Deke Kendall and to qi or not to qi

[Guest guest]

Todd and all,

So many good responses. Laurie Burton's is well articulated as is Douglas's quotes on Qi from Chinese doctors. I like Alon's engineer's mentality as someone willing to take on ever greater challenges. I've no doubt that Alon's perspective on credentials is partly at issue here. CM is being taught at the level of a modality in this country rather than at the level of its own true science.

One of my anatomy professors was a Dr. Deng with a PhD from Univ. of North Caroline. He was a clinical anatomy professor in my medical school and an undercover CM practitioner (illegal in TX at the time.) He published 36 papers on the anatomical basis of acupuncture points and used the FACTs of neuro anatomy among other things to base his views, all in the 1980s American Journal of TCM. Sorry I can't go there. Great practitioner though. I read his papers and interviewed him at great length. Acupuncture points and meridians are quite real and empirically demonstrated. They are not part of the human nervous system. If some one needs to discuss this off list, I'll provide plenty of refutation. To make wild claims that acupuncture points are some subset of standard physiological principles is blue sky. No science there. Interesting speculations regarding interaction with neurotransmitters/hormones.

There are a lot of empirical findings in physiology and Western medicine that can not be attributed to standard physiological principles. Practically all of embryology from a molecular/cell biology point of view is in this manner. Read the standard text: Developmental Biology by Scott Gilbert. Cell differentiation is largely achieved by positional induction that has no chemical component. Uh, so how is it done? How is it that tracheal epithelium (pseudostratified columnar epithelium w/ cilia and goblet cells) transforms into esophageal epithelium (stratefied squamous epi.) before becoming malignant as cancer? Position is one answer. The cells during transformation (first stage to malignancy) open their entire genetic code from inactive to active chromatin becoming essentially "fetal" cells. The transformed tracheal cells look through the whole deck of active chromatin and pick esophageal epithelium. Why not any other epithelium? Why not a connective tissue? The next nearest epithelium is esophageal. What is the mechanism for vectorial translocation of neural crest cells to distant parts of the embryo. It's not chemical. Are they following meridians? Is it possible that CM might actually have something to tell physiology?

Sorry to be such a heretic, but I'm completely with Laurie Burton on this one along with Douglas's quote from Huang and Chan. The human body is the perfect instrument which measures physiological dosages of all biochemicals. The human body is the perfect instrument which measures Qi. To me pharmacology is nothing but a blunt instrument regarding any such explanations. Dr. Chiang of Min Tong Herbs teaches CM pharmacology at the TCM clinical program at China West College in Taichung Taiwan. I believe his views are even more refined than my own in this area of study, and he would be equally supportive of Laurie and Douglas.

I believe that Jim Ramholz makes a good point also that this is the moment of truth and compromise is not appropriate. It's not like the AMA-FDA and the other forces of the Western paradigm are not going to have their way. They are the dominant paradigm in the current political climate. You have to hold your own ground and absolutely not compromise your integrity. You are becoming an American paradigm which is good if you can pull it off. CM is what it is. It's now up to the people who practice CM in America to be what they are.

A doctorate taught by great old practitioners 55+ retired from the top Chinese colleges of TCM in Shanghai and Beijing sounds like just the thing. It's the faculty of a college or a university that will determine the curriculum. Get the masters. Then let the pharmacological versus qi issues fall where they will.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

[Guest guest]

Sorry I can't go there. Great practitioner though. I read his papers and interviewed him at great length. Acupuncture points and meridians are quite real and empirically demonstrated. They are not part of the human nervous system. If some one needs to discuss this off list, I'll provide plenty of refutation. To make wild claims that acupuncture points are some subset of standard physiological principles is blue sky. No science there

>>>>>Are you saying that the nervous system is not needed for acupuctrte effects? Or that acupuncture is not a true " part" of the nervous system. It is very clear that if one blocks the nervous system then acupuncture does not work. It is also clear that we have no idea how it works. We can only measure changes in physiological and chemical activity after acupuncture.

Alon

[Guest guest]

>>>>>Are you saying that the nervous system is not needed for acupuctrte effects? Or that acupuncture is not a true " part" of the nervous system. It is very clear that if one blocks the nervous system then acupuncture does not work. It is also clear that we have no idea how it works. We can only measure changes in physiological and chemical activity after acupuncture.

Alon

 

Hi Alon. "We" physiologists/biochemists can only "measure changes in physiological and chemical activity after acupuncture." You, Alon, get to "measure" pulses and other clinical signs and outcomes after acupuncture.

 

Regarding the nervous system, I'm not denying it's existence or its importance to any clinical science. I teach it. I've dissected close to 300 cadavers down to the smallest visible piece of fascia. I've traced nerves from cranial and spinal origins through all of their visible branches. No, I do not see a basis in neural anatomy for acupuncture points. But you present the science correctly. You would look for enkephalin outflow locally with local myogenic and neural reflexes. Then you would look for long neural reflexes to subcortical centers in the brain. Are you saying this work has been done? If so, no one in America teaches it. It's not in the text books. No one states it as a starting point for research.

