Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Hi Steve That was a well thought and intelligent answer its nice to speak to someone who knows there stuff. I agree with 90% of what you said expecially regarding WM. You point out very clearly that WM major weakness is its lack in solid theory, its inability to explain the cause of a problem. This I totally agree, however by combining the two medicine's the TCM theory does have the abilty to solve these problems> The main problem here is that the two medicines view health through two completely opposite froms of logic so one can never match to the other however what can be done is using both logics as to get a full picture. Example: TCM theory could often address the cause, herbs could be perscribed the balance and strengthen the body, how ever as you stated should the problem be more serious then more aspects of WM could be used (emergency medicine).Regarding their being no use to change TCM terms fit WM because WM terms often change to much I will explain my case. Firstlychanges I suggest to make that are suggested to be made are to simply make TCM compatable with basic common WM terms such as the anatomy and physiology as these literally never change (in general).Doing this would need to make the meridian system clearly defined from the anotomical system. Example: A TCM doctor could say you have kidney problem so you gow to a WM doctor he runs tests and says your kidney is fine, this is because the TCM doctorwas not talking about the actual phyical kidney rather he was talking about the kidney energy(or the vitality system as I have read in this particular interpratation). If we also remove the mystical terminology (liver fire) then western educated people can make sense of it. If we make the terminology nonconflicting or confusing for western educated people then they will be far more open to learning TCM (including WM doctors). I dont see how any logical person can argue with this, please let me know what you think. Regards Manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: HI Manu, WM simply does not have much knowledge about the cause of many diseases or the way to address them. WM has vast amounts of terminology for body parts, diseases, processes and procedures; but we must be careful to actually understand that this does NOT equate to WM actually knowing much about the majority of human illnesses in terms of cause and treatment. Labels have a habit of giving the impression of understanding where none exists. Look up any chronic, progressive WM labelled disease and more often than not you will find WM has many words attached to it; but these usually amount to " cause unknown " and " treatment symptomatic " or the explanation of cause and best treatment for which has changed with every new edition of any textbook. In other words, WM is growing but it has NOT reached anything near the consistency or integrated understanding of the human body, cause of disease, and effective treatment of a system like TCM. I am NOT against WM as such. I value you it highly in certain areas such as acute trauma and structural diseases which are best addressed by surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Beyond these areas however, it has little to offer the majority of people when compared to many alternative traditions. WM does not have an underlying, coherent or consistent and stable theoretical base of knowledge. They have great knowledge in gross anatomy and can explain certain pathological processes in great detail. However, when it comes down to brass tacks....these are just labels for objects and ideas; they have very limited practical utility in terms of treating sick people. Physiology and neuroscience are areas that have great potential in the future for the understanding of disease.....however, at the moment they are in their infancy and do not form a consistent, internally logical base of knowledge. In fact, every year one idea believed to be a basic statement of fact in these areas is found to be incorrect and replaced as better and more accurate knowledge is gained over time. Basically, WM is still trying to find a stable piece of real-estate to build its foundations upon and until they do, IMO we must view any idea or claim they make with deep suspicion until it lasts at least as long as a textbook cycle. So, how can we make a self-contained system of health-care such as TCM consistent with WM when WM has very few concepts or ideas that last longer than 4 years? IMO it is pure folly to change TCM terminology to match something that does not really have a stable place to stand. ie. they keep moving their own goal-posts, how is anyone going to be able to kick a goal? Best Wishes, Steve WM is a hodgepodge of various medical traditions, but is now On 07/10/2004, at 4:10 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > You people are missing the point, the fact that people in classes can > understand TCM when explained with these terms is thinking to short > sighted. Recently their was news pasted regarding the laws tightning > around natural medicines and supplements. If TCM does not become > totally compatible withj W.M. then we take the very strong risk of > being eaten and simplified to their explanation. Being understandable > is not enough the translation has to be totally compatable with WM > without any of the mystical jargon then and only then can TCM take its > rightful place as a mainstream medicine. If this this is not the case > it would have happened years ago, but results are not enough. We need > to be totally explainable according to W.M. then they can have no > excuse to deny TCM. > > Regards > > Manu > > <zrosenbe wrote: > Speaking as a teacher for the last fifteen years, not only classroom > studies as a professor at PCOM but as a seminar instructor as well, I > have to stronly disagree with you. > > The Practical Dictionary of and its associated texts > have brought a clarity and detail to teaching the subject that, in my > opinion, was heretofore unavailable previously in the English language > CM literature. I have never had students complain of obscurity or > complications in understanding the material that I present. Other > teachers at Pacific College, such as Bob Damone and , report > the same feedback. Several other senior teachers in our profession > also rely on the 'Wiseman terminology', and several publishing houses > such as Paradigm Press and Blue Poppy Press. > > In order to have any platform to critique the 'Wiseman terminology', > some basic proficiency in medical Chinese language is necessary, in > order to bridge the critical gap between the Chinese characters and how > they are represented in English. > > There are several thousand entries in the Practical Dictionary, many > times that number in Chinese language CM dictionaries. It is a fiction > to think that a simplified presentation of Chinese medical terminology > is adequately representing the subject. . . especially if one wants to > study the classical texts, as you wish to do. > > " The Web That Has No Weaver " is an excellent beginner's text, and I > read it 22 years ago when it was first released. There has been some > updating of the text, but it is not sufficient to cover the amount of > detail that is now available in our field. We now have access to > Chinese journal articles translated by Blue Poppy Press, specialties > such as dermatology and warm disease. You are right, the " Web' can be > easily read by a layperson, and can be an inspirational introduction > for a new student. However, then one must roll up one's sleeves and > tackle the vast subject with the proper tools, including dictionaries > and glossaries. > > While I strongly support the Wiseman terminology, this does not mean I > am 'against' use of some other English term equivalents (such as > protective qi instead of defense qi for wei qi). I use other texts > widely in teaching, such as those from such authors as Steven Clavey > and Dan Bensky, whose Chinese language skills are impeccable. There > are varying degrees of competency in translation available elsewhere. > However, some inaccuracies of translations have 'stuck' and distorted > the actual study and practice of Chinese medicine in other instances, > such as the use of biomedical term equivalents which often lack > accuracy. > > > > On Oct 