Combinin T.C.M. with Western Medicine

[Guest guest]

Chinese & Western medicine successfully combined

 

 

 

Hey fellow T.C.M. junkies, I read this book and it is amazing, yeah the text

below was prewritten got so sick of typing the same thing all the time. Let me

know what you think

 

I recently read a book titled " Unification of Western Medicine of Traditional

" about a doctor who claimed he had found a way to combine the

two medicines without conflict or confusion. Being that I have had I keen

interest in the subject for many years I have read lots of books on how to solve

the conflicts between these two very different medicines, I would have to say up

till now they have all been at a cost. Let me elaborate, many of these

suggestions mean losing much of the true essence of each medicine, or simply

discarding anything that doesn’t fit easily. If you do this you then lose many

of the benefits of the original theory, you have now combined modern medicine

with something else. Too often researchers try to simplify the theory at the

cost of thousands of year’s worth of accumulated knowledge. I also noticed that

the current research seemed very focused on specific illnesses but very few were

addressing the big picture. Like most I believed unification

was a dream that might happen 100 years from now, but that has all changed. Now

by nature I am a very skeptical and logical person, so when I kept seeing all

the publicity popping up about this doctor and his rather presumptuous claim I

was determined to find fault in his ideas. However after reading the book

atleast four times I have to say he has done it, he has solved all the major

conflicts in theory of how to combine the two medicines. To all those people who

are as skeptical as I was I say read the book, as it is self evident and

undeniable.

 

As everyone will still be extremely skeptical I will do my best to explain how

he did it. Firstly, he gave looking at the big picture a new meaning. When most

researchers have only approached it from a medical angle, Dr L.Lee has

approached it from a historic, cultural, philosophical and logical perspective.

In short he says the only way to see the solution was to step outside of

medicine as medical researchers often cant. Historic & cultural – it is shown

very clearly the only way to see the cause of the conflicts is to see where they

came from and where they are going. This leads onto the next point, (logic) the

two medicines have completely different thinking modes, for example W.M. is

mostly linear in thinking which means it looks at things in a singular mindset.

T.C.M. on the other hand in non-linear in thinking which means it sees things as

a complete system or interrelated group (holistic). For this reason alone W.M.

trained professionals could never understand this, it would

be like a Macintosh computer trying to read something in PC format (they just

don’t compute the same). However if a W.M. professional were trained in both

forms of thinking this would solve the problem.

 

The next major concern is the one of terminology, if you want the West to accept

T.C.M. it must not conflict with modern medical knowledge e.g. physiology &

anatomy. Take the term liver fire for example, does this mean the liver is on

fire, of course not this would be totally illogical. So mystic terminology needs

to be replaced with terms that make sense and do not contradict common sense.

The other major fault with terminology is two complete different meanings from

the same word. For example if a T.C.M. doctor says you have a kidney problem, so

you go get a barrage of medical tests only to be told your kidney is fine. This

is because the two doctors are talking about two completely different things,

for this reason the meridian system has explained in non-conflicting terms that

cannot be misunderstood with the somatic or physical system.

 

I truly believe that this book has the answers to revolutionizing the world of

medicine. That is my best attempt to explain a 500-page book in one page. I have

only hit on what I saw were the main points yet have scarcely touched the huge

amount of information included in this book. I put this challenge to all you

skeptics out there, if you can read this book and tell me how it has failed

because I really would like to know. God bless this enlightened soul, I think he

has done it. Right skeptics, try to prove me wrong. I eagerly await your

feedback, you can contact me at manuhamlin

 

 

 

 

ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 06:08 AM 9/17/04 +0100, you wrote:

 

>Chinese & Western medicine successfully combined

 

> " Unification of Western Medicine of Traditional "

>... Dr L.Lee

 

What is the title (what you give above isn't correctly formed English),

full author's name, publisher/place/date, and ISBN number?

[Guest guest]

--- wrote:

> What is the title (what you give above isn't correctly formed

English),

> full author's name, publisher/place/date, and ISBN number?

 

The only reference I could find is the following:

LEE (Dr)

UNIFICATION OF WESTERN MEDICINE AND TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

2003

NZ$280.00

 

on this website:

http://www.medical-books.co.nz/page/new_zealand_interest.html

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

-

" manu hamlin " <manuhamlin

<Chinese Traditional Medicine >

Friday, September 17, 2004 1:08 AM

Combinin T.C.M. with Western Medicine

 

 

 

 

Chinese & Western medicine successfully combined

 

[snip]

 

The next major concern is the one of terminology, if you want the West to

accept T.C.M. it must not conflict with modern medical knowledge e.g.

physiology & anatomy. Take the term liver fire for example, does this mean

the liver is on fire, of course not this would be totally illogical. So

mystic terminology needs to be replaced with terms that make sense and do

not contradict common sense.

