Taiwan

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I just came back from an interesting 2 weeks in Taiwan and will

have a lot more to share. But first I would like to just share an

opinion I heard in a dinner with some of the most influential people

in CM in Taiwan. The past and present presidents of the OM

professional ass were there as well as several important professors.

Several of the Dr did their PhD in mainland. According to them and I

quote " there is a lot of research in China however the problem is

that most of the research is fake. " Now these are very well educated

people and I think we need to pay attention to this statement. I

will have a lot more to share about styles of practice, quality of

herbs etc.

 

 

 

 

Alon:

 

Thanks for the report. Unfortunatley, it's not really that shocking

of a revelation.

 

Fortunately, many MDs (medical acupuncturists) are doing research on

acup and are probably reliable. But it remains to be seen who in the

US will do acceptible CM research on/with herbal formulas (not

necessarily the biochemical studies or analysis) to verify the

Chinese studies when possible and conduct new studies where they are

not considered reliable.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

>According to them and I quote " there is a lot of research in China

however the problem is that most of the research is fake. " Now these

are very well educated people and I think we need to pay attention to

this statement. >

 

Thanks for reiterating this point.

 

I think there has been enough concern about the degree of honesty in

PRC CM research for us, in the West, to now require adequate quality

assurance before we publish it or promote it.

 

Wainwright

 

 

-

" Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

 

Saturday, October 25, 2003 5:20 PM

Re: Re: Taiwan

 

 

> I just came back from an interesting 2 weeks in Taiwan and will have

a lot more to share. But first I would like to just share an opinion I

heard in a dinner with some of the most influential people in CM in

Taiwan. The past and present presidents of the OM professional ass

were there as well as several important professors. Several of the Dr

did their PhD in mainland. According to them and I quote " there is a

lot of research in China however the problem is that most of the

research is fake. " Now these are very well educated people and I think

we need to pay attention to this statement. I will have a lot more to

share about styles of practice, quality of herbs etc.

> Alon

[Guest guest]

>>Fortunately, many MDs (medical acupuncturists) are doing research on

acup and are probably reliable.

 

Jim Ramholz>>

 

Jim,

 

In the UK, the stated aim of 'medical acupuncture', or at least that

of some its most vocal proponents, is to investigate acupuncture for

efficacy and mechanism, to developp a thoroughly biomedical framework

for its use, rejecting oriental theoretical frameworks. In this

outlook, CM may possess resources of an empirical nature to be mined

and processed scientifically, while CM theoretical formulations are

regarded as superstitious, mystical, pre-scientific, or something

along those lines, and needing to be superceded.

 

From a purely scientific point of view, what you're reporting

probably is fortunate. I'm not sure it's so fortunate for CM

practitioners, because in a culture in which one is taught to put so

much emphasis on research, it leads to the field of 'reliable'

acupuncture being dominated by such studies and this outlook, as a

possible precursor to dispensing with, and/or denigrating, CM outlooks

and frameworks.

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

In my trip to Taiwan I had the chance to spend a few days at Sheng Chang

Quliherbs factories and research departments. While I would think that most of

the other companies in Taiwan use the same strict standard, I can not testify to

that since is did not get a chance to visit them. Sheng Chang Quliherbs handles

all their own herbal acquisition directly from china. Their buyers first

identify the materials and mail a sample to Taiwan. At the factory, they run

tests that check for contamination and quality. They have their own proprietary

standards to ascertain the amount of active ingredients in the herbs. This

determines if they buy the batch. When the shipment arrives at the factory, they

rerun all the tests a second time. They do their own processing of the raw

herbs. They have two large cold storage facilities and according to them this

allows them to buy herbs during the best time, and not due to their current

need. They claim they are the only company that does this in Taiwan (because of

these cold storage facilities) but again I cannot confirm this, as I did not

visit the other manufactures. The quality of their raw materials is quite high

and they urge all visitors to the other companies to ask to view their raw

materials.

