Guest guest Posted February 25, 2003 Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 Just to start, I am definitely unclear on some issues in regard to the past discussions. Let me summarize what I think people are saying to help facilitate my personal understanding. 1) liquid extracts are biochemically closer to decoctions in comparison to granulars. 2) granulars are substantially more potent than liquid extracts. 3) both granulars and liquid extracts are so far from decoctions, biochemically, that making direct correlations in regard to dosages is futile. Furthermore, because the drastically different constituents being extracted and uncertainty in dosage correlations one cannot even be sure of the given function of a formula or for that matter a single herb given. There is a guessing game that no one really has an answer to when using granulars or liquid extracts. I am also unclear on the difference between physiological and pharmacological action. It is my understanding that everything put in the body has some pharmacological action or effect, even if, For example, one eats an apple this has a pharmacological property. This is just biochemistry correct? But call it physiological or pharmacological, herbs are exerting some kind of effect on the body that is very dependent upon dosage. I could be way off, but it seems that what we don't understand pharmacologically (yet) is just being viewed as physiological. Physiological science is what TCM seems to be based on. But many herbs we now understand their mechanism of action (or somwehat) and can directly see this within certain formulas. Take for example mang xiao or da huang in da cheng qi tang. This is not to say we understand everything about it, but certain aspects are tangible from a biochemical perspective. To only see the herb in its physiological reaction in the body to me seems simplified and somewhat archaic. Archaic because this is the way the Chinese up until modern technology were forced to view things. It is not that the herbs did not work on a pharmacological level, it is just the Chinese viewed it from a physiological perspective. But as everyone knows, now, even the Chinese are adopting modern technology to expand the understanding of herbs which goes into a pharmacological or biochemical realm. This is also not to say that other herbs within a formula do not change a given herb's pharmacological properties (or physiological). This is where the real understanding or misunderstanding seems to occur. Some herbs are stronger and can resist others influence more than others. Some herbs pharmacological action seem to be altered quite easily. Finally if my above assumptions 1,2, & 3 are correct, I am just unsure what to do with granulars and liquid extracts without some research. Twenty years of one person's biased clinical experience is hardly enough for me to embrace such a method. Trust me, I would love to know more and to know that for example granulars could be just as effective. But without even the acknowledgment from people working within the industry (emmanuel) that dosage comparisons are possible because constituents extracted are either random or blatantly different from decoctions I have to say I am somewhat at a loss. Please correct me if I have just totally misunderstood what has been said. -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2003 Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 Hi Jason, I'm going to let my previous comments about physiological versus pharmacological stand as a form of ecstatic poetry. I've taught anatomy physiology at U.T. San Antonio Medical Schoo, San Francisco State and a host of community colleges (which are my favorite places to teach). These are the most fundamental of concepts that I teach my students most of whom go into acute care: medical doctors, physicians assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners. This is a very basic statement of reality that I want my students to understand because I may find myself one day looking up from a hospital bed. After over 1,000 students in the S.F. Bay area alone, there's fair chance I'll see the smiling face of one of my students. I'll feel a whole lot better if they got the chops down in my class. That's reality of the highest order ... not La La Land as Alon described my presentation. Thank you, Alon, for a cordial exchange off list. I present my information playfully to my students because a lot of them have had a hard day at a local hospital by the time they see me. I like to cheer them up and make the tougher concepts palatable. If you want more information regarding the concepts, I teach a 10 unit two semester course populated by nursing and pre-meds. You'll get to test your metal. Jason, yes, Liquid extracts come closer to your standard cooking of herbs. From my inquiries liquid extracts can be made stronger. Check with Hank (Far East Summit) regarding his extra strong concentrates: 323-933-9237, ext. 3#. He moved on from Zand because he wanted to make stronger concentrates. So apparently liquid extracts can be of a wide variety of concentrations. All of the dry dosage company insiders that I've contacted indicated that my first information given to you was appropriate. You need to take the time speak to a company person who can advise you about combining their own extracts. Every company will be different and have their own protocols. However, the good news is that companies that make single herb extracts say that their singles can be compounded with formulas in the normal ratios that you are familiar with and using. Some companies will encapsule for you in this manner. Good Luck, Emmanuel - Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:34 PM Physiology or pharmacology??? Just to start, I am definitely unclear on some issues in regard to the past discussions. Let me summarize what I think people are saying to help facilitate my personal understanding. 1) liquid extracts are biochemically closer to decoctions in comparison to granulars. 2) granulars are substantially more potent than liquid extracts. 3) both granulars and liquid extracts are so far from decoctions, biochemically, that making direct correlations in regard to dosages is futile. Furthermore, because the drastically different constituents being extracted and uncertainty in dosage correlations one cannot even be sure of the given function of a formula or for that matter a single herb given. There is a guessing game that no one really has an answer to when using granulars or liquid extracts. I am also unclear on the difference between physiological and pharmacological action. It is my understanding that everything put in the body has some pharmacological action or effect, even if, For example, one eats an apple this has a pharmacological property. This is just biochemistry correct? But call it physiological or pharmacological, herbs are exerting some kind of effect on the body that is very dependent upon dosage. I could be way off, but it seems that what we don't understand pharmacologically (yet) is just being viewed as physiological. Physiological science is what TCM seems to be based on. But many herbs we now understand their mechanism of action (or somwehat) and can directly see this within certain formulas. Take