Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

acupuncture today

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

several points of interest in the latest acupuncture today:

 

1. the ongoing series of paid advertisements by honso. this month

Nigel Dawes, in plugging Honso (a great product by the way) feels the

need to suggest chinese style herb use is dangerous (compared to his

preferred kanpo method). He claims it it would disturb medical doctors

if they knew what doses were being generally used in china, suggesting

that side effects are rampant and even measurable negative changes such

as liver enzyme elevation is typical. I am not sure who Mr. Dawes

thinks he is serving by this outrageous misrepresentation of the

standard of care in both china and the US vis a vis chinese herb

dosage. That the rest of the chinese herbalists in the world are a

danger to one's health? I call for honso to immediately retract their

support of that statement as it defames the vast majority of chinese

herbalists worldwide.

 

2. the article on wild meat reiterates some points I have made for

many years. Neither organic nor commercial meat are healthy and do not

even remotely resemble what the chinese raised in ancient times.

 

3. medical acu - basically its here to stay. we tried to fight it and

lost. The article says that medical acus are trained adequately for

what they do, which is not OM, so we have nothing to fear. so this

article suggests that oriental medical theory is not necessary to

practice acupuncture effectively. we should work to distinguish

ourselves in OM, not acupuncture, as this latter modality is about to

be go very mainstream. In all likelihood, MD, PA, LNP, DO, DC, PT will

soon be able to practice acu in every state. but this begs a question.

If most of our patients come for musculoskeletal acupuncture and this

can be done as well or better by MD or DC with no OM training, then we

are left with sort of an empty bag. The right to use OM for internal

medicine when so few patients come for such compaints, no insurers who

reimburse and for which there is little research or public support?

gee. thanks.

 

4. poll over 8,000, majority saying no entry level DAOM is necessary.

a slim majority against. most of the comments for were overt or

thinly veiled rants about power and prestige. no real evidence in

terms of patient care. I guarantee that these upstart docs, most of

whom will end up being recent grads of master's programs, will waste no

time in letting the public know they are superior to the rest of us.

As if there are not enough irreconcilable rifts within the field

already. Maybe we need to form a professional association to protect

the interests of L.Ac.s against these docs. there's still more of us

right now.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

wrote:

> several points of interest in the latest acupuncture today:

>

 

 

 

 

> 1. the ongoing series of paid advertisements by honso. this month

> Nigel Dawes, in plugging Honso (a great product by the way) feels

the

> need to suggest chinese style herb use is dangerous (compared to

his

> preferred kanpo method). He claims it it would disturb medical

doctors

> if they knew what doses were being generally used in china,

suggesting

> that side effects are rampant and even measurable negative changes

such

> as liver enzyme elevation is typical. I am not sure who Mr. Dawes

> thinks he is serving by this outrageous misrepresentation of the

> standard of care in both china and the US vis a vis chinese herb

> dosage. That the rest of the chinese herbalists in the world are a

> danger to one's health? I call for honso to immediately retract

their

> support of that statement as it defames the vast majority of

chinese

> herbalists worldwide.

>

 

 

thanks for bringing this up. I just sent an email to Honso about

this very thing. When this sort of activity happens, I think we need

to rally up members of this forum and respond with emails, letters

and maybe petitions. Online petitions can work well for sites with

heavy traffic and generate a lot of signatures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> 2. the article on wild meat reiterates some points I have made for

> many years. Neither organic nor commercial meat are healthy and do

not

> even remotely resemble what the chinese raised in ancient times.

>

> 3. medical acu - basically its here to stay. we tried to fight it

and

> lost. The article says that medical acus are trained adequately

for

> what they do, which is not OM, so we have nothing to fear. so this

> article suggests that oriental medical theory is not necessary to

> practice acupuncture effectively. we should work to distinguish

> ourselves in OM, not acupuncture, as this latter modality is about

to

> be go very mainstream. In all likelihood, MD, PA, LNP, DO, DC, PT

will

> soon be able to practice acu in every state. but this begs a

question.

> If most of our patients come for musculoskeletal acupuncture and

this

> can be done as well or better by MD or DC with no OM training, then

we

> are left with sort of an empty bag. The right to use OM for

internal

> medicine when so few patients come for such compaints, no insurers

who

> reimburse and for which there is little research or public

support?

> gee. thanks.

>

 

> 4. poll over 8,000, majority saying no entry level DAOM is

necessary.