 

After processing, they have two types of extracting facilities. One does a more

traditional cooking and concentrating; the other uses continuos washing system

that can yield a much higher amount of active ingredients. They only use the

second systems for formulas containing superior herbs (i.e. safe tonics etc.),

although so far testing shows that the end-product to be the same as the more

traditional boiling methods. However, for safety concerns they do not use this

system with toxic herbs or formulas. After the extracting process, they vacuum

spray the extract onto the courier, which are herb powders, pharmaceutical

starch or both. At this step, they also re-add the volatile oils collected

during the boiling or washing systems.

 

 

Now as far as the ratio of concentration there is a lot of misunderstanding. All

the formulas and herbs are different. While they say that most are around 5:1

this is misleading. Many of the formulas and single herbs are actually much

higher as much as 10:1, even after taking the courier into account. Some are

less and are around 2:1. In Taiwan many of labels contain the particular

information such as 6g of extract is equal to this amount of raw herbs (which is

the amount seen in the catalog) which than yields this x concentration mixed

with x amount of starch or herb powder to yields an x ratio end-product. I wish

they had to do this in US as well. As I said, many formulas are higher than 5:1.

One thing they told me that I still do not understand, is that having a higher

concentration does not mean a stronger or better clinical product, beyond the

fact that the raw materials really define the end-product, i.e. a high

concentrate of poor quality herbs do not yield a better product than a lower

concentrate of high quality raw materials.

 

 

What struck me was that when I looked at the amount of raw herbs per 6g extract,

at 12-18g extract per day the equivalence to normal dose decoction in mainland

was similar.

 

 

Another thing is like Emmanuel said in the past, there is a difference between

combining single herbs and a precooked formula. The differences are small but

may be clinically important. Unfortunately, they do not have good comparison

human studies. They also believe strongly that combining formulas is a better

way to practice than modifying classical formulas or combining herbs from

experience. Again no good human studies to prove or disprove. I spoke to many

practitioners about this issue and they see formulas as a complete entity beyond

the function of the single herbs within the formula. They claim that there is no

problem with leaving a particular herb that might seem to be inappropriate to

the patient, as the formula is its own entity. While we may argue about these

assumptions from philosophical and theoretical viewpoints no studies have been

done that can substantiate one view over the other.

 

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

I can assure you that what you've said about Qualiherbs is also true of Min Tong

Herbs and Sun Ten in Taiwan. Min Tong and Sun Ten set the original GMP

standards.

 

What you said subsequently is information that all practitioners should hear.

You are perhaps better able to say it than I despite the fact that I was Min

Tong's American marketing rep in 1992 through 1994. So please carry on. Did

you discover that every formula that is made as a dry dosage extract is a unique

experiment unto itself? You made a bit of reference to how different one

formula is to another regarding 5:1, 1:1 or 10:1. There are many, many ways to

make bu zhong yi qi tang depending on what carrier you decided to use(soluble,

insoluble, lactose, one of the ingredients, etc.), the level of concentrating

you employ and so on. Each formula is like a famous dish in a restaurant. It's

up to the chef as to how to prepare it.

 

Thanks, Alon.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

alon marcus

Saturday, October 25, 2003 2:49 PM

Re: Taiwan

 

 

In my trip to Taiwan I had the chance to spend a few days at Sheng Chang

Quliherbs factories and research departments. While I would think that most of

the other companies in Taiwan use the same strict standard, I can not testify to

that since is did not get a chance to visit them. Sheng Chang Quliherbs handles

all their own herbal acquisition directly from china. Their buyers first

identify the materials and mail a sample to Taiwan. At the factory, they run

tests that check for contamination and quality. They have their own proprietary

standards to ascertain the amount of active ingredients in the herbs. This

determines if they buy the batch. When the shipment arrives at the factory, they

rerun all the tests a second time. They do their own processing of the raw

herbs. They have two large cold storage facilities and according to them this

allows them to buy herbs during the best time, and not due to their current

need. They claim they are the only company that does this in Taiwan (because of

these cold storage facilities) but again I cannot confirm this, as I did not

visit the other manufactures. The quality of their raw materials is quite high

and they urge all visitors to the other companies to ask to view their raw

materials.

