common ground

[Guest guest]

Not being a politician or very diplomatic (despite being born in the

year of the rabbit), I have no inclination nor ability to lead others

to a common ground. I am merely capable of making my case as

forcefully and persuasively as decorum permits. However it is worth

considering the issue of common ground. One of the reasons I started

the CHA forum was to see if there was or could be a professional

consensus on key points in the field of chinese herbology. I had

even hoped a white paper would come out of the project.

 

I was inspired in this endeavor by the writings of the philosopher

Ken Wilber. In his book Eye to Eye, Wilber postulates that knowledge

in all domains of human existence (body, mind and spirit) have their

own modes of validation. Science validates knowledge of the realm of

the flesh by using external measurement. This measurement does not

explain the workings of the mind nor the insights of spiritual

practice. Yet neither does meditation reveal the detailed workings

of the body. However meditation is the process by which one confirms

the knowledge of the spiritual realm. And in the world of ideas, it

is conversation, dialog and consensus that determines the truth of

ideas. You can measure brainwaves, but you can only discuss

existentialism and only experience nirvana through practice or sudden

transcendance.

 

Lets set aside spirit as it is not the topic of this list, merely

reiterating Wilber's point that confusion of modes of validation is

the main reason for conflict between the sciences of the flesh, ideas

and spirit. While the 3 domains are certainly part of an integrated

whole, one will always fail to comprehend one domain if one tries to

reduce it (or expand it, if you prefer) to another. Just as we don't

like seeing ideas reduced to brainwaves, it is equally fallacious to

assign brainwave activity to some prior thought or karma, etc. If it

was true that mastery of spirit and/or mind led to perfect knowledge

and control of the flesh, than the ancient world would have been a

paradise and there never would have been any impetus for modernity to

supplant it. While there are no doubt at least some on this list who

the idea that the ancient world was indeed a paradise and

we live in a fall from grace, my only reply is that I used to share

such an idea, which the preponderance of evidence has now convinced

me to be unlikely.

 

So how does the issue of consensus in the realm of ideas apply to

TCM? Since TCM has not been validated in an unequivocal empirical

fashion, the truth of ideas in this field can only be determined by

discussion and consensus. There have been many ideas in chinese

medical history that have been floated only to wither. There have

likewise been many ideas proposed on this list and others like it

that have either been accepted, debated or trashed. The term MSU has

been used to describe ideas that are just made up, but then portrayed

as if they were solidly rooted in TCM. My use of stem cell and

genetics in relation to jing could qualify as such an example except

I make no claim that I am presenting a chinese medical idea, but

rather a limitation of TCM as I see it. OTOH, stating unequivocally

something like lupus is always due to a latent pathogen is clearly an

example of MSU.

 

While the CHA list has served well to dissuade all but the most

stubborn dissenters away from pure MSU, many of these folks just post

their ideas on other lists, some as large and active as CHA. In

other words, the response to admonitions from ones more experienced

and scholarly peers (and I am not referring to myself here) has not

been the withering of idiosyncratic and unfounded ideas, but rather

an entrenchment of positions. While CM is indeed quite pluralistic

in its history if one considers every idiosyncratic idea ever

proposed, there is actually quite a consensus amongst the many

hundreds of herbal texts written in the past 1000 years. And ideas

that have stood the test of time have been developed by those who had

deeply studied what had come before (wen bing founders were SHL

scholars, for example). It was not the result of reading Giovanni,

smoking a bong hit and letting your mind wander.

 

I had hoped in the past 12 years that we would see some empirical

research to validate our medicine externally. That's the rub, you

see. If a set of ideas are only validated internally amongst

professional peers, you cannot expect the mainstream public to buy

into those ideas and pay money for services associated with them.

Witness the complete demise of psychoanalysis, once a prominent

profession. They failed to validate their ideas externally despite

developing intricate internal theories and having devoted patients

who swore by them. However it was shown in numerous studies that

much of the supposed effects were placebo or absent when measured

using widely accepted psych instruments (which means questionnaires,

etc.) and the profession pretty much dissolved overnight (there are

several key reasons why these studies failed, too complex to discuss

here, but suffice it to say that I believe all the major schools of

psychoanalysis have much to offer in personal development, but it is

not necessarily an effective form of healthcare across a broad

demographic).

