Granule conentration ratios

[Guest guest]

Could someone post a link (if available) to Bob' rebuttal to Andy's granular

essay?

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

 

<%40> , " bill_schoenbart "

<plantmed2 wrote:

>

> Jason,

>

> If you have seen these articles, could you provide links? Making a

> blanket statement that aqueous dried extracts are different from

> decoctions needs some evidence to back it up. Simply stating that you

> have " seen articles " or that " Andy says so " does not constitute

> evidence. This is an important issue that requires scientific

> evidence, since it is a science issue that is being discussed.

 

I strongly agree with Bill that scientific issues require

investigation and evidence. Jason, you often advocate challenging

ideas and assumptions and are generally keen to request that others

provide citations and supporting evidence to back up their viewpoint.

So it is a bit disappointing that you tell Bill to go dig up the

information himself after you say that you've seen multiple supporting

articles on the topic.

 

You are correct that Andy Ellis has written a nice essay on this

topic, and I would be among the first to point out that Andy is very

knowledgeable on the topic of granules. However, as much as I like

Andy and respect his expertise, one essay published in the product

literature of one commercial granule company is not sufficient

evidence for a mature scientific debate.

 

Andy's article can be found in the Notes from Cinnabar Creek published

by Golden Flower Chinese Herbs, it is a provocative read. Bob Flaws,

another noted expert in the field, has published an article from Blue

Poppy that challenges many of the points implied by Andy's article,

and is another essential article on this topic. The Evergreen catalog

(the product literature of yet another vested interest) displays a

HPLC chart that shows that their products are higher in certain

constituents than some of their competitors. Remarkably, the product

literature of every company tends to suggest that their own products

are the best.

 

The advancement of the discussion requires us to move beyond the level

of " Andy says, Bob says, John says. " Generally a mature academic

debate requires that evidence be presented to challenge the prevailing

scientific opinion. Currently, overwhelming evidence supports the

fact that full-spectrum water extracts as made by granule companies

are chemically similar to (gasp) conventional full-spectrum water

extracts. Sure, you can add different excipients and dilute this

extract to different degrees, but much of this dilution has to do with

business decisions such as delivery style rather than science.

Granules in Taiwan are colloquially known as " ke xue zhong yao, "

(scientific Chinese medicine)- specifically, the science of producing

granules is the effective replication of the traditional water

decoction. You test which constituents come out in ideal lab

conditions, replicate it on a commercial scale, and test to ensure

that the final product conforms.

 

True, different companies use different excipients and achieve

different concentration ratios. But we need to move beyond asking the

salesmen and start actually looking at the issue scientifically. For

this, we need concrete examples and data. It is easy to barrage

someone with questions and demand evidence, but it actually requires

time and effort to collect information that adds to the group's

understanding.

 

If everyone thinks the world is round and I say it is flat, typically

I would be the one that would need to produce evidence that shows that

the world is indeed flat, since the prevailing scientific evidence of

our time suggests that the world is round. At present, there is an

overwhelming amount of data to support the herbal science that guides

extraction and granulation. If you think that a large group of these

companies and scientists have it all wrong, it would be helpful if you

could supply perhaps even a single example or two that shows that some

of these granule technologies produce products that do not reflect the

constituents yielded by a traditional water decoction.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I believe that this is the Flaw's article that you looking for:

 

http://www.bluepoppy.com/cfwebstorefb/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.display & featu\

re_id=1429

 

 

Regards,

 

Michelle Soucy

 

 

On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:48 PM, wrote:

 

Could someone post a link (if available) to Bob' rebuttal to Andy's

granular

essay?

 

Thanks,

 

-Jason

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

<%40> , " bill_schoenbart "

<plantmed2 wrote:

>

> Jason,

>

> If you have seen these articles, could you provide links? Making a

> blanket statement that aqueous dried extracts are different from

> decoctions needs some evidence to back it up. Simply stating that you

> have " seen articles " or that " Andy says so " does not constitute

> evidence. This is an important issue that requires scientific

> evidence, since it is a science issue that is being discussed.

 

I strongly agree with Bill that scientific issues require

investigation and evidence. Jason, you often advocate challenging

ideas and assumptions and are generally keen to request that others

provide citations and supporting evidence to back up their viewpoint.

So it is a bit disappointing that you tell Bill to go dig up the

information himself after you say that you've seen multiple supporting

articles on the topic.