 

After processing, they have two types of extracting facilities. One does a

more traditional cooking and concentrating; the other uses continuos washing

system that can yield a much higher amount of active ingredients. They only use

the second systems for formulas containing superior herbs (i.e. safe tonics

etc.), although so far testing shows that the end-product to be the same as the

more traditional boiling methods. However, for safety concerns they do not use

this system with toxic herbs or formulas. After the extracting process, they

vacuum spray the extract onto the courier, which are herb powders,

pharmaceutical starch or both. At this step, they also re-add the volatile oils

collected during the boiling or washing systems.

 

 

Now as far as the ratio of concentration there is a lot of misunderstanding.

All the formulas and herbs are different. While they say that most are around

5:1 this is misleading. Many of the formulas and single herbs are actually much

higher as much as 10:1, even after taking the courier into account. Some are

less and are around 2:1. In Taiwan many of labels contain the particular

information such as 6g of extract is equal to this amount of raw herbs (which is

the amount seen in the catalog) which than yields this x concentration mixed

with x amount of starch or herb powder to yields an x ratio end-product. I wish

they had to do this in US as well. As I said, many formulas are higher than 5:1.

One thing they told me that I still do not understand, is that having a higher

concentration does not mean a stronger or better clinical product, beyond the

fact that the raw materials really define the end-product, i.e. a high

concentrate of poor quality herbs do not yield a better product than a lower

concentrate of high quality raw materials.

 

 

What struck me was that when I looked at the amount of raw herbs per 6g

extract, at 12-18g extract per day the equivalence to normal dose decoction in

mainland was similar.

 

 

Another thing is like Emmanuel said in the past, there is a difference between

combining single herbs and a precooked formula. The differences are small but

may be clinically important. Unfortunately, they do not have good comparison

human studies. They also believe strongly that combining formulas is a better

way to practice than modifying classical formulas or combining herbs from

experience. Again no good human studies to prove or disprove. I spoke to many

practitioners about this issue and they see formulas as a complete entity beyond

the function of the single herbs within the formula. They claim that there is no

problem with leaving a particular herb that might seem to be inappropriate to

the patient, as the formula is its own entity. While we may argue about these

assumptions from philosophical and theoretical viewpoints no studies have been

done that can substantiate one view over the other.

 

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Min Tong and Sun Ten set the original GMP standards.

 

>>>>Actually Shen Chang was the first GMP factory in Taiwan.

 

You made a bit of reference to how different one formula is to another regarding

5:1, 1:1 or 10:1.

 

>>>>Shen Chang has data showing that different batches of the same formula

actually look virtually identical via their process.

Do you know if Mintong stores there own herbs and if they have cold storage? I

have heard from others that they do not show their raw materials

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

Thank you for sharing the insights of your trip with us. And welcome

back home.

 

Shanah Tovah,

 

 

On Saturday, October 25, 2003, at 02:49 PM, alon marcus wrote:

 

>

> In my trip to Taiwan I had the chance to spend a few days at Sheng

> Chang Quliherbs factories and research departments

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

I stand by my comments. Min Tong and Sun Ten set the GMP standards for Taiwan.

Members of one family or the other were co-directors of Taiwan's FDA since the

establishment in the 1950s. I'm familiar with the history from work with both

companies. I am not now a member of either company nor compensated by either

company nor have I been since December, 1994. I left on friendly terms, but I

have no business nor economic interest. Are you compensated by Qualiherbs?

Your presentation sounds a bit like marketing though it also has valuable

information. If you are marketing, I'm not offended.

 

Dr. Charles Chiang of Min Tong set the standards for HPLC chemistry markers both

in Taiwan and in the mainland. He addressed the U.S. FDA at one of their annual

biochemistry meetings on this topic in May, 1994, after publishing in the early

1990s. Lotus does that work, too, as evidenced by Dr. John Chen's work. Min

Tong, Lotus, Sun Ten and also Taibo Factory in Lanzhou City, Gansu all have

fairly advanced labs. At Min Tong I oversaw lab work that performed

chromatography on every batch of every extract done. Files are kept on all work

for at least seven years. Precision work from batch to batch is a basic tenet

of GMP factory work. These are all international GMP standards. Min Tong has

had buyers in place in mainland China since before the Revolution ... same

people or families. They have P-1 containment with airlocks and so forth.

