Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 To clarify a point, it was not that the audience had no interest in chinese herbs. In fact, many of the herbs discussed by presenters are chinese herbs (licorice, ginseng and turmeric). They were not interested in chinese herb FORMULAS or chinese medical THEORY at all, though. I devoted the first half of my presentation to discussing mutual interactions between herbs and root/branch concepts, comparing those ideas to similar ones in biology. While everyone seemed to follow along and no one objected, it changed when I got to the research. While accepting the idea of using herbs to treat the root of a condition, they could not accept research done on formulas with often 20 or more herbs in them. I could see that they were impressed to find out an herbal formula could reverse liver disease caused by diabetes drugs, but clearly wanted to know which ONE of the herbs had done the trick. Even if accepting the idea that multiple herbs might work well together, the consensus seemed to be that they should be studied first by themselves before being studied in formulas. There were some very nice poster board presentations showing that sam-e worked as well as celebrex. That turmeric and glucosamine were also effective for osteoarthritis. That plant based digestive enzymes survived the gut acid with their full activity. So there was plenty of interest in natural substances. After my talk, there was no one who wanted to speak with me, though I was the only one present representing the TCM herbology community. In fact, there seemed to a general alarm about chinese herbs being contaminated. In hindsight, I am sorry I wasted my time. Chinese Herbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 On Jan 7, 2005, at 8:03 PM, wrote: > In hindsight, I am sorry I wasted my > time. You know, (and I do mean you know) that there are plenty of other researchers in the sea. There are those who research the cost benefits of a particular intervention compared to the standard of care. There are those who research the efficacy of a particular intervention compared to the standard of care. These are the researchers who can benefit from the polypharmaceutical chaos of TCM. we don't know what will come from this conference. Who knows what seed will germinate in the minds of the attendees. -al. -- Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. -Adlai Stevenson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 I have a feeling a presentation like this can be very important even if the effects aren't felt in the afternoon you gave it. Butterflies and all that... good going, Todd. doug , Al Stone <alstone@b...> wrote: > On Jan 7, 2005, at 8:03 PM, wrote: > > > In hindsight, I am sorry I wasted my > > time. > > You know, (and I do mean you know) that there are plenty of other > researchers in the sea. > > There are those who research the cost benefits of a particular > intervention compared to the standard of care. > > There are those who research the efficacy of a particular intervention > compared to the standard of care. > > These are the researchers who can benefit from the polypharmaceutical > chaos of TCM. > > we don't know what will come from this conference. Who knows what > seed will germinate in the minds of the attendees. > > -al. > > > -- > > Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. > -Adlai Stevenson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 Congratulations are in order for what you have done. It takes a great deal of courage to go into the lion's den and tell them the truth. The theories are what makes this effective. They are afraid of letting go and challenging their own paradigm. You have just confirmed our greatest threat, limited truth as taught in medical science. Science is and has been moving away from medicine for years, they medicine doesn't want to accept it. The creation and work in quantum fileds for example hold more ideas that are in alignment with Chinese energetic theory and cosmology. We, meaning our profession, have a bit of a paradox in that we do not want to accept quantum physics but we gladly accept " bio-medicine " , go figure. We need more focus on public education and less on impressing the scientists or medical profession. They will only see what they want to and they will practice partial OM, as a biomedical modality. Again, thanks for trying. Remember that the people who attend these seminars are not necessarily the most educated as to ongoing research, there is much out there that would turn their belief system on end. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > < > >cha > more on scripps conference >Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:03:12 -0800 > >To clarify a point, it was not that the audience had no interest in >chinese herbs. In fact, many of the herbs discussed by presenters are >chinese herbs (licorice, ginseng and turmeric). They were not >interested in chinese herb FORMULAS or chinese medical THEORY at all, >though. I devoted the first half of my presentation to discussing >mutual interactions between herbs and root/branch concepts, comparing >those ideas to similar ones in biology. While everyone seemed to >follow along and no one objected, it changed when I got to the >research. While accepting the idea of using herbs to treat the root of >a condition, they could not accept research done on formulas with often >20 or more herbs in them. I could see that they were impressed to find >out an herbal formula could reverse liver disease caused by diabetes >drugs, but clearly wanted to know which ONE of the herbs had done the >trick. Even if accepting the idea that multiple herbs might work well >together, the consensus seemed to be that they should be studied first >by themselves before being studied in formulas. There were some very >nice poster