 

[end snip]

 

Dr. J sez: I dunno about this...there's something about a system of medicine

which has as one of its diagnoses the condition of " running piglets " that

makes me think to lose the terminology might also lose somewhat of the soul

of the paradigm.

 

Avery L. Jenkins, DC, DACBN, FIAMA

Chiropractic Physician

Diplomate, American Clinical Board of Nutrition

Fellow, International Academy of Medical Acupuncture

Kent, CT

www.docaltmed.com

 

 

" There is no meaning in life except the meaning that man gives his life by

the unfolding of his powers. "

--Erich Fromm

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

I basic " clue " on how to marry two different theories is to observe

the isses facing Quantum Mechanics and Einsteins General Theory of

Relativity. In order to " merge " the two theories, it is necessary to

maintain the underlying principles of both theories and at the same

time come up with a new underlying Unified Theory that can be used to

derive the two that are being merged together. Here, I believe, lies

the essential problem.

 

One can say that the underlying theory or principle of Chinese

Medicine and TCM is " health is restored by restoring yin-yang

balance " . My own personal viewpoint is that " yin-yang " balance is

naturally restored when energy is flowing freely within the bodily

system and between the bodily system and the outside world. From what

I can tell, and it is quite confusing, the basic underlying theory of

TCM is that yin-yang can be restored by tonification and sedation

techniques - as well as other techniques. It seems that this viewpoint

suggests the body is a " closed-system " (one that can be " balanced " ).

But no matter which approach is used, the underlying principle or

theory is that yin-yang should be in balance.

 

With WM, well I have no idea what are the principle's of WM medicine.

They range any where from " kill the nasty bugs " (even I guess if the

body is perfectly healthy and is filled with billions of nasties), to

" if we can't fix it, then cut it out " , to " if you don't like how you

look, we can build you a new body " .

 

Honestly, I couldn't imagine how one goes about combining the two.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

On 18/09/2004, at 12:32 AM, Rich wrote:

>

> One can say that the underlying theory or principle of Chinese

> Medicine and TCM is " health is restored by restoring yin-yang

> balance " . My own personal viewpoint is that " yin-yang " balance is

> naturally restored when energy is flowing freely within the bodily

> system and between the bodily system and the outside world. From what

> I can tell, and it is quite confusing, the basic underlying theory of

> TCM is that yin-yang can be restored by tonification and sedation

> techniques - as well as other techniques. It seems that this viewpoint

> suggests the body is a " closed-system " (one that can be " balanced " ).

> But no matter which approach is used, the underlying principle or

> theory is that yin-yang should be in balance.

>

> Regards,

> Rich

>

 

 

Hi again Rich,

 

I really don't know where to begin anymore in responding to your posts

regarding what you see as TCM theory. They are so far off the mark that

I wonder if you actually have any professional education in TCM at all.

What exactly is your professional training in TCM?

 

To say that your own personal viewpoint is that balance is restored

when energy is flowing freely is correct in TCM also; however it is a

TCM theory.....not your unique understanding of anything.

 

The basic underlying theory of TCM NEVER suggests that the body is a

closed system!!! I suggest you read the first few pages of any basic

TCM text to reveal this to yourself. Specifically the 2 aspects of the

theory of holisism.......the real underlying theory of TCM.

 

You consistently claim that Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture are

not very effective treatments for disease and are much simpler to learn

than your particularly effective " style " of qigong/tuina. However, from

the information you supply as being concepts of TCM clearly demostrate

that you don't really know the first thing about the underlying

theories of TCM at all and are thus in no position to refute them or

pass judgement on the effectiveness in the clinic.

 

Claiming that Chinese Herbal Medicine is simple is ludicrous; it has

far more theory and knowledge that any style of tuina or qigong and has

been peer reviewed, tested, modified and expanded by some of the true

geniuses of healing for the past 2000+ years. I don't deny qigong and

tuina are a part of the overall scope of TCM, but they are a VERY small

and specialist niche of knowledge. I am NOT saying here they are

ineffective or over-rated. What I am saying is that without at least 5

years of basic full-time education and clinical training in TCM, no-one

can start passing judgement on the correctness or effectiveness of TCM

theories, terminology or its effectiveness in treating illness.

 

I give up here on trying assist with your confused understanding of

what TCM really is; and suggest you educate yourself more on the

subject before making any more sweeping generalisations about all the

misconceptions TCM has about the body and healing.

 

Getting stagnated with cold qi,

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

 

 

>

> To say that your own personal viewpoint is that balance is restored

> when energy is flowing freely is correct in TCM also;

 

Great. Then we are in agreement. So, then it is all a question of how

to get energy moving freely.