for example mang xiao or da huang in da cheng qi tang. This is not to say we understand everything about it, but certain aspects are tangible from a biochemical perspective. To only see the herb in its physiological reaction in the body to me seems simplified and somewhat archaic. Archaic because this is the way the Chinese up until modern technology were forced to view things. It is not that the herbs did not work on a pharmacological level, it is just the Chinese viewed it from a physiological perspective. But as everyone knows, now, even the Chinese are adopting modern technology to expand the understanding of herbs which goes into a pharmacological or biochemical realm. This is also not to say that other herbs within a formula do not change a given herb's pharmacological properties (or physiological). This is where the real understanding or misunderstanding seems to occur. Some herbs are stronger and can resist others influence more than others. Some herbs pharmacological action seem to be altered quite easily. Finally if my above assumptions 1,2, & 3 are correct, I am just unsure what to do with granulars and liquid extracts without some research. Twenty years of one person's biased clinical experience is hardly enough for me to embrace such a method. Trust me, I would love to know more and to know that for example granulars could be just as effective. But without even the acknowledgment from people working within the industry (emmanuel) that dosage comparisons are possible because constituents extracted are either random or blatantly different from decoctions I have to say I am somewhat at a loss. Please correct me if I have just totally misunderstood what has been said. -Jason 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 February 25, 2003 Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 It is not that the herbs did not work on a pharmacological level, it is just the Chinese viewed it from a physiological perspective. >>>I would also have to add the language of TCM. I find it funny when people make a distinction between a biomedical grouping of s/s ie. a disease or a syndrome, and then thinking that somehow phlegm-heat for example is a totally unrelated entity. It is just another grouping of symptoms and signs. alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2003 Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 Emmanuel I would love to know how you incorporate these principles into anatomy class? Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2003 Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 I would also have to add the language of TCM. I find it funny when people make a distinction between a biomedical grouping of s/s ie. a disease or a syndrome, and then thinking that somehow phlegm-heat for example is a totally unrelated entity. It is just another grouping of symptoms and signs. >>>That is one very strong reason to know the language, as it reveals the shades between grey and grey and hence functionally (physiological if you like) homes in on the essentials here and now, which is in a constant change hence treatment possibly too is in a constant change. Thus the wealth of knowledge that does exist within the Chinese language and Other relevant languages (Vietnamese Korean Japanese...) surely would be worth while for this very reason: "another grouping of symptoms and signs" This pharmacology and physiology questions could probably be even more elaborated upon if Chinese medical culture was taken into consideration too. Which begs the question how much or how little are the regulatory bodies and those that influence the future of Chinese medicine in non Asian countries aware of and let alone accept cultural particularities? I would like to under more of both western physiology and pharmacology as related to Chinese medicine (and not for its own sake i.e. interactive as opposed to "isolated") any one care to elaborate and or guide one to an interesting web site or source material, Emmanuel? I have personally found this thread and topic very interesting and what "lackadiasy" missing is that the very words them self are rooted in quite distinct cosmovisiones to say the least and thus objectives (implications/ramifications) would possibly be distinct too. Which beg the question at least for me: Which word i.e. characters are "equivalent" to physiology and pharmacology in Chinese medicine pre western influence and post, presumably there will be at least for connotations and as for denotative? Would it be worth while discussing the etymology of these characters (in a Chinese medical context)? Marco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Marco, I appreciate your thoughts regarding what the word physiological is rooted in. I believe you've got your fingers on the pulse. :-) The phrase physiological effect is used as I've used it - as a counter point to allopathic procedures which are seen as pharmacological. What the body does for itself and within itself is what the basic scientist like me is interested in. That would be physiological. The allopathic clinician knows of no way to modulate physiology except to step in with toxic substances or with the body's own end products (estrogen or melatonin or cortisol). Allopathic treatment of the normal physiology (or out of balance physiology) would be delivering a pharmacological effect. What I find fascinating about CM is that it is so subtle as to adjust the physiological homeostasis without needing to be allopathic. I'm pretty amused that some folks want to see CM as having mainly allopathic function. It does have some from what I've seen ... part of some formulas to treat cancer are in part allopathic in function, i.e. they have toxic ability to kill cells and disrupt homeostasis. Most of what I've seen in CM formulas is to fine tune homeostasis. You can call it pharmacological if you like, but that's not what a physiologist means. Pharmacological effect is a phase coined to refer to the actions of allopathic medicine. I guess people were not quite catching on to that despite my attempts to explain it as such. On the other hand, I sense there are people here who imagine that denoting allopathic effect to CM formulas is somehow a pretty neat thing. I personally view that part of CM formulas to be the weaker part of Chinese medicine. In fact I view no formulas at all to be the strongest part of Chinese medicine: that is, adjusting diet, lifestyle and using qi gong and tai chi. My first personal practitioner in the 1970s was Michael Broffman who preferred to treat my issues in this manner. I really appreciated it. My friend Dr. Kang whom I look up to also holds this view. So I feel I'm in not such bad company. Emmanuel Segmen - Marco Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:25 PM Re: Physiology or pharmacology??? I would also have to add the language of TCM. I find it funny when people make a distinction between a biomedical grouping of s/s ie. a disease or a syndrome, and then thinking that somehow phlegm-heat for example is a totally unrelated entity. It is just another grouping of symptoms and signs. >>>That is one very strong reason to know the language, as it reveals the shades between grey and grey and hence functionally (physiological if you like) homes in on the