Granulars

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

No need to clarify. I have always respected your critical thinking and

questioning of outcomes, and most of the time completely agree.

 

-Jason

 

 

alon marcus

Saturday, May 24, 2008 12:58 PM

 

Re: Granulars

 

 

Jason

Just for the record my judgment regarding outcome come from

observations of Chinese trained Dr in US and in China, so i think the

training questions do not apply to my believes. I do acknowledge that

my experience is limited as i did not stay in china for extensive

periods and did not study in many institutions. Stating this, i do

think CM offers much in the management of internal medical problems

its the magnitude of change that i often question.

 

 

 

Recent Activity

a.. 2New Members

Visit Your Group

Meditation and

Lovingkindness

 

A Group

 

to share and learn.

 

Health

Asthma Triggers

 

How you can

 

identify them.

 

10 Day Club

on

 

Share the benefits

 

of a high fiber diet.

..

 

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature

database 3106 (20080516) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 

http://www.eset.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

This is an important question, and one that plays a huge role in Western

supplements and herbals. Start with low quality end with low quality. There are

many things to consider than just the " extraction ratio. "

 

Furthermore, if one company over saturates an extraction, there claim of, for

example, how much da huang is contained in the end product, will be false. One

may believe they know, but the label is not an analysis of post-production.

Extraction is tricky and if you start with too much herbs you may extract

superficial constituents. Therefore the ratio of constituents (hence how much da

huang) will be skewed. I tend to trust Andy on this one. He has been involved in

the granular industry a long time.

 

-Jason

 

 

alon marcus

Saturday, May 24, 2008 1:07 PM

 

Re: Granulars

 

 

Eric

I would think the quality of the raw materials may play an unseen

role. Is the higher concentration a more potent formula if raw

material is of much lower quality? that is a big advantage of bulk

herbs, you can actually see for your self. That is also why i do taste

tests on all my powders on a regular bases, I do solubility and taste

comparisons. Since i do not have access to sophisticated testing

equipment at this point taste is all i have to go by and i have to say

there is a huge difference between companies. I suggest anyone using

powders should do this often and not just have company loyalty.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

[Guest guest]

hello group

is there anyone in this group who have experience with acupuncture and herbs to

treat the side effects of chemo and radiation therapy?

thanks in advance

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

>

> Eric,

>

> I guess Andy Ellis paints a different picture. I will defer to the

experts at this point.

 

I don't think that Andy is painting a different picture at all. I

agree with the content of Andy's article- it raises some excellent

points about the complexity of the granule equation. However, Andy is

not saying that the consistent and accurate labeling standards used in

Taiwan are meaningless. He is (correctly) pointing out that there are

more factors involved than simple mathematics, and he is pointing out

that different methods are used for calculating extraction ratios

(i.e., ginkgo biloba leaf extracts that are basically pure drug

fractions vs. whole spectrum extracts, calculations based on liquid

volume for liquid extracts, etc). Andy was not downplaying the

importance of consistent, open labeling.

 

Andy mentioned a point that some companies advertise their

concentration ratio based on the concentration before the filler is

added, vs. the concentration of the final product. Is there anyone

who has actually seen a company make this type of claim? Quoting a

pre-filler concentration ratio vs. a final concentration ratio is

totally unacceptable, so it is important that everyone has a consensus

on the right way to express these things. On a recent trip to Europe,

someone mentioned that some companies there advertised based on a

pre-filler concentration ratio, but I've never seen a company do it

here in the States. Certainly that isn't a factor with Blue Poppy, so

I was curious as to why Bob Flaws felt the need to write a rebuttal

argument in the first place.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

 

 

Let us be clear on what Andy is really saying. He states in the Cinnabar

Creek (Spring 2008), " Let us state at the beginning that the currently

employed ratio expression is of little help " in " proper dosing of extracts

and also for comparing one brand of extract to another. " That is pretty

clear to me, and is a very different picture than you stated.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

P.S. Here is the full paragraph:

 

 

 

" There are two main reasons why it is in the interest of the

 

clinician to understand this issue. A thorough understanding

 

of what an extract ratio does and does not express is essential

 

to proper dosing of extracts and also for comparing one brand

 

of extract to another. Let us state at the beginning that the

 

currently employed ratio expression is of little help in either

 

of these areas. Our objective is to explain why that is so and

 

to suggest alternative ways to think about dosing and brand

 

selection. Before we can grasp the subtleties of the issues

 

involved in extraction ratio expression we must gain an understanding

 

of the extraction and concentration process. "

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Saturday, May 24, 2008 5:55 PM

 

Re: Granulars

 

 

 

@ <%40>

, " "

wrote:

>

> Eric,

>

> I guess Andy Ellis paints a different picture. I will defer to the

experts at this point.