 

> You consistently claim that Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture

> are not very effective treatments for disease and are much simpler

>to learn than your particularly effective " style " of qigong/tuina.

 

Hmmm ... you'll have to find the quote. I don't recall saying this.

Please find me the message where I said this and I will review it. Thanks.

 

 

> Claiming that Chinese Herbal Medicine is simple is ludicrous;

 

Don't think I ever said this. Please find the message and post. Thanks.

 

>it has

> far more theory and knowledge that any style of tuina or qigong and has

> been peer reviewed, tested, modified and expanded by some of the true

> geniuses of healing for the past 2000+ years.

 

Are you talking about TCM or . TCM is really only 30

years old. of all types has been around for thousands

of years. But there are enumerable types of Chinese medicine which

have been passed down through various oral and written means.

 

>I don't deny qigong and

> tuina are a part of the overall scope of TCM, but they are a VERY small

> and specialist niche of knowledge.

 

I would disagree. Millions upon millions of Chinese/Asian people

practice Qigong and Anmo/Tuina. There are probabably more people

practicing qigong and Tuina then all of the licensed acupunture and

herbal practitioners here in the U.S. They don't nessarily make a

living from it ... but that is a different story. The primary

objective of is to prevent disease ... I think.

 

I am NOT saying here they are

> ineffective or over-rated. What I am saying is that without at least 5

> years of basic full-time education and clinical training in TCM, no-one

> can start passing judgement on the correctness or effectiveness of TCM

> theories, terminology or its effectiveness in treating illness.

 

You figure 5 years is enough? :-)

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Hi, All,

 

Different medical theory system is sealed in its own dimension. WM, TCM(herb

medicine), Acupuncture and Qigong... It is impossible to merge the theory

systems even in future. But you can use all methods based on different theories

to treat one patient even at same time. For example, now integrated Drs. Use

chemotherapy to treat cancer patient, at same time use herb and acupuncture

control the side effects of chemotherapy, and use qigong for further

restoration, which are guided by their own theories.

 

Guigen Qigong

http://www.g321g.org guigen_qigong

Qigong Department, Xiyuan Hospital(TCM), Beijing.

 

 

 

 

-

Rich

Chinese Medicine

Friday, September 17, 2004 10:32 PM

Re: Combinin T.C.M. with Western Medicine

 

 

Hi all,

 

I basic " clue " on how to marry two different theories is to observe

the isses facing Quantum Mechanics and Einsteins General Theory of

Relativity. In order to " merge " the two theories, it is necessary to

maintain the underlying principles of both theories and at the same

time come up with a new underlying Unified Theory that can be used to

derive the two that are being merged together. Here, I believe, lies

the essential problem.

 

One can say that the underlying theory or principle of Chinese

Medicine and TCM is " health is restored by restoring yin-yang

balance " . My own personal viewpoint is that " yin-yang " balance is

naturally restored when energy is flowing freely within the bodily

system and between the bodily system and the outside world. From what

I can tell, and it is quite confusing, the basic underlying theory of

TCM is that yin-yang can be restored by tonification and sedation

techniques - as well as other techniques. It seems that this viewpoint

suggests the body is a " closed-system " (one that can be " balanced " ).

But no matter which approach is used, the underlying principle or

theory is that yin-yang should be in balance.

 

With WM, well I have no idea what are the principle's of WM medicine.

They range any where from " kill the nasty bugs " (even I guess if the

body is perfectly healthy and is filled with billions of nasties), to

" if we can't fix it, then cut it out " , to " if you don't like how you

look, we can build you a new body " .

 

Honestly, I couldn't imagine how one goes about combining the two.

 

Regards,

Rich

 

 

 

http://babel.altavista.com/

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

delivered.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " guigen_qigong "

<guigen_qigong@g...> wrote:

> Hi, All,

>

> Different medical theory system is sealed in its own dimension. WM,

TCM(herb medicine), Acupuncture and Qigong... It is impossible to

merge the theory systems even in future. But you can use all methods

based on different theories to treat one patient even at same time.

For example, now integrated Drs. Use chemotherapy to treat cancer

patient, at same time use herb and acupuncture control the side

effects of chemotherapy, and use qigong for further restoration, which

are guided by their own theories.

>

This makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Hi Rich,

 

Firstly, my last post was a bit harsh in retrospect and for that I

apologise. It is interesting how this happened.....I ate too much pizza

and combined it with a few beers.........stagnation caused by food

accumulation generated heat and disturbed my spirit and it shortened my

temper somewhat. But that is an example of disease evil, pathogenesis

and syndrome differentiation ie. " diagnosis " ; a concept you have no

need for in your particular practice :-)

 

>

>> Claiming that Chinese Herbal Medicine is simple is ludicrous;

>

> Don't think I ever said this. Please find the message and post. Thanks.

