Guest guest Posted December 13, 2002 Report Share Posted December 13, 2002 the following message is from , 12/12/02 5:09 PM >You can't dismiss the clinical experience of an entire 200 year tradition of >being about saving face. this could be true, but since the chinese are the >kings of face savers, one would suspect this bias is magnified manyfold in >TCM history and even modern practice. Wang Huiyu responds: It's dangerous to make that comment. Number one, it's stereotyping Chinese people and culture, and is a fine line between racist and cultural ignorance. Number two, and really more significant since you are a teacher at a TCM school, anyone who has studied Zhong Guo Yi Xue Shi (Chinese Medical History) and Ge Jia Xue Shuo (Study of Various TCM Schools, which includes serious debates between and among each School) formally as we did at Beijing TCM University, six units of each subject, could point out the uneducated flaw in this logic. While it's possible for individuals or families to alter truth in their practice to " save face " (this applies especially to people who claim x-generation practitioner status), almost all great TCM practitioners and writing in past and present are very critical and well researched. For example, Wen Bing School is a product of misuse and overemphasis on Shang Han. In Japan they never got over Shang Han, which is fine, but that is also a highly " face saving " society. Another point, " saving face " in it's stereotypical sense doesn't apply to the good old TCM doctors and scholars in the past. They belonged to an academic tradition that was less concerned with their individual status and more concerned with obtaining and disseminating knowledge to benefit society. This is in the tradition of Ru2 Jia1. If people on this list continue to ignore my point, then the only explanation I have is that people are trying to " save face " by not acknowledging their ignorance. Wang Huiyu, BTCM (Beijing TCM University) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2002 Report Share Posted December 13, 2002 almost all great TCM practitioners and writing in past and present are very critical and well researched >>>>I for one have seen first hand deceptive research in China. So it does exist.This does not mean all research but much of what I have seen published from one hospital. I also continue to question 80% of patients with heart failure becoming symptom free for example. So while this kind of language is uncomfortable the journal we are quoting are real Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2002 Report Share Posted December 13, 2002 , " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > almost all great TCM practitioners and writing in > past and present are very critical and well researched > >>>>I for one have seen first hand deceptive research in China. So it does exist. as does deception exists also here in the states...Let us not put western research on some golden hoop that everything that is 'vaild' must pass through... IT is good, but not flawless, nor the only methodlody to 'truth' in medicine/... -JAson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2002 Report Share Posted December 14, 2002 , Greg Livingston <shanren@c...> wrote: >In Japan they never got over Shang Han, which is fine, but that is also a > highly " face saving " society. Thank you for your educated critique. You are very right, one may be educated in some matters yet uneducated in others that one may speak of. Perhaps you were unaware of the Gosei-ha school of Dozan Manase et al which is based on Jin-Yuan theories and not solely on Shang Han Lun. As you say, it can be dangerous to make gross generalities, and we are all guilty of it at one time or another. Peace on earth, goodwill to others, Robert Hayden http://jabinet.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2002 Report Share Posted December 14, 2002 In Japan they never got over Shang Han, which is fine, but that is also a highly "face saving" society. >>>I would only like to point out that there has been criticisms of western med research from Japan because of this issue.I remember reading it in a major medical journal Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2002 Report Share Posted December 14, 2002 as does deception exists also here in the states...Let us not put western research on some golden hoop that everything that is 'vaild' must pass through... IT is good, but not flawless, nor the only methodlody to 'truth' in medicine/... >>>>Totally agreed. There is panty of number forging. Just look at the recent Paxal issues were they changed the numbers to hide a higher rate of suicide. But you cant open a J and article after article see these totally unrealistic data Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2002 Report Share Posted December 14, 2002 The inescapable fact of human bias and prejudice must be realized. Removing the observer from observed results is one issue in clinical trials (it is practically impossible). Manipulating the data from trials and studies is another issue. On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 08:32 PM, < wrote: >>>>>> I for one have seen first hand deceptive research in China. So it >>>>>> does exist. > > as does deception exists also here in the states...Let us not put > western research on some golden hoop that everything that is 'vaild' > must pass through... IT is good, but not flawless, nor the only > methodlody to 'truth' in medicine/... > > -JAson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2002 Report Share Posted December 15, 2002 , " kampo36 <kampo36> " Perhaps you were unaware of the Gosei-ha school of Dozan Manase > et al which is based on Jin-Yuan theories and not solely on Shang Han > Lun. In fact, it is my understanding that the gosei-ha school is older and that the current emphasis on SHL for the past few hundred years is somewhat retro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2002 Report Share Posted December 15, 2002 , " <@i...> " <@i...