The Western medical revolution (which will never come)

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

I have been hearing this same song from western medical researchers since

I was growing up in the 60s with the promise that the " cure " for

incurable diseases was just around the corner, and all that was required

was a little more time and money. Well the fact is that 40 years , and

trillions (am I exaggerating? I think not) of $ later, we have bigger

more sophisticated machines, better diagnostic tools, the ability to

genetically scan DNA, but I respectfully disagree that Western Medicine

is any closer to curing diseases. As a matter of fact, it seems that

every year, NEW diseases rear their ugly faces. Personally I believe

that that hope will never be redeemed or fulfilled. With all due

respect, I believe that the fundamental error it makes is to use basic

mechanical physics as the foundation for its research, and operates from

the premise that if we take ourselves apart (like a clock or a car) to

the most miniscule detail, we can repair or replace what is broken. But

human beings, Alon, are much more than machines, and I believe it would

behoove us to view our macro-connectivity on a quantum scale, as well as

acknowledging the connection and impact that our energies and emotions

have on our bodies. In the past we have discussed the placebo effect,

and how emotions affect healing as Norman Cousins so articulately shows

us in his " Anatomy of an Illness " . We definitely benefit by early

detection, but we sell ourselves short when we rely on them to heal.

 

Yehuda

 

It is true however that WM is on a

> verge of a great revolution, that is genetic and molecular

> understanding of many diseases and what promises to be a much less

> toxic approach to treat these.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

One more significant point: As long as the basis of western medicine is

the allopathic model, instead of one that pursues homeostasis and

balance, the operations will continue to succeed, and the patients will

continue to die.

 

Yehuda

 

 

 

" When you see someone doing something wrong, realize that it was brought

before

you because you did something similar. Therefore, instead of judging

him, judge yourself. "

 

The Baal Shem Tov Hakodesh

[Guest guest]

We seem to sometimes forget the difference between biomedicine and science

as they are not the same. There have been many documented scientific

discoveries, which obliterate currently held biomedical belief yet they are

not accepted and so the hoax goes on.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

>Yehuda L Frischman <

>

>

> The Western medical revolution (which will never come)

>Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:16:36 -0800

>

>Alon,

>

>I have been hearing this same song from western medical researchers since

>I was growing up in the 60s with the promise that the " cure " for

>incurable diseases was just around the corner, and all that was required

>was a little more time and money. Well the fact is that 40 years , and

>trillions (am I exaggerating? I think not) of $ later, we have bigger

>more sophisticated machines, better diagnostic tools, the ability to

>genetically scan DNA, but I respectfully disagree that Western Medicine

>is any closer to curing diseases. As a matter of fact, it seems that

>every year, NEW diseases rear their ugly faces. Personally I believe

>that that hope will never be redeemed or fulfilled. With all due

>respect, I believe that the fundamental error it makes is to use basic

>mechanical physics as the foundation for its research, and operates from

>the premise that if we take ourselves apart (like a clock or a car) to

>the most miniscule detail, we can repair or replace what is broken. But

>human beings, Alon, are much more than machines, and I believe it would

>behoove us to view our macro-connectivity on a quantum scale, as well as

>acknowledging the connection and impact that our energies and emotions

>have on our bodies. In the past we have discussed the placebo effect,

>and how emotions affect healing as Norman Cousins so articulately shows

>us in his " Anatomy of an Illness " . We definitely benefit by early

>detection, but we sell ourselves short when we rely on them to heal.

>

>Yehuda

>

> It is true however that WM is on a

> > verge of a great revolution, that is genetic and molecular

> > understanding of many diseases and what promises to be a much less

> > toxic approach to treat these.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I have been hearing this same song from western medical researchers since

I was growing up in the 60s with the promise that the " cure " for

incurable diseases was just around the corner

>>>Yehuda

The difference is that i am aware of the research i am talking about. This is

not some generic statement i have made. At no time in the past WM had any idea

of what was actually going on within the body with many diseases. I am talking

about understanding particular errors that cause disease (ie particular

enzymatic steps, missing peptides, etc.)It has always been a kind of blind

science with minimal real understanding of the process. It is only now truly

changing.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There seems to be more scientific interest in other ideas such as chemical

transmutation establsihed by Dr. Kervran, rbc changeability by Dr. Chishima,

electromagnetic frequency of microorganisms by Rife and many others. There

are different levels of truth as it would appear from this discussion.