 

I don't think that Andy is painting a different picture at all. I

agree with the content of Andy's article- it raises some excellent

points about the complexity of the granule equation. However, Andy is

not saying that the consistent and accurate labeling standards used in

Taiwan are meaningless. He is (correctly) pointing out that there are

more factors involved than simple mathematics, and he is pointing out

that different methods are used for calculating extraction ratios

(i.e., ginkgo biloba leaf extracts that are basically pure drug

fractions vs. whole spectrum extracts, calculations based on liquid

volume for liquid extracts, etc). Andy was not downplaying the

importance of consistent, open labeling.

 

Andy mentioned a point that some companies advertise their

concentration ratio based on the concentration before the filler is

added, vs. the concentration of the final product. Is there anyone

who has actually seen a company make this type of claim? Quoting a

pre-filler concentration ratio vs. a final concentration ratio is

totally unacceptable, so it is important that everyone has a consensus

on the right way to express these things. On a recent trip to Europe,

someone mentioned that some companies there advertised based on a

pre-filler concentration ratio, but I've never seen a company do it

here in the States. Certainly that isn't a factor with Blue Poppy, so

I was curious as to why Bob Flaws felt the need to write a rebuttal

argument in the first place.

 

Eric

 

 

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature

database 3128 (20080523) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 

http://www.eset.com

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Perhaps I am still unclear on this issue, but my understanding is that

those Taiwan companies Eric is likely quoting from, unlike the US

dietary supplement companies, adhere to GMP.

 

Assuming this is so, does this process not offer the best quality

assurance relative to an industry standarization that exists today?

Does this not reduce the ease of making false claims, providing

practitioners and patients with a superior frame within which to operate?

 

-Paul

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Actually I think you example is very close to what happens in the

supplement

> world (in the West).

[Guest guest]

This whole granule versus raw debate has always left me confused. I

have spoken with a few reps for the various granule companies who have

always claimed that their product is 40- 60 % more potent than the

stove top decoction. Saying that, because they use pressure cookers,

and better quality herbs, the end result is better.

 

That all made sense to me until I trained with Mazin Al Khafaji in

London. Mazin goes to China himself every year to buy the herbs for

his clinic, something like 10 tonnes annually. He chooses only the

higher grades, usually `B' grades, as he says the A grades are usually

for show. At the clinic he uses pressure cookers to make roughly three

week at a time decoctions. They are sealed and of high quality. The

doses he uses in his prescriptions are high, sometimes in the 180 gram

or higher range, ie when using sheng di huang he will use roughly 30

grams per day. After 20 years or more of clinical experience, which is

still on going, he has learned that if he doesn't use these types of

doses the conditions treated may not respond very well.

 

Now if Mazin is using technology and quality similar or better than

the granule companies, how can the granule companies claim that we can

use smaller doses per day?? It just does not make sense. In the clinic

I work in I have to use granules and I have noticed that if I use the

dosages that the granule companies suggest, say 10-14 grams per day,

many times I do not see the results I would expect to see. When I

increase the doses of the granules to 16 and higher, then often times

I start to see results, but not always. Of course the cost per day of

the formula is going up higher and higher for the patient. I often

wonder how ethical it is to use these granules at the lower dosages.

How long do people keep their patients on them until deciding to

change or stop tx?

 

And this is not even putting into consideration all the many wonderful

points that Jason makes about pao Zhi. I mean there really is a

clinical difference between Sheng Bai Zhu and Zhi Bai Zhu. Often times

I cannot find the properly prepared granule that I am looking for in

the granule form.

 

I think that as practitioners we have to be very honest about the

results we get. How long lasting they are. How much time did it take,

ect. Again this is why I like dermatology, as I can see the results

myself and be my own best critic. Either the patient gets better or

they don't. I can see the change for myself. If I am feeling 100 %

with my Dx, then the only other factor is the herbal choice used. If

it is granules that I am using, then often times I am thinking what

would the results be like if I used raw.

 

BTW Does any one have much experience with Kamwo's pressure cooked

decoctions service?