6, 2004, at 5:46 AM, Rich wrote: > >> Speaking as a student, I have probably over a hundred books (maybe >> twice that many) on in my home (many safely tucked >> away in storage). I can honestly say that, because of the obscure and >> unnecessary complicate language (and overall presentation) of >> Fundamentals of , I never go near the book - other >> than to check it when someone else references it. I find Kaptchuk's >> language and descriptions in " The Web That has No Weaver " far more >> accessible, though I most often go to lesser known books when I want >> to get different perspectives on the meaning of ideas in the Neijing >> or other classics. >> > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Hi Steve Yet another good response are you ready for one rigth back at you. Yes the worlds is moving away from WM and who can blame them its a bloody mess. You say TCM is not a science or cannot be explained in those terms well thats a whole new debate again. WM practice thinks that science is only what you can see( under a microscope) however if you look at nearlly every other type of science this is not the case. Example: astronomy- they can calculate how big the universe simply through logical and mathmatical deduction, in fact most science is based on logic rather than cold physical proof. They can tell you how big saturn is without ever going there, sometimes these things will be proven wrong but that is the unavoidable natural evoloution of science. Secondly to make to TCM scientifically explainable we do this through logic. The first step is to what type of logic TCM uses, this is called non linear thinking, it means you look at things as a group or system, if one factor changes they all change. Then you haveto look at WM logic which dates back 200 years to aristotal (very outdated), this form of thinking is called non linear thinking ( a-b , w-y etc) it only looks at things in a one step mode. Now we have a clear and logical perspective of the differences in thinking patterns. next step for TCM to be compatable medicine has to update its the 200 year old concepts that govern it. This has been done to make the two forms of logic and theories compatable. WM theory considers the mind and body to be seperate entities, only recently are they making strong scientific connections.The first new governing law states good health is the harmony of Body, Energy & Spirit(Mind if you prefer). That simple sentence changes the whole dynamic as even a western person can understand how all three factors are interrelated and unseperable. So now you have compatible terminolgy, you can train people to view with both forms of logic.You can now address both the cause and the symptoms, treat the health and the sickness. I have given you a crash course, these things are explained in much more detail in the book. Going to scan and post an article about it shortly. Regards Manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: Hi Manu, The simple fact is that many fundamental TCM theories DO conflict with WM and can therefore not be cloaked in WM terms without changing the fundamentals of TCM itself. WM is not the same thing as " science " .........I can see TCM and " science " becoming closer and increasing out understanding of the human body; but WM is a different story altogether. Perhaps when you say WM you mean science, but if that is the case.......I hope you understand that they are very different animals. I don't believe we have to " prove " anything in terms of WM terminology. Clinical outcomes is what matters to patients and increasingly this is also the case scientific research in medicine in general. Patients are increasingly moving away from WM and embracing alternative medical systems and ways of viewing the body............why is it necessary for us to change TCM terminology to fit WM when it is increasingly losing its respect in the world? I think we all have gathered that you love this book and believe it is some kind of " second coming " for TCM. Personally I don't need WM to " like " what I do, nor do I need WM to " understand " my professional language or " agree " with it; neither do my patients. Best Wishes, Steve On 07/10/2004, at 4:19 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > I agree their needs to be a universal terminology for TCM however it > is not just for TCM, this universal terminology must not conflict with > WM either. As we are living in the west we TCM needs to be presented > from a western perspective, seems like common sense to me. The only > example I have seen of this successfully happening is " Unification of > Western Medicine & Traditional " . The most relevant > book of our time for TCM, if you want to get TCM the way is revealed > very clearly in this book. > > Rich <rfinkelstein wrote: > > Hi Godfrey, > >> The previous 'detente' solution whereby someone should write TCM >> articles that use their own terminology, and then provide a >> cross-refence glossary which relate their terms to Wiseman's terms, >> which then someone has to look up in an English dictionary to get an >> idea of what the English words mean , strikes me as a comic replay of >> the Tower of Babel. >> Has the world gone mad? >> >> Godfrey Bartlett >> > > Speaking as a student, I have probably over a hundred books (maybe > twice that many) on in my home (many safely tucked > away in storage). I can honestly say that, because of the obscure and > unnecessary complicate language (and overall presentation) of > Fundamentals of , I never go near the book - other > than to check it when someone else references it. I find Kaptchuk's > language and descriptions in " The Web That has No Weaver " far more > accessible, though I most often go to lesser known books when I want > to get different perspectives on the meaning of ideas in the Neijing > or other classics. > > I was wondering what texts students use in their schools. One that I > use is a very short and concise book that is adequate for Chinese > bodywork called " Shiatsu Theory and Practice " . Another is called Amma > Therapy " . Both use very straightforward and easy to understand > language. I read once that CM was designed to be accessible to all > people - practitioners and patients alike. It would be a shame if > " language " becoomes a barrier between the practitioner and patient as > it has become in WM. > > Regards, > Rich > > > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Hi Manu, On 08/10/2004, at 3:58 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > Yet another good response are you ready for one rigth back at you. > > Yes the worlds is moving away from WM and who can blame them its a > bloody mess. You say TCM is not a science or cannot be explained in > those terms well thats a whole new debate again. WM practice thinks > that science is only what you can see( under a microscope) however if > you look at nearlly every other type of science this is not the case. > Example: astronomy- they can calculate how big the universe simply > through logical and mathmatical deduction, in fact most science is > based on logic rather than cold physical proof. They can tell you how > big saturn is without ever going there, sometimes these things will be > proven wrong but that is the unavoidable natural evoloution of > science. > Perhaps I was not clear in my last post regarding my opinions on science, WM and TCM. I didn't say TCM is not a science; TCM certainly is a science. To me, science is not a " thing " , it is a process of logic. As such it does not have its own universal " terms " , and therefore TCM can and does freely fit into science as a process. The point I was trying to make is that TCM is a science and WM is also supposedly based upon science, BUT science and WM are not the same thing. WM is one rather hodge-podge collection of various ideas, theories and techniques....some of which have been backed by " science " or proper logic and many that have not. I truly feel sorry for WM practitioners as their major source of therapeutic tools and scientific " evidence " they use to assist their patients comes to them predominately via research sponsored, promoted and censored by pharmaceutical companies. WM is always searching for better, safer and more effective drugs to treat their patients. Pharmaceutical companies bombard them with claims on a new " wonder " drug