Research the next step...

[Guest guest]

<< <@h...>

Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:58pm

Research the next step...

 

Ok, I will try to get the ball rolling.

 

Since we mostly agree that research is beneficial, and we need to

control it to properly protect CM, then let's start discussing some

specifics.

 

1) I personally have no problem with having a study based upon a

western disease as long as there is enough CM pattern differentiation

within it. 2 reasons, a) This is done in China, b) this is what the

American public relate to, not running piglet…Objections?

2) Let us deconstruct the IBS study and figure out what we do

and do not like about this, this IMO serves a good springboard…

3) Finally I am specifically trying to discuss herbs, hopefully

eliminating many of the placebo concerns surrounding acupuncture.

 

->>

 

Jason,

 

Your suggestions sound reasonable to me.

Can you provide details of the IBS study you're referring to?

 

Thanks.

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> 1) I personally have no problem with having a study based upon a

> western disease as long as there is enough CM pattern differentiation

> within it. 2 reasons, a) This is done in China, b) this is what the

> American public relate to, not running piglet…Objections?

 

While I do not disagree with this point, I also see no problem at all

with using Chinese disease categories, even running piglet.

 

There are new Western disease and syndrome names appearing all of the

time which with public has to take time to get familiar. Remember

when AIDS was new? What about SARS?

 

Introducing the public or media to Chinese disease names will open the

door for better communication between CM practitioners and the public.

It will also potentially give us more patients. Take rib-side pain,

for instance. I've known people who have had intermittent rib-side

pain, but just let it slide because they did not think that the

doctors would do anything for it. If they knew that it was a specific

disease in CM and could readily be treated, maybe they would.

 

Brian C.Allen

[Guest guest]

<< , " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> 1) I personally have no problem with having a study based upon a

> western disease as long as there is enough CM pattern differentiation

> within it. 2 reasons, a) This is done in China, b) this is what the

> American public relate to, not running piglet…Objections?

 

While I do not disagree with this point, I also see no problem at all

with using Chinese disease categories, even running piglet.

 

There are new Western disease and syndrome names appearing all of the

time which with public has to take time to get familiar. Remember

when AIDS was new? What about SARS?

 

Introducing the public or media to Chinese disease names will open the

door for better communication between CM practitioners and the public.

It will also potentially give us more patients. Take rib-side pain,

for instance. I've known people who have had intermittent rib-side

pain, but just let it slide because they did not think that the

doctors would do anything for it. If they knew that it was a specific

disease in CM and could readily be treated, maybe they would.

 

Brian C.Allen>>

 

Brian,

This is a good point.

 

In my work, I always go to great pains to discuss in detail what's

wrong with the patient from a CM perspective. Perhaps a very small

number of people haven't felt comfortable with that over the years,

but almost everyone else has. Chinese medicine provides a rich

language and set of concepts with which to understand health and

illness, and in my experience, people have a strong need to understand

what's wrong with them. In some cases, just having this understanding

is a major issue for them.

 

The mere fact that patients can understand saomething of the worldview

and concepts of CM, and relate these to themselves, is one of the most

potent forces in making CM acceptable, in my opinion. Then, when their

doctor or anyone else suggests one way or another that CM's just a

load of baloney, the patient can smile, and realise that they're

ignorant.

 

I think Brian is making a very importnat point here.

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

I think this is important as well. Often times, Chinese medical disease

names, or explanations of patterns gives them tools to understand

themselves and their conditions that biomedicine cannot.

 

In saying this, I am not suggesting that patients don't avail

themselves of Western diagnoses as well.

 

 

On Nov 17, 2003, at 1:29 PM, wainwrightchurchill wrote:

 

> Brian,

> This is a good point.

>

> In my work, I always go to great pains to discuss in detail what's

> wrong with the patient from a CM perspective. Perhaps a very small

> number of people haven't felt comfortable with that over the years,

> but almost everyone else has. Chinese medicine provides a rich

> language and set of concepts with which to understand health and

> illness, and in my experience, people have a strong need to understand

> what's wrong with them. In some cases, just having this understanding

> is a major issue for them.

