Remedies used long-term with unrecognized side effects

[Guest guest]

Long term use in China of

> traditional prescriptions sets a precedent for our use, based on

> pattern differentiation. If they were harmful to people, they would

> have been eliminated. As my chemist friend Dave Weininger says,

> Chinese medicine is " a storehouse of three thousand years worth of

> clinical trials on more than a billion subjects " . I trust their

> experience.

>

>

 

Z'ev,

 

According to Robert Anderson, medical anthropologists have documented

long-term use of traditional remedies in various cultures where those

remedies have/are causing side effects unnoticed by the people within

those cultures. Dr. Anderson conveyed this information to me when I,

like you, argued as above. He told me that I was being niave. If a

culture does not expect side effects from a particular therapy, then

they may ascribe any such side effects to some other, unrelated cause.

 

In issue #8, 2003 of Xin Zhong Yi (New ), there is an

article on AA, nephrotoxicity, and Fang Ji (Han Fang Ji and Guang

Fang Ji). The article discusses four methods for preventing toxicity

from Fang Ji. It ends by stating that the safe use of herbal medicines

should be based on a sceintific foundation. This article would never

have been written and published based on traditional empirical

experience alone. It essentially took outsiders to see that there were

potential problems with Chinese meds containing AA.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Yes,

But the situation where this was discovered was a non-traditional use

of fang ji, i.e. in a combination for weight loss with prescription

drugs.

 

The resulting nephrotoxicity may have been from: 1) high dosages of

the fang ji 2) interactions of fang ji with the other medications.

 

I assume the use of fang ji in this weight loss prescription had to

be from its ability to cause loss of water through urination.

 

While I agree that this extreme situation led to new knowledge about

potential toxicity of an herbal medicinal (and I have never opposed

pharmacological studies of herbal medicinals, rather I encourage them),

neither guang fang ji or han fang ji are major medicinals in the

Chinese materia medica. So the potential for traditional abuse was

probably smaller than with other substances.

 

What you describe are simply newer methods of determining toxicity.

There are countless descriptions of toxicity of medicinals in the

Chinese medical literature.

 

 

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 03:11 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> In issue #8, 2003 of Xin Zhong Yi (New ), there is an

> article on AA, nephrotoxicity, and Fang Ji (Han Fang Ji and Guang

> Fang Ji). The article discusses four methods for preventing toxicity

> from Fang Ji. It ends by stating that the safe use of herbal medicines

> should be based on a sceintific foundation. This article would never

> have been written and published based on traditional empirical

> experience alone. It essentially took outsiders to see that there were

> potential problems with Chinese meds containing AA.

>

> Bob

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

 

> According to Robert Anderson, medical anthropologists have documented

> long-term use of traditional remedies in various cultures where those

> remedies have/are causing side effects unnoticed by the people within

> those cultures. Dr. Anderson conveyed this information to me when I,

> like you, argued as above. He told me that I was being niave. If a

> culture does not expect side effects from a particular therapy, then

> they may ascribe any such side effects to some other, unrelated cause.

 

I agree with Dr. Anderson. this is a well documented fact in medical

anthropology. And it applies to China as much as any culture, as underscored

by Simon's comments about the actual incidence of AA poisoning in the PRC. It

is not sufficient to rely on ancient texts for these safety issues. CM is not

science. It is many things, but it is not science. It still needs to stand the

test

of science and in that process, things will fall by the wayside and others will

be revealed. This is not to suggest that we scientize CM. In fact, I think the

" other things " about CM, those that derive from philosophy and literature, are

just as essential parts of medicine as science.