 

You are correct that Andy Ellis has written a nice essay on this

topic, and I would be among the first to point out that Andy is very

knowledgeable on the topic of granules. However, as much as I like

Andy and respect his expertise, one essay published in the product

literature of one commercial granule company is not sufficient

evidence for a mature scientific debate.

 

Andy's article can be found in the Notes from Cinnabar Creek published

by Golden Flower Chinese Herbs, it is a provocative read. Bob Flaws,

another noted expert in the field, has published an article from Blue

Poppy that challenges many of the points implied by Andy's article,

and is another essential article on this topic. The Evergreen catalog

(the product literature of yet another vested interest) displays a

HPLC chart that shows that their products are higher in certain

constituents than some of their competitors. Remarkably, the product

literature of every company tends to suggest that their own products

are the best.

 

The advancement of the discussion requires us to move beyond the level

of " Andy says, Bob says, John says. " Generally a mature academic

debate requires that evidence be presented to challenge the prevailing

scientific opinion. Currently, overwhelming evidence supports the

fact that full-spectrum water extracts as made by granule companies

are chemically similar to (gasp) conventional full-spectrum water

extracts. Sure, you can add different excipients and dilute this

extract to different degrees, but much of this dilution has to do with

business decisions such as delivery style rather than science.

Granules in Taiwan are colloquially known as " ke xue zhong yao, "

(scientific Chinese medicine)- specifically, the science of producing

granules is the effective replication of the traditional water

decoction. You test which constituents come out in ideal lab

conditions, replicate it on a commercial scale, and test to ensure

that the final product conforms.

 

True, different companies use different excipients and achieve

different concentration ratios. But we need to move beyond asking the

salesmen and start actually looking at the issue scientifically. For

this, we need concrete examples and data. It is easy to barrage

someone with questions and demand evidence, but it actually requires

time and effort to collect information that adds to the group's

understanding.

 

If everyone thinks the world is round and I say it is flat, typically

I would be the one that would need to produce evidence that shows that

the world is indeed flat, since the prevailing scientific evidence of

our time suggests that the world is round. At present, there is an

overwhelming amount of data to support the herbal science that guides

extraction and granulation. If you think that a large group of these

companies and scientists have it all wrong, it would be helpful if you

could supply perhaps even a single example or two that shows that some

of these granule technologies produce products that do not reflect the

constituents yielded by a traditional water decoction.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

Once again, you demand proof without providing any yourself. It seems

like you have a double standard when you post on this group. I do take

issue when you make broad sweeping statements as if they were

scientific facts. When presenting scientific facts, there should be

some science to back it up. When presenting an opinion, that's

different, as long as it's clear that it's just an opinion. When you

make broad " statements of fact " , you should expect people to insist on

evidence.

 

Your comment was that dried extracts are " vastly different " from

decoctions. That has serious implications to the practice of medicine.

It also hasn't been my personal experience.

 

There are a few ways for you to support your claim:

 

1. Organoleptic: Mix the extract in water and taste it. Compare the

taste to a decoction. Some extracts taste exactly like a decoction.

That would indicate equivalence on a purely organoleptic level. Others

seem weaker. Yes, that indicates a difference between brands of

extracts, which I have no argument with.

 

2. Chromatography: HPTLC will show a general qualitative image of the

constituents. It will show if the usual ones are present, and if

adulterants are present. On the other hand, HPLC will quantify the

constituents of interest. Although it is always the whole herb and not

the individual compounds that we are concerned with, if important

compounds are missing, that is an indication of a quality problem.

 

3. Clinical results: If you routinely get poor results with extracts

and good results with decoctions, that could indicate a " vast

difference " . In my experience, dried extracts work most of the time.

In some cases, only decoctions will work. It seems to be more a case

of strength rather than a vast difference between the dosage forms.

 

- Bill

 

 

>

> But I do await Bill's proof to counter my statement, since it was he who

> actually made the initial statement. J

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

[Guest guest]

Bill, Eric and group,

 

 

 

I just reviewed Bob's article on extract ratio. Mostly Bob is just defending

his company from Andy's points of contention. Bob for example, points out

that his company uses formulas thereby bypassing many of the issues that

apply to singles etc etc.