>

> The mere fact that patients can understand saomething of the worldview

> and concepts of CM, and relate these to themselves, is one of the most

> potent forces in making CM acceptable, in my opinion. Then, when their

> doctor or anyone else suggests one way or another that CM's just a

> load of baloney, the patient can smile, and realise that they're

> ignorant.

>

> I think Brian is making a very importnat point here.

>

> Wainwright

>

[Guest guest]

, " wainwrightchurchill "

<w.churchill_1

 

Wain, Brian & others,

 

Firstly I can't disagree that there is an extreme value in describing

diseases to patients in a CM paradigm. This I do every day… But

this is far from the point. My discussion in completely centering

around presenting data and research to the public. This is it! let

us stay focused on this…

Imagine the 6 o'clock news: CM has a cure for running piglet, 75% are

now symptom free… OR even rib-side pain… This is not reasonable,

especially for insurance companies. There is a system and unless you

can show that there is some tangible chance in changing things in

some light speed manner then we have to play by current rules. (to a

certain extent) that is why we have mixed paradigms,.. Western

disease with CM categories.

Yes in a perfect world some would just like to be treating lily

disease, but again this is not our reality. Yes in a perfect world

MD's and insurance companies would seek out our consult and have

impetuous desire to understand the CM framework. But this is not the

case, unfortunately.

Finally wain, you are discussing a situation where the patient is

already in the door, the battle is already won… This is not the

point.

 

Brian, How are going to introduce the public to the Chinese disease

names? Do you have some connection with 20/20 that is ready to do a

groundbreaking expose on running piglet… Or maybe you can do some

lectures, where 5-10 people show up and talk about classical disease

names vs. modern diseases… good luck... I am just not convinced…

 

The people that we are discussing and trying to reach are involved

with Western medicine... They know nothing about CM, I think it is a

(2nd) pipedream to think that when they hear about rib-side pain or

running piglet that they are ready to knock down your doors.. When it

reality they know they have hepatitis.

 

-

 

> While I do not disagree with this point, I also see no problem at

all

> with using Chinese disease categories, even running piglet.

>

> There are new Western disease and syndrome names appearing all of

the

> time which with public has to take time to get familiar. Remember

> when AIDS was new? What about SARS?

>

> Introducing the public or media to Chinese disease names will open

the

> door for better communication between CM practitioners and the

public.

> It will also potentially give us more patients. Take rib-side pain,

> for instance. I've known people who have had intermittent rib-side

> pain, but just let it slide because they did not think that the

> doctors would do anything for it. If they knew that it was a

specific

> disease in CM and could readily be treated, maybe they would.

>

> Brian C.Allen>>

>

> Brian,

> This is a good point.

>

> In my work, I always go to great pains to discuss in detail what's

> wrong with the patient from a CM perspective. Perhaps a very small

> number of people haven't felt comfortable with that over the years,

> but almost everyone else has. Chinese medicine provides a rich

> language and set of concepts with which to understand health and

> illness, and in my experience, people have a strong need to

understand

> what's wrong with them. In some cases, just having this

understanding

> is a major issue for them.

>

> The mere fact that patients can understand saomething of the

worldview

> and concepts of CM, and relate these to themselves, is one of the

most

> potent forces in making CM acceptable, in my opinion. Then, when

their

> doctor or anyone else suggests one way or another that CM's just a

> load of baloney, the patient can smile, and realise that they're

> ignorant.

>

> I think Brian is making a very importnat point here.

>

> Wainwright

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

> Brian, How are going to introduce the public to the Chinese disease

> names? Do you have some connection with 20/20 that is ready to do a

> groundbreaking expose on running piglet… Or maybe you can do some

> lectures, where 5-10 people show up and talk about classical disease

> names vs. modern diseases… good luck... I am just not convinced…

 

I does not happen all at once; it happens little by little. Of

course, it will not happen at all, if the professional is not willing

to stand its ground. There are many approaches to PR and things like

this happen slowly, so by suggested 20/20 you are making the task seem

like something that is not.

 

Here are some methods:

1. educate your patients

2. hold regular open houses to educate the general public; chose

broad topics such as gynocology, mental illness, etc. to get them in

the door

3. produce good literature on the topics and get it published in

mainstream western (not necessarily medical) magazines, journals, etc.

