qing hao

November 21, 2001

In H.L.Gui’s Warm Diseases

book it states “qïng hào readily induces sweating…”

a smaller dose is used (avoiding profuse sweating) - to not deplete the yin any

further in a Kid / Liv yïn deficeny (with

heat) condition. There is no sweating in

the original condition… I have never seen that qïng hào ‘readily induces sweating’.. comments?

-

October 10, 2003

In a message dated 10/10/2003 8:01:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

jramholz writes:

I find myself not always trusting the results of Chinese studies.

It is sad to say, but it would be unwise to trust Chinese studies. From

every reputable source I have heard from, studies are poorly controlled and

the findings are often changed to suit the desires of the people doing the

studies. This is unfortunately common.

Look closely at any study coming from China.

Sorry. I really wish it were different.

Chris

October 10, 2003

In a message dated 10/10/2003 9:14:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

jramholz writes:

Chris:

Medical acupuncturists do quite a number of studies; but,

understandably, not for herbs. I'm surprised herb companies and

schools don't feel compelled to do more herbal studies.

Jim Ramholz

Hi Jim,

Please understand what I would like to see is honest, reliable studies.

It seems that peer review is extremely lax to put it politely.

It is easy to take for granted the apparent rigorous and reliable studies

we find in our prestigious Journals. I say that with a bit of sarcasm as

most of us are aware of the monetary interests driving many of the articles

published in our journals.

I would like a reliable peer review for Chinese studies.

Chris

October 10, 2003

I find myself not always trusting the results of Chinese studies.

But some of my patients in other parts of the US started using it

because of the results reported by Dr. N.P. Singh of the University

of Washington in Seattle. So I started to include qing hao (in

concentrate) in an anti-metastasis formula given to me by my

teacher, Jiang Jing. It's evident from the pulses---and,

subsequently, from Western tests---that it is having a very

beneficial affect.

Jim Ramholz

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Michael Broffman has picked up on the use of artemesin, an extract

of qing hao, for cancer patients, based on positive studies in

mainland China.

>

> On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 02:21 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

>

> > I've added Qing hao to a cancer formula and have gotten some very

> > encouraging results with my cancer patients. All have shown

> > significant improvement. One woman who has 30 tumor sites dropped

> > her markers in half. But since I'm also doing acupuncture on all

of

> > them, it's difficult to say what percent is atrributable to the

> > herbs alone.

> >

> > Jim Ramholz

October 10, 2003

, Musiclear@a... wrote:

> It is sad to say, but it would be unwise to trust Chinese studies.

From every reputable source I have heard from, studies are poorly

controlled and the findings are often changed to suit the desires of

the people doing the studies. This is unfortunately common.

> Look closely at any study coming from China.

> Sorry. I really wish it were different.

Chris:

Medical acupuncturists do quite a number of studies; but,

understandably, not for herbs. I'm surprised herb companies and

schools don't feel compelled to do more herbal studies.

Jim Ramholz

October 11, 2003

Jim, Chris,

> jramholz writes:

> I find myself not always trusting the results of Chinese studies.

> It is sad to say, but it would be unwise to trust Chinese

studies. From

> every reputable source I have heard from, studies are poorly

controlled and

> the findings are often changed to suit the desires of the people

doing the

> studies. This is unfortunately common.

> Look closely at any study coming from China.

> Sorry. I really wish it were different.

> Chris

I have been aware of these kinds of problems

with studies done in the PRC for a long time

now. There is no disputing that such problems

exist or that they are legion. I've written earlier

about the pandemic of fakery in the field of

medicine throughout the PRC.

I just get uncomforable with the sweeping

generalizations in the above language.

Such problems are neither limited to

China or so widespread as to eliminate

the possibility of valuable data emerging

from that zone. And to summarize it in

such all embracive terms is a mistake.

There are underlying issues that should

also be taken into consideration, such

as conflicts in cultural biases that find

their way into the conduct and reportage

of scientific studies.

I don't see any need to throw the baby

out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Yes, there are problems with the research

literature that comes from China. But

of far greater importance than the fact

of the problems that such literature contains

is the fact that most of the people who should

be able to read and evaluate it have no idea

what it says.