essentials here and now, which is in a constant change hence treatment possibly too is in a constant change. Thus the wealth of knowledge that does exist within the Chinese language and Other relevant languages (Vietnamese Korean Japanese...) surely would be worth while for this very reason: "another grouping of symptoms and signs" This pharmacology and physiology questions could probably be even more elaborated upon if Chinese medical culture was taken into consideration too. Which begs the question how much or how little are the regulatory bodies and those that influence the future of Chinese medicine in non Asian countries aware of and let alone accept cultural particularities? I would like to under more of both western physiology and pharmacology as related to Chinese medicine (and not for its own sake i.e. interactive as opposed to "isolated") any one care to elaborate and or guide one to an interesting web site or source material, Emmanuel? I have personally found this thread and topic very interesting and what "lackadiasy" missing is that the very words them self are rooted in quite distinct cosmovisiones to say the least and thus objectives (implications/ramifications) would possibly be distinct too. Which beg the question at least for me: Which word i.e. characters are "equivalent" to physiology and pharmacology in Chinese medicine pre western influence and post, presumably there will be at least for connotations and as for denotative? Would it be worth while discussing the etymology of these characters (in a Chinese medical context)? Marco 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 February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Emmanuel, I think that Chinese medicine has various facets that work together as a whole, and can be used flexibly according to the situation. There are methods of gong fa/attack, such as causing vomiting, diuresis, bowel movment, sweating, draining fire and overcoming toxin. There are supplementation methods that warm, moisten, strengthen, engender, nourish, and fortify. There are harmonization methods as well. Attack methods sometimes employ more toxic ingredients (such as wu zhu yu/fr. evodia in wu zhu yu tang), that may be seen as more 'pharmacological'. There are quite extensive pharmacological studies of Chinese medicinals. But to reduce the understanding of Chinese medicinals to pharmacology alone is self-defeating, because, as you point out, physiological homeostasis is an important component of treatment, if not the only one. We must always go back to the Shen nong ben cao jing/Divine Farmer's Materia Medica, and its threefold classification of medicinals as superior, middle and inferior. The most powerful and 'pharmacologically active' medicinals are in the inferior class, because of their toxicity, and the supplementing, relatively mild medicinals are in the superior class. Chinese medicine runs the full spectrum from preservation of health (yang sheng) to treatment of serious disease. The methods vary accordingly. A number of years ago, I witnessed a panel discussion of pharmacologists at UC San Diego on the future of pharmaceuticals in medicine. The conclusion of the panel, quite surprisingly, was that 'the application of the internal pharmacy was the future'. In other words, the various substances produced by the body to heal itself (including neurotransmitters, hormones, and the like), and how to aid the body in producing and regulating them. This has always been one of my arguments for the use of acupuncture and moxabustion regulation techniques, akin I think to what Huang Fu-mai's Systematic Classic of Acupuncture and Moxabustion called 'communicating the essence' (using even technique, letting the needles bring equilibrium without active supplmentation or draining technique). Much of Chinese herbal medicine, especially supplementing and harmonzing prescriptions, work in this way as well, by optimizing physiological performance. Does this all resonate with you? On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 10:44 AM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: > Marco, > I appreciate your thoughts regarding what the word physiological > is rooted in. I believe you've got your fingers on the pulse. :-) > The phrase physiological effect is used as I've used it - as a counter > point to allopathic procedures which are seen as pharmacological. > What the body does for itself and within itself is what the basic > scientist like me is interested in. That would be physiological. The > allopathic clinician knows of no way to modulate physiology except to > step in with toxic substances or with the body's own end products > (estrogen or melatonin or cortisol). Allopathic treatment of the > normal physiology (or out of balance physiology) would be delivering a > pharmacological effect. What I find fascinating about CM is that it > is so subtle as to adjust the physiological homeostasis without > needing to be allopathic. > I'm pretty amused that some folks want to see CM as having mainly > allopathic function. It does have some from what I've seen ... part > of some formulas to treat cancer are in part allopathic in function, > i.e. they have toxic ability to kill cells and disrupt homeostasis. > Most of what I've seen in CM formulas is to fine tune homeostasis. > You can call it pharmacological if you like, but that's not what a > physiologist means. Pharmacological effect is a phase coined to refer > to the actions of allopathic medicine. I guess people were not quite > catching on to that despite my attempts to explain it as such. > On the other hand, I sense there are people here who imagine that > denoting allopathic effect to CM formulas is somehow a pretty neat > thing. I personally view that part of CM formulas to be the weaker > part of Chinese medicine. In fact I view no formulas at all to be the > strongest part of Chinese medicine: that is, adjusting diet, lifestyle > and using qi gong and tai chi. My first personal practitioner in the > 1970s was Michael Broffman who preferred to treat my issues in this > manner. I really appreciated it. My friend Dr. Kang whom I look up > to also holds this view. So I feel I'm in not such bad company. > Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Z'ev, :-) The word "resonate" is actually what came to my mind while reading your post. What you've described is very much the path that I see. The internal pathway medicines described by the pharmacologists in the panel you observed is similar what many microbiologists see from their perspective: using commensal bacteria as well as viruses to interfere with disease causing varieties of bacteria and viruses. My view in resonance with yours is that Chinese medicine invented allopathy long ago. It's a well tempered as well as well-buffered tool in the box. The classification of herbs from superior to inferior is partly what I had in mind. Also what I had in mind was that herbs are not used singly, but rather in constellations of herbs - root formulas. I've observed that toxic side effects of some herbs can be mitigated in the presence of their formula, and their force directed. Andrographis paniculata - Chuan Xin Lian - has been used in formulas for cancer treatment. In recent years Paracelsian