Digest Number 1410

[Guest guest]

Ken and all,

 

> Far be it from me to suggest any sort of

> agenda for what seems to be shaping up as

> an ideal, California meeting of what may

> be the most formless organization in this

> sector of the universe, but what sort of

> juices does anyone imagine are likely to

> flow at a COMP meeting?

 

COMP was deliberately created formless to protect the core idea that

writers and publishers should make their claims about Chinese medical

information clear and public.

 

It has been more than a decade and the only " official " COMP activity has

been to propose a set of voluntary labels to describe authors' claims of

validity so that readers would clearly know where information came from

and how it was processed and presented . COMP has had some meetings,

we have read one another some papers, and we have discussed publication

standards and their labels. There has been no attempt to use COMP to

force anything on anyone, or to label any publications as better than others.

In my opinion, the amorphous COMP membership has established its

bonifides and it is no longer necessary to remain formless because we fear

being charged with some horrid hidden agenda. Thus, if I had time to

organize an agenda, I would feel it appropriate to bring forward ideas that

we have avoided in the past.

 

First, is there any urge to be a " real " organization? People who have not

acted upon the COMP idea have had every chance to offer their own labels,

make their own statements, and some do. If a publisher or writer is not

participating, it is because they have chosen not to participate, not because

they have been denied an opportunity. Thus, if there is any urge to

formalize a membership, associate with a larger organization like the

Society for Scholarly Publishing, or to pool funds for " trade association "

types of activity, I think this can be fairly discussed.

 

Second, whether COMP is to be " real " or " virtual, " we should talk about

funding. If you come to COMP with an idea, you should also come with the

money to fund it, or at least the seed funding to look for the down-stream

finance. If we are to be less formless, we will be more expensive, form and

funding being intimately linked.

 

Finally, there are thousands of trade associations where competitive

organizations of all types pool their resources to accomplish mutual goals --

sometimes commercial, sometimes social, etc. Is this something that people

would like to do?

 

We do not need to do anything but if the people who think that COMP is a

good idea were to get together for lunch on Saturday, we could

talk about the idea, its current relevance and whether there is any urge to

do something less vague.

 

Bob

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street

Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445

617-738-4664

 

 

---

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

[Guest guest]

Bob, and those interested or involved in COMP...whatever that

might mean,

 

I took part in what I guess was the last

COMP meeting in San Diego in 2000. I can't

recall if we had an agenda, but I think

there was at least an order of speakers.

 

I'm trying to recall what we got out of

it. I know we got to hear various people's

ideas. I remember Charlotte Furth pointing

out what an absolute hole is represented

in our field by the absence of a comprehensive

review of the literature. And that struck

me as a topic that people interested in

the COMP initiative should have been

even more interested in than they seemed

to be. But as I think back, I don't remember

if that was something she said from the

rostrum or in a private conversation.

 

Lord knows the English language literature

is begging for someone to come along and

size it up. And please no one suggest that

I do it. Even at this early stage of

the field in English, the task is daunting.

Besides, I'm preoccupied now trying to

figure out what SARS is.

 

I certainly think that it's a good idea

to get everybody who has been involved

or who wants to be involved in the

development of effective English

language literature into the same room

every few years and let them yell at

each other.

 

I wish I could be there.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " wrote:

> Besides, I'm preoccupied now trying to

> figure out what SARS is. >>>

 

 

Ken:

 

Did you ever interview that doctor---and did he have any direct

knowledge of SARS and TCM treatments for it?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

I interviewed him off camera and have now

read an article that he jointly authored

with another doctor at the clinic where

he works. It's being translated as we speak

and should be available shortly.

 

As or more interesting were the comments

of Dr. Wang Ju Yi, whom I mentioned last

week who pointed out that the real problem

with describing the TCM approach to diagnosis

and treatment of SARS is that there has been

relatively little experience to date, especially

from a strictly traditional approach, i.e.,

without the adjunct use of Western medications

and therapies...or without TCM serving as

an adjunct to Western modalities.