And if you have not read the problematic

literature yourself, then I think it's important

that when commenting on it a phrase or two

informing readers that this is all second and

third hand information would be very useful.

The mention of " reputable sources " is,

in and of itself problematic. And that's what

we've been trying to get at, in some ways

over the past few weeks.

What is a reputable source?

How do we define repute?

And how do we conduct ourselves

with respect to such questions so as to

cultivate and improve the repute of the

whole field, as well as of the particular

documents that accumulate as the literature

as we continue to develop?

Ken

October 11, 2003

, " kenrose2008 " wrote:

> Yes, there are problems with the research

> literature that comes from China. But

> of far greater importance than the fact

> of the problems that such literature contains

> is the fact that most of the people who should

> be able to read and evaluate it have no idea

> what it says.

>

> And if you have not read the problematic

> literature yourself, then I think it's important

> that when commenting on it a phrase or two

> informing readers that this is all second and

> third hand information would be very useful.

Ken:

I used to get Chinese language journals and stopped. The issue is

not about translation terms but about the reliability of Chinese

clinical studies. You can't equate or reduce every problem in the

profession with issues of translation terms.

Jim Ramholz

October 11, 2003

In a message dated 10/11/2003 1:31:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

kenrose2008 writes:

It is sad to say, but it would be unwise to trust Chinese

studies. From

> every reputable source I have heard from, studies are poorly

controlled and

> the findings are often changed to suit the desires of the people

doing the

> studies. This is unfortunately common.

> Look closely at any study coming from China.

> Sorry. I really wish it were different.

> Chris

I have been aware of these kinds of problems

with studies done in the PRC for a long time

now. There is no disputing that such problems

exist or that they are legion. I've written earlier

about the pandemic of fakery in the field of

medicine throughout the PRC.

I just get uncomforable with the sweeping

generalizations in the above language.

Such problems are neither limited to

China or so widespread as to eliminate

the possibility of valuable data emerging

from that zone. And to summarize it in

such all embracive terms is a mistake.

There are underlying issues that should

also be taken into consideration, such

as conflicts in cultural biases that find

their way into the conduct and reportage

of scientific studies.

I don't see any need to throw the baby

out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Yes, there are problems with the research

literature that comes from China. But

of far greater importance than the fact

of the problems that such literature contains

is the fact that most of the people who should

be able to read and evaluate it have no idea

what it says.

And if you have not read the problematic

literature yourself, then I think it's important

that when commenting on it a phrase or two

informing readers that this is all second and

third hand information would be very useful.

The mention of " reputable sources " is,

in and of itself problematic. And that's what

we've been trying to get at, in some ways

over the past few weeks.

What is a reputable source?

How do we define repute?

And how do we conduct ourselves

with respect to such questions so as to

cultivate and improve the repute of the

whole field, as well as of the particular

documents that accumulate as the literature

as we continue to develop?

Ken

Wasn't meaning to infer that all studies are doctored. Just a lot of

them. Of course there is a lot of great information coming out of PRC coming

from reliable studies.

All I am meaning to suggest is that we should not " trust " studies.

Research, then confirm to the best of our ability before we take what PRC

studies

say as truth.

Sorry if my comments seemed to broad.

Thanks,

Chris

October 12, 2003

> Wasn't meaning to infer that all studies are doctored. Just a

lot of

> them. Of course there is a lot of great information coming out of

PRC coming

> from reliable studies.

> All I am meaning to suggest is that we should not " trust "

studies.

> Research, then confirm to the best of our ability before we take

what PRC studies

> say as truth.

> Sorry if my comments seemed to broad.

> Thanks,

> Chris

>

Chris & others,

I am curious how you personally know that many of the studies are

falsified? Yes I have also heard this but am just curious what your

source is. Interestingly I have met many Chinese that deny that it

is as prevalent as many make it out to be. I also ask the question

is it any different here? There is much more incentive in the States

for such tactics, and it does happen regularly. Just look at the

neurotin scandal. So I would like to hear more about what people

think, b/c I am interested in what the Chinese are doing and have

used many 'claimed cures' and have duplicated success. So maybe Ken

can answer this, how do you suggest we differentiate between the

two. IS there any committee set up for evaluation, or are there

certain institutes/ journals that are more reliable than others.

