Guest guest Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 >>>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.>>> Dear Ken, I think that one of the problematic issues with the written tradition is what is left out. For example, if one looks at Deadman's and Al Khafaji's acupuncture points book (and I've discussed this matter with Peter Deadman), one will often discover quite symptomatic indications for acupuncture points. As we know, or at least I assume it to be the general case throughout CM history, acupuncture points do not be tend to be used in isolation, as also applies to herbs. As with herbal medicine, there is a dynamic involved in acupuncture point combination, that implies the existence of higher level theory that extends beyond the purely symptomatic use of an acupuncture point. Yet we may not know, through the extant literature, what that higher level theory was, and only, or predominantly, be left with symptomatic indications. It is this higher level of theory and approach towards healing that I presume was imparted at the personal level – the oral tradition aspect of transmission, and without it, one must question whether practical treatment is possible from utilising textual knowledge alone. I would be grateful for your comments and thoughts about this issue. Wainwright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 , " wainwrightchurchill " <w.churchill_1-@t...> wrote: > > It is this higher level of theory and approach towards healing that I > presume was imparted at the personal level & #8211; the oral tradition aspect > of transmission, and without it, one must question whether practical > treatment is possible from utilising textual knowledge alone. > > I would be grateful for your comments and thoughts about this issue. > > Wainwright Well to play devil's advocate to this debate let me say a few things: First I don¡¦t think anyone would ever support a textbook approach alone, except some mail-order program. & #61514; I was trained in the modern (PCOM) school environment and with a very textbook approach. Although I look for senior support in furthering my knowledge, I am very happy with this path. For example, I get good results, sometimes GREAT results, from practicing this 'textbook' method. I see huge advantage to this method. I.e. I can take elements from SHL, wenbing, 5 element or whatever, I like this... If I just studied with 1 person, I believe I would find limitations much quicker. Boly would have to study with them much longer to get to the level that I am at now. One of my respected Chinese teachers use to say, " I am much better doctor that Zhang ji. " and his point is just that. He can take zhang ji's info + everyone other doctor¡¦s material since then. Maybe an oral tradition is superior to what was offered in this country 15 years ago, but I would hardly say now, especially if one reads Chinese. I ask, what am I missing? if I can get people better it seems like textbook system works, period. Furthermore, I don¡¦t think anyone just learns CM from books, there are teachers all along the way, that is a great balance. Case studies are a huge part of this process, and I think that is precisely why ancient doctors started doing it as well as writing as much as they did. They knew the value of the written tradition and accessing it can give great insight. I really don¡¦t know why there is so much negativity towards ¡¥TCM¡¦ & #8211; If it lends to results who cares= ¡K - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 Jason - I second your statement about case studies. The Chinese have been writing them for centuries and using them to teach and to learn from each other. Linking this thread to another about textbooks - this is where we fall down. We need to start writing and publishing our case studies - making out clinical knowledge available on a broader scale and opening ourselves up to critique from our fellow practitioners. This is how we will learn. NOt by keeping the secrets of our success and failure a secret. Marnae At 01:59 PM 10/7/2003 +0000, you wrote: > , " wainwrightchurchill " ><w.churchill_1-@t...> wrote: > > > > > It is this higher level of theory and approach towards healing that >I > > presume was imparted at the personal level & #8211; the oral tradition >aspect > > of transmission, and without it, one must question whether practical > > treatment is possible from utilising textual knowledge alone. > > > > I would be grateful for your comments and thoughts about this issue. > > > > Wainwright > >Well to play devil's advocate to this debate let me say a few things: >First I don¡¦t think anyone would ever support a textbook approach >alone, except some mail-order program. & #61514; >I was trained in the modern (PCOM) school environment and with a very >textbook approach. Although I look for senior support in furthering >my knowledge, I am very happy with this path. For example, I get good >results, sometimes GREAT results, from practicing this 'textbook' >method. I see huge advantage to this method. I.e. I can take >elements from SHL, wenbing, 5 element or whatever, I like this... If >I just studied with 1 person, I believe I would find limitations much >quicker. Boly would have to study with them much longer to get to >the level that I am at now. One of my respected Chinese teachers use >to say, " I am much better doctor that Zhang ji. " and his point is >just