptual reason why identifying the most commonly seen patterns under a Western disease category is any more problematic or questionable than identifying the most commonly seen patterns under a traditional Chinese disease category. If you allow the possibility and utility of presenting the most commonly seen patterns for wasting and thristing (xia ke) or strangury condition (lin zheng), then I think you also must allow the possibility and utility of doing the same thing for MS, SLE, CFIDS, and RA. If one questions this basic activity of identifying and presenting the most commonly seen patterns of various diseases within the Chinese medical literature, then you would have to throw out huge chunks of the Chinese medical literature all the way back to and including sections of the Nei Jing. Bob , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 07:53 AM, pemachophel2001 > wrote: > > > > > > I really worry about this. Personally, I believe that these two > > systems can and must become integrated. Blue Poppy Press's Chinese > > Medical Psychiatry, our new book, The Treatment of Modern Western > > Medical Diseases with , and our forthcoming, The > > Treatment of Diabetes & Its Many Complications with Chinese Medicine, > > all are based on this belief in and desirability of the inevitable > > integration of these two systems of medicine. This is why these books > > were co-authored and/or have undergone peer review and technical > > editing by Western MDs. However, I believe that Chinese medical > > treatment based on pattern discrimination needs to be added to Western > > medicine. Instead, all too often what I see is Western medical > > treatment based on disease diagnosis taking the place of treatment > > based on pattern discrimination. > > (Z'ev) I am not so sure about the absolute integration of Chinese and > Western medicine. Cooperation, yes, but to meld the two structures > together I think would keep Western medicine intact, but compromise > significant elements of Chinese medicine. Specifically, while some > patients have specific biomedical diseases, and an integrative approach > can be useful, many patients have either 1) complex pattern scenarios > that cannot be diagnosed as a Western disease or 2) have symptoms that > are not part of their diagnosed Western disease that significantly > effects them. > > The richness of pattern diagnosis, especially in Li-Zhu medicine is > valuable when dealing with complex chronic disorders, largely because it > recognizes and treats aspects of symptom patterns that are 'off the map' > for Western medicine. Also, many chronic diseases become resistant to > biomedical treatment. > > Most attempts I have seen in the literature to " zhong xi yi jie he " > (combined Western/Chinese medicine) try to simplify and 'fix' the > pattern diagnoses by reducing the number of possible patterns, and > making it seem that only these patterns will appear in a particular > biomedical disease. It reduces the information available to the > practitioner, and reduces the flexibility of choice of diagnosis and > treatment. It plays into the hands of those who want a " quick and easy " > diagnosis and treatment plan, without spending the proper time taking > the case,feeling the pulse, and designing treatment strategies. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 I would also point out that, from my point of view, there is no logical conceptual reason why identifying the most commonly seen patterns under a Western disease category is any more problematic or questionable than identifying the most commonly seen patterns under a traditional Chinese disease category. If you allow the possibility and utility of presenting the most commonly seen patterns for wasting and thristing (xia ke) or strangury condition (lin zheng), then I think you also must allow the possibility and utility of doing the same thing for MS, SLE, CFIDS, and RA. >>>I agree. We have to remember that basically we are looking at the same body. Secondly the most frequent quote I heard from all my teachers is that one must be very flexible when using TCM. However, we need more text books written by truly experienced clinicians that truly do cover the most commonly seen variation of these diseases. Unfortunately most of these texts do not conform to what I see. Perhaps I have a particular patient population. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 Hi,Alone, > there is no > logical conceptual reason why identifying the most > commonly seen > patterns under a Western disease category is any > more problematic or > questionable than identifying the most commonly seen > patterns under a traditional Chinese disease category. Please Tell me which of them (both TCM and WM)are copied(100% similar)?TCM Medicine never see any bacteria ,enzme.... >If you allow the possibility and > utility of presenting the most commonly seen > patterns for wasting and thristing (xia ke) Do yuou know that xia ke is not only mean DM in chinese but also mean that I am simplly very thirsty and hungry in that moment only.How could you treat every patient by DM method if the patient only complan I feel thirsty and hungry without other TCM diagnosis. or strangury condition (lin > zheng), then I think > you also must allow the possibility and utility of > doing the same > thing for MS, SLE, CFIDS, and RA. I can't tell these (MS, SLE, CFIDS, and RA)deseases can only treatment by a standize type TCM procedures ,the patient might get killed. > >>>I agree. We have to remember that basically we > are looking at the same body. But,in totally different theories.Maybe WM medicine treat patient no matter where the patient is(africa,north pole...)TCM do care about the enviorment and climate very much,which is the same body and same person.How could say they are all the same. Secondly the most > frequent quote I heard from all my teachers is that > one must be very flexible when using TCM. You mean WM is not flexible?Why unflxible Medicin think that other theory have to act in its way? Unflexible!!Unflexible killing TCM. > However, we need more text books written by truly > experienced clinicians that truly do cover the most > commonly seen variation of these diseases. How do you defined " experienced clinicians " ,you mean how many patient he killed or how many patient he save? > Unfortunately most of these texts do not conform to > what I see. Because experienced clinicians is rare even is Mainland and Taiwan,not mention in US. Textbook means second hand meterials,not first hand. TCM text book in US not even the second hand information(N hand). You guys shlud go through the language bar ,read the ancient chinese TCM mentors first hand meterials,not some unknow experienced clinicians WM+ very little TCM in you are really want to learn TCM whole you life. Other wise,people who study TCM in US will always stand on the first stage of the ladder,you will never reach the front door of TCM library ,not mention the room of TCM. Jean ===== -------------------------------- < ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 But,in totally different theories.Maybe WM medicinetreat patient no matter where the patientis(africa,north pole...)TCM do care about theenviormentand climate very much,which is the same body and sameperson.How could say they are all the same. >>>>>That is not true and good western medicine does care about the environment. You mean WM is not flexible?Why unfixable Medicinthink that other theory have to act in its way?Unflexible!!Unflexible killing TCM.>>>>>>No I think what my mentors were saying that the rules in TCM should not be taken as gospel and should be mixed and matched per experience and patient needs How do you defined "experienced clinicians ",you meanhow many patient he killed or how many patient hesave?>>>>You can learn from both. However very little is written by Chinese sources on failures and death Other wise,people who study TCM in US will always stand on the first stage of the ladder,you willnever reach the front door of TCM library ,not mentionthe room of TCM. >>>Out or curiosity how many patients have you treated in your life time Alon - Jeansu Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:13 PM Re: Re: Anthrax and TCM Hi,Alone,> there is no > logical conceptual reason why identifying the most> commonly seen > patterns under a Western disease category is any> more problematic or > questionable than identifying the most commonly seen> patterns under a traditional Chinese diseasecategory. Please Tell me which of them (both TCM and WM)arecopied(100% similar)?TCM Medicine never see anybacteria ,enzme....>If you allow the possibility and > utility of presenting the most commonly seen> patterns for wasting and thristing (xia ke) Do yuou know that xia ke is not only mean DM inchinese but also mean that I am simpllyvery thirsty and hungry in that moment only.How couldyou treat every patient by DM method if the patientonly complan I feel thirsty and hungry without otherTCM diagnosis.or strangury condition (lin> zheng), then I think > you also must allow the possibility and utility of> doing the same > thing for MS, SLE, CFIDS, and RA. I can't tell these (MS, SLE, CFIDS, and RA)deseasescan only treatment by a standize type TCM procedures,the patient might get killed.> >>>I agree. We have to remember that basically we> are looking at the same body. But,in totally different theories.Maybe WM medicinetreat patient no matter where the patientis(africa,north pole...)TCM do care about theenviormentand climate very much,which is the same body and sameperson.How could say they are all the same.Secondly the most> frequent quote I heard from all my teachers is that> one must be very flexible when using TCM.You mean WM is not flexible?Why unflxible Medicinthink that other theory have to act in its way?Unflexible!!Unflexible killing TCM.> However, we need more text books written by truly> experienced clinicians that truly do cover the most> commonly seen variation of these diseases.How do you defined "experienced clinicians ",you meanhow many patient he killed or how many patient hesave?