 

 

 

However, Bob actually supports my stance that I previously brought up, being

that there are variables that can alter the profiles. For example he says,

" It [Andy's article] correctly explains how this may actually result in a

less potent decoction because of the interactions between the medicinal

materials and the " crowded conditions, " [5]

<http://www.bluepoppy.com/cfwebstorefb/#_edn5> If the manufacturer tries to

mitigate these crowded conditions by simply adding more water, then it takes

longer to cook this liquid down to the right consistency and some of the

important medicinal constituents may be destroyed by this additional heat. "

Bob though, makes a point to demonstrate that his company does not fall into

such traps, which I am happy hear. This though does not say that other more

lackadaisical companies do not practice such methods. One only need to taste

a few companies to figure out that there is a lot of variety out there.

 

 

 

So it seems both Bob and Andy do agree on the issue I brought up. More

precisely, that there are factors that can alter profiles of constituents in

end product granulars. But this aspect of my point has been presented and

people can do what they want with it.

 

 

 

However, more important is the basic question, " are granulars the same as

bulk herbs? " Eric below states that there is overwhelming evidence that the

two are 'chemically similar'. I am not sure what " similar " really means and

what evidence this is drawn upon. But I could see how one might say they are

" similar. " Of course aligning themselves with the gold standard (bulk herbs)

makes for better sales, hence why many granular companies show side by side

chromatography pictures. (as stated is a previous message) this is

problematic in and of itself.

 

 

 

So with complicated discussions, lack of helpful clinical research /

research presented by granular companies, issues with chromatography, as

well as all the issues I brought up in the previous message , what do we

have to go on? Or does it even matter? We DO know that granulars are

effective, so is that all we need? To a certain extent yes. But I still

think understanding the differences between granular companies as well as

the differences between bulk and granulars is well worth the energy,

especially in achieving better results. Even though it may take some years

for any real conclusions. But wait, people are still saying that they are

just the same, there really is no difference. Well I firmly disagree.

 

 

 

In the past I have asked many Chinese doctors their opinion, and they have

all said the same thing, " They are different. " Actually many prefer straight

ground herbs to granulars. I do not believe that these doctors don't like

them just because they are " new. " Because I know many of them who embrace

anything that works, have tried granualrs and just don't like them. So there

are differing opinions out there. There is no universal consensus or earth

is round opinion.

 

 

 

Today I asked my colleague Charles Chace, who is one of the West's most

experienced and busy herbal practitioners, his thoughts. Chip and I have an

herbal pharmacy that has a large selection of bulk herbs, granular singles,

and granular formulas. I mentioned to him this CHA thread and the idea that

" some people thought that bulk and granular were pretty much the same, what

do you think? " His look is something that I cannot portray though the email,

but his words were something along the lines, that is probably the most

incorrect thing one could say. They are so completely different clinically.

He further stated that sometimes they may work better than bulk and

sometimes worse, but the same? We also did side by side taste tests with

herbs from bulk and various granular company and the tastes we so

drastically different that we wondered how anyone could actually think this

was true.

 

 

 

Because of our pharmacy situation we routinely will switch people back and

forth between granulars and bulk. I have had so many drastically different

results between the two (exact same formula) that no chromatography test or

argument out there will ever convince me otherwise. Clinical reality is hard

to trump. Patients responses are hard to argue with.

 

 

 

Just to reiterate, we both still use granulars, especially when convenience

is a necessity. We both agree that they are effective. But the differences

are also apparent and it is at this point almost impossible to say what

these are.

 

 

 

Everyone has a point of view. Many are based on pushing a stance that

benefits their company. I for one have no attachment either way, and see no

bias except giving the best patient care possible. I really hope granulars

make some technological progress, but right now they are not where I need

them. As far as Bob's stance and company. I feel Blue Poppy DOES bypass many

of the issues that are inherent to granulars especially in regard to

singles. If I did not write custom formulas I would highly consider using

his line. He does not seem to be someone that cuts corners. He also does a

multitude of testing on his products.

 

 

 

On a quick observation. I have been noticing that many of Spring Wind herbs

that are coming through are of a highly exceptional quality. Many are

certified organic and pesticide free! Good Work Spring Wind!!!

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

 

 

 

 

 

Andy's article can be found in the Notes from Cinnabar Creek published

by Golden Flower Chinese Herbs, it is a provocative read. Bob Flaws,

another noted expert in the field, has published an article from Blue

Poppy that challenges many of the points implied by Andy's article,

and is another essential article on this topic. The Evergreen catalog

(the product literature of yet another vested interest) displays a

HPLC chart that shows that their products are higher in certain

constituents than some of their competitors. Remarkably, the product

literature of every company tends to suggest that their own products

are the best.

