pulse precedes pathology?

May 2, 2002

Re: Biochemical Proof vs Clinical Efficacy (as I term this argument)

Interesting discussion, not sure I'd say either of you is

" right " because IMOP we will be coopted and dismissed either

way, unless we make it widely known that medical pros who use herbs and

acupuncture needles " out of context " from our diagnostic

paradigm are cheating themselves and their patients. I have one

example here you are going to love!

Taken from an flyer for a Medical Acupuncture training in Michigan:

" Take away the shamanism, superstition and extreme esoteric

practices of traditional acupuncture. Add scientific research and

focus to your treatment on specific connective tissue and joint

conditions.... Rather than attempt to learn the vast and often confusing

principles of traditional acupuncture this program is highly specific and

specialized, focusing on techniques that support massage and manual

therapy. ...Seminar participants will learn how to treat

musculoskeletal conditions with acupuncture to trigger points, tender

points and acupuncture points. Also learn how to use topical

ointments, liniments, medicated oils, and herbal medicine

{emphasis mine}.... Individuals who complete 100 hours of

training in our Medical Acupuncture program will receive certification as

a Medical Acupuncture Technician.... "

As I understand (after a colleague called MI Board of Health), Michigan

has no licensure for acupuncturists, and am unclear whether a MD note

with diagnosis or referral is even needed as in some states. This

flyer was targeted to " Medical and Chiropractic Health Care

Professionals " but the boxes to check off your title/specialty

included Physical Therapy Assistant, Therapeutic Massage

Therapist, Medical Assistant, Physical Therapist, Sports Medicine,

Registered Nurse, Nutritionist as well as MDs, Physician Assistants or

Chiropractors. So I infer that a nutritionist who takes this 100

hour training could practice acupuncture and herbal medicine and

advertise that they are a certified Medical Acupuncture Technician.

Who in the unsuspecting public knows what this means? It has the

word medical in it, so it must be better....

This is exactly how we will be coopted by people unwilling to learn the

rigor of our diagnostic system (and who are proud to advertise it!), and

who consider herbs as individual pharmaceuticals instead of formulae and

acupuncture as merely a technique like any other they employ such as

injecting cortisone. We need to educate the public and the medical

profession. Some MDs I know who have undergone the 100 or 200 hour

training and later learned pulses and diagnosis at other workshops, say

they felt ripped off by their training, and their eyes were opened to the

sophistication and holism of East Asian Medicine. I encourage

anyone who is outraged by the insulting language in this flyer to commit

to doing one extra in-service to educate a medical professional and their

whole office staff on what our medicine is and how it works.

Karla Renaud

:

While finding parallels between CM and WM is fascinating, if we need to

validate the core theories of CM through WM, won't the opposite effect

occur? Isn't this what many Westerners already believe and

" medical " acupuncturists are eagerly trying to prove---that

herb and acupuncture effects are really biochemical in nature, nothing

more? Consequently, qi (which can't be satisfactorily defined) and other

aspects of CM theory would be found antiquated and moot. Herbs would

probably then be regulated by the FDA if their effect is decided to be

pharmacological.

Validity of CM theories should be found in their intellectual consistency

and clinical efficacy.

Jim Ramholz

,

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

....if I am correct, research can validate the core theories of TCM.

Unless this happens, I believe we will be coopted by WM, which will steal

our techniques/substances and dismiss our unproven medieval

theories. If we can validate the theories, then we get to dictate

the terms of research and practice.

May 2, 2002

, Karla Renaud <

karlarenaud@e...> wrote:

> Re: Biochemical Proof vs Clinical Efficacy (as I term this

argument)

>

> Interesting discussion, not sure I'd say either of you is " right "

because

> IMOP we will be coopted and dismissed either way, unless we

make it widely

> known that medical pros who use herbs and acupuncture

needles " out of

> context " from our diagnostic paradigm are cheating

themselves and their

> patients.

If we prove the efficacy without proving the theories, then it will

make it even more likely that people will use our methods

outside their context. And we will be diminished and

marginalized in american healthcare. As to the theories being

internally consistent, I am not sure that carries any weight with

decisionmakers. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is an internally

consistent epic description of a fictional world. If the initial

premise is false, then an argument can still seem valid as long

as the central premise is not challenged.

