Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Herb regulation

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Dear Stephen,

thank you for your pointed questions. As an educator of Chinese

herbs, as well as the owner of a Ch. Herb company, I took the time to

try to answer each and every one of your questions. I knew about half of

the toxic herbs by heart. We knew of the aristolocic acid problem by at

least 1995. however you lost me towards the end: what is the " C of A " ?

 

Cara Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Cara,

By knowing " about half " of the toxic/sl toxic herbs you definitely win the

door prize. After looking at the list a day earlier I could only remember

about a third. The question probably isn't as relevant as it sounds since

only a few hands full of the toxic or slightly toxic herbs on the list are

commonly used in the US, or even in China for that matter. I am encouraged

that you are interested in the issue of QA/QC since very little response

came from my email, despite the importance of this subject to the future of

Chinese herb use in the US.

 

A " C of A " , also known as a Certificate of Analysis, is what a lab provides

to tell you a number of important considerations that should be part of

everyone's quality assurance and quality control programs (QA/QC). The

information in a C of A depends on what information you have asked the lab

to provide. The criteria that you decide to use in your quality assurance

(QA) programs would then be part of your quality control (QC) protocols.

Performing a lab analysis on every batch can be expensive, especially if you

order frequently in smaller quantities, which means the cost per kilo for

lab work goes up. So, if you use the same supplier of raw materials, and

that supplier also has a consistent chain of supply for sourcing materials,

then once you have done a C of A on a particular material then periodic spot

checking may suffice, but you should definitely consider it a cost cutting

short cut. If that is the plan, you would probably want to re-certify each

ingredient after the harvest season each year, again, assuming the supply of

the raw material was expected to be consistent, and you felt comfortable

with their storage conditions of the materials. However, source consistency

is often difficult to determine and is not always enough. The larger

companies, many of whom have been lambasted by some on this list for other,

sometimes justifiable reasons, will either insist on a C of A from an

independent lab for every batch, or have their own in house lab that

thoroughly tests every shipment. In fact, on one batch (1500kg) of yin yang

huo extract that we produced last Winter, at two different extraction

facilities using the same exact extraction protocols, with raw materials

that were tested and then provided to the extractors from the same local

herb cultivator cooperative, turned out to have very different levels of

coliforms in every 25kg barrel when it arrived at the US lab! Every 25kg

barrel was tested separately to determine which ones were ok and which ones

were not. Normally the whole batch would have been rejected, even though

there were 1250kg that were ok. But they won't usually test every barrel

expecting to see such a variation. But it happens (!) even under carefully

controlled conditions.

 

There are three general areas that can be assessed in QC testing. One is

product identity. This is where, for example, aristolochia could be

identified in a batch being sold as stephania. The second is purity. This

category includes many areas, some of which are only occasionally tested,

such as agrochemical adulterants, like quintozene in ginseng. The common

areas of purity on a C of A include:

Particle size, i.e. mesh

Total heavy metals: some also include individual impurities such as:

lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic,

Moisture: as a percentage

Total ash: as a percentage

Total, although not individual pesticides

Foreign Matter

Standard plate count: bacteria in units per gram

Mold

Yeast

Salmonella

E. Coli

Total Coliforms

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Staphylococcus

Aflotoxin

 

The third area of measurement you may chose to undertake would measure the

level, typically in percentage, of certain chemical compounds that are used

as standards to assure consistency. These are referred to as " marker

compounds " or " characterizing compounds " . Some would like to believe that

these compounds are a reflection of active components, and therefore

biological potency. That may be partly the case in some herbs and not the

case in many others. The marker compounds chosen for measurement are

typically a choice reflecting the purified reference materials that are

available to labs for relevant chemicals in that herb.

 

Cara, What is the name of your herb company and where do you teach? Does

your herb supplier ever provide any of this QC information? I know that

many of these test are done routinely by the Japanese Kampo GMP-standard

manufacturers in Taiwan, such as Sheng Chang.

 

Stephen Morrissey OMD

 

 

 

CAra Frank [herbbabe]

Saturday, December 02, 2000 4:36 PM

 

Re: herb regulation

 

 

Dear Stephen,

thank you for your pointed questions. As an educator of Chinese

herbs, as well as the owner of a Ch. Herb company, I took the time to

try to answer each and every one of your questions. I knew about half of

the toxic herbs by heart. We knew of the aristolocic acid problem by at

least 1995. however you lost me towards the end: what is the " C of A " ?

 

Cara Frank

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare

practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing

in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,

including board approved online continuing education.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

well geez, I hope the door prize is a trip to Hawaii!

I do know what a cert. of analysis, I just hadn't heard C of A.

My company is China Herb Co., In philly. I teach on my own, mostly here,

because we have no acup schools in this area. We do have to go to the

expense of testing our products for molds, bacteria, etc, because our

products are water concentrates, with alcohol added later to preserve

them. originally we had less alcohol -16-18%, but the tests came back

high normal, so we felt compelled to increase the alcohol to 20%. this

is lowest amount that we can use and still preserve our product.

we depend on our raw herb suppliers to test for metals, pesticides and

other contaminants. We keep annual files of these certificates.

It's hard to remember all the toxic herbs because some of them are just

plain poisonous and we never use them, like lilu - is that the name? lu

li? lots of the harsh expellants don't really get more than lip service

in an herb class. and some herbs are not terribly worrisome, like ban

xia, which is already processed for us.

What company are you with?

 

Cara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

If it is, Cara, I'll be glad to show you local medicines.

 

> well geez, I hope the door prize is a trip to Hawaii!

 

David

 

*************************

David Leonard, L.Ac.

