Guest guest Posted July 10, 2003 Report Share Posted July 10, 2003 I've signed on to Chinese Herbal Medicine in hopes of finding new approaches and insights that would help my clinical practice. I have found that, plus a level of discussion about the nature/future of the profession that was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks and all who contribute for making this a worthwhile discussion. I recently (2001) graduated from Southwest Acupuncture College in Boulder, and now have my own practice in Greensboro NC. I use raw herbs, granule concentrates and patents. Heather McIver Stillpoint Acupuncture 408 1/2 State St. Greensboro, NC 27405 336-510-2029 - Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:55 AM Digest Number 1510 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. ------ There are 21 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: S-722 Rory Kerr <rorykerr 2. naturopathic law < 3. Re: S-722 Rory Kerr <rorykerr 4. Re: S-722 " " < 5. Re: S-722 " " < 6. Re: RE: Tau Sze Kon and Qi Ye Yi Zi Hua Greg Zimmerman <gregzlac2002 7. Re: Re: Muscle Testing and related esoteric diagnostic methods al stone <alstone 8. contact numbers re: s-722 < 9. Re: Naturopathic Law acugrpaz 10. Re: Herbs & /or Triple Cocktail in AIDS/HIV? " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus 11. Re: RE: Tau Sze Kon and Qi Ye Yi Zi Hua Marnae Ergil <marnae 12. Re: RE: Tau Sze Kon and Qi Ye Yi Zi Hua Greg Zimmerman <gregzlac2002 13. Re: S-722 " Jill A. Likkel MAc, LAc, DiplAc, Ch " <jlikkel 14. wenlin and translation " facteau8 " <facteau8 15. Re: Re: instant spleen qi " Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen 16. Re: instant spleen qi " " < 17. Stop the Bill S-722 " Bob Xu " <bxu21 18. Re: wenlin and translation " " < 19. Introduction Ben Zappin <benzappin 20. Re: Muscle Testing and related esoteric diagnostic methods " " < 21. Re: [pa-l] Blue Poppy Site not accessible " " < ______________________ ______________________ Message: 1 Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:09:31 -0400 Rory Kerr <rorykerr Re: S-722 At 10:42 PM -0700 7/4/03, wrote: >While in theory it might be a libertarian shame if the average joe couldn' >t get his echinacea at 7-11, the fact is that this average Joe is >typically wasting his hard earned money if he buys his supplements in a >health food store. We have nothing to lose and plenty to gain if >regulations forced people to seek the advice of us instead of some high >school working a summer job at the local co-op. Excuse my harshness, but >I was witness yesterday to the debacle of a grocery store intake, where >the 18 year old clerk asked pretty detailed questions to a customer and >then " prescribed " a slew of products. That type of " freedom " doesn't help >anyone, least of all us. -- Your anecdote addresses the issue of whether store clerks should be permitted to advise customers about health care matters, rather than the issue of whether supplements should be available. I thought that what you describe was illegal. If so, and the current laws were enforced, surely stores would not allow their employees to do what you describe, yet a customer would be free to buy products whether by prescription or as a personal choice. The individual freedom would therefore be preserved. Rory -- [This message contained attachments] ______________________ ______________________ Message: 2 Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:24:15 -0700 < naturopathic law I guess we are relieved that naturopaths will not be allowed to practice acupuncture in CA. Personally, I have always doubted the law would pass. We'll see. I support Naturopaths to have a scope as broad as they do in oregon (which does not include acupuncture, but does include all herbal substances used anywhere on the planet plus about 1500 naturally derived drugs and even minor surgery). However they should not be allowed to use the terms TCM or chinese herbal medicne to describe what they do unless they are NCCAOM or CA board certified in this area. But to disallow the use of chinese herbs altogether by naturopaths is just plain silly. there are research based uses of many chinese herbs based upon modern physiological approaches to illness. I think Naturopaths should be able to use these herbs within their own paradigm if they are fully trained (4 year schools - no mail order). I think perhaps there is an effort within certain segments of the CA acupuncture community to sabotage this law altogether. With various forces picking away at the proposed scope of practice, all that will be left is the equivalent of an HHP (the nebulous holistic health provider), a license already easily accessible to mail order naturos. the fact is that naturos are major, major competition for L.Ac.'s, wherever they are both licensed. While not doing acupuncture, naturos have many pain control methods at their disposal, including spinal manipulation. they are truly the experts at modern phytotherapy. their classroom training in western med is as extensive as MD's. their internship is longer and much more structured than