Guest guest Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " wrote: > Weininger's epiphany on looking at a > catalog of the molecules found in Chinese > medicinals was, " Hey, I know these molecules! > They're the same ones we use in Western > pharmacy. " > > And when he did a little further checking, > he discovered that in some 80% of cases > the same molecules are used to treat the > same kinds of conditions and to relieve > the same symptoms...in Chinese and Western > pharmacy alike. >>> Wouldn't this make an excellent argument that herbs are only biochemical delivery systems, these molecules should be under the supervision of the FDA, and the rest of herbal medicine is simply superfluous. Just thinking out loud. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 >>Weininger's epiphany on looking at a catalog of the molecules found in Chinese medicinals was, " Hey, I know these molecules! They're the same ones we use in Western pharmacy. " And when he did a little further checking, he discovered that in some 80% of cases the same molecules are used to treat the same kinds of conditions and to relieve the same symptoms...in Chinese and Western pharmacy alike. Ken>> >>Wouldn't this make an excellent argument that herbs are only biochemical delivery systems, these molecules should be under the supervision of the FDA, and the rest of herbal medicine is simply superfluous. Jim>> Thanks for the reductionism, guys. I wonder what happened to the concept of synergy implied by and applied in the use of herbal formulas, not to mention in herbs themselves, as MULTIPLE molecule delivery systems. And, Jim, haven't we been here recently, considering the cost of validating the actions of molecules to FDA standards. Wasn't it billions, maybe trillions of dollars? Wainwright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 I don't think this would be a good argument, because herbs use multiple biochemical pathways at the same time, and the present pharmacological review system cannot deal with the complex interactions of medical substances with multiple molecules. If you look at the molecular assays of herbs in Weininger's data base, some herbs have thirty or more molecules involved. On Oct 30, 2003, at 10:08 PM, James Ramholz wrote: > Wouldn't this make an excellent argument that herbs are only > biochemical delivery systems, these molecules should be under the > supervision of the FDA, and the rest of herbal medicine is simply > superfluous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 > I don't think this would be a good argument, because herbs use multiple > biochemical pathways at the same time, and the present pharmacological > review system cannot deal with the complex interactions of medical > substances with multiple molecules. If you look at the molecular > assays of herbs in Weininger's data base, some herbs have thirty or > more molecules involved. > > > On Oct 30, 2003, at 10:08 PM, James Ramholz wrote: > > > Wouldn't this make an excellent argument that herbs are only > > biochemical delivery systems, these molecules should be under the > > supervision of the FDA, and the rest of herbal medicine is simply > > superfluous. I agree totally, Z'ev. A data base like Weiningers (which I haven't seen, but can imagine) might give one some useful leads, but it's a far cry to expect it to provide any detailed knowledge about the functions of a poly-pharmacetical system, which CHM is, and herbal medicine is in general. One of the things that is so great about CHM is that bit's such an elaborated system of herb combining, very suitable for the type of complexities involved. Wainwright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 > On Oct 30, 2003, at 10:08 PM, James Ramholz wrote: > > > Wouldn't this make an excellent argument that herbs are only > > biochemical delivery systems, these molecules should be under the > > supervision of the FDA, and the rest of herbal medicine is simply > > superfluous. If herbal medicines act by some other mode of action than the delivery of a complex of biochemicals to the bloodstream: 1. what is that mode of action? 2. what is either the historical or scientific evidence for that alternate mode of action? I have oft stated my position on this matter. The TCM functions of herbs are based upon macrocosmic holistic observation of herb effects. Pharmacology is a microcosmic reductionistic observation of the same set of events - the effects of a substance on the body. for anything else to be true would require that qi is some as yet unknown force or energy and that discrete force is responsible for changes due to herbs, with biochemistry just being an interesting artifact. 