Guest guest Posted August 8, 2005 Report Share Posted August 8, 2005 someone wrote: > > > > The Office of Technology Assessment (US govt office) did a study that > > > > showed only about 15-20% of all the current WM procedures had any > >scientific validity. This is not my feelings but a govt report. It is true that many common western medical procedures are still not " proven " . but we need to be very clear about our terms here. Procedures are thing we do to patients, not things we give them. All commonly prescribed substances are proven effective and their mechanism are well understood. Now the fact that many of these substances are unsafe and must be later removed from the market does not change the fact that they were tested at one time using sound principles. Someone just lied or fudged the results. While 100,000 people die each year from drugs, this is still less than 1/10 of 1% of all the times drugs are taken each year. Most people are happy with their drugs and some, like hi BP drugs and hypoglycemics definitely lengthen lives. Procedures are a whole nuther animal. Like acupuncture, it is impossible to do double blind controlled study of angioplasty. How do you give a placebo angioplasty. Even if there was a method, it would be considered unethical if it involved any type of invasiveness. So when a procedure is said to be unproven, in almost all cases there is still tremendous amounts of other types of evidence as well as a detailed understanding of the physiological mechanisms and effects of the procedure. Typically studies have been done comparing procedures to other therapies or no therapy. However this is not definitive clinical research since occasionally such procedures are proven worthless (such as mammary artery ligation). So when it is said a procedure is scientifically invalid, if those terms were actually used, what is narrowly meant is no controlled random double blind research has ever been done, which leaves open the possibility that placebo effects are at play. However as I posted earlier, there is mounting evidence that there is no such thing as placebo effects outside of subjective pain perception. So if a patient does as well or better using a procedure compared to other procedures, drugs or other substances or no therapy, then it makes the most logical sense to use what ever method does the least harm and most good, even if it is not technically " proven " to the gold standard. This is called procedural rationality. What makes the most sense is not necessarily that which has indisputable objective evidence. This is not a failing of WM; it is just the way it is. It is incredibly disingenuous for medical researchers to then insist acupuncture is ineffective unless one can do double blind studies. In fact, as I have argued for years, it is actually far more reasonable to approve acupuncture or other alternatives for treatment as long as they perform as good as anything else and do no harm. One may not fully understand the mechanism or how much of any response is due to self- limitedness or placebo effects (we still do treat a lot of pain, so this is still an issue). It doesn't really matter. If I can spend 10,000 bucks on acupuncture on my knee and all evidence suggests that I do just as well as if I had surgery or took drugs, then it my choice and a wash for insurers and society. We should all be playing by the same rules, but to suggest in a simplistic way that WM is unscientific does us no good as a profession. It is simple matter to meet the silver standard of research and not the gold. Then we can let the insurers decide. But just insisting that since they already covers lot of unproven stuff, just cover us too, makes no sense. It is no different than saying two wrongs make a right. One of the reasons that insurers are more forgiving of medical procedures over acupuncture is that there is indeed huge amounts of scientific evidence for all these procedures. It just fall short of gold. The obvious solution, the only solution, I have argued is to do both the basic physiological research and comparative clinical studies to at least reach the silver standard. Such studies are easily designed and executed. Yet I feel a certain laziness runs through our field. Everyone thinks we deserve this or that, yet no one wants to do the work. Just like the attack on evolution these days, the fact that evidence is not complete does not make any case for the opponents. Opponents of either evolution or WM have the burden upon them to prove an alternative model is more correct. Until that time, the preponderance of evidence and the power that goes with it rests with those who are willing to do the work. Research from China and Europe suggests just about everything we do is effective, so why doesn't anyone get off their butts and start writing grants to prove it by american standards. Its a great way to make money and many local institutions would be glad to be sponsors for anyone who puts in the upfront legwork for free. My plate is full, but I know others are spinning their wheels trying to make a living in practice. We need about 10% of new grads to take this bull by the horn (and 10% to do scholarship and 10% more to be professional educators). A lot has changed and a lot more will change. Acupuncture insurers have been dropping, not adding, coverage recently and this trend will grow with demands for evidence. Worker's comp in CA is one huge example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2005 Report Share Posted August 8, 2005 , " " wrote: > someone wrote: .... > One of the reasons that insurers are more forgiving of medical procedures over > acupuncture is that there is indeed huge amounts of scientific evidence for all these > procedures. It just fall short of gold. > The obvious solution, the only solution, I have argued is to do both the basic physiological > research and comparative clinical studies to at least reach the silver standard. Such > studies are easily designed and executed. Yet I feel a certain laziness runs through our > field. Everyone thinks we deserve this or that, yet no one wants to do the work. I don't think it is laziness rather lack of knowledge about the process of getting a grant going. ....evidence and the power that goes with it rests with those who are willing to do the work. > Research from China and Europe suggests just about everything we do is effective, so why > doesn't anyone get off their butts and start writing grants to prove it by american > standards. Its a great way to make money and many local institutions would be glad to be > sponsors for anyone who puts in the upfront legwork for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 --- < wrote: > The obvious solution, the only solution, I have > argued is to do both the basic physiological > research and comparative clinical studies to at > least reach the silver standard. Such > studies are easily designed and executed. Yet I > feel a certain laziness runs through our > field. Everyone thinks we deserve this or that, yet > no one wants to do the work. While I completely agree with your opinion that research on Acupuncture and OM has to done, and should be done by the OM community, I only partially agree with your opinion that this " certain laziness[which] runs though our field " is preventing the research from being performed. IMO, I believe this problem stems more from the existing weakness in OM education, and the individual programs which have seriously undermined themselves(and arguably the profession)by creating students/practitioners with only a basic background in science, and for the most part no background in(or even exposure to)research. How can we expect our profession to perform the research when the majority have never been trained or even exposed to research, or even the scientific process. Its pretty sad. Unless the practitioner has a background in clinical science and research(ie. Richard Hammerschlag, Steve Givens) or have a second professional degree(MD, DO, ND) its unlikely the average LAc is going to get funded by the likes of the NIH, or any other grant offering institution. Its too much of a risk. And so other professions will perform the research(the NDs are impressive in the amount of money their institutions -Bastyr, SCNM, National College, have received from the NIH for research grants) and will probably get the respect earned as the true leaders of complimentary medicine in this country, and unless the OM profession improves, well...we shall see. Anton Borja ...Infinite gratitude to all things past.. ....Infinite respect to all things present... .....Infinite responsibility to all things future.... ......Tao..