Since I worked at Min Tong in a managerial marketing capacity, I was not aware

of the nature of proprietary disclosure within Taiwan. However, I usually had

samples of herbs to carry with me to trade shows in the U.S. I'm not quite able

to understand your question, but hopefully I've answered it.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

-

Alon Marcus

Saturday, October 25, 2003 7:15 PM

Re: Re: Taiwan

 

 

Min Tong and Sun Ten set the original GMP standards.

 

>>>>Actually Shen Chang was the first GMP factory in Taiwan.

 

You made a bit of reference to how different one formula is to another

regarding 5:1, 1:1 or 10:1.

 

>>>>Shen Chang has data showing that different batches of the same formula

actually look virtually identical via their process.

Do you know if Mintong stores there own herbs and if they have cold storage? I

have heard from others that they do not show their raw materials

Alon

 

[Guest guest]

Are you compensated by Qualiherbs?

<<<<<I have absolutely no commercial relationship with sheng chang or quliherbs.

The document i am quoting says the first inspected for GMP their factory was in

1986 and to have built the first GMP factory in Taiwan in 1988. I may be wrong

but that is their documents.

Anyway i always say one should taste all the different brands and make there own

mind.At Sheng chang they claim to have the only large cold storage facility,

again i have no idea so i asked you since you know Mintong

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Samual i thought you might want to see this

 

I stand by my comments. Min Tong and Sun Ten set the GMP standards for Taiwan.

Members of one family or the other were co-directors of Taiwan's FDA since the

establishment in the 1950s. I'm familiar with the history from work with both

companies. I am not now a member of either company nor compensated by either

company nor have I been since December, 1994. I left on friendly terms, but I

have no business nor economic interest. Are you compensated by Qualiherbs?

Your presentation sounds a bit like marketing though it also has valuable

information. If you are marketing, I'm not offended.

 

Dr. Charles Chiang of Min Tong set the standards for HPLC chemistry markers both

in Taiwan and in the mainland. He addressed the U.S. FDA at one of their annual

biochemistry meetings on this topic in May, 1994, after publishing in the early

1990s. Lotus does that work, too, as evidenced by Dr. John Chen's work. Min

Tong, Lotus, Sun Ten and also Taibo Factory in Lanzhou City, Gansu all have

fairly advanced labs. At Min Tong I oversaw lab work that performed

chromatography on every batch of every extract done. Files are kept on all work

for at least seven years. Precision work from batch to batch is a basic tenet

of GMP factory work. These are all international GMP standards. Min Tong has

had buyers in place in mainland China since before the Revolution ... same

people or families. They have P-1 containment with airlocks and so forth.

Since I worked at Min Tong in a managerial marketing capacity, I was not aware

of the nature of proprietary disclosure within Taiwan. However, I usually had

samples of herbs to carry with me to trade shows in the U.S. I'm not quite able

to understand your question, but hopefully I've answered it.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

-

Alon Marcus

Saturday, October 25, 2003 7:15 PM

Re: Re: Taiwan

 

 

Min Tong and Sun Ten set the original GMP standards.

 

>>>>Actually Shen Chang was the first GMP factory in Taiwan.

 

You made a bit of reference to how different one formula is to another

regarding 5:1, 1:1 or 10:1.

 

>>>>Shen Chang has data showing that different batches of the same formula

actually look virtually identical via their process.

Do you know if Mintong stores there own herbs and if they have cold storage? I

have heard from others that they do not show their raw materials

Alon

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Samual i thought you might want to see this

>

> I stand by my comments.

 

Who is Samual?

 

And for that matter, who are these

people that you met with in Taiwan?

 

I've been trying to follow your discussion

with Emmanuel, but there are a few too many

mysteries in it.

 

Can't we know who is saying what to

whom? It always seems to make a difference

as to what is said.