ours. In CA, despite having no significant training at all in modern nutritional therapies, we are allowed to basically practice as if we are naturos. we order lab tests and routinely prescribe enzymes, homeopathics and probiotics, etc. If naturos get licensed, they could easily give us a royal payback. It would be a simple matter to demonstrate that we are unqualified to prescribe anything but chinese herbs. Even dietary therapies other than chinese food combining are being done without training. We may see our scope reduced. so people may want to think about how territiorial to get in this fight. Ethically we all know that those doing any therapy should be fully trained in that area. We have rightly fought ND's trying to do acupuncture (though I am fine with them doing dry needle neural therapy - which is distinct from acupuncture, though similar in effects). So how about it. who wants to give up prescribing enzymes. Or even better. What if in retribution, we are attacked upon our ability to practice primary care. I went to naturopathic school myself and we did 18 credits of physical exam, 8 credits of cadaver dissection, 9 of x-ray, 9 of lab testing and so on. Literally more than ten times as much as Lac's do. We wouldn't have a leg to stand on. And how much political clout would these new licensees have? Well, I bet there are about 1000 ND's who would immediately settle in the promised land of holistic medicine. California is the holy grail for ND's. Our patients down here in the south already are inclined towards many classical naturo therapies (fasting, vegetarianism, raw foods, colonics, etc.). One of the world's most knowledgeable Eclectic style herbalist lives in orange county just patiently waiting to claim his pice of the pie. I would propose a novel idea. If this holistic medicine stuff ever catches on, I bet there are more than enough californians for all of us who want ot live here. So why don't chiros, NDs and Lacs join forces in some mega organization designed to completely change healthcare as we know it instead of endless turf wars. As long as we infight between our professions, we will just be perceived as squabbling dogs who get thrown scraps of meat when the master feels merciful. I have always felt that naturos are really the best model for leading the way to an integrative 21st centruy medicine. they are the only group that is extensively trained in western med and a broad range of holistic therapies. Most are exposed to and enthusiastic about chinese medicine. They just might be our allies. So perhaps we should support their license with reasonable restrictions where they might tread on our scope and exceed their actual training. Chinese Herbs " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds " -- Albert Einstein [This message contained attachments] ______________________ ______________________ Message: 3 Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:34:23 -0400 Rory Kerr <rorykerr Re: S-722 At 10:42 PM -0700 7/4/03, wrote: >Dear Senator------------- > >I respectfully urge you to do all in your power to amend S-722 to include >an exemption for licensed acupuncturists and their suppliers. It was >introduced March 26, 2003 by Senator Richard J. Durbin. Its intent is to >overturn the main provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and >Education Act of 1994. Senators Hatch and Harkin working with Rep. Bill >Richardson won unanimous enactment of DSHEA after years of debate in >Congress. S-722 would give the FDA the potential power to remove thousands >of herbs and other dietary supplements from the marketplace. It would >only take one complaint to trigger FDA's action. S-722 would give FDA >complete discretion to make this determination regardless of whether the >product was used by consumers who completely disregarded dosage, cautions, > or warnings by the manufacturer on the label. > >While I understand there are reasonable concerns over the current >regulatory framework governing the supplement industry, licensed >acupuncturists are fully trained to prescribe over 300 herbs and other >supplements. Our safety record on this accord is impeccable. We have a >covenant with our patients. In California, we are primary care providers. >Unlike non-professional lay herbalists who cannot be sanctioned by >revocation of licenses and corporations whose sole motivation is profit, >we are professionally constrained in our behavior and there are already >legal mechanisms in place to sanction us. It would serve no public good to >include us in this law. I will support reasonable changes to DSHEA if >Licensed Acupuncturists and other qualified healthcare providers are >exempted. > >I would urge the the Senate to include language in their proposed law >similar to >that proposed for the regulation of ma huang/ephedrae in California, >adapted as follows: > > " This rule shall not apply to a licensed health care practitioner who is >practicing within his or her scope of practice and who prescribes, sells or >compounds an herbal mixture in the course of the treatment of a >patient under the direct