4. newpaper articles

5. write a book; call it something like " You really are sick - here

are your symptoms " - the book can list groupings of symptoms and

relate them to the CM disease/pattern diagnosis; this type of book can

have a lot of potential and really start the ball rolling

6. I could go on and on, but I think you (or least others) get the point

 

> The people that we are discussing and trying to reach are involved

> with Western medicine... They know nothing about CM, I think it is a

> (2nd) pipedream to think that when they hear about rib-side pain or

> running piglet that they are ready to knock down your doors.. When it

> reality they know they have hepatitis.

 

I get rib-side pain, and I most certainly do not have hepatitis,

neither do the other people that I know personally who have rib-side

pain. Those kind of assumptions require more careful attention.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Actually, I have a different experience.

 

Of course, we have deal with what people are familiar with, and guide

them from there to 'new realities'. But this doesn't mean we should

misrepresent what it is that we do and how we describe clinical

reality.

 

One time, I had to testify in a law suit undertaken by a patient with a

faulty breast implant, I was subpoenaed by the medical company that was

being sued. I had moved by then, so they sent a court recorder and

attorneys. I had to share my patient records with them. I told them

that I was a practitioner of Chinese medicine, and would only give an

opinion according to my diagnosis, treatment modalities, and

methodology, which included pulse and tongue diagnosis. I explained my

terms and my charts to them, gave them my analysis, and felt like I was

on safe ground. It was a learning experience for all parties, I must

say.

 

Once you imply western diagnoses, at least in the states, you have

questions of scope of practice. In China, CM physicians can make

biomedical diagnoses, I believe. Not so in America. Any biomedical

diagnosis has to come from a WM doctor or associated practitioner such

as a nurse or physical therapist. It is outside our scope of practice.

 

If we are treating a patient with a biomedically diagnosed condition,

yes, we can also diagnose them in our own system, while using the

information of WM to help fill in what we do. However, if we do not

reframe the disease accordingly, we are simply technicians.

 

I often wonder about the ethics of filling in WM disease categories on

insurance forms, for example, since we don't really do western

diagnoses.

 

 

On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:15 PM, wrote:

 

> Imagine the 6 o'clock news: CM has a cure for running piglet, 75% are

> now symptom free… OR even rib-side pain… This is not reasonable,

> especially for insurance companies. There is a system and unless you

> can show that there is some tangible chance in changing things in

> some light speed manner then we have to play by current rules. (to a

> certain extent) that is why we have mixed paradigms,.. Western

> disease with CM categories.

> Yes in a perfect world some would just like to be treating lily

> disease, but again this is not our reality. Yes in a perfect world

> MD's and insurance companies would seek out our consult and have

> impetuous desire to understand the CM framework. But this is not the

> case, unfortunately.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Zev,

 

This a very interesting case . What was the outcome of the court

case? How did your testimony figur e in the outcome of the

case? .

 

 

Regards,

 

Rey Tiquia

 

 

, " Z'ev

Rosenberg " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Actually, I have a different experience.

>

> Of course, we have deal with what people are familiar with, and

guide

> them from there to 'new realities'. But this doesn't mean we

should

> misrepresent what it is that we do and how we describe

clinical

> reality.

>

> One time, I had to testify in a law suit undertaken by a patient

with a

> faulty breast implant, I was subpoenaed by the medical

company that was

> being sued. I had moved by then, so they sent a court recorder

and

> attorneys. I had to share my patient records with them. I told

them

> that I was a practitioner of Chinese medicine, and would only

give an

> opinion according to my diagnosis, treatment modalities, and

> methodology, which included pulse and tongue diagnosis. I

explained my

> terms and my charts to them, gave them my analysis, and felt

like I was

> on safe ground. It was a learning experience for all parties, I

must

> say.

>

> Once you imply western diagnoses, at least in the states, you

have

> questions of scope of practice. In China, CM physicians can

make

> biomedical diagnoses, I believe. Not so in America. Any

biomedical

> diagnosis has to come from a WM doctor or associated

practitioner such

> as a nurse or physical therapist. It is outside our scope of

practice.