 

The advancement of the discussion requires us to move beyond the level

of " Andy says, Bob says, John says. " Generally a mature academic

debate requires that evidence be presented to challenge the prevailing

scientific opinion. Currently, overwhelming evidence supports the

fact that full-spectrum water extracts as made by granule companies

are chemically similar to (gasp) conventional full-spectrum water

extracts. Sure, you can add different excipients and dilute this

extract to different degrees, but much of this dilution has to do with

business decisions such as delivery style rather than science.

Granules in Taiwan are colloquially known as " ke xue zhong yao, "

(scientific Chinese medicine)- specifically, the science of producing

granules is the effective replication of the traditional water

decoction. You test which constituents come out in ideal lab

conditions, replicate it on a commercial scale, and test to ensure

that the final product conforms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

 

 

I am not trying to present any " scientific facts " , actually in my opinion,

there are very few out there. I have also never claimed to have a " statement

of fact. " What I present is a synthesis of my experience and education, that

is it. If I stated a " fact " and did not back it up, please point it

specifically and I will try to correct things.

 

 

 

What I have done is, stated exactly where my opinions came from, articles

and clinical and observations and experience. I have directed you to a place

that probably has the actually scientific research you look for, as well as

posted a article from the J. Chem Inf. Model that talks about some of the

issues we are discussing. Although you might not like what I have presented,

let us not forget you have not supplied anything, and seem to be

side-stepping the issue, putting the burden of proof on me. Let us not

forget you made the original statement that these two (granulars and bulk)

are equal and consequently, I feel the burden of proof is on you. Or is your

statement just an opinion?

 

 

 

However, you yourself say there is a difference between companies. We have

found this to be an understatement. Some granulars are not just weaker, but

taste and action seem " drastically different. " If this is true, how can some

of these not be " drastically different " to bulk herbs??? How can some of

these have altered profiles from some of the factors that the article I

mentioned in my previous message? This in and of itself proves to us that

some granulars are very different from bulk herbs (if not all of them).

Again this is common sense.

 

 

 

So somehow your and my experience leads us to different conclusions, and

that is fine, but I feel I have supplied (in previous messages) info for

your #1 and #3 requirements below, as well as discussed some of the reasons

why #2 is not that valid for comparing bulk to granulars. Take it for what

it's worth.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:03 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

Jason,

 

Once again, you demand proof without providing any yourself. It seems

like you have a double standard when you post on this group. I do take

issue when you make broad sweeping statements as if they were

scientific facts. When presenting scientific facts, there should be

some science to back it up. When presenting an opinion, that's

different, as long as it's clear that it's just an opinion. When you

make broad " statements of fact " , you should expect people to insist on

evidence.

 

Your comment was that dried extracts are " vastly different " from

decoctions. That has serious implications to the practice of medicine.

It also hasn't been my personal experience.

 

There are a few ways for you to support your claim:

 

1. Organoleptic: Mix the extract in water and taste it. Compare the

taste to a decoction. Some extracts taste exactly like a decoction.

That would indicate equivalence on a purely organoleptic level. Others

seem weaker. Yes, that indicates a difference between brands of

extracts, which I have no argument with.

 

2. Chromatography: HPTLC will show a general qualitative image of the

constituents. It will show if the usual ones are present, and if

adulterants are present. On the other hand, HPLC will quantify the

constituents of interest. Although it is always the whole herb and not

the individual compounds that we are concerned with, if important

compounds are missing, that is an indication of a quality problem.

 

3. Clinical results: If you routinely get poor results with extracts

and good results with decoctions, that could indicate a " vast

difference " . In my experience, dried extracts work most of the time.

In some cases, only decoctions will work. It seems to be more a case

of strength rather than a vast difference between the dosage forms.

 

- Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

But wait, people are still saying that they are

> just the same, there really is no difference. Well I firmly disagree.

 

I've been following this granule discussion with interest, and so far

I certainly haven't seen anyone put forth the conclusion that granules

and raw herbs are the same. Is someone here saying " there really is

no difference " between raw herbs and granules? I must be missing

something...

