Paradigms of evidence

[Guest guest]

Chad, Emmanuel,

 

I had the great good fortune to play

a game with Bucky in the early 1970's

called Worldgame. I got to hear him

talk on several occasions, sometimes

to huge crowds at UCLA's Pauley Pavillion

and some times to a group of no more

than a dozen or so.

 

I recall that someone recently on this

list recalled him as a kind and gentle

(not those exact words) guy, but my

memories of Bucky are more like sailing

in a gale.

 

Bob Felt and I found his grave in Boston

in the dead of winter one year. His

epitaph for those who don't know and

are interested, is simply " Call me Trimtab. "

 

A trimtab is a gizmo on a rudder that's

used to make minor adjustments to its

position...if I understand correctly.

 

Bucky was a sailor, and a great deal

of his view of the world and the things

in it derives from his seafaring perspective

on phenomena. If anyone wants to get a

headfull of this stuff, I highly recommend

the book called Critical Path that he was

working on when he died.

 

I also had the privilege of studying with

Bucky's daughter Allegra at Cal Arts at

about the same time as the Worldgame evolution

was taking place. Allegra was teaching a

course in dance cultures of the world. And

together, the two of them provided me with

a set of concerns having to do with the

whole earth and the groupings of inhabitants

on it, particularly with respect to how

information successfully moves from one

group to another.

 

Synergetics, by the way, is one of the more

promising systems of mathematics that I've

ever heard of when it comes to considering

modeling jing luo. I'm hoping that someone

with more insight into all of this than I

might get stimulated enough to pick up the

thread and actually do the heavy lifting.

 

Bucky was a trip.

 

He's one of those souls of whom it can be

said that the world is a better place because

he was here.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " chadwick_m " <

chadwick_m@h...> wrote:

> While looking for Kuhn's book, Emmanuel, in the local library, I came

> upon this instead. Enjoy

>

 

try this for starters

 

http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhn.html

 

[Guest guest]

Here's the real take home lesson, Alon, that I'm trying to comment on. When Merck did this research, did WM communicate with CM at all? The answer is no. Not at all. Can you, Alon, nevertheless use this information and get positive results in treating your patients? Yes. I just suggest to you to keep a wary eye that this sort of thing does not advance CM. Unless I'm mistaken, you are credentialed as an L.Ac. That is the correct credential in this country for practicing CM. You can embrace WM all you want, but I suspect your fortune lies with the advancement of CM. Are you following my drift here, Alon? This is actually more than just a philosophical issue. It's an issue of identity and credibility. Please read Thomas Kuhn's book.

 

>>>I have read the book. I however see clinical truth as truth that can be looked at, and believe there are methods and realities (that can be communicated) and that cross all paradigms. It is this that we must embrace even if CM has not done so in the past. I can not ignore what I see as clinical realities both here in the US and what I have seen in China. I therefore believe that the incorporation of some of the scientific method is NEEDED to advance CM beyond its limitations. That is not saying that we need to abandon any of CM principles or methods. I for one prefer to use the WM disease categories because I see them as much more defined, understood as to their natural history. Therefore their outcome is easier to study. Also, like it or not, the future of CM in china and the west is going to be about how CM tools do at treating WM diseases. I think we often fall into linguistics and lingo ignoring what is clear if looked at symptoms and signs only. As all other descriptions are just models of thought. The more the signs are "objectively" accessible the more we have in common to study and speak about. It does not meter which language we choose to do this in.

Alon

 

[Guest guest]

Michael McGuffin warned us at AHPA meetings that the FDA was going to come up with a standard practice model for CM. It's on their agenda and may take several years to put together. Check with him about it. If some academic or professional network puts together a written paradigm, the FDA may adopt it in part or in whole. If you make the CM paradigm based on Western science principles, my sons will not have what I have in 2003 regarding CM treatment in the U.S. Small actions taken over time have profoundly big consequences. Watch your back.

>>>That really scares me. All we need is treatment algorithms for CM to totally sniffle it

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

>

> >>>I have read the book. I however see clinical truth as truth

that can be looked at, and believe there are methods and realities

(that can be communicated) and that cross all paradigms.