> a slim majority against. most of the comments for were overt or

> thinly veiled rants about power and prestige. no real evidence in

> terms of patient care. I guarantee that these upstart docs, most

of

> whom will end up being recent grads of master's programs, will

waste no

> time in letting the public know they are superior to the rest of

us.

> As if there are not enough irreconcilable rifts within the field

> already. Maybe we need to form a professional association to

protect

> the interests of L.Ac.s against these docs. there's still more of

us

> right now.

>

What do we need to do and how would we protect ourselves??

sincerely,

matt

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

> FAX:

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

> Below is my personal opinion, as you have asked for, arrived at from long

term observation of our field, regulation, and politics and not the view of any

organization I participate in, be it borough, county, state, national, or

international.

;

While I usually consider your positions well thought out, those below need

more chewing on. I think you will find from the thread following that you

reconsider some of the views below. Here is a start.

David Molony

 

In a message dated 2/29/04 3:23:16 PM, writes:

 

> 3.  medical acu - basically its here to stay. 

>

We might not be able to kill it or make it go away, but we CAN work on

getting the folks (easier with ethical ones) who have been suckered into these

programs to get a little indignant and work to bring their training more in line

with reality.

 

> we tried to fight it and

> lost.  The article says that medical acus are trained adequately for

> what they do, which is not OM, so we have nothing to fear.  so this

> article suggests that oriental medical theory is not necessary to

> practice acupuncture effectively. 

>

> What they are doing is OM, just as what we are doing is Conventioal medicine

when we prescribe drugs or do surgery in Conventional medicine, or the

milliion dollar roll in Chiropractic. They need the background just as much as

we do,

and without it they don't do acupuncture well and need additional training to

be safe and effective at it.

>

> 4.  poll over 8,000, majority  saying no entry level DAOM is necessary.

>   a slim majority against.  most of the comments for were overt or

> thinly veiled rants about power and prestige.  no real evidence in

> terms of patient care.  I guarantee that these upstart docs, most of

> whom will end up being recent grads of master's programs, will waste no

> time in letting the public know they are superior to the rest of us. 

> As if there are not enough irreconcilable rifts within the field

> already.  Maybe we need to form a professional association to protect

> the interests of L.Ac.s against these docs.  there's still more of us

> right now.

>

>

When we moved from diploma to Master's entry, did this happen? Just because

we were only profession dumb enough, or late enough, to not start with a first

professional degree doctorate and raise the hours like everyone else did,

doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. That, combined with the observation that our

profession seems to respect clinical elders more than most makes the "

irreconcilable rifts " less likely to happen.

 

A snapshot survey taken at a time when the vast majority of people don't even

know what the discussion is all about is hardly grist for doomsaying. I wish

I had all the answers, but I don't. However, I have listened to all the voices

and it does seem that now is a good time to start work on a first

professional degree clinical doctorate in Oriental Medicine for our profession

in this

country. The rest of the world is. Are we so much better than them that we know

there is not enough there to do it properly, or that it truly isn't needed?

I don't think so.

 

David Molony

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

I am going to have to look at this advertisement again. Did Nigel give

Chinese language citations for these statements? Otherwise, they could

be very misleading. I don't think that patients are generally being

'overdosed' in China, and I am wondering if anyone on this list or in

the profession has any information suggesting otherwise.

 

I think both Chinese and Kampo herbalism have their positive and

negative attributes, and both have influenced my own practice. I like

the clarity of Kampo and the use of concentrated extracts. While I do

write individualized scripts and use raw herbs, I tend to use more of

the Kan herb style extracts, sometimes combining them. I also use

occasionally KPC tablets and powders, and some Blue Poppy extracts as

well. As long as the product has high potency and the prescription

matches the pattern as much as possible, I am satisfied.

 

My personal experience with decoctions, however, is if I take them too

long, my digestion really suffers. I do wonder how many digestive

complaints come up with decocted herbs, especially prescriptions with

15-20 ingredients.