constantly and feed them only the research as far as in suits their purposes. More often than not the reality of this new wonder drug is that it turns out to either not be very effective, has significant side effects or is later found to be unsafe. So the WM practitioner must try the next big thing stuffed down their throats if they wish to actually help their patients. > Secondly to make to TCM scientifically explainable we do this through > logic. The first step is to what type of logic TCM uses, this is > called non linear thinking, it means you look at things as a group or > system, if one factor changes they all change. Then you haveto look at > WM logic which dates back 200 years to aristotal (very outdated), this > form of thinking is called non linear thinking ( a-b , w-y etc) it > only looks at things in a one step mode. Now we have a clear and > logical perspective of the differences in thinking patterns. next step > for TCM to be compatable medicine has to update its the 200 year old > concepts that govern it. > IMO TCM uses linear thinking (I think you meant WM uses " linear " yes?) as well, but does not limited itself to only one aspect or isolated strand of a condition or process without taking into consideration all others simultaneously; like WM is fond of doing. When several stands of linear thinking are considered at the same time they form an inter-woven system. The more strands that are understood and considered; the more complete the inter-relationships of the system can be viewed. Of course, non-linear thinking does exist in TCM as well, but I don't think this is the main process of professional TCM. Short example of what I mean.... Stress and anger ----- liver depression qi stagnation ----- heat -------- consumes body fluids and congeals them into phelgm. This is one linear process of pathogenesis; of course this is only one possible outcome and the path of the pathogenesis can take a different direction at any point along this path and produce another strand on linear thinking. This is what makes TCM so valuable (and complicated) to learn the basics of, until you know each possible path and how they related to one another at each point............it is impossible to practice this system well. I confess I am not sure about what you are trying to convey in the paragraph above so perhaps I am not addressing your exact meaning. > This has been done to make the two forms of logic and theories > compatable. WM theory considers the mind and body to be seperate > entities, only recently are they making strong scientific > connections.The first new governing law states good health is the > harmony of Body, Energy & Spirit(Mind if you prefer). That simple > sentence changes the whole dynamic as even a western person can > understand how all three factors are interrelated and unseperable. So > now you have compatible terminolgy, you can train people to view with > both forms of logic.You can now address both the cause and the > symptoms, treat the health and the sickness. I have given you a crash > course, these things are explained in much more detail in the book. > Going to scan and post an article about it shortly. > > Regards > > Manu > IMO there is only logic, no sub-forms of logic and I don't see why any of this necessitates us adopting any WM theory or terminology for the future of our medicine. Best Wishes, Steve > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > > Hi Manu, > > The simple fact is that many fundamental TCM theories DO conflict with > WM and can therefore not be cloaked in WM terms without changing the > fundamentals of TCM itself. WM is not the same thing as > " science " .........I can see TCM and " science " becoming closer and > increasing out understanding of the human body; but WM is a different > story altogether. Perhaps when you say WM you mean science, but if that > is the case.......I hope you understand that they are very different > animals. > > I don't believe we have to " prove " anything in terms of WM terminology. > Clinical outcomes is what matters to patients and increasingly this is > also the case scientific research in medicine in general. Patients are > increasingly moving away from WM and embracing alternative medical > systems and ways of viewing the body............why is it necessary for > us to change TCM terminology to fit WM when it is increasingly losing > its respect in the world? > > I think we all have gathered that you love this book and believe it is > some kind of " second coming " for TCM. Personally I don't need WM to > " like " what I do, nor do I need WM to " understand " my professional > language or " agree " with it; neither do my patients. > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 On 08/10/2004, at 3:30 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > That was a well thought and intelligent answer its nice to speak to > someone who knows there stuff. I agree with 90% of what you said > expecially regarding WM. You point out very clearly that WM major > weakness is its lack in solid theory, its inability to explain the > cause of a problem. This I totally agree, however by combining the two > medicine's the TCM theory does have the abilty to solve these > problems> The main problem here is that the two medicines view health > through two completely opposite froms of logic so one can never match > to the other however what can be done is using both logics as to get a > full picture. Example: TCM theory could often address the cause, herbs > could be perscribed the balance and strengthen the body, how ever as > you stated should the problem be more serious then more aspects of WM > could be used (emergency medicine).Regarding their being no use to > change TCM terms fit WM because WM terms often change to much I will > explain my case. Firstlychanges I sugge! > st > to make that are suggested to be made are to simply make TCM > compatable with basic common WM terms such as the anatomy and > physiology as these literally never change (in general).Doing this > would need to make the meridian system clearly defined from the > anotomical system. Example: A TCM doctor could say you have kidney > problem so you gow to a WM doctor he runs tests and says your kidney > is fine, this is because the TCM doctorwas not talking about the > actual phyical kidney rather he was talking about the kidney energy(or > the vitality system as I have read in this particular interpratation). > If we also remove the mystical terminology (liver fire) then western > educated people can make sense of it. If we make the terminology > nonconflicting or confusing for western educated people then they will > be far more open to learning TCM (including WM doctors). I dont see > how any logical person can argue with this, please let me know what > you think. > > Regards > > Manu > Hi Manu, I don't think the two medicines view through two completely opposite forms of logic at all. As I stated in my other post, logic is just logic.....there are not different forms of it. Perhaps I am mistaken about this. Defining the meridian system in as part of the gross anatomy of the body is not justified and suits no purpose IMO as it would introduce an idea which is not what TCM is based upon. Perhaps in the future when scientific research and technology allow us to better measure the way the nervous system communicates or how the EM fields of the body are formed and change......then the meridians may be able to be explained in terms of modern " Science " but this again is not WM. WM view of the body does not have an equivalent for the meridian system, so at the moment it is IMPOSSIBLE to use WM terms to explain it in a useful, accurate or truthful manner and still remain true to TCM. The confusion about kidney vs Kidney is irrelevant IMO. If a WM practitioner wishes to apply his understanding of a word upon TCM that is his " problem " and a result of his lack of accepting anything but his view of reality. WM does not own the concept of kidney, TCM Kidney still includes the WM kidney organ but also goes far beyond that. THe point is, that the Chinese word kidney is kidney........to change it would be dishonest and not accurate to TCM. The answer is for everyone to understand any word in " context " , and not presume to know what another science or practice is talking about. The " vitality