Guest guest Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 , 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: > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 , " 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 , " 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2004 Report Share Posted March 3, 2004 the average person living to 70 >>>I believe it is not closeto 80 Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 >>>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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 , 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 < 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.