Medicine at your Feet

808.573.3600

http://www.medicineatyourfeet.com

 

Herbal Apprenticeship Program and Distance Learning

Healing Vacations / Hawaiian Adventure Programs

Advanced Herbal Training for Acupuncturists

Acupuncture, Bodywork, & Qigong (Chinese Yoga)

 

Subscribe to our newsletter: http://www.medicineatyourfeet.com/.html

Join our discussion group: herbalmedicine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi All, & Hi

 

wrote

> My extensive thoughts on herb regulation can be found at:

> bluepoppy.com/press/download/articles/chin_herb_reg_oct.cfm

 

that was a fine article.

 

I agree that " if we can't beat them, join them! " The herbal

professions should join forces with the Drug Registration agencies

and push for the highest standards of GMP and QC (certification of

active ingredients, contaminants, etc; adequate labelling, adequate

data-sheets, with dosages, indications, contraindications, etc).

 

Below is a summary of some key points in Todd's article and his

selected abstracts:

 

As used by trained practitioners, Chinese herbalism appears to be

safe, w rare adverse reactions documented worldwide. Most CHMs

are safe if used on professional advice. One UK eczema cluster is

thought to be related to allergic hypersensitivity, not general

toxicity.

 

AVOID CHM/use w caution in pregnancy & infants; may increase

risk of neonatal jaundice. Chuenlin & Yinchen can increase risk of

hyperbilirubinaemia. AVOID these in neonates.

 

AVOID unnecessary (non-medical) long-term use of Mahuang,

Eucommia, & Renshen.

 

AVOID unnecessary use of Hbs/Formulas w cinnabar (red mercuric

sulfide), [like Bao Chi San, Xiao Er Zhi Bon Ding & Xiao Er Bai

Shou Dan], calomel (mercurous chloride), / other Hg-containing

agents. They can cause Hg poisoning.

 

AVOID use of CHMs except on professional advise. Most serious

poisoning with CHMs are due to a few preparations containing AA,

aconitine, podophyllin or anticholinergics,/proprietary preparations

containing toxic Western drugs or heavy metals. Wintergreen oil

(methyl salicylate) can be very TOXIC if ingested.

 

Chinese herb nephropathy (CHN): Samples used by affected

people had aristolochic acid (AA), a known nephrotoxin. incidents

did not involve traditional use of herbs. In no case was formula

prescribed by a fully trained & licensed practitioner of TCM. amount

of AA in formulas used in Belgian outbreaks was exceedingly low

(maximum 3-6mg per day). This is much lower than would be

expected to exert nephrotoxic effects & also much lower than

amounts typically present in Chinese formulas which contain this

Aristolochia species. AA-containing herbs have apparently been

used safely in Asian medicine for hundreds of years. TCM prohibits

long-term use of Aristolochia fangchi (Guangfangji); this may have

protected people in past.

 

Chuanwu (Rx Aconiti carmichaeli) & Caowu (Rx Aconiti kusnezoffii)

have very toxic C19 diterpenoid alkaloids, esp aconitine,

mesaconitine & hypaconitine. Excessive amounts are TOXIC

(nausea & emesis, paraesthesia, numbness in mouth &

extremities, hypotension & ventricular extrasystole) & may kill.

Death may occur from ventricular arrhythmia, usually within first 24

h. antiinflammatory, analgesic & cardiotonic effects;

musculoskeletal disorders.

 

Interferon (IFN) Tx may cause acute interstitial pneumonitis as a

side effect, & Xiao Chaihu Tang (Sho-saiko-to, TJ-9) may worsen

this side effect. IFN causes neutrophils to accumulate in LU. TJ-9

alone may not injure LU but it increases IFN effects. When

stimulated by some antigen, TJ-9 may overstimulate neutrophils.

Granulocytes elastase & oxygen radicals released from activated

neutrophils may damage LU. Fibroblasts that repair damaged

tissue may increase risk of LU fibrosis. In patients w chronic active

hepatitis, the pneumonitis was due to allergic-immunological

mechanisms. S & Ss incl: fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, hypoxaemia,

diffuse infiltrates both on chest radiography & chest CAT, restrictive

pulmonary functional impairment, & alveolitis on examination of

lung biopsy, lymphocytosis was observed in association w

dominant CD8+ T-cell subset in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. TJ-9 is

used in type B chronic hepatitis; can modulate both cellular &

humoral immune responses specific for HBV. It is an IFN-

alpha/beta inducer capable of repeated peroral administration.

 

Jin Bu Huan (Lycopodium, serratum) has potent neuroactive levo-

tetrahydropalmatine. Jin Bu Huan Anodyne Tablets have caused

severe toxic effects after acute ingestion in children & long-term

use in adults. A single, acute ingestion in children rapidly produced

life-threatening neurologic & cardiovascular S & Ss (rapid onset

bradycardia & CNS & respiratory depression). Long-term use in

adults was associated w hepatitis, fever, fatigue, nausea, pruritus,

& abdominal pain & w signs of jaundice & hepatomegaly.

 

Podophyllum emodi & Datura metel are TOXIC.

 

Some countries have banned Stephania & Magnolia, even though

they were not implicated in CHN. Stephania tetrandra (Hanfangji)

had been substituted by Guangfangji. Magnolia officinalis (Houpo)

is not known to have any toxic potential.

 

FDA will require certificates of analysis for AA & contaminants for

import of certain herbs, esp Hanfangji, Muxiang, Mutong & Xixin.

Some people have suggested finding substitutes for herbs such as

Mutong, Xixin, & Muxiang. However, it is impossible to practice

" ancient prescription (gu fang) " herbalism without using Mutong &

Xixin. One should use only herbs w certificate of analysis.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi All,

 

See the article by on herb regulation at:

http://bluepoppy.com/press/download/articles/chin_herb_reg_oct.cf

m

 

I agree with Todd that " if we can't beat them, join them! " The herbal

professions should join forces with the Drug Registration agencies

and push for the highest standards of GMP and QC (certification of

active ingredients, contaminants, etc; adequate labelling, adequate

data-sheets, with dosages, indications, contraindications, etc).

