modernism

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> The point of all this? I think that using shotgun treatment may work

> in acute short-term cases, or that one can use pharmacological

> properties to enhance one's knowledge and treatment (I know that I pay

> attention to this), but it cannot be as effective, in my opinion, as

> the traditional way of practice of herbal medicine.

 

 

 

The crux of this debate comes down to what people think. It has nothing to do

with

what goes in china now or historically. Let's face it. As unschuld has

demonstrated,

the vast majority of medicine in china was not practiced according to the

literate

tradition and the style of bian zheng lun zhi. while I was personally drawn to

this

style and it is in the fact the entire reason I chose to study TCM and abandon

naturopathy once upon a time, that has nothing to do with any proven efficacy

either

in the lab or my own clinic. It had everything to do with satisfying my desire

for a

holistic SYSTEM of thought to operate as an alternative or compliment to the

reductionism of WM. It still satisfies that philosophical desire and serves as

a pivotal

source of inspiration (as Farquhar uses the term pivot).

 

However I no longer hold the belief that it is somehow superior to emprical

medicine.

In fact, if Coulter's Divided Legacy, which chronicles the history or rational

vs.

empirical medicine in the west, applies also to chinese history, then we have

perhaps

overlooked one important point of the work. Nowhere does Coulter suggest that

either rational or empirical medicine is superior, because there is no

historical

evidence that this is true. In fact, empirics are quite durable in the west

while

theories change. Echinacea was used according to a different idea by native

americans, ecletics and german MD's and it worked for all. We see evidence of

the

same thing in the east if we compare the use of herbs in the ma wang dui texts

with

later texts. Many of the same herbs for the same diseases, but different

theories

about how they work. We have no evidence that ma wang dui demonological

medicine was anyless effective than nei jing style. We just know that for

cultural

reasons, demonology was no longer acceptable.

 

To reiterate, especially for those less familiar with the history and research,

there is

just no evidence on either account that bian zheng lun zhi is superior, just

that it was

the preference of the literati. Literati like to impress each other with words

and their

whole existence depends on such. so to say that written words may not be that

vital

to practice is quite anathema to literati physicians. to say that someone who

digs in

the dirt and can't draw a single character might be the best herbalist around is

heresy. the reason I write this is because I think we are dishonest as a

profession

when we make these claims. If our entire raison d'etre hinges upon the value of

our

unproven methodology, I believe we are putting way too many eggs in one basket.

If

we tow this line, we will obsolete ourselves. It would only take a brief period

of

investigation for outsiders to determine that the bulk of modern reseearch on CM

is

allopathic and thus claim the therapies for themselves. Anthropological study

would

confirm that the bulk of historical practice was empirical, not based upon the

theories

we hold so dear. Then the emperor would certainly wear no clothes.

 

Personally, I think that many of the most complex diseases I could not treat

without

the nuances of chinese theory. But those make up a small % of doctor's office

visits,

perhaps not in certain practices, but certainly nationwide. Many other

conditions

would yield quite well to less sophisticated intevention, IMO. It may not seem

good

for biz, but it is good for society to teach people these facts and how to take

care of

themselves. The basic facts about good nutrition and exercise are out there.

As long

as people who eat right and exercise DO NOT get medical attention for every

little

ailment, they will live long healthy lives. Most of my most seriously ill

patients are

suffering mainly from iatrogenesis. It may turn out that the main power of TCM

is

that it kept people from taking unnecessary drugs while their self-limited

ailments

got better on their own. the fact is, we just don't know.

 

Why do I write this. Because I strongly believe integration of western ideas,

testing of

our own methods, group patient education and acceptance of the empirical use of

our

herbs by our patients and medical peers is the ONLY hopeful path we have as a

profession. We will be completely marginalized in 25 years otherwise. I know

others

feel differently and will continue to argue their case, but I find it a weak one

and I am

on the inside. Everyone I know on the outside dismisses the purist position out

of

hand. Do people know what the MD's call us? Since our acronym is L.Ac., we are

referred to as " lacks " or " lax " by our local MD colleagues in SD. I think it is

a mistaken

belief that if devote our attention mainly to things learning chinese and

studying

classics in rigorous translation that we will someday impress the powers that be

with

our grasp of the nuances of this ancient healing repetoire. We must do these

things

for our own good, but none of this will change the minds of decisionmakers who

could care less about such things. I am a pragmatist and my personal vision is

guided by what I believe will yield the most benefit for society in terms of

healthcare.

It is ultimately of no concern to me at all what role CM as a sole profession

plays in

the final system.

 

Let me ask a hypothetical question, which means you assume my hypothesis is true

and not sidestep the question. If a technology was developed as on star trek

that

could essentially eliminate all common diseases and even repair most chronic

damge

as well and do this with zero iatrogenesis. In other words, this technology

guaranteed one was perfectly healthy and long lived. Would CM still play a role

in

such a society. What if this technology also eliminated the need for good diet

and

exercis. Even our counseling would be worthless. Maybe we will all teach qi

gong or

something. I want CM to play a role in the unfolding of the future of medicine.

We

can be part of this or not. We are at a transition point in cultural evolution

right now.

Many forces are calling for a return to the past because technology is perceived

as the

cause of all ills. But I think there is no turning back. In fact, as I have

said before,

technology has been one of the main forces that has ended contentious

philosophical

and scientific debates over the centuries. One example. New computerized

weeding

machines cannow already reduce pesticide use on plants by 70%. It is expected

that

in 2 decades, we will have a high tech agriculture that uses no poisons anymore.

Not

by a massive return to organic farming, which will never happen. thus the

debate

over environmental poisons will end due to new technology. Our productive

capacity

in the US is already much higher today than 30 years ago and we pollute far much

less. Why technology.