the theory of biochemistry

[Guest guest]

An idea has been raised on this list and elsewhere that the theory of

biochemistry was no more proven than the theory of qi. Since all of

chemistry was based upon " models " of molecules no one had ever seen,

just TCM was all based on the movement of a force no one had ever

seen. The true test of a scientific theory is predictability and

reproducibility. Chemical theory (periodic table, et al.) has stood

up well over time, while the qi model reads more like poetry or

literature. This does not diminish it descriptive value. It merely

underscores that qi cannot be the chinese equivalent of a force of

physics or chemistry, i.e. an actual natural phenomena. Just as the

Id of freud or the collective unconscious of jung don't actually

refer to a " thing " that can be identified and measured. Since no

one had ever seen a molecule, there had remained this nagging hole.

For scientists, this did not mean the end of the world. Just as the

few small remaining holes in evolutionary theory do not in any way

rend the fabric of the whole.

 

Yet in both cases, pseudoscientists and fundamentalists have seized

on knowledge gaps to achieve their own ends. Yes, we once could not

prove that women contributed to the genes of offspring (the

homunculus theory) or that the sun rose and set. Technology that

allows us to see far or to see small or to see the invisible have

always been the main factor that changes such things. When I say see

the invisible, I refer to things like ultrasound or MRI or even x-

rays. We all know that those things are not actual photographs of

tumors, babies, brains and bones. but we know they are reliable

images. We may not always know what we are seeing, but if you see

something odd and lots of experts agree, its really there.

Ultrasound experts do not typically screw up when sexing babies, for

example. Well, we can finally lay to rest the idea that biochemistry

describes a world no more objective and substantial than the concept

of qi described in ancient chinese texts. We can now image and

manipulate molecules with what is called a scanning tunneling

microscope. While no more a picture than an MRI is, these are indeed

images of molecules. Chemists can now actually witness reactions at

the molecular level.

 

This leaves those who view the qi paradigm as a some sort of proof of

vitalism wanting for evidence. You can no longer say that the

concept is no less valid than biochem, since biochem is now proven

real. So that leaves us with a quandary. What is qi? I still

maintain as I always have that the concept of qi is

 

1. not monolithic in chinese culture or medicine and thus could

never be equated with any force of nature, discovered or

undiscovered. it is not one thing. for example, spleen qi is spleen

function, but channel qi moves with the blood. the same word is

clearly being used with different meaning in different contexts.

 

2. primarily a descriptive concept in all its contexts, not an

identification of a discrete bodily substance or force as we know

this concept in modern science. In other words, the qi paradigm

describes things one sees and feels, but does not really explain them

in any way. For example, the idea of liver qi invading the spleen is

a useful clinical description, but it does not mean that some

discrete force called liver qi that is supposed to stay in the liver

actually moves into the space occupied the spleen instead. No, I see

this as a shorthand description for factors that disrupt ones

emotional life to affect one's digestion. But what is called qi is

only a macroscopic description of changes that actually involve lots

of biochemical transformations which do not appear to be coordinated

by any single mysterious force.

 

To me a functional medicine is one that recognizes a fundamental

principle. All functions have substrates. If the substrate is

defective, function cannot be corrected. The correct form of the

substrate is stored in the DNA. The expression of the DNA is

dependent on many things in the environment, but the idea that it is

somehow affected by some vital force or morphogenetic fields is not

taken seriously by any peer reviewed scientist. Qi does not control

DNA. Qi is an expression of DNA. And what we call strong qi is just

DNA doings it job and us doing everything to support it (good diet,

etc.). I do not think this diminishes what we do in any way. The

insights and connections drawn from this type of thought process have

been and continue to be quite remarkable, but they are limited, which

is why WM now dominates worldwide. If we continue to promulgate the

idea that has been expressed in numerous articles in AT over the last

few months that TCM is some form of alternate form of scientific view

of the universe (albeit one that lacks any publications to support

that claim), we not only will win no friends in the mainstream, but

we will inevitably embarrass ourselves beyond repair as our arguments

crumble one by one. The medical paradigm is indeed changing in ways

that should suit us if we look carefully and we have a small window

to crawl through if we want to join the march to the future.