 

 

On Feb 29, 2004, at 11:57 AM, wrote:

 

> several points of interest in the latest acupuncture today:

>

> 1. the ongoing series of paid advertisements by honso. this month

> Nigel Dawes, in plugging Honso (a great product by the way) feels the

> need to suggest chinese style herb use is dangerous (compared to his

> preferred kanpo method). He claims it it would disturb medical doctors

> if they knew what doses were being generally used in china, suggesting

> that side effects are rampant and even measurable negative changes such

> as liver enzyme elevation is typical. I am not sure who Mr. Dawes

> thinks he is serving by this outrageous misrepresentation of the

> standard of care in both china and the US vis a vis chinese herb

> dosage. That the rest of the chinese herbalists in the world are a

> danger to one's health? I call for honso to immediately retract their

> support of that statement as it defames the vast majority of chinese

> herbalists worldwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Perhaps we read different articles. The article in Acupuncture Today that I

read didn't have any new information on meat. It has been known for years

that animals fed stored grains are generally less healthy to consume than

for example grass-fed animals(assuming beef). Stating that they are " not

healthy " is a gross oversimplification. Many people thrive on meat. The

article even provided sources for commercially available wild meat. There

are always better options available no matter what issue you look at, but it

is a logical fallacy to imply that a better option makes other options

unsuitable. Show me ANY possible diet, real or imagined & I'm sure we can

show how it can be improved. Admittedly, for carnivores wild game is the

way to go. Unfortunately that isn't an option for all of us for various

reasons (money being a big one). For me, I'm going to continue sparingly

eating organic meat, & my blood & qì thank me for it.

 

As for what the ancient Chinese ate, I could care less as I'm not in ancient

China & I'm not a culinary anthropologist.

 

Tim Sharpe

 

 

 

Sunday, February 29, 2004 1:57 PM

cha

acupuncture today

 

2. the article on wild meat reiterates some points I have made for many

years. Neither organic nor commercial meat are healthy and do not even

remotely resemble what the chinese raised in ancient times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

, " Tim Sharpe "

<listserve@d...> wrote:

 

> As for what the ancient Chinese ate, I could care less as I'm not in

ancient

> China & I'm not a culinary anthropologist.

>

> Tim Sharpe

 

You may care less, but it is worth considering. For instance,

literature stating the qi, taste, functions, etc. of various food

substances may in fact get its information from traditional sources.

Therefore, this information may not be a suitable assessment of the

modern food substances of the same name. Thus, dietary advice given

based on that information would be suspect.

 

Brian C. Allen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Obviously some attention must be paid to any difference between

literature/case studies & our client's presentation, I assume that goes

without saying. That being said, even in contemporary society there is huge

variance in nutrient content between foodstuffs that are raised/grown using

similar methods, so you can never be sure whether or not you are comparing

" apples to apples " so to speak. Secondly, are you saying that you have data

detailing the nutrient content of ancient cattle? Or perhaps there are soil

content studies I'm not aware of that have been geographically pegged to

ancient chinese source material for each respective era? Obviously these

are ridiculous scenarios, but we have precedent here in the US detailing the

impact of depleted soils & varying ranching practices. I'm not an expert,

but I'd be surprised if there was usable data from ancient sources. Can we

not extrapolate from existing data rather than speculate on non-existing

data?

 

As for qì taste, functions etc, would that not always be variable

information? What time period are you using as your benchmark for

" traditional sources? " Soils deplete, get enriched, streams dry up, get

tainted, etc. The variability is as true for plant life as it is for animal

life, or at the very least the variablility for plant life is significant.

Especially when you factor in different geographic locations, & two plus

thousand years of soil usage. My point is, as practitioners it is our

responsibility to put everything into context to the extent that we can.

This is no less true for plants than it is for animals. Are you prescribing

the same bo he, or niu bang zi that was prescribed 50 years ago, 500 years

ago, 2000 years ago? Who knows, but the answer is probably no. If you've

ever brewed beer you would know that the raw ingredients vary significantly

from crop to crop. Brewmeisters can test for acidity, etc to be sure that

their final product is consistent from batch to batch. Historically we have

no such luxury in TCM. Sweeping generalities have no place in clinical

discussion because there are just too many variables. Saying " Neither

organic nor commercial meat are healthy and do not even remotely resemble

what the chinese raised in ancient times " means nothing. Nutrition is an

extremely slippery slope, factor in texts written over several millenia,

some of which reference materials from other millenia, & you're treading on

ice. I just don't see how one can make a sweeping generalization on an

amazingly non-static & unresearched topic.

 

-Tim Sharpe

 

 

bcataiji [bcaom]

Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:23 PM

 

Re: acupuncture today

 

, " Tim Sharpe "

<listserve@d...> wrote:

 

> As for what the ancient Chinese ate, I could care less as I'm not in

ancient

> China & I'm not a culinary anthropologist.

>

> Tim Sharpe

 

You may care less, but it is worth considering. For instance, literature

stating the qi, taste, functions, etc. of various food substances may in

fact get its information from traditional sources.