 

On 13/09/2004, at 10:38 PM, Rich wrote:

 

> - especially since most

> practitioners gravitate toward acupuncture and herbs which is easy to

> apply - a practitioner can work with many patients simultaneously -

> but as a modality insufficient in many cases......

 

Here is an example of you saying herbs and acupuncture are easy to

apply and therefore " simple " , neither of these are easy to apply at a

high level, or even learn the basics of (really, only those of us who

have had to remember 350+ herbs and their basic attributes and uses

will appreciate how difficult it really is) before applying to real

life patients.

 

It may look simple to the laymen looking from the outside without a

real clue of the amount of data in the herbalists head.

 

>

>> it has

>> far more theory and knowledge that any style of tuina or qigong and

>> has

>> been peer reviewed, tested, modified and expanded by some of the true

>> geniuses of healing for the past 2000+ years.

>

> Are you talking about TCM or . TCM is really only 30

> years old. of all types has been around for thousands

> of years. But there are enumerable types of Chinese medicine which

> have been passed down through various oral and written means.

>

 

I am talking about both, but mainly the profession of Chinese medicine

in contrast to the myriad of folk healing niches or family lineage's

with limited literature, depth and peer review.

 

>> I don't deny qigong and

>> tuina are a part of the overall scope of TCM, but they are a VERY

>> small

>> and specialist niche of knowledge.

>

> I would disagree. Millions upon millions of Chinese/Asian people

> practice Qigong and Anmo/Tuina. There are probabably more people

> practicing qigong and Tuina then all of the licensed acupunture and

> herbal practitioners here in the U.S. They don't nessarily make a

> living from it ... but that is a different story. The primary

> objective of is to prevent disease ... I think.

>

 

This is not professional medicine, it is part of the Chinese culture,

lifestyle and basic exercise. It is NOT what Chinese do when suffering

a serious disease!! I was not referring to folk medicine or the Chinese

equivalent of a walk around the block. I thought we were discussing

professional TCM on this list, that is treatment of relatively serious

illness, not only illness prevention and a healthy lifestyle.

 

> I am NOT saying here they are

>> ineffective or over-rated. What I am saying is that without at least 5

>> years of basic full-time education and clinical training in TCM,

>> no-one

>> can start passing judgement on the correctness or effectiveness of TCM

>> theories, terminology or its effectiveness in treating illness.

>

> You figure 5 years is enough? :-)

>

 

Lol, no I do not figure that; notice I said " at least " 5 years before

" starting " on these issues ;-)

 

> Regards,

> Rich

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

Q:

At 06:08 AM 9/17/04 +0100, you wrote:

 

>Chinese & Western medicine successfully combined

 

> " Unification of Western Medicine of Traditional "

>... Dr L.Lee

 

A:

It is impossible, even in remote future.

This topic has been contesting almost 100 years.

 

Guigen Qigong

http://www.g321g.org guigen_qigong

Qigong Department, Xiyuan Hospital(TCM), Beijing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Sep 16, 2004, at 10:08 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

>

>

> I recently read a book titled " Unification of Western Medicine of

> Traditional " about a doctor who claimed he had found

> a way to combine the two medicines without conflict or confusion.

>

> As everyone will still be extremely skeptical I will do my best to

> explain how he did it.

 

There is a very good reason for skepticism, even before reading the

book. No one person in a field as vast as medicine is going to have

" the answer " . This smacks more of dogma than anything else. The

author may have some interesting ideas, but one person's ideas are not

going to solve the 'problem' of Chinese and Western medicine by

themselves.

 

> Firstly, he gave looking at the big picture a new meaning. When most

> researchers have only approached it from a medical angle, Dr L.Lee has

> approached it from a historic, cultural, philosophical and logical

> perspective. In short he says the only way to see the solution was to

> step outside of medicine as medical researchers often cant. Historic &

> cultural – it is shown very clearly the only way to see the cause of

> the conflicts is to see where they came from and where they are going.

 

Many other authors have done the same, such as Paul Unschuld, Nathan

Sivin and Harris Coulter.

 

> The next major concern is the one of terminology, if you want the West

> to accept T.C.M. it must not conflict with modern medical knowledge

> e.g. physiology & anatomy. Take the term liver fire for example, does

> this mean the liver is on fire, of course not this would be totally

> illogical. So mystic terminology needs to be replaced with terms that

> make sense and do not contradict common sense. The other major fault

> with terminology is two complete different meanings from the same

> word. For example if a T.C.M. doctor says you have a kidney problem,

> so you go get a barrage of medical tests only to be told your kidney

> is fine. This is because the two doctors are talking about two

> completely different things, for this reason the meridian system has

> explained in non-conflicting terms that cannot be misunderstood with

> the somatic or physical system.