 

Doesn't this suggest that these methods and

realities constitute some sort of uber-paradigm

that in crossing all the others, transcends

and thus encompasses them? I don't think this

is a descent into language or, horrors, logic.

You seem to be asserting the existence of some

sort of absolute reality here by which, somehow,

all paradigms can be analyzed and evaluated,

measured and found either adequate or inadequate.

 

???

 

This is just an observation of the fact

that in your statement there is contained a

postulate that puts the methods and realities,

whatever they might be, in a class or...pardon

the word...paradigm of their own.

 

It is this that we must embrace even if CM has not done so in the

past.

 

Of course there was no opportunity for CM

to embrace the methods and realities of

the contemporary world in the past. They

didn't exist in the past. It is a curious

aspect of Chinese medicine, however, that

it has willingly and more or less effectively

embraced many alien, i.e.,non-Chinese, methods

and realities over the centuries.

 

If you believe in the lessons of history,

then a forward extrapolation of historical

trends suggests that it is far more likely

that the methods and realities of Chinese

medicine can and will embrace and subsume

those more recent methods and realities

that arose in the West as a consequence of

a whole complex series of events known

lovingly as the history of science.

 

Sorry, it's just not that easy to shake

the existence of cultural boundaries and

blinders and pre-set values. What you seem

to be saying is that Western medicine can

and will measure and thus contain Chinese

medicine...and that certainly may or may

not be true. Truth be told I am no more

of a prophet than you or anyone, so I just

plain don't know what is going to happen.

 

But we are talking about evidence, and evidence

implicitly belongs to the past and is therefore

a subset of history.

 

I can not ignore what I see as clinical realities both here in the

US and what I have seen in China.

 

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that

you or anyone ignore clinical realities no

matter where they occur. I think the whole

point of developing a clearer and more

accurate understanding of the context of

the origins of Chinese medicine is predicated

on the assumption that such a clearer understanding

would allow those who possess it to see clinical

realities all the more clearly.

 

Certainly that point of view is easier to argue

and accept than its opposite, which would hold,

I guess that the less one knew about such things

the more reliable their clinical perceptions would

be. And that really just seems a little far fetched.

 

I therefore believe that the incorporation of some of the

scientific method is NEEDED to advance CM beyond its limitations.

 

Truly one of the great strengths of the USA

is that anyone is entitled to believe whatever

they please. But no matter how stridently we

believe what we believe, it remains strictly

our belief. This is not to say that some sort

of symbiosis between the two systems, groups

or whatever the heck it is we think we're comparing,

is not probably likely to take place. Again,

your guess is as good...or as bad as mine,

probably with about as much consistency as

the toss of a coin.

 

That is not saying that we need to abandon any of CM principles or

methods.

 

But it very much is saying that we define

them as valid or invalid depending on how

they measure up to whatever methods and

realities you have in mind.

 

I for one prefer to use the WM disease categories because I see

them as much more defined, understood as to their natural history.

Therefore their outcome is easier to study.

 

This may well also reflect a lesser degree of,

if not familiarity then certainly affinity on

your part for whatever it is that you see as corresponding

to " WM disease categories " in Chinese medicine.

 

Also, like it or not, the future of CM in china and the west is

going to be about how CM tools do at treating WM diseases.

 

Well, one more time, your crystal ball may

be more reliable than everyone else's; but

the world really is a big and complicated

place, and what you seem to be reflecting

here is the depth of your investment in a

certain way of thinking and looking at certain

methods and clinical realities. I just point

this out in order to try and keep the discussion

on an even keel.

 

After all, if you really could tell us how

everything is going to turn out, then we'd

be much better off spending our time talking

about something else.

 

I think we often fall into linguistics and lingo ignoring what is

clear if looked at symptoms and signs only. As all other

descriptions are just models of thought. The more the signs

are " objectively " accessible the more we have in common to study and

speak about. It does not meter which language we choose to do this

in.