 

Below is a summary of some key points in Todd's article and his

selected abstracts:

 

As used by trained practitioners, Chinese herbalism appears to be

safe, w rare adverse reactions documented worldwide. Most CHMs

are safe if used on professional advice. One UK eczema cluster is

thought to be related to allergic hypersensitivity, not general

toxicity.

 

AVOID CHM/use w caution in pregnancy & infants; may increase

risk of neonatal jaundice. Chuenlin & Yinchen can increase risk of

hyperbilirubinaemia. AVOID these in neonates.

 

AVOID unnecessary (non-medical) long-term use of Mahuang,

Eucommia, & Renshen.

 

AVOID unnecessary use of Hbs/Formulas w cinnabar (red mercuric

sulfide), [like Bao Chi San, Xiao Er Zhi Bon Ding & Xiao Er Bai

Shou Dan], calomel (mercurous chloride), / other Hg-containing

agents. They can cause Hg poisoning.

 

AVOID use of CHMs except on professional advise. Most serious

poisoning with CHMs are due to a few preparations containing AA,

aconitine, podophyllin or anticholinergics,/proprietary preparations

containing toxic Western drugs or heavy metals. Wintergreen oil

(methyl salicylate) can be very TOXIC if ingested.

 

Chinese herb nephropathy (CHN): Samples used by affected

people had aristolochic acid (AA), a known nephrotoxin. incidents

did not involve traditional use of herbs. In no case was formula

prescribed by a fully trained & licensed practitioner of TCM. amount

of AA in formulas used in Belgian outbreaks was exceedingly low

(maximum 3-6mg per day). This is much lower than would be

expected to exert nephrotoxic effects & also much lower than

amounts typically present in Chinese formulas which contain this

Aristolochia species. AA-containing herbs have apparently been

used safely in Asian medicine for hundreds of years. TCM prohibits

long-term use of Aristolochia fangchi (Guangfangji); this may have

protected people in past.

 

Chuanwu (Rx Aconiti carmichaeli) & Caowu (Rx Aconiti kusnezoffii)

have very toxic C19 diterpenoid alkaloids, esp aconitine,

mesaconitine & hypaconitine. Excessive amounts are TOXIC

(nausea & emesis, paraesthesia, numbness in mouth &

extremities, hypotension & ventricular extrasystole) & may kill.

Death may occur from ventricular arrhythmia, usually within first 24

h. antiinflammatory, analgesic & cardiotonic effects;

musculoskeletal disorders.

 

Interferon (IFN) Tx may cause acute interstitial pneumonitis as a

side effect, & Xiao Chaihu Tang (Sho-saiko-to, TJ-9) may worsen

this side effect. IFN causes neutrophils to accumulate in LU. TJ-9

alone may not injure LU but it increases IFN effects. When

stimulated by some antigen, TJ-9 may overstimulate neutrophils.

Granulocytes elastase & oxygen radicals released from activated

neutrophils may damage LU. Fibroblasts that repair damaged

tissue may increase risk of LU fibrosis. In patients w chronic active

hepatitis, the pneumonitis was due to allergic-immunological

mechanisms. S & Ss incl: fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, hypoxaemia,

diffuse infiltrates both on chest radiography & chest CAT, restrictive

pulmonary functional impairment, & alveolitis on examination of

lung biopsy, lymphocytosis was observed in association w

dominant CD8+ T-cell subset in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. TJ-9 is

used in type B chronic hepatitis; can modulate both cellular &

humoral immune responses specific for HBV. It is an IFN-

alpha/beta inducer capable of repeated peroral administration.

 

Jin Bu Huan (Lycopodium, serratum) has potent neuroactive levo-

tetrahydropalmatine. Jin Bu Huan Anodyne Tablets have caused

severe toxic effects after acute ingestion in children & long-term

use in adults. A single, acute ingestion in children rapidly produced

life-threatening neurologic & cardiovascular S & Ss (rapid onset

bradycardia & CNS & respiratory depression). Long-term use in

adults was associated w hepatitis, fever, fatigue, nausea, pruritus,

& abdominal pain & w signs of jaundice & hepatomegaly.

 

Podophyllum emodi & Datura metel are TOXIC.

 

Some countries have banned Stephania & Magnolia, even though

they were not implicated in CHN. Stephania tetrandra (Hanfangji)

had been substituted by Guangfangji. Magnolia officinalis (Houpo)

is not known to have any toxic potential.

 

FDA will require certificates of analysis for AA & contaminants for

import of certain herbs, esp Hanfangji, Muxiang, Mutong & Xixin.

Some people have suggested finding substitutes for herbs such as

Mutong, Xixin, & Muxiang. However, it is impossible to practice

" ancient prescription (gu fang) " herbalism without using Mutong &

Xixin. One should use only herbs w certificate of analysis.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Thanks for your positivity and useful efforts Phil. < wrote:

Hi All,

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Speaking of herb regulation. I live in Illinois where Ephedra(Ma

Huang) is now illegal even for Chinese practioners. We have had quite

a battle just trying to regain the right to use it. Were still not

there yet. Our problem is that it is illegal for us to suggest or

prescribe Chinese herbs.

It's insane that I have spent 3 years studying Chinese herbs yet I

can't suggest them to patients. Yet, they can go to the health food

store and by them off the shelf without any consultation. It seems

to me that there is a big potential for TCM practioners to be nudged

out of the picture all together. I don't think I am alone in that

thought. The problem is complacency and apathy. Not a lot of people

are willing to put their neck out against The AMA Goliath that is

based in out state.

 

Dick Durbin happens to be my Senator. I am not exactly sure how to

help. I have written Senator Durbin a couple of times. Maybe I need

to go see him.

On that same thought line, the info on toxic herbs was good. If

anyone has any good resources for Chinese herb /Drug interactions I

would be grateful.