 

This is where the author completely stumbles, in my opinion. You

cannot 'replace' essential terminology of a discipline such as Chinese

medicine and lose its meaning completely. If Chinese medicine needs to

'conform' to modern physiology and anatomy, it will become Western

medicine. This is not unification, this is subjugation.

>

 

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

Its is not impossible to do, I understand why you believe that due to the huge

effort that has been put into it globally. The reason all attempts have failed

in the past is thay they have only mainly approacherd it from a medical angle,

this is different to solve the problem you need to step back outside of the

medicine to see the answers. This guy has approached it from a historic,

logical, philosophical, cultural and medical angle. I believe your sceptisism is

justified however read it first then you can tell me how it has failed. He has

addressed every major concern and solved it very clearly, I have read it and its

undeniable.

 

Manu

 

guigen_qigong <guigen_qigong wrote:

Dear friends,

 

Q:

At 06:08 AM 9/17/04 +0100, you wrote:

 

>Chinese & Western medicine successfully combined

 

> " Unification of Western Medicine of Traditional "

>... Dr L.Lee

 

A:

It is impossible, even in remote future.

This topic has been contesting almost 100 years.

[Guest guest]

I agree in it is impoosible to join the two medicines as is. The two theories

have to many contradictions e.g. kidney in TCM does not mean the same as kidney

in Western medicine and silly terms such as liver fire will never be accepted by

either. How ever if you should adjust the terminology e.g. kidney energy becomes

the vitality system their is no controdictions. The energy system and the

somatic or physical system must be have non double meanings, by doing this you

remove the confusion. The medicines use different types of logic, e.g. TCM is

non linear and WM is linear, these two types of logic are complete opposites but

have their own advantages. thoe two blend perfectly as demonstrated in his book.

Please people feel free to be sceptical but read the book first then give me a

informed opinion. Just cause no one has succeded does not mean it cant be done.

 

Manu

 

Rich <rfinkelstein wrote:

Chinese Medicine , " guigen_qigong "

<guigen_qigong@g...> wrote:

> Hi, All,

>

> Different medical theory system is sealed in its own dimension. WM,

TCM(herb medicine), Acupuncture and Qigong... It is impossible to

merge the theory systems even in future. But you can use all methods

based on different theories to treat one patient even at same time.

For example, now integrated Drs. Use chemotherapy to treat cancer

patient, at same time use herb and acupuncture control the side

effects of chemotherapy, and use qigong for further restoration, which

are guided by their own theories.

>

This makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Hi

That is the most intelligent response I have got by far regarding how to achieve

unification. You are right in order to combine the two both thories should they

should not be altered in their general makeup. What Dr Lee has done is create an

all encompassing theory. It is beleive d that combining the two would greatly

improve modern Western medicine and make TCM more understandable. In answer to

your last question if the two are combined this would majorly alter the attitude

of W.M. EG treating the health instead of the sickness. Just read the book

people I want an informed opinion, I have read it four times after reading

several articles about it all praising the accomplishment ( including an article

in W.M magazine for doctors. Dont just dismiss it what if some one really has

found away can you imagine what that could mean to us all its definitly worth

investigating.

 

Manu

 

Rich <rfinkelstein wrote:

Hi all,

 

I basic " clue " on how to marry two different theories is to observe

the isses facing Quantum Mechanics and Einsteins General Theory of

Relativity. In order to " merge " the two theories, it is necessary to

maintain the underlying principles of both theories and at the same

time come up with a new underlying Unified Theory that can be used to

derive the two that are being merged together. Here, I believe, lies

the essential problem.

 

One can say that the underlying theory or principle of Chinese

Medicine and TCM is " health is restored by restoring yin-yang

balance " . My own personal viewpoint is that " yin-yang " balance is

naturally restored when energy is flowing freely within the bodily

system and between the bodily system and the outside world. From what

I can tell, and it is quite confusing, the basic underlying theory of

TCM is that yin-yang can be restored by tonification and sedation

techniques - as well as other techniques. It seems that this viewpoint

suggests the body is a " closed-system " (one that can be " balanced " ).

But no matter which approach is used, the underlying principle or

theory is that yin-yang should be in balance.

 

With WM, well I have no idea what are the principle's of WM medicine.

They range any where from " kill the nasty bugs " (even I guess if the

body is perfectly healthy and is filled with billions of nasties), to

" if we can't fix it, then cut it out " , to " if you don't like how you

look, we can build you a new body " .