Therefore, this information may not be a suitable assessment of the modern

food substances of the same name. Thus, dietary advice given based on that

information would be suspect.

 

Brian C. Allen

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

, " Tim Sharpe " <

listserve@d...> wrote:

 

It has been known for years

> that animals fed stored grains are generally less healthy to consume than

> for example grass-fed animals(assuming beef).

 

actually it is not widely known. I have almost never had a student who knows

this before I tell them.

 

Stating that they are " not

> healthy " is a gross oversimplification. Many people thrive on meat. The

> article even provided sources for commercially available wild meat. There

> are always better options available no matter what issue you look at, but it

> is a logical fallacy to imply that a better option makes other options

> unsuitable.

 

I so completely disagree. it is not a matter of good, better or optimum. grain

fed animals have a fat composition that is pro-inflammatory. wild meat is anti-

inflammatory, like fish. inflammation is a factor in most chronic illness. I

think

its a no brainer. it has nothing to do with anthropology and is all about

biochemistry. grain fed meat is very high in arachidonic acid. I am not sure

where you get the idea that many people thrive on meat. amongst

naturopathic physicians, the consumption of grain fed meat is considered one

of the primary causes of autoimmunity and cancer and heart disease. meat

also has a strong demographic relationship with many diseases. the average

person living to 70 and dying from heart disease or cancer is hardly what I call

thriving. while there are a number of dietary factors at play (white flour,

refined sugar, hydrogenated fat, homogenized milk), I think the evidence is

overwhelming that grain fed meat is a big one. Talk about a fallacy of logic

(the term logical fallacy is an oxymoron, BTW, as it means ones fallacious

thinking is logical).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Ahh, nutritional biochemistry, perhaps the single greatest offender of

missing the forest for the trees. Let's talk about arachidonic acid &

inflammation. When the diet is abundant with arachidonic acids, these are

stored in cell membranes. An enzyme transforms these stored acids into

chemical messengers called prostaglandins and leukotrienes which instigate

inflammation. Arthritis sufferers commonly have a high level of acidity (a

urine pH that is lower than 6.3), which increases the potential for

developing inflammatory conditions. In those patients I would suggest that

acid-forming foods should play a smaller role in their overall nutritional

makeup. However, the fact is that the human body has mechanisms to deal

with arachidonic acid, & meat provides essential nutrients to the body.

It's all about balance, just as it is in herbal medicine. If one eats a

thoughtful balance of foods including an abundance of wild fish & leafy

green vegetables (which even Atkins recommends BTW), then the inflammatory

response will be under control. The problem is a lack of balance. People

eat too much meat, not enough veggies, & unfortunately as you point out the

meat is of less than ideal quality. That doesn't mean that meat is

unhealthy, it means that some people's application of meat in their diet is

unhealthy. You could spend a lifetime reading Medline studies on the health

benefits of animal products such as meat & dairy. The only negative

articles you're likely to commonly see are when these substances are used in

unreasonable excess. Again, is it the animal product or the excess at

fault?

 

Consider this hypothetical scenario: a number of people use a Chinese herb &

get sick, some of them even die. For the sake of argument let's call that

herb Ma Huang. In this example let's say that it is clear that these people

died as a result of Ma Huang ie if they hadn't taken it then they wouldn't

have died. Is it safe to say that Ma Huang is unhealthy, or was it the

application of Ma Huang that was at fault?

 

-Tim Sharpe

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:28 PM

 

, " Tim Sharpe " < listserve@d...>

wrote:

 

It has been known for years

> that animals fed stored grains are generally less healthy to consume

> than for example grass-fed animals(assuming beef).

 

actually it is not widely known. I have almost never had a student who

knows this before I tell them.

 

Stating that they are " not

> healthy " is a gross oversimplification. Many people thrive on meat.

> The article even provided sources for commercially available wild

> meat. There are always better options available no matter what issue

> you look at, but it is a logical fallacy to imply that a better option

> makes other options unsuitable.