 

Thanks,

Heather Vandeburg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Heather,

 

I hear what you're saying. Consider also seeing your representative there where you live in your congressional district. A couple of years ago my wife was robbed in Taiwan of her passport and all other valuables and identification. It was quite harrowing for a month as the U.S. has no embassy in Taiwan, and also information must flow through Hawaii. I finally called Barbara Lee here in Berkeley, CA, and told her my problems. She spoke with me directly within hours of my first call to her local office. Within three days, my wife had a passport. I can't guarantee that every representative will function so effectively nor that every one of them will care in the manner of Barbara Lee. She's actually quite a special human being. However, it is important not to ignore that we live in a democracy. Start by calling or faxing a letter to your rep. Present yourself as a professional representing your industry and the interests of your patients. Begin with a faxed letter on your professional letterhead. Follow up with a call. Perhaps go for a visit. There are only 435 different people in the house. Imagine if they all got letters, calls and visits. CM would be on their radar.

 

Respectfully,

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

-

Heather

Chinese Medicine

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:55 AM

Re: Herb regulation

Speaking of herb regulation. I live in Illinois where Ephedra(Ma Huang) is now illegal even for Chinese practioners. We have had quite a battle just trying to regain the right to use it. Were still not there yet. Our problem is that it is illegal for us to suggest or prescribe Chinese herbs. It's insane that I have spent 3 years studying Chinese herbs yet I can't suggest them to patients. Yet, they can go to the health food store and by them off the shelf without any consultation. It seems to me that there is a big potential for TCM practioners to be nudged out of the picture all together. I don't think I am alone in that thought. The problem is complacency and apathy. Not a lot of people are willing to put their neck out against The AMA Goliath that is based in out state. Dick Durbin happens to be my Senator. I am not exactly sure how to help. I have written Senator Durbin a couple of times. Maybe I need to go see him. On that same thought line, the info on toxic herbs was good. If anyone has any good resources for Chinese herb /Drug interactions I would be grateful.Thanks,Heather Vandeburg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Chinese Medicine , " "

<@e...> wrote:

> Hi All!

 

> I agree with Todd that " if we can't beat them, join them! " The

herbal

> professions should join forces with the Drug Registration agencies

> and push for the highest standards of GMP and QC (certification of

> active ingredients, contaminants, etc; adequate labelling, adequate

> data-sheets, with dosages, indications, contraindications, etc).

>

> Below is a summary of some key points in Todd's article and his

> selected abstracts:

>

> As used by trained practitioners, Chinese herbalism appears to be

> safe, w rare adverse reactions documented worldwide. Most CHMs

> are safe if used on professional advice. One UK eczema cluster is

> thought to be related to allergic hypersensitivity, not general

> toxicity.

>

While I can't but agree here, this is where training and knowledge

come in. Maser Guo, a practitioner I work with closely developed

formulas for the " western body. " TCM allows us to do this so easily.

 

Besides, anyone seen the death toll related to aspirin deaths per

year? It's 20,000 or more, many more times the number of deaths to

the misuse of Ma Huang.

 

One must also realize our actions apply exponentially and will

eventually drift into the unsafe drugs and additives the FDA pushes,

such as aspartame.

 

Perhaps, it will soon appply to the food chain here and industrial

practices which need to be considered.

 

The drug companies are running scared now when you figure that it is

a well known fact there that their drugs are only effective , at

best, for 1 in 3 patients and 1 in 4 cancer patients. Of course, that

leaves out the illnesses and disrupted body functions te allopathic

medications cause, too!

 

Namaste,

Debra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I agree. That is one of the reasons they are stepping up there fight now, while they can still hoodwink enough people to get their agenda through. We are in a race to educate the public and law makers before they legislate out our ability to choose.

 

Chris

 

In a message dated 1/14/2004 11:36:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, inamorata1 writes:

The drug companies are running scared now when you figure that it is a well known fact there that their drugs are only effective , at best, for 1 in 3 patients and 1 in 4 cancer patients. Of course, that leaves out the illnesses and disrupted body functions te allopathic medications cause, too!Namaste,Debra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Point well taken. These guys are big and they are entrenched in our societal underpinnings. It is going to take some big earth movers to rock their foundation.

I think in the long run, education is the bulldozer that will stir the sands and shift those foundations.

Maybe they aren't "running scared", but I think it is possible they sense a limited time to get their objectives met with the least amount of trouble.

The FDA was shown to be abusing their powers 10 years ago and their power was reduced. I think with the correct approach, this can happen again. The drug boys are smart, and they have got to realize the more the masses learn, the harder it will be to push their agenda.

As was presented in another post, there is a fantastic list of books detailing the fraud presented by the drug companies and perpetrated by the FDA. A key to securing our freedom is getting the message out to enough people so that the fraud is no longer acceptable to the people.

My wife has a set of books readily available in here office for her clients. Maybe we should have recommended reading for our patients with books on hand for that impulse learning.

This year should be an interesting one.

Chris

 

 

In a message dated 1/14/2004 8:24:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenrose2008 writes:

I find the idea that the drug companiesare running scared to be a little enthusiastic.When you run around with billions andbillions and tens and hundreds of billionsof dollars, I guess there's always a littlefear involved. But to characterize theseenormous entities as "running scared"may just violate Sun Zi's advice thatin battle one ought to know oneself andknow the enemy, if indeed the drug companiesare the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Debra, Chris, and All,

 

I find the idea that the drug companies

are running scared to be a little enthusiastic.

 

When you run around with billions and

billions and tens and hundreds of billions

of dollars, I guess there's always a little

fear involved. But to characterize these

enormous entities as " running scared "

may just violate Sun Zi's advice that

in battle one ought to know oneself and

know the enemy, if indeed the drug companies

are the enemy.

 

Churchill pointed out that there are no

permanent allies, just as there are no

permanent enemies...only permanent interests.