Pharmaceutical Company in Cornell University Park characterized and patented two molecules from this herb and gained FDA approval for clinical trials against breast cancer and liver cancer. It is precisely the mentality of "against" that is allopathic in nature. Allopathy was borne out of battle ... aseptic techniques made battlefield surgery possible. The allopathic ideal is to present toxins to the host that kills all organisms but spares the host. It's the ultimate ethnic cleansing, if you will. Chinese medicine has understood this as you've described for a long time, and CM is more interested in homeostasis and harmony and less interested in asepsis. CM sees the human being in context, not apart from. My further point is that it's the "nakedness" of allopathy's chemicals that makes them dangerous in the hands of allopaths. In the context of a Chinese formula, they are manageable. Merck derived a family of statin molecules including Lovastatin from research they funded at U.C.L.A. Medical School on Hong Qu - red yeasted rice. Lovastatin lowers cholesterol in the blood almost as well as the acute care Chinese medical formulas for this purpose. In fact both statins and Chinese medicine remove cholesterol directly from arterial plaques that are not yet fibrotic nor calcified through increased HDL activity. Are you familiar with this research and the legal battles that have ensued over the past few years? This has everything to do with the place of Chinese medicine in America. There's some pretty nasty side-effects from all the statin molecules including profound muscle weakness. This is what I mean by the "nakedness" of allopathic chemicals. This side-effect does not exist in the Chinese formula that actually works better. The statin medicines have been used since about 1995 here in the U.S. Members of my own faculty use them and are willing to risk the side-effects. The legal battle began when another company sold an extract of Hong Qu, and Merck sued them for patent infringement. The other company won on appeal. Merck then won on counter-appeal. The first appeals court decided that Hong Qu had been used long before the existence of Merck or even the U.S. They reasoned that Merch could not defend their patent against a natural occuring molecule. Merck hadn't made anything new. Merck won on counter appeal for the very reason I have written my appeal to you all. The other company "claimed" the existence of Lovastatin in their extract ... which was true. It's naturally occurring Hong Qu. I sell Hong Qu and make no claims at all except that it makes great soup. The point is that Chinese medicine has allopathic tools in its box but even when using those tools, the allopathic ideal is not the point of the medicine. Anyway the end of the story is that Merck has prevailed. Note very carefully here that Merck patented a natural occurring molecule, and successfully defended the patent. That's a legal precedent that you can bet will be used in the future. The other funny corollary is that the really effective Chinese medicine that works better than Lovastatin doesn't use Hong Qu as an ingredient. In Resonance, Emmanuel Segmen - Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:22 AM Re: Physiology or pharmacology??? Emmanuel,I think that Chinese medicine has various facets that work together as a whole, and can be used flexibly according to the situation. There are methods of gong fa/attack, such as causing vomiting, diuresis, bowel movment, sweating, draining fire and overcoming toxin. There are supplementation methods that warm, moisten, strengthen, engender, nourish, and fortify. There are harmonization methods as well. Attack methods sometimes employ more toxic ingredients (such as wu zhu yu/fr. evodia in wu zhu yu tang), that may be seen as more 'pharmacological'. There are quite extensive pharmacological studies of Chinese medicinals. But to reduce the understanding of Chinese medicinals to pharmacology alone is self-defeating, because, as you point out, physiological homeostasis is an important component of treatment, if not the only one. We must always go back to the Shen nong ben cao jing/Divine Farmer's Materia Medica, and its threefold classification of medicinals as superior, middle and inferior. The most powerful and 'pharmacologically active' medicinals are in the inferior class, because of their toxicity, and the supplementing, relatively mild medicinals are in the superior class. Chinese medicine runs the full spectrum from preservation of health (yang sheng) to treatment of serious disease. The methods vary accordingly. A number of years ago, I witnessed a panel discussion of pharmacologists at UC San Diego on the future of pharmaceuticals in medicine. The conclusion of the panel, quite surprisingly, was that 'the application of the internal pharmacy was the future'. In other words, the various substances produced by the body to heal itself (including neurotransmitters, hormones, and the like), and how to aid the body in producing and regulating them. This has always been one of my arguments for the use of acupuncture and moxabustion regulation techniques, akin I think to what Huang Fu-mai's Systematic Classic of Acupuncture and Moxabustion called 'communicating the essence' (using even technique, letting the needles bring equilibrium without active supplmentation or draining technique). Much of Chinese herbal medicine, especially supplementing and harmonzing prescriptions, work in this way as well, by optimizing physiological performance. Does this all resonate with you?On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 10:44 AM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: Marco, I appreciate your thoughts regarding what the word physiological is rooted in. I believe you've got your fingers on the pulse. :-) The phrase physiological effect is used as I've used it - as a counter point to allopathic procedures which are seen as pharmacological. What the body does for itself and within itself is what the basic scientist like me is interested in. That would be physiological. The allopathic clinician knows of no way to modulate physiology except to step in with toxic substances or with the body's own end products (estrogen or melatonin or cortisol). Allopathic treatment of the normal physiology (or out of balance physiology) would be delivering a pharmacological effect. What I find fascinating about CM is that it is so subtle as to adjust the physiological homeostasis without needing to be allopathic. I'm pretty amused that some folks want to see CM as having mainly allopathic function. It does have some from what I've seen ... part of some formulas to treat cancer are in part allopathic in function, i.e. they have toxic ability to kill cells and disrupt homeostasis. Most of what I've seen in CM formulas is to fine tune homeostasis. You can call it pharmacological if you like, but that's not what a physiologist means. Pharmacological effect is a phase coined to refer to the actions of allopathic medicine. I guess people were not quite catching on to that despite my attempts to explain it as such. On the other hand, I sense there are people here who imagine that denoting allopathic effect to CM formulas is somehow a pretty neat thing. I personally view that part of CM formulas to be the weaker part of Chinese medicine. In fact I view no formulas at all to be the strongest part of Chinese medicine: that is, adjusting diet, lifestyle and using qi gong and tai chi. My first personal practitioner in the 1970s was Michael Broffman who preferred to treat my issues in this manner. I really appreciated it. My friend Dr. Kang whom I look up to also holds this view. So I feel I'm in not such bad company. Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 , " Emmanuel Segmen " wrote: In recent years Paracelsian Pharmaceutical Company in Cornell University Park characterized and patented two molecules from this herb and gained FDA approval for clinical trials against breast cancer and liver cancer.>>> Emmanuel: Is the patent for the molecule itself or the process to produce it? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Emmanuel, > I'm pretty amused that some folks want to see CM as having mainly allopathic function. It would be merely amusing if this were a part of people's desiderata that resulted from informed choices. The humor of it, as far as I'm concerned, is dissolved in the fact that most of those who want to see Chinese medicine as having mainly allopathic function do so because they have not actually learned and become familiar with the conceptual toolkit of Chinese medicine and so have only allopathic functions to reason with. The conceptual toolkit, of course, is inextricably tangled up with the difficult and time-consuming study of the language and literature, which is both reviled and celebrated...often by the same individuals...on this list and in the professional and educational community at large. I've been talking with some people working on a UN sponsored project here in Beijing recently about the interface between Chinese and Western medicine, and with their multi-cultural context, they stated the issue quite clearly: It's all about respect for other cultures. It does have some from what I've seen ... part of some formulas to treat cancer are in part allopathic in function, i.e. they have toxic ability to kill cells and disrupt homeostasis. Most of what I've seen in CM formulas is to fine tune homeostasis. You can call it pharmacological if you like, but that's not what a physiologist means. Pharmacological effect is a phase coined to refer to the actions of allopathic medicine. I guess people were not quite catching on to that despite my attempts to explain it as such. I appreciate your having introduced the terms into the discussion and having taken the time to explain their meanings and usages. > On the other hand, I sense there are people here who imagine that denoting allopathic effect to CM formulas is somehow a pretty neat thing. I personally view that part of CM formulas to be the weaker part of Chinese medicine. In fact I view no formulas at all to be the strongest part of Chinese medicine: that is, adjusting diet, lifestyle and using qi gong and tai chi. My first personal practitioner in the 1970s was Michael Broffman who preferred to treat my issues in this manner. I really appreciated it. My friend Dr. Kang whom I look up to also holds this view. So I feel I'm in not such bad company. This is certainly in keeping with the strategic principles outlined in the Nei Jing, where it states that treating patients who have developed symptoms is like digging a well only after you feel thirsty or forging weapons only after you are engaged in battle. That is what makes it not at all humorous to me to see people embracing allopathic medicine's standards as the measure of Chinese medical efficacy. What is needed, I believe, is a process by which the two disparate sets of terms, concepts, principles, theories, aims, methods, and results can be mutually comprehensible to those in both fields. Until and unless such a process is developed and brought to fruition, I forsee little but the continued frustration associated with those who want to explain Chinese medicine in other terms to the exclusion of knowing its explanations in its own terms. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 , "Emmanuel Segmen" wrote:In recent years Paracelsian Pharmaceutical Company in Cornell University Park characterized and patented two molecules from this herb and gained FDA approval for clinical trials against breast cancer and liver cancer.>>>Emmanuel:Is the patent for the molecule itself or the process to produce it?Jim Ramholz Jim, In view of how the two appeals courts dealt with the Merck case, the answer to your question is somewhat ambiguous. I suspect that Merck will continue to defend it's patent in the marketplace. So from that point of view, it's the patent to produce it. Emmanuel SegmenChinese 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 February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Ken, I bow to your far superior poetry. Emmanuel Segmen - dragon90405 <yulong Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:14 PM Re: Physiology or pharmacology??? Emmanuel, > I'm pretty amused that some folks want to see CM as having mainly allopathic function.It would be merely amusing if this were a part ofpeople's desiderata that resulted from informedchoices. The humor of it, as far as I'm concerned,is dissolved in the fact that most of those whowant to see Chinese medicine as having mainlyallopathic function do so because they have notactually learned and become familiar with theconceptual toolkit of Chinese medicine and sohave only allopathic functions to reason with.The conceptual toolkit, of course, is inextricablytangled up with the difficult and time-consumingstudy of the language and literature, which isboth reviled and celebrated...often by the sameindividuals...on this list and in the professionaland educational community at large.I've been talking with some people working ona UN sponsored project here in Beijing recentlyabout the interface between Chinese and Westernmedicine, and with their multi-cultural context,they stated the issue quite clearly: It's all about respect for other cultures. It does have some from what I've seen ... part of some formulas to treat cancer are in part allopathic in function, i.e. they have toxic ability to kill cells and disrupt homeostasis. Most of what I've seen in CM formulas is to fine tune homeostasis. You can call it pharmacological if you like, but that's not what a physiologist means. Pharmacological effect is a phase coined to refer to the actions of allopathic medicine. I guess people were not quite catching on to that despite my attempts to explain it as such.I appreciate your having introduced the termsinto the discussion and having taken the timeto explain their meanings and usages. > On the other hand, I sense there are people here who imagine that denoting allopathic effect to CM formulas is somehow a pretty neat thing. I personally view that part of CM formulas to be the weaker part of Chinese medicine. In fact I view no formulas at all to be the strongest part of Chinese medicine: that is, adjusting diet, lifestyle and using qi gong and tai chi. My first personal practitioner in the 1970s was Michael Broffman who preferred to treat my issues in this manner. I really appreciated it. My friend Dr. Kang whom I look up to also holds this view. So