 

In our own field, we have seen some compelling recent evidence of our

techniques or substances being validated. However, it is always this

herb or that point, but not the medicine, per se. For example, two

studies, one on rats and one on humans, have proven effective

treatment of hypertension with acupuncture. I have heard and read a

lot of raves about this study and the big german study and the recent

knee OA study. But in all these cases, the treatment method was

allopathic, not TCM. There was no pattern differentiation, which not

only does not validate our mode of thinking, but actually calls it

into question. If the treatment works without the methodology, then

how valuable is the methodology? I have written for years that we

should be doing interrater reliability studies, TCM style research

and verifying zang fu theory (like the way acupuncture is being

verified with fMRI). The more allopathic studies that prove TCM

works w/o the theory, the sooner we will all be out of work.

 

But not only do we not have the empirical research, we also have very

little common ground in the world of ideas within our profession at

all. Many on this list often have little in common with those on

other similar lists, some of which originally started as havens for

former CHAers who didn't like being challenged or debated here. And

many remaining on this list have little common ground with each other

on fundamental points. But we are still more likely to find common

ground amongst ourselves than within the profession as a whole.

Those who are strictly orthopods, i.e. most of the profession are not

on this list, nor are the new agers, the homeopaths, NAET, etc. So

what is our common ground? It is certainly not vision for the

future. Nor agreement on issues such as dosage, forms of herbs,

terminology, language, classics, etc. After 6 years, while my

personal ideas have evolved, some quite a bit (as I assume have

others), I see no greater consensus today than I did before I started

the list.

 

So while the list remains a continual source for resources of which I

was unaware, as well as a form of entertainment and information for

the profession, I have long since dropped any such goal of

discovering the professional consensus. It as, as it ever has been,

pretty much a free for all. But within that free for all, there are

some pretty sizable factions. There are definitely vocal dissenters

from my message, but the majority is a silent majority. And perhaps

most of them do side against me, but just hold their tongues

altogether, I cannot say for sure. In the defunct world of classical

psychoanalysis, similar schisms developed along very similar lines.

These were hardcore flesh types such as Skinner or mental types like

Freud and Jung, who shared no common ground at all by the end of

their lives. Then came the transpersonal schools during the 60s and

70s, often heavily overlaid with eastern mysticism. The crowning

jewel of east west psychiatry was perhaps the Naropa Institute in

boulder, founded by the notorious monk, Chogyam trungpa.

 

I would think there is at least one place we have the most common

ground. We all want the public to know TCM works and there is only

one way to prove it. Research. Though there are quite a few of us

who also do not believe there is any validity to the western research

model. So even on that account, we fracture. I think perhaps the

profession would best be served if smaller organizations formed to

serve specific interests rather than relying on larger organizations

which are often stymied by lack of agreement or pursue agendas

opposed by the bulk of the profession. Let the orthopods band

together and spend their time and effort on workers comp, about which

many herbalists couldn't care less (since we never get reimbursed for

our service by anyone). And the herbalists should work towards

maintaining our materia medica, something which is not the main

concern to those who treat 4 WC cases per hour. I thus strongly

support Roger Wicke's efforts to create a voluntary independent

international TCM herbalist certification process.

 

Each such org might accomplish more in a narrowly focused agenda and

might more easily attract members. Many would be activists oppose

part or all of the agendas of many state and national orgs so they

don't join any one of them. This is the natural result of the

currently irreconcilable differences in the field. But if there were

orgs and associations that one could actually feel represented them

rather than some narrow vision that was not yours or some mushy form

of tolerance of all diversity (which really means not supporting

anything at all), then things might get done. And if these orgs

sometimes worked at cross purposes, so what? They could either work

out their difference in such cases or fight it out, whatever the

venue. Perhaps some real competition in the marketplace of ideas

would accomplish more in a short time than a thin facade of

cooperation stretched over a powder keg of conflicting interests ever

could. If we were talking about a product, everyone would agree to

let competition sort out what best serves the public. Cell phone

companies don't all get together and set a common agenda. The form

their own companies and pursue their own agendas and let history

decide their fate.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Cell phone companies don't all get together and set a common agenda. The

form

> their own companies and pursue their own agendas and let history

> decide their fate.

