theory and fact & more?

[Guest guest]

, wrote:

> It occurred to me after I was asked that incomprehensible question

> about James Watson and DNA that this was hardly the matter on my mind.

> I am mostly interested in physiology and to a lesser degree,

> biochemistry and pharmacology. I was never any good at cellular

> genetics and in any event, I have always been more interested in

> observable events than abstract theory of any kind. Suffice it to say

> that I believe the vast majority of biologists believe both Darwin and

> Watson are well supported by the evidence. Since I cannot understand

> the complexity of this argument fully enough, I defer to them until

> evidence compels me otherwise.

>

> Physiology is lot more straightforward to me. An important

> naturopathic teacher who was also an L.Ac. first imparted to me the

> idea that I should view CM doctrine through the lens of physiology,

> not biochemistry or energy. Subhuti also took a decidedly

> physiological approach in his course in chinese herbology. He was my

> first teacher and after my exposure to Unschuld, I was completely

> convinced that Subhuti's physiological pragmatism was what appealed to

> me. My main teacher of herbs at OCOM and afterwards, Li Wei, was also

> a medical doctor and researcher. Thus all my main influences in these

> formative years were of such ilk.

>

> Anyway, when I think of physiology, I would submit that I am not

> talking about theory at all here, but raw hard facts. The heart pumps

> blood. The bladder stores and expels urine. The liver processes

> poisons and metabolites, essentially being the main factor in

> maintaining normal blood chemistry. Intact nerve pathways are needed

> for motor and sensory functions. These are all measurable things that

> can be proven in a variety of barbaric experiments. The most obvious

> of these were known in TCM. Others were not or at least not in the

> same way. Perhaps when we say the liver smooths the qi, this is

> actually the same thing as maintaining normal blood chemistry, but how

> does one ever " prove " the former? Disruptions in blood chemistry now

> being considered the main cause of mental illness, for example. My

> point is that one can easily prove that the blood pumping will be

> impaired if the heart is removed and the blood chemistry altered if the

> liver is impaired in some way. This can be done in a reproducible and

> reliable way. That is the key that distinguishes scientific fact from

> merely being accepted doctrine.

>

> Now I utilize CM doctrine all day long and find it immensely useful for

> what Farquhar calls the pivot into the CM archive (everyone should read

> Knowing Practice as I think it gives the best description of the

> relation between theory and practice in CM). But without considerable

> indoctrination, I can never prove the reality of many chinese ideas,

> such as yin and yang and qi. I cannot design experiments or write

> mathematical equations that allow me to use these ideas to predict or

> explain anything in a reliable and reproducible fashion. Qi is not

> like gravity, another invisible force we know only by its effects, but

> which yields its secrets in simple mathematical equations. I believe

> all of these chinese forces are just concepts which can never be

> measured. Qi is like emotions, something one perceives with the human

> mind when simultaneously biochemical changes are happening within. I

> also find Freud's ideas about id, ego and superego interesting and

> useful, as do I also find intriguing Wilber's discussion of transegoic

> states. But Wilber would be the first to admit that his ideas can only

> be proven when a community of those who have studied the same doctrines

> and dialogued on it reach a consensus of the mind. Wilber is clear

> that there is an eye of the flesh, mind and spirit. Much of western

> science looks at the world using the eye of the flesh as its primary

> tool (can I touch it, see it, etc.). Theory (a product of the eye of

> the mind) is supposed to be based upon a preponderance of evidence

> accumulated by the eye of the flesh. Theory of this sort can always be

> then tested to see if the empirical evidence stands up under close

> scrutiny.

 

Yes this is a valid representation of western way of thinking and

scientific method... and I think if one does not believe in things

`beyond the flesh' then one can work within this system. But I for

one have had too many experiences to be confined to such a pedantic

view of reality. I understand things exist (factors) that science

probably will never get a handle on… Qi is a concept that works, is

felt, and is very much part of CM. I doubt western science will ever

understand it. I for one see strengths in both systems, and in no way

feel CM is in inferior to WS. Obviously western science can work well

with CM. But CM has done pretty well for itself up until WS moved in…

Actually, IMO, quite remarkable.