Nevertheless, proving the validity of what we do does not negate

what anyone else does. Many people within TCM do not use our

context, instead practicing NAET, auricular, etc. Should we

inform the public about these " charlatans " ? I know people who

practice herbology froma sophisticated biomedical perspective

with excellent results. I also know people who practice

acupuncture from an orthopedic or osteopathic perspective or

even do what's called medical acupuncture based upon modern

physiology, all with good results.

I don't think it is the presence of these other styles of practice

that threaten the public or those of us who want to practice " in

context " . It is the fact that we are perceived as being unscientific

and irrational. I don't want to inhibit these other styles from

being practiced; I just want what I do to have equal credibility. To

consider how this is accomplished, put yourself in the shoes of

those who make decisions about these matters. For all they

know, the medical style of acupuncture is superior to the

traditional style (that's what the AAMA argues). We can scream

and point all we want, but until we prove that 2 + 2 = 4, our

shouts will fall upon deaf ears.

May 3, 2002

Bob,

Your question came at the end of a long post in response to Al Stone,

so I didn't concentrate on answering your question. I'll try to give my

two cents here.

No, I don't think that qi in Chinese medicine is something separate

from the body's biochemistry and physiology. I personally don't believe

in an etheric body separate from physiology that influences health. I

agree with the concept of a 'bodymind' as conceived by Ken Dychtwald.

As I have pointed out in other posts, I believe that the body itself has

an intelligence, that intelligence is not something isolated in the

brain.

I have some questions for you, Bob, as well, about the definition of qi

in the " Simple, Clear Dictionary of " . What do you

think it means when it says " the most profound and finest material

substance which supplies the construction and nourishment for coursing

and stirring within the body " ? What is this material substance? Is it

further defined elsewhere?

On Friday, May 3, 2002, at 07:19 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

> Yesterday, I asked people on the the list to take a stand on whether

> the qi of CM was some etheric energy separate from the body's

> biochemistry and physiology, and neither you nor anyone else so far

> has actually given their opinion. So, would you be willing to give a

> succinct answer to this question? I think it is an important one.

>

> Bob

>

May 3, 2002

For the benefit of other members of the group, Todd and Bob, it might be

helpful to define what the 'etheric model' is. Could you take a shot at

it?

On Friday, May 3, 2002, at 08:37 AM, 1 wrote:

> In z'ev's

> defense, he has already presented evidence that he does not

> believe the etheric model to be representative of chinese

> thought. But if it is not etheric and it is not biochemical, by what

> method does qi cause change in the body?

>

May 3, 2002

I would be the last person to suggest that the mental-emotional stimuli do not have an effect on the physiology of the body. I don't think anyone in this conversation is suggesting that the seven affects are not a hugely significant class of disease causes. In my personal clinical experience, I rank internal damage from the seven affects as right up there at the top of the most common and most important disease causes (bing yin).>>>>viewed as just internal damage from the seven affects is not different that WM view. WM for a long time recognized emotional effects on health. Were TCM is different is the specific view of specific effects of each emotion and that this Qi movements-emotions are directly an outward manifestation of Organ function and dysfunction.

Alon

May 3, 2002

I do not claim that biochemistry is the cause of mental activity or even consciousness. Just that in the manifest physical world, mental and physical and bioenergetic, if you will, exist as an integrated whole.

>>>>That is the only view that TCM would support

Alon

May 3, 2002

, " " <

zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> For the benefit of other members of the group, Todd and Bob, it

might be

> helpful to define what the 'etheric model' is. Could you take a

shot at

> it?

The idea that physical body is basically a lump of inert

biochemicals and matter that is moved by influences from an

energetic layer that is completely separate from the physical

clay. This etheric sheath is where prana flows and only when

prana flow is impaired do pathological changes occur in the

physical body. there is a definite cause and effect relationship

here. A moves B. Many have taken this idea and equated it with

the chinese channel and organ system. I think this is an overlay

of ideas that is not innate to CM. We have seen this done with

homeopathic, naturopathic and psychotherapeutic ideas. this

idea is the most fundamental of all, though. It is, indeed, the

initial premise, on which the whole case rests. The presence of

an etheric control system leads one to a very different take on

CM than would otherwise be had. The integral interpretation

imagines no distinction between the mover and the moved. that

strikes more of a chord with me.

Manaka, who has done an excellent job demonstrating the

reality of the channels and the x-signal system, does not locate

this system outside biology. He just thinks it has been

overlooked because it does not have a dominant role in mature

humans, being subsumed to the neuroendocrine system in

adults. In fact, much modern Japanese thought seems to

conceive of the channel system as a basic primitive

communication system that preceded the development of the

more intricate systems necessary to control a complex

organism like humans.

