Interesting Reading

[Guest guest]

One company's approach:

 

http://www.paracelsian.com/biofit/biofit.shtml

 

What is " functional activity " & why should herbals be tested for it?

 

Functional activity is a term describing a product's ability to

produce actions that perform certain functions in the human body.

Much emphasis has been placed on structure/function claims for

herbal products. Evaluating a product's `functional activity' or

activity that is promised through its structure/function benefit

helps to assure that a product is living up to its claim. Given that

herbal content varies dependent on where it is grown, when it is

harvested, and what part of the plant is used, standardizing the

activity of a product is more practical. Herbs work in a `wholistic'

fashion, not targeting one area of the body, but actually an array

of sites to produce a particular health benefit. Herbals work on the

body synergistically and their actions cannot be attributed to one

active ingredient. Their actions are caused by a multitude of

compounds working together to produce a therapeutic action. Thus

herbal content is important to define, but these products should

ultimately be standardized based on their ability to consistently

produce activity related to their marketed benefit. "

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

While I like the people at Paracelsiun (they offered me a job as their general manager and I declined in 1994), their message is what I'm personally fighting against as a biochemist and physiologist. Please bear in mind that I do genuinely like them, especially T. Colin Campbell and his son. We have a friendly dispute regarding ideals.

 

You should know as people who use Chinese herbs that this message is all about buying Chinese herbs in the global marketplace as a commodity based on molecular markers. I already sell tonnage of whole root Dang Gui by it's ligustilide and fumaric acid content. Are you aware of the fact that the 80% ginsenoside ginseng product in GNC stores has no ginseng root in it at all? In fact no ginseng product at GNC has ginseng root in it. That's because the only way to get to that level of ginsenoside extract is to harvest tonnage of biomass and extract the molecule that you are after.

 

I'm pretty out of line with my industry making these statements on a public site. Odds are Rexall-Sundown may not call me again for awhile. What frightens Ph.D. agronomists in China where Ken lives is that money may not filter down to the growers. People are leaving the villages in droves these days and for the past few years. These are the children of the people with the oral traditions. To me this is an incalculable loss. It's not just the FDA that is filtering the herbs from this end. It's also the economic and cultural changes in China. Amidst these two is also the market place.

 

Sorry gotta dash from this computer. All the best,

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

James Ramholz <jramholz

Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:33 PM

Interesting Reading

One company's approach:http://www.paracelsian.com/biofit/biofit.shtmlWhat is "functional activity" & why should herbals be tested for it?Functional activity is a term describing a product's ability to produce actions that perform certain functions in the human body. Much emphasis has been placed on structure/function claims for herbal products. Evaluating a product's `functional activity' or activity that is promised through its structure/function benefit helps to assure that a product is living up to its claim. Given that herbal content varies dependent on where it is grown, when it is harvested, and what part of the plant is used, standardizing the activity of a product is more practical. Herbs work in a `wholistic' fashion, not targeting one area of the body, but actually an array of sites to produce a particular health benefit. Herbals work on the body synergistically and their actions cannot be attributed to one active ingredient. Their actions are caused by a multitude of compounds working together to produce a therapeutic action. Thus herbal content is important to define, but these products should ultimately be standardized based on their ability to consistently produce activity related to their marketed benefit."Jim RamholzChinese 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.

[Guest guest]

My experience with other companies with similar goals is that they are

wedded to the molecular model of herbal-source drugs for the

marketplace. I gave a presentation at Novartis Research Institute

where I debated their scientists on why they shouldn't just be looking

for active molecules in ginseng to use against cancer. Once you refine

molecules from complex botanicals, the toxicity factor increases, and

you are back in the land of pharmaceutical drugs.

 

Again, I appreciate your insights into the Chinese herbal industry.

 

 

On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 04:56 PM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

 

> While I like the people at Paracelsiun (they offered me a job as their

> general manager and I declined in 1994), their message is what I'm

> personally fighting against as a biochemist and physiologist.  Please

> bear in mind that I do genuinely like them, especially T. Colin

> Campbell and his son.  We have a friendly dispute regarding ideals.