 

But I do not believe CM has already encompassed the wisdom of modern

science. As Bob Felt has noted in the past, many CM ideas did not not survive

due to clinical efficacy but to other cultural reasons. So lets plough ahead to

prove that CM works safely in a way that respects the roots of the medicine

before someone else does succeed in scientizing it to the politicos and moneyed

interests. To resist this essential task, without which there will be no true

and

lasting paradigm change, is to hand the keys of the city to the enemy. See

Richard Hammerschlag's article in Alt Med about acupuncture research for

more on good research that will serve these goals.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

So lets plough ahead to prove that CM works safely in a way that

respects the roots of the medicine before someone else does succeed

in scientizing it to the politicos and moneyed interests. To resist

this essential task, without which there will be no true and

lasting paradigm change, is to hand the keys of the city to the

enemy. See Richard Hammerschlag's article in Alt Med about

acupuncture research for more on good research that will serve these

goals. >>>

 

:

 

How will it be done and who will finance it?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

" The traditionalists were unwilling to listen, " he said, " and

still believed that the therapeutic use of the aristolochia species

outweighed the toxic effects. "

>>>>>>>And that can be said across the board. Unless there is a willingness to

have an open and questioning mind, this will repeat it self in questions of

toxicity as well as efficacy.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

My post was two-part, and I think you responded to the least important

part. The key point was the medical anthropologists have conlcusively

demonstrated that traditional remedies may be used for generations in

their traditional way without the people within that culture realizing

that the remedies are toxic, have side effects, etc. Rober Anderson,

who turned me onto this information is an MD, DC, and PhD in medical

anthropology. So I don't think he was shitting me.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob, Z'ev,

 

 

....The key point was the medical anthropologists have conlcusively

> demonstrated that traditional remedies may be used for generations in

> their traditional way without the people within that culture realizing

> that the remedies are toxic, have side effects, etc. Rober Anderson,

> who turned me onto this information is an MD, DC, and PhD in medical

> anthropology. So I don't think he was shitting me.

 

I don't know if anthropolgists have conclusively

demonstrated this, but it holds true for contemporary

modern developed socieites as well.

 

In fact, I think it's pretty typical human behavior.

We do what we do because that's what we

do. Prove to us that it's wrong and destructive

and we more or less just go on doing it

because that's what we do.

 

It extends far beyond medicine.

 

Habits are hard to break.

 

No shit.

 

Ken

 

PS. So we should ask ourselves what is

really going on with all this science and proof

and so on. The extent to which it is an

extension of this same principle/phenomenon

is, perhaps, greater that we may have imagined,

envisioned, and realised.

 

We just keep doing science without realizing

how extremely toxic it can be.

[Guest guest]

> How will it be done and who will finance it?

>

> Jim Ramholz

 

Because Chinese medicine is so important to the Chinese

national business plan for the next 20 years, I believe it is going to

be done, for better or worse, by the Chinese themselves. They are

going to finance this kind of study because they have so much

economically riding on their success in exporting and manufacturing

Chinese herbal medicines. This is very big business for them and they

have a special edge in a special niche market. I doubt they're going

to blow this market. As we have seen over the last 10 years, the

Chinese are quite willing to dance to the tune of GMP, FDA, and the

EU. Just look at packaging now compared to the early 80s. While the

Chinese may not move in this direction as fast as some of us would

like, they are willing to do what it takes to keep their products

selling in countries with " hard " currency.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Has Dr. Anderson published any data that I can reference?

 

 

On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 11:32 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> My post was two-part, and I think you responded to the least important

> part. The key point was the medical anthropologists have conlcusively

> demonstrated that traditional remedies may be used for generations in

> their traditional way without the people within that culture realizing

> that the remedies are toxic, have side effects, etc. Rober Anderson,

> who turned me onto this information is an MD, DC, and PhD in medical

> anthropology. So I don't think he was shitting me.

>

> Bob

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

I'm not sure. His information to me was, I believe, published in a

very old issue of the Journal of ACTCM. Or, it may have been in a

personal letter. Sorry, it was a long time ago. At the time, he was

editor of JACTCM.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Ah, yes, I know of him. I offered articles to the ACTCM journal back

in the 80's and it unfortunately went defunct while he was the editor.

A nice guy, I spoke with him on the phone a number of times.

 

I have all the journals, I'll look it up. Thanks for the reference.