 

Trevor

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

>

> Eric,

> Let us be clear on what Andy is really saying. He states in the Cinnabar

> Creek (Spring 2008), " Let us state at the beginning that the currently

> employed ratio expression is of little help " in " proper dosing of

extracts

> and also for comparing one brand of extract to another. " That is pretty

> clear to me, and is a very different picture than you stated.

 

I think the key thing here is that Andy is referencing our unique

situation in the West. In the US, we have a wide number of different

product styles on the market, often made by different methods and

technologies. Andy is trying to point out that there is no one

equation that can adequately compare these disparate products. He

makes a particular point about " standardized " ginseng extracts, 50:1

or 100:1 extracts (as seen with ginkgo biloba), and he rightly points

out that the method used to calculate an extraction ratio when using

solvents for isolation and standardization of compounds (as in gingko

leaf) is not useful for referencing the products we use in Chinese

medicine.

 

However, in Taiwan, none of the issues in Andy's article are present.

Laws require granule companies to replicate a traditional water

decoction, so there are no hexane-based single compound isolates and

other solvent-style, 50:1, etc products on the market. There are no

1-2 oz liquid extract products on the market in any prominent way,

such as the small tincture bottles we see in the US. There are also

few tablets of ground raw herbs circulating among the professional

community (unlike here). The companies use the same method and

technology in Taiwan, and the label provides the same information.

 

For example, the Taiwanese label will often say something like: " one

gram of granule extract contains 0.6 g of huang bai (Phellodendri

Cortex) concentrate (equivalent to 4.2 g of crude drug yielding 0.6 g

of extract, for a 7:1 concentration), mixed with 0.4 g of powdered raw

huang bai (Phellodendri Cortex), yielding a final extraction ratio of

4.6:1. " (The US label of the exact same product typically just reads

" proprietary blend of huang bai (Phellodendri Cortex) extract and

powder, 1 g. " )

 

In Taiwan, all of the products are largely comparable because the

method of calculating the extraction ratio and the method of producing

the extracts is the same from company to company. The fact that there

is a difference from one brand to the next in terms of quality and

concentration shows that there is some variance in how concentrated a

given product can become. Of course, it goes without saying that the

most important factor is the quality of the bulk herbs that one starts

off with.

 

Andy is an expert in these issues, and I am basically in complete

agreement with him. In fact, much of what I learned about granules

was from fascinating conversations with Andy. I toured KP's

facilities with Andy; I was impressed and I learned a lot from the

experience. I've since toured around other Taiwanese factories as well

as factories and labs in mainland China, and I've been impressed with

each of the facilities that I visited.

 

Many companies have good products and good techniques, and there are

simply different ways of making granule products. In China, they tend

to make foil packs of single herbs without fillers- this is

inconvenient because one has to open many tiny packets for each dose,

but it has the advantage of having single ingredients be removable if

problems or changes occur. However, the foil pack technology (or some

other vacuum) is required to have a filler-free granule product,

because if there is no filler and the powder is exposed to air, it

will clump together.

 

Therefore, Chinese products that are intended to sit on a shelf in an

open bottle create a consistent extraction ratio by adding filler to

dilute the strong concentrate to a given level. Because clumping

naturally tends to happen at high concentrations, these products are

often sold as " ke li " (large particle granules). The " ke li " (large

granule) form stands in distinction to the " xi fen " (fine powder)

form, which is somewhat more common in Taiwan. Fine granules are nice

for making a smooth paste with honey (my favorite way to eat

granules), but ke li are good for getting high concentrations without

clumping.

 

At any rate, the fact of the matter is that different technologies are

used in China and Taiwan, and the producers of each want to sell you

their products. The Taiwanese will say that they have more

experience, and the mainland Chinese will say that their technology is

newer. Each will claim superiority and most will lack a strong

understanding of what exactly the other has to offer. A huge amount

of politics and perceived cultural superiority will likely be in the

background anytime you try to compare Chinese vs Taiwanese products

with someone from either Taiwan or China. At the end of the day, both

have made significant accomplishments and both produce clinically

effective products. The products take slightly different forms and

are prescribed in different ways and at different dosages. Taiwanese

doctors tend to compound whole formulas, mainland doctors tend to

build from scratch. Taiwanese tend to use a ratio based on roughly

18g dose, while mainland doctors tend to prescribe based on weight

equivalent to raw herbs.