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

 

 

You are quoting a bit incorrectly which does change the meaning and

implications of things a bit. Just to be clear I did say " CAN BE vastly

different " as in " For me, it is just common sense and knowledge that the two

(aqueous dried extracts & decoctions) can be vastly different. "

 

 

 

This means that the granular process, if done incorrectly, can create a

vastly different end product as compared to a bulk decoction. This does not

mean that every granular out there is. Do you disagree with this?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

 

 

 

Your comment was that dried extracts are " vastly different " from

decoctions. That has serious implications to the practice of medicine.

It also hasn't been my personal experience.

 

 

 

__

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

 

 

You may be right! However I got the impression that when Bill challenged the

statement that " aqueous dried extracts are different from

 

Decoctions " and said that such a statement " needs some evidence to back it

up. " This to me, implies that the inverse meaning, aqueous dried extracts

are not different from decoctions, is true.

 

 

 

Bill are we debating nothing, or do we actually have a point of contention

here?

 

 

 

Isn't this fun J

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:07 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

 

<%40> , " "

wrote:

But wait, people are still saying that they are

> just the same, there really is no difference. Well I firmly disagree.

 

I've been following this granule discussion with interest, and so far

I certainly haven't seen anyone put forth the conclusion that granules

and raw herbs are the same. Is someone here saying " there really is

no difference " between raw herbs and granules? I must be missing

something...

 

Eric

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

You misinterpreted my question. I was simply wanting to see what

evidence you were basing your broad statement on. Was it just a

personal opinion, or do you have some science to back it up? I'm not

interested in who is " right " and who is " wrong " . I'm simply interested

in constantly expanding my understanding of herbs. I have been

studying them for 40 years, and they still never fail to amaze me.

 

And yes, we're having fun ... most of the time.

 

- Bill

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Eric,

>

>

>

> You may be right! However I got the impression that when Bill

challenged the

> statement that " aqueous dried extracts are different from

>

> Decoctions " and said that such a statement " needs some evidence to

back it

> up. " This to me, implies that the inverse meaning, aqueous dried

extracts

> are not different from decoctions, is true.

>

>

>

> Bill are we debating nothing, or do we actually have a point of

contention

> here?

>

>

>

> Isn't this fun J

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:07 PM

>

> Re: Granule conentration ratios

>

>

>

>

> <%40> , " "

> <@> wrote:

> But wait, people are still saying that they are

> > just the same, there really is no difference. Well I firmly disagree.

>

> I've been following this granule discussion with interest, and so far

> I certainly haven't seen anyone put forth the conclusion that granules

> and raw herbs are the same. Is someone here saying " there really is

> no difference " between raw herbs and granules? I must be missing

> something...

>

> Eric

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

 

 

So I hope I have adequately answered your inquiry? And should we assume that

you agree with my statement then?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:03 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

Jason,

 

You misinterpreted my question. I was simply wanting to see what

evidence you were basing your broad statement on. Was it just a

personal opinion, or do you have some science to back it up? I'm not

interested in who is " right " and who is " wrong " . I'm simply interested

in constantly expanding my understanding of herbs. I have been

studying them for 40 years, and they still never fail to amaze me.

 

And yes, we're having fun ... most of the time.

 

- Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

No, you haven't answered my questions.

No, I don't agree with your statement.

Yes, I'm tired of this exchange. It's a waste of time.

 

- Bill

 

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bill,

>

>

>

> So I hope I have adequately answered your inquiry? And should we

assume that

> you agree with my statement then?

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

> On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

> Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:03 PM

>

> Re: Granule conentration ratios

>

>

>

> Jason,

>

> You misinterpreted my question. I was simply wanting to see what

> evidence you were basing your broad statement on. Was it just a

> personal opinion, or do you have some science to back it up? I'm not

> interested in who is " right " and who is " wrong " . I'm simply interested

> in constantly expanding my understanding of herbs. I have been

> studying them for 40 years, and they still never fail to amaze me.

>

> And yes, we're having fun ... most of the time.

>

> - Bill

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

 

 

I personally do not find this topic a waste of time. I do see that people

take it very personal.

 

 

 

I find your " you haven't answered my questions " a bit cryptic. Although

maybe not up to your specs, I have answered everything that has been asked

and supplied the evidence for my claims. They span not only clinical

observation (of mine and multiple doctors with more experience than me),

taste tastes (by me and others), citations of experts (Andy, Bob, and two

journal articles), as well as a synthesis of other reading that I have done

over the years. You presented criterior to answer your question and this was

previously presented. But from your response I assume you will not be

supplying us with any justification for your stance. Silence IMO does not

refute anything.