 

I so completely disagree. it is not a matter of good, better or optimum.

grain fed animals have a fat composition that is pro-inflammatory. wild

meat is anti- inflammatory, like fish. inflammation is a factor in most

chronic illness. I think its a no brainer. it has nothing to do with

anthropology and is all about biochemistry. grain fed meat is very high in

arachidonic acid. I am not sure where you get the idea that many people

thrive on meat. amongst naturopathic physicians, the consumption of grain

fed meat is considered one of the primary causes of autoimmunity and cancer

and heart disease. meat also has a strong demographic relationship with

many diseases. the average person living to 70 and dying from heart disease

or cancer is hardly what I call thriving. while there are a number of

dietary factors at play (white flour, refined sugar, hydrogenated fat,

homogenized milk), I think the evidence is overwhelming that grain fed meat

is a big one. Talk about a fallacy of logic (the term logical fallacy is an

oxymoron, BTW, as it means ones fallacious thinking is logical).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest guest

hello,

 

Can you site what studies show that patients with arthritis have a lower pH

in the urine. A colleague and I are looking at different pH levels for

different ailments

 

thank you,

James Poepperling

 

Tim Sharpe <listserve wrote:

Ahh, nutritional biochemistry, perhaps the single greatest offender of

missing the forest for the trees. Let's talk about arachidonic acid &

inflammation. When the diet is abundant with arachidonic acids, these are

stored in cell membranes. An enzyme transforms these stored acids into

chemical messengers called prostaglandins and leukotrienes which instigate

inflammation. Arthritis sufferers commonly have a high level of acidity (a

urine pH that is lower than 6.3), which increases the potential for

developing inflammatory conditions. In those patients I would suggest that

acid-forming foods should play a smaller role in their overall nutritional

makeup. However, the fact is that the human body has mechanisms to deal

with arachidonic acid, & meat provides essential nutrients to the body.

It's all about balance, just as it is in herbal medicine. If one eats a

thoughtful balance of foods including an abundance of wild fish & leafy

green vegetables (which even Atkins recommends BTW), then the inflammatory

response will be under control. The problem is a lack of balance. People

eat too much meat, not enough veggies, & unfortunately as you point out the

meat is of less than ideal quality. That doesn't mean that meat is

unhealthy, it means that some people's application of meat in their diet is

unhealthy. You could spend a lifetime reading Medline studies on the health

benefits of animal products such as meat & dairy. The only negative

articles you're likely to commonly see are when these substances are used in

unreasonable excess. Again, is it the animal product or the excess at

fault?

 

Consider this hypothetical scenario: a number of people use a Chinese herb &

get sick, some of them even die. For the sake of argument let's call that

herb Ma Huang. In this example let's say that it is clear that these people

died as a result of Ma Huang ie if they hadn't taken it then they wouldn't

have died. Is it safe to say that Ma Huang is unhealthy, or was it the

application of Ma Huang that was at fault?

 

-Tim Sharpe

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:28 PM

 

, " Tim Sharpe " < listserve@d...>

wrote:

 

It has been known for years

> that animals fed stored grains are generally less healthy to consume

> than for example grass-fed animals(assuming beef).

 

actually it is not widely known. I have almost never had a student who

knows this before I tell them.

 

Stating that they are " not

> healthy " is a gross oversimplification. Many people thrive on meat.

> The article even provided sources for commercially available wild

> meat. There are always better options available no matter what issue

> you look at, but it is a logical fallacy to imply that a better option

> makes other options unsuitable.

 

I so completely disagree. it is not a matter of good, better or optimum.

grain fed animals have a fat composition that is pro-inflammatory. wild

meat is anti- inflammatory, like fish. inflammation is a factor in most

chronic illness. I think its a no brainer. it has nothing to do with

anthropology and is all about biochemistry. grain fed meat is very high in

arachidonic acid. I am not sure where you get the idea that many people

thrive on meat. amongst naturopathic physicians, the consumption of grain

fed meat is considered one of the primary causes of autoimmunity and cancer

and heart disease. meat also has a strong demographic relationship with

many diseases. the average person living to 70 and dying from heart disease

or cancer is hardly what I call thriving. while there are a number of

dietary factors at play (white flour, refined sugar, hydrogenated fat,

homogenized milk), I think the evidence is overwhelming that grain fed meat

is a big one. Talk about a fallacy of logic (the term logical fallacy is an

oxymoron, BTW, as it means ones fallacious thinking is logical).

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

>>>1. the ongoing series of paid advertisements by honso. this month

Nigel Dawes, in plugging Honso (a great product by the way) feels the

need to suggest chinese style herb use is dangerous (compared to his

preferred kanpo method). He claims it it would disturb medical doctors

if they knew what doses were being generally used in china, suggesting

that side effects are rampant and even measurable negative changes such

as liver enzyme elevation is typical. I am not sure who Mr. Dawes

thinks he is serving by this outrageous misrepresentation of the

standard of care in both china and the US vis a vis chinese herb

dosage. That the rest of the chinese herbalists in the world are a

danger to one's health? I call for honso to immediately retract their

support of that statement as it defames the vast majority of chinese

herbalists worldwide.<<<

 

Hi gang. Long time no chat. Been busy. I try to keep up with the CHA lately, but

I'm always behind. Dan Wen asked me to reply to this.