Science has not only failed to embrace facts it has denied them as well as

condemned their discoverer. I think it behooves us to remember and identify

the science that we are talking about. Is it the real science or the

political one of current times?

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: The Western medical revolution (which will never come)

>Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:51:21 -0600

>

>I have been hearing this same song from western medical researchers since

>I was growing up in the 60s with the promise that the " cure " for

>incurable diseases was just around the corner

> >>>Yehuda

>The difference is that i am aware of the research i am talking about. This

>is not some generic statement i have made. At no time in the past WM had

>any idea of what was actually going on within the body with many diseases.

>I am talking about understanding particular errors that cause disease (ie

>particular enzymatic steps, missing peptides, etc.)It has always been a

>kind of blind science with minimal real understanding of the process. It is

>only now truly changing.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

I hear what you are saying, yet I contend that the model you speak of is

faulty. It is a theoretical model based upon the assumption (please

correct me if I am wrong) that if the location of the error in the DNA of

an organism is discovered, and it is compared to the DNA in a healthy

model, then if you splice out the faulty gene and replace it with a

healthy gene, the mistaken pattern of dysfunction will correct itself. Of

course, I speak in oversimplification, but this is the gist of genetic

research. However, just as this strategy is only theoretical, I have two

objections which, of course, are also theoretical: first, though this

has been done to some degree with animal cloning, the resulting clones

have all, without exception been genetically flawed, constitutionally

weak, and have all died prematurely. I believe this is because there is

more to DNA than biochemistry. DNA constantly changes based upon its

environmental, and its emotional exposures as well as its energetic

(call it metaphysical, or spiritual if you like) makeup. Lacking that

spark, it will be no better than a mechanical toy that runs out of juice

when the battery dies. This analogy I think is valid, as the amount of

electrical activity that the brain generates is remarkable. But is this

electricity generated spontaneously? No, rather it is the non-mechanical

element which perpetuates species and is irreproducible. The same

problem, I believe, also presents itself with plants. Eventually, I

believe, geneticists will realize the limitations of their research,

and its failure. Of course, big bucks are being thrown at this

mechanical theory of life, but, just as at the end of his life, Pasteur

is said apocryphally to have admitted his mistake vis-a-vis Bechamp in

their debate of germ vs terrain, so too, IMHO, the time will come in this

debate as well. Therefore, assuming what I say is correct, this brings

us to the second problem with your model: as I said before is that once

this energetic essence is established and realized as coming from a

Universal intelligent source, call it qi if you like, then rather than

take it apart, it behooves us to connect with it, for IT is what heals

us, and by removing our obstructions from IT, we heal. Is this not

" essential " Chinese medical theory? Why chase after paper dragons and

build match-stick houses without foundations when there already is a

theoretical wisdom which brilliantly and logically explains life's

phenomona?

 

Yehuda

 

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:51:21 -0600 " "

<alonmarcus writes:

>

> I have been hearing this same song from western medical researchers

> since

> I was growing up in the 60s with the promise that the " cure " for

> incurable diseases was just around the corner

> >>>Yehuda

> The difference is that i am aware of the research i am talking

> about. This is not some generic statement i have made. At no time in

> the past WM had any idea of what was actually going on within the

> body with many diseases. I am talking about understanding particular

> errors that cause disease (ie particular enzymatic steps, missing

> peptides, etc.)It has always been a kind of blind science with

> minimal real understanding of the process. It is only now truly

> changing.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

that if the location of the error in the DNA of

an organism is discovered, and it is compared to the DNA in a healthy

model, then if you splice out the faulty gene and replace it with a

healthy gene, the mistaken pattern of dysfunction will correct itself.

>>>>Yehuda, actually most of the advances will have nothing to do with gene

splicing. They will mostly have to do with understanding the effects of genetic

errors so to speak. The treatments will mostly target effects down stream.The

results of these are already showing in research especially with CA.Work with

stem cells is already paying, PD for example, and we have just began. Dont get

me wrong i think we need to look at the whole not just its parts. But lets look

at the medical interventions that we know have made big differences in clinical

care. Most have been done on specific disease oriented and targeted treatments

from surgery and drugs. If we look at Todd's example of DM. Without insulin

patients with typeI die period;CM, spiritual medicine or what ever. If we look

at what we really have evidence for, not our beliefs, we cannot support our need

and wants regarding universal intelligent, etc. All our arguments regarding

these come from very theoretical physics. Absolutely no meaningful clinical

research.Herbs are drugs, acupuncture is still a difficult issue and the true

mode of action is still very difficult to document. As you say i do believe that

we are much more complicated than simple biochem, and at this point we know

close to nothing about disease and health. But as i said before we also need to

look at what has given us the biggest bang for the bock and that has been

disease oriented interventions, unfortunately.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> >>>>Yehuda, actually most of the advances will have nothing to do

> with gene splicing. They will mostly have to do with understanding

> the effects of genetic errors so to speak. The treatments will

> mostly target effects down stream.The results of these are already

> showing in research especially with CA.Work with stem cells is

> already paying, PD for example, and we have just began.