> Unfortunately most of these texts do not conform to> what I see. Because experienced clinicians is rare even isMainland and Taiwan,not mention in US.Textbook means second hand meterials,not first hand.TCM text book in US not even the second handinformation(N hand).You guys shlud go through the language bar ,read theancient chinese TCM mentors first hand meterials,notsome unknow experienced clinicians WM+ very little TCMin you are really want to learn TCM whole you life.Other wise,people who study TCM in US will always stand on the first stage of the ladder,you willnever reach the front door of TCM library ,not mentionthe room of TCM.Jean=====--------------------------------< ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..twThe 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 October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Hi,ALON, >Out or curiosity how many patients have you > treated in your life time > Alon It depends.For example,If some one who invent herbal formula to cure,how many patient do you think he/she will cured. Jean ===== -------------------------------- < ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 On Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 08:47 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote: > Z'ev, > > I deal with just some of these issues in the Introduction to our new > The Treatment of Modern Western Medical Diseases with Chinese > Medicine. I am looking forward to seeing it. > I think your description of the Chinese pattern > discrimination of modern Western diseases (which is definitely not > limited to the zhong xi yi jie literature but forms a substantial part > of the contemporary zhong yi literature) is a misapprehension of the > intention and the actual clinical usage of such books and articles. > Having researched a very large number of these 9you can check out the > bibliography in the above-mentioned book), I do not think their > intention is to " fix " anything. Perhaps I overstated my case. I have seen quite a few articles in the Chinese journals that I've seen (not as many as you have) blend biomedicine with Chinese medical technology, with little or no mention of pattern differentiation, pulse or tongue diagnosis. All of the textbooks that I've seen that oversimplify the pattern diagnosis have been in English. > They are merely records of particular > doctors' personal experiences with patients with certain Western > diseases. One has to read and compare a large number of these in order > to get a fuller, more complete understanding. Being an educated person > typically means being well, i.e., widely, read. However, even then, it > is my experience that any good Chinese doctor would agree that one > will inevitably have to mix and match these patterns and modify such > protocols in real-life practice. In other words, the finger is not the > moon it is pointing at, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong > with the finger nor the act of pointing. I realize that textbooks can only go so far in describing the clinical terrain. Unfortunately, students tend to take these textbooks as 'gospel', as if all that they need to know is between the covers of the particular textbook. There are varying levels of quality in the textbooks available, but the best, including yours, give references and resources that students can follow up on. Many teachers oversimplify pattern differentiation in their courses, perhaps from a lack of mastery of the essential subject. Because of this, I am concerned that the relatively easy access to biomedical data in textbooks and on the internet when compared to Chinese medical literature automatically biases the subject matter when it comes to integration. For years I have seen term reports, research papers and cirriculi that reflect this bias. We have not succeeded in our profession in adequately uncovering the essential data on treatment and diagnosis from a Chinese medical perspective. > > Part of the problem, as I see it, is a misapprehension of the role of > the kinds of textbooks and articles that you appear to be criticizing. > Such textbooks are only meant as a step or stage within the complete > literature of Chinese medicine. These textbooks can, by their very > nature, only accomplish certain things. They can only give one point > of view of a very multifaceted reality. Agreed. > Therefore, the information > that they convey must be supplemented and extended by case histories > and medical essays, two other important genres within the Chinese > medical literature (which, unfortunately, Western publishers have > learned through trial and error there is not yet a large or > sophisticated enough market to support). Further, all written > materials must be elucidated and commented on by knowledgeable and > experienced clinical mentors. > This is the job of the instructor/professor. It is certainly part of what I try to do when I teach. > I totally agree that textbooks do not convey the real-life process of > Chinese medicine. However, as the author and translator of more of > these than any other Westerner I can think of, I don't think that's > what they are intended to do. I see them only as a guide for beginning > how to think about things. They are always oversimplifications. In > fact, they are intentionally meant as simplifications. In general, the > process of methodoligical, progressive education is to begin with the > simple and move towards the ever more complex. While the beginning is > not the end, one does have to begin somewhere. Again, I support this position. > > As I see it, part of the problem here in the West is that we are more > dependent on textbooks than we probably should be. Too many classes at > too many Western CM schools rely on a single textbook per course. > There's no depth, no breadth to that