>  

> You should know as people who use Chinese herbs that this message is

> all about buying Chinese herbs in the global marketplace as a

> commodity based on molecular markers.  I already sell tonnage of whole

> root Dang Gui by it's ligustilide and fumaric acid content.  Are you

> aware of the fact that the 80% ginsenoside ginseng product in GNC

> stores has no ginseng root in it at all?  In fact no ginseng product

> at GNC has ginseng root in it.  That's because the only way to get to

> that level of ginsenoside extract is to harvest tonnage of biomass and

> extract the molecule that you are after. 

[Guest guest]

 

Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:09 PM

Re: Interesting Reading

 

My experience with other companies with similar goals is that they are wedded to the molecular model of herbal-source drugs for the marketplace. I gave a presentation at Novartis Research Institute where I debated their scientists on why they shouldn't just be looking for active molecules in ginseng to use against cancer. Once you refine molecules from complex botanicals, the toxicity factor increases, and you are back in the land of pharmaceutical drugs.

 

Z'ev,

It sounds like a pretty courageous debate on your part. I'm sincerely impressed by your approach to Chinese medicine and your strength in holding your ground where it counts.

I've written a series of "When Paradigms Collide" articles based on my 1994 interaction with Dr. Campbell and his son. Your first sentence above describes perfectly their issue. T. Colin Campbell occupies a funded chair heading the Nutritional Biochemistry Dept. at Cornell Univ. He performed the world's largest study through the 1980s and early 1990s comparing the rural diets throughout China to the diet of suburban California. Glendale was selected for this end of the study. His statistics were profoundly thorough and showed 12 times the heart disease in America along with 9 times the breast cancer. He also showed how descendants of Chinese rural families in America undergo the same transformations as those of European descent. Campbell made this amazing commitment and funded his own chair from money he'd made from inventing Agent Orange. You could say he took a page from Alfred Nobel's life after realizing what he had created.

He genuinely wanted to keep helping by then funding Paracelsian's search for molecules from nature. As you intimated, Z'ev, in the current medical paradigm in America, only patented molecules can be used as medicine. There's no choice about it. Despite what Dr. Campbell had discovered about the healthful powers of a simple diet, his head was still in the myopia of the allopathic model of what I call "naked molecules". I had even debated the point with him that he had shown that "naked" meat, not cooked with lots of vegetables and grains, was what caused imbalance in the American diet. I could feel his hesitation with our debate, but he was like the surgeon who needed badly to believe that "to cut is to heal" (that's what they tell us in my old medical school.) He kept on with it, but realized why I couldn't take the cushy position he offered.

Emmanuel Segmen

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

Once you refine molecules from complex botanicals, the toxicity

factor increases, and you are back in the land of pharmaceutical

drugs. >>>

 

 

Z'ev:

 

The jury is still out on whether the scientific processng of herbs

will be beneficial or not. The scientific analysis of herbs is an

inevitability in this culture. Even if pharmaceutical companies do

not develop any long-term products from herbal sources, their

research should be interesting.

 

Several years ago at the Pacific Conference, Miki Shima recommended

a product from MediTalent---their formula #9405---for cancer

support. MediTalent isloated and synthesized a molecule in ginseng

that supported immune response (not all components of ginseng do).

On Shima's recommendation, I bought some not long ago and used it on

cancer patients without a problem. Those interested can go to:

 

http://www.meditalent.com/emain3.htm

 

I don't think we can remain naieve to the scientific evidence

available about herbs. By necessity, we need to consider both the

biomedical and energic qualities---even if we prescribe only from

the TCM perspective. The real question for us is not how

pharmaceutical companies spend their money (unless we're

stockholders), but whether their results and products will wind up

in our practices. Many practical Asians have already said " yes. "

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

" James Ramholz " wrote:

 

> The jury is still out on whether the scientific processng of herbs

> will be beneficial or not. The scientific analysis of herbs is an

> inevitability in this culture. Even if pharmaceutical companies do

> not develop any long-term products from herbal sources, their

> research should be interesting.

 

I gotta chime in here with a link to a rather funny (because its true!)

fairy tale that talks about how different governments, each with their

own agenda, exploit information from research on a single herb. From

Michael Moore comes " A Rose is a Rosa Sericea Pteracantha is a Rose "

Plese see:

http://acupuncture.com/Herbology/Fairy.htm

 

PS: Thanks for the dosages, James!

 

--

Al Stone L.Ac.