 

As I said, this is all theoretical, and all the PD advances have not led

to any long-term improvement to quality of life nor of longevity. To

temporarily improve the quality of life, but accelerate the onset of

symptoms as is the case with current PD drugs of choice lacks appropriate

moral judgement and is Faustian, a devil bargain.

 

 

Dont get me

> wrong i think we need to look at the whole not just its parts. But

> lets look at the medical interventions that we know have made big

> differences in clinical care. Most have been done on specific

> disease oriented and targeted treatments from surgery and drugs. If

> we look at Todd's example of DM. Without insulin patients with typeI

> die period;

 

Yet insulin exclusively leads to pancreatic atrophy. Please correct me

if I am wrong, and I did read Todd's post, and I do only speak in theory

as I don't have the clinical experience to back it up, but what I hear

from my professors, is that if identified early enough, type 1 diabetes

can be curable with CM. Please also understand, I don't advocate

throwing out the baby with the bath water, I do not only view the

diagnostic advances of WM as valid, but I also view the treatments that

they offer in emergency medicine as being life saving. However, again,

because the model is faulty, no long term benefit will be sustained.

This is why it is critical to support research and development of Asian

medicine in particular and Asian emergency medicine in particular, in

the West. I await the day when WE can do what they do to acutely save

lives, and then sustain them with quality.

 

 

CM, spiritual medicine or what ever. If we look at what

> we really have evidence for, not our beliefs, we cannot support our

> need and wants regarding universal intelligent, etc.

 

 

Two things: First of all I am not advocating " spiritual medicine " . Rather

I am proposing that the non-mechanical uniqueness of life can't be

explained using laboratory models, and that because plant and animal life

is not (and I contend will not ever be able to be) reproducible and

vitally sustainable, I have every reason to believe unless proven to the

contrary, that it is an intelligence driven system which is beyond Man's

limited comprehension. This too is looking " at the whole and not just

its parts " for unless we consider the connectedness of the universe and

the impact that each molecule has on each other, we are doomed to

ultimately fail, treating only symptoms and again being left with-- " the

operation being a success by the patient dying "

 

 

All our

> arguments regarding these come from very theoretical physics.

> Absolutely no meaningful clinical research.Herbs are drugs,

> acupuncture is still a difficult issue and the true mode of action

> is still very difficult to document. As you say i do believe that we

> are much more complicated than simple biochem, and at this point we

> know close to nothing about disease and health. But as i said before

> we also need to look at what has given us the biggest bang for the

> bock and that has been disease oriented interventions,

> unfortunately.

 

My very point: Trillions of dollars down the toilet without tangible

significant results, only " the promise of any day now... " I wouldn't call

terribly efficient. Yes herbs are drugs, but their whole parts rather

than synthesized analogs have proven to cure disease by synergistically

harmonizing and balancing, rather than attacking just symptoms, as the WM

model tries to do ineptly, and yet throws more billions into their black

hole of research. No analog has ever provided all the synergistic

benefits of a plant. I think that it is an exercise in futility to think

that there are yet to be discovered components in plants that make them

different than analogs. This too is wasted research, for it is the same

energetic life force, the same qi and the same connectivity that heals

and is irreproducible.

 

 

Alon, all that being said, I appreciate sincerely your wisdom,

experience and passion. Please pardon my youthful exuberance. I truly

only engage in polemic to deepen my own understanding and knowledge.

 

All the best,

 

Yehuda

 

 

[Guest guest]

As I said, this is all theoretical, and all the PD advances have not led

to any long-term improvement to quality of life nor of longevity. To

temporarily improve the quality of life, but accelerate the onset of

symptoms as is the case with current PD drugs of choice lacks appropriate

moral judgement and is Faustian, a devil bargain.

>>>>>>Not true, stem cell implants have been working. In type one diabetes the

cells are usually already dead.

