eastern/western science analogies

May 9, 2008

Hi,

Studying Chinese medicine I often make guesses about the Western

scientific equivalents of the Chinese concepts and processes.

For example, reading about the Lung/Metal, I remembered the oxidative

and antibacterial (~wei qi) properties of metals. Oxygen transport in

the blood is also enabled by a certain metal, iron in the hemoglobin.

It's clear that metal-oxygen-respiration-lungs are very closely

related notions also in the Western science.

Do any of you know about a book or research done in this direction?

Regards,

Tamas

May 9, 2008

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:14 AM, yakenez <knz wrote:

> Hi,

>

> Studying Chinese medicine I often make guesses about the Western

> scientific equivalents of the Chinese concepts and processes.

>

> Do any of you know about a book or research done in this direction?

>

Here's the short answer. Yes, there is a book that goes in that direction.

It is called The Dao of by Donald Kendall.

The longer answer is this: I am in the process of questioning some of Dr.

" Deke " Kendall's assertions and plan on writing up a journal article to this

end. Deke makes a number of exceedingly erroneous assumptions regarding

Chinese history, language, culture and medicine. It is somewhat irritating

when he states over and over that the concept of " energy flowing through

channels " is not what the ancient Chinese meant, but that they were talking

exclusively about blood vessels and other known structures. He has made some

good theoretical connections between our modern approach to anatomy and

physiology, but has also suggested that the industry dump any and all

references to TCM in favor of only talking like MDs using biomedical terms.

While I agree with the idea of TCM practitioners being more bilingual, I

disagree with his statements about " what the ancient Chinese *really* meant,

but the modern Chinese have gotten all wrong. "

So, that's actually what I'm addressing this month on my own time. As for

your statements...

For example, reading about the Lung/Metal, I remembered the oxidative

and antibacterial (~wei qi) properties of metals. Oxygen transport in

the blood is also enabled by a certain metal, iron in the hemoglobin.

It's clear that metal-oxygen-respiration-lungs are very closely

related notions also in the Western science.

You have made a reasonable statement here, but remember that it can also be

said of cellular metabolism that water, and fire, and earth, and wood all

have a place and can be articulated via one or another scientific

discipline.

My point is that wherever we look, we can find correspondences between TCM

theory and biomedical insights. But we also run the risk of suggesting that

one interpretation of phenomena is more real than another. Or run the risk

of thinking that there is ANY one-to-one correspondence between a TCM

observation and a biomedical observation. Dr. Kendall goes to some length to

say that De Qi (the qi in the air we breath) is really just oxygen. This is

a perfectly reasonable statement to make given what we know about

respiration. However he goes on to say that because oxygen enables aerobic

respiration (and thus the Kreb's cycle in the mitochondria) that we don't

need to talk about De Qi anymore, we can just say that it is all oxygen.

Again, this is a perfectly acceptable point to make when talking to doctors.

I do it all the time (translate and simplify for the audience, such as

speaking to MDs or a mailing list full of consumers and students). However,

because the Kreb's cycle is a well understood concept in biomedicine, Deke

says that we shouldn't have to learn TCM anymore because we understanding

things well enough with biomedicine.

Problem is, the other half of his argument says that because we all know

that cellular energy comes from mitochondria, and because these mitochondria

are working in each cell independently of all others, there is no channel

connecting the acupoints or qi flowing through it. It is all cellular

metabolism.

This is where he starts to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are

plenty of TCM anatomical and physiological parallels between TCM and

biomedicine. However there is also LOT'S that TCM says that have not yet

been discovered by biomedicine, including the existence of discrete channels

(apart from blood vessels, nerves, lymph or other existing structures), and

so they must not really exist (according to Deke's logic).

I don't personally have a strong opinion on whether or not they exist, what

I have a problem with is Deke saying that because biomedicine hasn't found

it yet, it doesn't exist AND that we (including modern Chinese) have it all

wrong, and only he gets it.

This is hugely irritating to me. So, I'm all on the warpath about it and

will be spending the next few weeks working on some journal articles to that

end.

-al.

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

May 9, 2008

> It is called The Dao of by Donald Kendall.

Al, thank you. I think I check out that book but I agree with you.

My profession is computer programmer and in the computer science I've

found something what I think is a good analogy to the relation

between biomedicine and CM (I'd rather omit the 'T').

