The future of Chinese Herbal in the West

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob.

 

Interesting point, but at the moment I don't

agree with this. Please let me explain why.

 

I believe that any practitioner of medicine,

whatever his or her style, must be *first*

concerned with two questions:

- Is it safe?

- Does it work?

 

Now what distinguishes the methodologies that

Classical CM and WM use to evaluate themselves?

Surely the main distinguishing features are:-

(a) WM uses objective measurement (including

technology) and mathematics.

(b) Classical CM does not, but uses more

intuition, subjective measurement (eg pulse and

tongue diagnosis), qualitative measurement and a

case study approach.

 

Both these approaches (a) and (b) have the same

goal. They are both trying to answer the same two

questions: Is it safe and does it work?

 

So what's wrong with just using method (b).

Classical CM doctors have done this for at least

2-3,000 years? Why can't we continue to do so

now?

 

Disreputable practice and the global economy.

 

I reckon that in ancient China there may have

been some practitioners who harmed their patients

either intentionally or through negligence, but

this was probably the minority of cases. There

was no way for these individuals to dominate the

scene.

 

Nowadays, we truly live in a global economy where

big business can very easily squeeze out the

small practitioners. Even with countries'

anti-monopoly legislation, monopoly and oligopoly

are often rampant.

 

It is just too easy for a small number of

dishonest or negligent firms (effectively ruled

by shareholders and managers seeking

self-agrandisement) to dominate the marketplace

and cause havoc.

 

I believe this is the fundamental reason why we

are moving relentlessly towards more legal

regulation. It is the (unfortunately) *necessary*

result of the global economy. Legal regulation is

the only way that we can stop big business from

fleecing us bare.

 

To illustrate this point look at technologically

undeveloped countries when they start to rapidly

develop economically and technologically without

the legal framework. You see rampant corruption!

 

Now where you have more legal regulation you must

have more objective evluation of medicine, which

means using technology and mathematics, ie the WM

model of evaluation, ie method (a).

 

I very much regret this as I am a bit of a Taoist

and would genuinely rather live in a hut, breathe

the pure mountain air, drink pure stream water

and live off living foods and vegetables.

 

But if I live in a Western technologically

devloped country I have no choice but to embrace

legal regulation and what comes with it - unless

I can reverse globalization, which is I think

unrealistic.

 

We simply *have* to *work with* modern scientific

methodology - otherwise we will die.

 

Now someone will say that the scientific

methodology is not working in the West because it

is so expensive and is therefore being

'corrupted' by drug companies. This is true to a

degree of course. But just going back to the

ancient ways alone will not work either - in a

global economy.

 

I believe we have to embrace scientific

methodology, understand it (which, incidentally

many WM doctors and researchers *do not*) and

*teach them* how it should be applied in the

field of medicine. We should also seek to educate

the masses, raise finance for our own scientfic

research, as well as ...

 

.... embrace the ancient methods to show that

'there's more than one way to skin a cat'.

 

Best wishes

 

David Gordon

 

 

Bob Xu wrote:-

---------

Bob Xu <bxu6>

Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:41 am

Re: The future of Chinese Herbal

Medicine in the West?

 

Hi all,

 

I agree with Z'ev. should be

differentiated from Western Medicine at the

framework, foundation, and structure of

medicine. There is no scientific evidence and

ground to judge by means of

Western Medicine's standards and approaches.

 

In some senses, the relationship between Chinese

Medicine and Western Medicine is similar to the

relationship between Chinese language and English

language. To judge by means of

Western Medicine's standards and

approaches is similar to judge the correctness of

Chinese language by means of English grammar.

Will this work?

 

The correctness of Chinese language should be

judged by Chinese grammar. Similarly, the

efficacy and safety of should be

judged by 's standards and

methodologies.

 

Bob Xu

[Guest guest]

I believe that any practitioner of medicine,

whatever his or her style, must be *first*

concerned with two questions:

- Is it safe?

- Does it work

>>>>I could not agree more.

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi David,

 

It seems there exist misunderstandings in our communications. Due to time

limit, I couldn't elaborate in details here. Following, I will discuss a few

points briefly.