system " is an interpretation not a translation...........I think the dangers of such an approach are well documented elsewhere. The bottom line is that if you believe western educated people must make sense of it through there own preconceived ideas of reality and not see it as " mystical " or confusing, there is contrary to learning and growth. I differ completely in regards to the necessity of justifying any of TCM in WM terms and don't feel embarrassment if the average " Joe " doesn't understand what I am talking about initially. I will explain and educate when and where I can in regards to what TCM is saying, but I will not compromise the imagery or mystical terms if it means losing the intended meaning. Liver fire sounds strange to the uninitiated; but fire is a useful and necessary concept that helps both convey the cause and nature of its actions, your average " Joe " actually finds this fascinating and more often than not they see the logical behind far more readily than they some WM label or claimed process. I just don't understand why you feel we have to change TCM so it fits another culture just to avoid some perceived embarrassment. As you said yourself, WM is losing customers and respect........they are actually moving toward the " mystical " imagery and alternative viewpoints of systems such as TCM. Logically, this means that adopting WM terms will make others believe we are just another type of WM.....the very thing they are moving away from..........so, following this simple logic; adopting WM terms would actually decrease respect for TCM. Something you are totally against I hope I have confused you a bit:P Best Wishes, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 H Steve, > > > I don't think the two medicines view through two completely opposite > forms of logic at all. As I stated in my other post, logic is just > logic.....there are not different forms of it. Perhaps I am mistaken > about this. > There are many kinds of logic. For example, there can be the proposition: A is either A or Not A in the same time and the same place. This is one form of logic. (A bedrock of Aristotelian logic). However, there is the possibility that A is A _and_ Not A in the same time and the same place. This is the the proposition underlying Chinese medicine. That little white spot in the Ying side of the circle has more meaning than one might think. Ditto for that block circle withing the Yang side of the circle. IN other words, when something reaches its extreme, it instanteously reverts to its oppositie - while still retaining its old form. Paradoxes are not only part of CM - they are the bedrock of CM. :-) This " logic " might confound someone who is only use to thinking in terms of Aristotelian logic. But it is interesting that certain Quantum experients validate the fact that A is A and Not A at the same time and same place. Quite a lot to comtemplate when one is bored. :-) Regards, Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 _____ manu hamlin [manuhamlin] Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:59 PM Chinese Medicine Re: more neat TCM terms Re Steve Hi Steve Yet another good response are you ready for one rigth back at you. Yes the worlds is moving away from WM and who can blame them its a bloody mess. [Jason] I am wondering where you get this from. I personally do not see the WORLD moving away from WM. Even look at China they are using more WM then ever. -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 On 08/10/2004, at 11:21 PM, wrote: > manu hamlin [manuhamlin] > Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:59 PM > Chinese Medicine > Re: more neat TCM terms Re Steve > > > > > Hi Steve > > Yet another good response are you ready for one rigth back at you. > > Yes the worlds is moving away from WM and who can blame them its a > bloody > mess. > > [Jason] > > I am wondering where you get this from. I personally do not see the > WORLD > moving away from WM. Even look at China they are using more WM then > ever. > > > > -Jason > > Hi Jason, China certainly is using western medicine more than ever. This does not lend any extra validity or usefulness to WM however. From my time in China I observed many disturbing motives and trends in the use of WM. For example, in terms of drugs:- * It is money driven - Many TCM doctors get commission and " encouragement " to prescribe pharmaceuticals. The more they prescribe, the better off the are. * Pharmaceutical drugs that are prescription only in the West were freely available over-the-counter and given out/prescribed by unqualified staff. (this has only changed in the last few months - now the doctors get more out of prescribing them than ever). * China is not immune to the overstated claims or selective evidence that pharmaceutical companies use to promote products; in fact there is less regulation of such things and thus they are more vulnerable to it. * Some doctors like to give WM drugs for their initial quick results and the good impression of the doctor's skills the patient then percieves - regardless of the long-term benefits of such treatments. Dermatology is one are that uses toxic anti-fungals, steroids, anti-histamines etc freely in patent medicines in the hospital I was in. * Antibiotic over-use in China is worse than it ever was in the West. When my friends go to the average TCM hospital (shanghai/nanjing) they ALWAYS get prescribed antibiotics for as long as 2 or 3 months at a time for a mild common cold or sore throat. Cosmetic surgery is a boom industry in china. So the fact that China is using more WM than ever is certainly true; but for who's benefit and why? I believe at least here (Australia) people are moving away from WM in droves for anything other than severe acute problems. People are becoming more educated about the tactics, motives and practices of pharmaceutical companies and are generally more aware of the dangers of chronic use of many drugs. eg. NSAIDS, HRT, VIOX, anti-depressants, corticosteriods etc. and the direct link between overuse of antibiotics and the growing resistance of bacteria. Best Wishes, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 This does not lend any extra validity or usefulness to WM however. From my time in China I observed many disturbing motives and trends in the use of WM. [Jason] Let us be clear here. The argument is not if WM is valid, useful, or even is good (or bad), but I was just showing that world is NOT moving away from WM. And I think for precisely the reasons you list below. WM is a huge business and capitalism (at least currently) is dominating the world. So I think you proved my point nicely (at least in China), thanx. AS far as the public in 1st world countries getting wise to some of the pitfalls of WM, I would say this is true, but overall I think it is a hard sell to say that WM is on it's way out. -Jason For example, in terms of drugs:- * It is money driven - Many TCM doctors get commission and " encouragement " to prescribe pharmaceuticals. The more they prescribe, the better off the are. * Pharmaceutical drugs that are prescription only in the West were freely available over-the-counter and given out/prescribed by unqualified staff. (this has only changed in the last few months - now the doctors get more out of prescribing them than ever). * China is not immune to the overstated claims or selective evidence that pharmaceutical companies use to promote products; in fact there is less regulation of such things and thus they are more vulnerable to it. * Some doctors like to give WM drugs for their initial quick results and the good impression of the doctor's skills the patient then percieves - regardless of the long-term benefits of such treatments. Dermatology is one are that uses toxic anti-fungals, steroids, anti-histamines etc freely in patent medicines in the hospital I was in. * Antibiotic over-use in China is worse than it ever was in the West. When my friends go to the average TCM hospital (shanghai/nanjing) they ALWAYS get prescribed antibiotics for as long as 2 or 3 months at a time for a mild common cold or sore throat. Cosmetic surgery is a boom industry in china. So the fact that China is using more WM than ever is certainly true; but for who's benefit and why? I believe at least here (Australia) people are moving away from WM in droves for anything other than severe acute problems. People are becoming more educated about the tactics, motives and practices of pharmaceutical companies and are generally more aware of the dangers of chronic use of many drugs. eg. NSAIDS, HRT, VIOX, anti-depressants, corticosteriods etc. and the direct link between overuse of antibiotics and the growing resistance of bacteria. Best Wishes, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 Rich wrote:<snip> > > There are many kinds of logic. For example, there can be the proposition: > > A is either A or Not A in the same time and the same place. This is > one form of logic. (A bedrock of Aristotelian logic). Hi Rich! A or non-A in the same time, same place _and_ in the same respect. In this formulation there is no conflict between Yin/Yang theory and Aristotle. Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 Hi Jason, I never meant to suggest WM is on its way out as in " dead " and was not specific enough with my statement of where these changes in WM were occurring (my bad). I was trying to point out that its dominance is on the down-cline at least in modern western countries as patients are beginning to understand and accept its limitations. The days of WM doctors being worshipped as miracle workers and gods on earth has changed considerably. Perhaps taking the world as a whole the overall balance has not changed with Asia and many 3rd world countries getting increased access to drugs and and adopting more WM to balances out the switch to alternative methods in the West. Fascinating really. The real test for WM will be if and when the thrill generated by the promises of pharmaceutical companies in these countries turn out to be " red-herrings " as they more often than not do. I would go as far as to say WM is currently " fashionable " in China et al, and going " out of fashion " in countries like Australia. I should note that I am talking about the role of the GP and the treatment of chronic, long-term illness rather than specialities like emergency medicine/surgery and the growing potential of genetic medicine. It will be interesting to see medicine in 10-20 years and how this shift has settled. Best Wishes, Steve On 09/10/2004, at 1:20 PM, wrote: > > > This does not > lend any extra validity or usefulness to WM however. From my time in > China I observed many disturbing motives and trends in the use of WM. > > [Jason] > > Let us be clear here. The argument is not if WM is valid, useful, or > even > is good (or bad), but I was just showing that world is NOT moving away > from > WM. And I think for precisely the reasons you list below. WM is a > huge > business and capitalism (at least currently) is dominating the world. > So I > think you proved my point nicely (at least in China), thanx. AS far > as the > public in 1st world countries getting wise to some of the pitfalls of > WM, I > would say this is true, but overall I think it is a hard sell to say > that WM > is on it's way out. > > > > -Jason > > > > For example, in terms of drugs:- > > * It is money driven - Many TCM doctors get commission and > " encouragement " to prescribe pharmaceuticals. The more they prescribe, > the better off the are. > * Pharmaceutical drugs that are prescription only in the West were > freely available over-the-counter and given out/prescribed by > unqualified staff. (this has only changed in the last few months - now > the doctors get more out of prescribing them than ever). > * China is not immune to the overstated claims or selective evidence > that pharmaceutical companies use to promote products; in fact there is > less regulation of such things and thus they are more vulnerable to it. > * Some doctors like to give WM drugs for their initial quick results > and the good impression of the doctor's skills the patient then > percieves - regardless of the long-term benefits of such treatments. > Dermatology is one are that uses toxic anti-fungals, steroids, > anti-histamines etc freely in patent medicines in the hospital I was > in. > * Antibiotic over-use in China is worse than it ever was in the West. > When my friends go to the average TCM hospital (shanghai/nanjing) they > ALWAYS get prescribed antibiotics for as long as 2 or 3 months at a > time for a mild common cold or sore throat. > > Cosmetic surgery is a boom industry in china. > > So the fact that China is using more WM than ever is certainly true; > but for who's benefit and why? > > I believe at least here (Australia) people are moving away from WM in > droves for anything other than severe acute problems. People are > becoming more educated about the tactics, motives and practices of > pharmaceutical companies and are generally more aware of the dangers of > chronic use of many drugs. eg. NSAIDS, HRT, VIOX, anti-depressants, > corticosteriods etc. and the direct link between overuse of antibiotics > and the growing resistance of bacteria. > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 I’m coming into this string late in the discussion Both Eastern and Western medicine have their place Both have limitations – it is arrogant and naïve to think that any one discipline can do it all TCM is a blend of several arts for physicians to choose from – Acu, herbs, tuina, massage, exercise, etc. Not just acu or herbs – many times different doctors will use different treatments for similar conditions and get good results Remember –TCM was developed for a people on a different continent, living in a different environment, and living in their environment For us to take TCM and blanket it onto western society and expect it to be 100% effective is not realistic There are modern tools and techniques that are just as valuable If a patient presents to my office with a possible infection – it would be negligent on my part not to perform blood work. Not that TCM won’t be helpful, but there are other diagnostic tools that can give a more specific diagnosis doug _____ Steven Slater [laozhongyi] Saturday, October 09, 2004 3:50 AM Chinese Medicine Re: more neat TCM terms Re Steve THi Jason, I never meant to suggest WM is on its way out as in " dead " and was not specific enough with my statement of where these changes in WM were occurring (my bad). I was trying to point out that its dominance is on the down-cline at least in modern western countries as patients are beginning to understand and accept its limitations. The days of WM doctors being worshipped as miracle workers and gods on earth has changed considerably. Perhaps taking the world as a whole the overall balance has not changed with Asia and many 3rd world countries getting increased access to drugs and and adopting more WM to balances out the switch to alternative methods in the West. Fascinating really. The real test for WM will be if and when the thrill generated by the promises of pharmaceutical companies in these countries turn out to be " red-herrings " as they more often than not do. I would go as far as to say WM is currently " fashionable " in China et al, and going " out of fashion " in countries like Australia. I should note that I am talking about the role of the GP and the treatment of chronic, long-term illness rather than specialities like emergency medicine/surgery and the growing potential of genetic medicine. It will be interesting to see medicine in 10-20 years and how this shift has settled. Best Wishes, Steve On 09/10/2004, at 1:20 PM, wrote: > > > This does not > lend any extra validity or usefulness to WM however. From my time in > China I observed many disturbing motives and trends in the use of WM. > > [Jason] > > Let us be clear here. The argument is not if WM is valid, useful, or > even > is good (or bad), but I was just showing that world is NOT moving away > from > WM. And I think for precisely the reasons you list below. WM is a > huge > business and capitalism (at least currently) is dominating the world. > So I > think you proved my point nicely (at least in China), thanx. AS far > as the > public in 1st world countries getting wise to some of the pitfalls of > WM, I > would say this is true, but overall I think it is a hard sell to say > that WM > is on it's way out. > > > > -Jason > > > > For example, in terms of drugs:- > > * It is money driven - Many TCM doctors get commission and > " encouragement " to prescribe pharmaceuticals. The more they prescribe, > the better off the are. > * Pharmaceutical