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

I don't know that this is the best model for market forces working towards a

holistic paradise. European cell phone networks established protocol early

on and in doing so have achieved far better coverage and service than the

US. Telecom in the US is lagging behind the rest of the world at this point

because various entrenched monopolies (cable TV, and wired and wireless

telephone) have decided that they liked their defined turf and any change in

the current system would result in a change in the balance of power. They

have incentive to innovate but they spend more time with both hands locked

around their competitions throats trying to change regulations that they

used to establish their various monopolies. Our service has suffered as a

result, but we have no recourse because infrastructure (wavelength and

wires) and privatized.

 

I think that this would be a better analogy for the lack of movement in our

field today; contrived consensus (like the founding of TCM in the Mao

dynasty) works to push a field forwards. The struggle of ideas between

individuals gets dragged along regardless, because individuals will fail to

see reason for their entire life if they have had one good idea. They will

cling to, cherish, and attempt to establish connections to that idea, like

Trungpa's " spiritual materialist " clings to his original epiphany. The

problem that I've always had with Kuhn is what seemed like a failure to

acknowledge this role of the individual in the tenacity of a paradigm. It

seemed to me that his paradigm exists as part of the collective unconscious,

where in reality, even in the scientific community, seems to hinge on the

opinion of a few. The majority are sheep, or, more optimistically, pliable

enough to change their minds. In the US we have no proverbial bayonet in

our backs forcing us into a room to have a conversation about

conventionalizing our medicine, all we have is a vague but substantive worry

that our medicinals are being regulated out from under us, and that we will

be outmoded by Western medicine using our technology without our ideas.

 

The question is: is this enough to force us out of our respective patches to

a common ground? So far apparently not. Would such a congress create a

" scientific " validation of CM ideas? No. Would it have useful effects?

Yes, it would allow us to spend less time hashing over the same material,

worrying about the dumbing down of CM, and put some of the s firmly

outside the camp. Disadvantages? Yes, there would be a loss of subtlety,

but this would be preserved in individuals as it is impossible to expunge,

and that is where market forces work, preserving and elevating what is best

in a defined category, rather than creating and shaping a category. We have

to create and/or redefine our category. Telecom, cable TV and wireless (as

well as oil, auto companies, and some could argue the medical community) are

hindering the creation of a useful category because they are institutionally

frightened of change. We haven't defined ourselves well as a field, and yet

we are still frightened of change...

 

Why are we failing to produce a coherent category beyond what we have right

now?

First because we are as a field still in the developemental phase of

prophetic/charismatic leaders, versus a coherent central corpus. This is

where access to Chinese material becomes important, and I hope you're

correct about machine translation, because the current rate of translation

of the classical corpus does not bode well for eliminating this problem.

Second is the ballyhood anti-establishment nature of many of the

founders of CM in this country. I don't know how real this is... yes there

were anti-establishment types, and some of them have subsequently become

charismatic leaders, but the majority seem reasonable and willing to hash

out a deal, provided a context like CHA.

Third is the intellectual quality of students coming into the field, and

what constitutes a good education. As long as we have NCCAOM (or the CA

board) establishing what constitutes professional education we're going to

have a reactionary and lowest-common-denominator education, with exams that

are laughable, expensive and serve to preserve the status quo.

There may be additional reasons, but I think these will serve as a

starting point.

 

I appreciate your clarification of where you are coming from.

 

Par Scott

[Guest guest]

Par states,

 

" all we have is a vague but substantive worry

that our medicinals are being regulated out from under us, and that we will

be outmoded by Western medicine using our technology without our ideas "

 

I would suggest that this is not simply a matter of opinion but fact if we

look at the FDA and their holdup of many safe herbs just because. That is a

restriction of trade and wrong, might also be illegal. Additionally

concerning is the increase of acupuncture and other healthcare modalities

into the medical school curricula. This move is not for referral but for

practice of medical acupuncture reasons. This is much more serious than it

looks.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

[Guest guest]

there is actually quite a consensus amongst the many

hundreds of herbal texts written in the past 1000 years

>>>That is a dream

 

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Let the orthopods band

together and spend their time and effort on workers comp, about which

many herbalists couldn't care less (since we never get reimbursed for

our service by anyone). And the herbalists should work towards

maintaining our materia medica, something which is not the main

concern to those who treat 4 WC cases per hour.