 

If you look at the bottom of the Honso ad interviews, you will see the

disclaimer that the opinions expressed are not necessarily Honso's. This is a

fact, not just words. Honso contacts practitioners with experience in using

Honso and even other granular kampo formula lines who have as much experience

and as many credentials as possible. That way hopefully their opinions are

informed and thoughtful, and their facts and experiences are informative and

thought-provoking. Then Honso asks me to interview the people, and I do. I do my

best to prompt people to report their facts, experiences and opinions, and then

I do my best to get out of the way. And the last part of the name of the

ad-interview series is " What THEY Think. "

 

When Mr. Dawes made his comments about Chinese herb dosaging and safety, I just

left it alone. I figured that if I confronted him on it, it wouldn't change his

opinion, and it would be a waste of the space set aside to be a forum for his

statements. I thought it would be interesting to the field for people to know

that at least one expert practitioner thinks this about dosages. Especially

since he thinks American MDs might feel the same way. I have never heard anyone

else offer this opinion. It's a free country. Honso doesn't feel this way as far

as I know, they just let Nigel speak for himself.

 

If you look again at the ad-interview in Acupuncture Today, you will note that

some of Nigel's statements are bolded. This was done by someone at Honso, not

me, but you will see that his statements on Chinese raw herb dosing are not

bolded. In other words, Honso is obviously promoting the bolded statements, but

not necessarily the others. I've never heard anyone at Honso express anything

even remotely derogatory about raw herb formulas in any way except that patients

often don't want to comply, which we all know.

 

Dan Wen is president of HonsoUSA. His wife is a practicing

acupuncturist/herbalist from China. She uses lots of Honso products, sure, but

also Mayway and whatnot, and plenty of raw herb formulas at the usual Chinese

dosage. I do my herbal practice essentially the same way. 150 grams a day? No

problem. The fact that Honso is sponsoring seminars co-anchored by Nigel Dawes

and Dan Wen reflects Nigel's long experience and expertise at kampo plus his

lavish credentials. It doesn't mean Honso is trying to push Nigel's personal

opinions, particularly those they don't agree with, or don't necessarily agree

with. Some people think Americans should be dosed higher than Chinese. Some

think lower. Personally, I think it depends more on the person than the country.

And Dan Wen, though he's working for a Japanese company, is Chinese from head to

toe, you know? And he's a scientist first and a businessman second, like me.

Like you, I hope.

 

If we were to ever interview you, and you had something controversial to say

about the topic at hand, we might well publish it in an ad-interview if we

thought it was interesting enough. That wouldn't mean we would be pushing your

opinion. You would have the right to say what you think, and everybody else

would have the right to disagree, including us. You know what they say about

opinions. Please understand the situation and think twice before shooting the

messenger. I truly love the CHA, but doggone, sometimes folks get a bit kneejerk

for my taste. Of course I've never done anything like that. Appreciate any

feedback.

--Joseph Garner, looking forward to being in the mix a bit more again. P.S. When

I signed off from the CHA last summer, I said I was going into indefinite

retreat. Probably will be forever. Since I last spoke to this group, I have been

through the looking glass. I really have. And I will say this: it's not for the

faint of heart. Hang onto your hats. Reality is not what anyone thinks it is,

including me. Nothing is what anyone thinks anything is. There are no " rules " as

such, only the self-evident way of nature. Nature rules, not I, not you. The

sooner each of us makes peace with this, the sooner we can all get over

ourselves and get on with some real living. If a person wants to know

unconditional love, unconditional truth, then said person must let go of any

conditions as to what it is, how it comes to them, and what it does to them. And

I will say one more thing: whatever it takes, it's worth it. There I go,

bringing myself to tears again.

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

, Joseph Garner <jhgarner_1>

wrote:

 

>

> If you look at the bottom of the Honso ad interviews, you will see the

disclaimer that the opinions expressed are not necessarily Honso's. This is a

fact, not just words.

 

That is all well and good for a newspaper editorial page, but it does not fly

with me when it comes to paid advertising. Honso is trying to sell products.