<AlStone

http://www.BeyondWellBeing.com

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

[Guest guest]

From your response, I think you missed the point of my last post. It

wasn't against scientific research of herbal medicinals, it was about

the inability to grasp the complexity of action of herbal medicinals.

A problem of perspective if you like.

 

Obviously, drugs are not 'bad', just more toxic in general. Sometimes

they can be necessary. My lecture at Novartis was suggesting an

approach to complex pharmacology that enables researchers to examine

the interactivity and mechanisms of combinations of complex molecules,

rather than seeking out the one active molecule.

 

It is similar to the idea of 'junk DNA', dismissing DNA that seems to

lack importance, like 'inert substances' in plant medicines.

 

 

On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 02:06 PM, James Ramholz

<jramholz wrote:

 

> I don't think we can remain naieve to the scientific evidence

> available about herbs. By necessity, we need to consider both the

> biomedical and energic qualities---even if we prescribe only from

> the TCM perspective. The real question for us is not how

> pharmaceutical companies spend their money (unless we're

> stockholders), but whether their results and products will wind up

> in our practices. Many practical Asians have already said " yes. "

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

My lecture at Novartis was suggesting an approach to complex

pharmacology that enables researchers to examine the interactivity

and mechanisms of combinations of complex molecules, rather than

seeking out the one active molecule. >>>

 

 

Z'ev:

 

Can you explain how pharmacology can examine the interactivity and

combinations of complex molecules? And, therefore, how we may use

that info in herbalism?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I am not a pharmacologist. But since herbal prescriptions work through

a form of complexity, pharmacologists should be able to develop a

method to determine the interactivity and combinations of complex

molecules. Chinese medicine has a different methodology to explain the

actions of prescriptions, Western science needs to develop the

methodology to explain the same according to its principles. They do

not exist at this point.

 

 

On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 07:32 PM, James Ramholz

<jramholz wrote:

 

> Z'ev:

>

> Can you explain how pharmacology can examine the interactivity and

> combinations of complex molecules? And, therefore, how we may use

> that info in herbalism?

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

Chinese medicine has a different methodology to explain the actions

of prescriptions, Western science needs to develop the methodology

to explain the same according to its principles. They do not exist

at this point. >>>

 

 

Z'ev:

 

Like you, I expect that methodology is in the process of being

developed now in Complexity Theory, which has many interesting

parallels to ideas in CM---since they both attempt to describe a

network of living systems rather than isolated objects. The area

that attracts most of my interest, for example, is pulse diagnosis

which can easily be recognized as a parallel of Phase States in

Complexity Theory. The next 20 years or so will be interesting---

that's how long I expect it will take for complexity to become

mainstream and sophisticated.

 

There is an excellent book that explains the details between Western

and Eastern thinking, Richard Nisbett's <The Geography of Thought:

How Asians and Westerners Think Differently. . . and Why> (The Free

Press, 2003). It delineates the cultural differences in cognition.

It should be required reading during the first semester of school.

An added advantage of the book is that Nisbett writes clearly and

has done research to develop and back up his findings.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim and Z'ev,

Back in the mid-1990s Dr. Chiang and I argued with Paracelsian about chemical assay versus bioassay. A lot of times scientists are rather conservative and look for things "where the light is" even if that's not where you'll find what you're looking for. Dr. Chiang and the Min Tong Pharmaceutical Company was one of the first to find HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography) biochemical markers for Chinese herbs. We had software that would show 3-dimensional curves for peaks so you could see through the topography of the peaks at other peaks that would have been hidden. But as I said earlier this is just factory work. Precision and consistency from extraction batch to extraction batch. It has no meaning for clinical outcome.

What has been lacking is bioassay. Taking a pulse and looking at the tongue is the most literal of bioassays. Clinical trials is another form of bioassay which is to see how people improve or get worse on a therapeutic regime. In a bioassay you are testing what something does or whether it has efficacy in a living organism. You can do all the chemical assay you want and have a useless medicine if it doesn't have efficacy in the patient. There may come a time when computers can look at 1,000 interacting molecules in an extract broth of Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang. But that still has no meaning if you don't know what the biological activity of any of the molecules is. Then even if you know what the biological activity is of each molecule, how will you assess the activity of 1,000 molecules on one living organism. And if your computers get to that point, how will you predict that one of the set of permutations out of the ten to the one thousandth power is the one that will balance and regulate your patient's physiology? People in this country try to sell me beautiful looking Schisandra chinensis berries. But they aren't Wu Wei Zi if they only have one flavor. So we rely on the wildcrafter version from China. Should I sell you the farmed beautiful Schisandra? Hey, it's "standardized".