>

> If we are treating a patient with a biomedically diagnosed

condition,

> yes, we can also diagnose them in our own system, while

using the

> information of WM to help fill in what we do. However, if we do

not

> reframe the disease accordingly, we are simply technicians.

>

> I often wonder about the ethics of filling in WM disease

categories on

> insurance forms, for example, since we don't really do western

> diagnoses.

>

>

> On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:15 PM, wrote:

>

> > Imagine the 6 o'clock news: CM has a cure for running piglet,

75% are

> > now symptom free… OR even rib-side pain… This is not

reasonable,

> > especially for insurance companies. There is a system and

unless you

> > can show that there is some tangible chance in changing

things in

> > some light speed manner then we have to play by current

rules. (to a

> > certain extent) that is why we have mixed paradigms,..

Western

> > disease with CM categories.

> > Yes in a perfect world some would just like to be treating lily

> > disease, but again this is not our reality. Yes in a perfect

world

> > MD's and insurance companies would seek out our consult

and have

> > impetuous desire to understand the CM framework. But this

is not the

> > case, unfortunately.

> >

[Guest guest]

<< <@h...>

Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:15pm

Re: Research the next step...

 

 

Imagine the 6 o'clock news: CM has a cure for running piglet, 75% are

now symptom free… OR even rib-side pain… This is not reasonable,

especially for insurance companies.>>

 

 

Jason,

 

I'll admit you've got a point...

 

I think the idea of explaining CM to patients is important, and I'm

glad it came up via Brian's response.

 

It's not just that from the point of view of 'Purity of Paradigms',

we should keep CM within its own framework as much as possible. There

is great value in disseminating a profound, alternative and mature

system. I attended a seminar with Bob Flaws in London in about 1990,

at the time that I'm aware that Bob was classifying nutrients etc. in

TCM terms. Bob predicted that TCM theory, as a highly developed

system, would become THE alternative medical system to biomedicine,

and that other CAM methodologies would utilise TCM theory in future. I

don't know that much of this has come about, but it is still a very

interesting idea, based on an important insight.

 

What the public needs to know is that there is not just an alternative

set of therapeutics out there, there's a whole, deeply worked out,

entire system of medicine, within which many medical problems

recalcitrant to biomedical understanding and treatment can be

understood and treated.

 

If a major reason for research is to put CM on the map, it's peculiar

to have to do so with its hands tied behind its back. Ideally,

research should not merely be paradigm-sensitive, although this is

certainly important, it should be paradigm-based. That's how CM will

really get on the map, when people come to realise that CM has an

alternative mode of understanding that stands on its own, and in

certain ways at least, surpasses biomedicine.

 

OK, maybe this sounds like a bridge too far at the moment. Maybe it

is. But if we're brainstorming, why not consider the ideal situation

for CM as carefully as possible, before compromising.

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

The plaintiff won her case. . . .in a nutshell, I talked basically

about the patient's liver qi depression, and the relationship of the

stomach and liver channels to the breast, and how her digestion and

other symptoms associated with liver and stomach had worsened since her

implant. By the way, the implant was not for cosmetic purposes, but an

issue with breast and muscle development on one side of her body.

 

This doesn't mean that my testimony was the deciding factor. I never

got to hear any of the other testimonies, or how the court came to its

decision.

 

 

On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:42 PM, rey tiquia wrote:

 

> Dear Zev,

>

> This a very interesting case . What was the outcome of the court

> case? How did your testimony figur e in the outcome of the

> case? .

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Rey Tiquia

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

 

> Of course, we have deal with what people are familiar with, and guide

> them from there to 'new realities'. But this doesn't mean we should

> misrepresent what it is that we do and how we describe clinical

> reality.

 

I was just about to write something similar to what you wrote above.

While Jason speaks of running piglet and lilly disease, I would take a

more palatable approach. Do the research, and the education that I

previous spoke about, with diseases that have more common names and

that may be the same as or overlap Western diseases - for example:

headache, cough, wheezing, diarrhea, even wind-cold and wind-heat

attacks, and bi-syndrome. Once the people are used to the idea that

there are CM disease categories and that the treatments work, then

expand the scope into the more odd names and presentations such as

running piglet and lilly disease.