 

 

On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 02:35 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> I'm not sure. His information to me was, I believe, published in a

> very old issue of the Journal of ACTCM. Or, it may have been in a

> personal letter. Sorry, it was a long time ago. At the time, he was

> editor of JACTCM.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Simon,

 

This issue has been pretty well beaten to death by as early as the summer of

2001. The beginning was in the 1980s where Chinese researchers coined the term

that the Japanese and German researchers later quoted. CHN, Chinese herbal

nephropathy was noted in Chinese literature in the 1980s and referenced in the

Japanese and German research of recent years. Only two incidents of CHN have

been documented outside of China in Belgium and in Japan's Kansaii district. In

both cases toxic versions of wei ling xiang and fan ji were used by people on

slimming diets on a daily basis for years in order to achieve any fibrotic

development on kidney tubules. I was a member of the joint committee of AHPA

and AAOM that looked in to this in early 2001. By then there was a clear

consensus that CHN is a result of self-medication and treatment by health care

providers untrained in Chinese medicine. No CHN has been reported with regard

to patients under the care of trained Chinese medical practitioners. This is

true both inside and outside of China. The view from the 1980s investigations

in China is that the aristolochia family of herbs should be limited in their use

to trained practitioners of CM and banned from the open marketplace where people

could engage in self-medication. It was agreed that these herbs should not be

removed from the Chinese pharmacopoeia and should continue to be available for

use by CM practitioners. The consensus in China, of course, differs from the

consensus of Western medical authorities.

 

There is more than enough pressure from the U.S. FDA and British and Canadian

authorities. Some balance needs to come into this scenario from the CM

community.

 

Thanks,

Emmanuel Segmen

-

Simon

Friday, October 03, 2003 5:29 AM

AW: Remedies used long-term with unrecognized

side effects

 

 

Zev,

 

I don't see how and why you want to explain away the fact that ALL

medicinals from the aristolochiacea family should not be used any longer

because they are nephrotoxic. I am also cautious when I see western

scientists screaming and running to ban medicinals because of potential (not

real-life) toxicities (as is happening in Germany). However, when it comes

to AA, many people have died from it and it is, in my book, beyond any doubt

that medicinals containing AA are toxic, regardless what traditional sources

say.

 

In cases like Ma Dou Ling, Fructus Aristolochia, etc., it is clear. In other

cases, such as with Fang Ji, it is a problem of substitution. According to

the Chinese pharmacopoeia (2000 ed.), Stephania should be used, not

Aristolochia. Hence, if a factory adheres to the Pharmacopoeia and

identifies the type of Fang Ji correctly, there is no nephrotoxicity. The

nephrotoxicity is only there if the Aristolochia species is selected. In

" Ten Lectures " it says: " only the abscence of AA and the positive

identification of of tetrandin can lead to a positive identification. "

Inspection by eye is not a safe method of differentiating the various types

used. Many granules from Taiwan are not entirely clean, although on the box

it says Stephania. I have found AA in various batches where I was assured

from the producer that only Stephania was used. If that were the case,

however, it is impossible to find AA.

 

As a profession, we don't become very credible if we negate such basic

biomedical facts as the toxicity of AA. The people who died in Belgium did

so because of Aristolochic nephrotoxicity. That other factors also played a

role (i.e., the kidneys were under a lot of stress because of the dieting

and other medications, etc.), but the toxic damage did occur because of a

Chinese herb which contained AA.

 

I would be very interested in knowing how many patients in China have died

because of AA-toxicity. Just because nobody kept track of it does not mean

that it was not happening. A famous pharmacologist from Chengdu University

who was on an herb-hike this summer with a group from Switzerland and

Germany said that he thinks this number is quite high and that

pharmacologists have identified and pointed to this problem quite a long

time ago. " The traditionalists were unwilling to listen, " he said, " and

still believed that the therapeutic use of the aristolochia species

outweighed the toxic effects. "

Simon Becker

 

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----

Von: [zrosenbe]

Gesendet: Freitag, 3. Oktober 2003 02:19

An:

Betreff: Re: Remedies used long-term with

unrecognized side effects

 

 

Yes,

But the situation where this was discovered was a non-traditional use

of fang ji, i.e. in a combination for weight loss with prescription

drugs.

 

The resulting nephrotoxicity may have been from: 1) high dosages of

the fang ji 2) interactions of fang ji with the other medications.

 

I assume the use of fang ji in this weight loss prescription had to

be from its ability to cause loss of water through urination.