 

Yet insulin exclusively leads to pancreatic atrophy. Please correct me

if I am wrong, and I did read Todd's post, and I do only speak in theory

as I don't have the clinical experience to back it up, but what I hear

from my professors, is that if identified early enough, type 1 diabetes

can be curable with CM.

 

>>>>>>>I have posted this in the past but at the hospital were i worked they did

a study project on type1 diabetes and they had Dr come in from all over china,Dr

that have published such claims. The study lasted over 5 years and at the end

they stated that TCM clearly cannot treat type I diabetes, if blood sugar levels

are the criteria for success.They think TCM can prevent some of the

complications from the disease but from what i saw their evidence are not

totally convincing.

 

My very point: Trillions of dollars down the toilet without tangible

significant results, only " the promise of any day now... " I wouldn't call

terribly efficient.

>>>>>>While i agree that much of the research is wasteful and totally not

scientific (only about 5% of studies published in US medical J are of high

quality according to the US office of Technology, To say it is all down the

toilet is ridiculous.I think you need to spend some time with really sick

people. Try to spend at least one day in inpatient wards and ERs and do it for

at least one year. I am sure you can volunteer somehow. We will talk after one

year and see if you still make such statements. Dont get me wrong, i think much

of modern WM is unproven shit, and kills many people.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:27:34 -0600 " "

<alonmarcus writes:

>

> As I said, this is all theoretical, and all the PD advances have not

> led

> to any long-term improvement to quality of life nor of longevity.

> To

> temporarily improve the quality of life, but accelerate the onset of

> symptoms as is the case with current PD drugs of choice lacks

> appropriate

> moral judgement and is Faustian, a devil bargain.

> >>>>>>Not true, stem cell implants have been working. In type one

> diabetes the cells are usually already dead.

 

 

Again my question to you is sustainability. Will the implants continue

to work one year, 2, 5 and 10 years, without also modifying diet,

lifestyle, and environment. There is more to healing than surgical

implants.

 

 

 

> My very point: Trillions of dollars down the toilet without tangible

> significant results, only " the promise of any day now... " I wouldn't

> call

> terribly efficient.

> >>>>>>While i agree that much of the research is wasteful and

> totally not scientific (only about 5% of studies published in US

> medical J are of high quality according to the US office of

> Technology, To say it is all down the toilet is ridiculous.I think

> you need to spend some time with really sick people. Try to spend at

> least one day in inpatient wards and ERs and do it for at least one

> year. I am sure you can volunteer somehow. We will talk after one

> year and see if you still make such statements. Dont get me wrong, i

> think much of modern WM is unproven shit, and kills many people.

 

I would much rather wait until we have ER facilities under non-allopathic

auspicies. To say that 95% of WM studies do not meet high standards is

HORRIBLY wasteful. If you were asked to endow a research facility, and

were told, " Oh, by the way, just 5% of your money will be used to cure,

the rest will be used for administrative expenses " I don't think that

there's a chance in the world that you would make that financial

commitment. There is so much more to illness, and even emergency illness

than just what WM has to offer. As I say, Asian emergency medicine is

underdeveloped, but if allowed to be nurtured and it receives a

comparable amount of funding, that's where you will get MUCH more bang

for your buck, IMHO.

 

 

Yehuda

[Guest guest]

Just a final thought--If the phamaceutical companies an research

facilities would use the same honesty that you display, then they would

be bankrupt. But the fact is they spend millions in PR and lobbying

disingenuously selling themselves as well as underwriting university

medical programs.

 

Y

 

" When you see someone doing something wrong, realize that it was brought

before

you because you did something similar. Therefore, instead of judging

him, judge yourself. "

 

The Baal Shem Tov Hakodesh

[Guest guest]

phamaceutical companies

>>>Ever since Reagen they became criminal organizations with only money at

heart.His changes destroyed medical research in the US.There is almost no

independent research any more

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I also recall hearing that Eli Lilly was infamous for saying that " there

is no drug that doesn't have a side effect " .

 

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:49:16 -0600 " "

<alonmarcus writes:

>

> phamaceutical companies

> >>>Ever since Reagen they became criminal organizations with only

> money at heart.His changes destroyed medical research in the

> US.There is almost no independent research any more

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As I say, Asian emergency medicine is

underdeveloped, but if allowed to be nurtured and it receives a

comparable amount of funding, that's where you will get MUCH more bang

for your buck, IMHO.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Yehuda

Have you been in an ER in china?, it 99% WM.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

By Asian medicine I mean historical Asian medicine meaning before it was

" cannonized " and reduced to TCM in the PRC, not what practically is to

be found in Chinese ERs.