 

I don't think that any of the drug companies

is scared of Debra, Chris, myself, or the

entire cohort of traditional Chinese medical

practitioners combined.

 

The bulk herbal market constitutes a tiny

fraction of the worldwide pharmaceutical

market. I think the drug companies look

on the phenomena related to the resurgent

interest in herbal and other so-called

" natural " remedies with interest and

an investigative spirit.

 

They always want to source new molecules

that do wonderful things. Their approach

is built on a successful business model,

and they have hard wired their interests

into the political-economic engines that

drive the world's great societies, as has

been energetically pointed out by others

on the list.

 

They are aligned in the business of alleviating

pain with the same powerful interests that

are in the business of dolling pain out

as punishment to those who don't toe the

line. It's civilization and its discontents

all over again.

 

But if you conceive of the enemy as running

scared and you charge into a drug company

or two on the basis of such a premise, I

think you'll find yourself in a peculiar

situation.

 

Should you or anyone actually chase down one

of these scared drug companies, please describe

its response for us in detail when you do

whatever it is one does with a scared drug

company.

 

I think the debate in the public arena is

best served by focusing on what benefits

human beings. What we think of negative

or attack PR is fun and exciting, but it

is extremely hard to sustain.

 

One permanent interest of most people

is what will make them feel better.

 

What will help people deal with their

pain? their disease? and their various

other distresses?

 

More and more I like Emmanuel's call for

a telephone, email, letter, and other forms

of communication campaign to elected representative.

 

It's amazing what a few thousand phone

calls will do in terms of getting the

staffs at congressional district offices

to sit up and take notice.

 

Wouldn't you be curious if you got

a hundred phone calls tomorrow alerting

you to this or that fact?

 

There are more than 600 souls on this

list now. How about if everybody just

picks up the phone tomorrow and calls

one congress person.

 

Can we organize that? I realize that

there are lots of people reading this

in the UK and other places that are

not primarily concerned about the fate

of such issues in the USA. You guys

can all call Tony Blair or someone else.

 

Or maybe I'm wrong about the drug companies.

 

Let's all call Merck and find out just

how scared they are.

 

But I think the elected people are a better

bet. That is, if you want to really get

more attention from legislators.

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Chris, Ken, Attilio and All,

 

I'm kind of an old guy. I didn't start medical school at the University of Texas until I was 37. I left in my third year, satisfied with the didactic training, and went to graduate school so I could teach and work in basic (not clinical) science. I got to study in five disparate areas (molecular bio., cell bio, genetic engineering, anatomy, physio., and immunology) so I could be valuable to an education-oriented biology department. I'm also a biochemist from both undergraduate and graduate training ... truly a "gradual" student. I make this point to note that I have tons of classmates. You know, school chums. Most of my graduate school classmates work in one of two areas. Unlike me, most did not choose education. The most brilliant chose to work in the drug/pharmaceutical/biotech industry. The less stellar performers ended up in various sectors of the FDA, USDA, Fish and Wildlife and so on. There's a few bright stars in government, but generally this is the way it goes.

 

All of these people (my old classmates) are working on the same team. Do you see that? Look clearly at this detail. You guys (in CM) and I are on another team. We generally play in different leagues from my friends in pharm/biotech and government. Thank goodness for some aspects of America. Most of the GDP comes from small business. Most people are employed in some aspect of small business. That's you and me. However, we are regulated by executive branch government agencies (FDA, USDA, etc.) that were created by large American industries ... or you could say the "other team". So our team which has its own internal rules has to play in this economy by the rules of the other team. It's not a level playing field. The FDA has a legislative mandate to protect the economic interests of the industry that created it. Seem natural and fair. It is naive to imagine that the FDA has the interests of the public or the consumer as a mandate. It does not. This is the red herring by which it carries out its work. It is correct that approximately 98,000 people are "scheduled" to die in the U.S. from correctly administered prescription drugs administered by well trained MDs correctly carrying out medical treatments recognized as appropriate for "conditions of benefit", as the HMOs say. These 98,000 deaths are in a sense "protected" by the FDA. The few deaths attributable to ephedra were not carried out by the "other team", so people involved with ephedra can get hammered by the FDA. Our legislators have to make an "exception" for Chinese medicine. Note clearly this detail ... an "exception".

 

I believe that Chris is right regarding education. However, if you look at any K through 12 text book, you will not see references to our team. You will see in fact direct comments by the likes of the USDA like the "eating right pyramid" which was a political compromise the USDA fashioned in 1991 out of a fight between the AMA and the Physicians for Responsible Medicine. Elizabeth Kublar Ross, M.D. founded that organization, and it's got clout because its members are scientists from the National Academy of Sciences. They managed a change in our children's textbooks from the Four Food Groups to another industry standard which, although a political compromise, is admittedly a bit better.

 

I'm suggest to you that the reality of Oriental medicine represent is not so invisible to responsible scientists and to legislators. Having a written and conversational relationship with you congress person and your senator is worth while. I brought up high profile names, Chris, because Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are someone's elected representatives in our federal government. Yes, Kennedy is a strong supporter of the FDA and it's mandate. Who better to have a conversation with about Oriental medicine? Who better to give a free treatment? Nancy Pelosi used to be my rep when I lived in SF and has seen me in her office. How nice that she represents a district with an accredited school of Oriental medicine. I to the Berkeley side of the Bay and now my elected reps are Barbara Lee and Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. The two Barbaras and Diane are my own personal Mount Rushmore ... though I'm willing to write or communicate with almost any representative as a member and representative of my industry.

 

This is my point here. I strongly recommend that everyone on this list "see themselves" and "function" as a member and representative of their industry. I remember looking one day into Ron Dellums eyes after he voted on the floor of the House. He represented the district now represented by Barbara Lee. His eyes said something to the effect: "here is the 10,000 thousandth vote in the (whatever) year of my career in this Congress." It's like he was practicing his daily taiji or qigong of democratic government on behalf of his people. Ron Dellums, like Barbara Lee, was one of the most hard working reps in the history of our government.