> wrote: > --- > > In fact, it is my understanding that the gosei-ha school is older and that the > current emphasis on SHL for the past few hundred years is somewhat retro. > Yes, Gosei-ha was based on Jin-Yuan writings brought to Japan in the 16th century by Tashiro Sanki an developed by his student Manase Douzan. Kohou-ha was a reaction to Gosei-ha which started a century or so later but reached its zenith (or nadir depending on your feling about it) with Yoshimasu Toudou and his son Yoshmasu Nangai in the 18th-19th century. AFAIK the term Gosei-ha " Later " or " Neoteric " school wasn't coined until the " classical " Kohou-ha defined themselves. For a time, Jin-Yuan medicine was the dominant Chinese medicine in Japan. A subsequent attempt to combine useful aspects of both schools resulted in a third stream, Setchuu-ha, the " syncretistic " school. Today there is considerable interest in incorporating more TCM into Kampo, though the dominant paradigm is the formula-pattern system based on symptom-sign complexes pioneered by Yoshimasu pere et fils. Thus to say the Japanese never got beyond SHL is not accurate. Robert Hayden http://jabinet.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2002 Report Share Posted December 16, 2002 Number two, and really more significant since you > are a teacher at a TCM school, anyone who has studied Zhong Guo Yi Xue > Shi (Chinese Medical History) and Ge Jia Xue Shuo (Study of Various TCM > Schools, which includes serious debates between and among each School) > formally as we did at Beijing TCM University, six units of each subject, > could point out the uneducated flaw in this logic. Dr. Wang, Setting aside your almost allegation of racism, your point is well taken. The Chinese textbooks for these two classes are available for purchase in Chinese bookstores in LA, SF, and NYC. They're not expensive -- maybe $15 US. Although there will always be better and worse read people in any field of endeavor, due to the failure of the North American profession to embrace Chinese language studies, many of us are like the seven blind men and the elephant. We are limited by our partial personal knowledge augmented by hear-say. From your point of view, I take it that you feel many of us have yet to even learn what all Chinese undergraduates learn as part of their basic course of instruction. Sobering. It's a symptom of our disease that no one on this list has actually commented on the obvious recourse to the lack of basic knowledge you have pointed out. Thanks, Dr. Wang. Bob P.S. Racism is based on cliches. Unfortunately, the problems with cliches are that they are always based on an element of truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2002 Report Share Posted December 16, 2002 , Greg Livingston < shanren@c...> wrote: > > It's dangerous to make that comment. Number one, it's stereotyping > Chinese people and culture, and is a fine line between racist and > cultural ignorance. I won't even dignify this with a response, except to remind members that ad hominem attacks are grounds for immediate permanent expulsion from this group. almost all great TCM practitioners and writing in > past and present are very critical and well researched. the word " great " is the key here. According to unschuld, most TCM practitioners were not great. Most were average men who did the best they could. we base our medicine on the work of the great ones, but there is no doubt that your statement is unfounded exxageration when applied to all docs, not just the great ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2002 Report Share Posted December 16, 2002 the word "great" is the key here. According to unschuld, most TCM practitioners were not great. Most were average men who did the best they could. we base our medicine on the work of the great ones, but there is no doubt that your statement is unfounded exxageration when applied to all docs, not just the great ones >>>And how much is myth and how much is reality? Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2002 Report Share Posted December 16, 2002 , " ALON MARCUS " < alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > >>>And how much is myth and how much is reality? > Alon I have no doubt there was vigorous debate about ideas, about which I remain largely uneducated as Mr. Livingston suggests. but what could not have been debated or at least resolved in any fashion was the question of efficacy. Then, as today, this remains the big unknown and and as Mr. Ramholz has pointed out on many occasions, no amount of debate or indignation can ever resolve most of these matters. Only research can. thus, it seems quite likely that ideas were passed on as a matter of dogma in some circles. this same dogmatic reverence affected the practice of later galenic medicine, as well. It is human nature that status quo ideas becomes fixed and rigid for periods of time. the long reign of the SHL despite its failures is a case in point. Or read accounts of the history of stroke treatment by Fruehauf. It was long treated as external wind despite this being prohibited today. As the bulk of my post indicated, it is an open question who was more or less face saving, the europeans or the chinese. It is a facile argument. My point was you can dismiss both traditions or neither on this account. I choose to dismiss neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2002 Report Share Posted December 17, 2002 , Greg Livingston < shanren@c...> wrote: > > Another point, " saving face " in it's stereotypical sense doesn't apply to > the good old TCM doctors and scholars in the past. They belonged to an > academic tradition that was less concerned with their individual status > and more concerned with obtaining and disseminating knowledge to benefit > society. This is in the tradition of Ru2 Jia1. I find that hard to believe as do historians from outside China like Unschuld. Wang hui yu's position is clearly invested in the truth of TCM. this is not the position of a detached historian. What is being expressed above is the ideal, not the reality. the reality is that 99% of those who used chinese herbs for healing could not read or write at all. as for the motivations of those who did write, I will assume they were human and leave it at that. 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.