The real kicker here is that thousands of years worth of notes and bioassay has been done and published in the Chinese language, a small amount of which is in translation. It goes by the name of Chinese medicine. Why would you put so many scientists to work for some many trillions of lab hours (yes, trillions or more ...do the math) in order to reinvent what exists?

This is the argument that we made to the scientists at Cornell University. They were just going to follow Dr. Chiang's lead and do tons more of chemical assay to make "standardized herbs". Right. That employs lots of chemist and technicians based on their personal education, but doesn't bring you an inch closer to understanding how it will affect your patient.

The FDA already has a system in place for testing the efficacy and safety of new drugs. Basically you are asking for this kind of infrastructure. It currently exists and is called in the industry "Big Pharm" ... all of the multi-national pharmaceutical companies. This industry must follow the FDA's system of bioassay and clinical trials which takes 4 to 7 years of clinical research costing on average half a billion dollars per individual medicine. Japan, China and Taiwan are far ahead of the U.S. in this area of testing because they are not encumbered by our lack of ability to read Chinese for one thing. Japan's version of U.S.P., the J.P., has 240 root formulas of Chinese medicine already there. So companies can "make claims" regarding function, efficacy and safety and sell Chinese medicine. If I write the word cancer or asthma on a bottle label, I'll get busted so fast I won't have time to pack a lunch.

The American problem regarding Chinese medicine then is two fold. We're addicted to looking only where the "light" is ... chemical assay is cheap and easy. Virtually no scientists can read Chinese, so no one has even a clue that Chinese medical research along with a huge historical literature exists. Did they teach you that in high school? I never heard about it. How many Americans have even a remote clue that acute care facilities in Japan, Taiwan and China have a successful integrated practice of medicine with both Western and Eastern modalities? I'd say very few. Whereas some 80% of Swiss M.D.s use or have exposure to dry dosage extracts from Taiwan since the mid-1990s. European countries is some case are many miles ahead of us. They're less xenophobic.

So testing for efficacy is always an issue of bioassay, and the American medical and research community is not likely going to head in that direction any time soon. If they did, they'd be reinventing the wheel to fit their own technology ... which is chemistry.

As a last note here, we test human beings for chemical markers. Do you figure that if a human being has really high LDLs, they are therefore superior? How about high PSAs? What a kick it would be to have standardized human beings. Or how about this one, which person in your clinic is the active ingredient? Wouldn't it be somewhat of a bummer if it turned out to the person sitting right next to you? Which guy in the Allied Forces was the active ingredient who won World War II? Standardizing herbs to chemical markers makes about this much sense. By the way, this has already happened ... much like GMOs. Stop in at GNC to check out all the standardized herbs.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

James Ramholz <jramholz

Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:10 PM

Re: Interesting Reading

, "" wrote:Chinese medicine has a different methodology to explain the actions of prescriptions, Western science needs to develop the methodology to explain the same according to its principles. They do not exist at this point. >>>Z'ev:Like you, I expect that methodology is in the process of being developed now in Complexity Theory, which has many interesting parallels to ideas in CM---since they both attempt to describe a network of living systems rather than isolated objects. The area that attracts most of my interest, for example, is pulse diagnosis which can easily be recognized as a parallel of Phase States in Complexity Theory. The next 20 years or so will be interesting---that's how long I expect it will take for complexity to become mainstream and sophisticated. There is an excellent book that explains the details between Western and Eastern thinking, Richard Nisbett's <The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently. . . and Why> (The Free Press, 2003). It delineates the cultural differences in cognition. It should be required reading during the first semester of school. An added advantage of the book is that Nisbett writes clearly and has done research to develop and back up his findings.Jim RamholzChinese 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.

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

 

[...]

