Allergic conditions and LArge scale studies

[Guest guest]

Jason

First i agree this is an important topic to talk about. Obviously any

statement such as i know several patients or practitioners that seen X-

Y-Z and thus conclude this or that is quite meaningless. My examples

were designed to be just that, completely meaningless. Its a very

different thing to say we treat the unwanted affects of a formula by

changing it and then look for some immediate change, from stating that

adding such herbs results in actual verifiable tissue changes (in a

population with a preexisting condition) saying it would not occur to

the same extant in this general population and in those that are

treated " correctly. " If you draw conclusions arising from self

reinforced belief (from a theory which you probably already belief is

true) by seeing a few examples of such complication, you still have no

ideas it this cause and affect is real. I am sorry but science has

taught us some things and this is one of them. I think we are just

having to much eminence based medicine here. As far as oranges etc, i

was talking about the tendon connection (examples which are obviously

meaningless). However, i think if is this was true we should see more

tendon problems in those that eat a lot of vinegar based pickled

vegetables than the general population, may be its there but i have

not seen any convincing evidence. You choose to see many of the

classic statements as being literally true, i am not willing to do so

as for example one can live a nice life without a spleen or a kidney.

If i am to take all the statements about the function of these organ

systems literally then i would have to suspend all common sense. I

have no problem looking at all the clinical information that arises

from classical theory, applying them clinically and finding out what

is and to what extant they are useful. But to take the systems of

correspondence as for example the sour flavor and tendons as literal

require much more proof then we currently have. The same people that

lived these theories at the time even lost wars because they changed

the color of their solders cloths to over come the 5 phase colors of

their enemies.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

I do agree with you, one should not draw conclusion based on just a few

examples, which is not what I am suggesting. It is, as you point out, much

more complicated that just that. Although I do think that is an appropriate

place to start.

 

 

 

I also agree that 5 elements correspondences can be taken too literally.

Some are clinically useful and some are not. I personally am not sure about

tendons and sour flavor. Others? My neijing quote was more about the general

observation that excessive sour (or any flavor) has been noted in ancient

and modern times to cause diseases. I do generally agree with this, but I am

sure there are much details to still work out.

 

 

 

However living without a spleen or Kidney is does not discount anything that

classical Chinese medicine says. This misses the point of how CM understands

organ physiology. I am curious what you believe are all these statements

about organ function that defy common sense?

 

 

 

Finally you make the statement that you have no problem " looking at all the

clinical information that arises from classical theory, applying them

clinically and finding out what is and to what extant they are useful. " -->

Yet when I, Chip, or experts of China do this and say they have found out

something that clinically is relevant and fits with classical theory you

comeback with 'how could you know anything without a large study.' It seems

your response it merely because you disagree with the findings. However, if

you allow yourself to apply classic ideas and see what works (and doesn't),

how can you deny others the same liberty.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:31 PM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and LArge scale studies

 

 

 

Jason

First i agree this is an important topic to talk about. Obviously any

statement such as i know several patients or practitioners that seen X-

Y-Z and thus conclude this or that is quite meaningless. My examples

were designed to be just that, completely meaningless. Its a very

different thing to say we treat the unwanted affects of a formula by

changing it and then look for some immediate change, from stating that

adding such herbs results in actual verifiable tissue changes (in a

population with a preexisting condition) saying it would not occur to

the same extant in this general population and in those that are

treated " correctly. " If you draw conclusions arising from self

reinforced belief (from a theory which you probably already belief is

true) by seeing a few examples of such complication, you still have no

ideas it this cause and affect is real. I am sorry but science has

taught us some things and this is one of them. I think we are just

having to much eminence based medicine here. As far as oranges etc, i

was talking about the tendon connection (examples which are obviously

meaningless). However, i think if is this was true we should see more

tendon problems in those that eat a lot of vinegar based pickled

vegetables than the general population, may be its there but i have

not seen any convincing evidence. You choose to see many of the

classic statements as being literally true, i am not willing to do so

as for example one can live a nice life without a spleen or a kidney.