 

Honestly, I couldn't imagine how one goes about combining the two.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Yes that is the book I was talking about, " Unification of Western Medicine &

Traditional Chinese medicine " it is a 500 page book, it is printed in very high

quality. I got the book from the publisher's website direct.

www.leechongwipress.com

 

The ISBN =0-473-09626-9

 

Author is called DR Lonnian Lee P.HD

Publisher: Lee Chongwi press

 

Those are all the details I could find on my copy of the book.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

wrote:

--- wrote:

> What is the title (what you give above isn't correctly formed

English),

> full author's name, publisher/place/date, and ISBN number?

 

The only reference I could find is the following:

LEE (Dr)

UNIFICATION OF WESTERN MEDICINE AND TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

2003

NZ$280.00

 

on this website:

http://www.medical-books.co.nz/page/new_zealand_interest.html

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

Hi Rich

 

Just another point, you have addressed the situation from an angle most TCM

practitioners and researchers lack. That is you have looked at it logically

rather than just from a medical perspective, it also nedds to be addressed form

a historic, cultural and philosophical angle. It is refreshing to see someone

looking outside the box.

 

regards

 

manu

 

Rich <rfinkelstein wrote:

Hi all,

 

I basic " clue " on how to marry two different theories is to observe

the isses facing Quantum Mechanics and Einsteins General Theory of

Relativity. In order to " merge " the two theories, it is necessary to

maintain the underlying principles of both theories and at the same

time come up with a new underlying Unified Theory that can be used to

derive the two that are being merged together. Here, I believe, lies

the essential problem.

 

One can say that the underlying theory or principle of Chinese

Medicine and TCM is " health is restored by restoring yin-yang

balance " . My own personal viewpoint is that " yin-yang " balance is

naturally restored when energy is flowing freely within the bodily

system and between the bodily system and the outside world. From what

I can tell, and it is quite confusing, the basic underlying theory of

TCM is that yin-yang can be restored by tonification and sedation

techniques - as well as other techniques. It seems that this viewpoint

suggests the body is a " closed-system " (one that can be " balanced " ).

But no matter which approach is used, the underlying principle or

theory is that yin-yang should be in balance.

 

With WM, well I have no idea what are the principle's of WM medicine.

They range any where from " kill the nasty bugs " (even I guess if the

body is perfectly healthy and is filled with billions of nasties), to

" if we can't fix it, then cut it out " , to " if you don't like how you

look, we can build you a new body " .

 

Honestly, I couldn't imagine how one goes about combining the two.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

I think you underestimate many people on this list, who also are

interested in and have studied Chinese medicine from these angles.

Your posts come off as very cultish and 'save the world' oriented.

Many CM practitioners don't trust someone who advertises " the only

answer " mentality. We don't want to be 'saved'.

 

 

On Sep 19, 2004, at 9:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

> Just another point, you have addressed the situation from an angle

> most TCM practitioners and researchers lack. That is you have looked

> at it logically rather than just from a medical perspective, it also

> nedds to be addressed form a historic, cultural and philosophical

> angle. It is refreshing to see someone looking outside the box.

[Guest guest]

Hi Manu,

It would be great! I'd be about to read it.

Thank You!

Guigen

 

-

manu hamlin

Chinese Medicine

Monday, September 20, 2004 10:30 AM

Re: Combinin T.C.M. with Western Medicine

 

 

Its is not impossible to do, I understand why you believe that due to the huge

effort that has been put into it globally. The reason all attempts have failed

in the past is thay they have only mainly approacherd it from a medical angle,

this is different to solve the problem you need to step back outside of the

medicine to see the answers. This guy has approached it from a historic,

logical, philosophical, cultural and medical angle. I believe your sceptisism is

justified however read it first then you can tell me how it has failed. He has

addressed every major concern and solved it very clearly, I have read it and its

undeniable.

 

Manu

 

guigen_qigong <guigen_qigong wrote:

Dear friends,

 

Q:

At 06:08 AM 9/17/04 +0100, you wrote:

 

>Chinese & Western medicine successfully combined

 

> " Unification of Western Medicine of Traditional "

>... Dr L.Lee

 

A:

It is impossible, even in remote future.

This topic has been contesting almost 100 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I do get your point, however I have noticed a major reluctance by TCM

practitioners to change or adapt to western society. I know many brilliant

people have been trying to solve this ultimatium for a long time and im not

saying this is the all mighty answer. What I am trying to say is he has

presented the most logical and well thought through solution that I have read to

date. In the evolution of medicine all major changes are normally resisted by

the majority, this is historically correct. Despite how much I believe this book

has contributed I would it has only addressed the theoritcal aspect, even if his

theory was perfect the amount of research to be done on the practical part is

endless. I have read many books on this subject and yes many have considered

these different points however often they miss part of the picture. Please just

read the book then give me your feedback as I consider you person whos opinion

counts..