May 3, 2002

Bob - I agree with you on the concomittants and complexities of the quality. Bowstring may also reflect pain. My point is the pulse associated with atherosclerosis is a distinct sensation that is often conflated with bowstring or wiry. Therein lies the problem I am attemptimg to highlight. The genrealization that pulse only indicates a process in context with other signs and symptoms is not true with the example of a severely atherosclerotic pulse since it is a specific indicator.

Will

As part of a pattern (i.e., more than a single sign or symptom), a pulse image (mai xiang) only means something in relationship to other signs and symptoms. Depending on these other s & s, the bowstring pulse may indicate liver depression, food stagnation, blood and/or yin vacuity, dampness, phlegm, and/or blood stasis. At least three of these may be and often are involved with arteriosclerosis and, more specifically, atherosclerosis.

May 3, 2002

Z'ev -

Your concerns are entirely valid Yi is vital to the development of effective and meaningful practice. However, my suggestion was closer to the arena of preventative medicine on a very material level - atherscerlosis can kill people. In addition it can be identified as a process early with pulse diagnosis. This way truly preventative practices may be engaged.

Will

In a message dated 5/2/2002 6:10:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, zrosenbe writes:

However, I cannot help but be concerned with the overall direction of development in these discussions and our profession away from those aspects of our medicine that are difficult to communicate outside of the clinical encounter, or the gradual somatizing of how we look at Chinese medicine. While the argument is correct that there is no difference between body and mind in CM, the trend is clearly towards the body as prima causa, not consciousness.

May 3, 2002

Excellent answer. Thanks, Todd.

I wasn't clear on the whole chakra/nadi relationship to the body

before. Clearly prana is a different concept than 'qi'.

On Friday, May 3, 2002, at 12:38 PM, 1 wrote:

>

> The idea that physical body is basically a lump of inert

> biochemicals and matter that is moved by influences from an

> energetic layer that is completely separate from the physical

> clay. This etheric sheath is where prana flows and only when

> prana flow is impaired do pathological changes occur in the

> physical body. there is a definite cause and effect relationship

> here. A moves B. Many have taken this idea and equated it with

> the chinese channel and organ system. I think this is an overlay

> of ideas that is not innate to CM. We have seen this done with

> homeopathic, naturopathic and psychotherapeutic ideas. this

> idea is the most fundamental of all, though. It is, indeed, the

> initial premise, on which the whole case rests. The presence of

> an etheric control system leads one to a very different take on

> CM than would otherwise be had. The integral interpretation

> imagines no distinction between the mover and the moved. that

> strikes more of a chord with me.

>

> Manaka, who has done an excellent job demonstrating the

> reality of the channels and the x-signal system, does not locate

> this system outside biology. He just thinks it has been

> overlooked because it does not have a dominant role in mature

> humans, being subsumed to the neuroendocrine system in

> adults. In fact, much modern Japanese thought seems to

> conceive of the channel system as a basic primitive

> communication system that preceded the development of the

> more intricate systems necessary to control a complex

> organism like humans.

>

> 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.

>

May 3, 2002

Bob, et al:

I agree that it is an interesting an important question. The problem

depends on what people think " etheric energy " actually means. But

the framing of the question and the arguments put forward, so far,

constantly reinvent the duality they attempt to negate---by simply

asking which of these two, separate things controls the other. I

believe there is a solution that bypasses this problem of duality,

and sees Western science and Chinese theories more in agreement.

This solution borrows from Complexity Theory (which, ironically, WM

rarely employs) and mirrors essential aspects of the CM model.

If we see qi as an emergent property of a system (Eastern or

Western) as defined by Complexity Theory (i.e., things are more than

the sum of its parts), we know that the emergent feature of a system

controls the lower hierarchical level it has evolved from. In this

case, qi---as an emergent feature of either a Chinese model or of

the biochemical model of the human body---evolves and becomes the

next hierarchical level that, in turn, organizes and controls those

parts. This definition, I suspect, can make sense of all the

different types of qi (yang, yin, etc.) because it is intimately

tied to or evolved from the system it defines. And, this idea of

emergence and its reciprocal organization and control mirrors the

Tai Chi symbol in the way that yin and yang emerge or evolve into

each other.