drugs that are prescription only in the West were > freely available over-the-counter and given out/prescribed by > unqualified staff. (this has only changed in the last few months - now > the doctors get more out of prescribing them than ever). > * China is not immune to the overstated claims or selective evidence > that pharmaceutical companies use to promote products; in fact there is > less regulation of such things and thus they are more vulnerable to it. > * Some doctors like to give WM drugs for their initial quick results > and the good impression of the doctor's skills the patient then > percieves - regardless of the long-term benefits of such treatments. > Dermatology is one are that uses toxic anti-fungals, steroids, > anti-histamines etc freely in patent medicines in the hospital I was > in. > * Antibiotic over-use in China is worse than it ever was in the West. > When my friends go to the average TCM hospital (shanghai/nanjing) they > ALWAYS get prescribed antibiotics for as long as 2 or 3 months at a > time for a mild common cold or sore throat. > > Cosmetic surgery is a boom industry in china. > > So the fact that China is using more WM than ever is certainly true; > but for who's benefit and why? > > I believe at least here (Australia) people are moving away from WM in > droves for anything other than severe acute problems. People are > becoming more educated about the tactics, motives and practices of > pharmaceutical companies and are generally more aware of the dangers of > chronic use of many drugs. eg. NSAIDS, HRT, VIOX, anti-depressants, > corticosteriods etc. and the direct link between overuse of antibiotics > and the growing resistance of bacteria. > > Best Wishes, > > Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 On 09/10/2004, at 10:51 PM, Doug Briggs wrote: > If a patient presents to my office with a possible infection – it > would be > negligent on my part not to perform blood work. Not that TCM won’t be > helpful, but there are other diagnostic tools that can give a more > specific > diagnosis > > doug > Hi Doug, Are you serious? A sore throat is usually an infection, a common cold, a simple boil, acne....... Every case of damp-heat in the LJ has to be sent for blood work? In Australia, only WM can do blood work or refer for blood work. Are you suggesting that I am negligent for treating all of these conditions above? What more specific WM diagnosis is necessary in most infections to guide TCM treatment? Best Wishes, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Hi Steve Im impressed as always, perhaps I was not clear enough. In the example you gave regarding linear thinking you showed for TCM was very specific however did not address the bigger scope. For example if you look at the theory of the five phases that is the best example of non linear thinking. I should have said the two medicines mostly used the specified types of thinking but not totally. Not to mention certain doctors may have varied thinking accordingly. And yes you made a good point regarding different sub groups of logical thinking being involved, this is clearly stated in the book, I never get away with anything talking to you do I. When I get time I will copy out the three laws in full and post them I just worried I might get sued for copyright. Then you will get a clear description rather than my sad attempts, there was a really good article published recently still trying to track down a copy of it to post, did you read the other article I posted on Friday. Regards Manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: Hi Manu, On 08/10/2004, at 3:58 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > Yet another good response are you ready for one rigth back at you. > > Yes the worlds is moving away from WM and who can blame them its a > bloody mess. You say TCM is not a science or cannot be explained in > those terms well thats a whole new debate again. WM practice thinks > that science is only what you can see( under a microscope) however if > you look at nearlly every other type of science this is not the case. > Example: astronomy- they can calculate how big the universe simply > through logical and mathmatical deduction, in fact most science is > based on logic rather than cold physical proof. They can tell you how > big saturn is without ever going there, sometimes these things will be > proven wrong but that is the unavoidable natural evoloution of > science. > Perhaps I was not clear in my last post regarding my opinions on science, WM and TCM. I didn't say TCM is not a science; TCM certainly is a science. To me, science is not a " thing " , it is a process of logic. As such it does not have its own universal " terms " , and therefore TCM can and does freely fit into science as a process. The point I was trying to make is that TCM is a science and WM is also supposedly based upon science, BUT science and WM are not the same thing. WM is one rather hodge-podge collection of various ideas, theories and techniques....some of which have been backed by " science " or proper logic and many that have not. I truly feel sorry for WM practitioners as their major source of therapeutic tools and scientific " evidence " they use to assist their patients comes to them predominately via research sponsored, promoted and censored by pharmaceutical companies. WM is always searching for better, safer and more effective drugs to treat their patients. Pharmaceutical companies bombard them with claims on a new " wonder " drug constantly and feed them only the research as far as in suits their purposes. More often than not the reality of this new wonder drug is that it turns out to either not be very effective, has significant side effects or is later found to be unsafe. So the WM practitioner must try the next big thing stuffed down their throats if they wish to actually help their patients. > Secondly to make to TCM scientifically explainable we do this through > logic. The first step is to what type of logic TCM uses, this is > called non linear thinking, it means you look at things as a group or > system, if one factor changes they all change. Then you haveto look at > WM logic which dates back 200 years to aristotal (very outdated), this > form of thinking is called non linear thinking ( a-b , w-y etc) it > only looks at things in a one step mode. Now we have a clear and > logical perspective of the differences in thinking patterns. next step > for TCM to be compatable medicine has to update its the 200 year old > concepts that govern it. > IMO TCM uses linear thinking (I think you meant WM uses " linear " yes?) as well, but does not limited itself to only one aspect or isolated strand of a condition or process without taking into consideration all others simultaneously; like WM is fond of doing. When several stands of linear thinking are considered at the same time they form an inter-woven system. The more strands that are understood and considered; the more complete the inter-relationships of the system can be viewed. Of course, non-linear thinking does exist in TCM as well, but I don't think this is the main process of professional TCM. Short example of what I mean.... Stress and anger ----- liver depression qi stagnation ----- heat -------- consumes body fluids and congeals them into phelgm. This is one linear process of pathogenesis; of course this is only one possible outcome and the path of the pathogenesis can take a different direction at any point along this path and produce another strand on linear thinking. This is what makes TCM so valuable (and complicated) to learn the basics of, until you know each possible path and how they related to one another at each point............it is impossible to practice this system well. I confess I am not sure about what you are trying to convey in the paragraph above so perhaps I am not addressing your exact meaning. > This has been done to make the two forms of logic and theories > compatable. WM theory considers the mind and body to be seperate > entities, only recently are they making strong scientific > connections.The first new governing law states good health is the > harmony of Body, Energy & Spirit(Mind if you prefer). That simple > sentence changes the whole dynamic as even a western person can > understand how all three factors are interrelated and unseperable. So > now