 

 

 

So I am fine if we agree to disagree, but let us be clear about it. So we

end on a lucid note, are you saying that granulars and bulk herbs are

essentially the same, not only in chemical makeup but also from clinical

perspective. This is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. Below you say

you don't agree with my stance, so not to put words in your mouth you can

answer any way you like.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:31 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

Jason,

 

No, you haven't answered my questions.

No, I don't agree with your statement.

Yes, I'm tired of this exchange. It's a waste of time.

 

- Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> So I am fine if we agree to disagree, but let us be clear about

it. So we

> end on a lucid note, are you saying that granulars and bulk herbs

are

> essentially the same, not only in chemical makeup but also from

clinical

> perspective.

 

I don't think Bill ever suggested anything to this effect, maybe you

should read his posts again. Bill has added a number of meaningful

points to this discussion, please don't oversimplify and misrepresent

his statements.

 

Again, the thing that makes CHA a good discussion group is the mature

and inviting nature of our dialog. There are many experienced and

knowledgeable practitioners on this list, and we all stand to learn a

lot from each other through these discussions. All contributors

should feel respected and encouraged to participate; it doesn't

matter if the participant is a second semester student with a simple

question or a practitioner with 40 years of experience who is posting

valuable material. No one deserves to have their perspective

simplified, misrepresented, and trivialized.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

I dont think we will ever have clear comparison between graduals and

bulk that reflects a broad reality. First, bulk tends to be cooked

differently every time. Most people do not cook their bulk using

controlled methodology. Second, when cooking bulk the volatile oils

are often not recaptured to the same degree which can create a

somewhat different products. As far as taste tests, if a company uses

a carrier it changes the taste even if the actual active decoction

sprayed is the same. The attitude of the prescriber would make a

different in clinical results so if you believe bulk is stronger it

would more likely be in your patients. Only high quality clinical

studies could resolve many of our questions but will never be done

unfortunately.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

 

 

I in no way am trying to over simply or misrepresent anyone's statements.

That is precisely why I am asking for clarity in what is actually being

said. From this we can have a mature and involved discussion. It would be

nice though if you let Bill answer for himself.

 

 

 

What happens over and over is people confuse what one is saying without

properly clarifying. I was just misquoted by Bill a few messages ago that

misrepresented and " oversimplified " my stance. Without clarity on what

people are actually saying it is hard to continue a worthwhile discussion.

 

 

 

I am happy to clarify anything I have said. I go out of my way to try to

make a clear presentation (although not always successful) on what I believe

at this point in time. This gives a nice starting point to agree or

disagree. I may change in 2 days, but that is life, and the reason we engage

in such conversations. I only ask that other spend the time to " try " to

articulate their stance and disagreements, otherwise, yes the conversation

is useless.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:35 PM

 

Re: Granule conentration ratios

 

 

 

 

<%40> , " "

wrote:

> So I am fine if we agree to disagree, but let us be clear about

it. So we

> end on a lucid note, are you saying that granulars and bulk herbs

are

> essentially the same, not only in chemical makeup but also from

clinical

> perspective.

 

I don't think Bill ever suggested anything to this effect, maybe you

should read his posts again. Bill has added a number of meaningful

points to this discussion, please don't oversimplify and misrepresent

his statements.

 

Again, the thing that makes CHA a good discussion group is the mature

and inviting nature of our dialog. There are many experienced and

knowledgeable practitioners on this list, and we all stand to learn a

lot from each other through these discussions. All contributors

should feel respected and encouraged to participate; it doesn't

matter if the participant is a second semester student with a simple

question or a practitioner with 40 years of experience who is posting

valuable material. No one deserves to have their perspective

simplified, misrepresented, and trivialized.

 

Eric

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Let us not forget the most mysterious variable of all which is the

uniqueness of each patient.

 

While it is wonderful to think that we as practitioners can precisely

delineate the patterns of complex problems, and deliver THE correct

solutions, this is usually a goal rather than a reality.

 

While it is laudable to attempt precision in such matters as how to

select & grade raw herbs and how to decoct them properly or detailing

the precise ratio of granules and proper dosage etc., etc. the reality

is that each attempt is and will be always limited by the exquisite

complexity of the therapeutic situation.

 

We should strive for greater knowledge and precision while enjoying

the impossibility of ever settling these matters once and for all.

 

 

 

--

Duncan E

 

 

" We are here to help each other get though this thing, whatever it is. "

-Mark Vonnegut