2 sides of the same coin. the coin is the body and the two sides are holism and reductionism. I am sure Ken will jump into remind me of something I have also often stated. Much of classical CM was NOT holistic. However the theories of organ function and pathophys are holistic, even if medicine cannot always be applied that way. It is this partial holism of CM that others use to postulate an alternate view of reality. Again, as Unschuld said, CM does not constitute a paradigm and its jargon does not constitute normal science as Kuhn defines it in any era where it was practiced. So: What is the evidence that qi is a discrete force separate from known physiology rather than merely a description of the homeostatic and defense systems of the body? According to Wiseman, qi can only be explained in terms of what it DOES, NOT what it IS. Perhaps thats because it is not anything other than the perception the human mind is capable of having of body function. Just like one feels anger, not a flood of hormones in the blood. I see qi as a similar phenomena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 , " " wrote: > I don't think this would be a good argument, because herbs use multiple biochemical pathways at the same time, and the present pharmacological review system cannot deal with the complex interactions of medical substances with multiple molecules. If you look at the molecular assays of herbs in Weininger's data base, some herbs have thirty or more molecules involved. >>> Z'ev: You and Wainwright are probably correct for the time being because of the immense complexity and expense at tracking. But should the science advance to a point where they can track the interaction of multiple molecules, what then? Your children or grandchildren may not be able to follow you into this profession. Anyway, even without the science to say so, it is a Western conceit that this is what is really happening. Another way to answer this question would be to show conceptually how WM fits into the framework of CM. But is anyone up to it? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 What if there is no vast conceptual gulf separating Chinese and Western medicine? >>>One can not exist and at the same time both see same diseases and treat them successfully. Most of the differences are in categorization and naming of phenomenon. If one lets go of the lingo one can see much overlap Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 I am sure Ken will jump into remind me of something I have also often stated. Much of classical CM was NOT holistic. However the theories of organ function and pathophys are holistic, even if medicine cannot always be applied that way. >>>At the same time can you show me a biomed theory or understood phenomenon that is not " holistic? " We have to be careful with catch words. It is these words that often obstructs one from seeing why in actuality there is no wide divide between CM and modern medical thinking. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 I don't think this would be a good argument, because herbs use multiple > biochemical pathways at the same time, and the present pharmacological > review system cannot deal with the complex interactions of medical > substances with multiple molecules. If you look at the molecular > assays of herbs in Weininger's data base, some herbs have thirty or > more molecules involved. >>>>>>>>Only to a certain degree. For example look at augmentin, polypharmacy is being used and studies increasingly, the use of delivery systems with drugs is being studied increasingly etc. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 >>Z'ev: You and Wainwright are probably correct for the time being because of the immense complexity and expense at tracking. But should the science advance to a point where they can track the interaction of multiple molecules, what then? Your children or grandchildren may not be able to follow you into this profession. Anyway, even without the science to say so, it is a Western conceit that this is what is really happening. Another way to answer this question would be to show conceptually how WM fits into the framework of CM. But is anyone up to it? Jim Ramholz>> Interesting points. It's very hard to answer your first question, needless to say. There are many different scenarios that might unfold in the future. I'd like to confine myself to two general comments: 1) Because paradigms are incommensurable, what is described in one paradigm isn't necessarily described, or even dealt with, in another. Therefore, CM theory could still provide valuable insights and practical applications missing in the developed biomedical system that you postulate. And vice versa, of course. 2) Your question reminds me of another - in the future, could scientists look at the DNA code of an organism, and predict from first principles, exactly how that organism would be constructed? At present, just as in the case of complex polypharmacy, while individuals mechanisms might be understood, the interactions of the whole are in theory so complex that it's hard to imagine (for me, anyway) that, in practice, they'll ever be understood completely. Why should the reality of living organisms be so complex? I think evolutionary theory provides the answer. Organisms survive if they work, and over many millions of years, the complex mechanisms and interactions necessary for the life forms that now exist simply evolved because they worked. In other words, they weren't planned in some vast supercomputer. The goal of science is to work backwards and understand these interactions, and I believe that many scientists feel that it is possible to do so, thoroughly and in detail (although some scientists disagree). Thus, I asked the question about predicting the structure of an organism from its DNA to a friend of