 

He went on to say that in recent decades

doctors of traditional Chinese medicine

have had relatively little experience with

this sort of infectious disease and that

the use of the theoreticl principles in

which the literature abounds to treat

such conditions has achieved the status

of " lost art. "

 

And of course he pointed out that iterations

and interpretations of theory alone are

not really valid when it comes to summing

up the traditional Chinese medical understanding

of this...or of any disease. With all the

theory in the world one cannot gain experience

in treating SARS without actually treating it.

 

I don't know what the situation is like

in other parts of the country, but it's

hard to describe the scene in Beijing.

 

Physically, it's not hard at all. The

city is quiet as a tomb. The chaos of

what is essentially a panic attack of

long duration now becomes institutionalized.

I mention this because I suspect that it

will be some time before we can piece together

an accurate picture of the clinical realities

of SARS from a traditional Chinese medical

perspective.

 

In fact, it strikes me that it will be

some time before we can assemble a

coherent picture of what SARS really is.

According to a recent piece by Lawrence

Altman in the NY Times, there have

been relapses in 12 cases that were

released from HK hospitals as cured.

 

I've also read recently, although I

can't recall the source at the moment,

that in Toronto doctors had identified

several cases of SARS that proved to

have no " SARS virus " present in their

bodies. This, of course raises two

basic yet increasingly difficult questions.

 

What is SARS? What is the SARS virus?

 

In fact, I think the whole catastrophe

can serve to raise an even more fundamental

question that we would all do well to

contemplate for just a moment or two.

 

What is disease?

 

And it seems to me that a cascade of

questions might descend from that one.

 

What is health? How does the public

definition and understanding of health

and disease contribute to both? What

are the political ramifications of

these definitions?

 

And how vulnerable are we to the incredible

potential of a " disease " like SARS to

devastate not just human bodies but

entire human societies.

 

Beijing has indeed been dealt a devastating

blow. I don't think that the rest of

the world, i.e., those who get their

impressions of Beijing from the media

alone, can yet begin to understand the

impact of this disease. And apparently

the end is nowhere in site.

 

I see the statistics starting to take

off in Taiwan. The " relapses " in HK

raise the specter of the " control "

that has tentatively been established

in some areas slipping away.

 

At any rate, that's what I meant when

I said I am preoccupied trying to figure

out what SARS is. Apologies if my thoughts

appear disjointed. I'm afraid they simply

are. I'm hoping that my friends and

loyal opponents on this list can help

me sort through these data and come

up with some semblance of comprehension.

 

In exchange for such help I will gladly

make available any and all information

that comes my way from the TCM perspective.

 

Ken

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz> wrote:

> , " dragon90405 " wrote:

> > Besides, I'm preoccupied now trying to

> > figure out what SARS is. >>>

>

>

> Ken:

>

> Did you ever interview that doctor---and did he have any direct

> knowledge of SARS and TCM treatments for it?

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Ken -

I am curious if you can be a bit more specific about the idea of a review

of the literature. As educators we do this informally all the

time. I have done some of it on paper in an article I wrote

recently (as yet unpublished) and am looking at doing a review of the

English language versions of the Nei Jing. I'm not sure it would be

productive to do a review of the lit as a whole - I think breaking it

into smaller, more manageable sizes is more effective and more

useful. And perhaps it should be a collaborative effort because

otherwise we get into the opinion of one persion issue.

Marnae

At 11:59 PM 5/3/2003 +0000, you wrote:

Bob, and those interested

or involved in COMP...whatever that

might mean,

I took part in what I guess was the last

COMP meeting in San Diego in 2000. I can't

recall if we had an agenda, but I think

there was at least an order of speakers.

I'm trying to recall what we got out of

it. I know we got to hear various people's

ideas. I remember Charlotte Furth pointing

out what an absolute hole is represented

in our field by the absence of a comprehensive

review of the literature. And that struck

me as a topic that people interested in

the COMP initiative should have been

even more interested in than they seemed

to be. But as I think back, I don't remember

if that was something she said from the

rostrum or in a private conversation.

Lord knows the English language literature

is begging for someone to come along and

size it up. And please no one suggest that

I do it. Even at this early stage of

the field in English, the task is daunting.

Besides, I'm preoccupied now trying to

figure out what SARS is.