 

Ke

[Guest guest]

It was for this reason that people noted that building formulas from scratch

with single herb extracts was viewed as quite unprofessional and a breach of the

paradigm of CM as they understood it. I appreciate your bringing this out from

your visit.

>>>>While is true for extracts the question is also appropriate than for using

decoctions.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Although some people suggest that those " individual " packets of herbs be brewed

together for a few minutes to let them synergize. A compromise I guess.

" Unprofessional and breach of the paradigm " seems a little harsh when you're

trying

to get the stuff down your patients throats.I'm not sure about the concept of

using

the formula even if its not what you would write given the choice. But I'll

consider it.

doug

 

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> It was for this reason that people noted that building formulas from scratch

with

single herb extracts was viewed as quite unprofessional and a breach of the

paradigm

of CM as they understood it. I appreciate your bringing this out from your

visit.

> >>>>While is true for extracts the question is also appropriate than for using

decoctions.

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " Emmanuel Segmen " <

susegmen@i...> wrote:

It was for this reason that people noted that building formulas from scratch

with single herb extracts was viewed as quite unprofessional and a breach of

the paradigm of CM as they understood it. I appreciate your bringing this out

from your visit.

 

 

Emmanuel

 

can you clarify the nature of this breach. Were you only referring to extracts

built up this way or as Alon suggested, does this include any type of formula

built from single herbs. qin bo wei definitely advises us to build formulas

from single herbs based upon our understanding of classical formula

construction. Others feel that one should only use unmodified or only slightly

modified classical formulas, regardless of form. If this is merely an issue of

extracts with regard to synergism in the cooking process, then as Alon points

out, there are no studies to decide the matter. But better safe than sorry, so

why not use herbs cooked together whenever possible? that seems sensible to

me and I have stopped offering extracts to my patients as a first resort with

little loss of compliance.

 

however if you are referring to the practice of creating formulas from scratch

for use in decoction, I believe this is a matter of opinion as to what

constitutes

proper CM practice. some may advocate what you report, however those

sources are often influenced by kanpo practice. Others explicitly advocate the

physican created prescription over the classical modification. Scheid reports

on both styles in his book on Contemporary Med in China. Advocates for both

styles have made the case that theirs is the highest level of practice. All I

can

be sure of is that so-called classical prescriptions were written by mortal men

as records of their practice, not to lay in stone for all of posterity. I have

heard there are over 30,000 unique formula names in classical archives.

according to qin bo wei, they are nothing more than ideas to be used freely.

Which of these " ideas " should never be " altered " lest the fabric of CM is

destroyed. I say all are fair game.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

The people (clinical professors and CM pharmacists) who spoke of this considered

" formulas " to be entities unto themselves. I can not rightfully represent them,

but I can transmit my sense of what they were saying. And I think it's not new

to you. They believed strongly that the formulas were the empirical gifts of

time. Also the formulas are groups of herbs and specific proportions cooked in

water for specific periods of time. The resulting decoction is the medicine.

Any deviation from this for expediency lessens the known results. Going to a

dry dosage powder is one way of deviating. Cooking the herbs individually and

preparing them individually to a dry dosage also is a way of deviating from the

known paradigm. They were willing for the sake of expedience to use dry dosage

formulas cooked as a formula and then modify it with single herbs as needed.

They would not be willing to start with single herbs exclusively and then build

a formula. They indicated that this would be an unnecessary deviation since

whole formulas are readily available. These are not my opinions. I'm a

reporter of this information. These are clinical professors and CM

pharmacologists.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

-

Sunday, October 26, 2003 10:57 AM

Re: Taiwan

 

 

, " Emmanuel Segmen " <

susegmen@i...> wrote:

It was for this reason that people noted that building formulas from scratch

with single herb extracts was viewed as quite unprofessional and a breach of

the paradigm of CM as they understood it. I appreciate your bringing this out

from your visit.