 

All of these factors need to be assessed if we are comparing two

different classes of products, such as Taiwanese and mainland Chinese

granules. For sure the quality of starting materials and the

integrity of a company and its labs are the most crucial factors. But

let's face it, there is more than one game in town, more than one

company that is making good product. We need some way to compare

these products beyond marketing and anecdotes.

 

I totally agree with Andy that comparison by concentration ratios is

of limited value when comparing products made by different techniques.

But I also believe that we have to discuss concentration ratios in an

open and consistent manner. The labeling situation in Taiwan is

ideal, and I honestly don't think that Andy would suggest that the

Taiwan-style labels are lacking in value. Clearly he was talking

about the limitations in comparing ratios made by different methods of

extraction and different methods of calculation.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

I have been very busy lately but just read all (or most) of the posts concerning

granulars. Here's my two cents...

 

1. What Bill said in his last post is correct. The ratio of a POWERED extracts

is based on the starting weight of the medicinal and the finish weight of the

dried extract. The fact is that if you use more water and increase the time of

" extraction, " and/or if you add pressure to the mix or solvent other than water,

you will get more finished product. And, you can make a more concentrated

finished product..this is basic chemistry folks and I have to admit I am a

little befuddled as to why people are so confused about this. Sorry if I am

coming off as a know it all, but this is really a pretty simple question.

 

2. I have no idea what is done in China, Taiwan, or Japan, when it comes to how

they establish the ratios they put on the bottles, but if they are doing

anything other than as stated above, they are not conforming to a very well

established principle that has been used in the West for a long time.

 

3. As to the 30:1 versus 4:1, I am going to make the assumption that you are

talking about a liquid extract, that is completely different than what we are

talking about here. When there is liquid involved the ration is based on the

weight of the medicinal to the volume of the the solvent, e.g. 100g dahuang to

500ml hydroalcoholic (in this case, plus glycerin) solution. In this situation

the person at the store is correct, you can only put so much plant matter into

solution before it precipitates (falls out of solution). You can get more in

with heat and pressure, but then when it cools off and is under normal

atmospheric pressure, you get sludge on the bottom. This is why the " tinctures "

(which are not tinctures at all, they are " liquid extracts " ) produced by some

companies that make formulas for CM practitioners in the West are so thick.

 

4. When a company uses pressure or alcohol, they are changing the constituent

make-up of the formula or single as has been used in Chinese medicine forever,

this, in my opinion, is a new and experimental concept. I don't think it is

wrong, and in some cases as Bill mentioned in one post, it may actually be

better. However, it is NOT the same.

 

5. Finally, I have always used bulk herbs as my primary method, but I also stock

a complete powdered extract (what for some strange reason you all call

" granulars " ) pharmacy as well as a tincture pharmacy. I also keep " patent "

formulas on hand for certain patients. I make all the tinctures myself (except

in rare instances when I need something and can't make it for some reason). I

also do my own paozhi, in house, which is believe is a very important method of

treating herbs, as Jason has said. When it comes to what is best, well, I'm a

plant geek and I love handling the plants (I still do some of my own

wildcrafting) and using bulk formulas and generally I consider them the best.

However, there are particular circumstances where I prefer tinctures, or

powdered extracts. Probably the most common reason for giving other than bulk

formulas is convenience, AND the hitch is that if the patient can't or won't

take the herbs any other way...well I'd like to think of myself as

pragmatic and I believe it is in the best interest of the patient to get those

damn plants inside their body and sometimes it is not worth an argument or

trying to assert myself (sometimes the patient is simply going on vacation), and

frankly I'm not attached to any method per se, just gettem' in! Furthermore,

there are some plants that are, quite frankly, better extracted and preserved as

tinctures. In these cases I will often give the patient a separate, either

single or formula, in a tincture format.

 

6. I love powdered extracts for children, they are easy and when mixed with

glycerin, kids will pretty easily take even the bitter medicinal. I combine the

formula with glycerin and give it in a dropper bottle and even infants can be

given formulas in this format.

 

Well then, I hope this finds everyone healthy and happy on this marvelous spring

evening I am enjoying here in Beijing.

 

In Good Health,

Thomas

P.S. I do discuss this at some length in my book.

 

 

 

Beijing, China

Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide

 

www.sourcepointherbs.org

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

 

 

I myself, and I am sure everyone else, appreciates your insights and ideas,

however, I think we need to be careful in projecting our beliefs onto what

Andy is saying in his article. I will try to clarify this.