I feel I'm in not such bad company. This is certainly in keeping with the strategicprinciples outlined in the Nei Jing, where itstates that treating patients who have developedsymptoms is like digging a well only after youfeel thirsty or forging weapons only after youare engaged in battle.That is what makes it not at all humorous tome to see people embracing allopathic medicine'sstandards as the measure of Chinese medicalefficacy. What is needed, I believe, is a processby which the two disparate sets of terms, concepts,principles, theories, aims, methods, and resultscan be mutually comprehensible to those in bothfields. Until and unless such a process is developed and brought to fruition, I forseelittle but the continued frustration associatedwith those who want to explain Chinese medicinein other terms to the exclusion of knowing itsexplanations in its own terms.Ken 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 February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Anyway the end of the story is that Merck has prevailed. Note very carefully here that Merck patented a natural occurring molecule, and successfully defended the patent. That's a legal precedent that you can bet will be used in the future. The other funny corollary is that the really effective Chinese medicine that works better than Lovastatin doesn't use Hong Qu as an ingredient. In Resonance, >>>>Which Chinese med are you talking about? also merck only got the level of lavostatin to be regulated as they claimed that standardized Red yeast extracts are fortified by pharmaceutical lovastatin. It is still legal for all companies, including phamanex, to import red yeast with a lesser levels "so called natural levels" of the statins. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Marco, You have some fairly deep There are plenty of people with Western science and Chinse medicine inside the same head. The ones I know are Chinese: Dr. Chiang of Min Tong and Dr. Ping Qi Kang whom I work with. Stephen Morrissey also appears to know some, too. Perhaps many of us do. I think you actually have to do it for yourself if you want the source material. Go to Western graduate or medical school and also go to Chinese medical school. That's the source material. That takes a lot of life and passion to accomplish. source material, Emmanuel? Marco, isn't this dichotomy of terms a tension that Western culture offers to the mix? Chinese culture and Western science need to "cook" together for awhile as a world culture for all of the equivalencies to work out. Your struggle to get both cultures in your head will be the first step. This soup will be cooking for generations to come. Which word i.e. characters are "equivalent" to physiology and pharmacology in Chinese medicine pre western influence and post, presumably there will be at least for connotations and as for denotative? Isn't the following in part what Ken Rose is working on? I love linguistic etymologies as historical paradigms. Emmanuel Would it be worth while discussing the etymology of these characters (in a Chinese medical context)? Marco 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 February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 Emmanuel: Exactly what is the "really effective Chinese medicine that works better than lovastatin (which) doesn't use Hong Qu"? Neal. - Emmanuel Segmen Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:20 PM Re: Physiology or pharmacology??? Z'ev, :-) The word "resonate" is actually what came to my mind while reading your post. What you've described is very much the path that I see. The internal pathway medicines described by the pharmacologists in the panel you observed is similar what many microbiologists see from their perspective: using commensal bacteria as well as viruses to interfere with disease causing varieties of bacteria and viruses. My view in resonance with yours is that Chinese medicine invented allopathy long ago. It's a well tempered as well as well-buffered tool in the box. The classification of herbs from superior to inferior is partly what I had in mind. Also what I had in mind was that herbs are not used singly, but rather in constellations of herbs - root formulas. I've observed that toxic side effects of some herbs can be mitigated in the presence of their formula, and their force directed. Andrographis paniculata - Chuan Xin Lian - has been used in formulas for cancer treatment. In recent years Paracelsian Pharmaceutical Company in Cornell University Park characterized and patented two molecules from this herb and gained FDA approval for clinical trials against breast cancer and liver cancer. It is precisely the mentality of "against" that is allopathic in nature. Allopathy was borne out of battle ... aseptic techniques made battlefield surgery possible. The allopathic ideal is to present toxins to the host that kills all organisms but spares the host. It's the ultimate ethnic cleansing, if you will. Chinese medicine has understood this as you've described for a long time, and CM is more interested in homeostasis and harmony and less interested in asepsis. CM sees the human being in context, not apart from. My further point is that it's the "nakedness" of allopathy's chemicals that makes them dangerous in the hands of allopaths. In the context of a Chinese formula, they are manageable. Merck derived a family of statin molecules including Lovastatin from research they funded at U.C.L.A. Medical School on Hong Qu - red yeasted rice. Lovastatin lowers cholesterol in the blood almost as well as the acute care Chinese medical formulas for this purpose. In fact both statins and Chinese medicine remove cholesterol directly from arterial plaques that are not yet fibrotic nor calcified through increased HDL activity. Are you familiar with this research and the legal battles that have ensued over the past few years? This has everything to do with the place of Chinese medicine in America. There's some pretty nasty side-effects from all the statin molecules including profound muscle weakness. This is what I mean by the "nakedness" of allopathic chemicals. This side-effect does not exist in the Chinese formula that actually works better. The statin medicines have been used since about 1995 here in the U.S. Members of my own faculty use them and are willing to risk the side-effects. The legal battle began when another company sold an extract of Hong Qu, and Merck sued them for patent infringement. The other company won on appeal. Merck then won on counter-appeal. The first appeals court decided that Hong Qu had been used long before the existence of Merck or even the U.S. They reasoned that Merch could not defend their patent against a natural occuring molecule. Merck hadn't made anything new. Merck won on counter appeal for the very reason I have written my appeal to you all. The other company "claimed" the existence of Lovastatin in their extract ... which was true. It's naturally occurring Hong Qu. I sell Hong Qu and make no claims at all except that it makes great soup. The point is that Chinese medicine has allopathic tools in its box but even when using those tools, the allopathic ideal is not the point of the medicine. Anyway the end of the story is that Merck has prevailed. Note very