> The American problem regarding Chinese medicine then is two

fold. We're addicted to looking only where the " light " is ...

chemical assay is cheap and easy. Virtually no scientists can read

Chinese, so no one has even a clue that Chinese medical research

along with a huge historical literature exists. Did they teach you

that in high school? I never heard about it. How many Americans

have even a remote clue that acute care facilities in Japan, Taiwan

and China have a successful integrated practice of medicine with

both Western and Eastern modalities? I'd say very few. Whereas

some 80% of Swiss M.D.s use or have exposure to dry dosage extracts

from Taiwan since the mid-1990s. European countries is some case

are many miles ahead of us. They're less xenophobic.

 

 

With all the bowing, we should start to dance.

 

But I could not have said that more clearly

and succinctly and my hat's off to you, once

again for your clearheaded thinking. People

have no idea how much they are dismissing

with their refusal to take the Chinese medical

language and literature seriously.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> I am not a pharmacologist. But since herbal prescriptions work

through

> a form of complexity, pharmacologists should be able to develop a

> method to determine the interactivity and combinations of complex

> molecules. Chinese medicine has a different methodology to

explain the

> actions of prescriptions, Western science needs to develop the

> methodology to explain the same according to its principles. They

do

> not exist at this point.

>

>

 

I had a conversation recently with a colleague

at the television station where I'm working.

We were talking about a current affairs program

that he hosts, and the subject was China's

membership in the WTO. I told him that I

thought the arrow was pointing the wrong

way in current discussions that are all

aimed at finding out how China's membership

in the WTO is going to change Chinese society.

 

But I think the more appropriate question for

the whole world to be asking is how is

China's membership in the WTO going to change

the WTO and the entire international community.

 

I think the same principle inheres in the

discussion about Western scientists and

their need to develop means to explain the

activity of Chinese formulas. That is to

say that I think that traditional Chinese

science has a good deal to offer in the

way of developing new explanations of

what Western science has long fancied itself

to be doing.

 

Just look at those instances over the past

few centuries when Chinese ideas have

arrived in the Western spheres of knowledge.

 

Chinese medicine, and its underlying theoretical

foundations, seem to me to be another in a

series of such interactions that includes the

compass, paper and movable type, and gunpowder.

 

In other words, we are dealing with revolutionary

concepts from the perspective of Western science,

which is another reason why I argue so relentlessly

for our increased respect for the traditions that

we nominally represent.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " Emmanuel Segmen " <

susegmen@i...> wrote:

> While I like the people at Paracelsiun (they offered me a job as their general

manager and I declined in 1994), their message is what I'm personally

fighting against as a biochemist and physiologist.

 

People have asked me in the past why I do not respond to all posts. Just not

enough time. My position on pharmacology and standardization has been oft

stated and archived. I see no reason to add much further on my side.

However I do feel the need to say that while I find Emmanuel's arguments

interesting, I do not find them convincing at all. My position remains that

quality control is a crucial issue in our field and the principles of

pharmacology are essential to accomplishing this assessment. the idea that I

should trust the manufacturers of my products and not some independent

comparative assessment is completely and utterly unacceptable to me.

finally, I point to the Japanese model which preserves the integrity of TCM, yet

sets parameters for insuring quality. for the most eloquent case for the

rational use of standardization, please search for past CHA posts on this topic

by Stephen Morrisey. As stephen has pointed out, his company's

experiments have shown that the level of marker constituents may not tell you

how the herb works or what is active, but it is an accurate indicator of overall

concentration and potency if the extract is full spectrum and all other

variables

are equal.

 

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel, and Ken,

I have no argument with the various methods for insuring quality

and potency with the various herb companies. My concern is more with

how Chinese herbal medicine is being studied and scrutinized with

methodology that cannot account for how complex molecular interactions

influence human health.

 

I agree with Ken that we need to challenge the existing

pharmacological paradigm with a well-structured case for polypharmacy

in medicine. Already, clinically speaking, polypharmacy is the norm in

Western practice, as most doctors prescribe combinations of medicines

to their patients. In my discussions with Stuart Kauffman, a physician

who was also one of the discoverers of complexity theory, he agreed

that there is no present method for studying interactions of complex

molecules in pharmacology.

 

I have, like Emmanuel, tried to present the Chinese medical approach

to various pharmaceutical and chemical companies. At this time, they

are simply not ready to hear this message. We need to marshall our own

forces, do our own studies, and find individuals such as Emmanuel who

are able and willing to forward a new approach to delivery of medicines

to the public.