Whether they are willing to stand behind Nigel's statement or not is besides

the point. His inflammatory statements coincidentally make it appear that

kanpo is safer and more effective than TCM.. If the ad is successful kanpo

will benefit fromthis perception in increased sales. It was irresponsible to

print an ad that disparages the mainstream practice of TCM.. It is

disingenuous to hide behind a disclaimer. If Honso does not support this idea,

then they should retract it. They should publicly state that that kanpo is no

better or safer than TCM..

 

I have to admit I am somewhat surprised at the reaction to my request for

retraction. All I have gotten is a lot of defensive buck passing. fine. but

be

clear. it does not matter if this was an error in judgement or a

misunderstanding. It appears to be inflammatory to me and perception is

everything in business. I made a reasonable request. that Honso publicly

state its position on this matter if it differs from Nigel. call that a knee

jerk

reaction. I call it a measured and normal response to erroneous information

printed in a public journal. Somewhere someone got the idea that its OK to

say anything you want in this field and its not OK to challenge people on such

statements, because that's just mean. I don't live in that world myself. Never

been there; never plan to visit. BTW, I have always supported Honso and know

Nigel personally, so you won't find any malice here. Its just that the last

thing we need right now is a supplier paying for ads that say our mainstream

practice is unsafe and ineffective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

 

I agree with you completely. I think they should print what it is that they do

believe. Would they print a letter to the editor with your critique?

 

 

 

< wrote:

, Joseph Garner <jhgarner_1>

wrote:

 

>

> If you look at the bottom of the Honso ad interviews, you will see the

disclaimer that the opinions expressed are not necessarily Honso's. This is a

fact, not just words.

 

That is all well and good for a newspaper editorial page, but it does not fly

with me when it comes to paid advertising. Honso is trying to sell products.

Whether they are willing to stand behind Nigel's statement or not is besides

the point. His inflammatory statements coincidentally make it appear that

kanpo is safer and more effective than TCM.. If the ad is successful kanpo

will benefit fromthis perception in increased sales. It was irresponsible to

print an ad that disparages the mainstream practice of TCM.. It is

disingenuous to hide behind a disclaimer. If Honso does not support this idea,

then they should retract it. They should publicly state that that kanpo is no

better or safer than TCM..

 

I have to admit I am somewhat surprised at the reaction to my request for

retraction. All I have gotten is a lot of defensive buck passing. fine. but

be

clear. it does not matter if this was an error in judgement or a

misunderstanding. It appears to be inflammatory to me and perception is

everything in business. I made a reasonable request. that Honso publicly

state its position on this matter if it differs from Nigel. call that a knee

jerk

reaction. I call it a measured and normal response to erroneous information

printed in a public journal. Somewhere someone got the idea that its OK to

say anything you want in this field and its not OK to challenge people on such

statements, because that's just mean. I don't live in that world myself. Never

been there; never plan to visit. BTW, I have always supported Honso and know

Nigel personally, so you won't find any malice here. Its just that the last

thing we need right now is a supplier paying for ads that say our mainstream

practice is unsafe and ineffective.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

< wrote:

, Joseph Garner <jhgarner_1>

wrote:

 

>

> If you look at the bottom of the Honso ad interviews, you will see the

disclaimer that the opinions expressed are not necessarily Honso's. This is a

fact, not just words. <

 

That is all well and good for a newspaper editorial page, but it does not fly

with me when it comes to paid advertising. Honso is trying to sell products.

Whether they are willing to stand behind Nigel's statement or not is besides

the point. His inflammatory statements coincidentally make it appear that

kanpo is safer and more effective than TCM.. If the ad is successful kanpo

will benefit fromthis perception in increased sales. It was irresponsible to

print an ad that disparages the mainstream practice of TCM.. It is

disingenuous to hide behind a disclaimer. If Honso does not support this idea,

then they should retract it. They should publicly state that that kanpo is no

better or safer than TCM..