 

 

 

Andy, in his article, is not just referring to " our unique situation in the

West. " He is referencing to the world market, including Taiwan, China,

Europe, and US. Some of his examples correspond to more Western practices

(as Eric pointed out), but many are specific to the issues of Taiwanese

granulars.

 

 

 

Furthermore, as Eric has noted there are currently regulations in place in

Taiwan for " certain aspects of production " and labeling for granulars.

However, one must understand there are many proprietary procedures,

equipment and techniques that are allowed within the scope of the

regulations that do not create the even playing field and labeling as we

might like to image in a perfect world. Because this has led to the

inability to truly rely on the label, the standard as how extract ratios are

expressed is presently being rethought by the regulators. This fact alone

should demonstrate that as is, the extraction ratios are not as optimal as

many would like to believe.

 

 

 

AS far as the NEW US GMP:

 

 

 

The new GMP is requiring the labeling of extraction ratios; however, they

are not specifying the means and details of how to express extraction

ratios. This is a major issue and one reason Andy wrote the article.

 

 

 

BTW- None of this is my opinion or MSU, it is straight from Andy Ellis via

personal communication. I am just the messenger. I guess there are different

opinions, and please express them. However, please let people speak for

themselves.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

 

I think the key thing here is that Andy is referencing our unique

situation in the West.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think I should clarify the last paragraph from my post.

 

 

 

The personal communication I refer to is not a distant conversation. It has

occurred in the last 24 hours. All the points discussed were from very

direct questions, i.e. what methods and countries are you referencing from

your article? Are you really just discussing the unique situation we have

here in the West? Etc.

 

 

 

Finally, my last statement sounds a bit funny. Therefore what I meant was,

if you have a quote or personal communications express it. I present Andy's

point of view only to clarify his article (and the claims made about his

articles content) since he is not taking part in this discussion.

 

 

 

I think it is a slippery slope to state what they " think " someone means as

somewhat of a fact, especially when it seems to be a cornerstone of one's

argument. Such core statements should be referenced.

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of

 

BTW- None of this is my opinion or MSU, it is straight from Andy Ellis via

personal communication. I am just the messenger. I guess there are different

opinions, and please express them. However, please let people speak for

themselves.

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

There is a German technology that uses low temp continuos wash, i was

shown this in taiwan. The end result is complete drainage of active

ing. The drags end up like dead drift wood, no smell or taste at all.

I am not sure how you calculate such an extraction method but probably

ends up with a stronger product.

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

GMP is full of holes regarding safety and quality. We have talked

about this in past

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I receive a daily email from this group, so please forgive my late and

untimely question. It had been answered many times and in great depth

prior to my reading and responding to that which had entered my

mailbox, and I was unaware of the continuing discourse.

 

A terrific and enlightening thread- tx!

 

-Paul

 

, " pdgamache2 "

<pdgamache wrote:

>

> Perhaps I am still unclear on this issue, but my understanding is that

> those Taiwan companies Eric is likely quoting from, unlike the US

> dietary supplement companies, adhere to GMP.

>

> Assuming this is so, does this process not offer the best quality

> assurance relative to an industry standarization that exists today?

> Does this not reduce the ease of making false claims, providing

> practitioners and patients with a superior frame within which to

operate?

>

> -Paul

>

> , " "

> <@> wrote:

> >

> > Actually I think you example is very close to what happens in the

> supplement

> > world (in the West).

>

[Guest guest]

Someone said a little while back about variations from company to

company with granulars. Does anyone have suggestions of a particular

company they prefer, particularly for making teas?

 

We did not use granulars at the school I went to and got no input or

experience with them. I am using them but wonder if there is a better

company I should be exploring.

 

Really have enjoyed this thread. Thanks!

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

Based on conversations between Andy and my wife at various conferences

in the last year or so, I felt that Andy's article was aimed at Blue

Poppy, if not in toto, at least in part. However, I felt Andy was

writing from his expertise in Taiwanese extracts, and, as you know,

the technology used in China is different. Therefore, the rebuttal.

 

Bob

 

, " Eric Brand "

<smilinglotus wrote:

>

> , " "

> <@> wrote:

> >

> > Eric,

> >

> > I guess Andy Ellis paints a different picture. I will defer to the

> experts at this point.