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 Thank you for agreeing that we cannot have it both ways in society. Either we follow this or that gold standard (research) or we do not. We cannot do both, which is what we currently are trying to do. As an L Ac, I think that we have been misled into thinking that there will be acceptance if we " prove it " which we did. Now it seems that we are being pushed to further prove it with the double blind tests. As the technology report has shown us, the WM side has failed in this, and so why are we being held to an unrealistic standard? This makes no sense. Science long ago showed me that few things are absolute like they continue to portray. The problem is not in our theory but in the lack of ability for WM to evaluate it in a study. Think about trying to design a study that takes into account multiple variables and it just becomes a nightmare. Most studies, by comparison, limit variables to two and so the conclusion is simply yes or no, not yes but ... In the end, I think certain types of research are needed but not the double blind limited studies into acupuncture for WM conditions. First, this is not how CM works and we should remind people that it is the theory that makes it so and not some placebo or WM idea. In the end, manipulation of science for WM support is not science in its stricktest sense but propaganda and this has been a huge problem exhibited by the pharm industry, where it appears to be common. True science does not reject that which is, just because we might not have a correct theory for it. There is much in history that has disproven some of today's beliefs about science and yet we continue to accept them as if they are truth. If we are to be taken seriously as a profession with integrity we need to incorporate some science but not be under the limitations of WM theory and not afraid to dismiss irrellevant WM theorums. Lastly, it is a lie that all mechanisms and drugs are known as safe before they hit the market. If it were, then there would not be the number or severity of side effects after distribution. Propaganda does not change how well it works. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " < > > > proof >Tue, 09 Aug 2005 02:13:50 -0000 > >someone wrote: > > > > > > The Office of Technology Assessment (US govt office) did a study >that > > > > > showed only about 15-20% of all the current WM procedures had any > > >scientific validity. This is not my feelings but a govt report. > >It is true that many common western medical procedures are still not > " proven " . but we >need to be very clear about our terms here. Procedures are thing we do to >patients, not >things we give them. All commonly prescribed substances are proven >effective and their >mechanism are well understood. Now the fact that many of these substances >are unsafe >and must be later removed from the market does not change the fact that >they were tested >at one time using sound principles. Someone just lied or fudged the >results. While >100,000 people die each year from drugs, this is still less than 1/10 of 1% >of all the times >drugs are taken each year. Most people are happy with their drugs and >some, like hi BP >drugs and hypoglycemics definitely lengthen lives. > >Procedures are a whole nuther animal. Like acupuncture, it is impossible >to do double >blind controlled study of angioplasty. How do you give a placebo >angioplasty. Even if >there was a method, it would be considered unethical if it involved any >type of >invasiveness. So when a procedure is said to be unproven, in almost all >cases there is still >tremendous amounts of other types of evidence as well as a detailed >understanding of the >physiological mechanisms and effects of the procedure. Typically studies >have been done >comparing procedures to other therapies or no therapy. However this is not >definitive >clinical research since occasionally such procedures are proven worthless >(such as >mammary artery ligation). So when it is said a procedure is scientifically >invalid, if those >terms were actually used, what is narrowly meant is no controlled random >double blind >research has ever been done, which leaves open the possibility that placebo >effects are at >play. However as I posted earlier, there is mounting evidence that there >is no such thing >as placebo effects outside of subjective pain perception. > >So if a patient does as well or better using a procedure compared to other >procedures, >drugs or other substances or no therapy, then it makes the most logical >sense to use what >ever method does the least harm and most good, even if it is not >technically " proven " to >the gold standard. This is called procedural rationality. What makes the >most sense is not >necessarily that which has indisputable objective evidence. This is not a >failing of WM; it is >just the way it is. It is incredibly disingenuous for medical researchers >to then insist >acupuncture is ineffective unless one can do double blind studies. In >fact, as I have argued >for years, it is actually far more reasonable to approve acupuncture or >other alternatives >for treatment as long as they perform as good as anything else and do no >harm. > >One may not fully understand the mechanism or how much of any response is >due to self- >limitedness or placebo effects (we still do treat a lot of pain, so this is >still an issue). It >doesn't really matter. If I can spend 10,000 bucks on acupuncture on my >knee and all >evidence suggests that I do just as well as if I had surgery or took drugs, >then it my choice >and a wash for insurers and society. We should all be playing by the same >rules, but to >suggest in a simplistic way that WM is unscientific does us no good as a >profession. It is >simple matter to meet the silver standard of research and not the gold. >Then we can let >the insurers decide. But just insisting that since they already covers lot >of unproven stuff, >just cover us too, makes no sense. It is no different than saying two >wrongs make a right. >One of the reasons that insurers are more forgiving of medical procedures >over >acupuncture is that there is indeed huge amounts of scientific evidence for >all these >procedures. It just fall short of gold. > >The obvious solution, the only solution, I have argued is to do both the >basic physiological >research and comparative clinical studies to at least reach the silver >standard. Such >studies are easily designed and executed. Yet I feel a certain laziness >runs through our >field. Everyone thinks we deserve this or that, yet no one wants to do the >work. Just like >the attack on evolution these days, the fact that evidence is not complete >does not make >any case for the opponents. Opponents of either evolution or WM have the >burden upon >them to prove an alternative model is more correct. Until that time, the >preponderance of >evidence and the power that goes with it rests with those who are willing >to do the work. >Research from China and Europe suggests just about everything we do is >effective, so why >doesn't anyone get off their butts and start writing grants to prove it by >american >standards. Its a great way to make money and many local institutions would >be glad to be >sponsors for anyone who puts in the upfront legwork for free. My plate is >full, but I know >others are spinning their wheels trying to make a living in practice. We >need about 10% of >new grads to take this bull by the horn (and 10% to do scholarship and 10% >more to be >professional educators). A lot has changed and a lot more will change. >Acupuncture >insurers have been dropping, not adding, coverage recently and this trend >will grow with >demands for evidence. Worker's comp in CA is one huge example. > >Todd > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2005 Report Share Posted August 15, 2005 , " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@h...> wrote: > > Science long ago showed me that few things are absolute like they continue > to portray. The problem is not in our theory but in the lack of ability for > WM to evaluate it in a study. Think about trying to design a study that > takes into account multiple variables and it just becomes a nightmare. Most > studies, by comparison, limit variables to two and so the conclusion is > simply yes or no, not yes but ... Actually it is simple to use science as it is to design accurate comparative studies of actual practices. there is no failing on either TCM or science in this matter. There is however a failure to do the research necessary within our field. Don't mistake me as agreeing with anyone who thinks we should just be accepted on our theory and history alone. The variables you describe are a straw man. It is very easy to study multivariant therapies, you just compare outcomes and set aside the whole issue of placebo. This is an accepted standard in WM for many procedures and we can easily design such studies and meet those standards. If you think the tactic of claiming their stuff also has not been studied, you are gravely mistaken. The demand is for more, not less evidence. It is also an erroneous claim. There stuff has been studied extensively, just not by gold standards. I called it silver standards, because its the next level. To use the metal analogy further, most studies from China meet lead standards, IMO. We can easily do better if about 10% of the community was devoted to research. Otherwise we will likely fade as an independent profession over time and/or have our techniques coopted without the theory at all. As I have pointed out, quite a bit of research (even from China) does show acupuncture and herbs to be effective regardless of whether traditional diagnostics are used. I have also pointed out that most CM was practiced more allopathically throughout history according to Unschuld and worked quite well, it seemed. The battle over bian zheng was not really a battle of wits or a battle of efficacy; it was a turf battle and a class battle (something you should appreciate Mike, given your oft expressed political leanings). A classic power struggle that tells us nothing about efficacy, safety, etc. It just tells us who were the cultural elite of their day. So it all still needs to be studied even by the standards of chinese history. These were the EBM instructions I received for a conference at which I spoke. As you can see, there are many ways to study TCM that would meet muster. And that most chinese studies would be considered quite preliminary at best. " In keeping with the evidence-based theme of our conference, we encourage presenters who are discussing treatment of conditions to consider the strength of evidence for the natural supplements they are discussing. Two of the most common evidence guidelines include those of the AAFP available at http://www.aafp.org/x17444.xml and those commonly utilized by the American College of Physicians available with an example using saw palmetto at http://www.usp.org/dietarySupplements/sawpalmetto.html#criteria. Both standards will be included in the syllabus for attendee reference. Dr. Bonakdar has included an outline of his talk as an example of how AAFP evidence-based guidelines may be incorporated. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2005 Report Share Posted August 15, 2005 I'm going to divert a little to offer this observation about the Shan Han Lun from a colleague trained at Beijing U. Her comment was that the Shan Han Lun was kind of crude and admirable but not fully useful because Zang Fu theory had not yet been developed. I know for those of us wanting to " get back to the classics " this is a type of heresy but an interesting comment none the less from a top student and practitioner of modern TCM. doug > We can easily do better if about 10% of the community was devoted to research. > Otherwise we will likely fade as an independent profession over time and/or have our > techniques coopted without the theory at all. As I have pointed out, quite a bit of research > (even from China) does show acupuncture and herbs to be effective regardless of whether > traditional diagnostics are used. I have also pointed out that most CM was practiced more > allopathically throughout history according to Unschuld and worked quite well, it seemed. > The battle over bian zheng was not really a battle of wits or a battle of efficacy; it was a > turf battle and a class battle (something you should appreciate Mike, given your oft > expressed political leanings). A classic power struggle that tells us nothing about efficacy, > safety, etc. It just tells us who were the cultural elite of their day. So it all still needs to be > studied even by the standards of chinese history. > > These were the EBM instructions I received for a conference at which I spoke. As you can > see, there are many ways to study TCM that would meet muster. And that most chinese > studies would be considered quite preliminary at best. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2005 Report Share Posted August 15, 2005 Doug, I may be opening a can of worms here since I'm going to ask a question and then decamp to Mexico for six days, but... What classics have you read? I ask this question because, having worked as a translator or co-translator on 10 or more classics, I ultimately have to agree with your Chinese friend. If you already know a high level of Chinese medicine, reading the classics can be confirmatory (not revleatory). However, I much prefer reading the writings of a really insightful, well experienced, intelligent contemporary Chinese doctor. He or she has already done a lot of the winnowing, digestion, and testing. In my experience, anyone who thinks that the Chinese have forgotten or purged some really important theory or technique to the detriment of contemporary clinical practice is a romantic, and, as numerous sociologists have demonstated, Orientalism is actually racist. Bob , " " wrote: > I'm going to divert a little to offer this observation about the Shan Han Lun from a > colleague trained at Beijing U. Her comment was that the Shan Han Lun was kind of crude > and admirable but not fully useful because Zang Fu theory had not yet been developed. I > know for those of us wanting to " get back to the classics " this is a type of heresy but an > interesting comment none the less from a top student and practitioner of modern TCM. > doug > > > > > > We can easily do better if about 10% of the community was devoted to research. > > Otherwise we will likely fade as an independent profession over time and/or have our > > techniques coopted without the theory at all. As I have pointed out, quite a bit of > research > > (even from China) does show acupuncture and herbs to be effective regardless of > whether > > traditional diagnostics are used. I have also pointed out that most CM was practiced > more > > allopathically throughout history according to Unschuld and worked quite well, it > seemed. > > The battle over bian zheng was not really a battle of wits or a battle of efficacy; it was a > > turf battle and a class battle (something you should appreciate Mike, given your oft > > expressed political leanings). A classic power struggle that tells us nothing about > efficacy, > > safety, etc. It just tells us who were the cultural elite of their day. So it all still needs to > be > > studied even by the standards of chinese history. > > > > These were the EBM instructions I received for a conference at which I spoke. As you > can > > see, there are many ways to study TCM that would meet muster. And that most chinese > > studies would be considered quite preliminary at best. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2005 Report Share Posted August 15, 2005 BTW, the following are characteristics of romanticism according to WebMuseum @ibiblio.org: " an obsessive interest in folk culture, national and ethnic cultural origins, and the medieval era; and a predilection for the exotic, the remote, the mysterious, the weird, the occult... " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2005 Report Share Posted August 15, 2005 I can offer my own comments but they are not from someone who has gone deep into the classics whether from original sources or not. So while I don't " get " the Shan Han Lun even when walked through the Mitchell translation, I do " get " the Wen Bing book by Liu. Is it because of a progression of 500 years of thought or is it because it's a contemporary commentary or is it because Wen Bing rolls off my red cracked tongue more easily? On the one hand I can listen to Bensky and Mitchell lecture about the contempory uses of the Shan han Lun and then look at the new Blue Poppy Systematic Classic and get equally overwhelmed. One odd comfort I have in studying this medicine is that I never hope to appreciate even .01% of what has been written. So I don't want to " reject " the classics until I attempt to understand them. Now it's just a matter of deciding which ones to tackle. But I do take some solace in your observations and my colleague's. Hasta lleugo, Roberto! doug , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > Doug, > > I may be opening a can of worms here since I'm going to ask a question > and then decamp to Mexico for six days, but... What classics have you > read? I ask this question because, having worked as a translator or > co-translator on 10 or more classics, I ultimately have to agree with > your Chinese friend. If you already know a high level of Chinese > medicine, reading the classics can be confirmatory (not revleatory). > However, I much prefer reading the writings of a really insightful, > well experienced, intelligent contemporary Chinese doctor. He or she > has already done a lot of the winnowing, digestion, and testing. In my > experience, anyone who thinks that the Chinese have forgotten or > purged some really important theory or technique to the detriment of > contemporary clinical practice is a romantic, and, as numerous > sociologists have demonstated, Orientalism is actually racist. > > Bob > > , " " > wrote: > > I'm going to divert a little to offer this observation about the > Shan Han Lun from a > > colleague trained at Beijing U. Her comment was that the Shan Han > Lun was kind of crude > > and admirable but not fully useful because Zang Fu theory had not > yet been developed. I > > know for those of us wanting to " get back to the classics " this is a > type of heresy but an > > interesting comment none the less from a top student and > practitioner of modern TCM. > > doug > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2005 Report Share Posted August 15, 2005 All, Although I respect Bob and this other's stance, I think there is definitely an equally compelling argument on the other side of the coin. SHL / JGYL type of thinking as a whole is missed in modern CM and can be of great clinical value for those that delve into it. The unfortunate thing is that to really understand it at this point I feel one has to read Chinese (or have a great teacher) to venture into the various commentaries. It is no coincidence that a large percentage of the formulas in modern materia medicas are from Zhang Zhong jing's SHL and JGYL. Anyway, for a more complete and grounded discussion check out the latest issue of 'The Lantern', where the issue starts with (from the editors) " I will study the classics " and the great article by the famous late Liu Du-Zhou, " Thoughts on the study of . " Finally studying something like the SHL gives a different mode of thinking that is not in zang-fu... It is not better or worse, it is just another option in treating patients. And you surely do not get SHL style of thinking magically from studying basic zang-fu, and IMO it is much harder to grasp, mainly because of the terseness of the text (No holding hands here). - > > > On Behalf Of Bob Flaws > Monday, August 15, 2005 3:28 PM > > Re: proof > > Doug, > > I may be opening a can of worms here since I'm going to ask a question > and then decamp to Mexico for six days, but... What classics have you > read? I ask this question because, having worked as a translator or > co-translator on 10 or more classics, I ultimately have to agree with > your Chinese friend. If you already know a high level of Chinese > medicine, reading the classics can be confirmatory (not revleatory). > However, I much prefer reading the writings of a really insightful, > well experienced, intelligent contemporary Chinese doctor. He or she > has already done a lot of the winnowing, digestion, and testing. In my > experience, anyone who thinks that the Chinese have forgotten or > purged some really important theory or technique to the detriment of > contemporary clinical practice is a romantic, and, as numerous > sociologists have demonstated, Orientalism is actually racist. > > Bob > > , " " > wrote: > > I'm going to divert a little to offer this observation about the > Shan Han Lun from a > > colleague trained at Beijing U. Her comment was that the Shan Han > Lun was kind of crude > > and admirable but not fully useful because Zang Fu theory had not > yet been developed. I > > know for those of us wanting to " get back to the classics " this is a > type of heresy but an > > interesting comment none the less from a top student and > practitioner of modern TCM. > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > We can easily do better if about 10% of the community was devoted > to research. > > > Otherwise we will likely fade as an independent profession over > time and/or have our > > > techniques coopted without the theory at all. As I have pointed > out, quite a bit of > > research > > > (even from China) does show acupuncture and herbs to be effective > regardless of > > whether > > > traditional diagnostics are used. I have also pointed out that > most CM was practiced > > more > > > allopathically throughout history according to Unschuld and worked > quite well, it > > seemed. > > > The battle over bian zheng was not really a battle of wits or a > battle of efficacy; it was a > > > turf battle and a class battle (something you should appreciate > Mike, given your oft > > > expressed political leanings). A classic power struggle that > tells us nothing about > > efficacy, > > > safety, etc. It just tells us who were the cultural elite of > their day. So it all still needs to > > be > > > studied even by the standards of chinese history. > > > > > > These were the EBM instructions I received for a conference at > which I spoke. As you > > can > > > see, there are many ways to study TCM that would meet muster. And > that most chinese > > > studies would be considered quite preliminary at best. > > > 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2005 Report Share Posted August 15, 2005 No disagreement here altough even in the Latern issue there is an undercurrent of ambivilance. and I agree they do a better job there than we ever could in this medium. My own current model is a teacher at Emperor's whose family is pre-TCM Beijing style. But he is so hard to get information from (very traditional all the way). And certainly his background is rooted in classics in a way I'll never understand. For this, TCM and Zang-Fu are useful if only because they offer a rather easy working model at the surface level. So when we study a SHL formula is it more useful to look at the original roots or the " tranformation " into the modern (i.e. Zang-fu) analysis? Let's not argue the point... it's this dialectic that keeps this medicine interesting. peace-out, doug , " " <@c...> wrote: > All, > > Although I respect Bob and this other's stance, I think there is definitely > an equally compelling argument on the other side of the coin. SHL / JGYL > type of thinking as a whole is missed in modern CM and can be of great > clinical value for those that delve into it. The unfortunate thing is that > to really understand it at this point I feel one has to read Chinese (or > have a great teacher) to venture into the various commentaries. It is no > coincidence that a large percentage of the formulas in modern materia > medicas are from Zhang Zhong jing's SHL and JGYL. Anyway, for a more > complete and grounded discussion check out the latest issue of 'The > Lantern', where the issue starts with (from the editors) " I will study the > classics " and the great article by the famous late Liu Du-Zhou, " Thoughts on > the study of . " > Finally studying something like the SHL gives a different mode of thinking > that is not in zang-fu... It is not better or worse, it is just another > option in treating patients. And you surely do not get SHL style of > thinking magically from studying basic zang-fu, and IMO it is much harder to > grasp, mainly because of the terseness of the text (No holding hands here). > > - > > > > > > > On Behalf Of Bob Flaws > > Monday, August 15, 2005 3:28 PM > > > > Re: proof > > > > Doug, > > > > I may be opening a can of worms here since I'm going to ask a question > > and then decamp to Mexico for six days, but... What classics have you > > read? I ask this question because, having worked as a translator or > > co-translator on 10 or more classics, I ultimately have to agree with > > your Chinese friend. If you already know a high level of Chinese > > medicine, reading the classics can be confirmatory (not revleatory). > > However, I much prefer reading the writings of a really insightful, > > well experienced, intelligent contemporary Chinese doctor. He or she > > has already done a lot of the winnowing, digestion, and testing. In my > > experience, anyone who thinks that the Chinese have forgotten or > > purged some really important theory or technique to the detriment of > > contemporary clinical practice is a romantic, and, as numerous > > sociologists have demonstated, Orientalism is actually racist. > > > > Bob > > > > , " " > > wrote: > > > I'm going to divert a little to offer this observation about the > > Shan Han Lun from a > > > colleague trained at Beijing U. Her comment was that the Shan Han > > Lun was kind of crude > > > and admirable but not fully useful because Zang Fu theory had not > > yet been developed. I > > > know for those of us wanting to " get back to the classics " this is a > > type of heresy but an > > > interesting comment none the less from a top student and > > practitioner of modern TCM. > > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can easily do better if about 10% of the community was devoted > > to research. > > > > Otherwise we will likely fade as an independent profession over > > time and/or have our > > > > techniques coopted without the theory at all. As I have pointed > > out, quite a bit of > > > research > > > > (even from China) does show acupuncture and herbs to be effective > > regardless of > > > whether > > > > traditional diagnostics are used. I have also pointed out that > > most CM was practiced > > > more > > > > allopathically throughout history according to Unschuld and worked > > quite well, it > > > seemed. > > > > The battle over bian zheng was not really a battle of wits or a > > battle of efficacy; it was a > > > > turf battle and a class battle (something you should appreciate > > Mike, given your oft > > > > expressed political leanings). A classic power struggle that > > tells us nothing about > > > efficacy, > > > > safety, etc. It just tells us who were the cultural elite of > > their day. So it all still needs to > > > be > > > > studied even by the standards of chinese history. > > > > > > > > These were the EBM instructions I received for a conference at > > which I spoke. As you > > > can > > > > see, there are many ways to study TCM that would meet muster. And > > that most chinese > > > > studies would be considered quite preliminary at best. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2005 Report Share Posted August 15, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > Monday, August 15, 2005 7:22 PM > > Re: proof > > No disagreement here altough even in the Latern issue there is an > undercurrent of > ambivilance. Hmmm.. really??? Must have missed that... and I agree they do a better job there than we ever could in > this medium. My > own current model is a teacher at Emperor's whose family is pre-TCM > Beijing style. But he > is so hard to get information from (very traditional all the way). And > certainly his > background is rooted in classics in a way I'll never understand. For this, > TCM and Zang-Fu > are useful if only because they offer a rather easy working model at the > surface level. > So when we study a SHL formula is it more useful to look at the original > roots or the > " tranformation " into the modern (i.e. Zang-fu) analysis? Let's not argue > the point... No need to argue, I think the answer is easy.. All three! 1) Original Use, 2) the commentary on the original idea, which many times evolves the uses, 3) Modern zang-fu usage. Why limit ones self? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2005 Report Share Posted August 15, 2005 I personally much prefer reading modern literature for the same reasons that Bob mentions below- I prefer to follow the work of a good modern scholar who has already digested and assimilated a wide array of information. Modern Chinese medicine is more appropriate to my skill level and I think it is best for everyone to first master the basics before moving towards classical literature. Very few of us have truly mastered standard modern Chinese medicine, which I think is an essential prerequisite for the more advanced realm of classical works. However, despite my personal prediliction for modern work at this time, I have great respect for people who study the classics. Some practitioners may move more towards pharmacology, WM disease differentiation, and other integrative approaches while others may have more interest in pattern diagnosis, classical literature, and other straight CM approaches. All of these are valid and effective ways to study Chinese medicine and each route offers different advantages and disadvantages. No matter what approach is used, I think that a solid understanding of TCM theory is essential to begin with. The practitioners that I respect the most are all widely-read. Anyone who is really serious about studying classical works typically is delving deeper after extensive study of contemporary works. While I agree with Bob that modern CM is very comprehensive, practitioners can use the classics to gain insight on new problems and innovate new solutions. For example, the Vice Superintendent of the hospital I am in heads up the EBM division of the TCM internal medicine department. While most of their research is oriented towards treating diseases based on Western disease differentiation, they do use classical texts when trying to discover effective approaches to treating previously unrecognized conditions. As a result of his classical studies, he adapted a formula and theory from the Wen Bing literature that led to an effective treatment for lupus. The formula was then used in a modern research design for their EBM goals. The evolution of Japanese Kampo was similar- modern physician-scholars went to the classics to find approaches to the treatment of modern diseases and adapted classical formulas for the modern world. I have a lot of respect for the classics mostly because I have been very impressed by practitioners like Feng Ye who are so well-read that they can spout off tons of theory, history, and diverse explanations for ideas that have evolved in chinese medicine. That kind of thing is mind-expanding and inspiring. Sometimes its fun to find something interesting that you haven't heard before. For example, I remember that one of my Chinese teachers at PCOM used the point LI-11 to treat dampness. After asking one of the resident doctors in the acu dept about that, she had never heard of it and then came back a week later with a passage from the nei jing that explained how LI-11 could be used to treat damp conditions. I think there is a reason that many Chinese practitioners respect pursuing the classics, but I agree with Feng Ye's stance that the pursuit of the classics should come from a desire to understand the medicine better and uncover useful ideas rather than just blind reverence for all things ancient. I would have to disagree with Jason's assertion that learning Chinese is necessary to understand the classics. While learning Chinese may give one a feeling for the terse expression style, I think the main advantage in learning Chinese lies in the ability to read untranslated work and gain access to a wider variety of information. If there is already good translated work available for a given topic, Chinese acquisition is not that necessary. For example, the Shang Han Lun requires an extensive amount of research and commentary to make the text accessible. There is relatively little value in approaching the subject in Chinese unless you have a SHL scholar friend who can guide you to the most useful commentaries and the most reliable interpretations. The SHL in English has already provided this because it contains very well- researched commentary from the most reliable sources. As English readers, we have the benefit of seeing the entire text analyzed because it was already summarized by a modern expert (Feng Ye) and spoon-fed to Craig. Since someone has already spent years recreating this research process, the English version of that text is more valuable than a hundred commentaries read in Chinese by a novice to SHL study. There is little need to re-invent the wheel when there is so much uncharted territory to be covered. Whenever we have sources that summarize the research of great contemporary physicians, we may as well master them first before starting from scratch. For example, the Practical Dictionary contains a wealth of information on acupuncture that is not available anywhere else in English or Chinese. Feng Ye went through each disease and pattern in the book and did extensive research on the acupuncture treatment of all the various conditions. Nigel translated his research and integrated it into the definitions to make an encylopedia. Why should we bother researching all that stuff from scratch when we can just open a book and see the summary of a scholarly investigation that is far beyond our own research ability? There are so many books in Chinese that one needs to ask an expert simply to know which books to choose for your research! Eric Brand ¡@ , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > Doug, > > I may be opening a can of worms here since I'm going to ask a question > and then decamp to Mexico for six days, but... What classics have you > read? I ask this question because, having worked as a translator or > co-translator on 10 or more classics, I ultimately have to agree with > your Chinese friend. If you already know a high level of Chinese > medicine, reading the classics can be confirmatory (not revleatory). > However, I much prefer reading the writings of a really insightful, > well experienced, intelligent contemporary Chinese doctor. He or she > has already done a lot of the winnowing, digestion, and testing. In my > experience, anyone who thinks that the Chinese have forgotten or > purged some really important theory or technique to the detriment of > contemporary clinical practice is a romantic, and, as numerous > sociologists have demonstated, Orientalism is actually racist. > > Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 wrote: >check out the latest issue of 'The >Lantern' -- I sent an email to The Lantern about three weeks ago, when Z'ev mentioned it, with a question related to subscribing, and have received no reply. I have never seen this journal, so I wanted to purchase one issue so I could check it out, given the cost of subscribing. I'm a little troubled by this nonresponsiveness. Any insight as to what is going on? Rory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 I couldn't find the article online, is the print version ahead of the online version, or am I looking in the wrong place? I went to their website but I only saw a few articles. I like their riddles, is there a new one for this month? Eric , rorykerr@o... wrote: > wrote: > >check out the latest issue of 'The > >Lantern' > -- > > I sent an email to The Lantern about three weeks ago, when Z'ev > mentioned it, with a question related to subscribing, and have > received no reply. I have never seen this journal, so I wanted to > purchase one issue so I could check it out, given the cost of > subscribing. I'm a little troubled by this nonresponsiveness. Any > insight as to what is going on? > > Rory > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 , " " wrote: I > know for those of us wanting to " get back to the classics " this is a type of heresy but an > interesting comment none the less from a top student and practitioner of modern TCM. Actually, I think there is a very pronounced split in the Chinese community regarding the importance of the classics. Many practitioners with a more traditional approach lament the fact that many modern TCM doctors are not well-versed in the classics. This is true in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan alike. Many modern students are not interested in classical works nor do they take the time to develop the skill to read classical literature (reading and understanding classical Chinese requires prolonged language study, even for native Chinese speakers who are graduates of top universities). There is a clear trend towards WM disease differentiation and scientific logic in China/Taiwan. Because modern Chinese have a scientific worldview, much of TCM theory is difficult to understand and difficult to rationally accept (just as it is for Westerners). Many doctors no longer develop significant pulse taking abilities (or use the pulse at all), and many doctors don't use use patterns as the basis for determining treatment. There remains a significant body of practitioners and students who lament this loss of skill with the pulse, patterns, and classics. Each camp has a significant amount of clinical success. Many practitioners feel strongly one way or the other, and many practice somewhere in the vast middle ground between the extremes. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of Eric Brand > Monday, August 15, 2005 9:53 PM > > Re: proof > > I personally much prefer reading modern literature for the same > reasons that Bob mentions below- I prefer to follow the work of a > good modern scholar who has already digested and assimilated a wide > array of information. Modern Chinese medicine is more appropriate to > my skill level and I think it is best for everyone to first master > the basics before moving towards classical literature. Very few of us > have truly mastered standard modern Chinese medicine, which I think > is an essential prerequisite for the more advanced realm of classical > works. > > However, despite my personal prediliction for modern work at this > time, I have great respect for people who study the classics. Some > practitioners may move more towards pharmacology, WM disease > differentiation, and other integrative approaches while others may > have more interest in pattern diagnosis, classical literature, and > other straight CM approaches. All of these are valid and effective > ways to study Chinese medicine and each route offers different > advantages and disadvantages. No matter what approach is used, I > think that a solid understanding of TCM theory is essential to begin > with. > > The practitioners that I respect the most are all widely-read. > Anyone who is really serious about studying classical works typically > is delving deeper after extensive study of contemporary works. While > I agree with Bob that modern CM is very comprehensive, practitioners > can use the classics to gain insight on new problems and innovate new > solutions. > > For example, the Vice Superintendent of the hospital I am in heads up > the EBM division of the TCM