 

While I agree that this extreme situation led to new knowledge about

potential toxicity of an herbal medicinal (and I have never opposed

pharmacological studies of herbal medicinals, rather I encourage them),

neither guang fang ji or han fang ji are major medicinals in the

Chinese materia medica. So the potential for traditional abuse was

probably smaller than with other substances.

 

What you describe are simply newer methods of determining toxicity.

There are countless descriptions of toxicity of medicinals in the

Chinese medical literature.

 

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 03:11 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> In issue #8, 2003 of Xin Zhong Yi (New ), there is an

> article on AA, nephrotoxicity, and Fang Ji (Han Fang Ji and Guang

> Fang Ji). The article discusses four methods for preventing toxicity

> from Fang Ji. It ends by stating that the safe use of herbal medicines

> should be based on a sceintific foundation. This article would never

> have been written and published based on traditional empirical

> experience alone. It essentially took outsiders to see that there were

> potential problems with Chinese meds containing AA.

>

> Bob

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think we should be considering more deeply the implications of the proposed

project to determine the iatrogenic potential of Chinese herbs.

 

In the West, medicines are licensed on the basis of ratio of risk to reward.

When it is found that a herb can cause damage of some sort, the worst being

death, the authorities are under considerable pressure to restrict or ban its

use. This is a complex area, and I would argue that vested interests from

various quarters may be involved in all this, but it's the reality we face.

 

If we embrace the project to determine iatrogenic effects of herbs along the

lines Alon is suggesting (and I respect his motives), if it is not accompanied

by research to determine the efficacy of herbal medicines, it is not unlikely

that we'll have herbs banned, simply because risk has been discovered, and

there's no counterbalance of evidence of benefit. But as soon as we embrace a

project to determine the efficacy of herbs, many new thorny issues emerge. Under

what paradigm should this research be done? Where will the money come from? If

herbs are shown to have efficacy, is there not a danger of pharmaceutical

interests wanting to introduce a licensing procedure that will at the very least

make herbs more expensive? Furthermore, will those herbs only be licensed for

use for the conditions for which they have been found to be effective?

 

An even greater complication is that proper research into both herb toxicity and

herb efficacy should take into account the herbs used in combination, as this

transforms their effects. To compound the problem, in professional herbal

medicine, only very rarely will a single prescription be given during the course

of treatment. Another critical issue in CM is that the formulas used must be

appropriate for a patient in the first place. If one were to give a standardised

CHM formula to patients diagnosed with Western medicine to be suffering from

gastric ulcer, 'one man's meat could be another man's poison' - a person with a

cold condition would need a warming prescription, a patient with a hot condition

would need a cooling prescription, and if you got either prescription wrong,

iatrogenesis could ensue. So, to undertake this project in a valid manner

according to the insights of CM, you would have to diagnose and treat within the

oriental paradigm. But then, as Unschuld might ask, which aspect of the

tradition would you employ?

 

In other words, as soon as one embraces a scientific approach to the problem of

iatrogenesis from CHM, a multitude of problematic issues arise. There is

considerable risk in all this that herbs will be banned or their use restricted

beyond a level that we would consider to be appropriate, there would be strong

pressure for CM to define itself in line with the type of scientific research

that was being conducted. etc. And where would the funds for all this research

come from? When a new drug is licensed, a high percentage of the development

costs (which may be in the region of $300,000,000) go into clinical trials.

 

This is a very complex area, and that if we wish Chinese medicine as we know it

to survive, an important task is for us to exert political pressure to NOT

subject CM to any type of systematic scientific investigation, or at the very

least, to preserve a high measure of autonomy for CM in the process.

 

 

 

Wainwright

----- Original Messae -----

ALON MARCUS

Friday, October 03, 2003 6:23 PM

Re: Remedies used long-term with unrecognized

side effects

 

 

" The traditionalists were unwilling to listen, " he said, " and

still believed that the therapeutic use of the aristolochia species

outweighed the toxic effects. "

>>>>>>>And that can be said across the board. Unless there is a willingness to

have an open and questioning mind, this will repeat it self in questions of

toxicity as well as efficacy.

Alon

 

[Guest guest]

I think we should be considering more deeply the implications of the proposed

project to determine the iatrogenic potential of Chinese herbs.