>

> I don't think that Andy is painting a different picture at all. I

> agree with the content of Andy's article- it raises some excellent

> points about the complexity of the granule equation. However, Andy is

> not saying that the consistent and accurate labeling standards used in

> Taiwan are meaningless. He is (correctly) pointing out that there are

> more factors involved than simple mathematics, and he is pointing out

> that different methods are used for calculating extraction ratios

> (i.e., ginkgo biloba leaf extracts that are basically pure drug

> fractions vs. whole spectrum extracts, calculations based on liquid

> volume for liquid extracts, etc). Andy was not downplaying the

> importance of consistent, open labeling.

>

> Andy mentioned a point that some companies advertise their

> concentration ratio based on the concentration before the filler is

> added, vs. the concentration of the final product. Is there anyone

> who has actually seen a company make this type of claim? Quoting a

> pre-filler concentration ratio vs. a final concentration ratio is

> totally unacceptable, so it is important that everyone has a consensus

> on the right way to express these things. On a recent trip to Europe,

> someone mentioned that some companies there advertised based on a

> pre-filler concentration ratio, but I've never seen a company do it

> here in the States. Certainly that isn't a factor with Blue Poppy, so

> I was curious as to why Bob Flaws felt the need to write a rebuttal

> argument in the first place.

>

> Eric

>

[Guest guest]

Trevor,

 

" Now if Mazin is using technology and quality similar or better than

the granule companies, how can the granule companies claim that we can

use smaller doses per day?? It just does not make sense. In the clinic

I work in I have to use granules and I have noticed that if I use the

dosages that the granule companies suggest, say 10-14 grams per day,

many times I do not see the results I would expect to see. When I

increase the doses of the granules to 16 and higher, then often times

I start to see results, but not always. "

 

A. This was also my experience when I used Taiwanese-made extracts. I

needed higher doses than those recommended by their manufacturers in

order to get results comparable to decoctions.

 

B. Caveat emptor. This is why I included a disclaimer in last week's

post. People need to think critically. That means taking any claims by

manufacturers with a grain of salt and doing your own research. The

manufacturer is in the business of selling product, and especially

salespeople, who often are working on commission and are not

necessarily the most savvy people about the medicine, may be over

zealous in promoting the product -- therefore saying what they think

their customers want to hear. For many years, these companies got a

free ride since no one was asking any questions. I'm happy to see that

my attempts to initiate these questions 6-7 years ago have borne fruit.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

 

 

I understand you feel the need to clarify, although from my recent

conversations with Andy, his article was not at all aimed at Blue Poppy. I

personally found it quite neutral. (BTW- in our conversations, I don't think

he ever mentioned BP or put down other technologies or companies).

 

 

 

He does though bring up key issues which still require further instigation.

I think his key point about the inability to rely on the mere " extraction

ratio " to gauge the most effective dose, brand comparison and ultimately

clinical efficacy, still stands, and is of worthy debate and applies to all

companies. Although I enjoyed your " rebuttal " there are still aspects left

unanswered. It is clearly not black and white, meaning as things currently

stand a higher extraction ratio does not seem to automatically equal the

most potent - and that is with any technology.

 

 

 

In my mind there are too many variables to make any clear final decisions. I

am keeping an open mind.

 

 

 

I am curious if Blue Poppy (or other companies) have spent much energy with

post product testing. It is quite easy to check for fillers, amount of

active ingredients etc. It seems like this might be useful information.

 

 

 

I have a patient, PHD chemistry professor that may want to test some of

these products. Would Blue Poppy and other companies (on CHA?) like to

donate some of their products (and possibly a minimal amount of $ - I would

be willing to trade my services as a contribution) for a side by side

comparison with decoctions or other products? He says it is very easy to do,

we just would have to decide on what to test.

 

 

 

I have no invested interest either way and would be happy to write up the

results for publication or just the CHA. What do you think?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:59 AM

 

Re: Granulars

 

 

 

Eric,

 

Based on conversations between Andy and my wife at various conferences

in the last year or so, I felt that Andy's article was aimed at Blue

Poppy, if not in toto, at least in part. However, I felt Andy was

writing from his expertise in Taiwanese extracts, and, as you know,

the technology used in China is different. Therefore, the rebuttal.

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

Thank you for the confirmation of my clinical experiences with

granules. It was actually after hearing a lecture with you a few years

ago that I first learned how to properly dose granules. Ie. write the

raw formula with dosages per day, then divide by the concentration

ratio to get the granule per day dose, which often times does work out

to 18-22grams a day. So thanks for that :-)

 

Jason's points about learning individual herb concentrations are well

taken. I have gotten over trying to do the math for each herb by using

E Feng, a chinese company that uses no binder and each herb comes pre

sealed. More garbage and time opening the packets, but more accuracy

with dosages.