 

 

On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 10:06 AM,

< wrote:

 

> , " Emmanuel Segmen " <

> susegmen@i...> wrote:

>> While I like the people at Paracelsiun (they offered me a job as

>> their general

> manager and I declined in 1994), their message is what I'm personally

> fighting against as a biochemist and physiologist.

>

> People have asked me in the past why I do not respond to all posts.

> Just not

> enough time. My position on pharmacology and standardization has been

> oft

> stated and archived. I see no reason to add much further on my side.

[Guest guest]

Todd and All,

I agree with you Todd that a full spectrum HPLC fingerprint along with thin layer chromatography is essential for determining potency from batch to batch. I know for sure Min Tong Herbs and Lotus Herbs does with every single batch. Min Tong was among the first companies to utilize HPLC chromatography. They played a role in assisting Japan establish their J.P. code for Chinese medicine. I honor what Stephen is doing. As far as I'm familiar with it, all GMP factories whether in Taiwan or in China do this work. It's pretty standard technology. So which ever brand you chose to use, you can be sure that the standard biochemistry is being utilized. In Lanzhou City, Gansu, China the Taibo Factory (formerly Mingshan) their Australian GMP certification really puts them above our own American GMP standards in terms of heavy metal limits in their extracts and so on. I don't know for certain, but I assume that Taiwan and Japan have those same World Health Organization standards that would place their GMP standards above the American companies in that regard.

If that's your main concern (comparative HPLC fingerprints), this has long been a standard in the industry. You can rest easy. As you recall from an earlier post, I referred to my criticism of Dr. John Chen of Lotus Herbs for using this basic biochemical technology as an marketing point. Since everyone does it as a standard factory practice, using it as a marketing device is a bit cheeky. It's like certain vegetable oil companies saying their product contains no cholesterol. Well, right. No vegetable cell membranes have cholesterol.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

-

<

Friday, February 28, 2003 10:06 AM

Re: Interesting Reading

, "Emmanuel Segmen" <susegmen@i...> wrote:> While I like the people at Paracelsiun (they offered me a job as their general manager and I declined in 1994), their message is what I'm personally fighting against as a biochemist and physiologist. People have asked me in the past why I do not respond to all posts. Just not enough time. My position on pharmacology and standardization has been oft stated and archived. I see no reason to add much further on my side. However I do feel the need to say that while I find Emmanuel's arguments interesting, I do not find them convincing at all. My position remains that quality control is a crucial issue in our field and the principles of pharmacology are essential to accomplishing this assessment. the idea that I should trust the manufacturers of my products and not some independent comparative assessment is completely and utterly unacceptable to me. finally, I point to the Japanese model which preserves the integrity of TCM, yet sets parameters for insuring quality. for the most eloquent case for the rational use of standardization, please search for past CHA posts on this topic by Stephen Morrisey. As stephen has pointed out, his company's experiments have shown that the level of marker constituents may not tell you how the herb works or what is active, but it is an accurate indicator of overall concentration and potency if the extract is full spectrum and all other variables are equal. ToddTodd 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.

[Guest guest]

 

I am not a pharmacologist. But since herbal prescriptions work through a form of complexity, pharmacologists should be able to develop a method to determine the interactivity and combinations of complex molecules.

 

Hi Z'ev,

I once posed such a question to Dr. Chiang, a pharmcologist with much research in Chinese herbal formulas. It was when we shared an office in Richmond, CA. My question was as biochemist to biochemist and was something like, "How long do you think it will take for Western science to grasp the ideas of Chinese medicine." That's when he gave the answer that I reference most often from him. He smilingly and wistfully went into a discussion about the billions of people studying thousands of years to give us what we have in Chinese medicine. Then he pointed out that all of the clinic research has been done with formulas and not phytochemicals. He said the latter didn't make sense due to the complexity of interactions. It's not just the complexity of the phytochemicals and their interactions within the broth. It's also all of that complexity interacting with the complexity of a living system. We would review together the research coming from China, Japan and Taiwan.

I feel that James Ramholz is completely correct in assuming that Western science will attempt to interpret Chinese medicine from its own perspective. But I believe Western science will take a reductionist approach that may be thoroughly unsatisfying to those such as you, Z'ev, who see "herbal prescriptions working through forms of complexity." I would also not be pleased if that came to pass.

Emmanuel Segmen