If i am to take all the statements about the function of these organ

systems literally then i would have to suspend all common sense. I

have no problem looking at all the clinical information that arises

from classical theory, applying them clinically and finding out what

is and to what extant they are useful. But to take the systems of

correspondence as for example the sour flavor and tendons as literal

require much more proof then we currently have. The same people that

lived these theories at the time even lost wars because they changed

the color of their solders cloths to over come the 5 phase colors of

their enemies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, alon marcus

<alonmarcus wrote:

As far as oranges etc, i

> was talking about the tendon connection (examples which are obviously

> meaningless). However, i think if is this was true we should see more

> tendon problems in those that eat a lot of vinegar based pickled

> vegetables than the general population, may be its there but i have

> not seen any convincing evidence.

 

Incidentally, equating the tissue governed by the liver with the

tendons described in Western medicine is an egregious

mis-transmission/mistranslation of the Chinese concept. Tendons in WM

attach muscle tissue to bones, whereas the concept of " jin " (the

tissue governed by the liver in TCM) refers to a much broader category

of tissue. Chinese medical dictionaries describe jin as overlapping

with tendons, ligaments, and connective tissue. Basically every

Chinese doctor and tui na teacher that I've ever met refers to

pluckable, rope-like, stringy tissues such as the upper traps and the

SCM muscle as " jin. " While the center of the SCM muscle is definitely

a muscle belly and not a tendon in biomedicine, it is definitely a jin

(liver tissue type vs spleen tissue type) in Chinese medicine.

 

It seems like designing large scale studies is premature at a time

when many practitioners lack a clear understanding of basic TCM

concepts like tissue types. Again, it comes back to first, authentic

and reliable transmission of Chinese medical knowledge, diligent study

of Chinese medicine on its own terms, and only then reliable research

and integration.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

hear hear!!!

 

Donn

 

 

On Jun 8, 2008, at 8:41 PM, Eric Brand wrote:

>

>

> It seems like designing large scale studies is premature at a time

> when many practitioners lack a clear understanding of basic TCM

> concepts like tissue types. Again, it comes back to first, authentic

> and reliable transmission of Chinese medical knowledge, diligent study

> of Chinese medicine on its own terms, and only then reliable research

> and integration.

>

> Eric

>

>

> __._,_.__

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric brings up a good point. I agree that ¡Ètendon¡É /

¡Èsinew¡É jin (¶Ú)

has a larger view in CM than just the basic WM tendon. However, I think (at

least to me) jin (¶Ú) is difficult to fully pin down.

 

 

 

For example, one of my nei jing teachers and my nei jing dictionary has a

more limited view of jin (¶Ú), ¡Ètendon or ligament¡É. However

after just

looking at the WHO term list, they surprising present a very broad

definition for sinew injury (½ý¶Ú),

 

¡Èinjury of the subcutaneous tissue, including muscle, sinew, tendon

sheath,

ligament, joint capsule, synovial

 

bursa, intervertebral disc, peripheral nerve, and blood vessel.¡É

 

 

 

We should remember though, that the translation of the word into

¡Èsinew¡É

or ¡Ètendon¡É is just a word that we use to correspond to the

Chinese

character. As with many English terms we cannot take the term at face value

and must use our teachers and books (i.e. dictionaries) to understand the

full meaning of the term. As happens many times, we must look beyond our

perceived understanding of the word in English. To further complicate the

issue, context of the original usage many times places an important role in

its definition; I am not sure about the full extent of usages of jin (¶Ú)

throughout history, maybe Eric or someone could help us out. Consequently,

to further complicate things I have heard different Chinese teachers

describe the meaning of this term a bit differently.

 

 

 

So I agree with Eric¡Çs point, which I think is much broader than this jin

(¶Ú) example. How can we make such judgments about classic texts or design

large studies if we are not even clear what they are saying?

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Sunday, June 08, 2008 8:42 PM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and LArge scale studies

 

 

 

@ <%40>

, alon marcus

<alonmarcus wrote:

As far as oranges etc, i

> was talking about the tendon connection (examples which are obviously

> meaningless). However, i think if is this was true we should see more

> tendon problems in those that eat a lot of vinegar based pickled

> vegetables than the general population, may be its there but i have

> not seen any convincing evidence.

 

Incidentally, equating the tissue governed by the liver with the

tendons described in Western medicine is an egregious

mis-transmission/mistranslation of the Chinese concept. Tendons in WM

attach muscle tissue to bones, whereas the concept of " jin " (the

tissue governed by the liver in TCM) refers to a much broader category

of tissue. Chinese medical dictionaries describe jin as overlapping

with tendons, ligaments, and connective tissue. Basically every

Chinese doctor and tui na teacher that I've ever met refers to

pluckable, rope-like, stringy tissues such as the upper traps and the

SCM muscle as " jin. " While the center of the SCM muscle is definitely

a muscle belly and not a tendon in biomedicine, it is definitely a jin

(liver tissue type vs spleen tissue type) in Chinese medicine.