 

So I say go forth and practice, day by day and hour by hour, the taiji and qigong of your profession and share your perspective with those whom you have elected to turn the wheels of our government. When people like me ask you to come and speak to our anatomy/physiology students, come and speak.

 

Chris is right ... education is everything. Educate my science students, educate our government reps. Pack up your needles and join physician groups that go to give free clinical service to poor regions or poor countries. Volunteer at your local free clinic. Just make sure that your industry (our team) is represented in all realms of American life. Don't worry about being co-opted by other big teams. Most realms and areas of effort are local and small. Just shine your light. The seasons will change. Remember to keep your eyes open. You might not be able to see grass grow, but you will see new days dawn.

 

Respectfully,

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

-

Musiclear

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:39 PM

Re: Re: Herb regulation

 

 

Point well taken. These guys are big and they are entrenched in our societal underpinnings. It is going to take some big earth movers to rock their foundation.

I think in the long run, education is the bulldozer that will stir the sands and shift those foundations.

Maybe they aren't "running scared", but I think it is possible they sense a limited time to get their objectives met with the least amount of trouble.

The FDA was shown to be abusing their powers 10 years ago and their power was reduced. I think with the correct approach, this can happen again. The drug boys are smart, and they have got to realize the more the masses learn, the harder it will be to push their agenda.

As was presented in another post, there is a fantastic list of books detailing the fraud presented by the drug companies and perpetrated by the FDA. A key to securing our freedom is getting the message out to enough people so that the fraud is no longer acceptable to the people.

My wife has a set of books readily available in here office for her clients. Maybe we should have recommended reading for our patients with books on hand for that impulse learning.

This year should be an interesting one.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

One permanent interest of most people is what will make them feel better. What will help people deal with theirpain? their disease? and their various other distresses? Good. There's an opening. And make calls on behalf of yourself, profession, community, etc. Many people in all camps want what everybody else wants, and will be entertained, at least, to speak with you. Barriers can be subtle, or overt as being threatened in an alley after a lecture, but the last laugh should be everyone's. But there are big looming problems facing us, and they are hard to face for many people, even enough to make them sick or take their own lives, or drive them crazy, you know. Becuase we have to help us to get free and 'happy'.

At the same time, I think the drug companies have more than a curious interest in the minor natural markets because ; knowledge of their poor performance makes them look bad- so the info has to be blocked if the image is to be maintained, and- the freedoms inherent in free health choices also spread throughout society, and the personal liberties or egalitarian worldview that freedom engenders, threaten the global monopolies( drug/insurance/oil/energy/media/etc)further down the road.

The proponents of the the codex alimentaris are devoted to controlling not only the next couple of years but the ideological future. Most heads of state and their advisory cabinets in modern countries are very much tied to the interests of multinational corps. If this was not true, than there would be more caution about the possible future results of new novel scientific advances.

For example, in an isolated patch of genetically modified rapeseed, the honeybees have been found to have absorbed the varient dna into their stomach linings, making their offspring modified genetically also. The environment and the individual interpenetrate like yin and yang. This is a quick repeatable mutation in one or two lifetimes. That would be a red flag in a forward future looking governance. But info like that is censored because of the monetary outlay and projected return. And, the use of herbicides is not reduced on the rapeseed, so the initial hypothesis is covered over too.

About 2000, the people of our planet were communicating like never before. This set up a response to the powers that be, that if control was to be maintained, the ngo's, the fringes, the alt/cam's, needed to be marginalized.

Now things are clearer. Allow free peoples everywhere and concious, careful treading, and consensus for policy setting, or let the big dogs tell you which way is up. Or, in other words, let's proceed carefully together to find what approach to any problem is best, be it a medical therapy, food production, chemical and gizmo production, anything. We know now ecology and economy, like self and world at large are connected. But even more in this modern age we know we can't sacrifice our self and its wants and needs, just like we can't turn the world into a toxic dump and force the poor to work 20 hrs a day in a cubicle subsisting on electro-sleep and hampster pellets, while fouling the air and sea, and expect everything to come out roses. There has to be a happy medium, some kind of balance, with each other, and with what is left of the great diversity of sacred life(including yours) on the soil ball we're on.

 

Tcm and herbs and whatever you offer, even un degreed but skillful touch, wonderful. No matter how many degrees you have. peace, frankenrose2008 <kenrose2008 wrote:

Debra, Chris, and All,I find the idea that the drug companiesare running scared to be a little enthusiastic.When you run around with billions andbillions and tens and hundreds of billionsof dollars, I guess there's always a littlefear involved. But to characterize theseenormous entities as "running scared"may just violate Sun Zi's advice thatin battle one ought to know oneself andknow the enemy, if indeed the drug companiesare the enemy.Churchill pointed out that there are nopermanent allies, just as there are nopermanent enemies...only permanent interests.I don't think that any of the drug companiesis scared of Debra, Chris, myself, or theentire cohort of traditional Chinese medicalpractitioners combined.The bulk herbal market constitutes a tinyfraction of the worldwide

pharmaceuticalmarket. I think the drug companies lookon the phenomena related to the resurgentinterest in herbal and other so-called"natural" remedies with interest andan investigative spirit.They always want to source new moleculesthat do wonderful things. Their approachis built on a successful business model,and they have hard wired their interestsinto the political-economic engines thatdrive the world's great societies, as hasbeen energetically pointed out by otherson the list.They are aligned in the business of alleviatingpain with the same powerful interests thatare in the business of dolling pain outas punishment to those who don't toe theline. It's civilization and its discontentsall over again.But if you conceive of the enemy as runningscared and you charge into a drug companyor two on the basis of such a premise, I think you'll find yourself in a