 

I tried to rationalize Dr. Deng's macroscopic and microscopic basis for major points. After interviewing him at length, I saw that he was clearly in a state of desperation. He felt compelled to find some basis, any basis, in Western science to prove the legitimacy of his clinical practice. As I indicated, CM was illegal in Texas in 1985. I found it sad that he went through those gyrations. I'm glad he's practicing legally now.

 

Yes, we live in a profoundly xenophobic medical atmosphere. Is this a reason to act out one's fears? I believe not.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

[Guest guest]

Are you saying this work has been done? If so, no one in America teaches it. It's not in the text books. No one states it as a starting point for research.

>>>No. I am saying that you need a nervous system for acupuncture to work. Not that the nervous system is the meridians. Research as shown that if you cut a nerve or anaesthetize it, acupuncture points related to that nerve stop working

Alon

[Guest guest]

All - no reflection on you Emmanuel - writer of the quote. It is merely a hinge to enter discourse.

Deke is a friend of mine. I find it odd that we cite him and enter into academic debate without his input. And empty. I do wish Deke would enter this forum for discourse because I think his notion deserves entry into the 'record.' However, as we have seen there are many perspectives and in my opinon, it is a translational decision - period. That said - I like Deke speaking his mind on this, it is healthy. What is not healthy is definition of legal statutes based on a translational opinion...here I concur with Z'ev's well put opine.

 

Will Morris

 

If Deke Kendal is part of the CM cohort that would create a CM doctorate only on the basis of adequate existing Western physiological principles, then the falseness of such a configuration would lead to some interesting results. I can't quite imagine what they would be.

[Guest guest]

I'll give it a shot...will

 

 

Perhaps you could invite him into the CHA?

[Guest guest]

Research as shown that if you cut a nerve or anaesthetize it, acupuncture points related to that nerve stop working

Alon

 

Hi Alon. Great, pass along this work so I can look at it.

 

I'll also look at the possibility that physiology will one day discover that "position" matters. When you move a cell to a different location, it differentiates to become the tissue at the new position. This works in lower animals and in the embryos of more complex animals. So why not stimulating points at "positions" to obtain effects? That research hasn't specifically been done yet either, but it looks to me personally to hold more promise than to imagine needles are specifically stimulating afferent nerves.

 

As an anatomist who as yet sees no basis in anatomy for acupuncture points and meridians, I have no problem accepting and utilizing the existence of acupuncture points and meridians. I'm prepared for the existence of points and meridians to be supported by anatomy/physiology. In the meantime, I see no point to jump to any conclusions. CM works and is a complete system. If WM did not exist, CM would still work. I accept the world where it is now.

 

If Deke Kendal is part of the CM cohort that would create a CM doctorate only on the basis of adequate existing Western physiological principles, then the falseness of such a configuration would lead to some interesting results. I can't quite imagine what they would be.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

[Guest guest]

Perhaps you could invite him into the CHA?

 

 

On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 09:56 PM, WMorris116 wrote:

 

> Deke is a friend of mine. I find it odd that we cite him and enter

> into academic debate without his input. And empty. I do wish Deke

> would enter this forum for discourse because I think his notion

> deserves entry into the 'record.' However, as we have seen there are

> many perspectives and in my opinon, it is a translational decision -

> period. That said - I like Deke speaking his mind on this, it is

> healthy. What is not healthy is definition of legal statutes based on

> a translational opinion...here I concur with Z'ev's well put opine.

>

> Will Morris

[Guest guest]

Will, thank you. I take no offense. And I agree with you. It would be wonderful if Deke could personally represent his views and intentions with regard to teaching CM and accreditation. I can very well imagine, that as Deke's friend, you would feel an emptiness for want of his presence in the discussion.

 

In gratitude,

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

WMorris116

Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:56 PM

Re: Re: Deke Kendall and to qi or not to qi

All - no reflection on you Emmanuel - writer of the quote. It is merely a hinge to enter discourse. Deke is a friend of mine. I find it odd that we cite him and enter into academic debate without his input. And empty. I do wish Deke would enter this forum for discourse because I think his notion deserves entry into the 'record.' However, as we have seen there are many perspectives and in my opinon, it is a translational decision - period. That said - I like Deke speaking his mind on this, it is healthy. What is not healthy is definition of legal statutes based on a translational opinion...here I concur with Z'ev's well put opine. Will Morris

If Deke Kendal is part of the CM cohort that would create a CM doctorate only on the basis of adequate existing Western physiological principles, then the falseness of such a configuration would lead to some interesting results. I can't quite imagine what they would be.