>>>Why do you think these are separated? While my practice varies from week to

week, many weeks its 50% ortho and 50% internal med. Many acup i know also have

similar brake downs. I use as much herbal med as acupuncture and manual therapy.

There is much to say for power by numbers, what we need is more effective unity

not fracture. There are too many forces out there ready and waiting to eat us

alive.Even if concusses is not found, there are much in common.

 

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Each such org might accomplish more in a narrowly focused agenda and

might more easily attract members. Many would be activists oppose

part or all of the agendas of many state and national orgs so they

don't join any one of them.

>>>>All we need is many organizations lobbing in cross purposes. That is already

the biggest problem we have and why we find ourselves in the current situation.

The problem with us is the majority of the profession is apathetic and non

active.

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

I wrote this article for my email list a little while ago, thought it

might interest you in alignment with your article...

 

 

 

The two keys to integrating the perspectives of the latest scientific

discoveries, as well as the deepest and subtlest of ancient wisdom in

my opinion, are the ability to critically think for oneself (as we

have already talked about), and the ability to completely honour and

listen to the critical thoughts of others.

 

Ken Wilber, my favourite modern writer/philosopher, has a wonderful

principle in the work that he does – " No human is smart enough to

produce 100% error " . In other words, every single person and major

system of knowing in existence, no matter how seemingly primitive, has

some partial truth to it. The flipside to this principle is that

no-matter how well thought out and internally consistent and

empirically supported the system you happen to like is, it too is

missing part of the total puzzle and is also only a partial truth.

 

Here is what I have discovered in my observations of people – those

with the deepest knowledge of what they are doing are the most open to

what others have to say. Their roots are strong enough to allow their

branches to be very flexible and not have their whole being

destabilized. Those with a more shallow understanding are those that

are more stubborn and dogmatic, more lazy in their thinking, more

intolerant of opposing/differing opinions. And this is okay, I mean

we have to start off somewhere and stick with it to be able to achieve

that depth that allows us to grow to the heights of our potential.

 

But eventually in this learning process, we come to the point where we

appreciate not just that the way we see things has great value, but

why it has great value. Once we can see that, we can also begin to

understand the areas where our own perspective has its weaknesses. In

my opinion, it is this final step which is much more rarely reached by

people in our society today, to have the humility to see our own flaws

and imperfections and where other people's seemingly conflicting ideas

can help us to keep growing.

 

I think it is not that people find it difficult to hear other people

out of strength, it is essentially a manifestation of a weakness at

the root, a kind of self-esteem issue. Only when we feel threatened

do we get defensive and attack other ideas. But if we are given the

space to see that an different point of view is not at all a threat to

our own worth or of the truths that we have discovered, then it

becomes that much easier to humbly listen to what others have to say.

 

In this, Wilber again comes to the rescue. He says it is useful to

" free an inquiry by limiting it " . What that means is that instead of

saying/inferring that " We know all these facts about the

physical/material side of how the body works and therefore this other

knowledge that you guys have developed that talks from the more

subjective/energic side of things is therefore invalidated " , it goes

something more like " We know all this stuff about the physical side as

that is our area of specialty and we have our own systems of

validating knowledge in that realm. You guys know heaps on and are

specialists in the subjective point of view and I also honour the

contributions you guys make to the total picture " .

 

Do you see the subtle yet very important difference? Neither point of

view has to step on or marginalize the other, and they are both then

able to freely do what they do best. Now I understand sometimes

people do come up with crap, probably because the respective systems

of knowledge validation are in need of a bit of an overhaul. But to

criticize with this basis of respect and space is much better received

and productive than just attacking and making people feel stupid.

Sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind, but we still have to be

kind!

 

-Li

 

 

 

,

wrote:

> Not being a politician or very diplomatic (despite being born in

the

> year of the rabbit), I have no inclination nor ability to lead

others

> to a common ground. I am merely capable of making my case as

> forcefully and persuasively as decorum permits. However it is

worth

> considering the issue of common ground. One of the reasons I

started

> the CHA forum was to see if there was or could be a professional

> consensus on key points in the field of chinese herbology. I had

> even hoped a white paper would come out of the project.