 

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 00:04:40 -0500 " " <alonmarcus

writes:

>

> As I say, Asian emergency medicine is

> underdeveloped, but if allowed to be nurtured and it receives a

> comparable amount of funding, that's where you will get MUCH more

> bang

> for your buck, IMHO.

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> Yehuda

> Have you been in an ER in china?, it 99% WM.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

" By Asian medicine I mean historical Asian medicine meaning before it

was " cannonized " and reduced to TCM in the PRC...

 

God, I wish we could put this myth to rest once and for all. What we

call TCM was a product of the Qing dynasty, NOT the PRC. The accepted

(by Chinese scholars) fountainhead of contemporary Chinese medicine

which focuses on treatment based on pattern discrimination is the Yi

Zong Jin Jian (The Golden Mirror of Ancestral [i.e., Collected] Medicine).

 

Marnae and Kevin Ergil are writing a history of Chinese medicine to,

in large part, specifically clarify what contemporary Chinese medicine

is and is not.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

God, I wish we could put this myth to rest once and for all.

>>>>>Bob, the need for romantic ideas will never change, evidence, i.e. the

history and books will unfortunately will not change this.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I wonder if this " myth " is also prevalent in Asia. All you have to do is utter

the word

Communist in America (and Taiwan) and all explanations of history falls into

place.

doug

 

 

, " " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> God, I wish we could put this myth to rest once and for all.

> >>>>>Bob, the need for romantic ideas will never change, evidence, i.e. the

history

and books will unfortunately will not change this.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bob, you miss my point. I certainly acknowledge that reductionism didn't

begin in the 20th century, but has it not been officially " renamed "

Traditional and cannonized as such as one of Mao's many

reactions to " Western Imperialism " , as a firm demonstration of the

superiority of the Chinese traditional way? Did not the Nationalists

previously completely condemn as witchcraft and folk simplicity,

acupuncture and Traditional herbal medicine?

 

The point I did wanted to make, was that in their pursuit of a

simplified, cannonized reductionist medicine, there was the realization

after the failure of the cultural revolution that Western medicine is

also useful, therefore integration is the way to go. The problem is that

IMHO tragically, the skills and methods of CM are not relegated to the

emergency room setting, as Alon pointed out. This I feel is shortsighted

and this was my point and my problem. If you would have read the context

of my post instead of focusing on an historical detail which really was

peripheral, I think you would have understand that I wasn't attempting

to distort history.

 

Sincerely,

 

Yehuda

 

 

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:12:28 -0000 " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001 writes:

>

>

> " By Asian medicine I mean historical Asian medicine meaning before

> it

> was " cannonized " and reduced to TCM in the PRC...

>

> God, I wish we could put this myth to rest once and for all. What we

> call TCM was a product of the Qing dynasty, NOT the PRC. The

> accepted

> (by Chinese scholars) fountainhead of contemporary Chinese medicine

> which focuses on treatment based on pattern discrimination is the Yi

> Zong Jin Jian (The Golden Mirror of Ancestral [i.e., Collected]

> Medicine).

>

> Marnae and Kevin Ergil are writing a history of Chinese medicine to,

> in large part, specifically clarify what contemporary Chinese

> medicine

> is and is not.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have often wondered where this myth came from. Chinese medicine has

never been a static system. It has always changed and adapted as new

information became available and as new cultural considerations came into

play. Over time many aspects of what Unschuld calls the " magico-religious "

have been marginalized from the mainstream practice of CM. Rather than

denigrating Communist China we should perhaps think a bit more

pragmatically. Were it not for Mao Ze Dong recognizing that without CM the

mass population of China would have no medicine, we might have very little

left of CM today, or, it would still be being practiced primarily among the

Chinese communities in this country and not by the larger community of

practitioners that exists today. Remember - it was Kissinger and Nixon

(and James Reston who used acupuncture POST-surgically for pain relief from

an appendectomy) that piqued the American interest - even though it was

being practiced in Taiwan and other communities with which we had normal

relations.

 

Anyway, yes, Kevin and I have just begun work on a book that we hope will

be more accessible to readers and will address some of the " China

fantasies " that seem to be so prevalent. More to come.

 

Marnae

 

At 11:12 AM 4/7/2005, you wrote:

 

 

> " By Asian medicine I mean historical Asian medicine meaning before it

>was " cannonized " and reduced to TCM in the PRC...