> Alon

 

Well, there you go. Seems like a self-fulfilling

prophecy to me. I really am lost in the distinction

you are trying to make between " objective " methods

and realities and all other descriptions, which

are apparently just models of thought.

 

What are the objective methods and realities

if not models of thought? Are they eternal

truths? Do they come from beyond language

and the other vagaries of human existence?

 

I'm really lost.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Alon,

> >>>>>>>The absolute reality will be defined in each study. And can

be changed from study to study as long as one does not allow for

poor objectivity to rule.

 

OK. Somewhat changes the definition

of absolute but I think I get what

you're saying. It seems that you

put a great deal of stock in " objectivity, "

whatever that turns out to be.

 

 

>

> But it very much is saying that we define

> them as valid or invalid depending on how

> they measure up to whatever methods and

> realities you have in mind.

> >>>>Will not argue this. The feel good everything is ok and true

is not part of what i think is needed in medical sciences.

 

This raises a couple of knotty problems.

First, as you recently noted yourself,

all we need is for some outfit like the FDA

to come up with the algorithms for the practice

of Chinese medicine and then where will we

stand?

 

Second, if these methods and realities of

yours already exist, why haven't they been

applied to simply sort everything out and

put everyone on notice as to what " objective "

and true and valid and real and so on?

 

What, by the way, exactly are these methods

and realities to which you are referring?

>

> What are the objective methods and realities

> if not models of thought? Are they eternal

> truths? Do they come from beyond language

> and the other vagaries of human existence

> >>>>Well as long as we can agree that the sky is blue i will leave

this at that. If we cant than there is nothing to talk about

 

Hmmm...well, apart from the fact that the

sky is grey this morning, we can certainly

agree that the sky is blue...when it is

blue, that is.

 

Can we also agree that the fact that the

sky is blue does not really have much

impact on the design of clinical trials?

 

If the rigors of science could be satisfied

with agreeing that the sky is blue, then

why all the fuss about all the other details?

 

Do you actually have/know methods and realities

that will allow you to evaluate and thereby

know the objective truth about clinical

outcomes? Or do you simply hope and believe

that you...or anyone might somehow come into

possession of such methods and realities?

 

If you have them, please share them with us.

 

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Alon,

> >>>>>These circular arguments can go on forever

>

 

OK. But you'll have to take it from

here without me.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " Emmanuel Segmen " wrote:

> A week or two ago I had posted quotes from the current U.S.

Surgeon General and the Direct of the CDC in Atlanta. They both

indicated that diet and lack of physical activity leading to obesity

(or general insulin resistance) was the number one American health

problem ... not emerging infectious diseases such as SARS. >>>

 

 

 

Emmanuel:

 

You were right about diet. A Denver newspaper had an article this

morning attributing the avoidence of SARS in South Korea to spicey

kinchi.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Dear Yehuda,

 

Sorry for being so far behind in my reading.

 

Yes, your presentation approximates closely my position regarding WM and CM interactions. Z'ev also has pointed out that when discussing CM it's best to use CM terminology so that you get the results that CM was designed for. Doing WM with CM tools or doing CM with WM tools does not make much sense to me. However, CM and WM can "inspire" each other to move forward in their own area of activity. And, of course, patients can receive treatment from both WM and CM.

 

Even as we write and speak people are indeed attempting to do WM with CM tools and CM with WM tools. While this is a brave and intrepid experiment, I believe such people are kind of on their own and must invent their own principles of progress. For that matter, what is a formula with American, European or African herbs mixed in. I have no objection to this, as Michael Tierra has bravely coined a new herbal science called Planetary Formulas. I applaud him and his cohorts. However, I would not advise people to look for CM results from Michael's medicinal inventions. I want to further point out that the practice of medicine is an "art", in my opinion. Like any mature artist you will need to develop your own "style". As a former and ongoing member of the local art community, I recognize and admire sincere practice and the maturing development of one's personal style. It may be difficult to develop your style if you keep jumping from one practice to another though you may become somewhat of a good generalist. We only have a few years of life on this earth to develop our expertise in something in a reliable and competent manner. I would further note that I am clear not to confuse personal style with the principles of the broader science or paradigms from which that personal style arises. A thousand people may practice WM and CM simultaneously, yet a broader or new paradigm may not necessarily result from so many individual practices. It takes generations of teachers and students to develop general principles of even as brief a thing as Western science.