I certainly think that it's a good idea

to get everybody who has been involved

or who wants to be involved in the

development of effective English

language literature into the same room

every few years and let them yell at

each other.

I wish I could be there.

Ken

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Marnae,

 

, Marnae Ergil

<marnae@p...> wrote:

> Ken -

>

> I am curious if you can be a bit more specific about the idea of a

review

> of the literature.

 

Were I to do such a thing, I would start

by compiling a complete list of publications

in the subject being reviewed. I'd interview

those who have been producing the literature

and gather information that I would then use

in many ways including coming up with some

kind of organic categories that could be used

to sort the mass into manageable piles. The

COMP designations reflect a good deal of thinking

along these lines that has already been done by

several of those who have been involved in producing

English language literature on the subject

for the past couple of decades. Though I have not

really sat down and looked at this issue of

how to categorize the literature, it has been

on my mind for some time now. I remember that

when I first came to China in 1992 one of my

main objectives was to look at how to get a

handle on what I then considered the abysmal

state of the literature.

 

One of the main objectives I think such a review

of the literature could help accomplish would be

a clarification of who is saying what. I think that

the COMP designations are addressed at this question.

And I think that one big problem in the

English language literature on Chinese medicine

is that there has been considerable obfuscation

as to the status...if not the identity of

the writers of several of the foundation

texts. So the first thing that a review of

the literature might accomplish is a clear

assessment of who the writers are.

 

But even this step is frought with difficulties

and complexities. The question of people's

bona fides, for example, always initiates

spirited debates. For such a young field,

the Chinese medical profession has generated

a truly remarkable smorgasbord of post-nomial

alphabet soup. And trying to assess what

any individual means when they refer to

their experience in China, studying with

masters, teachers, at univeristies, colleges,

etc. is always a challenge.

 

I think if a road map of the literature were

to come into existence that simply presented

ways for readers/students to understand who

the writers are, where their knowledge of

the subject came/comes from, where the text

comes from, and other such fundamental matters

that we would have taken a big step towards

clarifying the field of knowledge that constitutes

the subject in the English language.

 

No doubt there are other objectives that

might be achieved through such a review.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion

that it be a collaborative effort. I think

that the burdens imposed by group decision

making might render the whole process impossible.

 

As long as the raw data is all transparent

I would rather read one individual's thoughtful

analysis rather than a committee's consensus.

 

As you can tell, I've only really thought

this through to a certain extent. But I

do continue to believe that it would be

a good idea.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

And of course he pointed out that iterationsand interpretations of theory alone arenot really valid when it comes to summingup the traditional Chinese medical understandingof this...or of any disease. With all thetheory in the world one cannot gain experiencein treating SARS without actually treating it.

>>>Finally i hear this said.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon not withstanding, I am actually surprised at this physician's

comments. SARS is not necessarily a new disease, many similar

epidemics have hit humanity and have been described both in Chinese and

Western medical literature. If the art of treating such diseases is a

'lost art', it is time to revive it and apply such theories as Wen Bing.

 

Certainly, Rey has supplied other physician's perceptions on this

epidemic, and even experiences from a Hong Kong hospital.

 

I think we need to stop sitting on our hands and challenge the

perception of 'what's the use? " , otherwise we will definitely be

marginalized.

 

 

On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 03:08 AM, dragon90405 wrote:

 

> He went on to say that in recent decades

> doctors of traditional Chinese medicine

> have had relatively little experience with

> this sort of infectious disease and that

> the use of the theoreticl principles in

> which the literature abounds to treat

> such conditions has achieved the status

> of " lost art. "

>

> And of course he pointed out that iterations

> and interpretations of theory alone are

> not really valid when it comes to summing

> up the traditional Chinese medical understanding

> of this...or of any disease. With all the

> theory in the world one cannot gain experience

> in treating SARS without actually treating it.