In our (programmers') daily jobs we work with things that actually

don't exist as a physical reality. We work with things like we call

'classes' and 'objects' which live their own lives inside the

computer programs and interact with each other. For a programmer

they're as real as the cup of coffee on the desk.

Yet, if you open a computer (with a screwdriver) you won't find them.

Even if you're the world's smartest physicist with the best measuring

devices, you find only electrons running on insanely complex

networks. But you'll never find our higher-level structures because

they don't exist in that sense.

Maybe most CM concepts are also nonexistent in that sense, yet

they're very real on a higher level.

I only ask sometimes, how did they know?

Tamas

> Here's the short answer. Yes, there is a book that goes in that

direction.

> It is called The Dao of by Donald Kendall.

>

> The longer answer is this: I am in the process of questioning some

of Dr.

> " Deke " Kendall's assertions and plan on writing up a journal

article to this

[...]

> , DAOM

May 9, 2008

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:57 PM, yakenez <knz wrote:

> Maybe most CM concepts are also nonexistent in that sense, yet

> they're very real on a higher level.

>

> I only ask sometimes, how did they know?

>

A lot of times, we fall back on clinical results to answer that question.

Those traditions that have withstood the test of time are those that we know

about now, whereas the many theories or practices that didn't get the job

done were left behind to fade with the passage of time.

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

May 10, 2008

Just by happenstance I today came across an interview (Part 2) with

historian of Paul Unschuld on acupuncturetoday. I'd

like to know if any of you are familiar with his ideas.

A couple decades ago I read a brief statement by a doctor of Chinese

Medicine to the effect that we are fooling ourselves if we think that

acupuncture & herbs is really " traditional " Chinese medicine. This

doctor thought that emphasis on acu & herbs is to please westerners,

who otherwise wouldn't comprehend the " true " CM [and therefore reject

it, since we apparently need a westernized version of something that

is inherently incomprehensible to us.] And I did not think about it

much further.

Unschuld says (among lots of other things):

" ...few people are aware that TCM is a misnomer for an artificial

system of health care ideas and practices generated between 1950 and

1975 by committees in the People's Republic of China, with the aim of

restructuring the vast and heterogenous heritage of Chinese

traditional medicine in such a way that it fitted the principles –

Marxist-Maoist type democracy and modern science and technology – on

which the future of the PRC was to be built. TCM, as it came to be

known in the West beginning with the late 1970s, reflects only a

portion of the tremendously variegated body of knowledge accumulated

in the preceding two millennia. While it is entirely understandable

and legitimate for the Chinese leadership to select from this

tradition, and to reinterpret those elements it considers helpful to

build a future meaningful coexistence of modern Western and

traditional Chinese ideas and practices, it is not clear whether

populations in Western countries wish to make the same choices when

they are confronted with the legacy of the past. It is therefore that

I distinguish between TCM and " CTM, " the latter referring to the

entirety of health care knowledge, beliefs and practices prior to the

20th century. "

If anyone here has read the whole interview I would be very interested

to hear your opinions of the ideas expressed in it. Tks. - Mrs. B.

Oh, and I'd be interested to know how much history of Chinese medicine

you study in the CM schools of today.

>

May 10, 2008

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Mrs. Barley <chosenbarley wrote:

> Just by happenstance I today came across an interview (Part 2) with

> historian of Paul Unschuld on acupuncturetoday. I'd

> like to know if any of you are familiar with his ideas.

>

T'is the season for such things, I guess.

> A couple decades ago I read a brief statement by a doctor of Chinese

> Medicine to the effect that we are fooling ourselves if we think that

> acupuncture & herbs is really " traditional " Chinese medicine. This

> doctor thought that emphasis on acu & herbs is to please westerners,

> who otherwise wouldn't comprehend the " true " CM [and therefore reject

> it, since we apparently need a westernized version of something that

> is inherently incomprehensible to us.] And I did not think about it

> much further.

>

A couple of decades ago, China was insecure about itself and wanted to

Westernize everything, there's still some of that going on, but there is a

slow but growing trend of appreciation for what they have to offer to the

West too.

I can't speak about this doctor's statements, but the medicine that I do, is

the same medicine as my teachers from China do. We can speak about this very

clearly. Whatever " western " TCM was floating around a few decades ago is

gone now.