I have just started torahari training, which is a very refined way of

healing/ acupuncture, that could never be measured under western

science. There are too many variables… Things like intention, being

able to feel subtle qi changes, very energetic style techniques (for

those who do not know, most of the time the needle does not puncture

the skin.) etc are in this system… Does this mean it doesn't work..

of course not… Does this mean is can't be taught, of course not, does

this mean it can't be tested… hmhmmhmmm here is the question.,.. Can

it be tested…? OF COURSE IT CAN! It actually has a built in system of

testing. And yes it does involve everyone involved to be

indoctrinated into the system… But that is fine... it revolves around

changes that a consesus can validate, and then reproduce... that is

their way.. and trust me it is very valid! They have found a way to

keep developing their system, keep acquiring new TESTED information,

and passing it on to others.. It is very profound…

 

Furthermore, for an example for alon about a theory in CM that no

longer exists and has been replaced.. look at demonology.. Disease was

once thought to come about from demons.. this is was MAINSTREAM.. but

is no longer…

Also with the treatment of night blindness mentioned previous, which I

hope is no longer practiced by anyone here.. there was theory with it

(also).. and yes you don't hear about it because it is no longer used.

The theories you here about are used somewhere, the theories that are

gone, are not mentioned anymore.. I think it is naïve to believe that

they don't/ didn't exist.

 

Yes they didn't do a double-blind - But personally that does not

bother me... It was shown not to work... and they moved on...

 

Western Science can shed some light on subjects. It is a great

compliment to CM. But IMO, to put total faith in a lifeless (IMO)

system is only limiting oneself in the human and healing experience.

Obviously they have missed the boat on many issues, obvious by the

state of health of out society, and the desire for many people to come

to us… and our success with problems they cann't even Dx.

 

I don't know why there is such a backlash here against CM… Since I

guess this is a CM discussion board, why don't we accept that each

side has things to offer and deal with issues that pertain to the

clinic… I (personally) am willing to take in any scientifically

proven information from China, the West, or any time tested CM

information… But speculations, and a constant attack on CM (because

it is not scientifically proven- without themselves having Western

science proof)) seems a) non-productive, b) bad for our profession, c)

starting to become a personal waste of time… but of course that is me…

I am hopefully done defending CM…

 

Can we move past this…?

 

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/2/04 12:14:30 AM, alonmarcus writes:

 

<< I do not think anyone on this list thinks WM is perfect by any sense of

the word. >>

 

Yes, but in recognizing the limitations of WM we also have to recognize the

limitations of the theoretical underpinnings of WM as well - its reductionist

research methods, its habit of studying parts out of context of the whole.

Research done this way often lead to unreliable or meaningless results.

--roseanne s.

[Guest guest]

Yes this is a valid representation of western way of thinking and

scientific method... and I think if one does not believe in things

`beyond the flesh' then one can work within this system. But I for

one have had too many experiences to be confined to such a pedantic

view of reality. I understand things exist (factors) that science

probably will never get a handle on. Qi is a concept that works, is

felt, and is very much part of CM.

 

>>>>Only when framed in vague ways. As soon as you start talking about specifics

of Qi in any and all the ways Qi is used in CM you can bring it the modern

scientific langue. It is only the need to " have " Qi as a crutch that keeps it

outside such endeavors. Show me anything you know about Qi (in medicine) that

can not be measured.

 

 

have just started torahari training, which is a very refined way of

healing/ acupuncture, that could never be measured under western

science. There are too many variables. Things like intention, being

able to feel subtle qi changes, very energetic style techniques (for

those who do not know, most of the time the needle does not puncture

the skin.) etc are in this system. Does this mean it doesn't work..

of course not. Does this mean is can't be taught, of course not, does

this mean it can't be tested. hmhmmhmmm here is the question.,.. Can

it be tested.? OF COURSE IT CAN! It

 

>>>Well, we can measure empty space, particles and energies in the infinite and

infinitesimal, you want to tell me we cannot measure the effect of such

treatments. When we cant measure these directly then (and more importantly in

medicine) we can measure their effects. When we find therapies that when

evaluated with any sense of objectivity in outcome, fail, we too often just say

well they are outside the preview of objectivity.