 

Thanks, Yehuda.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

yehuda l frischman

Thursday, July 24, 2003 11:25 PM

Re: Paradigms of evidence

Hi Emanuel,I was just thinking: how, from a TCM perspective, can you do double blindstudies to compare the results, unless your are dealing with patientsthat have the same tongue and pulse readings and the same differentialdiagnosis? Otherwise, even if the patients had precisely the samediagnosis, how could you possibly compare results because the treatmentprotocols would be completely different. It would be like comparingapples and oranges (even though both are fruit, and both are cool, sweetand sour, they nonetheless are quite different). I think that I remember Ted Kapchuk making the point that each systemis its own science with its own laws, but that the methods andproperties of one can't be applied to another.Besides, can you ever imagine reading in JAMA an article entitled:"Results of double-blind study of Liver-fire derived hypertension of 200patients in the 30 to 40 age group, treated with acupuncture?" Maybesomeday, but far in the future. Sincerely,Yehuda______________The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!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]

Dear Yahuda, Z'ev, Ken, Kindred Spirits, and Esteemed Colleagues,

 

I also wish to refer a rather obvious example of what some few of us (or maybe just me) at least seem to be talking about regarding honoring WM and CM in their own realms.

 

It has to do with bilingualism. I can't claim fluency in more than English though at times I've had to speak exclusively German, Spanish or Chinese ... in really dire circumstances. Those who spoke with me at those times were mostly far more than kind, if also somewhat amused and occasionally frustrated. Many close friends, however, wish for their children to speak "standard" Chinese as well as "native" English. They make these special distinctions, not me. My wife falls in to this category if you consider viewing me as a child in her language class. We are kind of student's in each other's language classes, but she's so way ahead of me. We drill each other quite a bit, yet I lack a standard Chinese pronunciation ... despite having said the simplest expressions regularly for lo these last 13 years. Her expressions are endlessly charming but not "native" in expression. One thing that we are careful about is understanding the unique intent and qualities of each language. Languages have idioms and special expressions that we are each fond of using. We are both sufficiently familiar with Western science and the language of Chinese medicine that we also do not mix up even slightly the intent and qualities of each. They are each realms as distinct as North America and Asia. We are familiar with each, and we know when we are in each place.

 

Because I give lectures every week in Western science for as long as four hours, there is a part of me that would like to break out in some other language ... any language ... poetry, Hopi singing meditation, Sufi wazifas, any thing. Actually my students encourage me to do so. The separation is abundantly clear, however, when we embrace the curriculum and when we take a look at some feature of basic science or life outside of the curriculum. Part of science itself in the West is understanding the premises of what you are testing, looking for, of where you've been, and of where you're going. It's fun to take a break and jump the ocean to have a look at Chinese medicine and taoist thought. It's informative to be guided as one looks at one's own science to "look over there" ... oh, yeah, there's quite a special connection between human gonads, adrenal cortices and kidneys ... between kidney's and thyroid hormone ... between aerobic fitness and liver fitness as well as endometrial health. How interesting. Thanks, CM, for the tip. Glad we looked.

 

But for the Western science part of my mind to use the concepts of wei qi and zheng qi as anything but inspiration is to miss the point of seeing things for what they are. I don't presume to provide anyone with numbers regarding the encounter between CM and WM. As yet, I don't know why the HPLC fingerprint between bu zhong yi qi tang all cooked together is different from bu zhong yi qi tang made from combining separately cooked herbs. I've looked at it on a boring day in Taichung in the chemistry lab. You get different peaks ... lots of them. Each one is a different formula. So? So what. All of the molecular peaks have not been characterized. No experiments have been done to see if new molecules are formed by the combined cooking and why. Obviously new molecules are either formed or released. Maybe one herb's molecules provides solubility for the molecules of another herb. Who knows? In molecular biology labs at UCSF and SF State we called it "blue sky". Every hear of that English idiom of Western science? If you had a computer and a complexity theory to figure it out, which one thousand little lab drones will carry out the millions of hours of lab work to verify the computer output. After all that's what has to be done. Will it ever be done? Who knows. Probably not in our lifetimes.

 

In gratitude for (and in apology to) those who actually read this far.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

Merritt College, Asia Natural

 

-

Emmanuel Segmen

Monday, August 04, 2003 3:34 PM

Re: Paradigms of evidence

 

Dear Yehuda,

 

Sorry for being so far behind in my reading.

 

Yes, your presentation approximates closely my position regarding WM and CM interactions. Z'ev also has pointed out that when discussing CM it's best to use CM terminology so that you get the results that CM was designed for. Doing WM with CM tools or doing CM with WM tools does not make much sense to me. However, CM and WM can "inspire" each other to move forward in their own area of activity. And, of course, patients can receive treatment from both WM and CM.

 

Even as we write and speak people are indeed attempting to do WM with CM tools and CM with WM tools. While this is a brave and intrepid experiment, I believe such people are kind of on their own and must invent their own principles of progress. For that matter, what is a formula with American, European or African herbs mixed in. I have no objection to this, as Michael Tierra has bravely coined a new herbal science called Planetary Formulas. I applaud him and his cohorts. However, I would not advise people to look for CM results from Michael's medicinal inventions. I want to further point out that the practice of medicine is an "art", in my opinion. Like any mature artist you will need to develop your own "style". As a former and ongoing member of the local art community, I recognize and admire sincere practice and the maturing development of one's personal style. It may be difficult to develop your style if you keep jumping from one practice to another though you may become somewhat of a good generalist. We only have a few years of life on this earth to develop our expertise in something in a reliable and competent manner. I would further note that I am clear not to confuse personal style with the principles of the broader science or paradigms from which that personal style arises. A thousand people may practice WM and CM simultaneously, yet a broader or new paradigm may not necessarily result from so many individual practices. It takes generations of teachers and students to develop general principles of even as brief a thing as Western science.

 

Thanks, Yehuda.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

yehuda l frischman

Thursday, July 24, 2003 11:25 PM

Re: Paradigms of evidence

Hi Emanuel,I was just thinking: how, from a TCM perspective, can you do double blindstudies to compare the results, unless your are dealing with patientsthat have the same tongue and pulse readings and the same differentialdiagnosis? Otherwise, even if the patients had precisely the samediagnosis, how could you possibly compare results because the treatmentprotocols would be completely different. It would be like comparingapples and oranges (even though both are fruit, and both are cool, sweetand sour, they nonetheless are quite different). I think that I remember Ted Kapchuk making the point that each systemis its own science with its own laws, but that the methods andproperties of one can't be applied to another.Besides, can you ever imagine reading in JAMA an article entitled:"Results of double-blind study of Liver-fire derived hypertension of 200patients in the 30 to 40 age group, treated with acupuncture?" Maybesomeday, but far in the future. Sincerely,Yehuda

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

[...]

 

If you had a computer and a complexity theory to figure it out,

which one thousand little lab drones will carry out the millions of

hours of lab work to verify the computer output. After all that's

what has to be done. Will it ever be done? Who knows. Probably

not in our lifetimes.

>

> In gratitude for (and in apology to) those who actually read this

far.

 

As you can see, I made it this far.

Apology accepted. Gratitude repaid.

 

Will it ever be done? Probably not

in our lifetimes?

 

Makes me think of my grandfather.

When he was a boy...he was born in

1888, there were no telephones,

radios, airplanes, computers, 7-elevens,

CHA, neutrinos, or just about anything

else that constitutes the daily

reality of many earth people these

days.

 

If you chart the various changes that

have taken place since that old guy

was stalking the high seas, you find

that one of the fastest changing graphs

is the one that maps the rate of change.

 

With all that in mind (whatever that is)

I'd hazard a guess and suggest that it

will almost certainly be done in our

lifetimes, if it is not entirely subsumed

in some sort of quantum leap or other

that finds us catapaulting right past

such a level of investigation and finding

ourselves...