kind of educational process. That > is certainly not the modus operandi in any of the truly MS level > programs with which I am familiar. We need a lot more material. . .classical texts, commentaries, case histories. And, as you point out, this material is largely in Chinese. Until the powers-that-be in the educational system get the message, we are not going to have support for medical Chinese classes, research, and translation teams. For myself, I can only continue to study medical Chinese at a gradual pace as I've done for the last five years, and because of a full-time clinical practice and part-time teaching, it leaves me precious little time for translation work. Until there is financial incentive, and more support for professional teachers, it is going to be an individual initiative to take on this challenge. > However, to a large extent, unless > one personally reads Chinese, one is divorced from the rest of the > literature which builds on the basis of beginner's textbooks. In > addition, all too often, we do not have on-going mentoring > relationships with " old Chinese doctors. " That means that too many of > us rely too heavily on textbooks and then criticize them for not doing > what they were never meant to do. Personally, I see that as more our > problem as students of Chinese medicine than as a problem with the > textbooks. Again, there is a great variation in quality of textbooks over the last twenty years. . . some very good stuff, some very poor stuff. > > I would also point out that, from my point of view, there is no > logical conceptual reason why identifying the most commonly seen > patterns under a Western disease category is any more problematic or > questionable than identifying the most commonly seen patterns under a > traditional Chinese disease category. If you allow the possibility and > utility of presenting the most commonly seen patterns for wasting and > thristing (xia ke) or strangury condition (lin zheng), then I think > you also must allow the possibility and utility of doing the same > thing for MS, SLE, CFIDS, and RA. If one questions this basic activity > of identifying and presenting the most commonly seen patterns of > various diseases within the Chinese medical literature, then you would > have to throw out huge chunks of the Chinese medical literature all > the way back to and including sections of the Nei Jing. I have no problem at all with pattern differentiation of Western diseases, I do it every day in my practice. It just needs to be done with the necessary detail on the pattern differentiation side. I am just concerned with the position of those who want to mix the two medicines together without an adequate understanding. And, after all, don't you agree that there is a lot of teaching and practice going on of Western medicine using Chinese medicinals and acumoxa? For the record, I think your " Chinese Medical Psychiatry " is an excellent text. What is most special about it is that you have taken a leap forward in a very difficult subject, and given a very balanced view from both the biomedical and Chinese perspectives. Few other textbooks have done so as well. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 My 2 cents ... I agree with Z'ev. of course no one asked me but there it is anyway. However I do want to know if its a penny for your thoughts, and I put in my 2 cents, where's the other penny go ??? Ed Kasper L.Ac., Santa Cruz, California Any married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing. Message: 10 Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:47:22 -0000 pemachophel2001 Re: Anthrax and TCM Z'ev, I deal with just some of these issues in the Introduction to our new The Treatment of Modern Western Medical Diseases with Chinese Medicine. I think your description of the Chinese pattern discrimination of modern Western diseases (which is definitely not limited to the zhong xi yi jie literature but forms a substantial part of the contemporary zhong yi literature) is a misapprehension of the intention and the actual clinical usage of such books and articles. Having researched a very large number of these 9you can check out the bibliography in the above-mentioned book), I do not think their intention is to " fix " anything. They are merely records of particular doctors' personal experiences with patients with certain Western diseases. One has to read and compare a large number of these in order to get a fuller, more complete understanding. Being an educated person typically means being well, i.e., widely, read. However, even then, it is my experience that any good Chinese doctor would agree that one will inevitably have to mix and match these patterns and modify such protocols in real-life practice. In other words, the finger is not the moon it is pointing at, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the finger nor the act of pointing. Part of the problem, as I see it, is a misapprehension of the role of the kinds of textbooks and articles that you appear to be criticizing. Such textbooks are only meant as a step or stage within the complete literature of Chinese medicine. These textbooks can, by their very nature, only accomplish certain things. They can only give one point of view of a very multifaceted reality. Therefore, the information that they convey