 

Here again we get back to what is evidence. Any experiment that can be

reproduced is science. If or when torahari can be reproduced it can be measured

either by physical effects, clinical outcomes greater than placebo, changes in

physiological fields (electric or magnetic), ionic cellular movements and with

many more ways, form fMRIs to PAT, PSACT, or other biological parameters. When

we " know beyond the flesh " but can not document what we are talking about, it is

dogma and possibly group projection.

 

Jason, demonology is coming back in mainland (and some say never left). I also

thought that is it is still a part of doist medicine. Specific treatments such

as you gave for night blindness are not theories of CM just protocols many of

which fell from popularity and many which are coming back.Believe the use of

shit and urine is still done as i personally observed in china.And as we know

urine therapy does have basis in science.

 

I don't know why there is such a backlash here against CM. Since I

guess this is a CM discussion board, why don't we accept that each

side has things to offer and deal with issues that pertain to the

clinic.

 

>>>>>I do not see this as a backlash at all. These are questions as to were we

need to go from here as a profession and are extremely important. A backlash for

example would hint that i for one think CM has no merit which is not true by any

sense of the word. These however are questions that " question " traditionalisms.

These are questions that ask are we going to change what we see as evidence or

continue in the same historical measures? They are very productive, certainly

not bad for the profession.

I think the attitude of " defending " CM is a very immature one, and is what i am

trying to address. Are we going to continue viewing these questions as attacks,

as black and white, as being for or against CM. Or are we past these, excepting

that CM has much to offer, much in terms of " truth " and at the same time, has is

very clear clinically evident weakness, has areas of mistakes, irrelevance (all

of which can be easily seen when observing practice in Chinese and other Asian

hospitals) as serious shortcommmings. Are we to just continue in the name of CM,

or continue in our responsibility to patients not turfs and attachments

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...>

>

> >>>>Only when framed in vague ways. As soon as you start talking

about specifics of Qi in any and all the ways Qi is used in CM you can

bring it the modern scientific langue. It is only the need to " have "

Qi as a crutch that keeps it outside such endeavors. Show me anything

you know about Qi (in medicine) that can not be measured...

> >>>Well, we can measure empty space, particles and energies in the

infinite and infinitesimal, you want to tell me we cannot measure the

effect of such treatments. When we cant measure these directly then

(and more importantly in medicine) we can measure their effects. When

we find therapies that when evaluated with any sense of objectivity in

outcome, fail, we too often just say well they are outside the preview

of objectivity.

> Here again we get back to what is evidence. Any experiment that can

be reproduced is science. If or when torahari can be reproduced it can

be measured either by physical effects, clinical outcomes greater than

placebo, changes in physiological fields (electric or magnetic), ionic

cellular movements and with many more ways, form fMRIs to PAT, PSACT,

or other biological parameters. When we " know beyond the flesh " but

can not document what we are talking about, it is dogma and possibly

group projection.

 

Yes... of course, but because of the multitude of influential factors

there can never be a double blind study... and when tests don't

conform to the western gold-standard we have all the whiners saying

it's not valid… You can't have it both ways...

I am fine with putting therapy A against therapy B (or placebo) - But

remember the resistance to this a few months ago... So many where up

in arms because there are too many variables, not double-blind etc

etc.. This (and more) is done in China, yet we can trust them...

But I agree with you, things can be tested… So we agree on that ( I

think) … and I think we pretty much disagree about everything else,

and that is OK…

 

But, since you obviously have some problem with CM as it is, or you

think because of cultural issues that CM theory is flawed, (or

something) let's take this into real life… I would like you (or

others) to supply (mainstream) theories from CM that you feel have

been invalidated by Western Science. This way we have something to

actually talk about vs. you or I don't like this or that. Because I

think we all can agree testing is fine… We might not agree of the

appropriate method, but I think everyone here thinks procedures and

theory should be able to reproduced and tested… So show us were CM is

so off , and we can talk about what to do about it… Otherwise we just

have lip service…

Personally in my clinic I have not found such a huge problem as you

suggest…Meaning I can get results using the current theory…

 

I also find it humorous that

a) Much of western medicine is not validated with research, and theory

is what dictates the protocol (or just an idea.) what is the

difference here?…

b) China does western studies to validate CM, but you do not trust them…

c) Western Medicine has done very little in the realm of CM, yet you

are so suspicious, even though we get great success rates…

d) many are skeptical of case studies or time tested results, because

of no double-blind. Even though methods (application of the theory)

can yield results… and have not (yet) been disproven.

e) Chinese medicine never changes?? even though they have incorporated

an incredible amount of western theories into their system.

as the pragmatist, and many others also claim this, if it works / able

to be reproduced in the clinic then something is right – this is in

and of itself a scientific test, no?…

 

I am a bit confused…

 

I would like to see concrete examples to discuss…

 

-

 

]

[Guest guest]

I would like you (or

others) to supply (mainstream) theories from CM that you feel have

been invalidated by Western Science.