-

October 12, 2003

Jim,

>

> Ken:

>

> I used to get Chinese language journals and stopped. The issue is

> not about translation terms but about the reliability of Chinese

> clinical studies. You can't equate or reduce every problem in the

> profession with issues of translation terms.

>

> Jim Ramholz

The reliability of all communication is

inextricable from the facility of those

involved to effectively manipulate the

various words, as well as any other

symbols or devices/artifacts, employed in

order to bring the communication about.

Reports on clinical trials are, for the

sake of discussion, simply specialized

forms of communication. You're right that

it's not about translation, it's about

understanding. Whether or not you translate

a journal article has nothing to do with

whether or not you read and understand it.

Neither does subscribing or unsubscribing.

By the way, I wasn't equating or reducing

this problem to translation. There are

methodological problems; there are, as I

think I mentioned, cultural problems, as

well as the full range of political and

economic problems that attend the same

activity here in the States, and

naturally enough every and anywhere it

comes into being.

But the ability to identify problems is

different from the ability to solve them.

Solving them does include adequately identifying

the dynamic factors that lie at their roots.

And even though you have issued a proscription

forbidding it now, I think that in a profession

full of people who deal entirely with translation

as the basis on which they receive virtually

all of their information about what the subject

is and how it operates, it would be quite

ill advised not to consider that the problems

associated with translation are indeed involved

in all other problems.

Ken

October 12, 2003

> I am curious how you personally know that many of the studies are

> falsified? Yes I have also heard this but am just curious what your

> source is.

Dear Jason,

I know an eminent scholar of Chinese medicine who informed me that

Chinese doctors told him that it was a common practice to falsify

research results. This was done because in the Chinese medical system,

promotion was dependent on publishing research; also, one wanted to

show that one was a good practitioner at the same time.

Furthermore, biomedical researchers such as Andrew Vickers have

surveyed collective research from the PRC, and found it to not hold up

in the light of various statistical techniques to evaluate its

reliability.

You may wish to follow up the citations in the following eletter on

the BMJ website written by Andrew Vickers

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/319/7225/1629#6000:

" For empricial evidence that Chinese research appears prone to either

publication bias or methodological bias, or both, see:

Vickers AJ, Harland R, Goyal N, Rees R. Do certain countries produce

only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials.

Controlled Clinical Trials 1998;19:159-66

Tang JL, Zhan SY, Ernst E. Review of randomised controlled trials of

traditional Chinese medicine. BMJ 1999; 319: 160-161

In short, the studies show that Chinese researchers never seem to

publish negative results. "

My feeling is that unless one has good grounds for trusting Chinese

research, the best thing is to not assume that it has rigorous

scientific value. On the other hand, I think we can expect such

research to reflect clinical practice, so it gives an indication of

approaches to treatment, or even specific treatments, that presumably

can be useful to know about.

I too am interested in people pointing to sources of reliable Chinese

research, if it is possible to do so. Otherwise, I think it would be

desirable for Western CM practitioners to make contact with PRC

institutions and get some research we know is reliable done.

Wainwright

October 12, 2003

I am curious how you personally know that many of the studies are

falsified?

>>>>I personally now on two such studies

alon

October 12, 2003

Just look at the

neurotin scandal.

>>>What's that one did not hear of it

alon

October 12, 2003

In a message dated 10/12/2003 2:02:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

w.churchill_1- writes:

If we're going to play the research game, we've got to be totally

rigorous about it, and we certainly can't afford to be complacent

about the possibility of poor quality research in our own field, no

matter where it's done. How research is used is also a valid and

important question.

Dear Wainwright,

I appreciate the intent of what you said. However, given the depth of

the problem, how do you suggest we deal with Chinese researchers?

Do you think an organization over here will affect individuals over

there? Any ideas?

Interested in reliable studies also,

Chris

October 12, 2003

Wainwright,

> I know an eminent scholar of Chinese medicine who informed me that

> Chinese doctors told him that it was a common practice to falsify

> research results.

Who?

Was he or she referring to his

or her own common practice? Or

to the common practice of others?