board presentations showing that sam-e worked as well as >celebrex. That turmeric and glucosamine were also effective for >osteoarthritis. That plant based digestive enzymes survived the gut >acid with their full activity. So there was plenty of interest in >natural substances. After my talk, there was no one who wanted to >speak with me, though I was the only one present representing the TCM >herbology community. In fact, there seemed to a general alarm about >chinese herbs being contaminated. In hindsight, I am sorry I wasted my >time. > > > >Chinese Herbs > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 I think there are several valuable consequences from your experiences - they simply verify things that you and I have been hammering at for years. The TCM research community needs to clean up its research paradigms to rigorously define and prove the efficacy of the pattern recognition paradigm - this will not only result in greater information value to TCM practitioners, it may impact western researchers interested in herbs but unconvinced of the " strange " beliefs of Chinese herbalists. I also suspect you may be too pessimistic about the potential for western researchers and medical doctors to appreciate the pattern recognition paradigm. In my experience, critical care physicians are often the quickest to see its importance, as TCM-style pattern-matching comes very close to how they already think - in terms of controlling a complex system of multiple variables simultaneously. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the dermatologists, who often pretend that one's skin is just like the upholstery on a sofa, and can be patched up or renovated independently of everything else. The Chinese research community needs to get the message that all of the work they have put into flawed research designs could have had a much greater impact if they had only done it right; instead, it is the object of scorn. The tragedy is that it doesn't take a lot of extra people power or resources to do it right. A well-designed study requires just one person who understands both statistics and TCM theory and pattern matching to do it right, set up the control groups, tell everyone else what to do, and then crunch the numbers. But if the study is flawed, no amount of number crunching can salvage anything of value after the fact. I think it would be very instructive, if you have the time, to post an article on your website detailing the Scripp's conference criticisms of TCM research and how it can be improved. ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org > < >more on scripps conference > >To clarify a point, it was not that the audience had no interest in >chinese herbs. In fact, many of the herbs discussed by presenters are >chinese herbs (licorice, ginseng and turmeric). They were not >interested in chinese herb FORMULAS or chinese medical THEORY at all, >though. I devoted the first half of my presentation to discussing >mutual interactions between herbs and root/branch concepts, comparing >those ideas to similar ones in biology. While everyone seemed to >follow along and no one objected, it changed when I got to the >research. While accepting the idea of using herbs to treat the root of >a condition, they could not accept research done on formulas with often >20 or more herbs in them. I could see that they were impressed to find >out an herbal formula could reverse liver disease caused by diabetes >drugs, but clearly wanted to know which ONE of the herbs had done the >trick. Even if accepting the idea that multiple herbs might work well >together, the consensus seemed to be that they should be studied first >by themselves before being studied in formulas. There were some very >nice poster board presentations showing that sam-e worked as well as >celebrex. That turmeric and glucosamine were also effective for >osteoarthritis. That plant based digestive enzymes survived the gut >acid with their full activity. So there was plenty of interest in >natural substances. After my talk, there was no one who wanted to >speak with me, though I was the only one present representing the TCM >herbology community. In fact, there seemed to a general alarm about >chinese herbs being contaminated. In hindsight, I am sorry I wasted my >time. > > >Chinese Herbs > ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 > > rw2 [rw2] > Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:22 PM > > Re: more on scripps conference > > > > > I think there are several valuable consequences from your experiences - > they simply verify things that you and I have been hammering at for years. > The TCM research community needs to clean up its research paradigms to > rigorously define and prove the efficacy of the pattern recognition > paradigm - this will not only result in greater information value to TCM > practitioners, it may impact western researchers interested in herbs but > unconvinced of the " strange " beliefs of Chinese herbalists. > > I also suspect you may be too pessimistic about the potential for western > researchers and medical doctors to appreciate the pattern recognition > paradigm. In my experience, critical care physicians are often the > quickest to see its importance, as TCM-style pattern-matching comes very > close to how they already think - in terms of controlling a complex system > of multiple variables simultaneously. At the other end of the spectrum, > you have the dermatologists, who often pretend that one's skin is just > like the upholstery on a sofa, and can be patched up or renovated > independently of everything else. [Jason] I agree... I think pattern recognition is an inherit part of the Western Medical system, it is just a different system than ours. Many many diseases are further differentiated my various patterns, stages or whatever... I.e. just yesterday I had an