 

In the West, medicines are licensed on the basis of ratio of risk to reward.

When it is found that a herb can cause damage of some sort, the worst being

death, the authorities are under considerable pressure to restrict or ban its

use. This is a complex area, and I would argue that vested interests from

various quarters may be involved in all this, but it's the reality we face.

 

If we embrace the project to determine iatrogenic effects of herbs along the

lines Alon is suggesting (and I respect his motives), if it is not accompanied

by research to determine the efficacy of herbal medicines, it is not unlikely

that we'll have herbs banned, simply because risk has been discovered, and

there's no counterbalance of evidence of benefit. But as soon as we embrace a

project to determine the efficacy of herbs, many new thorny issues emerge. Under

what paradigm should this research be done? Where will the money come from? If

herbs are shown to have efficacy, is there not a danger of pharmaceutical

interests wanting to introduce a licensing procedure that will at the very least

make herbs more expensive? Furthermore, will those herbs only be licensed for

use for the conditions for which they have been found to be effective?

 

An even greater complication is that proper research into both herb toxicity and

herb efficacy should take into account the herbs used in combination, as this

transforms their effects. To compound the problem, in professional herbal

medicine, only very rarely will a single prescription be given during the course

of treatment. Another critical issue in CM is that the formulas used must be

appropriate for a patient in the first place. If one were to give a standardised

CHM formula to patients diagnosed with Western medicine to be suffering from

gastric ulcer, 'one man's meat could be another man's poison' - a person with a

cold condition would need a warming prescription, a patient with a hot condition

would need a cooling prescription, and if you got either prescription wrong,

iatrogenesis could ensue. So, to undertake this project in a valid manner

according to the insights of CM, you would have to diagnose and treat within the

oriental paradigm. But then, as Unschuld might ask, which aspect of the

tradition would you employ?

 

In other words, as soon as one embraces a scientific approach to the problem of

iatrogenesis from CHM, a multitude of problematic issues arise. There is

considerable risk in all this that herbs will be banned or their use restricted

beyond a level that we would consider to be appropriate, there would be strong

pressure for CM to define itself in line with the type of scientific research

that was being conducted. etc. And where would the funds for all this research

come from? When a new drug is licensed, a high percentage of the development

costs (which may be in the region of $300,000,000) go into clinical trials.

 

This is a very complex area, and that if we wish Chinese medicine as we know it

to survive, an important task is for us to exert political pressure to NOT

subject CM to any type of systematic scientific investigation, or at the very

least, to preserve a high measure of autonomy for CM in the process.

 

 

 

Wainwright

----- Original Messae -----

ALON MARCUS

Friday, October 03, 2003 6:23 PM

Re: Remedies used long-term with unrecognized

side effects

 

 

" The traditionalists were unwilling to listen, " he said, " and

still believed that the therapeutic use of the aristolochia species

outweighed the toxic effects. "

>>>>>>>And that can be said across the board. Unless there is a willingness to

have an open and questioning mind, this will repeat it self in questions of

toxicity as well as efficacy.

Alon

 

[Guest guest]

danger of pharmaceutical interests wanting to introduce a licensing procedure

that will at the very least make herbs more expensive?

>>>>That is a problem, are they than going to be classified as drugs?

I think we do have a challange of how to do the research in a way that does not

compromize CM. This however can be done

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

I just want to make one comment on

your stunning post.

 

I completely agree with your appraisal

of the relative value of the written

and oral traditions and transmissions.

 

The taiji classics make this clear, stating:

 

To enter the door and be shown the way

you must be orally taught

 

....as discussed earlier.

 

But lest anyone take away from this

discussion the erroneous impression

that this relative value reduces the

importance of the literary tradition

to a negligible level.

 

I think of it in terms of the same

kind of metaphor that is used in describing

the sources of " fire " in the body, i.e.,

the principal or monarch fire of the heart

and the assistant or ministerial fire of

mingmen.

 

These two traditions must both be carefully

nourished by each generation, or they

die.

 

The literary tradition provides an illusion

of permanence, but in the end demonstrates

its frailty in the same way as all of us

will, by simply turning to dust and blowing

away.