you have compatible terminolgy, you can train people to view with > both forms of logic.You can now address both the cause and the > symptoms, treat the health and the sickness. I have given you a crash > course, these things are explained in much more detail in the book. > Going to scan and post an article about it shortly. > > Regards > > Manu > IMO there is only logic, no sub-forms of logic and I don't see why any of this necessitates us adopting any WM theory or terminology for the future of our medicine. Best Wishes, Steve > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > > Hi Manu, > > The simple fact is that many fundamental TCM theories DO conflict with > WM and can therefore not be cloaked in WM terms without changing the > fundamentals of TCM itself. WM is not the same thing as > " science " .........I can see TCM and " science " becoming closer and > increasing out understanding of the human body; but WM is a different > story altogether. Perhaps when you say WM you mean science, but if that > is the case.......I hope you understand that they are very different > animals. > > I don't believe we have to " prove " anything in terms of WM terminology. > Clinical outcomes is what matters to patients and increasingly this is > also the case scientific research in medicine in general. Patients are > increasingly moving away from WM and embracing alternative medical > systems and ways of viewing the body............why is it necessary for > us to change TCM terminology to fit WM when it is increasingly losing > its respect in the world? > > I think we all have gathered that you love this book and believe it is > some kind of " second coming " for TCM. Personally I don't need WM to > " like " what I do, nor do I need WM to " understand " my professional > language or " agree " with it; neither do my patients. > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Hi Steve Hhahaha, well done yes you did confuse me. The reason I beleive it is so important to change TCM to not conflict with WM is simple and it is real. WM has all the power and will continue to do as long as we conflict. WM could very easily swallow TCM or simply destroy us as they have the power and we do not. If you dont believe me just read the recent post about the new laws that will remove the majority of supplements from the market, its only a matter of time before they come after TCM. You ask how can they remove TCM, easy they will argue that we can be replaced, as through their science they can extract the herb, refine it and explain how it can work scientifically (chemical reaction). If they claim that we can make sense out of TCM and we cant we could very well lose the war, this is not paranoa just look in China. With the recent success with the meleria drug form a TCM herb they now can claim WM has taken it to a new level. Of course we know better but we dont count, as for your other concern none of the original essense is lost through the new interpratation, the New Zealand Govt here is really behind this science, the reviews from people have been brilliant. I value your opinion but I some times feel frustrated because I know I can never tell you enough to make my point as it took a 500 page book to convince me. Well waited for that challenging response. Regards Manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: On 08/10/2004, at 3:30 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > That was a well thought and intelligent answer its nice to speak to > someone who knows there stuff. I agree with 90% of what you said > expecially regarding WM. You point out very clearly that WM major > weakness is its lack in solid theory, its inability to explain the > cause of a problem. This I totally agree, however by combining the two > medicine's the TCM theory does have the abilty to solve these > problems> The main problem here is that the two medicines view health > through two completely opposite froms of logic so one can never match > to the other however what can be done is using both logics as to get a > full picture. Example: TCM theory could often address the cause, herbs > could be perscribed the balance and strengthen the body, how ever as > you stated should the problem be more serious then more aspects of WM > could be used (emergency medicine).Regarding their being no use to > change TCM terms fit WM because WM terms often change to much I will > explain my case. Firstlychanges I sugge! > st > to make that are suggested to be made are to simply make TCM > compatable with basic common WM terms such as the anatomy and > physiology as these literally never change (in general).Doing this > would need to make the meridian system clearly defined from the > anotomical system. Example: A TCM doctor could say you have kidney > problem so you gow to a WM doctor he runs tests and says your kidney > is fine, this is because the TCM doctorwas not talking about the > actual phyical kidney rather he was talking about the kidney energy(or > the vitality system as I have read in this particular interpratation). > If we also remove the mystical terminology (liver fire) then western > educated people can make sense of it. If we make the terminology > nonconflicting or confusing for western educated people then they will > be far more open to learning TCM (including WM doctors). I dont see > how any logical person can argue with this, please let me know what > you think. > > Regards > > Manu > Hi Manu, I don't think the two medicines view through two completely opposite forms of logic at all. As I stated in my other post, logic is just logic.....there are not different forms of it. Perhaps I am mistaken about this. Defining the meridian system in as part of the gross anatomy of the body is not justified and suits no purpose IMO as it would introduce an idea which is not what TCM is based upon. Perhaps in the future when scientific research and technology allow us to better measure the way the nervous system communicates or how the EM fields of the body are formed and change......then the meridians may be able to be explained in terms of modern " Science " but this again is not WM. WM view of the body does not have an equivalent for the meridian system, so at the moment it is IMPOSSIBLE to use WM terms to explain it in a useful, accurate or truthful manner and still remain true to TCM. The confusion about kidney vs Kidney is irrelevant IMO. If a WM practitioner wishes to apply his understanding of a word upon TCM that is his " problem " and a result of his lack of accepting anything but his view of reality. WM does not own the concept of kidney, TCM Kidney still includes the WM kidney organ but also goes far beyond that. THe point is, that the Chinese word kidney is kidney........to change it would be dishonest and not accurate to TCM. The answer is for everyone to understand any word in " context " , and not presume to know what another science or practice is talking about. The " vitality system " is an interpretation not a translation...........I think the dangers of such an approach are well documented elsewhere. The bottom line is that if you believe western educated people must make sense of it through there own preconceived ideas of reality and not see it as " mystical " or confusing, there is contrary to learning and growth. I differ completely in regards to the necessity of justifying any of TCM in WM terms and don't feel embarrassment if the average " Joe " doesn't understand what I am talking about initially. I will explain and educate when and where I can in regards to what TCM is saying, but I will not compromise the imagery or mystical terms if it means losing the intended meaning. Liver fire sounds strange to the uninitiated; but fire is a useful and necessary concept that helps both convey the cause and nature of its actions, your average " Joe " actually finds this fascinating and more often than not they see the logical behind far more readily than they some WM label or claimed process. I just don't understand why you feel we have to change TCM so it fits another culture just to avoid some perceived embarrassment. As you said yourself, WM is losing customers and respect........they are actually moving toward the " mystical " imagery and alternative viewpoints of systems such as TCM. Logically, this means that adopting WM terms will make others believe we