>

>God, I wish we could put this myth to rest once and for all. What we

>call TCM was a product of the Qing dynasty, NOT the PRC. The accepted

>(by Chinese scholars) fountainhead of contemporary Chinese medicine

>which focuses on treatment based on pattern discrimination is the Yi

>Zong Jin Jian (The Golden Mirror of Ancestral [i.e., Collected] Medicine).

>

>Marnae and Kevin Ergil are writing a history of Chinese medicine to,

>in large part, specifically clarify what contemporary Chinese medicine

>is and is not.

>

>Bob

>

>

>

>

>

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Alon -

 

I hope this is not true. I do think that education - and having

appropriate individuals teach the history / philosophy classes can change

things. If the teachers buy the myths then they will be passed down but if

we can educate the teachers - or find individuals to teach who have a

broader historical perspective than just their own history class, I think

we can make a difference.

 

Marnae

 

At 11:41 AM 4/7/2005, you wrote:

 

>God, I wish we could put this myth to rest once and for all.

> >>>>>Bob, the need for romantic ideas will never change, evidence, i.e.

> the history and books will unfortunately will not change this.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I hope this is not true. I do think that education - and having

appropriate individuals teach the history / philosophy classes can change

things. If the teachers buy the myths then they will be passed down but if

we can educate the teachers - or find individuals to teach who have a

broader historical perspective than just their own history class, I think

we can make a difference.

>>>>>>

Marnae i hope you are right, but i am afraid that many that gravitate towards CM

need romantic ideas to keep them going and it is also why they were attracted in

the first place, I know I was.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes - but you learned!

 

Marnae

 

At 03:31 PM 4/8/2005, you wrote:

 

>I hope this is not true. I do think that education - and having

>appropriate individuals teach the history / philosophy classes can change

>things. If the teachers buy the myths then they will be passed down but if

>we can educate the teachers - or find individuals to teach who have a

>broader historical perspective than just their own history class, I think

>we can make a difference.

> >>>>>>

>Marnae i hope you are right, but i am afraid that many that gravitate

>towards CM need romantic ideas to keep them going and it is also why they

>were attracted in the first place, I know I was.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I first heard about this canonization from Ted Kaptchuk, both in public

lectures and in the original introduction to the " Fundamentals of

" by Wiseman, Ellis and Zmiewski published in the 80's

(since deleted). This was also the essence of a panel discussion that

was published in the Journal of several years ago with

Ted and Giovanni. I know Giovanni has since rejected this point of

view in a public lecture, I don't know where Ted stands on this now.

It only goes to show how much people in our profession look to

authoritative voices for their point of view instead of investigating

for themselves. But people will need some Chinese language skills,

perhaps, to do their own investigating.

 

There are a number of new books that give a clearer perspective,

including the Volker Scheid text " Traditional in

Contemporary China " and a newer volume out later this year, and Kim

Taylor's " Medicine of Revolution: in Early Communist

China " . I agree that the present emphasis on pattern differentiation

in TCM has its roots in the Qing dynasty, and that the communists

revived Chinese medicine and kept it alive (although credit should also

be given to the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese societies as well). I

don't think it means we need to create a clone of the mainland Chinese

system in the West. I am sorry if others disagree, but I think that

the needs of Westerners will create, over time, a more indigenous

system, not unlike what Korea and Japan have done. This Western

system, however, needs to be based on clear sources from the Chinese

texts and practice, not our own misconceptions about Chinese medicine

influenced by ideas about the New Age and human potential movements.

 

 

On Apr 8, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Marnae Ergil wrote:

 

> I have often wondered where this myth came from. Chinese medicine has

> never been a static system. It has always changed and adapted as new

> information became available and as new cultural considerations came

> into

> play. Over time many aspects of what Unschuld calls the

> " magico-religious "

> have been marginalized from the mainstream practice of CM. Rather than

> denigrating Communist China we should perhaps think a bit more

> pragmatically. Were it not for Mao Ze Dong recognizing that without

> CM the

> mass population of China would have no medicine, we might have very

> little

> left of CM today, or, it would still be being practiced primarily

> among the

> Chinese communities in this country and not by the larger community of

> practitioners that exists today. Remember - it was Kissinger and Nixon

> (and James Reston who used acupuncture POST-surgically for pain relief

> from

> an appendectomy) that piqued the American interest - even though it was

> being practiced in Taiwan and other communities with which we had

> normal

> relations.

[Guest guest]

Yes - but you learned!

>>>You are right, i guess there is always hope