that. He can take zhang ji's info + everyone other doctor¡¦s >material since then. Maybe an oral tradition is superior to what was >offered in this country 15 years ago, but I would hardly say now, >especially if one reads Chinese. I ask, what am I missing? if I can >get people better it seems like textbook system works, period. >Furthermore, I don¡¦t think anyone just learns CM from books, there >are teachers all along the way, that is a great balance. Case >studies are a huge part of this process, and I think that is >precisely why ancient doctors started doing it as well as writing as >much as they did. They knew the value of the written tradition and >accessing it can give great insight. I really don¡¦t know why there is >so much negativity towards ¡¥TCM¡¦ & #8211; If it lends to results who cares= > >¡K > >- > > > > >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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 Ken, amen to this! It is the fundamentals - from there one can spread one's wings, but without the basics - forget it! marnae At 02:00 PM 10/7/2003 +0000, you wrote: >Wainwright, > >I'm not sure I understand your question, but I >will work through it and see if I follow you. > > > > Dear Ken, > > > > I think that one of the problematic issues with the written tradition > > is what is left out. > >The written tradition seems stunningly problematic >to me. As you say, there are gaping holes. Plus there >is this extremely problematic characteristic of Chinese >literary expressions to omit the main point. Often >what is meant is not what is written down. > >The sheer age results in enormous lacunae. > >You could drive a truck through the holes in the >literary records related to medicine alone that have >resulted simply from the disappearance of texts. > >Some writers wrote to deceive rather than to >inform. Some wrote only part of their knowledge. > >The compilation, collation, and editing of the >so-called classics is a monstrously problematic >enterprise. There are, if I remember the number >right, more than 300 text fragments that make >up the Su Wen. > > For example, if one looks at Deadman's and Al > > Khafaji's acupuncture points book (and I've discussed this matter with > > Peter Deadman), one will often discover quite symptomatic indications > > for acupuncture points. As we know, or at least I assume it to be the > > general case throughout CM history, acupuncture points do not be tend > > to be used in isolation, as also applies to herbs. As with herbal > > medicine, there is a dynamic involved in acupuncture point > > combination, that implies the existence of higher level theory that > > extends beyond the purely symptomatic use of an acupuncture point. Yet > > we may not know, through the extant literature, what that higher level > > theory was, and only, or predominantly, be left with symptomatic > > indications. > >I think here is where I start losing you a little >bit. You seem to be asking about some higher >level of theory that is or isn't in the literature >and relates to both acupuncture and herbs. > >In general the topics all make sense, but >they seem to be jumbled together to me. > >I'm trying to work through all of these recent >posts, and I'm just gonna have to come back >and read this one again and think it over. > > > > It is this higher level of theory and approach towards healing that I > > presume was imparted at the personal level the oral tradition aspect > > of transmission, and without it, one must question whether practical > > treatment is possible from utilising textual knowledge alone. > > > > I would be grateful for your comments and thoughts about this issue. > > > > Wainwright > >You seem to assume that this higher level >thing, whatever it is, is some sort of given. >In my experience, it's not any higher level >of knowledge or teaching that makes for >effective application, it's fundamentals. > >Now maybe that recognition of the importance >of fundamentals is a kind of higher level >teaching. I don't know. I just know it's >what I've been taught by all of the teachers >I've known who knew anything and could acutally >do anything. > >Pay attention to the fundamentals. Build >your foundation. Cultivate your root. > >That's what my teachers have taught me. >That's the essence of the oral tradition that's >been passed on to me by several teachers >in China and in other parts of the world. > >Curiously, it's also contained in certain >written records. I don't see the two data >stream as separate, but intimately >interwoven by individual experience. > >I was trying to get at this sense in my >earlier post in which I compared the two >traditions, i.e., the oral and the written >transmissions, as the heart and mingmen >fires that combine to provide the vital >light and warmth that runs the body. > >I'm not a big fan of higher levels of knowledge. > >Virtually every individual I've met who >professed higher levels of knowledge >has proven him or herself to be a fraud. > >Now maybe I've completely misunderstood >what you mean by higher levels of knowledge. > >Certainly everything is not contained in >written texts. You can't, for example, >touch a person with a written text, except >in an extraordinarily abstract way, which >of course delights me as a writer, but >which is lost on most people I'm afraid. > >In my experience of the study and >practice of traditional forms of medicine >in China, touch has been a central >focus. So if you want to call this education >in touching a higher level, in my case, >for example, then ok. > >I just prefer to call it the root, as in the >line from the taiji classic that states that >familiarity with the correct touch leads >to wisdom. In my mind, wisdom is an >understanding of the root. For the root >is what survives...or doesn't. And if we >are wise we know how to care for >and cultivate the root. > >I guess I just have a problem with the >phrase " higher level " because I've seen >it so frequently abused by people who >profess to have access to some higher >level, but do not. > >Again, it's a matter of being damn honest >in the representation of what it is we >think and do. > >Ken > > > > > >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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 Dear Jason and Ken, Thanks for your direct responses to my email. You've both made very good points, and I think that within the entirety of the discussion group, this issue has been explored in quite a lot of depth. So thanks to everyone. Ken - your statement >>>In my experience, it's not any higher level of knowledge or teaching that makes for effective application, it's fundamentals.>>> is a very good response, and obviously I agree. By 'higher knowledge', I meant a higher logical type in the sense Bateson uses it - I originally wrote something like 'metalevel', and then replaced it with 'higher knowledge'. If a herb is considered to treat sore throat symptomatically, that's all well and good. Pattern differentiation introduces higher logical types - a sore throat is now not simply an experience, it is interpreted as fire poison, say. A herb that treats it is not simply a herb that's known to improve sore throats, it detoxifies fire poison. When a herbal formula is given, it may not just be a collection of herbs that are known to benefit sore throats, or even a collection of herbs that detoxify fire poison. Differentiation of patterns in diagnosis and treatment involves various metalevels - the herbal formula may be composed with the idea of there being an Emperor herb, ministers, assistants, etc. Or, looking at the files sent to this group, one might even allocate dosages in a formula according to ratios of Fibonacci series numbers (not a traditional Chinese thing to do, I imagine). To properly understand how a specific style of medicine was practised, one would need to understand all these various metalevels in detail. (This isn't necessarily everything that one needs to understand, but I don't want to complicate matters at present.) In my conversations with various scholars of CM, the point has arisen that we are often very far from an in depth and thorough understanding of the details, for a number of reasons. If this is the case, one must question how useful the literary tradition is as a direct source of knowledge. I imagine that in actual fact, one interprets such information in the light of one's other knowledge and working practices. Perhaps some people develop a new style, inspired by fragments from the literary past, and perhaps sometimes call this the 'traditional teachings' or 'the original Chinese medicine.' What is most likely is that this is in actuality very far removed from practising 'the way it was done in the past.' Best wishes, Wainwright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 At 6:40 AM +0000 10/7/03, wainwrightchurchill wrote: >I would be grateful for your comments and thoughts about this issue. -- What do we mean by oral tradition? Does oral tradition include... - classroom teaching? - clinical internship? - observing a doctor in practice? - clinical rounds with doctors in a Chinese hospital? If any or all of the above, we are already doing it. What else? Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2003 Report Share Posted October 8, 2003 > I wanted to further point out along a similar line to a previous discussion regarding testing for safety and efficacy. If one molecule takes $500,000 and 5 or 6 years of work, and if one herb has 30 principle molecules of activity and is part of a formula of six herbs, then the following accrues. Testing one formula for the individual molecules of interest (about 180) would be 90 billion dollars and will take 180 parallel labs 5 to 6 years (or one lab can do it in two centuries). If you consider the interactions between any two molecules, the cost of the work exceeds the United States GDP. Since no patents can arise from this work, then all the funding for the project will be strictly a gift to the public service. As noted in my previous post, are there any volunteers? > > Emmanuel Segmen Emmanuel, To speak within the terms Fritjof Capra used in the Turning Point, I think we can see here the inapplicability of the Cartesian, reductionist, materialistic scientific model, to issues that pertain to Chinese herbal medicine. Basically, that methodology can be very powerful for studying simple situations, but breaks down when complex systems are considered. In essence, the costs of this sort of pharmacological/clinical research probably increase at an exponential rate as the number of types of molecules considered increases, and that's a methodology out of control. It would be interesting to surmise the number of different types of pharmacologically active molecules in a formula that would require more dollars to research than the number of atoms in the universe. I wouldn't be surprised if that number is less than the number of pharmacologically active molecules in some commonly used Chinese herbal formulas! Best wishes, Wainwright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2003 Report Share Posted October 8, 2003 In essence, the costs of this sort of pharmacological/clinical research probably increase at an exponential rate as the number of types of molecules considered increases, and that's a methodology out of control. >>>This is a total red herring. No one suggests that one needs to understand every molecule. One can study the total effects and toxicity of an entire herb or formula.Also, many drugs are excepted even when mechanism is not understood, just by showing safety and efficacy. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 > In essence, the costs of this sort of > pharmacological/clinical research probably increase at an exponential > rate as the number of types of molecules considered increases, and > that's a methodology out of control. > >>>This is a total red herring. No one suggests that one needs to understand every molecule. One can study the total effects and toxicity of an entire herb or formula.Also, many drugs are excepted even when mechanism is not understood, just by showing safety and efficacy. > Alon > Dear Alon, I only have a moment to write a brief reply. I think it's entirely reasonable to highlight areas for which one would like more knowledge, as you often do. How can anyone dispute the desirability for more knowledge about the possible long term toxicity of herbs, or for the efficacy of CHM? However, I have often found that people who call for more research (and here I predominantly have in mind folks from the biomedical camp) either do not think through carefully the full implications of submitting CM to scientific investigation, or else really don't care about preserving anything of CM paradigms, and wish to biomedicalise the field - in other words 1) Find which techniques 'work' 2) Determine the mechanisms within a biomedical framework of how they work 3) Develop a new biomedical theoretical framework to be the new basis for the practice of those techniques. Lets assume for the moment that we are interested in preserving traditional CM theoretical frameworks for the practice of CM, but we want more scientific investigation to guide our practice. I could go into this at great length, which I don't have time to do at present, but very briefly, it's not enough to express the wish to have this research, one also has to develop concrete proposals of how it's going to be done, and then carefully think through the implications of that research. That must include commercial considerations, political/power considerations, etc. I expect one will find that problematic issues arise whenever one does this - one finds that research won't lead to the type of knowledge we're seeking, or is impracticable, or else threatens to convert scientific appraisal into scientific appropriation. Sorry that this is all I have time to say at present. Best wishes, Wainwright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 I agree. On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 12:13 AM, wainwrightchurchill wrote: > > > Dear Alon, > I only have a moment to write a brief reply. > > I think it's entirely reasonable to highlight areas for which one > would like more knowledge, as you often do. How can anyone dispute the > desirability for more knowledge about the possible long term toxicity > of herbs, or for the efficacy of CHM? However, I have often found that > people who call for more research (and here I predominantly have in > mind folks from the biomedical camp) either do not think through > carefully the full implications of submitting CM to scientific > investigation, or else really don't care about preserving anything of > CM paradigms, and wish to biomedicalise the field - in other words > 1) Find which techniques 'work' > 2) Determine the mechanisms within a biomedical framework of how they > work > 3) Develop a new biomedical theoretical framework to be the new basis > for the practice of those techniques. > > Lets assume for the moment that we are interested in preserving > traditional CM theoretical frameworks for the practice of CM, but we > want more scientific investigation to guide our practice. I could go > into this at great length, which I don't have time to do at present, > but very briefly, it's not enough to express the wish to have this > research, one also has to develop concrete proposals of how it's going > to be done, and then carefully think through the implications of that > research. That must include commercial considerations, political/power > considerations, etc. I expect one will find that problematic issues > arise whenever one does this - one finds that research won't lead to > the type of knowledge we're seeking, or is impracticable, or else > threatens to convert scientific appraisal into scientific > appropriation. > > Sorry that this is all I have time to say at present. > > Best wishes, > Wainwright > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Lets assume for the moment that we are interested in preserving > traditional CM theoretical frameworks for the practice of CM, but we > want more scientific investigation to guide our practice. I could go > into this at great length, which I don't have time to do at present, > but very briefly, it's not enough to express the wish to have this > research, one also has to develop concrete proposals of how it's going > to be done, and then carefully think through the implications of that > research. That must include commercial considerations, political/power > considerations, etc. I expect one will find that problematic issues > arise whenever one does this - one finds that research won't lead to > the type of knowledge we're seeking, or is impracticable, or else > threatens to convert scientific appraisal into scientific > appropriation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>That to me sounds like a bunch of excuses. ether you think we need to play by the rules or not. I we do not need to show efficacy than yes we do not need to make the effort. I think that would lead to the death of CM in the west. It can only stay a novelty for so long. Non of the so-called problems you raised are difficult the resolve. The political and commercial considerations are mostly those of failed studies, Showing efficacy will only help. Also if you do not want the methodologies of CM to be compromised than we need to do these studies and not leave it all to biomed guys Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 love your profound optimism. Even though there are no commercial or governmental incentives for spending the billions (actually trillions) of dollars necessary to test safety and efficacy in CM, you believe there's really no difficulty. You go, brother! I'm writing out my check now for $25. >>>>Much of the studies needed would not be that expensive and the money would be their if the schools would take the initiative. Look at all the chiropractic research for example, all the PT research, no drug comp money. alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 At 10:54 AM -0500 10/9/03, Alon Marcus wrote: > >>>>Much of the studies needed would not be that expensive and the >money would be their if the schools would take the initiative. Look >at all the chiropractic research for example, all the PT research, >no drug comp money. -- Alon, I tend to agree with you that TCM schools in the US and Europe could be doing a lot to establish research as a fact of life for OM. However, I don't see how they can do that without training students in research methods. How many schools do this? I daresay the answer is none, and certainly none are doing it well enough to be worthwhile. The first step in this direction would have to be to include an academic track in clinical research methods from day one in the curriculum, so that the students are involved and evolving in research throughout their training. Research involvement for all three to four years of a training , and publishable group product, should then be a requirement for graduation. If at least some of our schools did this, we would have a steady stream of research savvy practitioners. IMO this should not be an ACAOM requirement for accreditation. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Rory i totally agree. This is not only important as far as research but also in terms of critical thinking which is wholly missing alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 There is a research track in the new PCOM doctorate. And I agree, the schools could sponsor more ground-level research at relatively little cost. Herb companies can also sponsor research. PCOM has done a few research projects in the clinic with herbal medicine, but we could develop this direction further. I know Bastyr University has done a lot of research projects on western herbs. On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 09:33 AM, Rory Kerr wrote: > I tend to agree with you that TCM schools in the US and Europe could > be doing a lot to establish research as a fact of life for OM. > However, I don't see how they can do that without training students > in research methods. How many schools do this? I daresay the answer > is none, and certainly none are doing it well enough to be > worthwhile. The first step in this direction would have to be to > include an academic track in clinical research methods from day one > in the curriculum, so that the students are involved and evolving in > research throughout their training. Research involvement for all > three to four years of a training , and publishable group product, > should then be a requirement for graduation. If at least some of our > schools did this, we would have a steady stream of research savvy > practitioners. IMO this should not be an ACAOM requirement for > accreditation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 From my space, I would only be supportive of research that is similar to the outcome-based studies in China on herbal and point prescriptions, for treating pattern-based conditions within specific disease categories. I am not talking about mining the Chinese materia medica for new drugs. On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 12:32 PM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: > Z'ev, Rory, and Alon, > > None of the research you are describing will lead to a legal status > where you could make claims other than what you currently do: i.e. > this formula " removes damp heat " or " tonifies the spleen " , etc. Is > that what you are going for, or are you trying for an equal