While the early books that showed up in the English language were somewhat

Westernized (or simplified), there was enough Chinese medicine in there that

our profession was able to begin, but I know that while I had to use these

books when I learned, I also had a wonderful mentor who is " Mr. Nei Jing "

and was ALL about the classic theories applied to the clinical reality. This

guy had the Shang Han Lun memorized at age 16! The fact that he can say that

phlegm in the blood is like cholestoral or Stomach fire may be an h-pylori

infection doesn't take anything from his clinical insights. I think that we

have plenty of true Chinese medicine available to us. If there is anybody

Westernizing TCM (or CTM or whatever) it is people like Deke Kendall and to

a certain extent those who overly spiritualize these things such as the

Worsley Five Element school and the chakra-based " Esoteric Acupuncture " .

These are new ideas (I won't attack efficacy since I claim ignorance) and

are not Chinese. The Chinese are not all about self-development. That is not

a Confucian idea, they're about the family, group, team, or nation. These

spiritualized acupuncture ideas are very self-important. Not Chinese at all!

>

> Unschuld says (among lots of other things):

>

> [removed for brevity]

>

> If anyone here has read the whole interview I would be very interested

> to hear your opinions of the ideas expressed in it. Tks. - Mrs. B.

>

Unschuld is a respected academic, but not a clinician.

Facts that I'm aware of (but have to work harder to cite sources, not done

yet...):

1. There were committees appointed by the government that attempted to

weed out the traditional therapies that simply didn't work. What they came

up with is no doubt imperfect, but also reflected the best that they could

do at the time.

2. It was this action that cause the spiritualized acupuncture to state

that the government removed all spirituality from the medicine. However, the

spiritual acupuncture techniques that I see today really don't look Chinese

at all. (See above) The martial arts claims the same thing, that the

" internal arts " were lost after the communists took over in favor of only

the " external arts " . This was taught to me by my own kung fu teacher, but

having gone to China and seen the tai chi masters there, I don't buy it

anymore. The government cannot remove from the people what culture has

placed there over thousands of years. While I can list a number of things

that I believe the Chinese kind of suck at, martial arts is not one of them,

and that includes qi gong and all the internal stuff that we look for.

3. There were Western concepts that got in there, such as " menopause "

suddenly becoming a disease or problem that should be treated. This is a

Western notion, not a pre-maoist notion.

4. The " herbalization " of acupuncture did take place, but a lot of

channel theory based acupuncture remains. So, there were some gyrations

necessary to get them under the same umbrella, but overall, it wasn't so

bad, at least based on those whom I see practicing this style of

acupuncture. It actually gave herbalists and acupuncturists more of a common

language to talk about. So, acupuncturists can say " Stomach 36 " while an

herbalist can say " ginseng " and their roughly talking about the same thing.

5. Many of the integrated ideas that the Maoist regime attempted (to

agree with Marxist notions or Western medicine integration). I never got any

politics from my teachers. Now and then, when push comes to shove over

things like Tibet, they all favor the one-nation approach. But I've never

seen it affect the medicine. Most of the people I see treating are strongly

apolitical to begin with. Just like we can see through a lot of the

government's rhetoric during political campaigns, so it is that it is easy

enough to ignore the propaganda that shows up in the books, which I have

personally seen, but never as part of the TCM chapters, only in the

introduction to books.

6. Politicization of medicine has been taking place since the warring

states period of China. This too is nothing new. Nobody said that TCM was

divinely inspired and impervious to debate or criticism. These are Western

notions, not the facts on the streets of Beijing. We have politicization of

medicine in the US too, consider the rules surrounding birth-control,

abortion or end-of-life issues.

But thanks for bringing his writings to my attention, I'll check out the AT

articles. I think that the reality of TCM as it is practiced by those in the

clinics of China will fall somewhere in between Deke's " its all nerves,

blood vessels, lymph, etc. " and the Unschuld statements about it all being a

fabrication of the communist government.

As for me, I've always been drawn to the classics, and I see their practical

benefits being played out in modern TCM. That's my perceptions, but

apparently I'm not the only one with an opinion here.

-al.

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

May 10, 2008

Below is a link to a short piece on the Westernization of Chinese

medicine. I wrote it in the context of the ancient forecasting system

described in the Yellow Emperor's classic, but it applies to all of

CM. When reading it, please replace every instance of " Traditional

" with just " Chinese medicine " ; at the time, I didn't

know about the recent origin of TCM. I'll fix it when time permits.

<http://ginsengpress.com/press/history.html>

May 10, 2008

Here's a lengthy and detailed article on the westernization/TCM issue.

http://www.classicalchinesemedicine.org/ccm/tcmgermany05.htm

It gives a much darker picture about the past and present of CM

education and practice.