[Guest guest]

Alon not withstanding, I am actually surprised at this physician's comments. SARS is not necessarily a new disease, many similar epidemics have hit humanity and have been described both in Chinese and Western medical literature. If the art of treating such diseases is a 'lost art', it is time to revive it and apply such theories as Wen Bing.Certainly, Rey has supplied other physician's perceptions on this epidemic, and even experiences from a Hong Kong hospital.I think we need to stop sitting on our hands and challenge the perception of 'what's the use?", otherwise we will definitely be marginalized.<<<<<I do not disagree, but again, just because a pattern looks the same as one seen in the past, does not make clinical outcome the same or predictable. The perspective we get from MW (as part of that reality) has shown this when one studies outcomes in China and west.

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> SARS is not necessarily a new disease, many similar epidemics have

hit humanity and have been described both in Chinese and Western

medical literature. If the art of treating such diseases is a

'lost art', it is time to revive it and apply such theories as Wen

Bing. >>>

 

 

As I asked in a previous posting, it would be interesting to see

some actual numbers about the effectiveness of CM in treating those

epidemics.

 

If it was effective, why did it become a 'lost art'?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

There are wen bing case histories available. And Gaohui Liu gives many

cases in his Warm Diseases text.

 

I think it became a 'lost art' because of politics, not lack of

utility. That is my opinion.

 

 

On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 08:28 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> As I asked in a previous posting, it would be interesting to see

> some actual numbers about the effectiveness of CM in treating those

> epidemics.

>

> If it was effective, why did it become a 'lost art'?

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

As I understood Dr. Wang's point it was that

in the days before the advent of Western medicine

in China doctors using traditional methods and

medicines had to treat everything and so

accumulated extensive experience and were

able to refine their knowledge gained from

teachers and books in the light of their

own clinical challenges.

 

He simply pointed out that these days

and for the past several decades, as

China's public health sector has

modernized and patients wherever they

have access to it tend to prefer to

rely on modern medicine in favor of

old traditional ways, docotrs purveying

traditional approaches tend to

see less infectious diseases and

more of other kinds of ailments.

 

Thus, with less opportunities to

treat such illnesses, the depth

and richness of the collective

clinical knowledge base has diminished.

 

Ken

> There are wen bing case histories available. And Gaohui Liu gives

many

> cases in his Warm Diseases text.

>

> I think it became a 'lost art' because of politics, not lack of

> utility. That is my opinion.

>

>

> On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 08:28 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

>

> > As I asked in a previous posting, it would be interesting to see

> > some actual numbers about the effectiveness of CM in treating

those

> > epidemics.

> >

> > If it was effective, why did it become a 'lost art'?

> >

> >

> > Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I understand Dr. Wang's points. It is just sad that things degenerated

to this point. It is not a good example for the future our profession

in the West. We need to challenge the present model of dosing patients

with antibiotics and steroids for viral disorders, which causes further

damage to immunity. The 'non-specific', complex approach of Chinese

herbal medicine is much more suitable in my estimation for such 'moving

target' disorders.

 

In saying this, I realize we do not have TCM hospitals (in the West)

for dealing with epidemic diseases. But in China they do.

 

 

On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 01:55 AM, dragon90405 wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> As I understood Dr. Wang's point it was that

> in the days before the advent of Western medicine

> in China doctors using traditional methods and

> medicines had to treat everything and so

> accumulated extensive experience and were

> able to refine their knowledge gained from

> teachers and books in the light of their

> own clinical challenges.

>

> He simply pointed out that these days

> and for the past several decades, as

> China's public health sector has

> modernized and patients wherever they

> have access to it tend to prefer to

> rely on modern medicine in favor of

> old traditional ways, docotrs purveying

> traditional approaches tend to

> see less infectious diseases and

> more of other kinds of ailments.

>

> Thus, with less opportunities to

> treat such illnesses, the depth

> and richness of the collective

> clinical knowledge base has diminished.

>

> Ken

>> There are wen bing case histories available. And Gaohui Liu gives

> many

>> cases in his Warm Diseases text.

>>

>> I think it became a 'lost art' because of politics, not lack of

>> utility. That is my opinion.

>>

>>

>> On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 08:28 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

>>

>>> As I asked in a previous posting, it would be interesting to see

>>> some actual numbers about the effectiveness of CM in treating

> those

>>> epidemics.

>>>

>>> If it was effective, why did it become a 'lost art'?

>>>

>>>

>>> Jim Ramholz

>

>

>