peculiarsituation.Should you or anyone actually chase down oneof these scared drug companies, please describeits response for us in detail when you dowhatever it is one does with a scared drugcompany.I think the debate in the public arena isbest served by focusing on what benefitshuman beings. What we think of negativeor attack PR is fun and exciting, but itis extremely hard to sustain.One permanent interest of most peopleis what will make them feel better.What will help people deal with theirpain? their disease? and their variousother distresses?More and more I like Emmanuel's call fora telephone, email, letter, and other formsof communication campaign to elected representative.It's amazing what a few thousand phonecalls will do in terms of getting thestaffs at congressional district officesto sit up and take notice.Wouldn't you be curious if you gota

hundred phone calls tomorrow alertingyou to this or that fact?There are more than 600 souls on thislist now. How about if everybody justpicks up the phone tomorrow and callsone congress person. Can we organize that? I realize thatthere are lots of people reading thisin the UK and other places that arenot primarily concerned about the fateof such issues in the USA. You guyscan all call Tony Blair or someone else.Or maybe I'm wrong about the drug companies.Let's all call Merck and find out justhow scared they are.But I think the elected people are a betterbet. That is, if you want to really getmore attention from legislators.KenMembership requires that you do not post any commerical, swear, religious, spam messages,flame another member or swear. To change your email settings, i.e. individually, daily digest or none, visit the groups’

homepage: Chinese Medicine/ click ‘edit my membership' on the right hand side and adjust accordingly. To send an email to<Chinese Medicine- > from the email account you joined with. You will be removed automatically but will still recieve messages for a few days.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I agree in part with this, but with the addition that a strong public voice does influence legislators. We have seen it before. We will see it again.

That is why the timing of things is so important now. The books that were written to expose the FDA and other medical problems are being read. The public is being educated. There are legislators that are interested in he publics welfare. We have a voice that does influence.

Put it all together and we can make a difference.

I also disagree with the point that patients don't read. Maybe most people are too rapped up in their lives to read, but there is still a large reading community out there.

I also disagree that we need to educate people out side our healing circles. Although that would be a good thing, The way I see it is we get to motivate people to contact there gov. Representatives as to the dangers of the current extent of FDA power.

The contact is the important thing. It doesn't matter who it is.

Also, I believe there may still be some naivete in some members of congress regarding the real intent of the FDA. Maybe we should be sending bullet type emails that highlight the indiscretions of the FDA to support the drug companies.

If someone could set up a bullet type sheet, we may be able to use it to educate within our circles. Maybe we could catch the attention of local media?

Law makers are having a hard time paying for all the programs they would tike to. Sowing them how to save billions by changing the structure of healthcare could be a viable option.

Chris

 

In a message dated 1/15/2004 9:54:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

However, education of the public itself is not enough. Even if we could put our message across to 100% of the public, this may be futile in states/nations where legislation is by political vote, based on the recommendations of professional boards/regulation agencies (such as the FDA, Medical Remedies Boards, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

All,

 

Let me explain why I focus on language

to such an extent.

 

One implication of the current discussions

is that people ought to communicate more

about who they are and what they do.

Of course, they should do what they

do more and better; but what we're seeing here is

evidence of an eggregious lack of

effective communication about it.

 

Why?

 

Well, just look into your own heart

and mind. Ask yourself how truly comfortable

and confident you feel in your grasp of

the most basic aspects of Chinese medicine.

 

Do you understand what qi is?

Do you understand what yin and yang are?

Do you understand what wu xing means?

Do you understand what xu/shi mean?

Do you understand all the other terms

like, wind, fire, damp, heat, dryness, channel/network vessel?

 

How can you call up a member of congress

and have a sensible conversation about

Chinese medicine that will, almost

assuredly include this question...at

least if you succeed at really striking

up an interest on the part of your listener:

 

What is qi, anyhow?

 

I was invited to the Santa Fe Institute

several years ago when the folks there

got interested in and

read my first book. They wanted to talk

about how to get involved in research

related to Chinese medicine.

 

Tom Kepler was the guy who invited me,

and we went for a walk the first day

of my stay. You wanna know the first

question he asked me?

 

What is qi?

 

He had figured out that if he was

going to have to talk to people about

Chinese medicine, he'd better understand

what qi means.

 

I told that story in A Brief History

of Qi, because it's important to people

in our profession.

 

In order to talk effectively to people

about your subject, you simply have to

have a solid foundation of understanding

of the meanings of the words you are

saying.

 

When people use words that they don't

clearly understand, their listeners

can tell. This is what turns people

off, not the fact that there aren't

enough letters after your name.

When you hear a person struggling

through something that they don't

really understand, well, most of us

can tell when this is what we're

hearing.

 

For elected officials, it translates

experientially into lost votes.

People will not vote for someone

who does not understand what they

are saying.

 

That the current president was nevertheless

elected is a complicated political matter,

and I'll be happy to share my views on

it with anyone who wishes to know them.

But I'll take those questions off the

air to avoid the wrath of the moderator.

 

I vote for Emmanuel for President.

I'm going to start a write-in campaign.

 

That's two campaigns I'm waging now.

The first and even more urgent is

for literacy in this profession.

If you are not able to read and

understand the literature of your

subject, you will not be widely

considered, respected or listened

to as a reliable source of information.

 

The desire on the part of many

English language writers who cannot

access the Chinese literature to

redefine English language sources

as " the literature " of Chinese medicine

will not ever work, as it is based

upon a lie.

 

It has become enormously politically

incorrect to state any kind of truth.

But the simple truth is that the literature

of Chinese medicine was, is, and will always

be Chinese.

 

Those who take possession of this

literature and the knowledge that

it contains will be those who possess

it.