(of course I just share this paper as it is, not as my own opinion,

I'm not that knowledgable to decide on historical issues.)

Tamas

May 10, 2008

Terrific article -- thank you!

Ariel

On May 10, 2008, at 4:39, yakenez wrote:

> Here's a lengthy and detailed article on the westernization/TCM issue.

>

> http://www.classicalchinesemedicine.org/ccm/tcmgermany05.htm

>

> It gives a much darker picture about the past and present of CM

> education and practice.

May 10, 2008

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:39 AM, yakenez <knz wrote:

> Here's a lengthy and detailed article on the westernization/TCM issue.

>

> http://www.classicalchinesemedicine.org/ccm/tcmgermany05.htm

>

> It gives a much darker picture about the past and present of CM

> education and practice.

>

This is a very good article.

I'll tell you what, though. In my own training, as part of the pre-existing

curriculum of Emperor's College in California (which is roughly the same as

other California schools), I found quite a bit of reliance on " traditional "

diagnostic methods such as the four examinations. While the books we had to

work with in the early 90's weren't quite as numerous as they are now, they

were close enough, and I've never felt that my own understanding of the

traditional basis of TCM was lacking, even when reading articles that

suggest that the Chinese have caused Chinese medicine to go extinct.

I've just finished a book on diagnosis which uses some of the writings of

traditions-proponent Tietao Deng (mentioned in Fruehauf's article) as one of

many easily obtained sources.

I have met TCM folks from China who do favor the Western approach, but

honestly they are not respected for their TCM, but for their integrated

medicine, and there is most certainly a place for them in the big picture.

One problem is that students really can't tell who's doing Western medicine

and who's doing TCM. I find that commonly, even recent grads don't know the

difference. (By the way did you notice in that article that they're

prescribing antibiotics for the common cold? Still can't get the logic in

that one)

I just want people who read this article to understand that there is more

than enough traditional medicine information (training, classes, mentors,

etc.) floating around to produce some half-decent practitioners of TCM. But

don't expect to leave school with this depth of knowledge. One thing that I

can say about TCM is that it favors age and experience, while Western

medicine favors updated knowledge of research and standards of care. (Yes,

there are plenty of old family doctors who are better clinically, but I'm

speaking in cultural generalities.) This " westernized " approach is somewhat

foreign to me as most of my own mentors in the field are fervent fans of

Chinese culture... not communism, but culture.

In fact, my main guy says that he " hates " the communists. He has a large

scar on his face that I've never asked about, but always somewhat presumed

was part of that resentment. He was also privy to the happenings in

Tienanmen square in the 90's, whatever year that was.

We have an inside joke amongst those of us who've studied with him. When

asked where we got this or that statement regarding a patient's issues, we

just shrug our shoulders and say " nei jing theory " which is not at all

Western medicine. Even the things that you've heard me talk about on this

list often hearken back to the classics.

And therein lies my own personal disconnect. I can tell the difference

between Western and Chinese medicine. As a perfect example of the classical

literature that was not thrown out by the Maoists, take a look at some of

Heiner Fruehauf's excellent articles, all going deeply into what I consider

" TCM " :

http://www.itmonline.org/5organs/intro.htm

This article actually talks about which eras different information came

from... there is a much longer article, perhaps about zang fu organs, that I

saw online a few years back that was so good I bookmarked it, but can't find

it now for some reason. But it wasn't anything new, it was just really well

organized, sign of a good author.

One more thing: here is a well stated rebuttal to the observations of

Fruehoff from , a former instructor at PCOM in San Diego:

http://www..org/archive/tcm.html

Finally, in regards to the difference between " Classical Chinese medicine "

(CCM) and " Traditional " (TCM). Calling what we do " TCM " I

think is perfectly fine, though in China they just call it " Chinese

medicine " They have a different term for " Chinese food " too. They call it

" dinner " .

-al.

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

May 11, 2008

Mr's B,

Perhaps you can clarify what you believe? What was your intention in writing

this post? What are you trying to convey, or is it something else?

It's curious that the cited work does not outline the

therapies/theories/clinical experience that might 'be missing.'

You wrote:

I read a brief statement by a doctor of to the effect that we

are fooling ourselves if we think that

acupuncture & herbs is really " traditional " Chinese medicine. (Inflammatory at

best.)