An interesting book where this line of thought concerning emergence

is used to explain each level---from the quantum, up through all the

various physiological systems, to thinking---that is from

biochemical to " etheric " is Jeffrey Satinover's " Quantum Brain. "

Jim Ramholz

, " pemachophel2001 "

> Yesterday, I asked people on the the list to take a stand on

whether the qi of CM was some etheric energy separate from the

body's biochemistry and physiology, and neither you nor anyone else

so far has actually given their opinion. So, would you be willing to

give a succinct answer to this question? I think it is an important

one.

May 5, 2002

says:

>

>Perhaps you can say that I am too naive, too philosophical. But I

>cannot deny my experience in clinic, day after day, week after week, for

>over twenty years. There is something that happens in the clinical

>encounter, something that is communicated just by the act of taking the

>pulse. The environment in which I work, the qi that is exchanged, is

>part and parcel of the process. There is a spontaneous, you can say

>inspirational use of the mind in choosing diagnosis and designing

>treatment strategies. This is part of the beauty of Chinese medicine.

>Without this aspect, I might as well be treating computers instead of

>people.

>

I think this is knowledge as well. It is different, and at a higher

level than the knowledge adquired through the Aristotelian-logic based

rational methodology that is dominant in the West.

As D.T.Suzuki put it: " the Western mind is: analytical, discriminative,

differential, inductive, individualistic, intellectual, objective,

scientific, generalizing, conceptual, schematic, impersonal, legalistic,

organizing, power-wielding, self-assertive, disposed to impose its will

upon others, etc. Against these Western traits those of the East can be

characterized as follows: synthetic, totalizing, integrative,

nondiscriminative, deductive, nonsystematic, dogmatic, intuitive (rather

affective), nondiscursive, subjective, spiritually individualistic and

socially group-minded, etc. " (D.T. Suzuki. East and West. In " Studies in

Zen " )

In my view, CM has been developed within the Eastern-minded framework, and

if we wanted to really undertand CM, and apply it successfully, we should

think and act in this framework.

The rational methodology, the scientific method being a byproduct of

it, can only gives us a limited, and sometimes distorted,

understanding of CM, simply because it is the wrong tool for the job.

rene

May 6, 2002

Bob -

Ether is quintessential, it is the fifth element. The problem is again one of translation. Thomas Taylor assigns the Gods to ethereal bodies in Iambluchus' On the Mysteries. In such Neoplatonic philosophy, these Gods are the planets. Other Western mystery traditions such as the Brotherhood of Light define the etheric body as an electromagnetic body that is composed of the planetary spheres as well.

According to my home course on Ayurveda from David Frawley:

"Ether manifests the idea of connection allowing for interchange between all material mediums, communication, and self expression" This certainly fits both the Ayurvedic and Hellenistic conception of planetary spheres.

Frawley continues: "Ether is the original element. It derives from the mind and is it's outer manifestation. Through movement it becomes air, which is nothing but the idea of motion inherent in the idea of space....." from here he goes into processes of densification as each element manifests."...Similarly, all elements are derivations from the same basic etheric substance. They are latent in it like butter in milk......The five elements are nothing but reduplicated ether."

Will

In Greco-Roman medicine, ether is one of the elements (four or five?). If I remember correctly, it is conceived of as a nonmaterial energy which pervades the universe. It cannot be seen, felt, tasted, weighed, or measured, but is the prime mover of everything else. As a concept, it was retained in Western scholastic medicine (meaning Galenic medicine) until the early to mid 19th century. I've found Coulter's Divided Legacy is a good history of Western medicine. I believe it discusses the concept of ether vis a vis the human body and medicine.

In Auyrvedic medicine, I believe ether is equivalent to the akasha.

May 6, 2002

In Greco-Roman medicine, ether is one of the elements (four or five?).

If I remember correctly, it is conceived of as a nonmaterial energy

which pervades the universe. It cannot be seen, felt, tasted, weighed,

or measured, but is the prime mover of everything else. As a concept,

it was retained in Western scholastic medicine (meaning Galenic

medicine) until the early to mid 19th century. I've found Coulter's

Divided Legacy is a good history of Western medicine. I believe it

discusses the concept of ether vis a vis the human body and medicine.

In Auyrvedic medicine, I believe ether is equivalent to the akasha.

Bob

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

> , " " <

> zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> > For the benefit of other members of the group, Todd and Bob, it

> might be

> > helpful to define what the 'etheric model' is. Could you take a

> shot at

> > it?