>

> I was inspired in this endeavor by the writings of the philosopher

> Ken Wilber. In his book Eye to Eye, Wilber postulates that

knowledge

> in all domains of human existence (body, mind and spirit) have

their

> own modes of validation. Science validates knowledge of the realm

of

> the flesh by using external measurement. This measurement does

not

> explain the workings of the mind nor the insights of spiritual

> practice. Yet neither does meditation reveal the detailed

workings

> of the body. However meditation is the process by which one

confirms

> the knowledge of the spiritual realm. And in the world of ideas,

it

> is conversation, dialog and consensus that determines the truth of

> ideas. You can measure brainwaves, but you can only discuss

> existentialism and only experience nirvana through practice or

sudden

> transcendance.

>

> Lets set aside spirit as it is not the topic of this list, merely

> reiterating Wilber's point that confusion of modes of validation

is

> the main reason for conflict between the sciences of the flesh,

ideas

> and spirit. While the 3 domains are certainly part of an

integrated

> whole, one will always fail to comprehend one domain if one tries

to

> reduce it (or expand it, if you prefer) to another. Just as we

don't

> like seeing ideas reduced to brainwaves, it is equally fallacious

to

> assign brainwave activity to some prior thought or karma, etc. If

it

> was true that mastery of spirit and/or mind led to perfect

knowledge

> and control of the flesh, than the ancient world would have been a

> paradise and there never would have been any impetus for modernity

to

> supplant it. While there are no doubt at least some on this list

who

> the idea that the ancient world was indeed a paradise

and

> we live in a fall from grace, my only reply is that I used to

share

> such an idea, which the preponderance of evidence has now

convinced

> me to be unlikely.

>

> So how does the issue of consensus in the realm of ideas apply to

> TCM? Since TCM has not been validated in an unequivocal empirical

> fashion, the truth of ideas in this field can only be determined

by

> discussion and consensus. There have been many ideas in chinese

> medical history that have been floated only to wither. There have

> likewise been many ideas proposed on this list and others like it

> that have either been accepted, debated or trashed. The term MSU

has

> been used to describe ideas that are just made up, but then

portrayed

> as if they were solidly rooted in TCM. My use of stem cell and

> genetics in relation to jing could qualify as such an example

except

> I make no claim that I am presenting a chinese medical idea, but

> rather a limitation of TCM as I see it. OTOH, stating

unequivocally

> something like lupus is always due to a latent pathogen is clearly

an

> example of MSU.

>

> While the CHA list has served well to dissuade all but the most

> stubborn dissenters away from pure MSU, many of these folks just

post

> their ideas on other lists, some as large and active as CHA. In

> other words, the response to admonitions from ones more

experienced

> and scholarly peers (and I am not referring to myself here) has

not

> been the withering of idiosyncratic and unfounded ideas, but

rather

> an entrenchment of positions. While CM is indeed quite

pluralistic

> in its history if one considers every idiosyncratic idea ever

> proposed, there is actually quite a consensus amongst the many

> hundreds of herbal texts written in the past 1000 years. And

ideas

> that have stood the test of time have been developed by those who

had

> deeply studied what had come before (wen bing founders were SHL

> scholars, for example). It was not the result of reading

Giovanni,

> smoking a bong hit and letting your mind wander.

>

> I had hoped in the past 12 years that we would see some empirical

> research to validate our medicine externally. That's the rub, you

> see. If a set of ideas are only validated internally amongst

> professional peers, you cannot expect the mainstream public to buy

> into those ideas and pay money for services associated with them.

> Witness the complete demise of psychoanalysis, once a prominent

> profession. They failed to validate their ideas externally

despite

> developing intricate internal theories and having devoted patients

> who swore by them. However it was shown in numerous studies that

> much of the supposed effects were placebo or absent when measured

> using widely accepted psych instruments (which means

questionnaires,

> etc.) and the profession pretty much dissolved overnight (there

are

> several key reasons why these studies failed, too complex to

discuss

> here, but suffice it to say that I believe all the major schools

of

> psychoanalysis have much to offer in personal development, but it

is

> not necessarily an effective form of healthcare across a broad

> demographic).

>

> In our own field, we have seen some compelling recent evidence of

our

> techniques or substances being validated. However, it is always

this

> herb or that point, but not the medicine, per se. For example,

two

> studies, one on rats and one on humans, have proven effective

> treatment of hypertension with acupuncture. I have heard and read

a

> lot of raves about this study and the big german study and the

recent

> knee OA study. But in all these cases, the treatment method was

> allopathic, not TCM. There was no pattern differentiation, which

not

> only does not validate our mode of thinking, but actually calls it

> into question. If the treatment works without the methodology,

then

> how valuable is the methodology? I have written for years that we

> should be doing interrater reliability studies, TCM style research

> and verifying zang fu theory (like the way acupuncture is being

> verified with fMRI). The more allopathic studies that prove TCM

> works w/o the theory, the sooner we will all be out of work.

>

> But not only do we not have the empirical research, we also have

very

> little common ground in the world of ideas within our profession

at

> all. Many on this list often have little in common with those on

> other similar lists, some of which originally started as havens

for

> former CHAers who didn't like being challenged or debated here.

And

> many remaining on this list have little common ground with each

other

> on fundamental points. But we are still more likely to find

common

> ground amongst ourselves than within the profession as a whole.

> Those who are strictly orthopods, i.e. most of the profession are

not

> on this list, nor are the new agers, the homeopaths, NAET, etc.

So

> what is our common ground? It is certainly not vision for the

> future. Nor agreement on issues such as dosage, forms of herbs,

> terminology, language, classics, etc. After 6 years, while my

> personal ideas have evolved, some quite a bit (as I assume have

> others), I see no greater consensus today than I did before I

started

> the list.

>

> So while the list remains a continual source for resources of which

I

> was unaware, as well as a form of entertainment and information

for

> the profession, I have long since dropped any such goal of

> discovering the professional consensus. It as, as it ever has

been,

> pretty much a free for all. But within that free for all, there

are

> some pretty sizable factions. There are definitely vocal

dissenters

> from my message, but the majority is a silent majority. And

perhaps

> most of them do side against me, but just hold their tongues

> altogether, I cannot say for sure. In the defunct world of

classical

> psychoanalysis, similar schisms developed along very similar

lines.

> These were hardcore flesh types such as Skinner or mental types

like

> Freud and Jung, who shared no common ground at all by the end of

> their lives. Then came the transpersonal schools during the 60s

and

> 70s, often heavily overlaid with eastern mysticism. The crowning

> jewel of east west psychiatry was perhaps the Naropa Institute in

> boulder, founded by the notorious monk, Chogyam trungpa.

>

> I would think there is at least one place we have the most common

> ground. We all want the public to know TCM works and there is

only

> one way to prove it. Research. Though there are quite a few of

us

> who also do not believe there is any validity to the western

research

> model. So even on that account, we fracture. I think perhaps the

> profession would best be served if smaller organizations formed to

> serve specific interests rather than relying on larger

organizations

> which are often stymied by lack of agreement or pursue agendas

> opposed by the bulk of the profession. Let the orthopods band

> together and spend their time and effort on workers comp, about

which

> many herbalists couldn't care less (since we never get reimbursed

for

> our service by anyone). And the herbalists should work towards

> maintaining our materia medica, something which is not the main

> concern to those who treat 4 WC cases per hour. I thus strongly

> support Roger Wicke's efforts to create a voluntary independent

> international TCM herbalist certification process.

>

> Each such org might accomplish more in a narrowly focused agenda

and

> might more easily attract members. Many would be activists oppose

> part or all of the agendas of many state and national orgs so they

> don't join any one of them. This is the natural result of the

> currently irreconcilable differences in the field. But if there

were

> orgs and associations that one could actually feel represented

them

> rather than some narrow vision that was not yours or some mushy

form

> of tolerance of all diversity (which really means not supporting

> anything at all), then things might get done. And if these orgs

> sometimes worked at cross purposes, so what? They could either

work

> out their difference in such cases or fight it out, whatever the

> venue. Perhaps some real competition in the marketplace of ideas

> would accomplish more in a short time than a thin facade of

> cooperation stretched over a powder keg of conflicting interests

ever

> could. If we were talking about a product, everyone would agree

to

> let competition sort out what best serves the public. Cell phone

> companies don't all get together and set a common agenda. The

form

> their own companies and pursue their own agendas and let history

> decide their fate.

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>