internal medicine department. While most > of their research is oriented towards treating diseases based on > Western disease differentiation, they do use classical texts when > trying to discover effective approaches to treating previously > unrecognized conditions. As a result of his classical studies, he > adapted a formula and theory from the Wen Bing literature that led to > an effective treatment for lupus. The formula was then used in a > modern research design for their EBM goals. The evolution of > Japanese Kampo was similar- modern physician-scholars went to the > classics to find approaches to the treatment of modern diseases and > adapted classical formulas for the modern world. > > I have a lot of respect for the classics mostly because I have been > very impressed by practitioners like Feng Ye who are so well-read > that they can spout off tons of theory, history, and diverse > explanations for ideas that have evolved in chinese medicine. That > kind of thing is mind-expanding and inspiring. Sometimes its fun to > find something interesting that you haven't heard before. For > example, I remember that one of my Chinese teachers at PCOM used the > point LI-11 to treat dampness. After asking one of the resident > doctors in the acu dept about that, she had never heard of it and > then came back a week later with a passage from the nei jing that > explained how LI-11 could be used to treat damp conditions. I think > there is a reason that many Chinese practitioners respect pursuing > the classics, but I agree with Feng Ye's stance that the pursuit of > the classics should come from a desire to understand the medicine > better and uncover useful ideas rather than just blind reverence for > all things ancient. > > I would have to disagree with Jason's assertion that learning Chinese > is necessary to understand the classics. Eric, This is not what I said. What I did say is that to REALLY understand SHL / Jin gui yao lue (JGYL) type of thinking one must read Chinese (and this is for pure access to material). Furthermore one cannot consider SHL/JGYL = 'the classics'- but after viewing the analysis below, maybe there is some truth to YOUR statement for other classics as well(???). A) There are NO books that even come close to translating JGYL correctly, let alone with decent commentary, so good luck understanding this one w/o knowing Chinese. B) And as far as the Mithcell's SHL (English), distilled by Feng ye or not, still represents only 1 viewpoint. It is what 1 or a few people's opinion on what they think is important. It is excellent text, but I remember numerous times when studying with my first SHL teacher, where he had different viewpoints than Mitchell / Ye. Later other teachers even had other viewpoints. Not to mention just additional straight explanations and commentaries that made the subject more approachable and understandable. I have heard numerous practitioners try to read Mitchell's SHL and still not get how to use it in the clinic. This has been one of the major complaints with studying classics in general, tangible usage. When one starts to read the Chinese commentaries and the i.e. 100's of books on SHL one can START to grasp how to use it. (No one is saying read these blindly or even all of them)... Furthermore, in Chinese one of the major supplementary texts to understanding how to use the SHL are case studies. There are huge volumes in Chinese dedicated to SHL case studies. Are there any good case study books in English???, even in Mitchell's book. Case studies are IMO essential. To believe that all you need is 1 English book to understand how to really use SHL in the clinic (without a teacher) is IMO complete fantasy. So we have one good book, but one needs much more too really get the subject. For example, in Liu Du-Zhou's article he mentions what books to start with (to study the SHL), then what to move into after those. He lists 6-10(?) books and a methodology to guide you in your studies, hence my comment about needing a good teacher. Liu (191?-2001) was BTW considered the top expert in SHL studies and teaching. His words should not be taken lightly. Furthermore, I am finishing up an article on how Zhang JI used Huang Qi - There is clearly nothing like this in English. A comment that Clavey mentioned after reading this was that was yes, 'This overall approach is under-represented in English, although well established in Chinese...' It is based on commentaries and builds a nice picture on the essence of huang qi, which is quite valuable in the clinic, especially with a SHL/ JGYL approach. (you all can judge for yourself when it is released). But I am clear that there is very little help in English to groking this subject, anyone that says otherwise I highly question. - While learning Chinese may > give one a feeling for the terse expression style, I think the main > advantage in learning Chinese lies in the ability to read > untranslated work and gain access to a wider variety of information. > If there is already good translated work available for a given topic, > Chinese acquisition is not that necessary. > > For example, the Shang Han Lun requires an extensive amount of > research and commentary to make the text accessible. There is > relatively little value in approaching the subject in Chinese unless > you have a SHL scholar friend who can guide you to the most useful > commentaries and the most reliable interpretations. The SHL in > English has already provided this because it contains very well- > researched commentary from the most reliable sources. As English > readers, we have the benefit of seeing the entire text analyzed > because it was already summarized by a modern expert (Feng Ye) and > spoon-fed to Craig. Since someone has already spent years recreating > this research process, the English version of that text is more > valuable than a hundred commentaries read in Chinese by a novice to > SHL study. > > There is little need to re-invent the wheel when there is so much > uncharted territory to be covered. Whenever we have sources that > summarize the research of great contemporary physicians, we may as > well master them first before starting from scratch. For example, > the Practical Dictionary contains a wealth of information on > acupuncture that is not available anywhere else in English or > Chinese. Feng Ye went through each disease and pattern in the book > and did extensive research on the acupuncture treatment of all the > various conditions. Nigel translated his research and integrated it > into the definitions to make an encylopedia. Why should we bother > researching all that stuff from scratch when we can just open a book > and see the summary of a scholarly investigation that is far beyond > our own research ability? There are so many books in Chinese that one > needs to ask an expert simply to know which books to choose for your > research! > > Eric Brand ¡@ > > > , " Bob Flaws " > <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > Doug, > > > > I may be opening a can of worms here since I'm going to ask a > question > > and then decamp to Mexico for six days, but... What classics have > you > > read? I ask this question because, having worked as a translator or > > co-translator on 10 or more classics, I ultimately have to agree > with > > your Chinese friend. If you already know a high level of Chinese > > medicine, reading the classics can be confirmatory (not revleatory). > > However, I much prefer reading the writings of a really insightful, > > well experienced, intelligent contemporary Chinese doctor. He or she > > has already done a lot of the winnowing, digestion, and testing. In > my > > experience, anyone who thinks that the Chinese have forgotten or > > purged some really important theory or technique to the detriment of > > contemporary clinical practice is a romantic, and, as numerous > > sociologists have demonstated, Orientalism is actually racist. > > > > 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > rorykerr > Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:43 AM > > Re: RE: proof > > wrote: > >check out the latest issue of 'The > >Lantern' > -- > > I sent an email to The Lantern about three weeks ago, when Z'ev > mentioned it, with a question related to subscribing, and have > received no reply. I have never seen this journal, so I wanted to > purchase one issue so I could check it out, given the cost of > subscribing. I'm a little troubled by this nonresponsiveness. Any > insight as to what is going on? Not sure, maybe try again.. I thought the price was rather reasonable. I signed up and received my first issue in about 1 week. -Jason > > Rory > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 , " " <@c...