 

>>>>Well take the any of the 5 phase correspondences and show me some real

evidence of the correlations beside some interesting points here and there

(which will be covered in my next book). What you are saying until we disprove

we have to except which is religion.

 

) Much of western medicine is not validated with research, and theory

is what dictates the protocol (or just an idea.) what is the

difference here?.

>>>>There we go again with comparison. I do not think anyone on this list thinks

WM is perfect by any sense of the word.

 

China does western studies to validate CM, but you do not trust them.

c) Western Medicine has done very little in the realm of CM, yet you

are so suspicious, even though we get great success rates.

>>>>Again i will leave this with the questions of what is considered as evidence

of " great results " . I have seen CM practice for over 20 years in almost all the

continents in the world. I followed some of the most respected practitioners in

the US and well respected ones in China, Japan and Taiwan. No question there is

much great stuff happening with CM at the same time there is just as much

misunderstanding of disease and treatment outcomes, poor follow-ups, etc. It is

not black and white and i find it humorous that so many people resist looking at

this aspects of CM and alternative therapies in general.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes... of course, but because of the multitude of influential factors

there can never be a double blind study... and when tests don't

conform to the western gold-standard we have all the whiners saying

it's not valid. You can't have it both ways...

>>>>>There is not need for double blind when a gold standard is used as

evaluation, ie a blood test, a fMRI or something with a proven record. If you

can show predictable outcomes on such expectable evaluations you do not need the

so-called double blinding. There are studies done every day in MW with tones of

variables, in semi-blind fashions. What you do need is some kind of objective

arm to the study

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree with Alon on this. We've done a poor job with case records and

followup. A weak point I find, at least in the West, is patient

charting, and sharing of data. Very few of our colleagues share cases,

the charts are muddled, hard to read, and essential data such as pulse

and tongue records are sloppy and unclear. The pattern diagnoses are

often non-existent, and the record of diagnoses seems, in my opinion,

to be very off-handed. We need to learn some rigor in keeping case

records, and in communicating data with our colleagues and other health

professionals. We also need to develop data bases of case histories in

the West.

 

 

On Feb 1, 2004, at 9:07 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

>>>>> No question there is much great stuff happening with CM at the

>>>>> same time there is just as much misunderstanding of disease and

>>>>> treatment outcomes, poor follow-ups, etc. It is not black and

>>>>> white and i find it humorous that so many people resist looking at

>>>>> this aspects of CM and alternative therapies in general.

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> >>>>Only when framed in vague ways. As soon as you start talking

about specifics of Qi in any and all the ways Qi is used in CM you can

bring it the modern scientific langue. It is only the need to " have "

Qi as a crutch that keeps it outside such endeavors. Show me anything

you know about Qi (in medicine) that can not be measured.

 

Could you explain how we can measure in western science, the qi flow

in meridians (and the direction for each channel?) Can we validate

this Chinese concept.. It hasn't yet... BEcause western science hasnt'

yet validated it, many beleive these channels do not exist.. Is this

proper thinking?

 

-

[Guest guest]

In fact, those who have tried to measure meridians and electrical

conductivity (Voll, et al) have been summarily dismissed in light of evidence to

the

contrary.

 

Ken

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I would like you (or

> others) to supply (mainstream) theories from CM that you feel have

> been invalidated by Western Science.

>

> >>>>Well take the any of the 5 phase correspondences and show me

some real evidence of the correlations beside some interesting points

here and there (which will be covered in my next book). What you are

saying until we disprove we have to except which is religion.

 

See there you go again... calling it religion.. You wonder the knee

jerk...