 

I have to admit I am somewhat surprised at the reaction to my request for

retraction. All I have gotten is a lot of defensive buck passing. fine. but

be

clear. it does not matter if this was an error in judgement or a

misunderstanding. It appears to be inflammatory to me and perception is

everything in business. I made a reasonable request. that Honso publicly

state its position on this matter if it differs from Nigel. call that a knee

jerk

reaction. I call it a measured and normal response to erroneous information

printed in a public journal. Somewhere someone got the idea that its OK to

say anything you want in this field and its not OK to challenge people on such

statements, because that's just mean. I don't live in that world myself. Never

been there; never plan to visit. BTW, I have always supported Honso and know

Nigel personally, so you won't find any malice here. Its just that the last

thing we need right now is a supplier paying for ads that say our mainstream

practice is unsafe and ineffective. <<<<<<

 

 

 

First of all, let me say that I didn't mean any of my comments to be offensive

to anyone. If they were, I apolgize. Second of all, I cannot really speak for

Honso. I am not an employee, just a contractor. I only do this because I think

their products are top-notch, and because they pay me reasonably for my time and

abilities, in that order.

 

I have mixed emotions about this issue. When I wrote up my notes from the

interview, I thought people would recognize Nigel's comment for what it is--a

personal opinion. I thought it would serve the field by pointing out that the

perception he voiced exists out there in the world, and we should know it.

Suppose that I was interviewing a research scientist expert in biochemical

assaying, and he said the same thing. Should Honso print a retraction? A printed

notice of Honso's position on this matter is something for Honso to consider. I

cannot tell them to do it or not. The ad-interview is printed in a

forum--Acupuncture Today--which promotes all aspects of the CM field, including

raw herbs. And I never said that no one can challenge a statement because of

freedom of speech. I said we can all disagree with it if we choose. I do. But I

was not the one being interviewed. If Honso wants my opinions, I will give them.

Honestly, I don't know what is the " right " thing to do here, if there is

such a thing. A letter to the editor would be between the writer of the letter

and Acupuncture Today, not Honso, unless AT asked Honso to reply.

 

The next interview will contain a minor criticism of Honso. Should we print a

retraction? This particular format is unusual because it is both an ad and an

editorial venue for the interviewees. I think the field of CM herbology can

stand up to sincere criticism, particularly from within its own ranks. Nobody is

secretly hiding behind a disclaimer, passing the buck defensively. Honso has no

secret plans to weaken raw herbal medicine. I don't think one comment from one

practitioner, no matter where it is printed in our own journals, will sabotage

anything. If it does, then the field is too weak to stand on its own merits. I

don't mean to come across as having some kind of final say on this; I'm making

this up as I go along, just as you are. I feel rather proprietary about CM

herbal medicine in all its forms, just as you do. I feel that natural ancient

forms of medicine can stand up to any questioning. To me, if there has been a

problem all along with overdosing in China, the Chinese

would have realized it. But to categorically state that what Nigel said is

" erroneous " is a presupposition. Suppose there's something to what he says? To

me, that's where the " kneejerk " part came in. How come his opinion is

automatically erroneous, and our opinion is automatically true?

 

Critics of CM don't need any ammunition to put down the medicine. They already

have their minds made up, for the most part. It seems to me that our own

journals printing critical opinions is a sign of a healthy community, not an

arrow aimed at its heart. If we all have to bite our tongues to keep from giving

our enemies fuel to attack us, then we cannot have honest debate, and thus we

cannot grow our art and science as it should. Anyone who wanted to belittle the

field would only have to publish a few samplings of some of the contradictory

views of basic issues voiced in the CHA. Should print a retraction

whenever someone in the CHA says something he feels may be hurtful to CM? I know

the situations are different, but they are also the same too. If Honso prints

anything, it will be a clarification, not a retraction. Attitudes such as

Nigel's are probably common in Japan. He got his biases from his Japanese

teachers. Should we ask Japan to print a retraction? I don't mean

to be facetious, just extrapolating. I'm just replying to you, not really

defending anything. Nobody died and left me in charge either. And Honso did NOT

ask me to reply this time. I don't know for sure how to handle this. I only know

neither Honso nor I intended to create problems for raw herbology. Nigel also

left the impression that Honso products may work better than Sun Ten's. Should

Honso print a retraction regarding that, too?

 

Joseph Garner

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Absolutely. Coming from a bus admin marketing concentrating in my past

incarnation - there are no mistakes in advertising - it's too expensive.

Now, calculated risks in mud slinging is another matter altogether

(sound familiar??).

Geoff

 

> __________

>

> Message: 15

> Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:51:19 -0000

> " " <

> Re: Acupuncture Today

> >

> > If you look at the bottom of the Honso ad interviews, you

> will see the

> disclaimer that the opinions expressed are not necessarily

> Honso's. This is a

> fact, not just words.

>

> That is all well and good for a newspaper editorial page, but

> it does not fly

> with me when it comes to paid advertising. Honso is trying

> to sell products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...