> wrote: Furthermore, in Chinese one of the major supplementary texts to > understanding how to use the SHL are case studies. There are huge volumes > in Chinese dedicated to SHL case studies. I completely agree with you that the subject could be rounded out by a wide range of books and different viewpoints. SHL has had hundreds of commentaries written on it since Cheng Wu-Ji's commentary in 1144. It became a particularly popular topic after Fang You-Zhi published his " Systematized Identification of 'On Cold Damage' " in 1539. Fang You-Zhi was apparently the first scholar to question the order of the text from the reconstruction by Wang Shu-He and the commentary by Cheng Wu-Ji (the perils of writing on bamboo strips). In the 18th century, the influence of " kao zheng xue " (evidential learning) led to a huge proliferation of literature on the SHL. So by adding new commentaries and additional information to the English SHL literature, you are becoming another link in a long and honorable tradition of scholarly debate and are bringing Western readers closer to the diversity of ideas accessible in Chinese. I wasn't trying to say that such a thing isn't a laudable goal. My point is simply that if a good translation methodology is applied, an English text can be equally effective at transmitting the information as a Chinese text. There are even times when an English edition can add clarity that improves upon a given Chinese source text. Obviously Chinese is a very useful skill because it allows the accessible information to fill huge libraries instead of a single bookshelf. In other words, I'm not saying that one text is all we need. I'm just saying that if we have traceable translation standards we can give readers who elect not to learn Chinese the opportunity to access the exact same depth and clarity of information that Chinese readers enjoy. We clearly have a lot of work ahead of us to build a library that captures the spectrum of works available in Chinese, but I don't think that language acquisition is necessary to comprehend the subject matter for the instances when good English translations are available. > So we have one good book, but one needs much more too really get the > subject. For example, in Liu Du-Zhou's article he mentions what books to > start with (to study the SHL), then what to move into after those. He lists > 6-10(?) books and a methodology to guide you in your studies, hence my > comment about needing a good teacher. Yes, this is exactly what we need. Good teachers to guide us to the correct materials. Where can I read Liu's article? > Furthermore, I am finishing up an article on how Zhang JI used Huang Qi - Sounds like an interesting article. I look forward to seeing it. But I am > clear that there is very little help in English to groking this subject, > anyone that says otherwise I highly question. At this time, you are totally correct. There is not enough English literature available to give us a fraction of the material accessible in Chinese. It's not a failing of English or an inability of translation to convey the data, it is just that we don't have enough books in English published yet. We are still in our first few generations of knowledge transmission. That is why I think that Wiseman & Feng's work of creating a source-based translation approach is invaluable- simply because it vastly speeds the process of language acquisition and greatly facilitates the production of much-needed quality literature. Respectfully, Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of Eric Brand > Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:37 AM > > Re: proof > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > Furthermore, in Chinese one of the major supplementary texts to > > understanding how to use the SHL are case studies. There are huge > volumes > > in Chinese dedicated to SHL case studies. > > I completely agree with you that the subject could be rounded out by a > wide range of books and different viewpoints. SHL has had hundreds of > commentaries written on it since Cheng Wu-Ji's commentary in 1144. It > became a particularly popular topic after Fang You-Zhi published his > " Systematized Identification of 'On Cold Damage' " in 1539. Fang > You-Zhi was apparently the first scholar to question the order of the > text from the reconstruction by Wang Shu-He and the commentary by > Cheng Wu-Ji (the perils of writing on bamboo strips). In the 18th > century, the influence of " kao zheng xue " (evidential learning) led to > a huge proliferation of literature on the SHL. So by adding new > commentaries and additional information to the English SHL literature, > you are becoming another link in a long and honorable tradition of > scholarly debate and are bringing Western readers closer to the > diversity of ideas accessible in Chinese. > > I wasn't trying to say that such a thing isn't a laudable goal. My > point is simply that if a good translation methodology is applied, an > English text can be equally effective at transmitting the information > as a Chinese text. There are even times when an English edition can > add clarity that improves upon a given Chinese source text. Obviously > Chinese is a very useful skill because it allows the accessible > information to fill huge libraries instead of a single bookshelf. > > In other words, I'm not saying that one text is all we need. I'm just > saying that if we have traceable translation standards we can give > readers who elect not to learn Chinese the opportunity to access the > exact same depth and clarity of information that Chinese readers > enjoy. We clearly have a lot of work ahead of us to build a library > that captures the spectrum of works available in Chinese, but I don't > think that language acquisition is necessary to comprehend the subject > matter for the instances when good English translations are available. > > > So we have one good book, but one needs much more too really get the > > subject. For example, in Liu Du-Zhou's article he mentions what > books to > > start with (to study the SHL), then what to move into after those. > He lists > > 6-10(?) books and a methodology to guide you in your studies, hence my > > comment about needing a good teacher. > > Yes, this is exactly what we need. Good teachers to guide us to the > correct materials. Where can I read Liu's article? > > > Furthermore, I am finishing up an article on how Zhang JI used Huang > Qi - > > Sounds like an interesting article. I look forward to seeing it. > > But I am > > clear that there is very little help in English to groking this subject, > > anyone that says otherwise I highly question. > > At this time, you are totally correct. There is not enough English > literature available to give us a fraction of the material accessible > in Chinese. It's not a failing of English or an inability of > translation to convey the data, it is just that we don't have enough > books in English published yet. We are still in our first few > generations of knowledge transmission. That is why I think that > Wiseman & Feng's work of creating a source-based translation approach > is invaluable- simply because it vastly speeds the process of language > acquisition and greatly facilitates the production of much-needed > quality literature. > Wow .. I would say we agree 100% on this issue... Could it be??? -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of Eric Brand > > Yes, this is exactly what we need. Good teachers to guide us to the > correct materials. Where can I read Liu's article? It is in the latest issue of the Lantern. -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of Eric Brand but I don't > think that language acquisition is necessary to comprehend the subject > matter for the instances when good English translations are available. Eric, But I think the point is that we DON'T have good English Translations. Would anyone not agree? For the SHL we have 1 book. For Jin Gui we have none. Therefore one MUST know Chinese to access these other books. I really can't see anytime in the near future that people will be pumping out (translating) SHL commentaries and Case Studies, there is just no market. You are talking about a possible future being that if we have good translations then everything is fine. I am only talking about the present. Therefore, to really understand the SHL one must read more that Mitchell's book.. To do this (at present) it is simple, one must read Chinese...To understand the JGYL one must read Chinese - there is nothing... But anything is possible in the future, but it is a slow road to hoe... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 Doug, impressive Español! f > " " > > >Re: proof >Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:08:21 -0000 > >I can offer my own comments but they are not from someone who has gone deep >into the >classics whether from original sources or not. So while I don't " get " the >Shan Han Lun even >when walked through the Mitchell translation, I do " get " the Wen Bing book >by Liu. Is it >because of a progression of 500 years of thought or is it because it's a >contemporary >commentary or is it because Wen Bing rolls off my red cracked tongue more >easily? >On the one hand I can listen to Bensky and Mitchell lecture about the >contempory uses of >the Shan han Lun and then look at the new Blue Poppy Systematic Classic and >get equally >overwhelmed. One odd comfort I have in studying this medicine is that I >never hope to >appreciate even .01% of what has been written. >So I don't want to " reject " the classics until I attempt to understand >them. Now it's just a >matter of deciding which ones to tackle. But I do take some solace in your >observations >and my colleague's. >Hasta lleugo, Roberto! >doug > > > > , " Bob Flaws " ><pemachophel2001> >wrote: > > Doug, > > > > I may be opening a can of worms here since I'm going to ask a question > > and then decamp to Mexico for six days, but... What classics have you > > read? I ask this question because, having worked as a translator or > > co-translator on 10 or more classics, I ultimately have to agree with > > your Chinese friend. If you already know a high level of Chinese > > medicine, reading the classics can be confirmatory (not revleatory). > > However, I much prefer reading the writings of a really insightful, > > well experienced, intelligent contemporary Chinese doctor. He or she > > has already done a lot of the winnowing, digestion, and testing. In my > > experience, anyone who thinks that the Chinese have forgotten or > > purged some really important theory or technique to the detriment of > > contemporary clinical practice is a romantic, and, as numerous > > sociologists have demonstated, Orientalism is actually racist. > > > > Bob > > > > , " " > > wrote: > > > I'm going to divert a little to offer this observation about the > > Shan Han Lun from a > > > colleague trained at Beijing U. Her comment was that the Shan Han > > Lun was kind of crude > > > and admirable but not fully useful because Zang Fu theory had not > > yet been developed. I > > > know for those of us wanting to " get back to the classics " this is a > > type of heresy but an > > > interesting comment none the less from a top student and > > practitioner of modern TCM. > > > doug > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 Actually, It comes down to money, doesn't it? The way the system is set up, unless one can get billions of dollars (considering the numbers of projects involved to test every item used) to do the research, it is not proven. That is why there has to be a historical level of proof that has to be acceptable. Considering the " side " effects of modern medications that have passed these tests, historical proof may well be more acceptable as far as safety and effectiveness is concerned. Just add a little historical proofing to weed out familial bias. David Molony In a message dated 8/15/05 2:05:13 PM, writes: > , " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@h...