 

> I often wonder about the ethics of filling in WM disease categories on

> insurance forms, for example, since we don't really do western

> diagnoses.

 

This is another good point that you bring up. I view my western

biomedical education at PCOM as a tool with 2 main purposes:

1. If a patient does come with a Western disease diagnosis, I can

understand (or find out about) the disease from that perspective.

However, this understanding is more of a curiosity / patient relation

thing rather than a guideline for CM diagnosis. I study CM, so that

is what I am going to use for diagnosis and development of a treatment

plan.

2. The Western biomedical education will also allow me to have an

idea about when it is important to refer out and enable me to

communicate on a basic level with Western healthcare workers.

 

Also, bravo to you Z'ev for playing it straight with the legal deposition.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " wainwrightchurchill "

<w.churchill_1-@t...> wrote:

 

> If a major reason for research is to put CM on the map, it's peculiar

> to have to do so with its hands tied behind its back. Ideally,

> research should not merely be paradigm-sensitive, although this is

> certainly important, it should be paradigm-based. That's how CM will

> really get on the map, when people come to realise that CM has an

> alternative mode of understanding that stands on its own, and in

> certain ways at least, surpasses biomedicine.

>

> OK, maybe this sounds like a bridge too far at the moment. Maybe it

> is. But if we're brainstorming, why not consider the ideal situation

> for CM as carefully as possible, before compromising.

>

> Wainwright

 

This is more or less what I had in mind as well, but for some reason,

today, verbal/ written expression is not happening well for me.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Dear Zev,

 

" Once you imply western diagnoses, at least in the states, you

have

> questions of scope of practice. In China, CM physicians can

make

> biomedical diagnoses, I believe. Not so in America. Any

biomedical

> diagnosis has to come from a WM doctor or associated

practitioner such

> as a nurse or physical therapist. It is outside our scope of

practice. " Zev

 

In this postcolonial and postmodernistic era where plurality of

healthcare is the new reality in the West including Australia and

America, there should be symmetry and equality in the

relationships between the dominant paradigm of biomedicine

and the various paradigms of CAM which includes CM or TCM.

Differing systems of medical knowing have different ways of

diagnosing and treating patients. However, our different ways of

knowing does not preclude us from having a dialogue among

equals with practitioners of biomedicine. This means that we

can translate symmetrically and equally our diagnosis and

treatments of certain patients to those made by biomedical

practitioners.

 

Zev, it is great what your pointed out on the scope of medical

practices. In China TCM practitioners can make WM diagnosis

because the scope of TCM practice as well as those of other

health care practices are not defined. They still live in 'modern

times " or the era of modernization. However, we do have a

different situation in the West , specifically Australia and America.

 

We do not intend to transgress the sope of practice of

other health practitioners. However, we are always willing to

dialogue with them on an equal basis. This we do, having the

common interest of the patient at heart.

 

 

Regards,

 

Rey Tiquia

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bca@o...>

wrote:

> Here are some methods:

> 1. educate your patients

> 2. hold regular open houses to educate the general public; chose

> broad topics such as gynocology, mental illness, etc. to get them in

> the door

> 3. produce good literature on the topics and get it published in

> mainstream western (not necessarily medical) magazines, journals,

etc.

> 4. newpaper articles

> 5. write a book; call it something like " You really are sick - here

> are your symptoms " - the book can list groupings of symptoms and

> relate them to the CM disease/pattern diagnosis; this type of book

can

> have a lot of potential and really start the ball rolling

> 6. I could go on and on, but I think you (or least others) get the

point

>

> > The people that we are discussing and trying to reach are

involved

> > with Western medicine... They know nothing about CM, I think it

is a

> > (2nd) pipedream to think that when they hear about rib-side pain

or

> > running piglet that they are ready to knock down your doors..

When it

> > reality they know they have hepatitis.

>

> I get rib-side pain, and I most certainly do not have hepatitis,

> neither do the other people that I know personally who have rib-side

> pain. Those kind of assumptions require more careful attention.