mine who has his own lab at a foremost UK university, and he felt confident that in the future, it would be possible to make such predictions. I really don't expect it to be possible, but the future may reveal how shortsighted I was. Or how optimistic he was. Another similar example is provided by Newton's theory of gravitation. Newton's equations only prvide precise answers for two bodies occupying zero volume in a universe that only contains those two point masses. In any system that is more complex, the equations only yield approximate answers. So, it is impossible using Newton's theory, to predict the motions of three point objects in a universe that only contains them. Imagine the complexity of billions of particles occupying volume in the real universe. Newton's theory is totally inadequate for dealing with that level of complexity, if we're talking about mnaking truly accurate predictions. I think the situation will be similar for pharmacology, so I don't expect what you postulate to happen in practice. However, if it does, I would imagine that CM would probably no longer survive, because biomedicine would have achieved such a profound level of understanding of life that people would no longer be interested in alternative systems. As far as your second question is concerned, various individuals have been applying CM theory to WM. Bob Flaws is the first person I know of who did this in a detailed manner, in 'Something Old, Something New.' Quite brilliant, I think. It has inspired other people to do similar things. Stephen Gascoigne, a medical doctor now working in Ireland, has applied this methodology to understanding the actions of Western pharmaceutical drugs, and wrote an article about it in the latest edition of EJOM. I recently asked Steve to put it on his website, and he agreed to, but when I last checked, it wasn't up yet. I'll follow this through in due course. This sort of thing is also happening in China. Volker Scheid has described this process in the development of emergency medicine, where Chinese doctors have worked from Western medicine insights to translate things into TCM terms. However, I think there's limited scope for this type of activity - it's useful to a degree, but I don't expect it to develop as far as it might, partly because of the sort of point Unschuld made about science being the culturally resonant methodology for approaching and understanding reality in modern society. Wainwright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 You know, one of the themes of many responses to this and other threads is that somehow, the biomedical model is going to be dominant into the future, and unless we somehow 'bend' to that model, we will cease to exist. History doesn't support that type of dominance. I don't buy it one bit. We don't know the future, and our best deck of cards to share what we know of Chinese medicine with heart, honesty and integrity, not to make it what it is not. If there is something of value there, people will pick up on it, and it will become a cornerstone of an evolving world culture. I am not worried about premature extinction of the profession from the outside. I am more concerned with a watered-down version being offered to the public, with a soft core that rots from within. I agree that we can reframe biomedicine data in a CM perspective, but that will only serve our own profession. We don't have the money, tools or data engines to carry out this on any large scale at this point. On Oct 31, 2003, at 9:05 AM, James Ramholz wrote: > , " " wrote: >> I don't think this would be a good argument, because herbs use > multiple biochemical pathways at the same time, and the present > pharmacological review system cannot deal with the complex > interactions of medical substances with multiple molecules. If you > look at the molecular assays of herbs in Weininger's data base, some > herbs have thirty or more molecules involved. >>> > > > Z'ev: > > You and Wainwright are probably correct for the time being because > of the immense complexity and expense at tracking. But should the > science advance to a point where they can track the interaction of > multiple molecules, what then? Your children or grandchildren may > not be able to follow you into this profession. Anyway, even without > the science to say so, it is a Western conceit that this is what is > really happening. > > Another way to answer this question would be to show conceptually > how WM fits into the framework of CM. But is anyone up to it? > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 , " " wrote: > You know, one of the themes of many responses to this and other threads is that somehow, the biomedical model is going to be dominant into the future, and unless we somehow 'bend' to that model, we will cease to exist. History doesn't support that type of dominance. >>> Z'ev: I certainly hope you are correct. But we should prepare for all contingencies. Our existence will depend a great deal on our political savy, too. I don't want to see our profession nitpicked or legislated into submission. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 Did he have wooden acupuncture needles? >>No but he did have herbs alon 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.