indebt discussion with an audiologist. She described a PATTERN for vertigo that was almost identical to what we would call a phlegm pattern. Interesting she noted that diet was a major determinant for re-occurring episodes. Further of interest, she talked about Ca crystals that were found in the canals, and once removed, manually, would alleviate the symptoms. We hopefully will be working together on some patients. Furthermore, the more I read Chinese the more I get the sense that there is method to the Chinese's (research) madness. Their many case study presentations or personal experiences by master herbalists, pass on invaluable information and research... Yes it may not conform to Western paradigm, which may or may not be an issue. That is yet to see... Furthermore, I just found a section in a book that discusses the Chinese's philosophy for research, scientific method etc (or at least the author's opinion)... There is a method to their madness that I believe should not be just ruled out. Obviously if one is just looking for the GOLD standard then we have an issue... Maybe the Chinese, in general, could care less about this GOLD standard. Obviously they are aware of it.. They have access to Western Medicine, and many of the TCM doctors are also trained in WM... Anyway, I may write more on this in the future. - > > The Chinese research community needs to get the message that all of the > work they have put into flawed research designs could have had a much > greater impact if they had only done it right; instead, it is the object > of scorn. The tragedy is that it doesn't take a lot of extra people power > or resources to do it right. A well-designed study requires just one > person who understands both statistics and TCM theory and pattern matching > to do it right, set up the control groups, tell everyone else what to do, > and then crunch the numbers. But if the study is flawed, no amount of > number crunching can salvage anything of value after the fact. > > I think it would be very instructive, if you have the time, to post an > article on your website detailing the Scripp's conference criticisms of > TCM research and how it can be improved. > > ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist > contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ > Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA > Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 I think the biggest problem now with our profession is a lack of self-esteem. We are always seeming to apologize for existing, and all of our research lacks confidence in the methods of pattern differentiation. We are trying to prove something on the unconscious premise that our medicine is somehow 'unproven' or not legitimate if not confirmed by Western medicine or modern science. Before there can be true integrative medicine there must be first true autonomy. We need to develop our own structures, our own research, our own methodology, and continue to learn and grow. Only then will we have the confidence to truly interact with the rest of the world. On Jan 8, 2005, at 12:21 PM, rw2 wrote: > > The Chinese research community needs to get the message that all of > the work they have put into flawed research designs could have had a > much greater impact if they had only done it right; instead, it is the > object of scorn. The tragedy is that it doesn't take a lot of extra > people power or resources to do it right. A well-designed study > requires just one person who understands both statistics and TCM > theory and pattern matching to do it right, set up the control groups, > tell everyone else what to do, and then crunch the numbers. But if the > study is flawed, no amount of number crunching can salvage anything of > value after the fact. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 I'm not sure its the biggest problem but there does seem to be a " we're number 2 " mentality going around (younger readers may not get this reference). It can seem very frustrating and then you nail a diagnosis and treatment and the patient gets better.... makes it worth it. doug , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > I think the biggest problem now with our profession is a lack of > self-esteem. We are always seeming to apologize for existing, and all > of our research lacks confidence in the methods of pattern > differentiation. We are trying to prove something on the unconscious > premise that our medicine is somehow 'unproven' or not legitimate if > not confirmed by Western medicine or modern science. Before there can > be true integrative medicine there must be first true autonomy. We > need to develop our own structures, our own research, our own > methodology, and continue to learn and grow. Only then will we have > the confidence to truly interact with the rest of the world. > > > On Jan 8, 2005, at 12:21 PM, rw2@r... wrote: > > > > > The Chinese research community needs to get the message that all of > > the work they have put into flawed research designs could have had a > > much greater impact if they had only done it right; instead, it is the > > object of scorn. The tragedy is that it doesn't take a lot of extra > > people power or resources to do it right. A well-designed study > > requires just one person who understands both statistics and TCM > > theory and pattern matching to do it right, set up the control groups, > > tell everyone else what to do, and then crunch the numbers. But if the > > study is flawed, no amount of number crunching can salvage anything of > > value after the fact. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 At 7:13 PM -0700 1/8/05, wrote: >I just found a section in a book that discusses the Chinese's >philosophy for research, scientific method etc (or at least the author's >opinion)... There is a method to their madness that I believe should not be >just ruled out. -- I hope you will let us know more about what this book has to say. I can't see how the author could justify not doing follow up in diabetes studies, as Todd noted. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 Z'ev, Developing our own methodology is exactly what I've been proposing all along. But it would be foolish to discard centuries of western knowledge of mathematics, statistics, and research design to start all over. The fact is that western research methods **can*** be adapted very easily do accommodate the TCM pattern matching paradigm. I've discussed briefly the nature of the problem: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-2.html#t-sing And a mathematical model for quantifying multi-parameter clinical studies of pattern-recognition paradigm: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/tch/tch1-appA.html For the last one you would need to register (free) on our website to get access. Having even a single well-designed study to reference would be a tremendous confidence booster to the TCM community. I wish I could reference such a study in the lectures and articles I've written. Instead, the lack of such requires me to explain why the Chinese or anyone else have not done such a study yet. I still am not quite sure of the answer - is it ignorance of experimental design or statistics, or simple stubbornness? I don't deny the value of individual case study reports by eminent Chinese physicians - I've benefitted greatly by the many translations that my mentor Dr. Cheung has done over the years. But well-designed controlled clinical studies provide a greater level of certainty that no amount of anecdotal case reports can accomplish. ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org > >Message: 11 > Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:37:06 -0800 > " " <zrosenbe >Re: Re: more on scripps conference > >I think the biggest problem now with our profession is a lack of >self-esteem. We are always seeming to apologize for existing, and all >of our research lacks confidence in the methods of pattern >differentiation. We are trying to prove something on the unconscious >premise that our medicine is somehow 'unproven' or not legitimate if >not confirmed by Western medicine or modern science. Before there can >be true integrative medicine there must be first true autonomy. We >need to develop our own structures, our own research, our own >methodology, and continue to learn and grow. Only then will we have >the confidence to truly interact with the rest of the world. > > >On Jan 8, 2005, at 12:21 PM, rw2 wrote: > >> >> The Chinese research community needs to get the message that all of >> the work they have put into flawed research designs could have had a >> much greater impact if they had only done it right; instead, it is the >> object of scorn. The tragedy is that it doesn't take a lot of extra >> people power or resources to do it right. A well-designed study >> requires just one person who understands both statistics and TCM >> theory and pattern matching to do it right, set up the control groups, >> tell everyone else what to do, and then crunch the numbers. But if the >> study is flawed, no amount of number crunching can salvage anything of >> value after the fact. >> ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 I certainly wouldn't suggest otherwise. I think you've done a good job proving that western research models, especially mathematical ones, can be applied to studies based on pattern differentiation. On Jan 9, 2005, at 10:24 AM, rw2 wrote: > > Developing our own methodology is exactly what I've been proposing > all along. But it would be foolish to discard centuries of western > knowledge of mathematics, statistics, and research design to start all > over. The fact is that western research methods **can*** be adapted > very easily do accommodate the TCM pattern matching paradigm. I've > discussed briefly the nature of the problem: > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 In a message dated 1/7/05 11:03:54 PM, writes: > I could see that they were impressed to find > out an herbal formula could reverse liver disease caused by diabetes > drugs, but clearly wanted to know which ONE of the herbs had done the > trick. Even if accepting the idea that multiple herbs might work well > together, the consensus seemed to be that they should be studied first > by themselves before being studied in formulas. > I know this may have been brought up before, but the fact remains that herbs are groups of constitiuents just as formulations are groups of constituents, and to treat each formulation as a single herb. If they are going to limit their thinking to single herbs, perhaps the end goal is to seperate out single constituents of herbs in the long run, and that will bring them failure as well. David Molony 101 Bridge Street Catasauqua, PA 18032 Phone (610)264-2755 Fax (610) 264-7292 **********Confidentiality Notice ********** This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are confidential and are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) identified above. This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law, including the FTC Safeguard Rule and U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Principles. If you are the intended recipient, you are responsible for establishing appropriate safeguards to maintain data integrity and security. If the receiver of this information is not the intended recipient, or the employee, or agent responsible for delivering the information to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, reading, dissemination, distribution, copying or storage of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete the electronic transmission, including all attachments from your system. 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.