 

 

Emmanuel

 

can you clarify the nature of this breach. Were you only referring to

extracts

built up this way or as Alon suggested, does this include any type of formula

built from single herbs. qin bo wei definitely advises us to build formulas

from single herbs based upon our understanding of classical formula

construction. Others feel that one should only use unmodified or only

slightly

modified classical formulas, regardless of form. If this is merely an issue

of

extracts with regard to synergism in the cooking process, then as Alon points

out, there are no studies to decide the matter. But better safe than sorry,

so

why not use herbs cooked together whenever possible? that seems sensible to

me and I have stopped offering extracts to my patients as a first resort with

little loss of compliance.

 

however if you are referring to the practice of creating formulas from scratch

for use in decoction, I believe this is a matter of opinion as to what

constitutes

proper CM practice. some may advocate what you report, however those

sources are often influenced by kanpo practice. Others explicitly advocate

the

physican created prescription over the classical modification. Scheid reports

on both styles in his book on Contemporary Med in China. Advocates for both

styles have made the case that theirs is the highest level of practice. All I

can

be sure of is that so-called classical prescriptions were written by mortal

men

as records of their practice, not to lay in stone for all of posterity. I

have

heard there are over 30,000 unique formula names in classical archives.

according to qin bo wei, they are nothing more than ideas to be used freely.

Which of these " ideas " should never be " altered " lest the fabric of CM is

destroyed. I say all are fair game.

 

Todd

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

They were willing for the sake of expedience to use dry dosage formulas cooked

as a formula and then modify it with single herbs as needed. They would not be

willing to start with single herbs exclusively and then build a formula. They

indicated that this would be an unnecessary deviation since whole formulas are

readily available. These are not my opinions. I'm a reporter of this

information. These are clinical professors and CM pharmacologists.

>>>I will have to concur this is there opinion. They strongly believe and have

some technical evidence for the position that a classic formula is only that

formula when prepared in a specific way. Altering the formula ala mainland style

can not in their opinion result in predictable products. And again, they see the

formula as an entity of its own, not its ingredients

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon, have you noticed that the Taiwanese who represent CM in this country also

see formulae as an entity of its own (not its ingredients)? Dr. Kang, former

chief of TCM Hospital #1 in Shanghai, also shares this view. He started out as

lineage trained before going to Shanghai Med. Univ. of TCM, but he gives me the

impression that this view you've described was the traditional view before TCM.

What do you think?

>>>>Interestingly in Taiwan they referred to the style of putting herbs together

as " the traditional way " . when they asked me what I do they kept saying o you

are practicing the traditional way, our experience is different.

I only know two practitioners from Taiwan here in the US. The first Angela Wu

and she never reveled formulas so I did not stay around for long. The second,

the name of which escapes me at this moment, speaks at AAOM meeting every year,

he definitely does, although he also has his " special " formulas. He gets these

made by Sunten and Quali. I am not sure how they are made but i could find out

later next month

Alon

 

>>>>>

 

 

[Guest guest]

Before everyone immediately accepts the implications of Alon's report

at full face value, I think we need to consider at least two things:

 

1. It is my experience, having lived and worked in several Asian

cultures for more than 35 years, that Asians in general back-bite more

than do Westerners. This may be because they work out of a scarcity

mentality; I don't know.

 

2. Many Taiwanese consider themselves the enemies of the PRC Chinese.

At the very least, they are in direct competition.

 

Therefore, the Taiwanese are not impartial reporters about PRC CM.

 

While some, or even many, Chinese-reported CT outcomes may be

statistically fudged or flawed, I personally find the reports of

treatment protocols used extremely helpful in clinical practice. I

also find author explanations of disease mechanisms, treatment

protocols, additions and subtractions, and medicinal explanations

based on personal experience extremely enlightening. So we may need to

be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

As an act of disclosure and information (prompted by Ken's previous

posts), I am probably one of the least sinophilic responders on this

BB. I sometimes wish this medicine came from some other source. So

please don't think I'm a PRC Chinese apologist. My first CM teacher

was a Beijing KMT refugee in Taiwan (Eric Hsi-yu Tao) before coming to

the U.S. And, as many people know, I lived with Tibetan refugees for

20 years. I have a very healthy skepticism about all things Chinese at

this point in my life.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

While some, or even many, Chinese-reported CT outcomes may be

statistically fudged or flawed, I personally find the reports of

treatment protocols used extremely helpful in clinical practice. I

also find author explanations of disease mechanisms, treatment

protocols, additions and subtractions, and medicinal explanations

based on personal experience extremely enlightening. So we may need to

be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

>>>>I agree with this as it teaches one the thought process many prominent TCM

dr go through. The outcomes however are very questionable.