 

Finally, a word on technology as the primary factor in raising

medical costs. That is not really true. Technology has lowered the

cost of many lifesaving drugs like penicillin, for example. The bulk

of medical costs involving technology accrue in the last few months

to years of a patient's life. If you eliminate those costs, then

medical care for just about everything else has gotten cheaper with

each tech advance. Are iron lungs cheaper than polio vaccines, for

example. TC sanitariums compared to antibiotics. How about devices

for the disabled that replace care formerly given by others at great

expense of manpower and wages. In fact, it is the end of life

SERVICES in the hospital that really inflate prices, not the

technology itself. And the reason we spend so much at the end of

life. It is our insane so-called culture of life that cannot allow

people to die. I am not talking about difficult ethical issues like

the shiavo case, but more mundane decisions made every day to have

procedures performed that lengthen life by weeks or months at best.

Some now thankfully choose hospice. When scientific advances have

been applied in a way that affects fundamental factors early in life,

the benefits for society have been tremendous. didn't the technology

of water treatment and waste disposal lead to the most dramatic

improvements in public health ever. that is the type of thing we

should be comparing stem cell therapy to. If it succeeds, there will

be no more expensive end of life costs. Most everyone will die at

home from so-called natural causes or in hospice after living a

really long time.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Qi does not control

DNA. Qi is an expression of DNA.

>>>This is key, and i would add its the observation of the expression, as is all

CM theory at this point in time

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In fact, it is the end of life

SERVICES in the hospital that really inflate prices, not the

technology itself.

>>>Do not forget the begging of life, at all costs, for which we also spend much

of the medical bills

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

What about tachyons and quantum physics? Where is the DNA in these? Since

DNA can and does change (mutations) why would you not think that qi can

influence DNA?

 

I think you might have reversed this order and it should read that universal

qi is manifest in individual DNA. Let's not forget that references to

universal connections and man exist in our ancient literature.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: the theory of biochemistry

>Sun, 22 May 2005 16:49:31 -0700

>

>Qi does not control

>DNA. Qi is an expression of DNA.

> >>>This is key, and i would add its the observation of the expression, as

>is all CM theory at this point in time

>

>

>

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Todd states,

 

" Chemical theory (periodic table, et al.) has stood

up well over time "

 

Actually that is not true. Modern chemistry textbooks still do not accept

proof that elements change form and can become others. Some of the top

universities as well as the US govt continue to study this pheonomenon and

no longer seek to say it does not exist.

 

A Nobel prize nominee, Dr. Louis Kervran, of France received nomination for

such work in physics. There is big time denial of change that is the

founding principle of the periodic table and many grad/undergrad programs.

This is what the ancient theories we use are based upon.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

[Guest guest]

Mike

You missed my point. Since Qi is used very differently depending on situation,

it can only be a vague concept used by the chinese to describe observations and

theories, it is by no means a mechanistic or structural entity that have been

ever demonstrated. Yes one of its descriptions fits nicely with " universal

connection " of quantum physics which is still very vague as well

..

 

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

If you want a nice, neat theory for integration from sub-atomic particles

(w/ wave like movements) to full blown physical structures than it would

look a lot like quantum physics. This theory is stuctured but not

mechanistic as we think of it.

 

I do not think the Chinese were vague. I think that we do not fully

comprehend what they intended and this is where we can learn from quantum

physics.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: the theory of biochemistry

>Tue, 24 May 2005 10:42:55 -0700

>

>Mike

>You missed my point. Since Qi is used very differently depending on

>situation, it can only be a vague concept used by the chinese to describe

>observations and theories, it is by no means a mechanistic or structural

>entity that have been ever demonstrated. Yes one of its descriptions fits

>nicely with " universal connection " of quantum physics which is still very

>vague as well

>.

>

>

>

>

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

Nicely put. For the record, I agree.

 

Bob

 

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Mike

> You missed my point. Since Qi is used very differently depending on

situation, it can only be a vague concept used by the chinese to

describe observations and theories, it is by no means a mechanistic or

structural entity that have been ever demonstrated. Yes one of its

descriptions fits nicely with " universal connection " of quantum

physics which is still very vague as well

> .

>

>

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>