Regards

 

Manu

 

Regards

 

Stephen

 

<zrosenbe wrote:

I think you underestimate many people on this list, who also are

interested in and have studied Chinese medicine from these angles.

Your posts come off as very cultish and 'save the world' oriented.

Many CM practitioners don't trust someone who advertises " the only

answer " mentality. We don't want to be 'saved'.

 

 

On Sep 19, 2004, at 9:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

> Just another point, you have addressed the situation from an angle

> most TCM practitioners and researchers lack. That is you have looked

> at it logically rather than just from a medical perspective, it also

> nedds to be addressed form a historic, cultural and philosophical

> angle. It is refreshing to see someone looking outside the box.

[Guest guest]

OK, Manu,

This is a more reasonable argument, and, yes, I am willing to read

the book, I consume books like this (if they are well-written).

Unfortunately, the price is not reasonable. I understand with small

presses and/or self-publishing that costs have become prohibitive, but

this is a little steep.

 

 

On Sep 20, 2004, at 11:24 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

> I do get your point, however I have noticed a major reluctance by TCM

> practitioners to change or adapt to western society. I know many

> brilliant people have been trying to solve this ultimatium for a long

> time and im not saying this is the all mighty answer. What I am trying

> to say is he has presented the most logical and well thought through

> solution that I have read to date. In the evolution of medicine all

> major changes are normally resisted by the majority, this is

> historically correct. Despite how much I believe this book has

> contributed I would it has only addressed the theoritcal aspect, even

> if his theory was perfect the amount of research to be done on the

> practical part is endless. I have read many books on this subject and

> yes many have considered these different points however often they

> miss part of the picture. Please just read the book then give me your

> feedback as I consider you person whos opinion counts..

> Regards

>

> Manu

[Guest guest]

Hi Manu,

 

It is impossible for me to comment on the contents of this text until I

read it and they may be some time away due to a growing book wish-list

I have at the moment.

 

Thankfully, here in Australia alternative medicine (including Chinese

medicine) is gaining respectability slowly but surely with the

Australian Medical Association encouraging its members to be aware of

the actual research and proven value of some treatments. They are

encouraged to refer to alternative medicine when this option is

available and at a minimum to notify theirs patients of a possible

alternative for conditions WM does not have a great record in

addressing; especially when this involves the use of pharmaceuticals

with obvious side-effects.

 

Of course this growing acknowledgement is a result of patients moving

towards alternatives in increasing numbers and this has caught the eye

of MD's and the government. More research dollars are headed to us as

the government takes notice but it still a small proportion of what he

government makes through the sale of alternative medicine products.

Ironically, the majority of revenue the government collects from the

sale of alternative medicine products goes to maintaining a failing

public health system and related pharmaceutical research.

 

In regards to , we now have a registration board and

professional protection of title, increasing private health insurance

recognition, SOME hospitals using TCM practitioners in them etc.

 

FOr these reasons, perhaps it is too early to move towards integration

of WM and TCM as such. The dust has just been kicked up here in terms

of the potential value of TCM, it may very well be worth-while

encouraging the mutual referral and recognition of each others

strengths and weaknesses before we amalgamate them into one field.

 

Does the author suggest how many years more education would be

necessary to become a professional of such a joint medicine? About 1/3

of the 5 years of full-time study here for TCM registration is purely

WM including anatomy, physiology, pathology, immunology, microbiology,

WM diagnosis's etc. MD's now have a compulsory unit on basic

alternative medicine now also in their primary education.

 

As a pure guess, I would suggest probably another 4 years to be

recognised as both? That is 9 or 10 years of undergraduate study before

entering such a new profession. Perhaps the authors model would result

in a need for less if a common underlying theory was adopted; but the

different modalities available after joining the two would surely take

extra years to gain basic proficiency in?

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

On 22/09/2004, at 12:59 AM, wrote:

 

> On Sep 20, 2004, at 11:24 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

>

>> I do get your point, however I have noticed a major reluctance by TCM

>> practitioners to change or adapt to western society. I know many

>> brilliant people have been trying to solve this ultimatium for a long

>> time and im not saying this is the all mighty answer. What I am trying

>> to say is he has presented the most logical and well thought through

>> solution that I have read to date. In the evolution of medicine all

>> major changes are normally resisted by the majority, this is

>> historically correct. Despite how much I believe this book has

>> contributed I would it has only addressed the theoritcal aspect, even

>> if his theory was perfect the amount of research to be done on the

>> practical part is endless. I have read many books on this subject and

>> yes many have considered these different points however often they

>> miss part of the picture. Please just read the book then give me your

>> feedback as I consider you person whos opinion counts..

>> Regards

>>

>> Manu

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree it aint cheap, I only bought the book because I read a few different

atricles writte about it. I may be able to scan some of them and email them to

you. I would suggest they dont have it at your local library, if they dont just

request it they may be able to order it from a different library.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

<zrosenbe wrote:

OK, Manu,

This is a more reasonable argument, and, yes, I am willing to read

the book, I consume books like this (if they are well-written).

Unfortunately, the price is not reasonable. I understand with small

presses and/or self-publishing that costs have become prohibitive, but

this is a little steep.

 

 

On Sep 20, 2004, at 11:24 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

> I do get your point, however I have noticed a major reluctance by TCM

> practitioners to change or adapt to western society. I know many

> brilliant people have been trying to solve this ultimatium for a long

> time and im not saying this is the all mighty answer. What I am trying

> to say is he has presented the most logical and well thought through

> solution that I have read to date. In the evolution of medicine all

> major changes are normally resisted by the majority, this is

> historically correct. Despite how much I believe this book has

> contributed I would it has only addressed the theoritcal aspect, even

> if his theory was perfect the amount of research to be done on the

> practical part is endless. I have read many books on this subject and

> yes many have considered these different points however often they

> miss part of the picture. Please just read the book then give me your

> feedback as I consider you person whos opinion counts..

> Regards

>

> Manu

 

 

 

 

http://babel.altavista.com/

 

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

delivered.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Steven

 

Thats all very interesting to know, I am based in New Zealand, they are now

considering funding natural medicine. I believe the author mentions that

training would have to be relative to person. For example if some one isalready

trained in TCM or WM they would obvoiusly require less training. The book has

seperated the physical and energy systems, he has created three new laws to

govern the relationship between the two medicines as both TCM and WM laws are

very outdated. Apparently he plans to teach courses to all different levels the

same as WM, I will scan and attach an article I have from a magazine and send it

through to you.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote:

Hi Manu,

 

It is impossible for me to comment on the contents of this text until I

read it and they may be some time away due to a growing book wish-list

I have at the moment.

 

Thankfully, here in Australia alternative medicine (including Chinese

medicine) is gaining respectability slowly but surely with the

Australian Medical Association encouraging its members to be aware of

the actual research and proven value of some treatments. They are

encouraged to refer to alternative medicine when this option is

available and at a minimum to notify theirs patients of a possible

alternative for conditions WM does not have a great record in

addressing; especially when this involves the use of pharmaceuticals

with obvious side-effects.

 

Of course this growing acknowledgement is a result of patients moving

towards alternatives in increasing numbers and this has caught the eye

of MD's and the government. More research dollars are headed to us as

the government takes notice but it still a small proportion of what he

government makes through the sale of alternative medicine products.

Ironically, the majority of revenue the government collects from the

sale of alternative medicine products goes to maintaining a failing

public health system and related pharmaceutical research.

 

In regards to , we now have a registration board and

professional protection of title, increasing private health insurance

recognition, SOME hospitals using TCM practitioners in them etc.

 

FOr these reasons, perhaps it is too early to move towards integration

of WM and TCM as such. The dust has just been kicked up here in terms

of the potential value of TCM, it may very well be worth-while

encouraging the mutual referral and recognition of each others

strengths and weaknesses before we amalgamate them into one field.

 

Does the author suggest how many years more education would be

necessary to become a professional of such a joint medicine? About 1/3

of the 5 years of full-time study here for TCM registration is purely

WM including anatomy, physiology, pathology, immunology, microbiology,

WM diagnosis's etc. MD's now have a compulsory unit on basic

alternative medicine now also in their primary education.

 

As a pure guess, I would suggest probably another 4 years to be

recognised as both? That is 9 or 10 years of undergraduate study before

entering such a new profession. Perhaps the authors model would result

in a need for less if a common underlying theory was adopted; but the

different modalities available after joining the two would surely take

extra years to gain basic proficiency in?

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

On 22/09/2004, at 12:59 AM, wrote:

 

> On Sep 20, 2004, at 11:24 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

>

>> I do get your point, however I have noticed a major reluctance by TCM

>> practitioners to change or adapt to western society. I know many

>> brilliant people have been trying to solve this ultimatium for a long

>> time and im not saying this is the all mighty answer. What I am trying

>> to say is he has presented the most logical and well thought through

>> solution that I have read to date. In the evolution of medicine all

>> major changes are normally resisted by the majority, this is

>> historically correct. Despite how much I believe this book has

>> contributed I would it has only addressed the theoritcal aspect, even

>> if his theory was perfect the amount of research to be done on the

>> practical part is endless. I have read many books on this subject and

>> yes many have considered these different points however often they

>> miss part of the picture. Please just read the book then give me your

>> feedback as I consider you person whos opinion counts..

>> Regards

>>

>> Manu

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

http://babel.altavista.com/

 

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

delivered.