 

I've just been editing a section of One

Square Inch which mentions a list of Sui

dynasty medical scrolls consisting of

some 250 or more titles that constituted

over 4,000 scrolls...most of which have

long since disappeared, leaving only their

titles behind as evidence that someone

thought something about topics such as:

 

Peng Zhu's Classic of Preserving Nature

The Secret Formula of the Jade Chamber

The Secret Scripture of Su Nu

The Classic of Xuan Nu

The Formulas of Su Nu

Tanzi's Discussion of yin and yang

Secrets from the Jade Chamber

The Key Secrets from the Bedroom of Xu Tai Shan

 

It is respect for such traditions,

written and oral, that prompts the

concern for the integrity of information

sources. It is up to each and every

one of us to take care of these

matters, and it cannot be left

to some imagined someone else, no matter

how busy we are or what else is on

our plates.

 

There is no one else.

 

Just you.

 

And me.

 

And everyone else.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

I completely agree with your appraisal

of the relative value of the written

and oral traditions and transmissions.

>>>You can not have a modern profession (and my be its good)relaying on oral

traditions

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

Points well taken. Both oral and written traditions require constant practice

in order to remain alive. Well put.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

-

kenrose2008

Monday, October 06, 2003 4:14 PM

Re: Remedies used long-term with unrecognized

side effects

 

 

Emmanuel,

 

I just want to make one comment on

your stunning post.

 

I completely agree with your appraisal

of the relative value of the written

and oral traditions and transmissions.

 

The taiji classics make this clear, stating:

 

To enter the door and be shown the way

you must be orally taught

 

...as discussed earlier.

 

But lest anyone take away from this

discussion the erroneous impression

that this relative value reduces the

importance of the literary tradition

to a negligible level.

 

I think of it in terms of the same

kind of metaphor that is used in describing

the sources of " fire " in the body, i.e.,

the principal or monarch fire of the heart

and the assistant or ministerial fire of

mingmen.

 

These two traditions must both be carefully

nourished by each generation, or they

die.

 

The literary tradition provides an illusion

of permanence, but in the end demonstrates

its frailty in the same way as all of us

will, by simply turning to dust and blowing

away.

 

I've just been editing a section of One

Square Inch which mentions a list of Sui

dynasty medical scrolls consisting of

some 250 or more titles that constituted

over 4,000 scrolls...most of which have

long since disappeared, leaving only their

titles behind as evidence that someone

thought something about topics such as:

 

Peng Zhu's Classic of Preserving Nature

The Secret Formula of the Jade Chamber

The Secret Scripture of Su Nu

The Classic of Xuan Nu

The Formulas of Su Nu

Tanzi's Discussion of yin and yang

Secrets from the Jade Chamber

The Key Secrets from the Bedroom of Xu Tai Shan

 

It is respect for such traditions,

written and oral, that prompts the

concern for the integrity of information

sources. It is up to each and every

one of us to take care of these

matters, and it cannot be left

to some imagined someone else, no matter

how busy we are or what else is on

our plates.

 

There is no one else.

 

Just you.

 

And me.

 

And everyone else.

 

Ken

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Regarding oral vs. written traditions, Alon has said the following:

 

 

I completely agree with your appraisal

of the relative value of the written

and oral traditions and transmissions.

>>>You can not have a modern profession (and my be its good)relaying on oral

traditions

Alon

 

 

I respectfully disagree with this assertion if you are saying that there should

be a primary emphasis placed on written texts verses experience with senior

practitioners. This, to me, is a mistake that was made some time in the last

century by established " western " medicine.

 

 

If you mean by a " modern profession " , one where CM practitioners are like so

many of our western-medicine colleagues who find themselves relegated to quick

intakes followed by an informed decision about proper pharmaceutical medication,

then you might be on track....We could develop computer programs with symptom

lists, patent formulas and acupuncture points.