All that I can say is 5 phase works in the clinic, period! call it

what you will... Just because you may not understand it, or WM can't

validate it you have to use a term to degrade it... this is not

mature, IMO...

So you tell me how should western science test this...

 

-

[Guest guest]

At 11:07 PM -0600 2/1/04, Alon Marcus wrote:

>What you are saying until we disprove we have to except which is religion.

--

 

Just for the record Alon, perhaps you could explain to us the

theoretical basis you use for treatment in your practice.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Yes... of course, but because of the multitude of influential factors

> there can never be a double blind study... and when tests don't

> conform to the western gold-standard we have all the whiners saying

> it's not valid. You can't have it both ways...

> >>>>>There is not need for double blind when a gold standard is used

as evaluation, ie a blood test, a fMRI or something with a proven

record. If you can show predictable outcomes on such expectable

evaluations you do not need the so-called double blinding. There are

studies done every day in MW with tones of variables, in semi-blind

fashions. What you do need is some kind of objective arm to the study

> Alon

>

 

Alon

 

But isn't one of the major complaints of CM research is the lack of

rigor. They use objective measures but people are usually notsa--- In

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Yes... of course, but because of the multitude of influential factors

> there can never be a double blind study... and when tests don't

> conform to the western gold-standard we have all the whiners saying

> it's not valid. You can't have it both ways...

> >>>>>There is not need for double blind when a gold standard is used

as evaluation, ie a blood test, a fMRI or something with a proven

record. If you can show predictable outcomes on such expectable

evaluations you do not need the so-called double blinding. There are

studies done every day in MW with tones of variables, in semi-blind

fashions. What you do need is some kind of objective arm to the study

> Alon

>

 

Alon

 

But isn't one of the major complaints of CM research is the lack of

rigor. They use objective measures but people are usually not

satisfied with the supposed thoroughness - screaming for double-blind

etc. Just curious...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>

> China does western studies to validate CM, but you do not trust them.

> c) Western Medicine has done very little in the realm of CM, yet you

> are so suspicious, even though we get great success rates.

> >>>>Again i will leave this with the questions of what is considered

as evidence of " great results " . I have seen CM practice for over 20

years in almost all the continents in the world. I followed some of

the most respected practitioners in the US and well respected ones in

China, Japan and Taiwan. No question there is much great stuff

happening with CM at the same time there is just as much

misunderstanding of disease

 

Funny.... I guess this is just your bias... Because I'm sure you can

say the same thing following MD's around for a year or 20 years in

every country... but you are right follow-ups aren't the best and can

improve… But MD's rarely follow up either…

 

 

>and treatment outcomes, poor follow-ups, etc. It is not black and

white and i find it humorous that so many people resist looking at

this aspects of CM and alternative therapies in general.

 

No one is resisting... and only black and white because you have made

black and white statements.. Like CM is dogma and hasn't had a new

idea etc etc.. these are just untrue and unproductive jabs...

 

But what is great results…?

1) able to keep a country going for so long.. (is the most fundamental)

2) curing western diseases that WM could not

3) curing diseases that WM cannot name

4) Helping people with incurable diseases or just minor problems feel

better

5) Etc etc - (just basic stuff)

 

I use great, because IMLE, I have seen things close to miracles. I

work with 8 practitioners and get to see a lot of variety. In our

clinic we get to treat some very severe diseases. But hey this is

lipservice, right?

let's put it to the test.. You think that CM does not get great

results. Fine, I do.. Fine.. I am just waiting for someone to give

free reign and say Here is the Disease , here are 50 people. Treat

them, and compare to another group with whatever modality. I think it

is fair to use western tools to evaluate the disease and outcomes, but

the treatment 100% CM… Sounds fair right….? I am pretty sure with

MANY diseases the patient will get better results that WM... Would

this mean anything to you?

 

-

[Guest guest]

, ra6151@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/2/04 12:14:30 AM, alonmarcus@w... writes:

>

> << I do not think anyone on this list thinks WM is perfect by any

sense of

> the word. >>

>

> Yes, but in recognizing the limitations of WM we also have to

recognize the

> limitations of the theoretical underpinnings of WM as well - its

reductionist

> research methods, its habit of studying parts out of context of the

whole.

> Research done this way often lead to unreliable or meaningless results.