 

....well where we might actually find ourselves

remains, as always, a great mystery...

maybe the great mystery or Great Mystery

or even GREAT MYSTERY...which is why

I remained more or less unconcerned with

it and about it.

 

It is a mystery, and that is all it needs

to be. It is a mystery when we start our

investigations; and it is a mystery when

we cease our investigations. Nor does

anything that we discover have any slightest

hope or expectation of ever changing its

status.

 

One of the curious characteristics of the

Chinese medical paradigm...based as it is

on the Chinese thinking paradigm...is the

way in which this mystery is woven into

the whole fabric of thought. This is one

of the key ways in which the epistemology

contained in various Daoist texts has,

I believe, profoundly influenced the

history and development of Chinese medicine.

 

What is a mystery?

 

What is the relationship between the known

and the unknown?

 

How does what we do not know about, say

the chemical composition of various batches

of formuale, cooked in different ways on

different days in different places by different

people for different reasons, relate to what

we do know about it?

 

I've often raised the question here about

the nature of theory in Chinese medicine

compared with the nature of theory in

Western medicine and Western science in

particular. I know that Jason Robertson

has prepared something about this, because

he and I were talking about it over tea

just the other day.

 

Jason, can you post that bit?

 

I think it's very important when we talk

about the guidance potential of Chinese medicine

with respect to the design and orientation

of research in various fields of Western

medical...and even non-medical science,

that we engage in a process of carefully

clarifying our terms.

 

I noticed a post from Will just now in

which he is discussing the adoption of

one person's work as the basis of scientific

standardization related to Chinese medicine.

 

Now why in the world would any regulatory

or policy making body resort to such a

course of action?

 

There's only one reason: scarcity of

available sources.

 

Why is there a scarcity of available

sources?

 

I think all of these questions need to

be carefully examined. And for those who

have that sickening, Oh no not again

feeling in the pits of their stomachs,

I assure you, we have not yet begun

the real discussion.

 

Now will that happen in our lifetimes?

 

Here it's not a matter of technological

development but merely of the emergence

of a group will to do so.

 

Will we?

 

or won't we?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " kenrose2008 " wrote:

> Now why in the world would any regulatory

> or policy making body resort to such a

> course of action?

>

> There's only one reason: scarcity of

> available sources. >>>

 

 

Ken:

 

You oversimplify. There isn't only one reason, and there isn't a

real scarcity of resources.

 

Very few practitioners are even able to keep up with the translated

material even when they want to; much less learn how to translate

Chinese material (or Korean and Japanese authors and commentators,

who you conspicuously leave out). And, besides, that untranslated

material is always indirectly available through the living Asian

practitioners at nearly every school---all you have to do is ask

them, because they have full access. For example, my own teacher's

early commentaries on the Suwen, Ling Shu, pulses, and other

untranslated Chinese (and Korean) texts are recorded on nearly 200

90-minute audio tapes from our basic classes. I'm sure that just

scratches the surface, and many others probably had even more early

exposure than this.

 

This collision of sensibilities we are facing isn't just another

problem that can simply be resolved by recourse to standardized

translation terms or more examples of spleen vacuity, it's in a

political and social dilemma for CM in this country. Who will

control it and dictate its future? All accreditation agencies now

seem to be putting their money on the biomedical horse.

 

But, that's just my opinion; I may be wrong.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

> Tue, 05 Aug 2003 07:45:03 Jim Ramholz wrote:

> political and social dilemma for CM in this country. Who will

> control it and dictate its future? All accreditation agencies now

> seem to be putting their money on the biomedical horse.

>

 

and that horse is ridden jointly by pharmaceutical and insurance

companies through a field of consumers who are unaware of different

horses standing by and us waiting to ride....