are just another type of WM.....the very thing they are moving away from..........so, following this simple logic; adopting WM terms would actually decrease respect for TCM. Something you are totally against I hope I have confused you a bit:P Best Wishes, Steve ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Hi All Just to clear this up about the whole logic issue, yes logic is logic however you look at it. What I should have written is that WM mostly uses a linear thinking Mode (Type of logical thinking) and TCM mostly uses a non linear thing mode (Type of logical thinking). So what I am really trying to say is like different computer systems they process and view the information differently. For all you logic nuts you can read the book it has everything explained in mathamatical and logical explanation as well. I hope that has cleared things up. Regards Manu Pete Theisen <petet wrote: Rich wrote:<snip> > > There are many kinds of logic. For example, there can be the proposition: > > A is either A or Not A in the same time and the same place. This is > one form of logic. (A bedrock of Aristotelian logic). Hi Rich! A or non-A in the same time, same place _and_ in the same respect. In this formulation there is no conflict between Yin/Yang theory and Aristotle. Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Hi Manu, On 11/10/2004, at 2:33 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > The reason I beleive it is so important to change TCM to not conflict > with WM is simple and it is real. WM has all the power and will > continue to do as long as we conflict. WM could very easily swallow > TCM or simply destroy us as they have the power and we do not. IMO WM swallowing TCM is all the more likely if TCM is simplified or changed to WM terminology. The tradition of WM is that of taking what it likes and then claiming they are the only ones qualified to use it. They adopt, adapt and consume OR destroy. If once they truly understand TCM and find it useful, they could easy claim that they are the " real " doctors and are the only ones qualified to access herbs and use the techniques of TCM. Luckily, in my state in Australia, since the introduction of registration for TCM practitioners the WM practitioners must, if they wish to practice herbal , satisfy ALL the normal formal educational requirements of TCM practitioners to be able to practice it and be registered on the TCM board. The same is not true for acupuncture however; their weekend courses are considered enough. Incidentaly, I think that most of what we are talking about here is Pharmaceutical companies rather than WM as a whole. > If you dont believe me just read the recent post about the new laws > that will remove the majority of supplements from the market, its only > a matter of time before they come after TCM. You ask how can they > remove TCM, easy they will argue that we can be replaced, as through > their science they can extract the herb, refine it and explain how it > can work scientifically (chemical reaction). If they claim that we can > make sense out of TCM and we cant we could very well lose the war, > this is not paranoa just look in China. With the recent success with > the meleria drug form a TCM herb they now can claim WM has taken it to > a new level. Of course we know better but we dont count, as for > your other concern none of the original essense is lost through the > new interpratation, the New Zealand Govt here is really behind this > science, the reviews from people have been brilliant. I value your > opinion but I some times feel frustrated because I know I can never > tell you enough to make my point as it took a 500 page book to > convince me. > Well waited for that challenging response. > The Pharmaceutical companies are the ones behind the herb restrictions. They want this so they can be the ones to produce the supplements and herbal " constituents " OR for the more conspiratorial minded, ensure people can not keep themselves healthy with simple, natural medicines, thus ensuring people suffer chronic illness and need drugs. Science here, is unfortunately more about finding " active ingredients " and isolating them so they can get a patent and have exclusive rights to them. They can't patent a natural plant and they know it. In many ways, your (or the authors) arguments seem to hasten this possibility of WM and pharmaceutical companies swallowing and consuming TCM. Perhaps a better answer, IMO, is to get TCM professionally recognised in its own right ASAP (as has happened here) so we are in control of our own medicine, who uses the herbs etc. Until that happens, we don't have a leg to stand on. Best Wishes, Steve > Regards > > Manu > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Sorry for the misunderstanding Clearly, not all infections must be treated with western medicine But if I have a patient with cellulitis or an acute appendix I am not going to compromise my patient care for the love of one are I do treat sinusitis and otitis media often in my office, either alone or working with the PCP if necessary As much as I love what I do, I took an oath, and I have an obligation to act in the best interest of my patient. Not just use the tools that I have. There is nothing wrong with co-managing with another physician Doug Steven Slater [laozhongyi] Saturday, October 09, 2004 5:06 PM Chinese Medicine Re: more neat TCM terms Re Steve On 09/10/2004, at 10:51 PM, Doug Briggs wrote: > If a patient presents to my office with a possible infection - it > would be > negligent on my part not to perform blood work. Not that TCM won't be > helpful, but there are other diagnostic tools that can give a more > specific > diagnosis > > doug > Hi Doug, Are you serious? A sore throat is usually an infection, a common cold, a simple boil, acne....... Every case of damp-heat in the LJ has to be sent for blood work? In Australia, only WM can do blood work or refer for blood work. Are you suggesting that I am negligent for treating all of these conditions above? What more specific WM diagnosis is necessary in most infections to guide TCM treatment? Best Wishes, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Hi Doug, Thanks for clearing up your intended meaning. I agree wholeheartedly with referral for conditions better treated by other systems as I have mentioned many times on this list. No matter how much TCM does have to offer, there are certainly areas where WM intervention is the best option for our patients. Best Wishes, Steve On 11/10/2004, at 10:57 PM, Doug Briggs wrote: > > > Sorry for the misunderstanding > Clearly, not all infections must be treated with western medicine > But if I have a patient with cellulitis or an acute appendix > I am not going to compromise my patient care for the love of one are > > I do treat sinusitis and otitis media often in my office, either alone > or > working with the PCP if necessary > > As much as I love what I do, I took an oath, and I have an obligation > to act > in the best interest of my patient. Not just use the tools that I > have. > There is nothing wrong with co-managing with another physician > > Doug > > > > Steven Slater [laozhongyi] > Saturday, October 09, 2004 5:06 PM > Chinese Medicine > Re: more neat TCM terms Re Steve > > > > On 09/10/2004, at 10:51 PM, Doug Briggs wrote: >> If a patient presents to my office with a possible infection - it >> would be >> negligent on my part not to perform blood work. Not that TCM won't be >> helpful, but there are other diagnostic tools that can give a more >> specific >> diagnosis >> >> doug >> > > > Hi Doug, > > Are you serious? A sore throat is usually an infection, a common cold, > a simple boil, acne....... > Every case of damp-heat in the LJ has to be sent for blood work? > > In Australia, only WM can do blood work or refer for blood work. Are > you suggesting that I am negligent for treating all of these conditions > above? What more specific WM diagnosis is necessary in most infections > to guide TCM treatment? > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > http://babel.altavista.com/ > > > and > adjust accordingly. > > If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being > delivered. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the > group requires prior permission from the author. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.