 

Trevor

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> Trevor,

>

> " Now if Mazin is using technology and quality similar or better than

> the granule companies, how can the granule companies claim that we can

> use smaller doses per day?? It just does not make sense. In the clinic

> I work in I have to use granules and I have noticed that if I use the

> dosages that the granule companies suggest, say 10-14 grams per day,

> many times I do not see the results I would expect to see. When I

> increase the doses of the granules to 16 and higher, then often times

> I start to see results, but not always. "

>

> A. This was also my experience when I used Taiwanese-made extracts. I

> needed higher doses than those recommended by their manufacturers in

> order to get results comparable to decoctions.

>

> B. Caveat emptor. This is why I included a disclaimer in last week's

> post. People need to think critically. That means taking any claims by

> manufacturers with a grain of salt and doing your own research. The

> manufacturer is in the business of selling product, and especially

> salespeople, who often are working on commission and are not

> necessarily the most savvy people about the medicine, may be over

> zealous in promoting the product -- therefore saying what they think

> their customers want to hear. For many years, these companies got a

> free ride since no one was asking any questions. I'm happy to see that

> my attempts to initiate these questions 6-7 years ago have borne fruit.

>

> Bob

>

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

Obviously different conversations.

 

Bob

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bob,

>

>

>

> I understand you feel the need to clarify, although from my recent

> conversations with Andy, his article was not at all aimed at Blue

Poppy. I

> personally found it quite neutral. (BTW- in our conversations, I

don't think

> he ever mentioned BP or put down other technologies or companies).

>

>

>

> He does though bring up key issues which still require further

instigation.

> I think his key point about the inability to rely on the mere

" extraction

> ratio " to gauge the most effective dose, brand comparison and ultimately

> clinical efficacy, still stands, and is of worthy debate and applies

to all

> companies. Although I enjoyed your " rebuttal " there are still

aspects left

> unanswered. It is clearly not black and white, meaning as things

currently

> stand a higher extraction ratio does not seem to automatically equal the

> most potent - and that is with any technology.

>

>

>

> In my mind there are too many variables to make any clear final

decisions. I

> am keeping an open mind.

>

>

>

> I am curious if Blue Poppy (or other companies) have spent much

energy with

> post product testing. It is quite easy to check for fillers, amount of

> active ingredients etc. It seems like this might be useful information.

>

>

>

> I have a patient, PHD chemistry professor that may want to test some of

> these products. Would Blue Poppy and other companies (on CHA?) like to

> donate some of their products (and possibly a minimal amount of $ -

I would

> be willing to trade my services as a contribution) for a side by side

> comparison with decoctions or other products? He says it is very

easy to do,

> we just would have to decide on what to test.

>

>

>

> I have no invested interest either way and would be happy to write

up the

> results for publication or just the CHA. What do you think?

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

> _____

>

>

> On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

> Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:59 AM

>

> Re: Granulars

>

>

>

> Eric,

>

> Based on conversations between Andy and my wife at various conferences

> in the last year or so, I felt that Andy's article was aimed at Blue

> Poppy, if not in toto, at least in part. However, I felt Andy was

> writing from his expertise in Taiwanese extracts, and, as you know,

> the technology used in China is different. Therefore, the rebuttal.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

 

 

You are correct. Is this though, a conversation you want to pursue?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:57 PM

 

Re: Granulars

 

 

 

Jason,

 

Obviously different conversations.

 

Bob

 

@ <%40>

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bob,

>

>

>

> I understand you feel the need to clarify, although from my recent

> conversations with Andy, his article was not at all aimed at Blue

Poppy. I

> personally found it quite neutral. (BTW- in our conversations, I

don't think

> he ever mentioned BP or put down other technologies or companies).

>

>

>

> He does though bring up key issues which still require further

instigation.

> I think his key point about the inability to rely on the mere

" extraction

> ratio " to gauge the most effective dose, brand comparison and ultimately

> clinical efficacy, still stands, and is of worthy debate and applies

to all

> companies. Although I enjoyed your " rebuttal " there are still

aspects left

> unanswered. It is clearly not black and white, meaning as things

currently

> stand a higher extraction ratio does not seem to automatically equal the

> most potent - and that is with any technology.