 

It seems like designing large scale studies is premature at a time

when many practitioners lack a clear understanding of basic TCM

concepts like tissue types. Again, it comes back to first, authentic

and reliable transmission of Chinese medical knowledge, diligent study

of Chinese medicine on its own terms, and only then reliable research

and integration.

 

Eric

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

I just disagree with what methodology is needed to get trusted information. I am

sorry but i cant believe that Chip, (and i think he is probably one of the most

educated practitioner in the west) has done even the minimal of investigation

needed to truly document such assertions. These are quite strong statements that

need high level documentation.

From the first day of school i looked at all CM information as metaphoric yet

necessary to know in order to practice. I do not think that we can just dismiss

the fact that people can live just fine without a spleen or any of the other

organs. Why then did the Chinese name these functions i this way? You want to

tell me that they did not believe in these functions to be related to these

organs or that you would die without a spleen? What this means to me is that we

must examine it all, nothing to be taken for granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric

Do you really believe we do not know that? Just read my book. At the same time

do you want to tell me that tendons are NOT part of Jin?

Or are you saying we can know without good quality evaluations? What are you

saying

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus wrote:

>

> Eric

> Do you really believe we do not know that? Just read my book. At

the same time do you want to tell me that tendons are NOT part of Jin?

 

I know that you personally know about the wider implications of jin

beyond the tendons, but I was mostly referring to students and new

practitioners. In my experience, a lot of the PCOM students are ahead

of the curve compared to many other schools, but even still I see that

many students lack a clear understanding about things like jin. The

students read texts with a wide variety of translations, some more

accurate than others, and they hear words like tendons, sinews,

muscle, and flesh from different teachers without adequate

clarification. Students often have an incomplete understanding of

these important issues, while most people who have more experience

often understand such things better.

 

Nonetheless, it is not uncommon to see practitioners who have been

practicing for decades without ever critically evaluating ideas like

the liver and tendons. I suspect the cause is that many experienced

practitioners learned from teachers who had difficulty expressing

themselves with perfect English, and many celebrity authors continue

to use simplified words like tendons in English books. People

understand tendons so they don't look deeper into the Chinese concept.

They teach their students that the liver governs the tendons, and the

next thing you know, the students don't know that the tendons of TCM

are totally different than the tendons of Western medicine.

 

Alon, obviously the tendons are part of the jin. But they are only a

part, that's the whole point.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Eric wrote:

" Again, it comes back to first, authentic

and reliable transmission of Chinese medical knowledge, diligent study

of Chinese medicine on its own terms, and only then reliable research

and integration. "

 

Now there is the rub... we (and many have over the millenia) debated

what is authentic and reliable transmission " . It is becoming clearer

what the consensus is on what Isn't Is.

 

Compared to when I started studying this 20 years ago the amount of

literature has grown exponentially. Basically, if it isn't in English

then English practitioners aren't going to know it. My hats off to the

Bob Damone's, Eric Brands, Jasons Robertson and et al. for

providing this info. It seems we have reached a critical mass (100

monkeys?) that gets this info out there.

 

 

Doug

 

 

 

, " Eric Brand "

<smilinglotus wrote:

>

> , " Alon Marcus "

> <alonmarcus@> wrote:

> >

> > Eric

> > Do you really believe we do not know that? Just read my book. At

> the same time do you want to tell me that tendons are NOT part of Jin?

>

> I know that you personally know about the wider implications of jin

> beyond the tendons, but I was mostly referring to students and new

> practitioners. In my experience, a lot of the PCOM students are ahead

> of the curve compared to many other schools, but even still I see that

> many students lack a clear understanding about things like jin. The

> students read texts with a wide variety of translations, some more

> accurate than others, and they hear words like tendons, sinews,

> muscle, and flesh from different teachers without adequate

> clarification. Students often have an incomplete understanding of

> these important issues, while most people who have more experience

> often understand such things better.

>

> Nonetheless, it is not uncommon to see practitioners who have been

> practicing for decades without ever critically evaluating ideas like

> the liver and tendons. I suspect the cause is that many experienced

> practitioners learned from teachers who had difficulty expressing

> themselves with perfect English, and many celebrity authors continue

> to use simplified words like tendons in English books. People

> understand tendons so they don't look deeper into the Chinese concept.