care of the licensed health care practitioner. >Nor shall it apply to companies whose products are only dispensed from the >offices of or by prescription of licensed healthcare providers " > >Gratefully yours, =================== I like your letter but, like Marnae, I have problems with the second paragraph, first sentence. Here is an alternative to knock around: " While I understand there are reasonable concerns over the current regulatory framework governing the supplement industry, it is not reasonable to apply the same regulations, for that industry, to the professional scope of licensed practitioners of Chinese medicine. The national standard for training in our profession is a master's degree including thorough theoretical and clinical training, so that licensees are fully qualified to prescribe Chinese medicinals safely. Our safety record is impeccable... " You could also include mention of New York to add weight. Rory Rory -- [This message contained attachments] ______________________ ______________________ Message: 4 Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:34:36 -0000 " " < Re: S-722 , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote: > > > Your anecdote addresses the issue of whether store clerks should be > permitted to advise customers about health care matters, rather than > the issue of whether supplements should be available. I thought that > what you describe was illegal. of course it is, but only enforced by complaint. If so, and the current laws were > enforced, surely stores would not allow their employees to do what > you describe, yet a customer would be free to buy products whether by > prescription or as a personal choice. The individual freedom would > therefore be preserved. these laws will never be actively enforced as all practice act violations are handled by complaint. what you describe would be fine with me if manufacturers were also restricted from suggestive labeling or making bogus claims in advertising or third party literature (all currently allowed under DSHEA which is why I do support changes to the law - it is for corporate, not public benefit, as it currently stands). but if you can't enforce the practice act, the only recourse would be to remove certain supplements. Are you comfortable with the general public losing access to ephedra? I have mixed feelings, but if its my patients versus some libertarian ideal, well... On the other hand, if people want to kill themselves..... Maybe we should just label this stuff like cigarettes and buyer beware. that would actually work for me. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 5 Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:35:51 -0000 " " < Re: S-722 , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote: > > > I like your letter but, like Marnae, I have problems with the second > paragraph, first sentence. Here is an alternative to knock around: I appreciate all the comments and they are being incoporated, nothing has been mailed yet. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 6 Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Greg Zimmerman <gregzlac2002 Re: RE: Tau Sze Kon and Qi Ye Yi Zi Hua if you have Jiao Shu De's text, you can find it on page 294. Marnae Ergil <marnae wrote:At 12:49 PM 7/4/2003 -0700, you wrote: Joseph, You have a little typo in your pin yin, it's Qi Ye Yi Zhi Hua ( $B<73p0l;^(B $B2V(B ), or 'Seven Leaf One Flower'. We had this in our school pharmacy, but only used it rarely. A google search shows it to be 'Rhizona paridis root' and seems to be most often used in cancer treatments and is a bit toxic. Have no idea about the first one... looks like Wade-Giles (yuck..). It could be 'Tao Zi' something. Kon could be a typo too... gee.. ever see any typo's on Chinese packaging??? ;-) Actually - it looks like a romanization of the cantonese name for something. Can you get the characters? Marnae Hope that helps, Geoff -------- acugrpaz Re: Tau Sze Kon and Qi Ye Yi Zi Hua All, Our school pharmacy put in an order for some relatively obscure medicinals, and one of the ones we got was not what we ordered. Next week we can call the company, but I was wondering if anyone on the list had any information on what the package calls " Herba Tau Sze Kon. " It looks like wood chips. I did not do the ordering myself, and I do not know which medicinal this was substituted for. Any info would be appreciated. Also, a previous herbalist who used to work at the school (and is no longer available for comment) left behind something that the package called " Qi Ye E Zi Hua " if I remember correctly, which someone else said should be, I believe, " Qi Ye Yi Zi Hua. " All I ever found on it was that it was " Rhizoma Bistortae, " but now I am told that is not correct. I can't find any more info on this. Does anyone know anything about this medicinal, please? Thank you in advance for your attention to this. So we have at least two medicinals in our pharmacy we don't know anything about but some rather questionable Chinese names. Joseph Garner 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.