the decline of rome/IBIS

[Guest guest]

Joe,

While I agree with some of your positions (and disagree with

others), your on-line debating style is more suitable for political

talk shows, where such abusive speech may be acceptable. I am among

those who choose not to listen to such rhetoric. In a forum of

practitioners with different points of view who are trying to treat

each other in a respectable manner, it is not acceptable in my

opinion. Demonizing individuals has gotten our profession nowhere fast.

 

 

On May 22, 2005, at 12:57 PM, jreidomd wrote:

 

> Your ideas of alternative practitioners integrating with future med

> are

> laughable, and all you have to look at is the projects underway in

> which

> healthy lifestyle and humanistic aspects of alternative

> practitioners have been

> completely co-opted. At the same time you shirk from the real

> integration that

> I and others are ALREADY DOING, and campaign against it by virtue

> of your

> (I believe mis-or-partially informed) stance on the legislative

> concerns.

> I don't imagine you can be reformed, but your postition as an

> educator along

> with your pulpit here, makes you a dangerous person, and for that

> maybe I

> have reveal my triple 6 (it looks like the yinyang but there's 3 of

> them)

> (insert Twilight zone theme here)

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

JR,

I appreciate your honesty but not your tact in handling this situation.

There is some truth to what you say as well as some problems. I think we

need all of us to come together in discussion to solve this dilemma (ie, put

aside our individual opinions). We will be more apt to do so if we do not

attack each other over trivial differences of opinion.

 

For example, Zev has mentioned many times the need for more classical

knowledge in our programs and at the same time others will argue with him

that we need to focus on WM and diagnosis. What we all fail to see is that

these are all part of the same elephant and all need to be solved. We need

strong WM and intercommunication to be effective in referral and

understanding of a patient's western illness. We need more classical

training as there are many pearls of treatment wisdom that many of us lack

or forget to use. We need to maintain diagnostic authority in order to

independently care for our patients (we already have it and there is no good

reason to lessen this for us). The list goes on.

 

In the end, it is how we come together and honor the diversity of our

profession that matters most. Please remember that the future is determined

by what we do today and I believe that we need to resist caving into special

interest requests from the CA Med Assoc who only seek to put us back into

oblivion (under a rock). Some of you may not care about this but need to

realize this may significantly limit reimbursement options for many

struggling practitioners. We need practice options not limitations.

Positive solutions are needed.

 

End of sermon.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " jreidomd " <jreidomd

>

>

> Re: the decline of rome/IBIS

>Sun, 22 May 2005 19:57:14 -0000

>

>Todd - So you're to blame for IBIS too ? Actually it wasn't bad for its

>time,

>although I didn't spend much time with it. It would be hard to name a

>Macintosh software that I didn't go through, and the big ones I actually

>bought.

>MacRepertory had good boolean searches plus ranking systems. It had a

>facility to customize, so I started building in a formulas chapter, but it

>was a

>really slow process, and they didn't want to give me access to pour in

>whole

>tables at once. That was over ten years ago. If you have capital, they

>might

>be worth approaching.

>

>What you call progress, I call evil.

> " blah, blah . . . and no one would have a moral objection "

>I do have objections, and I don't have any need to look for validation from

>priests or rabbis or any other clerical leader or 2 or 3 or 6 thousand year

>old

>literature, - because my awareness in the only NOW that there is tells me

>that

>tampering with nature on the level of swapping cell nuclei and interspecies

>transplants is a perversion. The mass of the population already sold on

>transfusions and peer transplants have already disconnected from

>consciousness. They will continue to feel compeled to resort to absurd

>justification by so-called leaders debating what constitutes life because

>they

>want to be moral, but they've already sold out to misguided dreams of

>humanoid life-extension. One of the upcoming conflicts will indeed pit

>relatively _pure_ humans against conglomerate beings (just like sci-fi).

>And I

>know what side I am going to align with.

>Your ideas of alternative practitioners integrating with future med are

>laughable, and all you have to look at is the projects underway in which

>healthy lifestyle and humanistic aspects of alternative practitioners have

>been

>completely co-opted. At the same time you shirk from the real integration

>that

>I and others are ALREADY DOING, and campaign against it by virtue of your

>(I believe mis-or-partially informed) stance on the legislative concerns.

>I don't imagine you can be reformed, but your postition as an educator

>along

>with your pulpit here, makes you a dangerous person, and for that maybe I

>have reveal my triple 6 (it looks like the yinyang but there's 3 of them)

>(insert Twilight zone theme here)

>

>Joe Reid

>

> ,

>wrote:

> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/science/20clone.html

> >

> > If futurist Ray Kurzweil is right, then the rate of change in

> > technology is itself accelerating logorithmically. This article on

> > the advance in Korean stem cell research may be just one example. It

> > may also foretell the fall of Rome, just not clear if Rome is America

> > or Asia. Ten years ago, the brits cloned a sheep after biologists

> > said it was not possible. It took till last year to clone an embryo,

> > this time in korea, but the process was so onerous that it was not

> > worth duplicating. Proof positive to many that so-called somatic cell

> > nuclear transfer would never be viable. Yet, in less than one year,

> > that never has turned into a reliable method of producing stem cells

> > that are genetically identical to the adult donor. This jing

> > therapy, as I see it, has nothing at all to do with ethics and most

> > of the rest of the world agrees, including most religious leaders.