> They teach their students that the liver governs the tendons, and the

> next thing you know, the students don't know that the tendons of TCM

> are totally different than the tendons of Western medicine.

>

> Alon, obviously the tendons are part of the jin. But they are only a

> part, that's the whole point.

>

> Eric

>

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

Wow. I find your response a bit peculiar. Here we have an expert in our

field (chip), that has spent years translating (from experts in China) ,

writing, lecturing, and clinically applying the material that we are

discussing. He has observed that this information is clinically accurate in

his practice after observing years of people with these conditions. To boot,

these observations and translated material is completely in line with

classical and modern theory. Yet for some reason you won't believe that it

could be true.

 

 

 

I think Doug's question is appropriate, where do we draw the line. There are

so little studies at all that confirm CM theory. Actually we could not even

fill a page with research that we didn't find some error in. Clearly the

research track is not where we get our day to day clinically insight.

Actually I have fairly good success with most people, yet none of my

material comes from any sort of large scale study, yet somehow it works.

 

 

 

Finally if we can not believe Chip or experts from China, then why should we

believe you? You wrote two (or more?) books. Have you verified any of the CM

in these texts with large scale studies? You spout all sorts of theory

(classical and modern) explaining your treatments, diseases etc. Where is

all your data from? I just find it odd that you are so skeptical of our data

yet you are willing to write books that are filled with it?

 

 

 

So clearly you don't like the methods I have presented to take in and

evaluate data. Therefore maybe you could present your model for evaluating

data for your clinical practice (and your books). Like I have previously

said, if we can't rely on Chinese research, nor experts who specialize in a

subject, nor our own clinical experience, then what is left? Please let us

know.

 

 

 

BTW - I think that there is much evidence that the Spleen function is

attributed to mostly other organs (i.e. pancreas, S.I. etc.) - Bensky wrote

a nice paper awhile back that the Spleen is a mistranslation of what should

have been the pancreas. Either way, the Spleen has always been (in CM) a

network of relationships, and the actually organ is not the whole reality

(CM 101). There are channels, network vessels, and all sorts of other

relationships to the actual organ. Can you find me a place in CM that says

if you are missing a Spleen that you die? Can you find a place that says if

are missing one kidney that you die? I cannot really understand you point.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Alon Marcus

Monday, June 09, 2008 12:09 PM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and LArge scale studies

 

 

 

Jason

I just disagree with what methodology is needed to get trusted information.

I am sorry but i cant believe that Chip, (and i think he is probably one of

the most educated practitioner in the west) has done even the minimal of

investigation needed to truly document such assertions. These are quite

strong statements that need high level documentation.

From the first day of school i looked at all CM information as metaphoric

yet necessary to know in order to practice. I do not think that we can just

dismiss the fact that people can live just fine without a spleen or any of

the other organs. Why then did the Chinese name these functions i this way?

You want to tell me that they did not believe in these functions to be

related to these organs or that you would die without a spleen? What this

means to me is that we must examine it all, nothing to be taken for granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Group,

 

 

 

I do want to make a quick comment about Alon's books. I think they are

excellent and use them regularly (actually used them today in the clinic). I

highly recommend them. My comments are not a slam on the quality of texts.

They are merely used to discuss the point at hand. I actually have no

problem with his presentation or data. I actually think Alon would have more

of a problem with his own books' material than I do.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of

 

 

Finally if we can not believe Chip or experts from China, then why should we

believe you? You wrote two (or more?) books. Have you verified any of the CM

in these texts with large scale studies? You spout all sorts of theory

(classical and modern) explaining your treatments, diseases etc. Where is

all your data from? I just find it odd that you are so skeptical of our data

yet you are willing to write books that are filled with it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

Has you know my text is full of thought to be or thought to do etc. I am not

talking about getting clinical guidelines, there none i would take more

seriously than Chip if i needed guidelines, however, my point is that chip or

anyone else in privet practice does not have what it takes to come to such

conclusions. You cannot short cut the process i outlined before. I am not

saying we should not follow CM ideas, but that was a strong statement. While

on the topic how about the new " approach " of using gan cao, ling zhi and ku

shen for asthma, allergies and adrenal stress.

 

Alon