 

This brings us once again to the debate about " What is " . The

fundamental difference to me between the type of medical approach I describe

above and CM is the diagnostic approach. CM, no matter which school of thought

or period of time in the vastness of Asian history, never had access to modern

diagnostic technology. For that reason, diagnosis has been a subtle art that

simply cannot be written down as a series of lab tests to be assesed. Sure, one

could describe the symptoms that the patient mentions but that leaves out

" Observation, Auscultation/Olfaction (smelling & hearing)and Palpation " How can

the other three pillars of our diagnostic approach be taught without a great

deal of oral transmisssion? We all need to spend time (as much as possible)

with senior practitioners.

 

thanks,

 

Jason Robertson

 

 

 

 

Jason Robertson, L.Ac.

Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi

 

Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

 

home-86-010-8405-0531

cell- 86-010-13520155800

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

 

[Guest guest]

I respectfully disagree with this assertion if you are saying that there should

be a primary emphasis placed on written texts verses experience with senior

practitioners. This, to me, is a mistake that was made some time in the last

century by established " western " medicine

L>>>>>>I am talking about text books

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason Robertson

 

>>>>Should we then have tests? or even licenses for that matter?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Amen.

 

 

On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 08:52 PM, Jason Robertson wrote:

 

> CM, no matter which school of thought or period of time in the

> vastness of Asian history, never had access to modern diagnostic

> technology. For that reason, diagnosis has been a subtle art that

> simply cannot be written down as a series of lab tests to be assesed.

> Sure, one could describe the symptoms that the patient mentions but

> that leaves out " Observation, Auscultation/Olfaction (smelling &

> hearing)and Palpation " How can the other three pillars of our

> diagnostic approach be taught without a great deal of oral

> transmisssion? We all need to spend time (as much as possible) with

> senior practitioners.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Regarding the importance of oral transmission verses emphasis on text books:

 

Alon wrote

" Should we then have tests? or even licenses for that matter? "

 

It's a tough question of course because the obvious next question is " How do we

do it if the students are all learning orally transmitted skills that may vary

from practitioner to practitioner? "

 

The real crux of the problem is, once again, the modification of the whole

approach to learning TCM in the last century or so. In the pre-communist era,

there were many threads of practice that passed orally with no required exams

for putting up a shingle.

 

How about simplifying the problem a bit by requiring that students spend a

required amount of time with one particular practitioner before they are allowed

to sit for the license exam. This would assure that the students get a cohesive

picture of the treatment style of a single person instead of the mix of styles

that most of us experienced in our training.

 

respectfully,

Jason Robertson

 

 

 

Jason Robertson, L.Ac.

Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi

 

Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

 

home-86-010-8405-0531

cell- 86-010-13520155800

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

 

[Guest guest]

A great idea, Jason. I feel the same way. Interestingly, this idea

was proposed to the California board a few years ago, but it was killed.

 

 

On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 10:46 PM, Jason Robertson wrote:

 

> How about simplifying the problem a bit by requiring that students

> spend a required amount of time with one particular practitioner

> before they are allowed to sit for the license exam. This would

> assure that the students get a cohesive picture of the treatment style

> of a single person instead of the mix of styles that most of us

> experienced in our training.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

A great idea, but problematic. How to verify the quality of the

practitioner the student is working with? Are students really qualified to

make the choices? SHould the school make the choice? How does the

practitioner get paid? Would there be gauging of the students? Part of

the reason the idea didn't go far was the fear of the student being

defrauded by the practitioner and becoming an office employee rather than

really learning practice. In theory it is great, in practice much more

difficult. Also, I think that the proposal was that the student be with a

practitioner for quite an extended period of time - exacting a financial

hardship on the student who, once he/she graduates must begin paying off

loans etc and this type of study does not qualify for FA! Ah, living in a

modern world. Perhaps if the teacher could be convinced to feed and house

the student as was traditionally done we might get somewhere!

 

Marnae

 

At 07:31 AM 10/7/2003 -0700, you wrote:

>A great idea, Jason. I feel the same way. Interestingly, this idea

>was proposed to the California board a few years ago, but it was killed.

>

>

>On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 10:46 PM, Jason Robertson wrote:

>

> > How about simplifying the problem a bit by requiring that students

> > spend a required amount of time with one particular practitioner

> > before they are allowed to sit for the license exam. This would

> > assure that the students get a cohesive picture of the treatment style

> > of a single person instead of the mix of styles that most of us

> > experienced in our training.

>

>

>