>

>

>

> In my mind there are too many variables to make any clear final

decisions. I

> am keeping an open mind.

>

>

>

> I am curious if Blue Poppy (or other companies) have spent much

energy with

> post product testing. It is quite easy to check for fillers, amount of

> active ingredients etc. It seems like this might be useful information.

>

>

>

> I have a patient, PHD chemistry professor that may want to test some of

> these products. Would Blue Poppy and other companies (on CHA?) like to

> donate some of their products (and possibly a minimal amount of $ -

I would

> be willing to trade my services as a contribution) for a side by side

> comparison with decoctions or other products? He says it is very

easy to do,

> we just would have to decide on what to test.

>

>

>

> I have no invested interest either way and would be happy to write

up the

> results for publication or just the CHA. What do you think?

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

Its not so simple to test quantity, its much easier to test for

markers. But i would love to see such testing. Many years ago i

started doing it but lost funding.

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

Would you mind sharing your experience? Did you find out anything

interesting?

 

 

 

This professor says that we should be able to test quantity quite easily,

basically picking a constituent and see how much is there (many of the

supplement companies do this on each batch). I imagine that we could pick a

few key ones for each formula.

 

 

 

We originally talked about testing for potency from one batch of decocted

herbs to the next (cooking methods the same - different week of herbs). We

could then compare different decoction cooking times. Then I thought it

would be great to see how granulars etc compared. More specifically what

dose do we really need to equal a decoction?

 

 

 

Further thought anyone?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:23 PM

 

Re: Granulars

 

 

 

Jason

Its not so simple to test quantity, its much easier to test for

markers. But i would love to see such testing. Many years ago i

started doing it but lost funding.

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) <alonmarcus%40wans.net> net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Not particularly,

 

Bob

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bob,

>

>

>

> You are correct. Is this though, a conversation you want to pursue?

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

> _____

>

>

> On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

> Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:57 PM

>

> Re: Granulars

>

>

>

> Jason,

>

> Obviously different conversations.

>

> Bob

>

> @ <%40>

> , " "

> <@> wrote:

> >

> > Bob,

> >

> >

> >

> > I understand you feel the need to clarify, although from my recent

> > conversations with Andy, his article was not at all aimed at Blue

> Poppy. I

> > personally found it quite neutral. (BTW- in our conversations, I

> don't think

> > he ever mentioned BP or put down other technologies or companies).

> >

> >

> >

> > He does though bring up key issues which still require further

> instigation.

> > I think his key point about the inability to rely on the mere

> " extraction

> > ratio " to gauge the most effective dose, brand comparison and

ultimately

> > clinical efficacy, still stands, and is of worthy debate and applies

> to all

> > companies. Although I enjoyed your " rebuttal " there are still

> aspects left

> > unanswered. It is clearly not black and white, meaning as things

> currently

> > stand a higher extraction ratio does not seem to automatically

equal the

> > most potent - and that is with any technology.

> >

> >

> >

> > In my mind there are too many variables to make any clear final

> decisions. I

> > am keeping an open mind.

> >

> >

> >

> > I am curious if Blue Poppy (or other companies) have spent much

> energy with

> > post product testing. It is quite easy to check for fillers, amount of

> > active ingredients etc. It seems like this might be useful

information.

> >

> >

> >

> > I have a patient, PHD chemistry professor that may want to test

some of

> > these products. Would Blue Poppy and other companies (on CHA?) like to

> > donate some of their products (and possibly a minimal amount of $ -

> I would

> > be willing to trade my services as a contribution) for a side by side

> > comparison with decoctions or other products? He says it is very

> easy to do,

> > we just would have to decide on what to test.

> >

> >

> >

> > I have no invested interest either way and would be happy to write

> up the

> > results for publication or just the CHA. What do you think?

> >

> >

> >

> > -Jason

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rick, I bet many of the listed members here have treated cancer-related

casesbefore. If you ask more specific questions such as what kinds of

side effects you have in mind (if may vary from simply nausea, absence

of appetite to hepatic cirrhosis with ascites) and brief descriptions

of your patient's pattern, it will be easier for others to respond to

your acquiry, I personally love to tell you my battles and experiences.

I guess if you ask questions sincerly, you will have sincere responses.

It is really a big topic and tcm can help a lot in some stage.

 

Regards,

SUNG Yuk-ming,PhD