 

At the CSOMA conference this weekend, a panel discussion on legislative

issues clarified the Ephedra situation: at some point during the battle

it became irrelevant whether or not we retain the legal right to

prescribe Ma Huang; insurance companies will not back the product or

will charge exorbitant rates no one can afford, including our

suppliers. Even if we retain the legal right, we may have already lost

our consumer right. In a situation like this, is it productive to yell

at the biomedical horse and its riders? Is it ok to stand in our

stables, continuously refitting our boots and saddles? Or does our hope

for enduring change rest in educating the crowd through which these

horses ride, those consumers who might call out for different riders or,

at least, better competition and a more populated track.

 

--Laurie Burton

[Guest guest]

As yet, I don't know why the HPLC fingerprint between bu zhong yi qi tang all cooked together is different from bu zhong yi qi tang made from combining separately cooked herbs. I've looked at it on a boring day in Taichung in the chemistry lab. You get different peaks ... lots of them. Each one is a different formula.

>>>>Emmanuel

Did you use powders do do this? if yes did you allow the powdered ingredients to sock together in hot h2o

ALon

[Guest guest]

As yet, I don't know why the HPLC fingerprint between bu zhong yi qi tang all cooked together is different from bu zhong yi qi tang made from combining separately cooked herbs. I've looked at it on a boring day in Taichung in the chemistry lab. You get different peaks ... lots of them. Each one is a different formula.

>>>>Also where these herbs of the same batch?

Alon

[Guest guest]

Right. You can only test solutions at equilibrium.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

Alon Marcus

Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:52 AM

Re: Paradigms of evidence

 

As yet, I don't know why the HPLC fingerprint between bu zhong yi qi tang all cooked together is different from bu zhong yi qi tang made from combining separately cooked herbs. I've looked at it on a boring day in Taichung in the chemistry lab. You get different peaks ... lots of them. Each one is a different formula.

>>>>Emmanuel

Did you use powders do do this? if yes did you allow the powdered ingredients to sock together in hot h2o

ALonChinese 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]

Z'ev,

just to clarify: I believe the " insurance " in question is product

liability and malpractice insurance, not the patient's personal

insurance plan.

 

Laurie Burton

 

Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:15:53 -0700 " " wrote:

 

>All the more support for the argument for cash practice.

 

 

 

On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 07:24 AM, Laurie wrote:

 

> At the CSOMA conference this weekend, a panel discussion on

legislative

> issues clarified the Ephedra situation: at some point during the

> battle

> it became irrelevant whether or not we retain the legal right to

> prescribe Ma Huang; insurance companies will not back the product or

> will charge exorbitant rates no one can afford, including our

> suppliers.

[Guest guest]

, Laurie <tgperez@e...> wrote:

 

it became irrelevant whether or not we retain the legal right to

> prescribe Ma Huang; insurance companies will not back the product or

> will charge exorbitant rates no one can afford, including our

> suppliers.

 

CSOMA's war cry might be a little shrill here. I can see this affecting product

liability insurance, but malpractice carriers tell me that they adjust rates

based upon an analysis of actual incidents. Since there are no ephedrae

incidents in the profession of which I am aware, the rate is zero. Has anyone

actually heard from their carrier that ma huang has been deleted from their

policy coverage? And is it really legal to not cover the use of ma huang in the

absence of any incidents? Could a malpractice carrier not cover the use of a

drug because of its dangers even if was FDA approved and highly touted for its

effects. In a competitive environmewnt like the USA, I wouldn't be surprised

if some smalltime insurer sees an opportunity, actually investigates the matter

and sees there is nothing to worry about. Then he undercuts the big guys and

we are back in business. Who knows how it will go? Perhaps an amusing

irony for the raw herb enthusiasts among us is that ma huang is easy to grow.

If you grow it and you use it safely, then no one will be the wiser. :-)

 

[Guest guest]

, " Emmanuel Segmen " <

susegmen@i...> wrote:

 

mostly I sense it's CM that will inspire WM.

 

me too.

 

[Guest guest]

Alon, Emmanuel,

 

> Since I like the concepts of testing theories to look for

reproducibility I at this point of my development I prefer to see CM

go through such processes.I want to see more centers reproducing

clinical studies to see if they get the same results etc.

>

> Alon

 

This raises several questions.