> --roseanne s.

 

Yes well said... IF one (Alon) wants to point the finger at CM, let's

use the same (or another) finger for WM... :)

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

Could you explain how we can measure in western science, the qi flow

in meridians (and the direction for each channel?) Can we validate

this Chinese concept.. It hasn't yet... BEcause western science hasnt'

yet validated it, many beleive these channels do not exist.. Is this

proper thinking?

>>>>First none of the channels are agreed upon in CM circles to begin with.

Direction of flow is contradictory within texts, systems, and practitioner. So

we need to first identify if there is one that would be definitive so that it

could be correlated. Now if you look at the science of bioelectrical medicine

you can find many analogies that can be measured and followed, from cell

polarity, potential differences, to waves. These are all measurable and many

have been shown to have correlations with some of the ideas and paths of

channels. There has been other correlations between organization centers as

well. There are many correlations with neural pathways and reflexes, even simple

dermatomes, scleratomes, myotomes and viceratomes. But again as long as there is

no real agreement in CM as to pathways, directions, and details it would be

difficult to make exact correlative measurements, as it is impossible to do with

OM methods in any way that comes close to objective evaluations. There would be

no agreement between many Chinese and Japanese meridian therapies as to what is

going on in the " channels " for example.

Now more importantly are the channels and therapy. Once we cross into clinical

medicine any of the ideas of channels must translate into clinical applications

the effects of all of which can be measured or assessed in objective ways (even

subjective patient reports can be make more objective by good testing). Even

pulse waves can be measured for changes, rate, amplitude and wave forms. The

neural effects can be measured by fMRI, PAT, SPACT, surface and needle nerve

conduction. Effects on temperature can be demonstrated and measured quite

accurately. Change in blood flow can be measured quite accurately, etc.

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I've said the same thing many times in the past.

 

 

On Feb 2, 2004, at 8:11 AM, wrote:

 

> Yes well said... IF one (Alon) wants to point the finger at CM, let's

> use the same (or another) finger for WM... :)

>

> -Jason

[Guest guest]

Just because you may not understand it, or WM can't

validate it you have to use a term to degrade it... this is not

mature, IMO...

So you tell me how should western science test this

>>>>I understand it very well, use it when i do meridian therapy and when

diagnosing disease and when analyzing relationships within CM but at the same

time show me some real evidence for the correlations?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

But isn't one of the major complaints of CM research is the lack of

rigor. They use objective measures but people are usually not

satisfied with the supposed thoroughness - screaming for double-blind

etc. Just curious...

>>>>>Rigor does not only mean double blindness. There are many rigorous studies

in western medicine that are not blinded and are very well excepted. The lack of

rigor in clinical studies most often has to do with numbers, ways of analyzing

outcomes etc

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

let's put it to the test.. You think that CM does not get great

results.

>>>>There we go again. I never said this. CM gets great results in some things

and non in others. I still practice CM every day. I am also an advocate of

studying CM only when allowing it to use all its methods without

interference.But we will live the outcome discussion. As i asked Todd why does

somebody at their school pool out viral syndrome using the TCM pro program,

randomly choose 200 cases that have been seen for more than once so that

follow-up is there and analyze the results. Let see what are the duration of

symptoms, % of development of chronic coughs, use of other meds, etc.

 

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Could you explain how we can measure in western science, the qi flow

> in meridians (and the direction for each channel?) Can we validate

> this Chinese concept.. It hasn't yet... BEcause western science hasnt'

> yet validated it, many beleive these channels do not exist.. Is this

> proper thinking?

> >>>>First none of the channels are agreed upon in CM circles to

begin with. Direction of flow is contradictory within texts, systems,

and practitioner. So we need to first identify if there is one that

would be definitive so that it could be correlated. Now if you look at

the science of bioelectrical medicine you can find many analogies that

can be measured and followed, from cell polarity, potential

differences, to waves. These are all measurable and many have been

shown to have correlations with some of the ideas and paths of

channels. There has been other correlations between organization

centers as well. There are many correlations with neural pathways and

reflexes, even simple dermatomes, scleratomes, myotomes and

viceratomes. But again as long as there is no real agreement in CM as

to pathways, directions, and details it would be difficult to make

exact correlative measurements, as it is impossible to do with OM

methods in any way that comes close to objective evaluations. There

would be no agreement between many Chinese and Japanese meridian

therapies as to what is going on in the " channels " for example.