carefully here that Merck patented a natural occurring molecule, and successfully defended the patent. That's a legal precedent that you can bet will be used in the future. The other funny corollary is that the really effective Chinese medicine that works better than Lovastatin doesn't use Hong Qu as an ingredient. In Resonance, Emmanuel Segmen - Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:22 AM Re: Physiology or pharmacology??? Emmanuel,I think that Chinese medicine has various facets that work together as a whole, and can be used flexibly according to the situation. There are methods of gong fa/attack, such as causing vomiting, diuresis, bowel movment, sweating, draining fire and overcoming toxin. There are supplementation methods that warm, moisten, strengthen, engender, nourish, and fortify. There are harmonization methods as well. Attack methods sometimes employ more toxic ingredients (such as wu zhu yu/fr. evodia in wu zhu yu tang), that may be seen as more 'pharmacological'. There are quite extensive pharmacological studies of Chinese medicinals. But to reduce the understanding of Chinese medicinals to pharmacology alone is self-defeating, because, as you point out, physiological homeostasis is an important component of treatment, if not the only one. We must always go back to the Shen nong ben cao jing/Divine Farmer's Materia Medica, and its threefold classification of medicinals as superior, middle and inferior. The most powerful and 'pharmacologically active' medicinals are in the inferior class, because of their toxicity, and the supplementing, relatively mild medicinals are in the superior class. Chinese medicine runs the full spectrum from preservation of health (yang sheng) to treatment of serious disease. The methods vary accordingly. A number of years ago, I witnessed a panel discussion of pharmacologists at UC San Diego on the future of pharmaceuticals in medicine. The conclusion of the panel, quite surprisingly, was that 'the application of the internal pharmacy was the future'. In other words, the various substances produced by the body to heal itself (including neurotransmitters, hormones, and the like), and how to aid the body in producing and regulating them. This has always been one of my arguments for the use of acupuncture and moxabustion regulation techniques, akin I think to what Huang Fu-mai's Systematic Classic of Acupuncture and Moxabustion called 'communicating the essence' (using even technique, letting the needles bring equilibrium without active supplmentation or draining technique). Much of Chinese herbal medicine, especially supplementing and harmonzing prescriptions, work in this way as well, by optimizing physiological performance. Does this all resonate with you?On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 10:44 AM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: Marco, I appreciate your thoughts regarding what the word physiological is rooted in. I believe you've got your fingers on the pulse. :-) The phrase physiological effect is used as I've used it - as a counter point to allopathic procedures which are seen as pharmacological. What the body does for itself and within itself is what the basic scientist like me is interested in. That would be physiological. The allopathic clinician knows of no way to modulate physiology except to step in with toxic substances or with the body's own end products (estrogen or melatonin or cortisol). Allopathic treatment of the normal physiology (or out of balance physiology) would be delivering a pharmacological effect. What I find fascinating about CM is that it is so subtle as to adjust the physiological homeostasis without needing to be allopathic. I'm pretty amused that some folks want to see CM as having mainly allopathic function. It does have some from what I've seen ... part of some formulas to treat cancer are in part allopathic in function, i.e. they have toxic ability to kill cells and disrupt homeostasis. Most of what I've seen in CM formulas is to fine tune homeostasis. You can call it pharmacological if you like, but that's not what a physiologist means. Pharmacological effect is a phase coined to refer to the actions of allopathic medicine. I guess people were not quite catching on to that despite my attempts to explain it as such. On the other hand, I sense there are people here who imagine that denoting allopathic effect to CM formulas is somehow a pretty neat thing. I personally view that part of CM formulas to be the weaker part of Chinese medicine. In fact I view no formulas at all to be the strongest part of Chinese medicine: that is, adjusting diet, lifestyle and using qi gong and tai chi. My first personal practitioner in the 1970s was Michael Broffman who preferred to treat my issues in this manner. I really appreciated it. My friend Dr. Kang whom I look up to also holds this view. So I feel I'm in not such bad company. Emmanuel SegmenChinese 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 February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 Neal, I'm not into advertising in a public forum. If you can read the literature in Chinese, even on the Internet, it's there. My company advertises two such formulas based on those used in acute care in Shanghai Hospital #1. I still recommend you make your patients cook their own herbs. Emmanuel Segmen - renee white Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:57 AM Re: Physiology or pharmacology??? Emmanuel: Exactly what is the "really effective Chinese medicine that works better than lovastatin (which) doesn't use Hong Qu"? Neal. - Emmanuel Segmen Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:20 PM Re: Physiology or pharmacology??? Z'ev, :-) The word "resonate" is actually what came to my mind while reading your post. What you've described is very much the path that I see. The internal pathway medicines described by the pharmacologists in the panel you observed is similar what many microbiologists see from their perspective: using commensal bacteria as well as viruses to interfere with disease causing varieties of bacteria and viruses. My view in resonance with yours is that Chinese medicine invented allopathy long ago. It's a well tempered as well as well-buffered tool in the box. The classification of herbs from superior to inferior is partly what I had in mind. Also what I had in mind was that herbs are not used singly, but rather in constellations of herbs - root formulas. I've observed that toxic side effects of some herbs can be mitigated in the presence of their formula, and their force directed. Andrographis paniculata - Chuan Xin Lian - has been used in formulas for cancer treatment. In recent years Paracelsian Pharmaceutical Company in Cornell University Park characterized and patented two molecules from this herb and gained FDA approval for clinical trials against breast cancer and liver cancer. It is precisely the mentality of "against" that is allopathic in nature. Allopathy was borne out of battle ... aseptic techniques made battlefield surgery possible. The allopathic ideal is to present toxins to the host that kills all organisms but spares the host. It's the ultimate ethnic cleansing, if you will. Chinese medicine has understood this as you've described for a long time, and