I don't read Unschuld saying that. If you read " Chinese Acupuncture and

Moxibustion " one of the definitive introductoryTCM text, and then have

practiced for nearly a decade, (perhaps less for some), then you realize how

much was not taught or known. But the problem I have here is that you haven't

provided, perhaps Unschuld didn't either, what he means. Then you take his

statement....

Unschulds writing...

" TCM, as it came to be known in the West beginning with the late 1970s is only

a portion of the tremendously variegated body of knowledge accumulated. "

and write that " acupuncture and herbs (are not) " really " Chinese medicine. "

Okay let's backup....

TCM (the label) denotes what came out of PRC after Mao and his boys standardized

the system of medicine in place and presented that to the world. As yes, I

believe they did so at a net loss initially. (I think of the analogy of the

Nicean's trying to agree on what was to become the Bible. This coming from

people who weren't even there.) Lots of acupuncture theories and practice was

not included. Unschuld is saying TCM, (the label), is not inclusive of all

knowledge and experience developed by the thousands of families of practitioners

of herbs and acupuncture who were displaced, destroyed and disregarded.

Our job is to discover the important stuff that was thrown out, left out,

forgotton, hidden and so on.

This is uninvited but...Be careful of making assumptions about what someone is

saying without knowing the history and context. Be even more careful about

saying, " that we are fooling ourselves if we think that acupuncture & herbs is

really " traditional " Chinese medicine. "

Consider this also...as I think this might be a fair comparison.

What is karate or yoga once it has evolved here in " the West? " Are they no

longer karate or yoga? Or are they just the continued evolutions of a great,

deep traditions that were never fully transmitted or taught.

Take also into account the inherent inability of translating characters to words

and cultural differences, and you can assume there are going to be some errors

and misassumptions and agendas and so on.

Perhaps one could argue that the chigong and taichi that wasn't included in some

of the PRC texts was also Chinese medicine....?

Also maybe that the fortunetelling and ancestor worship was an integral piece of

this system.

Me, I say the practice of acupuncture and herbs, whether you call them TCM,

Classical , Oriental medicine or some new label we want to agree

on, (Who's we?), is an incredible vast, unfathomable body of experience and

knowledge that really excites and confounds me.

To try to convince anyone of anything else speaks to me of fundamentalism. (I

hope we're not trying to choose labels here!)

What works for you?

In Health

Pete

-

Mrs. Barley

Chinese Traditional Medicine

Friday, May 09, 2008 7:41 PM

[Chinese Traditional Medicine] Re: eastern/western science analogies

Just by happenstance I today came across an interview (Part 2) with

historian of Paul Unschuld on acupuncturetoday. I'd

like to know if any of you are familiar with his ideas.

A couple decades ago I read a brief statement by a doctor of Chinese

Medicine to the effect that we are fooling ourselves if we think that

acupuncture & herbs is really " traditional " Chinese medicine. This

doctor thought that emphasis on acu & herbs is to please westerners,

who otherwise wouldn't comprehend the " true " CM [and therefore reject

it, since we apparently need a westernized version of something that

is inherently incomprehensible to us.] And I did not think about it

much further.

Unschuld says (among lots of other things):

" ...few people are aware that TCM is a misnomer for an artificial

system of health care ideas and practices generated between 1950 and

1975 by committees in the People's Republic of China, with the aim of

restructuring the vast and heterogenous heritage of Chinese

traditional medicine in such a way that it fitted the principles -

Marxist-Maoist type democracy and modern science and technology - on

which the future of the PRC was to be built. TCM, as it came to be

known in the West beginning with the late 1970s, reflects only a

portion of the tremendously variegated body of knowledge accumulated

in the preceding two millennia. While it is entirely understandable

and legitimate for the Chinese leadership to select from this

tradition, and to reinterpret those elements it considers helpful to

build a future meaningful coexistence of modern Western and

traditional Chinese ideas and practices, it is not clear whether

populations in Western countries wish to make the same choices when

they are confronted with the legacy of the past. It is therefore that

I distinguish between TCM and " CTM, " the latter referring to the

entirety of health care knowledge, beliefs and practices prior to the

20th century. "

If anyone here has read the whole interview I would be very interested

to hear your opinions of the ideas expressed in it. Tks. - Mrs. B.

Oh, and I'd be interested to know how much history of Chinese medicine

you study in the CM schools of today.