>

> Brian C. Allen

 

Brian,

 

I think you are missing the point. OF course rib-side pain does not

equal hepatitis... But if someone has hepatitis w/ rib-side pain as

the chief symptom, they are still going to relate to their disease

from a western biomedical hepatitis perspective... So when they see

your lecture on rib-side pain or see the 20/20 expose on it, will

they tune in...? I just don't think the populous is ready to relate

to CM diseases..

 

But I do agree with you that we should convert them one by one as

mentioned above, but I think (this discussion) is that we are really

trying to reach the masses, and educating the patients one by one is

way to slow.. I.e. We have been doing what you say for 20 years and

the patient population is not high enough for the amount of

practitioners. We are definitely not tapping into the VAST majority

of people… So something more needs to be done…hhhmmm.. research that

people relate to…. Thars an idea…

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Actually, I have a different experience.

>

> Of course, we have deal with what people are familiar with, and

guide

> them from there to 'new realities'. But this doesn't mean we

should

> misrepresent what it is that we do and how we describe clinical

> reality.

>

> One time, I had to testify in a law suit undertaken by a patient

with a

> faulty breast implant, I was subpoenaed by the medical company that

was

> being sued. I had moved by then, so they sent a court recorder and

> attorneys. I had to share my patient records with them. I told

them

> that I was a practitioner of Chinese medicine, and would only give

an

> opinion according to my diagnosis, treatment modalities, and

> methodology, which included pulse and tongue diagnosis. I

explained my

> terms and my charts to them, gave them my analysis, and felt like I

was

> on safe ground. It was a learning experience for all parties, I

must

> say.

>

> Once you imply western diagnoses, at least in the states, you have

> questions of scope of practice. In China, CM physicians can make

> biomedical diagnoses, I believe. Not so in America. Any

biomedical

> diagnosis has to come from a WM doctor or associated practitioner

such

> as a nurse or physical therapist. It is outside our scope of

practice.

>

> If we are treating a patient with a biomedically diagnosed

condition,

> yes, we can also diagnose them in our own system, while using the

> information of WM to help fill in what we do. However, if we do

not

> reframe the disease accordingly, we are simply technicians.

 

This is a given…

 

>

> I often wonder about the ethics of filling in WM disease categories

on

> insurance forms, for example, since we don't really do western

> diagnoses.

>

 

But you bring up some interesting points. But I have the suspicion

we can use biomedical diseases as window into CM… I.e. 1) If I give

a lecture on on Hepatitis (which is done often),

this is fine. A) people relate to it, b) it shows people we can

treat WM disease (which is a very important idea). C) I see no leagal

issue with this.

2) Just a few hours ago I talked very directly with a patient

about potential CA and what CM can do… If things are worded correctly

this is a very important topic. You can't always talk about

stagnation and damp (or whatever)

3) More importantly to consider is the IBS study , since this

thread is geared towards research, yet we keep getting diverted…

They clearly used a western medical DX, were they arrested? If they

did it, why can't repeat such studies… I think it is all in approach

& wording. Are you that worried about scope of practice?

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Actually, I have a different experience.

>

> Of course, we have deal with what people are familiar with, and

guide

> them from there to 'new realities'. But this doesn't mean we

should

> misrepresent what it is that we do and how we describe clinical

> reality.

 

True, I never thought anyone would... Did the IBS study mispresent

us, can't we treat such a condition effectivly with CM.. What are you

getting at... BTW i do think we treat Western Diseases.. they are the

same as CM (generally speaking) just different pair of glasses.

 

-

[Guest guest]

Good questions and thoughts, Jason.

 

In the case of the IBS study, I can only assume

 

1) that the patient was diagnosed with IBS by a Western practitioner.

 

2) I believe the formula of choice was tong xie yao fang, or a

modification of same.

 

3) the results were promising.

 

However, the end result is problematic. IBS has different stages and

degrees of severity in WM, not to mention other potential patterns in

CM (I don't remember if there was pattern differentiation in this

study).

 

Secondly, at least one herb company I am aware of began producing an

'IBS' formula after this study, which, in my opinion, is quite

misleading. Again, it will be helpful for some patients, useless for

others, and perhaps harmful for a third group.

 

I have no problems with lectures on biomedical diseases such as

hepatitis. I do them myself at times, sometimes in collaboration with

Western physicians who have a more rich data set. And I agree with you

and Bob Flaws that using a biomedical disease name, and then

differentiating patterns is an agreeable method at least some of the

time.

 

But I think it is not always appropriate or adequate, and as I've

pointed out above, can lead to problems, especially when a majority of

the public is inclined to think in certain ways, i.e. gingko is good

for memory, st. johnswort for depression.

 

There are no easy answers to these problems.

 

But, yes, done properly, we can use biomedical disease names as windows

into CM.

 

Finally, as far as biomedical diagnosis goes. If I suspect a potential

'biomedical' disease entity when I examine a patient, I'll send them to

an allied Western physician for the appropriate tests. I trust their

expertise in that area more than my own.

 

 

 

On Nov 17, 2003, at 5:03 PM, wrote:

 

> But you bring up some interesting points. But I have the suspicion

> we can use biomedical diseases as window into CM… I.e. 1) If I give

> a lecture on on Hepatitis (which is done often),

> this is fine. A) people relate to it, b) it shows people we can

> treat WM disease (which is a very important idea). C) I see no leagal

> issue with this.

> 2) Just a few hours ago I talked very directly with a patient

> about potential CA and what CM can do… If things are worded correctly

> this is a very important topic. You can't always talk about

> stagnation and damp (or whatever)

> 3) More importantly to consider is the IBS study , since this

> thread is geared towards research, yet we keep getting diverted…

> They clearly used a western medical DX, were they arrested? If they

> did it, why can't repeat such studies… I think it is all in approach

> & wording. Are you that worried about scope of practice?

[Guest guest]

Jason and Z'ev,

 

If you cross-reference carefully, you'll note that IBS can be associated

with the genetic marker HLA-B27. This is closely associated with Reiter's

Syndrome (iritis or uveitis) along with ankylosing spondylitis of the lumbar

(or lumbo-thoracic) vertebrae. That is, the tables of the vertebral bodies

tend to spur and overgrow, sometimes ankylosing (growing together) in a

spinal fusion. Look for these signs together. It's also noted that if you

treat aggressively the signs and symptoms associated with HLA-B27 (IBS,

uveitis, ankylosing) and control it through the late 20s and on through the

30s, that by the early to mid-40s the signs and symptoms tend to subside.

Obviously lifestyle changes and stress reduction can play a huge role in all

of this. This is an area I've been working hard to understand and look

forward to any insights that CM has to offer.

 

In gratitude,

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

" " <zrosenbe

 

Monday, November 17, 2003 5:15 PM

Re: Re: Research the next step...

 

 

Good questions and thoughts, Jason.

 

In the case of the IBS study, I can only assume

 

1) that the patient was diagnosed with IBS by a Western practitioner.

 

2) I believe the formula of choice was tong xie yao fang, or a

modification of same.

 

3) the results were promising.

 

However, the end result is problematic. IBS has different stages and

degrees of severity in WM, not to mention other potential patterns in

CM (I don't remember if there was pattern differentiation in this

study).

 

Secondly, at least one herb company I am aware of began producing an

'IBS' formula after this study, which, in my opinion, is quite

misleading. Again, it will be helpful for some patients, useless for

others, and perhaps harmful for a third group.

 

I have no problems with lectures on biomedical diseases such as

hepatitis. I do them myself at times, sometimes in collaboration with

Western physicians who have a more rich data set. And I agree with you

and Bob Flaws that using a biomedical disease name, and then

differentiating patterns is an agreeable method at least some of the

time.

 

But I think it is not always appropriate or adequate, and as I've

pointed out above, can lead to problems, especially when a majority of

the public is inclined to think in certain ways, i.e. gingko is good

for memory, st. johnswort for depression.

 

There are no easy answers to these problems.

 

But, yes, done properly, we can use biomedical disease names as windows

into CM.

 

Finally, as far as biomedical diagnosis goes. If I suspect a potential

'biomedical' disease entity when I examine a patient, I'll send them to

an allied Western physician for the appropriate tests. I trust their

expertise in that area more than my own.