Has this individual spoken out

about any specific instances of

falsification?

Ken

October 12, 2003

> Wainwright,

>

> > I know an eminent scholar of Chinese medicine who informed me that

> > Chinese doctors told him that it was a common practice to falsify

> > research results.

>

> Who?

>

> Was he or she referring to his

> or her own common practice? Or

> to the common practice of others?

>

> Has this individual spoken out

> about any specific instances of

> falsification?

>

> Ken

Dear Ken,

I don't want to sound mysterious, but it would be irresponsible for me

to divulge this without the individual's permission. The quotation you

provided is an accurate representation of what was said, to the best

of my ability to recollect the incident. It was said to be

informative, and I am very confident that there were no ulterior

motives. It was not an accusation against any particular individual or

individuals, but you will appreciate that in research matters, and in

the light of comments such as Andrew Vickers', doubt must be cast on

the validity of a great deal of PRC CM research if these reports have

any justification. Furthermore, although it is important to not cast

unwarranted doubt about veracity, in research matters, it is extremely

important that one can trust the honesty and rigorous methodology of

researchers, and it is apparent that enough doubt has been expressed

about PRC CM research for us to require positive evidence that trust

is warranted. I would suggest that at this stage, it is not enough to

cast doubt on the testimony of those who are doubters.

Wainwright

October 12, 2003

Dear Ken,

I certainly agree with you that a profoundly questioning attitude

should be applied to all research (and much else besides), including

that done in the West. I've been arguing such things for years. If I

remember correctly, another contributor to this group who questioned

PRC research suggested in a separate email that CM practitioners be

literate enough in all research issues to evaluate WM medical

research, even that published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

If we're going to play the research game, we've got to be totally

rigorous about it, and we certainly can't afford to be complacent

about the possibility of poor quality research in our own field, no

matter where it's done. How research is used is also a valid and

important question.

Anyway, Ken, I'm happy for you to question and deconstruct to your

heart's content. At the end of the day, I think CM has more of a

future in a deconstructionist, post-modernist environment than in a

scientifically inclined one.

Best wishes,

Wainwright

-

" kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008

Sunday, October 12, 2003 6:14 PM

Re: qing hao

> Wainwright,

>

> Again, I don't dispute the notion

> that authenticity of information

> sources is important. I think my

> comments of recent days and weeks

> more or less back that up.

>

> I'm not trying to cast doubt on

> doubters. And I love a mystery

> as much as you or anyone.

>

> I just think that we need to be

> very careful about the whole

> process, and singling out PRC

> sources as in need of careful

> scrutiny while we maintain a

> culture of unquestioning acceptance

> of the validity of native English

> sources is a frankly dangerous

> and extremely careless approach.

>

> The falsification of information

> in the field is not limited to

> any geographical area or zone.

> It has not ethnic or national

> limits. It is pandemic.

>

> So who ya gonna trust?

>

> And how is that trust going to

> be established?

>

> Ken

October 12, 2003

At 6:00 PM +0000 10/12/03, wainwrightchurchill wrote:

>Anyway, Ken, I'm happy for you to question and deconstruct to your

>heart's content. At the end of the day, I think CM has more of a

>future in a deconstructionist, post-modernist environment than in a

>scientifically inclined one.

--

Good lord, Wainwright, are these our choices?!

Back to meditation, the ultimate deconstruction, the ultimate science...

Rory

--

October 12, 2003

> doubt must be cast on the validity of a great deal of PRC CM research if

these reports have any justification.

Yes and no.

No because there have been some great things coming out of China.

Artemisinins from qinghao for example. They could not have developed world

wide patents if the academic research in China was dodgy.

Yes because traditional formulae are 'improved' with WM pharmaceuticals and

then pushed onto the market with bogus research claims. I have a personal

gripe about Xin Huang Pian whose main component is Zhong Jia Feng an

anticancer agent. This is mixed with indometacin, a first generation COX-II

inhibitor (anti-inflammatory) that also has some pretty awful side effects.

I'd love to try Xin Huang Pian without the damned indometacin, just the TCM

formula and no WM crap in it!

Sammy

wainwrightchurchill [w.churchill_1-]

12 October 2003 17:45