>

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.11/1422 - Release 5/8/2008

5:24 PM

May 11, 2008

Chinese Traditional Medicine , <ACUDOYLE wrote:

>

> Mr's B,

>

> Perhaps you can clarify what you believe? What was your intention in

writing this post? What are you trying to convey, or is it something else?

>

Hi, Acudoyle. I don't have any " beliefs " regarding

as it's understood here in N.A. I am not even a student. I've been a

client of a few doctors of , have been interested in

herbology since a teenager and just like reading up on things in

general. The doctors of C.M.who I consulted when I was unwell have

been mostly helpful.

I was not trying to " convey " anything at all by quoting a

few words from Unschuld, nor by relating what I heard an American

(i.e., European white)doctor of say. Both men's

words sounded interesting, and I wondered what doctors & students of

C.M. who frequent this forum might have to say in this connection.

I don't give a hoot if Chinese medicine as practiced nowadays here in

N.A. is pure or impure, complete or incomplete. As the centuries wear

on, some things will continue to be included and some will fall by the

wayside, for any reason or no apparent reason that anyone can discern;

things get slithered into other things but it's nice to know what

happened along the way. The American dr. of C.M. said that he thought

the " real " C.M. was far more psychological/spiritual in nature than

" just " feeling pulses & looking at tongues, and subsequently poking

with needles and prescribing herbal formulas. I never forgot these

words and came to wonder if he was expressing an opinion or if he had

a strong basis for saying these words. Of course I don't know what

the real situation is.

My intention in writing my post was to continue a discussion on the

origins and development of what we today consider " Chinese " medicine.

May 11, 2008

> The American dr. of C.M. said that he thought

> the " real " C.M. was far more psychological/spiritual in nature than

> " just " feeling pulses & looking at tongues, and subsequently poking

> with needles and prescribing herbal formulas.

My doctor and mentor practices the more classical form of CM (I don't

want to call it CCM because I'm not sure of all the current

implications of that label). For diagnosis, he works mainly with

pulses, tongues, etc., a lot of Five-element theory, a very taoist

outlook and, in the more difficult cases, astrology and feng shui.

For treatment, he uses primarily herbs, acupuncture when indicated,

and occasionally, some other modalities. He also sometimes provides

nutritional advice (non-Western). Herbs are prescribed to be taken at

specific times of day and the formulas are adjusted for climate,

season and current weather patterns.

He's also worked with more shamanic practices, but only in China.

Ariel

May 12, 2008

Hi Mrs B...

Â You ask some good questions, but it is obvious that we generally don't have

enough information in the west. Acupuncture is a major part of ,

as are the use of herbs. They are, by no means, most of ,

especially when we consider the fact that the Chinese Medical System, in its

various forms, IS , and all else are but tools.

Â There are a tremendous number of tools, of which Acupuncture and Herbal

Medicine are only part - in this sense, it is perfectly true to say that people

misunderstand what CM is. When I get constant referrals of people wanting

acupuncture for their problem, when they would be better served by herbs, (or

cupping, or tuina, or moxa, or music therapy, or skin scraping, or qi gong

(which includes what should be an obvious component of deep

introspection( " psychotherapy " )), or shi liao (dietary therapy), or (you get the

picture) ), you can imagine that it is frustrating having to convince them

otherwise, since really, they don't know or understand what is.

Chinese medicine is NOT acupuncture.

Â I believe that many (but not enough)Â professionals are aware of Unschuld,

Scheid, Needham, Wiseman, Fruehauf and so on. It is the patients, perhaps, who

need more of this awareness.

Â It is true that " westerners " (whatever that means) need something more

familiar that they can accept. The marks that either cupping or gua sha can

produce are so " obviously " injury that many have a difficult time accepting them

for the intensely restorative therapies that they are. Scarring moxa is another

one, or fire needle. Even fire massage won't be seen being performed on

" westerners " anytime soon.

Â Hugo

________

Sent from Mail.

A Smarter Email http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html

May 12, 2008

Well this is a very interesting thread of conversation. An good timing to as I

am taking a course that has me looking at both western and TCM medicine. Both

are kinda new to me as I have been raised in Native medicine ways. I find it

odd that there is those who can't get respect for mixing the ways. Yes it is

good to learn and understand anothers way of healing because each has its place

in the field of healing. I don't knock any one of them and in fact am very happy

to learn both. One seems a bit more physical and the other more spiritual and

more energy wise but yet both work with my way and both have given my

understanding of healing a bit more understanding.