CM is more interested in homeostasis and harmony and less interested in asepsis. CM sees the human being in context, not apart from. My further point is that it's the "nakedness" of allopathy's chemicals that makes them dangerous in the hands of allopaths. In the context of a Chinese formula, they are manageable. Merck derived a family of statin molecules including Lovastatin from research they funded at U.C.L.A. Medical School on Hong Qu - red yeasted rice. Lovastatin lowers cholesterol in the blood almost as well as the acute care Chinese medical formulas for this purpose. In fact both statins and Chinese medicine remove cholesterol directly from arterial plaques that are not yet fibrotic nor calcified through increased HDL activity. Are you familiar with this research and the legal battles that have ensued over the past few years? This has everything to do with the place of Chinese medicine in America. There's some pretty nasty side-effects from all the statin molecules including profound muscle weakness. This is what I mean by the "nakedness" of allopathic chemicals. This side-effect does not exist in the Chinese formula that actually works better. The statin medicines have been used since about 1995 here in the U.S. Members of my own faculty use them and are willing to risk the side-effects. The legal battle began when another company sold an extract of Hong Qu, and Merck sued them for patent infringement. The other company won on appeal. Merck then won on counter-appeal. The first appeals court decided that Hong Qu had been used long before the existence of Merck or even the U.S. They reasoned that Merch could not defend their patent against a natural occuring molecule. Merck hadn't made anything new. Merck won on counter appeal for the very reason I have written my appeal to you all. The other company "claimed" the existence of Lovastatin in their extract ... which was true. It's naturally occurring Hong Qu. I sell Hong Qu and make no claims at all except that it makes great soup. The point is that Chinese medicine has allopathic tools in its box but even when using those tools, the allopathic ideal is not the point of the medicine. Anyway the end of the story is that Merck has prevailed. Note very carefully here that Merck patented a natural occurring molecule, and successfully defended the patent. That's a legal precedent that you can bet will be used in the future. The other funny corollary is that the really effective Chinese medicine that works better than Lovastatin doesn't use Hong Qu as an ingredient. In Resonance, Emmanuel Segmen - Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:22 AM Re: Physiology or pharmacology??? Emmanuel,I think that Chinese medicine has various facets that work together as a whole, and can be used flexibly according to the situation. There are methods of gong fa/attack, such as causing vomiting, diuresis, bowel movment, sweating, draining fire and overcoming toxin. There are supplementation methods that warm, moisten, strengthen, engender, nourish, and fortify. There are harmonization methods as well. Attack methods sometimes employ more toxic ingredients (such as wu zhu yu/fr. evodia in wu zhu yu tang), that may be seen as more 'pharmacological'. There are quite extensive pharmacological studies of Chinese medicinals. But to reduce the understanding of Chinese medicinals to pharmacology alone is self-defeating, because, as you point out, physiological homeostasis is an important component of treatment, if not the only one. We must always go back to the Shen nong ben cao jing/Divine Farmer's Materia Medica, and its threefold classification of medicinals as superior, middle and inferior. The most powerful and 'pharmacologically active' medicinals are in the inferior class, because of their toxicity, and the supplementing, relatively mild medicinals are in the superior class. Chinese medicine runs the full spectrum from preservation of health (yang sheng) to treatment of serious disease. The methods vary accordingly. A number of years ago, I witnessed a panel discussion of pharmacologists at UC San Diego on the future of pharmaceuticals in medicine. The conclusion of the panel, quite surprisingly, was that 'the application of the internal pharmacy was the future'. In other words, the various substances produced by the body to heal itself (including neurotransmitters, hormones, and the like), and how to aid the body in producing and regulating them. This has always been one of my arguments for the use of acupuncture and moxabustion regulation techniques, akin I think to what Huang Fu-mai's Systematic Classic of Acupuncture and Moxabustion called 'communicating the essence' (using even technique, letting the needles bring equilibrium without active supplmentation or draining technique). Much of Chinese herbal medicine, especially supplementing and harmonzing prescriptions, work in this way as well, by optimizing physiological performance. Does this all resonate with you?On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 10:44 AM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: Marco, I appreciate your thoughts regarding what the word physiological is rooted in. I believe you've got your fingers on the pulse. :-) The phrase physiological effect is used as I've used it - as a counter point to allopathic procedures which are seen as pharmacological. What the body does for itself and within itself is what the basic scientist like me is interested in. That would be physiological. The allopathic clinician knows of no way to modulate physiology except to step in with toxic substances or with the body's own end products (estrogen or melatonin or cortisol). Allopathic treatment of the normal physiology (or out of balance physiology) would be delivering a pharmacological effect. What I find fascinating about CM is that it is so subtle as to adjust the physiological homeostasis without needing to be allopathic. I'm pretty amused that some folks want to see CM as having mainly allopathic function. It does have some from what I've seen ... part of some formulas to treat cancer are in part allopathic in function, i.e. they have toxic ability to kill cells and disrupt homeostasis. Most of what I've seen in CM formulas is to fine tune homeostasis. You can call it pharmacological if you like, but that's not what a physiologist means. Pharmacological effect is a phase coined to refer to the actions of allopathic medicine. I guess people were not quite catching on to that despite my attempts to explain it as such. On the other hand, I sense there are people here who imagine that denoting allopathic effect to CM formulas is somehow a pretty neat thing. I personally view that part of CM formulas to be the weaker part of Chinese medicine. In fact I view no formulas at all to be the strongest part of Chinese medicine: that is, adjusting diet, lifestyle and using qi gong and tai chi. My first personal practitioner in the 1970s was Michael Broffman who preferred to treat my issues in this manner. I really appreciated it. My friend Dr. Kang whom I look up to also holds this view. So I feel I'm in not such bad company. Emmanuel SegmenChinese 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...
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.