footing > with WM? If you are going for something acceptable to the FDA > regarding safety and efficacy, the research you are describing, even > from Bastyr, doesn't scratch the surface. The FDA makes it quite > clear what they want. And it does cost $500 million per molecule. > Alon, didn't you say you wanted to " play by the rules " . I assume you > meant the FDA's rules. Or did you mean someone else's rules? > > In gratitude, > Emmanuel Segmen > > - > > > Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:05 AM > Re: Re: Oral/literary transmission > > > There is a research track in the new PCOM doctorate. And I agree, > the > schools could sponsor more ground-level research at relatively little > cost. Herb companies can also sponsor research. PCOM has done a > few > research projects in the clinic with herbal medicine, but we could > develop this direction further. I know Bastyr University has done a > lot of research projects on western herbs. > > > On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 09:33 AM, Rory Kerr wrote: > >> I tend to agree with you that TCM schools in the US and Europe could >> be doing a lot to establish research as a fact of life for OM. >> However, I don't see how they can do that without training students >> in research methods. How many schools do this? I daresay the answer >> is none, and certainly none are doing it well enough to be >> worthwhile. The first step in this direction would have to be to >> include an academic track in clinical research methods from day one >> in the curriculum, so that the students are involved and evolving in >> research throughout their training. Research involvement for all >> three to four years of a training , and publishable group product, >> should then be a requirement for graduation. If at least some of our >> schools did this, we would have a steady stream of research savvy >> practitioners. IMO this should not be an ACAOM requirement for >> accreditation. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 At 1:46 PM -0700 10/9/03, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: >Words or conditions such as asthma, irritable bowel syndrome and >cancer need not apply -- Emmanuel, Your sentence above is slightly ambiguous, so forgive me if I've missed your meaning. I see no reason why we should not include efficacy and safety studies for these conditions in the context of OM treatment. These are very common presenting conditions in my practice. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Z'ev, Rory, and Alon, None of the research you are describing will lead to a legal status where you could make claims other than what you currently do: i.e. this formula " removes damp heat " or " tonifies the spleen " , etc. Is that what you are going for, or are you trying for an equal footing with WM? >>>Emmanuel i would not want to see claims for herbs as medicines, However, if we are to sell our services studies of efficacy and safely are essential. There is no way that herbs, especially the way we want to practice, would have FDA approved claims. And again it would be very dangerous if we try to go that rout. We will loose 99.9% of our medicine. But again, good clinical studies i think are ethically essential Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Agreed. Z'ev On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 01:46 PM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: > > Z'ev, > > Then indeed, the research outcomes you seek are not so expensive. You > will be able to show efficacy and safety within the population that > comes to the clinics where the research is performed. It will be > based on Chinese medical paradigm: diagnosis and treatment protocols. > Words or conditions such as asthma, irritable bowel syndrome and > cancer need not apply. > > Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Agreed. On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 01:46 PM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: > > Z'ev, > > Then indeed, the research outcomes you seek are not so expensive. You > will be able to show efficacy and safety within the population that > comes to the clinics where the research is performed. It will be > based on Chinese medical paradigm: diagnosis and treatment protocols. > Words or conditions such as asthma, irritable bowel syndrome and > cancer need not apply. > > Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 In a message dated 10/9/2003 9:43:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rory.kerr writes: > I tend to agree with you that TCM schools in the US and Europe could > be doing a lot to establish research as a fact of life for OM. > However, I don't see how they can do that without training students > in research methods. How many schools do this? I daresay the answer > is none, and certainly none are doing it well enough to be > worthwhile. The first step in this direction would have to be to > include an academic track in clinical research methods from day one > in the curriculum, so that the students are involved and evolving in > research throughout their training. Research involvement for all > three to four years of a training , and publishable group product, > should then be a requirement for graduation. If at least some of our > schools did this, we would have a steady stream of research savvy > practitioners. IMO this should not be an ACAOM requirement for > accreditation. Rory - This will occur in Emperor's doctoral progam with research project and hospital priveleges through Daniel Freeman. Will William R. Morris, OMD Secretary, AAOM Academic Dean Emperor's College of TOM 310-453-8383 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 At 11:27 AM -0400 10/10/03, WMorris116 wrote: >This will occur in Emperor's doctoral progam with research project and >hospital priveleges through Daniel Freeman. -- Will and Z'ev, It's good to know that both Pacific and Emperor's are including this in the doctorate. However, it seems to me that the master's level should also include training in research. At the very least, practitioners should be able to fully evaluate studies published in medical (both CM & WM) journals. We should be able to intelligently advise our patients as to it's value, quite apart from any use it may be to ourselves. To take studies at their face value, even from reputable peer reviewed journals, is very naive. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 Hopefully, this will come to pass in the future. However, cramming more stuff into the masters won't work without adding another year of classes. Among them I think should be medical Chinese. Then we're back in doctorate territory. On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 09:28 AM, Rory Kerr wrote: > Will and Z'ev, > > It's good to know that both Pacific and Emperor's are including this > in the doctorate. However, it seems to me that the master's level > should also include training in research. At the very least, > practitioners should be able to fully evaluate studies published in > medical (both CM & WM) journals. We should be able to intelligently > advise our patients as to it's value, quite apart from any use it may > be to ourselves. To take studies at their face value, even from > reputable peer reviewed journals, is very naive. > > Rory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 At 1:46 PM -0700 10/9/03, Emmanuel Segmen wrote: >Words or conditions such as asthma, irritable bowel syndrome and >cancer need not apply -- Emmanuel, Your sentence above is slightly ambiguous, so forgive me if I've missed your meaning. I see no reason why we should not include efficacy and safety studies for these conditions in the context of OM treatment. These are very common resenting conditions in my practice. Rory -- Hi Rory, Thanks for your comment. Take the sentence above at face value. If you use CM paradigms to claim efficacy and safety with regard to WM paradigms, then you are seeking " new drug " approval. You are saying that you want to spend $500 million dollars and apply for FDA new drug approval. Are you completely clear with this? There's nothing to stop you from doing this research on the cheap as you've suggested. And then you don't need to worry about FDA's new drug status. Just be absolutely sure that you never make a claim on behalf of CM's efficacy and safety with regard to cancer, asthma or any other WM diagnostic state. If you do, you're busted. If you do decide you want to make a claim, then the scientific work-up will cost you $500 million. Are you perfectly clear with this? My recommendation to all is to get completely clear with this. There's tons of respectable research in China that supports many of the formulas that my company makes to treat asthma, cancer, hepatitis C and other WM diagnostic states. However, I can make no claims whatsoever on my labels or in my literature for this. In fact, if I am asked, I must deny there is any relationship at all between CM and efficacy regarding any WM diagnostic state. That, of course, is completely clear to you, is it not? No ambiguity here at all. Pure empiricism, the scientific method and two-blind-men-with-an-HPLC-column-and-a-fast-computer. ;-) Oh, by the way. You don't " claim " to treat asthma, irritable bowel syndrome or cancer without the proper license do you? That wouldn't be " playing by the rules " would it? Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 Z'ev, Rory, and Alon, None of the research you are describing will lead to a legal status where you could make claims other than what you currently do: i.e. this formula " removes damp heat " or " tonifies the spleen " , etc. Is that what you are going for, or are you trying for an equal footing with WM? >>>Emmanuel i would not want to see claims for herbs as medicines, However, if we are to sell our services studies of efficacy and safely are essential. There is no way that herbs, especially the way we want to practice, would have FDA approved claims. And again it would be very dangerous if we try to go that rout. We will loose 99.9% of our medicine. But again, good clinical studies i think are ethically essential Alon Alon, I appreciate your comments here. Agreed. I especially appreciate your reference to ethics. No part of CM practice should claim openly to treat Western diagnostic conditions. As you say, people can be apprised of studies that show efficacy regarding CM treatments of WM disease states. It must be noted that when entering a CM practitioner's clinic, the patient enters a parallel reality to the one they were in when the MD diagnosed their condition. As Al Stone has previously noted, it seems that you and I try to point out paradigm boundaries ... each from his side of the coin. Emmanuel Segmen 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.