 

 

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi All, & Hi Chris,

 

Chris wrote:

> My wife has a set of books readily available in here office for

> her clients. Maybe we should have recommended reading for our

> patients with books on hand for that impulse learning. This year

> should be an interesting one. Chris

 

Chris, with respect, asking our clients to read books would be

unfruitful. Most people today read little or nothing but bullet-points.

Anyway, we need to influence the GENERAL public, not just the

SUBSET already sympathetic to complementary medicine.

 

Re GENERAL (public) info, IMO, the best ways are to use the

general media - newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, theatre, film,

etc. Radio and TV chat-shows have a huge following. Having

experts in complementary medicine as regular, if not permanent,

contributors to such shows can be very useful way to " educate " the

public.

 

However, education of the public itself is not enough. Even if we

could put our message across to 100% of the public, this may be

futile in states/nations where legislation is by political vote, based

on the recommendations of professional boards/regulation

agencies (such as the FDA, Medical Remedies Boards, etc).

 

Money, power and politics are entwined inextricably.IMO, unless

the holistic medical professions have fair representation on the

DECISION-MAKING BOARDS, the holistic case will be ignored.

We will remain marginalised, i.e. outside of the elite " power circles " .

 

Our goals from now on must include skilled professional lobbying of

all political parties, as well as working to ensure constant input to

(if not fair representation on) the Drug Regulation Boards.

 

The allopathic drug companies are NOT the only enemies of

holistic medicine. Holistic concepts and practices threaten the

" authority base " , professional credibility and income of the entire

allopathic structure, from " steroid and valium " prescribing GPs, to

hip-replacement surgeons, to academics and professors on their

pedestals.Tin Gods on shaky pedestals resent like pedestals that

crowd their space!

 

Professional lobbying and representation in the power circles cost

a LOT of MONEY. In that regard, the holistic professions are the

Davids who face the Goliaths of the allopathic/surgical professions,

the hospital industry, and the multinational pharma companies.

 

As in the Biblical story, this will be an unfair fight, heavily stacked

against us. We need powerful slings and well-aimed stones to have

any real hope of winning.

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I disagree to an extent on the importance of language here Ken. I

don't think your average politican really cares about the variables

of the word Qi. He or she really only care about votes, as Emmanuel

said. When enough of the public start taking an interest into TCM

and start asking their local politican where is it and how can they

get more of it, then they take heed.

 

Of course, this is only going to come about through extensive PR. I

also believe that many patients and the public as a whole are

interested in the theory of TCM and how it is treating them,

espcially when all else has failed them, which is usually the case.

A few patients ask which books they can read to get an understanding

of TCM.

 

Even those that haven't been treated with TCM, the lay majority of

the public do read articles about TCM. Only recently i found two

articles on the use of acupuncture with positive results. More

people read to write these papers or treat journalists and get them

to write them up in their columns.

 

Only by changing the mass of public opinion will anything come about.

 

Attilio

 

 

" kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008> wrote:

> All,

>

> Let me explain why I focus on language

> to such an extent.

>

> One implication of the current discussions

> is that people ought to communicate more

> about who they are and what they do.

> Of course, they should do what they

> do more and better; but what we're seeing here is

> evidence of an eggregious lack of

> effective communication about it.

>

> Why?

>

> Well, just look into your own heart

> and mind. Ask yourself how truly comfortable

> and confident you feel in your grasp of

> the most basic aspects of Chinese medicine.

>

> Do you understand what qi is?

> Do you understand what yin and yang are?

> Do you understand what wu xing means?

> Do you understand what xu/shi mean?

> Do you understand all the other terms

> like, wind, fire, damp, heat, dryness, channel/network vessel?

>

> How can you call up a member of congress

> and have a sensible conversation about

> Chinese medicine that will, almost

> assuredly include this question...at

> least if you succeed at really striking

> up an interest on the part of your listener:

>

> What is qi, anyhow?

>

> I was invited to the Santa Fe Institute

> several years ago when the folks there

> got interested in and

> read my first book. They wanted to talk

> about how to get involved in research

> related to Chinese medicine.

>

> Tom Kepler was the guy who invited me,

> and we went for a walk the first day

> of my stay. You wanna know the first

> question he asked me?

>

> What is qi?

>

> He had figured out that if he was

> going to have to talk to people about

> Chinese medicine, he'd better understand

> what qi means.

>

> I told that story in A Brief History

> of Qi, because it's important to people

> in our profession.

>

> In order to talk effectively to people

> about your subject, you simply have to

> have a solid foundation of understanding

> of the meanings of the words you are

> saying.

>

> When people use words that they don't

> clearly understand, their listeners

> can tell. This is what turns people

> off, not the fact that there aren't

> enough letters after your name.

> When you hear a person struggling

> through something that they don't

> really understand, well, most of us

> can tell when this is what we're

> hearing.

>

> For elected officials, it translates

> experientially into lost votes.

> People will not vote for someone

> who does not understand what they

> are saying.

>

> That the current president was nevertheless

> elected is a complicated political matter,

> and I'll be happy to share my views on

> it with anyone who wishes to know them.

> But I'll take those questions off the

> air to avoid the wrath of the moderator.

>

> I vote for Emmanuel for President.

> I'm going to start a write-in campaign.

>

> That's two campaigns I'm waging now.

> The first and even more urgent is

> for literacy in this profession.

> If you are not able to read and

> understand the literature of your

> subject, you will not be widely

> considered, respected or listened

> to as a reliable source of information.

>

> The desire on the part of many

> English language writers who cannot

> access the Chinese literature to

> redefine English language sources

> as " the literature " of Chinese medicine

> will not ever work, as it is based

> upon a lie.

>

> It has become enormously politically

> incorrect to state any kind of truth.

> But the simple truth is that the literature

> of Chinese medicine was, is, and will always

> be Chinese.

>

> Those who take possession of this

> literature and the knowledge that

> it contains will be those who possess

> it.

>

>

>

> Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...