Philosophy and Clinical Practice

[Guest guest]

Todd:

 

I've read the literature about herbs and chemistry. I'm just playing

the devil's advocate to promote thinking about Simon's question

about philosophy and clinic. Actually, I'm taking an outsider's

perspective, as if I were a first-time patient.

 

What I'm asking is what informs your thinking and what are you

*saying* in your diagnosis and treatment in clinic? If you don't

incorporate Western modalities, perhaps we shouldn't discuss Western

chemistry as a rationale in diagnosis and treatment?

 

I do think Western ideas are admissible and accessible to CM if they

conform to our theories---not our theories submitting to their's as

Western MDs would explain it. Therefore, herbs don't work due to

their chemical constituents, they work because their chemistry fits

into our theories. But at this point we need to use 5-Phases and

less familiar CM.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " 1 " <@i...> wrote:

> I am not sure that is what Colleen is saying. From my

perspective, the chinese description of drug and herb action does

not demonstrate an alternate mode of action distinct from modern

physiology and pharamcology. I thinkit is merely the difference

between looking at the action from either an organiusmic (TCM) or

molecular (WM) level. But both modes of action are involved in any

use of herbs regardless of which description one relies upon. So

while CM does not make dx on a molecular level, there is no doubt

that whatever else herbs may be doing from the perspective of

complexity theory or systems biology, they are also always affecting

molecular changes. In fact, the molecular changes have been amply

demonstrated in volumes of research, while the organismic actions

are barely yet understood. In addition, if one removes the

pharmacological constituents from an herb, the herb will have no

action of any kind.