> > but for those who think it is the beginning of the end, then the end

> > will soon be upon us. Because rapidly accelerating changes build

> > upon their own momentum. With exponential growth in bioengineering

> > techniques predicted, a few years delay will put us FOREVER behind

> > Asia. Because a few years of progress will be like more than a

> > decade at current rates. A decade will be more like a century. I

> > predict that the first reports of well documented and dramatic cures

> > from stem cell therapy will be rolling in from Korea by this time

> > next year, if not sooner. And then many of the naysayers will just

> > jump on the bandwagon.

> >

> > So perhaps the US alone will survive this moral crisis or perhaps it

> > is really no moral crisis at all. Orrin Hatch, an ardent

> > conservative and longtime friend to herbalists (he wrote DSHEA to

> > prevent the FDA from destroying the market), is also a staunch

> > proponent of stem cell therapy. He personally is into fitness, diet

> > and exercise, uses herbs regularly, etc. Like the christian, jewish

> > and muslim clerics worldwide who have said that the torah or old

> > testament only bans the removal of life from a woman's womb, Hatch

> > put it more succinctly. He said that he never learned that life

> > begins in a petrie dish. In other words, if you take an egg from

> > woman, there is no life there. Unfertilized eggs get sloughed and

> > flushed every day. So they alone are considered garbage, waste, etc.

> > by everyone. If you take one of these eggs, which has not ever been

> > fertilized and implanted and remove the nucleus from that egg and

> > replace it with the nucleus from an adult somatic cell and do this

> > all in a petrie dish, I don't think anyone would argue that there is

> > any individual life there, any more life than there is life in the

> > small piece of flesh that I accidentally cut off my finger while

> > grating carrots. That small piece of flesh contains living cells

> > that contain my DNA. I could take that tissue and try and culture

> > about 100 so-called adult stem cells from it in a petrie dish and no

> > one would have a moral objection. Yet take my same DNA from that

> > cell and put it into a donated egg cell with no DNA (perhaps even

> > donated from myself if I was an adult female patient) and grow about

> > 100 embyronic stem cells and that is somehow fiddling with life just

> > because these cells COULD POSSIBLY MAYBE grow into a fetus if placed

> > in a woman's uterus.

> >

> > As many of you know, 75% of in vitro fertilizations fail, yet somehow

> > that is NOT murder. The embryos do not result in life. They die

> > anyway or are frozen and eventually disposed of. Are we nuts?

> > Trying and failing to bring children to infertile couples when

> > millions need adoption is somehow a morally defensible reason to

> > destroy 75% of the embryos that are created through failed IVF, yet

> > using these same bunches of cells (not little people) to save the

> > lives of already living human beings is immoral. I have had it up to

> > here (hand held palm down above my head) with the way morals and

> > values have been turned on their heads in this country and this just

> > one more example. If it is OK to sacrifice these cells for IVF, it

> > is OK for stem cells. For the record, all asian governments ban the

> > last step of implanting cloned somatic cell transfers into wombs to

> > " farm " actual humans for organ harvest, etc. That of course is the

> > real fear, but we currently have a thriving international market in

> > black market organs already. There will always be some of us who

> > will do evil, but that is no reason to stop progress. The more happy

> > and healthy people there are, the less crime and sociopathic behavior

> > we can expect, as many long term trends show (the main variable

> > affecting crime rates has always been levels of unemployment and

> > wages). So the longterm gains outweigh the risks, IMO.

> >

> > The reason I mention is has do with the issue of accelerating

> > change. After decades of what seemed like plodding changes in

> > science and medicine, we have reached the asymptotic point in the

> > curve, where things are probably gonna go straight up through the

> > roof. If I am wrong, we shall soon see. If we resist these changes

> > for too long, rather than figure out how to embrace them as a highly

> > desirable part of modern integrative healthcare, then we will be left

> > very far outside the mainstream in a very short period of time. Many

> > in the field of clinical applications of stem cell therapy are

> > proponents of alternative medicine. The two work together nicely.

> > Patients being treated with stem cells need to eat right, exercise,

> > take certain supplements, etc in order to get the best results. I

> > can't think of anything more " natural " than using youthful versions

> > of my own cells to regenerate the old decrepit ones. Using myself at

> > my peak as my medicine. That's how we should really think of Somatic

> > Nuclear Cell Transfer (SNTC), which is the scientific name for so-

> > called cloned embryos. But this is really not an issue of the

> > donated egg, which had about a 1/10th of 1% chance of becoming a

> > person anyway (considering the number of viable eggs woman has versus

> > the average number of children). It really should be an issue of

> > what I get to do with my own DNA. If I want to grow it in an egg

> > cell for 100 divisions, that is my right. If the only objection that

> > can be raised is that the implantation of my DNA into an egg cell

> > with no DNA of its own in a lab somehow involves the incarnation of a

> > soul or spirit, all I can say is wow. Are the religionists actually

> > saying that scientists can now actually create life without

> > involving a male animal in any part of the process (except perhaps

> > the scientists, ironically)? No, since the likelihood of successful

> > fullterm development of a human clone is less even than normal IVF, I

> > think we can say unequivocally that LIFE requires an implanted embryo

> > in a woman's uterus. Lets say there is a soul? Only a cruel god

> > would condemn such a soul to live in a frozen petrie dish for all

> > eternity. It would seem far more likely that any soul would wait

> > till implantation before taking up residence. If not, perhaps that

> > was just one's karma anyway. :-)

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Herbs

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >