Guest guest Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 I have to agree with Vanessa that something is drastically wrong with his most recent writings. Here we are not talking about CM history versus real CM clinical practice. Richard > > Felix Man wrote is lastest book descrediting acupuncture as imagination > etc..., I myself think this is hiprocrite and or he was insane all this years of > his support to CM in his writtings of the man just got craizy and wants to > sell some books. > > Vanessa > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 All, > ANSWER: In my treatment rooms, and in the treatment facilities of > thousands of reasonably trained acupuncturists/CM practitioners, whose > practices have grown treating Western patients with plenty of access to > Western medicine who have found CM to work better for SOME of their real > world problems. This is good rhetoric but it is not salient response. I explicitly addressed the role of WM and CM at the societal level. That anyone achieves results in their clinic, or that CM achieves results at scale, was never questioned. The question is whether the description of Dr. Unschuld's assertion that the Chinese do not hold CM as more effective than WM as " fly by night " makes a useful contribution to the decisions our field must make. > I have read many of Unschuld's statements in which he credits the rise of > CM in the West to romanticized versions of history and existential fears > of environmental or energy concerns, but I have never heard him say that > in certain cases some CM techniques work better than WM techniques. Has > Unschuld ever acknowledged this? I hope I am wrong. Read the last line of > his talk on Nature Vs. Chemistry and Technology: He is intellectual historian not a clinical researcher. On what grounds would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME or any condition? What good would such a claim do? What do you hope to accomplish by your implicit demand for one? Do you contend that what he has to say about the intellectual history of CM or its reception in the West can be ignored because Dr. Unschuld has not personally endorsed the clinical results of CM? Shall we discredit the work of everyone who does not swear CM is efficable? What is the purpose of this thread except to discredit Unschuld without actually addressing what he has to say? > I made to suggestion to Dr. Unschuld and to Bob Felt, that Unschuld > publish an interview in Acupuncture Today in which he could explain his > views. He did this in a German publication and is interested in doing this > here. I may be way off and reading him wrong and would like him to explain > himself as I certainly have questions. This would not be an attack, but an > opportunity to respond in his own words to those who have criticized him. > Bob, you told me you were too busy before - got time for this now? This too is an essentially rhetorical posture. The editors of " Acupuncture Today " know how to interview anyone who wants to be interviewed, they do not need to await my leisure. Furthermore, Dr. Unschuld has produced a very large body of published rationale, research and evidence. It is there for those who wish to read it and it is fairly priced. An interview is not a replacement for the work he has produced. He has put more evidence for his conclusions in full public view in his latest " Nei Jing " text alone than has any writer offering us an image of CM as a expression of moral or universal truth. He has recently given a lengthy seminar and I am hoping that Ken Rose will soon jump in with news from that event. I do not write to change the minds of those who believe that CM is morally or technically superior to biomedicine, nor to alter the beliefs of those whose notions of CM are rooted in their religious faith. I write for those who are not committed to these positions and to make it clear that challenging these views is not the same as challenging the value of CM, or being " disloyal. " We are a field, not a fraternity with an oath and a secret handshake. Seeing CM as a complement to, rather than a replacement for biomedicine, or respecting the accomplishments of the biomedical sciences, is not the same as saying that CM is without value. Neither is it an assertion that biomedicine is without fault. At issue is what strategy is best for the field's future, not how to preserve our self-image. We were all amateurs at the beginning; we made lots of mistakes. In the 1970's I taught hundreds of people that acupuncture was so efficable that Chinese doctors only got paid if their patient's were healthy. I got it from Oshawa who got it from (or perhaps gave it to) Soulie De Morant. He was wrong; I was wrong. What Dr. Unschuld gives us is the opportunity to look at our acculturation strategy through a history rooted in the sources, not our own mistakes. It is a valuable opportunity that should not be wasted for some fraternal oath of allegiance. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 Seems to me that politically correct is the word of the day. Why would anyone that writes books in the same sort of field would argue any point with others that writes in the same field and have the so-called standard such as Unschulds ? If he is a historian of some sort, why not argue the point of his ingnorance in clinical matter? Such as: he doesn't have enought knowledge or information about the clinical aspect to disregard any CM use or quality use. And why not expect in a profession of CM such as ours more direct statements in the area such as Wm verses Cm in China . I was there for awhile and a majority of the population uses herbal medicine and some acupuncture , tuina etc.. I am not saying I enjoy this political arena CM verses WM, but if someone is comenting about it, we are free to argue points within the context. Where can we go beeing so liberal that we cannot argue mistakes made in writen material by some historian or otherwise ? Felix Man wrote is lastest book descrediting acupuncture as imagination etc..., I myself think this is hiprocrite and or he was insane all this years of his support to CM in his writtings of the man just got craizy and wants to sell some books. Vanessa >>Robert wrote it: He is intellectual historian not a clinical researcher. On what grounds would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME or any condition? What good would such a claim do? What do you hope to accomplish by your implicit demand for one? Do you contend that what he has to say about the intellectual history of CM or its reception in the West can be ignored because Dr. Unschuld has not personally endorsed the clinical results of CM? Shall we discredit the work of everyone who does not swear CM is efficable? What is the purpose of this thread except to discredit Unschuld without actually addressing what he has to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 I understand your point of views and I agree to many of them, but you seem to have a solid foundation in this comments towards our way of saying/writing as in CM etc.. but I wonder what do you think of the issues short courses given to chiroprators /MD's /Physiotherapist , and medical group not wanting to accept or work together for the best care as in Comprehensive medicine and other issues comming from the medical community towards alternative medicine?? Do you have any stand in this issues or better not to mess with them ? And if you do I bet will be liberal to the extreme. Vanessa > >. Bob wrote it:At issue is what strategy is best for the field's future, not how to preserve our self-image. We were all amateurs at the beginning; we made lots of mistakes. In the 1970's I taught hundreds of people that acupuncture was so efficable that Chinese doctors only got paid if their patient's were healthy. I got it from Oshawa who got it from (or perhaps gave it to) Soulie De Morant. He was wrong; I was wrong. What Dr. Unschuld gives us is the opportunity to look at our acculturation strategy through a history rooted in the sources, not our own mistakes. It is a valuable opportunity that should not be wasted for some fraternal oath of allegiance. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 Hi Vanessa, I'm grateful for your efforts on this thread. I share your views about CM in general. However, I believe that Bob Felt and I have both noted from our reading of Paul Unschuld's work that Unschuld does not question clinical efficacy, per se. I see that he notes that CM represents many varieties of practice over time and region. I see that he addresses issues of people's willingness or unwillingness to utilize CM. Since this is not about clinical efficacy, arguing from that perspective is moot in this thread. Arguments about efficacy would belong to a separate thread. I've personally have argued that CM and WM (however many varieties there are) represent fully separate evolutions as separate paradigms. I've argued that to use WM paradigm tools to prove or disprove CM clinical efficacy is also moot and without genuine merit. On this and other lists, people have wanted to see CM efficacy proven utilizing WM methods, so I presented views that this approach had logical flaws. Unschuld's contribution should be critiqued on it's merits or what is presented. I look forward to other threads that address efficacy. In gratitude and respect, Emmanuel Segmen - Chinese Medicine Friday, September 12, 2003 11:23 AM Re: Unsculd and clinical efficacy Seems to me that politically correct is the word of the day. Why would anyone that writes books in the same sort of field would argue any point with others that writes in the same field and have the so-called standard such as Unschulds ? If he is a historian of some sort, why not argue the point of his ingnorance in clinical matter? Such as: he doesn't have enought knowledge or information about the clinical aspect to disregard any CM use or quality use. And why not expect in a profession of CM such as ours more direct statements in the area such as Wm verses Cm in China . I was there for awhile and a majority of the population uses herbal medicine and some acupuncture , tuina etc.. I am not saying I enjoy this political arena CM verses WM, but if someone is comenting about it, we are free to argue points within the context. Where can we go beeing so liberal that we cannot argue mistakes made in writen material by some historian or otherwise ? Felix Man wrote is lastest book descrediting acupuncture as imagination etc..., I myself think this is hiprocrite and or he was insane all this years of his support to CM in his writtings of the man just got craizy and wants to sell some books. Vanessa >>Robert wrote it: He is intellectual historian not a clinical researcher. On what grounds would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME or any condition? What good would such a claim do? What do you hope to accomplish by your implicit demand for one? Do you contend that what he has to say about the intellectual history of CM or its reception in the West can be ignored because Dr. Unschuld has not personally endorsed the clinical results of CM? Shall we discredit the work of everyone who does not swear CM is efficable? What is the purpose of this thread except to discredit Unschuld without actually addressing what he has to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 <This is good rhetoric but it is not salient response. I explicitly addressed the role of WM and CM at the societal level. >---- Actually Bob, you challenged us to make a case for... " where on the planet you find any evidence that any population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given equal access. " I replied that thousands (really by now millions) of Western patients who have equal access, chose CM over WM. As far as your point regarding " societal level " I would state that society is a collection of individual real people, and that an alarming number of these individuals are choosing CM over WM despite substantial financial disincentives and a lack of understanding of or (contrary to Unschuld's theory) belief in how it works. IMO, Unschuld's contributions can be subdivided into those dealing with his momentous efforts in translating original written works and his subjective opinions as to the overarching philosophical ramifications of those works. When he offers his opinion on why CM is popular today, this is pure conjecture that has little to do with his expertise of ancient works. He is attempting to peer into the collective psyche of modern society and offer a subjective opinion on a subject that is dear to many supporters of CM. This, IMO, makes him fair game for those of us who also have subjective opinions on CM's current popularity. I happen to disagree with what I understand his position to be. I believe CM's clinical efficacy is the primary reason for its current popularity. I believe this based on my own experience both personally and professionally and my understanding of this field in general. When Unschuld credits CM's popularity on existential angst, environmental concerns or the energy crisis, etc., I feel this tends to trivialize its supporters as those following some sort of fad rather than those making wise medical choices. Maybe Unschuld is right, but since this is purely subjective opinion that no one can prove one way or the other, I feel I have just as much right to this opinion as anyone else. <On what grounds would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME or any condition? > Answer:On the grounds of explaining CM current popularity to be at least partly due to its clinical efficacy. <What is the purpose of this thread except to discredit Unschuld without actually addressing what he has to say?> Answer:This thread was a response to Unschuld's speech in which he stated " Chinese medicine is not preferred by a segment of the population because it is more effective than Western medicine (that is definitely not the case) " . He brought up the clinical effective issue - not me or Attilo. My purpose was to suggest that perhaps the reason Unschuld feels CM's current popularity is due to the above mentioned reasons is that he does not believe it has any clinical value over WM in any condition and so there must be some other reason. I wondered if he had ever acknowledged CM is superior to WM in any context because if he had, I would be dead wrong and would be happy to admit it. <The editors of " Acupuncture Today " know how to interview anyone who wants to be interviewed, they do not need to await my leisure.> The reason I suggested you develop questions for an interview in Acupuncture Today (with my help if you desired it) was because you understand the misconceptions regarding Unschuld's work far better than the folks at Acupuncture Today. I thought you might like to help Unschuld out in this way as he has said he would like to do such an interview. It is not certain that UC Press will publish his following works and anything that could help sales and generate better response with the CM community would be of help to him. Just because I disagree with some of his conclusions, does not mean I do not support his work - I honestly, truthfully do. Matt Bauer Original Message ----- Robert L. Felt Chinese Medicine Friday, September 12, 2003 10:12 AM Unsculd and clinical efficacy All, > ANSWER: In my treatment rooms, and in the treatment facilities of > thousands of reasonably trained acupuncturists/CM practitioners, whose > practices have grown treating Western patients with plenty of access to > Western medicine who have found CM to work better for SOME of their real > world problems. This is good rhetoric but it is not salient response. I explicitly addressed the role of WM and CM at the societal level. That anyone achieves results in their clinic, or that CM achieves results at scale, was never questioned. The question is whether the description of Dr. Unschuld's assertion that the Chinese do not hold CM as more effective than WM as " fly by night " makes a useful contribution to the decisions our field must make. > I have read many of Unschuld's statements in which he credits the rise of > CM in the West to romanticized versions of history and existential fears > of environmental or energy concerns, but I have never heard him say that > in certain cases some CM techniques work better than WM techniques. Has > Unschuld ever acknowledged this? I hope I am wrong. Read the last line of > his talk on Nature Vs. Chemistry and Technology: He is intellectual historian not a clinical researcher. On what grounds would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME or any condition? What good would such a claim do? What do you hope to accomplish by your implicit demand for one? Do you contend that what he has to say about the intellectual history of CM or its reception in the West can be ignored because Dr. Unschuld has not personally endorsed the clinical results of CM? Shall we discredit the work of everyone who does not swear CM is efficable? What is the purpose of this thread except to discredit Unschuld without actually addressing what he has to say? > I made to suggestion to Dr. Unschuld and to Bob Felt, that Unschuld > publish an interview in Acupuncture Today in which he could explain his > views. He did this in a German publication and is interested in doing this > here. I may be way off and reading him wrong and would like him to explain > himself as I certainly have questions. This would not be an attack, but an > opportunity to respond in his own words to those who have criticized him. > Bob, you told me you were too busy before - got time for this now? This too is an essentially rhetorical posture. The editors of " Acupuncture Today " know how to interview anyone who wants to be interviewed, they do not need to await my leisure. Furthermore, Dr. Unschuld has produced a very large body of published rationale, research and evidence. It is there for those who wish to read it and it is fairly priced. An interview is not a replacement for the work he has produced. He has put more evidence for his conclusions in full public view in his latest " Nei Jing " text alone than has any writer offering us an image of CM as a expression of moral or universal truth. He has recently given a lengthy seminar and I am hoping that Ken Rose will soon jump in with news from that event. I do not write to change the minds of those who believe that CM is morally or technically superior to biomedicine, nor to alter the beliefs of those whose notions of CM are rooted in their religious faith. I write for those who are not committed to these positions and to make it clear that challenging these views is not the same as challenging the value of CM, or being " disloyal. " We are a field, not a fraternity with an oath and a secret handshake. Seeing CM as a complement to, rather than a replacement for biomedicine, or respecting the accomplishments of the biomedical sciences, is not the same as saying that CM is without value. Neither is it an assertion that biomedicine is without fault. At issue is what strategy is best for the field's future, not how to preserve our self-image. We were all amateurs at the beginning; we made lots of mistakes. In the 1970's I taught hundreds of people that acupuncture was so efficable that Chinese doctors only got paid if their patient's were healthy. I got it from Oshawa who got it from (or perhaps gave it to) Soulie De Morant. He was wrong; I was wrong. What Dr. Unschuld gives us is the opportunity to look at our acculturation strategy through a history rooted in the sources, not our own mistakes. It is a valuable opportunity that should not be wasted for some fraternal oath of allegiance. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 Totally agree. Vanessa > matt bauer <acu.guy wrote: <This is good rhetoric but it is not salient response. I explicitly addressed the role of WM and CM at the societal level. >---- Actually Bob, you challenged us to make a case for... " where on the planet you find any evidence that any population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given equal access. " I replied that thousands (really by now millions) of Western patients who have equal access, chose CM over WM. As far as your point regarding " societal level " I would state that society is a collection of individual real people, and that an alarming number of these individuals are choosing CM over WM despite substantial financial disincentives and a lack of understanding of or (contrary to Unschuld's theory) belief in how it works. IMO, Unschuld's contributions can be subdivided into those dealing with his momentous efforts in translating original written works and his subjective opinions as to the overarching philosophical ramifications of those works. When he offers his opinion on why CM is popular today, this is pure conjecture that has little to do with his expertise of ancient works. He is attempting to peer into the collective psyche of modern society and offer a subjective opinion on a subject that is dear to many supporters of CM. This, IMO, makes him fair game for those of us who also have subjective opinions on CM's current popularity. I happen to disagree with what I understand his position to be. I believe CM's clinical efficacy is the primary reason for its current popularity. I believe this based on my own experience both personally and professionally and my understanding of this field in general. When Unschuld credits CM's popularity on existential angst, environmental concerns or the energy crisis, etc., I feel this tends to trivialize its supporters as those following some sort of fad rather than those making wise medical choices. Maybe Unschuld is right, but since this is purely subjective opinion that no one can prove one way or the other, I feel I have just as much right to this opinion as anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 Hi Matt, Vanessa, Bob and All, Ken Rose and I are here near San Francisco in my home in Albany CA giggling and amused by the normal Western dichotomy of dialogue as opposed to the synthetic dialectic of dialogue that might be happening. We're happy to put the pieces together like a jigsaw puzzle and create our own landscapes with all of the vivid views presented here. Thank you so very much. Bob, Ken looks forward to resurfacing near your home in New Mexico and seeking directions to the next station of life that you might intuit. We just had some great soup after a great walk on the beach in SF have a 95 degree day. Best wishes are presented by Ken to all. He promises to scream out his comments to all when he gets sufficient levels of computer qi and balance. In grateful communion, Emmanuel Segmen - matt bauer Chinese Medicine Friday, September 12, 2003 6:24 PM Re: Unsculd and clinical efficacy <This is good rhetoric but it is not salient response. I explicitly addressed the role of WM and CM at the societal level. >---- Actually Bob, you challenged us to make a case for... " where on the planet you find any evidence that any population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given equal access. " I replied that thousands (really by now millions) of Western patients who have equal access, chose CM over WM. As far as your point regarding " societal level " I would state that society is a collection of individual real people, and that an alarming number of these individuals are choosing CM over WM despite substantial financial disincentives and a lack of understanding of or (contrary to Unschuld's theory) belief in how it works. IMO, Unschuld's contributions can be subdivided into those dealing with his momentous efforts in translating original written works and his subjective opinions as to the overarching philosophical ramifications of those works. When he offers his opinion on why CM is popular today, this is pure conjecture that has little to do with his expertise of ancient works. He is attempting to peer into the collective psyche of modern society and offer a subjective opinion on a subject that is dear to many supporters of CM. This, IMO, makes him fair game for those of us who also have subjective opinions on CM's current popularity. I happen to disagree with what I understand his position to be. I believe CM's clinical efficacy is the primary reason for its current popularity. I believe this based on my own experience both personally and professionally and my understanding of this field in general. When Unschuld credits CM's popularity on existential angst, environmental concerns or the energy crisis, etc., I feel this tends to trivialize its supporters as those following some sort of fad rather than those making wise medical choices. Maybe Unschuld is right, but since this is purely subjective opinion that no one can prove one way or the other, I feel I have just as much right to this opinion as anyone else. <On what grounds would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME or any condition? > Answer:On the grounds of explaining CM current popularity to be at least partly due to its clinical efficacy. <What is the purpose of this thread except to discredit Unschuld without actually addressing what he has to say?> Answer:This thread was a response to Unschuld's speech in which he stated " Chinese medicine is not preferred by a segment of the population because it is more effective than Western medicine (that is definitely not the case) " . He brought up the clinical effective issue - not me or Attilo. My purpose was to suggest that perhaps the reason Unschuld feels CM's current popularity is due to the above mentioned reasons is that he does not believe it has any clinical value over WM in any condition and so there must be some other reason. I wondered if he had ever acknowledged CM is superior to WM in any context because if he had, I would be dead wrong and would be happy to admit it. <The editors of " Acupuncture Today " know how to interview anyone who wants to be interviewed, they do not need to await my leisure.> The reason I suggested you develop questions for an interview in Acupuncture Today (with my help if you desired it) was because you understand the misconceptions regarding Unschuld's work far better than the folks at Acupuncture Today. I thought you might like to help Unschuld out in this way as he has said he would like to do such an interview. It is not certain that UC Press will publish his following works and anything that could help sales and generate better response with the CM community would be of help to him. Just because I disagree with some of his conclusions, does not mean I do not support his work - I honestly, truthfully do. Matt Bauer Original Message ----- Robert L. Felt Chinese Medicine Friday, September 12, 2003 10:12 AM Unsculd and clinical efficacy All, > ANSWER: In my treatment rooms, and in the treatment facilities of > thousands of reasonably trained acupuncturists/CM practitioners, whose > practices have grown treating Western patients with plenty of access to > Western medicine who have found CM to work better for SOME of their real > world problems. This is good rhetoric but it is not salient response. I explicitly addressed the role of WM and CM at the societal level. That anyone achieves results in their clinic, or that CM achieves results at scale, was never questioned. The question is whether the description of Dr. Unschuld's assertion that the Chinese do not hold CM as more effective than WM as " fly by night " makes a useful contribution to the decisions our field must make. > I have read many of Unschuld's statements in which he credits the rise of > CM in the West to romanticized versions of history and existential fears > of environmental or energy concerns, but I have never heard him say that > in certain cases some CM techniques work better than WM techniques. Has > Unschuld ever acknowledged this? I hope I am wrong. Read the last line of > his talk on Nature Vs. Chemistry and Technology: He is intellectual historian not a clinical researcher. On what grounds would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME or any condition? What good would such a claim do? What do you hope to accomplish by your implicit demand for one? Do you contend that what he has to say about the intellectual history of CM or its reception in the West can be ignored because Dr. Unschuld has not personally endorsed the clinical results of CM? Shall we discredit the work of everyone who does not swear CM is efficable? What is the purpose of this thread except to discredit Unschuld without actually addressing what he has to say? > I made to suggestion to Dr. Unschuld and to Bob Felt, that Unschuld > publish an interview in Acupuncture Today in which he could explain his > views. He did this in a German publication and is interested in doing this > here. I may be way off and reading him wrong and would like him to explain > himself as I certainly have questions. This would not be an attack, but an > opportunity to respond in his own words to those who have criticized him. > Bob, you told me you were too busy before - got time for this now? This too is an essentially rhetorical posture. The editors of " Acupuncture Today " know how to interview anyone who wants to be interviewed, they do not need to await my leisure. Furthermore, Dr. Unschuld has produced a very large body of published rationale, research and evidence. It is there for those who wish to read it and it is fairly priced. An interview is not a replacement for the work he has produced. He has put more evidence for his conclusions in full public view in his latest " Nei Jing " text alone than has any writer offering us an image of CM as a expression of moral or universal truth. He has recently given a lengthy seminar and I am hoping that Ken Rose will soon jump in with news from that event. I do not write to change the minds of those who believe that CM is morally or technically superior to biomedicine, nor to alter the beliefs of those whose notions of CM are rooted in their religious faith. I write for those who are not committed to these positions and to make it clear that challenging these views is not the same as challenging the value of CM, or being " disloyal. " We are a field, not a fraternity with an oath and a secret handshake. Seeing CM as a complement to, rather than a replacement for biomedicine, or respecting the accomplishments of the biomedical sciences, is not the same as saying that CM is without value. Neither is it an assertion that biomedicine is without fault. At issue is what strategy is best for the field's future, not how to preserve our self-image. We were all amateurs at the beginning; we made lots of mistakes. In the 1970's I taught hundreds of people that acupuncture was so efficable that Chinese doctors only got paid if their patient's were healthy. I got it from Oshawa who got it from (or perhaps gave it to) Soulie De Morant. He was wrong; I was wrong. What Dr. Unschuld gives us is the opportunity to look at our acculturation strategy through a history rooted in the sources, not our own mistakes. It is a valuable opportunity that should not be wasted for some fraternal oath of allegiance. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 We are comming OVERRRRRRRRRRRRRR This sounds to good to be true )) This is a good end for this subject. Vanessa --- Emmanuel Segmen <susegmen wrote: > Hi Matt, Vanessa, Bob and All, > > Ken Rose and I are here near San Francisco in my > home in Albany CA giggling and amused by the normal > Western dichotomy of dialogue as opposed to the > synthetic dialectic of dialogue that might be > happening. We're happy to put the pieces together > like a jigsaw puzzle and create our own landscapes > with all of the vivid views presented here. Thank > you so very much. > > Bob, Ken looks forward to resurfacing near your home > in New Mexico and seeking directions to the next > station of life that you might intuit. We just had > some great soup after a great walk on the beach in > SF have a 95 degree day. > > Best wishes are presented by Ken to all. He > promises to scream out his comments to all when he > gets sufficient levels of computer qi and balance. > > In grateful communion, > Emmanuel Segmen > > - > matt bauer > Chinese Medicine > Friday, September 12, 2003 6:24 PM > Re: Unsculd and clinical efficacy > > > <This is good rhetoric but it is not salient > response. I explicitly addressed > the role of WM and CM at the societal level. >---- > > > Actually Bob, you challenged us to make a case > for... " where on the planet you find any evidence > that any population has found CM more effective, or > has chosen it over WM given equal access. " I > replied that thousands (really by now millions) of > Western patients who have equal access, chose CM > over WM. As far as your point regarding " societal > level " I would state that society is a collection of > individual real people, and that an alarming number > of these individuals are choosing CM over WM despite > substantial financial disincentives and a lack of > understanding of or (contrary to Unschuld's theory) > belief in how it works. > > IMO, Unschuld's contributions can be subdivided > into those dealing with his momentous efforts in > translating original written works and his > subjective opinions as to the overarching > philosophical ramifications of those works. When he > offers his opinion on why CM is popular today, this > is pure conjecture that has little to do with his > expertise of ancient works. He is attempting to peer > into the collective psyche of modern society and > offer a subjective opinion on a subject that is dear > to many supporters of CM. This, IMO, makes him fair > game for those of us who also have subjective > opinions on CM's current popularity. I happen to > disagree with what I understand his position to be. > I believe CM's clinical efficacy is the primary > reason for its current popularity. I believe this > based on my own experience both personally and > professionally and my understanding of this field in > general. When Unschuld credits CM's popularity on > existential angst, environmental concerns or the > energy crisis, etc., I feel this tends to trivialize > its supporters as those following some sort of fad > rather than those making wise medical choices. Maybe > Unschuld is right, but since this is purely > subjective opinion that no one can prove one way or > the other, I feel I have just as much right to this > opinion as anyone else. > > <On what grounds > would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME or > any condition? > > > > Answer:On the grounds of explaining CM current > popularity to be at least partly due to its clinical > efficacy. > > <What is the purpose of this thread except to > discredit Unschuld > without actually addressing what he has to say?> > > Answer:This thread was a response to Unschuld's > speech in which he stated " Chinese medicine is not > preferred by a segment of the population because it > is more effective than Western medicine (that is > definitely not the case) " . He brought up the > clinical effective issue - not me or Attilo. > My purpose was to suggest that perhaps the reason > Unschuld feels CM's current popularity is due to the > above mentioned reasons is that he does not believe > it has any clinical value over WM in any condition > and so there must be some other reason. I wondered > if he had ever acknowledged CM is superior to WM in > any context because if he had, I would be dead wrong > and would be happy to admit it. > > <The editors of " Acupuncture > Today " know how to interview anyone who wants to > be interviewed, they do > not need to await my leisure.> > > The reason I suggested you develop questions for > an interview in Acupuncture Today (with my help if > you desired it) was because you understand the > misconceptions regarding Unschuld's work far better > than the folks at Acupuncture Today. I thought you > might like to help Unschuld out in this way as he > has said he would like to do such an interview. It > is not certain that UC Press will publish his > following works and anything that could help sales > and generate better response with the CM community > would be of help to him. Just because I disagree > with some of his conclusions, does not mean I do not > support his work - I honestly, truthfully do. > > Matt Bauer > > > > Original Message ----- > Robert L. Felt > Chinese Medicine > > Friday, September 12, 2003 10:12 AM > Unsculd and clinical efficacy > > > All, > > > ANSWER: In my treatment rooms, and in the > treatment facilities of > > thousands of reasonably trained > acupuncturists/CM practitioners, whose > > practices have grown treating Western patients > with plenty of access to > > Western medicine who have found CM to work > better for SOME of their real > > world problems. > > This is good rhetoric but it is not salient > response. I explicitly addressed > the role of WM and CM at the societal level. > That anyone achieves results > in their clinic, or that CM achieves results at > scale, was never questioned. > The question is whether the description of Dr. > Unschuld's assertion that the > Chinese do not hold CM as more effective than WM > as " fly by night " makes > a useful contribution to the decisions our field > must make. > > > I have read many of Unschuld's statements in > which he credits the rise of > > CM in the West to romanticized versions of > history and existential fears > > of environmental or energy concerns, but I > have never heard him say that > > in certain cases some CM techniques work > better than WM techniques. Has > > Unschuld ever acknowledged this? I hope I am > wrong. Read the last line of > > his talk on Nature Vs. Chemistry and > Technology: > > He is intellectual historian not a clinical > researcher. On what grounds > would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME > or any condition? What > good would such a claim do? What do you hope to > accomplish by your > implicit demand for one? Do you contend that > what he has to say about the > intellectual history of CM or its reception in > the West can be ignored > because Dr. Unschuld has not personally endorsed > the clinical results of > CM? Shall we discredit the work of everyone > who does not swear CM is > efficable? What is the purpose of this thread > except to discredit Unschuld > without actually addressing what he has to say? > > > I made to suggestion to Dr. Unschuld and to > Bob Felt, that Unschuld > > publish an interview in Acupuncture Today in > which he could explain his > > views. He did this in a German publication and > is interested in doing this > > here. I may be way off and reading him wrong > and would like him to explain > === message truncated === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 I agree with Emmanuel. The next step in this thread is clinical efficacy, and we all know where that will go. I'd also just like to say how well Bob crafted his messages, even though i don't agree with all the points he raised, they were excellently articulated and balanced. Attilio Chinese Medicine , " Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen@i...> wrote: > Hi Vanessa, > > I'm grateful for your efforts on this thread. I share your views about CM in general. However, I believe that Bob Felt and I have both noted from our reading of Paul Unschuld's work that Unschuld does not question clinical efficacy, per se. I see that he notes that CM represents many varieties of practice over time and region. I see that he addresses issues of people's willingness or unwillingness to utilize CM. Since this is not about clinical efficacy, arguing from that perspective is moot in this thread. Arguments about efficacy would belong to a separate thread. I've personally have argued that CM and WM (however many varieties there are) represent fully separate evolutions as separate paradigms. I've argued that to use WM paradigm tools to prove or disprove CM clinical efficacy is also moot and without genuine merit. On this and other lists, people have wanted to see CM efficacy proven utilizing WM methods, so I presented views that this approach had logical flaws. Unschuld's contribution should be critiqued on it's merits or what is presented. I look forward to other threads that address efficacy. > > In gratitude and respect, > Emmanuel Segmen > > - > > Chinese Medicine > Friday, September 12, 2003 11:23 AM > Re: Unsculd and clinical efficacy > > > > > > Seems to me that politically correct is the word of the day. > > Why would anyone that writes books in the same sort of field would argue any point with others that writes in the same field and have the so-called standard such as Unschulds ? > > > > If he is a historian of some sort, why not argue the point of his ingnorance in clinical matter? > > Such as: he doesn't have enought knowledge or information about the clinical aspect to disregard any CM use or quality use. > > And why not expect in a profession of CM such as ours more direct statements in the area such as Wm verses Cm in China . I was there for awhile and a majority of the population uses herbal medicine and some acupuncture , tuina etc.. > > I am not saying I enjoy this political arena CM verses WM, but if someone is comenting about it, we are free to argue points within the context. > > Where can we go beeing so liberal that we cannot argue mistakes made in writen material by some historian or otherwise ? > > Felix Man wrote is lastest book descrediting acupuncture as imagination etc..., I myself think this is hiprocrite and or he was insane all this years of his support to CM in his writtings of the man just got craizy and wants to sell some books. > > Vanessa > > > >>Robert wrote it: > He is intellectual historian not a clinical researcher. On what grounds > would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME or any condition? What > good would such a claim do? What do you hope to accomplish by your > implicit demand for one? Do you contend that what he has to say about the > intellectual history of CM or its reception in the West can be ignored > because Dr. Unschuld has not personally endorsed the clinical results of > CM? Shall we discredit the work of everyone who does not swear CM is > efficable? What is the purpose of this thread except to discredit Unschuld > without actually addressing what he has to say? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 Hi Vanessa and All, Geez, if we had only known, we wouldn't have crashed out so early. You could have encouraged us to stay up and chat. Ken put up this great formula including He Huan Hua, He Shou Wu and other goodies from my home pharmacy. We both had the most vivid dreams. Half an hour ago at 8 AM, Ken just jumped into his car to head to Martin Inn's tai chi studio in San Francisco for a three hour session of tai chi. He says he'll be in Los Angeles next followed by a visit to Bob Felt (I believe?). He plans then to go to San Diego and hang out with you, Z'ev. I may have misunderstood the order of his itinerary. I give you fair warning, as he's in quite the mood for fun lately. Ask him about his nights sleeping under the stars near a waterfall along the Klamath River up near the Trinity Alps. Attilio, I thought I should tell you that Ken and I have both discussed how much easier it is to post on TCM than on the CHA list. Plenty of wild diversity here but not so much grinding elitism. Good luck find a co-moderator who is as gentle and open a soul as yourself. I agree that you deserve a break from the challenges of moderating. Emmanuel Segmen - Chinese Medicine Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:51 AM Re: Unsculd and clinical efficacy We are comming OVERRRRRRRRRRRRRR This sounds to good to be true )) This is a good end for this subject. Vanessa --- Emmanuel Segmen <susegmen wrote: > Hi Matt, Vanessa, Bob and All, > > Ken Rose and I are here near San Francisco in my > home in Albany CA giggling and amused by the normal > Western dichotomy of dialogue as opposed to the > synthetic dialectic of dialogue that might be > happening. We're happy to put the pieces together > like a jigsaw puzzle and create our own landscapes > with all of the vivid views presented here. Thank > you so very much. > > Bob, Ken looks forward to resurfacing near your home > in New Mexico and seeking directions to the next > station of life that you might intuit. We just had > some great soup after a great walk on the beach in > SF have a 95 degree day. > > Best wishes are presented by Ken to all. He > promises to scream out his comments to all when he > gets sufficient levels of computer qi and balance. > > In grateful communion, > Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 I would like to to ake a chance to say the sme , he seems to have some nice control over writing. I am not sure if he still broiling up some writings in my direction )) But it is all good. Vanessa --- <attiliodalberto wrote: > I agree with Emmanuel. The next step in this thread > is clinical > efficacy, and we all know where that will go. I'd > also just like to > say how well Bob crafted his messages, even though i > don't agree > with all the points he raised, they were excellently > articulated and > balanced. > > Attilio > > Chinese Medicine , > " Emmanuel > Segmen " <susegmen@i...> wrote: > > Hi Vanessa, > > > > I'm grateful for your efforts on this thread. I > share your views > about CM in general. However, I believe that Bob > Felt and I have > both noted from our reading of Paul Unschuld's work > that Unschuld > does not question clinical efficacy, per se. I see > that he notes > that CM represents many varieties of practice over > time and region. > I see that he addresses issues of people's > willingness or > unwillingness to utilize CM. Since this is not > about clinical > efficacy, arguing from that perspective is moot in > this thread. > Arguments about efficacy would belong to a separate > thread. I've > personally have argued that CM and WM (however many > varieties there > are) represent fully separate evolutions as separate > paradigms. > I've argued that to use WM paradigm tools to prove > or disprove CM > clinical efficacy is also moot and without genuine > merit. On this > and other lists, people have wanted to see CM > efficacy proven > utilizing WM methods, so I presented views that this > approach had > logical flaws. Unschuld's contribution should be > critiqued on it's > merits or what is presented. I look forward to > other threads that > address efficacy. > > > > In gratitude and respect, > > Emmanuel Segmen > > > > - > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > Friday, September 12, 2003 11:23 AM > > Re: Unsculd and clinical efficacy > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems to me that politically correct is the word > of the day. > > > > Why would anyone that writes books in the same > sort of field > would argue any point with others that writes in the > same field and > have the so-called standard such as Unschulds ? > > > > > > > > If he is a historian of some sort, why not argue > the point of > his ingnorance in clinical matter? > > > > Such as: he doesn't have enought knowledge or > information about > the clinical aspect to disregard any CM use or > quality use. > > > > And why not expect in a profession of CM such as > ours more > direct statements in the area such as Wm verses Cm > in China . I was > there for awhile and a majority of the population > uses herbal > medicine and some acupuncture , tuina etc.. > > > > I am not saying I enjoy this political arena CM > verses WM, but > if someone is comenting about it, we are free to > argue points within > the context. > > > > Where can we go beeing so liberal that we cannot > argue mistakes > made in writen material by some historian or > otherwise ? > > > > Felix Man wrote is lastest book descrediting > acupuncture as > imagination etc..., I myself think this is > hiprocrite and or he was > insane all this years of his support to CM in his > writtings of the > man just got craizy and wants to sell some books. > > > > Vanessa > > > > > > >>Robert wrote it: > > He is intellectual historian not a clinical > researcher. On what > grounds > > would he make a claim for CM's efficacy in SOME > or any > condition? What > > good would such a claim do? What do you hope to > accomplish by > your > > implicit demand for one? Do you contend that > what he has to > say about the > > intellectual history of CM or its reception in > the West can be > ignored > > because Dr. Unschuld has not personally endorsed > the clinical > results of > > CM? Shall we discredit the work of everyone > who does not swear > CM is > > efficable? What is the purpose of this thread > except to > discredit Unschuld > > without actually addressing what he has to say? > > > > > > > > > > > > SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site > design software > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 Hi Vanessa As you can see.....I also am trying hard to be on best diplomatic behavior and yet still get issues across. Where are you located? Sorry for asking, if you told me before. Back pain - was it chronic? Richard > Hello Sharon. > Back pain amd allot of curiosity from the great > results. > I had tried all medical avenues and no response > Should we start about the MD's ? ) > > Vanessa on my best behaviour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 " Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen@i...> wrote: Attilio, I thought I should tell you that Ken and I have both discussed how much easier it is to post on TCM than on the CHA list. Plenty of wild diversity here but not so much grinding elitism. Good luck find a co-moderator who is as gentle and open a soul as yourself. I agree that you deserve a break from the challenges of moderating. Attilio: Thank you for the kind words Emmanuel. I do like a good bit of diverse thinking, spices things up, opens up new avenues of thought. Can't say i care much for elitism. Attilio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 Hi Vanessa, I was wondering what brought you into ap? Sharon - Chinese Medicine Saturday, September 13, 2003 11:41 AM Re: Unsculd and clinical efficacy Totally agree. Vanessa > matt bauer <acu.guy wrote: <This is good rhetoric but it is not salient response. I explicitly addressed the role of WM and CM at the societal level. >---- Actually Bob, you challenged us to make a case for... " where on the planet you find any evidence that any population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given equal access. " I replied that thousands (really by now millions) of Western patients who have equal access, chose CM over WM. As far as your point regarding " societal level " I would state that society is a collection of individual real people, and that an alarming number of these individuals are choosing CM over WM despite substantial financial disincentives and a lack of understanding of or (contrary to Unschuld's theory) belief in how it works. IMO, Unschuld's contributions can be subdivided into those dealing with his momentous efforts in translating original written works and his subjective opinions as to the overarching philosophical ramifications of those works. When he offers his opinion on why CM is popular today, this is pure conjecture that has little to do with his expertise of ancient works. He is attempting to peer into the collective psyche of modern society and offer a subjective opinion on a subject that is dear to many supporters of CM. This, IMO, makes him fair game for those of us who also have subjective opinions on CM's current popularity. I happen to disagree with what I understand his position to be. I believe CM's clinical efficacy is the primary reason for its current popularity. I believe this based on my own experience both personally and professionally and my understanding of this field in general. When Unschuld credits CM's popularity on existential angst, environmental concerns or the energy crisis, etc., I feel this tends to trivialize its supporters as those following some sort of fad rather than those making wise medical choices. Maybe Unschuld is right, but since this is purely subjective opinion that no one can prove one way or the other, I feel I have just as much right to this opinion as anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2003 Report Share Posted September 14, 2003 Hello Sharon. Back pain amd allot of curiosity from the great results. I had tried all medical avenues and no response Should we start about the MD's ? ) Vanessa on my best behaviour > Hi Vanessa, > I was wondering what brought you into ap? > Sharon > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2003 Report Share Posted September 14, 2003 Hello Richard, I am trying to be more liberal & diplomatic )) and hopefully get the message across. I am learning in the group, some has a very well command of the language and a poetic version of the issues that in the end still not really clear where they stand. Ops I lost my diplomacy ) But I am really leaning to be nicer in the issues presented. I was in Brasil when I had this back problems , surfing accident. didn't know about acupuncture, someone did a treatment and I could not believe in the results. So I decided to investigate and see what happen to me ? Vanessa --- acudoc11 wrote: > Hi Vanessa > > As you can see.....I also am trying hard to be on > best diplomatic behavior > and yet still get issues across. > > Where are you located? Sorry for asking, if you told > me before. > > Back pain - was it chronic? > > Richard > > > > Hello Sharon. > > Back pain amd allot of curiosity from the great > > results. > > I had tried all medical avenues and no response > > Should we start about the MD's ? ) > > > > Vanessa on my best behaviour > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2003 Report Share Posted September 14, 2003 Hi Vanessa, Thanks for sharing. I find it fascinating the different roads that lead us to treating via AP. So you have a beef with MD's outside and prior to AP? Sharon - Chinese Medicine Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:04 AM Re: Unsculd and clinical efficacy Hello Sharon. Back pain amd allot of curiosity from the great results. I had tried all medical avenues and no response Should we start about the MD's ? ) Vanessa on my best behaviour > Hi Vanessa, > I was wondering what brought you into ap? > Sharon > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2003 Report Share Posted September 14, 2003 Hello Sharon, not really a beef but a sweet potato with the MDs' ( I am vegetarian ) I understood their limits in certain areas of medicine, really early in life. I am not saying all of them are the same. I promise Richard I would take my gloves , so I will not get into details about my reasons. Vanessa --- <> Sharon wrote: > Hi Vanessa, > Thanks for sharing. I find it fascinating the > different roads that lead us to treating via AP. > So you have a beef with MD's outside and prior to > AP? > Sharon > ----- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2003 Report Share Posted September 15, 2003 Hello Sharon, not really a beef but a sweet potato with the MDs' >>>Do you think " MDs " are a homogenous profession? I can tell that there are very few MDs that are well trained in soft tissue musculoskeletal med. I can also tell that there some that are incredibly well trained and effective in their treatments. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.