Standard of care

[Guest guest]

<<>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,

Rory>>

 

Bob and Rory,

 

Rory's response was similar to mine about herb prescribing in the UK -

the style of prescribing that Bob referred to seems to me to be what

people who are not fully-trained herbalists do.

 

Wainwright

--

[Guest guest]

I would like to know how you came to these generalizations, and who

they refer to. What does " de facto standard of care " mean?

 

>>>>Rory even if it is not " standard of care " sale of such production shows that

they are used in very large amounts. This is true in china as well. So that they

do deserve studying in any case. If we do a study however i would like to have

two arms one based on individualized and one on fixed formulae. As to your other

question i do agree that we always need to know what has been done in china or

anywhere else. I do not question the educational and possibly guiding value of

such knowledge. Its the truth of the outcome that i question. So i like to see

these studies as pilot studies that need to be repeated in a more reliable

setting.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I would like to know how you came to these generalizations, and

who they refer to. What does " de facto standard of care " mean?

>

> >>>>Rory even if it is not " standard of care " sale of such

production shows that they are used in very large amounts. This is

true in china as well. So that they do deserve studying in any case.

If we do a study however i would like to have two arms one based on

individualized and one on fixed formulae. As to your other question

i do agree that we always need to know what has been done in china

or anywhere else. I do not question the educational and possibly

guiding value of such knowledge. Its the truth of the outcome that i

question. So i like to see these studies as pilot studies that need

to be repeated in a more reliable setting.

 

 

Rory, Alon, Todd:

 

Without any real numbers behind all these generalizations, I don't

see how this argument can get any further than anecdotal

observations. Someone will always argue that something works or a

particular way of doing things helps, and it will probably be true

for, at least, some group of people.

 

Perhaps one place to start may be the sales figures for raw,

concentrate, and specific formulas. Then we would have some

realistic ideas about usage; then those numbers could project

a " defacto standard. " The hard part will be prying the numbers out

of the herb companies.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Perhaps one place to start may be the sales figures for raw,

concentrate, and specific formulas. Then we would have some

realistic ideas about usage; then those numbers could project

a " defacto standard. " The hard part will be prying the numbers out

of the herb companies.

>>>>>>I agree this would help, but at the same time look at how many acup use

health concerns etc.

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " wrote:

> Perhaps one place to start may be the sales figures for raw,

> concentrate, and specific formulas. Then we would have some

> realistic ideas about usage; then those numbers could project

> a " defacto standard. " The hard part will be prying the numbers out

> of the herb companies.

> >>>>>>I agree this would help, but at the same time look at how

many acup use health concerns etc.

 

 

 

Alon:

 

We would have to get figures (even approximate would do) from each

of the major suppliers; but not all would want to say what their

sales are.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

We would have to get figures (even approximate would do) from each

of the major suppliers; but not all would want to say what their

sales are.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

>>>Probably true. But even if small they are still used so that one can argue

that a study is warranted

Alon