 

Now as to the impartiality of Taiwanese, I have to tell you that most that

studied there say that in general the knowledge of CM is higher than in Taiwan.

The school I visited has mainland staff. Several also said that clinically the

high dose decoctions used in mainland are more powerful. All however were

totally critical about truth telling in mainland. Also, there is quite a strong

force in Taiwan these days that want to reunite with mainland, unbelievable. I

even saw street fights.

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

Yes! To all you've just said. I went from a Taiwanese company to a mainland

company but am married to a Taiwanese woman. Taiwanese believe they have saved

the Han people's traditional history ... and in fact their National Museum has

so many artifacts that no one will live long enough to view everything once if

they went there every day. The back biting works both ways. I've endure

intense verbal pummeling from PRC people on behalf of my wife's Taiwanese-ness.

I endure the reverse verbal pummeling for representing the interests of PRC

growers and agronomists. Such is life at the intersection of paradigm

collision. Then there's the crossfire between Western science and CM, Western

culture and Chinese culture, and Western politics versus Chinese politics (read

in economics, as well.) You can endure a lot of pummeling when your desk is

positioned in the center of all the crossfire. Someone in recent times said

that you can build a very strong foundation in life from all the bricks that

people throw at you. I continue to be most impressed that some on list, like

Ken Rose, actually encourage catcalls and hecklers.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

Bob Flaws

Monday, October 27, 2003 8:12 AM

Re: Taiwan

 

 

Before everyone immediately accepts the implications of Alon's report

at full face value, I think we need to consider at least two things:

 

1. It is my experience, having lived and worked in several Asian

cultures for more than 35 years, that Asians in general back-bite more

than do Westerners. This may be because they work out of a scarcity

mentality; I don't know.

 

2. Many Taiwanese consider themselves the enemies of the PRC Chinese.

At the very least, they are in direct competition.

 

Therefore, the Taiwanese are not impartial reporters about PRC CM.

 

While some, or even many, Chinese-reported CT outcomes may be

statistically fudged or flawed, I personally find the reports of

treatment protocols used extremely helpful in clinical practice. I

also find author explanations of disease mechanisms, treatment

protocols, additions and subtractions, and medicinal explanations

based on personal experience extremely enlightening. So we may need to

be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

As an act of disclosure and information (prompted by Ken's previous

posts), I am probably one of the least sinophilic responders on this

BB. I sometimes wish this medicine came from some other source. So

please don't think I'm a PRC Chinese apologist. My first CM teacher

was a Beijing KMT refugee in Taiwan (Eric Hsi-yu Tao) before coming to

the U.S. And, as many people know, I lived with Tibetan refugees for

20 years. I have a very healthy skepticism about all things Chinese at

this point in my life.

 

Bob

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>>Taiwanese believe they have saved the Han people's traditional history

.... and in fact their National Museum has so many artifacts that no one

will live long enough to view everything once if they went there every

day

 

Emmanuel,

 

That is not quite correct. I was just there today. They have about

700,000 different pieces of exquisite art. I think that is doable in a

lifetime... There are 60,000 hours in 40 years of 6-day weeks, visiting

the museum " only " 5 hours per day. That is about 10 pieces per hour.

 

Simon

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

That is not quite correct. I was just there today. They have about

700,000 different pieces of exquisite art. I think that is doable in a

lifetime... There are 60,000 hours in 40 years of 6-day weeks, visiting

the museum " only " 5 hours per day. That is about 10 pieces per hour.

 

>>>>And they only show small parts at a time rotating all the materials.

Alon