more neat TCM terms RE Steve Re Steve

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve

 

Its great to hear the progress being made in Australia, I heard many great

things, sadly NZ not moving as quick. The author of that book is lobbying the

government here to make doctors and physios to undergo proper training for

acupuncture, and he already has some major players in govenment on his side. The

main reason he has had this success is because he he new interpratation does not

conflict with WM, so now WM doctors have no excuses.Not only that the WM doctors

here actually want to learn it, I bet you cant say that in Australia That is the

power of not conflicting, and regarding your other comment the theory is not

altered or watered down at all just the explaination is more clear.

pharmaceutical companines have the main power only because they can say we are

scientifically explainable no one else is. . Just wanted to clear up one point

for you, when I say he would like to see the two medicines unified I dont mean

destroying either TCM or WM you can still have specialists in

both. All I am saying is that by combining them you could have greater success

in many ways, it is estimated that if they were to combine the two we could

atleast half the cost of health care. I wont bother explaining the reasoning I

think you know enough to answer that your self.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote:

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

[Guest guest]

On 12/10/2004, at 2:25 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

> pharmaceutical companines have the main power only because they can

> say we are scientifically explainable no one else is. .

 

Hi Manu,

 

This is not correct at all. Many of the drugs on the market are not

scientifically explainable in their actions byond educated guesses or

assumption. Perhaps many have been shown to have more effect than a

placebo (even this is not always true) but that has nothing to do with

their actions or influence on the body being understood or " explained " .

Even if a drugs action is explainable, the cause or process of the

disease it is used to treat may not be. Scientific explanation is not

the power base for WM or pharmaceutical companies.

 

Scientific explanation is not the issue IMO. Evidence may be, but this

is not scientific explanation, it is observation via the scientifc

method, and increasingly outcome based. A technique, drug or therapy

may have evidence to back up its usefulness or efficacy without their

being any explanation for how or why it really works.

 

IMO, wanting something scientifically explainable is the the ideal, but

it should NEVER become before the consideration of a therapy or

technique (Western or Eastern) in terms of its usefulness or

effectiveness.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

On 12/10/2004, at 2:25 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

>

>

> Hi Steve

>

> Its great to hear the progress being made in Australia, I heard many

> great things, sadly NZ not moving as quick. The author of that book is

> lobbying the government here to make doctors and physios to undergo

> proper training for acupuncture, and he already has some major players

> in govenment on his side. The main reason he has had this success is

> because he he new interpratation does not conflict with WM, so now WM

> doctors have no excuses.Not only that the WM doctors here actually

> want to learn it, I bet you cant say that in Australia That is the

> power of not conflicting

 

Hi Manu,

 

Initially, as the Chinese medicine registration bill was going through

parliament, it was halted by the WM board unless they were exempt. This

exemption was given as a compromise, but they the physio's, chiro's,

osteo's, nurses, pharmacists and even optometrists jumped on the WM

bandwagon for exemption!!!

 

So, in the end, they were all given exemption to allow the bill to

pass. These exemptions put the decision of whether a member of these

other professions was allowed to practice acupuncture and/or herbal

medicine in the hands of their own boards. Thankfully, most of these

boards looked closely at the reality of the situation, and through

consultation with the Board realised that the

education requirements for herbal medicine were such that they would

only let their members practice Chinese herbal medicine if they met the

education standards of the board for registration

anyway:P

 

This is how politics works, compromise and more compromise. Not

conflicting works both ways. All I really see you saying is that we

must not conflict to WM, nothing about educating WM to respect us and

not conflict with us!!!

 

Acupuncture has not been viewed by these professions as requiring

anything like the normal professional education level of herbal

medicine, so they control their own education standards for their

members at the moment. The Registration board is

working to increase the education standards of these other professions

in regards to acupuncture and TCM in general.......it will be a long

process but worthwhile in the end.

 

Already, Universities here that have TCM programs have herbal medicine

and acupuncture masters level programs open to these other health

professionals and the places are being filled with GP's no problem.

Having attended workshops and lectures with these GP's I have first

hand experience of their miscomprehension's about TCM based on WM ideas

and terminology; it is fascinating to watch their ideas and attitudes

change as they actually learn the TCM on its own merits. They freely

admit trying to explain it in WM terms would not only be cutting

corners, but also restricting its potential in practice. They also say

that trying to relate it all to WM just prevents understanding and

learning. But that is only their opinion and my observation; the author

of the text you recommend and you personally may believe differently.

 

Ok, I think this thread has reached an impasse and further debate is

probably pointless. I want TCM to be understood and respected for what

it is, I don't want it changed to suit WM. I believe WM and TCM have

strengths and weaknesses and thus " their place " in the care of people.

We should respect each other and refer to each other when necessary. I

see no point in making anyone a " jack of all trades and a master of

none " by joining the two in what would have to be a 10 year education

program to produce realistically qualified WM AND TCM doctors.

 

Most importantly,I don't believe we need scientific explanations or to

change our terms to suit WM to safe-guard the future of TCM. IMO what

we need, is higher education and translation standards, and more

research dollars to do trials on our medicine which if successful will

give us merit in the medical community, regardless of any explanation

for the why's and where-fore's of how it all works.

 

I have enjoyed this discussion immensely and perhaps we can return to

it after more unfolds along this path.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve

 

Fair comment, no arguments here Steve solid points

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote:

 

On 12/10/2004, at 2:25 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

> pharmaceutical companines have the main power only because they can

> say we are scientifically explainable no one else is. .

 

Hi Manu,

 

This is not correct at all. Many of the drugs on the market are not

scientifically explainable in their actions byond educated guesses or

assumption. Perhaps many have been shown to have more effect than a

placebo (even this is not always true) but that has nothing to do with

their actions or influence on the body being understood or " explained " .

Even if a drugs action is explainable, the cause or process of the

disease it is used to treat may not be. Scientific explanation is not

the power base for WM or pharmaceutical companies.

 

Scientific explanation is not the issue IMO. Evidence may be, but this

is not scientific explanation, it is observation via the scientifc

method, and increasingly outcome based. A technique, drug or therapy

may have evidence to back up its usefulness or efficacy without their

being any explanation for how or why it really works.

 

IMO, wanting something scientifically explainable is the the ideal, but

it should NEVER become before the consideration of a therapy or

technique (Western or Eastern) in terms of its usefulness or

effectiveness.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve