Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 At 3:59 PM +0000 11/26/03, Bob Flaws wrote: >Wainwright, > > " Since it's arguable that for many illnesses, individualised >prescriptions, altered as treatment progresses, is the norm, this is >a big problem for investigating CHM as it is usually practiced. " > >The norm where? China, yes; North America definitely not. The de >facto standard of care in N. America, Europe, Israel, and >Australia-NZ is the use of ready-made formulas. So I think it does >make sense to study this. As for the use individualized formulas, >the Chinese publish oodles and oodles of research on those. The main >problem with that research is that it is not blinded. -- Bob, I would like to know how you came to these generalizations, and who they refer to. What does " de facto standard of care " mean? I practice in North America, where the standard was set long ago by Chinese immigrant practitioners as individualized prescribing. Nearly all my non-Chinese practitioner acquaintances in the San Francisco and New York areas prescribe raw or powdered individualized prescriptions, and as a CE teacher I find most of the practitioners attending who prescribe herbs do the same. So, how was your conclusion arrived at? What you seem to be describing is what non Asians who have taken an acupuncture only program do. If that's so, then for my money they do not represent anything other than irresponsible practice (ie practicing something you are not trained to do). This phenomenon may be very widespread, but it is not a standard of care, IMO. Rory -- 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.