What are the commonalities that would benefit from this mixture?

Is it possible for both to overcome the differences and understand the mixture?

May 12, 2008

Â It depends on the person, dear. You yourselfÂ can mix them without a problem,

but you'll find that your heart is in the right place. There are others who

cannot mix, or would try to do so for the benefit of one system, rather than

mixing with " the heart in mind " .

Â For me, that's what it boils down to.

Â Hugo

ladyflov <shamandot

Chinese Traditional Medicine

Monday, 12 May, 2008 11:58:13 AM

[Chinese Traditional Medicine] Re: eastern/western science analogies

What are the commonalities that would benefit from this mixture?

Is it possible for both to overcome the differences and understand the mixture?

May 12, 2008

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:58 AM, ladyflov <shamandot wrote:

> What are the commonalities that would benefit from this mixture?

>

Well, we all want to eliviate suffering, etc. The way that TCM and

biomedicine are integrated in China often comes down to treating acute

problems with more drugs (or emergency procedures) and less herbs (and/or

TCM modalities). Whereas in chronic phases, the focus turns to TCM while the

drug dosages are reduced.

Is it possible for both to overcome the differences and understand the

> mixture?

>

They've come to a nice blend of the two approaches in China. There is ample

respect for both approaches there. Of course, there are no shortage of

critics, but from my experience there, they are a small minority. Even

patients with whom I spoke in Western hospitals (no TCM at all) spoke highly

of what I'd come to learn (TCM).

There is a lot of ignorance in the West regarding what " TCM " or East/West

integration in China is. And I include myself in that ignorance to a certain

extent. My own goal is to simply elevate TCM to an equal footing in terms of

respect is all. Deke Kendall and his supporters really want to eliminate any

training or description of TCM that doesn't use biomedical theories and

mechanisms. I find this is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Very

short-sighted in my opinion.

However I do support their call to teach biomedicine better in TCM schools.

I have no problem with this. I can see a variety of benefits to this.

They're just going way too far and their approach smacks of a rather

profound ignorance to me.

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

May 12, 2008

Chine The marks that either cupping or gua sha can produce are

so " obviously " injury that many have a difficult time accepting them

for the intensely restorative therapies that they are. Scarring moxa

is another one, or fire needle. Even fire massage won't be seen being

performed on " westerners " anytime soon.

> Â Hugo

>

Hey, Hugo, your mention of cupping brings back a memory, if y'all

would indulge me! In 1993 I had sudden severe pain in a hip joint.

It would not go away completely no matter what I tried. First visit I

got acupuncture from a young, just-in-from-China female TCM doctor.

Not a word of English (okay, maybe about a dozen). Some relief obtained.

Second visit, she motioned me to lie face down on the table. I felt

her push my blouse up and my skirt down, enough to expose the middle

of the back of my body. I heard clanking, as of jars, turned around

and saw the doctor with a lighter giving off a large flame, and I do

mean large. I hadn't a clue, friends, not a clue what was going on,

but decided to let it all happen. After all, this was Chinese

medicine, not western! Then I felt funny things going on, on my back.

She could not tell me what was happening to me because she spoke no

English and I, no Chinese. Later on at home I looked at my back and

saw these giant bruises. Didn't faze me at all! As a matter of fact,

I showed them to every visitor who came to our house. I felt pretty

good. That is my tale.

>

May 12, 2008

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Mrs. Barley <chosenbarley wrote:

> Later on at home I looked at my back and

> saw these giant bruises. Didn't faze me at all! As a matter of fact,

> I showed them to every visitor who came to our house. I felt pretty

> good. That is my tale.

>

Gwyneth Paltrow has a similar story, but she showed off her " crop circles "

for all to see at an Oscar awards red carpet.

http://gancao.net/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST & f=1 & t=551

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

May 13, 2008

Mrs. B

Great story.

Had the same experience with huge black and purple sha (nearly covered my whole

upper/mid back) from gua sha and cupping around 14 years ago.

Resolved in about 36 hrs and no cold symptoms one hour after treatment.

Pretty cool.

Have also heard of Vietnamese families being called to school conferences after

teachers noticed bruises on their children's backs from these treatments.

Teachers assumed physical abuse.

Yikes, education is a good thing.

Try to show photos before I do this to clients. Select group to say the least.

;-)

All the best.

Pete

-

Mrs. Barley

Chinese Traditional Medicine

Monday, May 12, 2008 3:37 PM