> Now more importantly are the channels and therapy. Once we cross

into clinical medicine any of the ideas of channels must translate

into clinical applications the effects of all of which can be measured

or assessed in objective ways (even subjective patient reports can be

make more objective by good testing). Even pulse waves can be measured

for changes, rate, amplitude and wave forms. The neural effects can be

measured by fMRI, PAT, SPACT, surface and needle nerve conduction.

Effects on temperature can be demonstrated and measured quite

accurately. Change in blood flow can be measured quite accurately, etc.

 

 

I think this is a cop-out- whenever a point is brought up you say a)

CM doesn't agree so it is invalid, or b) there is some sect that still

i.e. believes in Demonology. – even if 99% of CM agrees on something..

Let's just talk about the PRC standard, that is fine with me… One can

always find exceptions… Is evolution not a valid idea because there

are still sects in the West who deny it's findings and believe in

creationism? The same can be seen in the demon example. CM has moved

beyond this, and it is no longer taught in the universities. Period.

Here is a valid example IMO.

So in regard to meridians.. Hey let's just stick with the standard

that is taught in probably 99% of universities.

Oh, but shouldn't WS be able to solve any debate and prove who is

correct? BTW- If qi and channels are see easy to evaluate how come WS

has not been able to prove it, Oh that's right they don't exist right?

I think it is naïve to think WS can measure anything.. It has great

limitations.

 

-

[Guest guest]

Just for the record Alon, perhaps you could explain to us the

theoretical basis you use for treatment in your practice.

>>>>>O boy i think you will need to wait for my text. I have not discarded any

TCM methods in my practice especially when using herbs. I do integrate my

thinking with many others systems and often borrow tools from them and from CM

to apply to the other. At the same time, i am quite aware of many short comings

OM/TCM, perhaps because i have been using many other ways of looking at diseases

and working with many other treatment methods. When using herbs (except when

using western herbs) I do not have too much other choice as at this point this

is what we know. And as we all know there is much to know in TCM herbalogy. All

i am saying is that there are many short comings and may be its time to look at

some more basic questions in OM.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree with Alon on this. We've done a poor job with case records and

followup.

>>>The nice thing in China was that patients had there own records and i could

see all there previous treatments. And by the way Jason this had very strong

effects on me and about TCM out-comes

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Just because you may not understand it, or WM can't

> validate it you have to use a term to degrade it... this is not

> mature, IMO...

> So you tell me how should western science test this

> >>>>I understand it very well, use it when i do meridian therapy and

when diagnosing disease and when analyzing relationships within CM but

at the same time show me some real evidence for the correlations?

 

I think the evidence is it's utility and success in treating

patients... Is this not real? Theory guids treatment, if treatment

works, then theory works.. IMO

 

But you did answer the question..; The question was show me a theory

that western medicine has disproven… You said 5 phases… So the burden

is on you in this situation…

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> let's put it to the test.. You think that CM does not get great

> results.

> >>>>There we go again. I never said this. CM gets great results in

some things and non in others. I still practice CM every day. I am

also an advocate of studying CM only when allowing it to use all its

methods without interference.But we will live the outcome discussion.

As i asked Todd why does somebody at their school pool out viral

syndrome using the TCM pro program, randomly choose 200 cases that

have been seen for more than once so that follow-up is there and

analyze the results. Let see what are the duration of symptoms, % of

development of chronic coughs, use of other meds, etc.

>

 

this sounds like a good idea... lets put some stuff in action...

although it is a student clinic and IMO not a good represtation of

true CM.

 

-JAson

[Guest guest]

Voll was just an example since he was one of the pioneers.As I understand it

there is a large amount of developing research in this area especially Taiwan

and Germany. My point was more along the lines of the " summarily dismissed "

especially by american researchers but this has been repeated by others in this

thread.

Your point, if I understand it is still well taken. For CM or TCM to

compete and gain credibilty, it will have to play by the rules of the ruling

system

of the time. I acknowledge this but feel there has to be some " wiggle " room as

the technologies develop to measure the success of CM in contempoprary

society.

 

Ken