 

If you look at what Jason R. posted

the other day and take into consideration

differences between " theories " in Chinese

medicine and Western science, then how

does that effect the whole notion of

" testing theories " . What are we testing

a theory for that doesn't make any slightest

claim to provide any sort of statistical

result?

 

How do we compare the notion of " reproducing

clinical studies " to the Chinese medical

" theories " that hold that clinical success

obtains from " different patient, different

place, different time: different treatment " .

 

Do we repeat these words like a mantra

and then go ahead and set up studies based

on statistical inference, ignoring the

absence of statistical inference in the

very heart of the clinical approach of

Chinese medicine?

 

Do we just close our eyes and grit our

teeth and tell ourselves over and over

that reality can be measured, reality

can be measured, reality can be measured?

 

And hope that everything will come out

all right?

 

I can't say I'm not trying to have a little

fun with this. It would be great if this

could be fun.

 

But I am actually trying to get to a

better understanding of it.

 

Who knows? Maybe if we keep laughing about

it, it will all clear up.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " " <@i...>

wrote:

> , " Emmanuel Segmen " <

> susegmen@i...> wrote:

>

> mostly I sense it's CM that will inspire WM.

>

> me too.

>

 

 

E & T,

 

I actually don't see this.. Has CM influenced WM in any `real' way

yet? (Besides on some individual levels)? Yes WM has in the last few

years become more & more holistic, but I don't believe this has

anything to do with CM. I just can't think of anyway that WM has

really embraced CM concepts, nor do I see why they would... Which

ideas do think WM will start to incorporate in the near future? 5

element, meridians, 6 division, the clock, zang-fu? just curious?

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great, but they have a very

strong moving machine, and I actually doubt that the researchers and

masterminds behind it even know we exist. Look at how much

resistance Andrew Weil gets from WM, and he is still talking WM...

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

> , " "

<@i...>

> wrote:

> > , " Emmanuel Segmen " <

> > susegmen@i...> wrote:

> >

> > mostly I sense it's CM that will inspire WM.

> >

> > me too.

> >

>

>

> E & T,

>

> I actually don't see this.. Has CM influenced WM in any `real' way

> yet? (Besides on some individual levels)? Yes WM has in the last

few

> years become more & more holistic, but I don't believe this has

> anything to do with CM. I just can't think of anyway that WM has

> really embraced CM concepts, nor do I see why they would

 

Furhtermore, at the risk of being a bore, if the relativist version

of Kuhn's paradigms theory of scientific change holds then rational

argumments , clinical results etc have little persuasion.

 

Simon

[Guest guest]

Jason:

> I actually don't see this.. Has CM influenced WM in any `real' way

> yet? (Besides on some individual levels)? Yes WM has in the last

few

> years become more & more holistic, but I don't believe this has

> anything to do with CM. I just can't think of anyway that WM has

> really embraced CM concepts, nor do I see why they would... Which

> ideas do think WM will start to incorporate in the near future?

 

I would settle for an equal position alongside WM and let the patient

(or the enlightened WM practitioner with consent of the patient) make

the choice for CM.

 

The most important thing IMO is to get exposure of the results and

methods of CM to the general public through popular media and not

through academic journals perse. The power of the people is the

greatest force that can influence the politics and policy makers.

Insurance companies and politicians will eventually follow the will

of the people.

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Yes WM has in the last few

> years become more & more holistic, but I don't believe this has

> anything to do with CM.

> >>>>Is osteopathy part of WM. It is just as holistic as CM?, Is

functional medicine part of WM?, is naturaphay part of WM?

>

> Alon

 

Alon,

 

Well I consider these alternative WM - definitly not the mainstream,

nor what is dictating research, insurance companies policies,

hospital treatments etc.. (I am unsure of your point)... furthermore,

I don't see how through these CM has or will change WM.

 

-

[Guest guest]

, yehuda l frischman wrote:

The root of the differences is so fundimental, that I feel that we

are doing ourselves a disservice by equating our medicine with

theirs. >>>

 

 

Yehuda:

 

While that is true, often in the media we are lumped together with

them as CAM. So, politically and economically, we have to think one

way; ideologically, another.

 

 

Jim Ramholz