must be supplemented and extended by case histories and medical essays, two other important genres within the Chinese medical literature (which, unfortunately, Western publishers have learned through trial and error there is not yet a large or sophisticated enough market to support). Further, all written materials must be elucidated and commented on by knowledgeable and experienced clinical mentors. I totally agree that textbooks do not convey the real-life process of Chinese medicine. However, as the author and translator of more of these than any other Westerner I can think of, I don't think that's what they are intended to do. I see them only as a guide for beginning how to think about things. They are always oversimplifications. In fact, they are intentionally meant as simplifications. In general, the process of methodoligical, progressive education is to begin with the simple and move towards the ever more complex. While the beginning is not the end, one does have to begin somewhere. As I see it, part of the problem here in the West is that we are more dependent on textbooks than we probably should be. Too many classes at too many Western CM schools rely on a single textbook per course. There's no depth, no breadth to that kind of educational process. That is certainly not the modus operandi in any of the truly MS level programs with which I am familiar. However, to a large extent, unless one personally reads Chinese, one is divorced from the rest of the literature which builds on the basis of beginner's textbooks. In addition, all too often, we do not have on-going mentoring relationships with " old Chinese doctors. " That means that too many of us rely too heavily on textbooks and then criticize them for not doing what they were never meant to do. Personally, I see that as more our problem as students of Chinese medicine than as a problem with the textbooks. I would also point out that, from my point of view, there is no logical conceptual reason why identifying the most commonly seen patterns under a Western disease category is any more problematic or questionable than identifying the most commonly seen patterns under a traditional Chinese disease category. If you allow the possibility and utility of presenting the most commonly seen patterns for wasting and thristing (xia ke) or strangury condition (lin zheng), then I think you also must allow the possibility and utility of doing the same thing for MS, SLE, CFIDS, and RA. If one questions this basic activity of identifying and presenting the most commonly seen patterns of various diseases within the Chinese medical literature, then you would have to throw out huge chunks of the Chinese medical literature all the way back to and including sections of the Nei Jing. Bob , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 07:53 AM, pemachophel2001 > wrote: > > > > > > I really worry about this. Personally, I believe that these two > > systems can and must become integrated. Blue Poppy Press's Chinese > > Medical Psychiatry, our new book, The Treatment of Modern Western > > Medical Diseases with , and our forthcoming, The > > Treatment of Diabetes & Its Many Complications with Chinese Medicine, > > all are based on this belief in and desirability of the inevitable > > integration of these two systems of medicine. This is why these books > > were co-authored and/or have undergone peer review and technical > > editing by Western MDs. However, I believe that Chinese medical > > treatment based on pattern discrimination needs to be added to Western > > medicine. Instead, all too often what I see is Western medical > > treatment based on disease diagnosis taking the place of treatment > > based on pattern discrimination. > > (Z'ev) I am not so sure about the absolute integration of Chinese and > Western medicine. Cooperation, yes, but to meld the two structures > together I think would keep Western medicine intact, but compromise > significant elements of Chinese medicine. Specifically, while some > patients have specific biomedical diseases, and an integrative approach > can be useful, many patients have either 1) complex pattern scenarios > that cannot be diagnosed as a Western disease or 2) have symptoms that > are not part of their diagnosed Western disease that significantly > effects them. > > The richness of pattern diagnosis, especially in Li-Zhu medicine is > valuable when dealing with complex chronic disorders, largely because it > recognizes and treats aspects of symptom patterns that are 'off the map' > for Western medicine. Also, many chronic diseases become resistant to > biomedical treatment. > > Most attempts I have seen in the literature to " zhong xi yi jie he " > (combined Western/Chinese medicine) try to simplify and 'fix' the > pattern diagnoses by reducing the number of possible patterns, and > making it seem that only these patterns will appear in a particular > biomedical disease. It reduces the information available to the > practitioner, and reduces the flexibility of choice of diagnosis and > treatment. It plays into the hands of those who want a " quick and easy " > diagnosis and treatment plan, without spending the proper time taking > the case,feeling the pulse, and designing treatment strategies. > > > > > 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.