> > wrote: > > > > > Science long ago showed me that few things are absolute like they continue > > to portray. The problem is not in our theory but in the lack of ability > for > > WM to evaluate it in a study. Think about trying to design a study that > > takes into account multiple variables and it just becomes a nightmare. > Most > > studies, by comparison, limit variables to two and so the conclusion is > > simply yes or no, not yes but ... > > Actually it is simple to use science as it is to design accurate comparative > studies of actual > practices. there is no failing on either TCM or science in this matter. > There is however a > failure to do the research necessary within our field. Don't mistake me as > agreeing with > anyone who thinks we should just be accepted on our theory and history > alone. The > variables you describe are a straw man. It is very easy to study > multivariant therapies, you > just compare outcomes and set aside the whole issue of placebo. This is an > accepted > standard in WM for many procedures and we can easily design such studies and > meet > those standards. If you think the tactic of claiming their stuff also has > not been studied, > you are gravely mistaken. The demand is for more, not less evidence. It is > also an > erroneous claim. There stuff has been studied extensively, just not by gold > standards. I > called it silver standards, because its the next level. To use the metal > analogy further, > most studies from China meet lead standards, IMO. > > We can easily do better if about 10% of the community was devoted to > research. > Otherwise we will likely fade as an independent profession over time and/or > have our > techniques coopted without the theory at all. As I have pointed out, quite > a bit of research > (even from China) does show acupuncture and herbs to be effective regardless > of whether > traditional diagnostics are used. I have also pointed out that most CM was > practiced more > allopathically throughout history according to Unschuld and worked quite > well, it seemed. > The battle over bian zheng was not really a battle of wits or a battle of > efficacy; it was a > turf battle and a class battle (something you should appreciate Mike, given > your oft > expressed political leanings). A classic power struggle that tells us > nothing about efficacy, > safety, etc. It just tells us who were the cultural elite of their day. So > it all still needs to be > studied even by the standards of chinese history. > > These were the EBM instructions I received for a conference at which I > spoke. As you can > see, there are many ways to study TCM that would meet muster. And that most > chinese > studies would be considered quite preliminary at best. > > " In keeping with the evidence-based theme of our conference, we encourage > presenters > who are discussing treatment of conditions to consider the strength of > evidence for the > natural supplements they are discussing. Two of the most common evidence > guidelines > include those of the AAFP available at http://www.aafp.org/x17444.xml and > those > commonly utilized by the American College of Physicians available with an > example using > saw palmetto at > http://www.usp.org/dietarySupplements/sawpalmetto.html#criteria. Both > standards will be included in the syllabus for attendee reference. Dr. > Bonakdar has > included an outline of his talk as an example of how AAFP evidence-based > guidelines may > be incorporated. " > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 I think it happens to come down to limited thinking/ideology and those with the $ want to remain in power. Science has long ago left western medicine and what little remains is so propagandized it resembles little of its former self. Ever wonder why the AMA is so against homeopathy yet does not even consider that historically it was far more effective with early American healthcare than allopathic medicine? Mike W. Bowser, L Ac >acuman1 > > >Re: proof >Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:35:25 EDT > >Actually, It comes down to money, doesn't it? The way the system is set up, >unless one can get billions of dollars (considering the numbers of projects >involved to test every item used) to do the research, it is not proven. >That is >why there has to be a historical level of proof that has to be acceptable. >Considering the " side " effects of modern medications that have passed these >tests, >historical proof may well be more acceptable as far as safety and >effectiveness is concerned. Just add a little historical proofing to weed >out familial >bias. >David Molony > >In a message dated 8/15/05 2:05:13 PM, >writes: > > > > , " mike Bowser " ><naturaldoc1@h...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Science long ago showed me that few things are absolute like they >continue > > > to portray. The problem is not in our theory but in the lack of >ability > > for > > > WM to evaluate it in a study. Think about trying to design a study >that > > > takes into account multiple variables and it just becomes a >nightmare. > > Most > > > studies, by comparison, limit variables to two and so the conclusion >is > > > simply yes or no, not yes but ... > > > > Actually it is simple to use science as it is to design accurate >comparative > > studies of actual > > practices. there is no failing on either TCM or science in this >matter. > > There is however a > > failure to do the research necessary within our field. Don't mistake me >as > > agreeing with > > anyone who thinks we should just be accepted on our theory and history > > alone. The > > variables you describe are a straw man. It is very easy to study > > multivariant therapies, you > > just compare outcomes and set aside the whole issue of placebo. This is >an > > accepted > > standard in WM for many procedures and we can easily design such studies >and > > meet > > those standards. If you think the tactic of claiming their stuff also >has > > not been studied, > > you are gravely mistaken. The demand is for more, not less evidence. >It is > > also an > > erroneous claim. There stuff has been studied extensively, just not by >gold > > standards. I > > called it silver standards, because its the next level. To use the >metal > > analogy further, > > most studies from China meet lead standards, IMO. > > > > We can easily do better if about 10% of the community was devoted to > > research. > > Otherwise we will likely fade as an independent profession over time >and/or > > have our > > techniques coopted without the theory at all. As I have pointed out, >quite > > a bit of research > > (even from China) does show acupuncture and herbs to be effective >regardless > > of whether > > traditional diagnostics are used. I have also pointed out that most CM >was > > practiced more > > allopathically throughout history according to Unschuld and worked quite > > well, it seemed. > > The battle over bian zheng was not really a battle of wits or a battle >of > > efficacy; it was a > > turf battle and a class battle (something you should appreciate Mike, >given > > your oft > > expressed political leanings). A classic power struggle that tells us > > nothing about efficacy, > > safety, etc. It just tells us who were the cultural elite of their >day. So > > it all still needs to be > > studied even by the standards of chinese history. > > > > These were the EBM instructions I received for a conference at which I > > spoke. As you can > > see, there are many ways to study TCM that would meet muster. And that >most > > chinese > > studies would be considered quite preliminary at best. > > > > " In keeping with the evidence-based theme of our conference, we >encourage > > presenters > > who are discussing treatment of conditions to consider the strength of > > evidence for the > > natural supplements they are discussing. Two of the most common >evidence > > guidelines > > include those of the AAFP available at http://www.aafp.org/x17444.xml >and > > those > > commonly utilized by the American College of Physicians available with >an > > example using > > saw palmetto at > > http://www.usp.org/dietarySupplements/sawpalmetto.html#criteria. Both > > standards will be included in the syllabus for attendee reference. Dr. > > Bonakdar has > > included an outline of his talk as an example of how AAFP evidence-based > > guidelines may > > be incorporated. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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.