 

(1) In my initial message, under that environment, I focused on the importance

of 's standards and methodologies. This, however, did not mean

that I don't support mathematical approach. In fact, I am an advocate for

mathematical medicine. In 2001, I call for new mathematics for Chinese Herbal

Medicine [1]. In 2002, I propose to establish a " Department of Theoretical

Herbal Medicine " within the FDA [2]. All those efforts were aimed at developing

new mathematics for Chinese Herbal Medicine (CHM) system.

 

(2) Mathematical medicine is a very complicated field. It involves not only

the profession of medicine, but also the profession of mathematics. Up to

today, there is still no mathematical tool for Chinese Herbal Medicine system.

The mathematics employed by Western Medicine cannot provide accurate solutions

for Chinese Herbal Medicine system.

 

(3) Currently, many people take it for granted that Western Medicine

methodologies and approaches can be applied to . This, however,

is only an assumption. It has not been proved, and it actually is incorrect.

Current trend of fitting CHM to Western Medicine's mathematics model is

inappropriate. CHM has its own rules and regularities, which are governed by

some special mathematics (that are still unknown yet). The appropriate way is

to find and develop the special mathematics to describe CHM's rules and

regularities, and to direct more accurate, consistent, and reproducible clinical

outcomes.

 

(4) Mathematics is important. However, it is only a tool. The new

mathematics should come from medicine, and go back to medicine. Mathematics for

mathematics sake is useless in medicine. Due to this reason, I would like to go

back to my original message: 's standards and methodologies

should be the sources and criteria of any new mathematical medicine in the

future.

 

I have addressed above issues in more details in the Unified Medicine Project

(to be published). Hoping the Unified Medicine Project can answer your

questions in more details.

 

 

 

Bob Xu

 

 

 

[1] Recommendation on in the United States of America. ACMA

Publication Issue Dec 2001. http://www.AmericanChineseMedicineAssociation.org

 

[2] Letter to the Congress. ACMA Publication Issue Aug 2002.

..http://www.AmericanChineseMedicineAssociation.org

 

 

 

 

David Gordon <junhengclinic wrote:

 

Hi Bob.

 

Interesting point, but at the moment I don't

agree with this. Please let me explain why.

 

I believe that any practitioner of medicine,

whatever his or her style, must be *first*

concerned with two questions:

- Is it safe?

- Does it work?

 

Now what distinguishes the methodologies that

Classical CM and WM use to evaluate themselves?

Surely the main distinguishing features are:-

(a) WM uses objective measurement (including

technology) and mathematics.

(b) Classical CM does not, but uses more

intuition, subjective measurement (eg pulse and

tongue diagnosis), qualitative measurement and a

case study approach.

 

Both these approaches (a) and (b) have the same

goal. They are both trying to answer the same two

questions: Is it safe and does it work?

 

So what's wrong with just using method (b).

Classical CM doctors have done this for at least

2-3,000 years? Why can't we continue to do so

now?

 

Disreputable practice and the global economy.

 

I reckon that in ancient China there may have

been some practitioners who harmed their patients

either intentionally or through negligence, but

this was probably the minority of cases. There

was no way for these individuals to dominate the

scene.

 

Nowadays, we truly live in a global economy where

big business can very easily squeeze out the

small practitioners. Even with countries'

anti-monopoly legislation, monopoly and oligopoly

are often rampant.

 

It is just too easy for a small number of

dishonest or negligent firms (effectively ruled

by shareholders and managers seeking

self-agrandisement) to dominate the marketplace

and cause havoc.

 

I believe this is the fundamental reason why we

are moving relentlessly towards more legal

regulation. It is the (unfortunately) *necessary*

result of the global economy. Legal regulation is

the only way that we can stop big business from

fleecing us bare.

 

To illustrate this point look at technologically

undeveloped countries when they start to rapidly

develop economically and technologically without

the legal framework. You see rampant corruption!

 

Now where you have more legal regulation you must

have more objective evluation of medicine, which

means using technology and mathematics, ie the WM

model of evaluation, ie method (a).

 

I very much regret this as I am a bit of a Taoist

and would genuinely rather live in a hut, breathe

the pure mountain air, drink pure stream water

and live off living foods and vegetables.

 

But if I live in a Western technologically

devloped country I have no choice but to embrace

legal regulation and what comes with it - unless

I can reverse globalization, which is I think

unrealistic.

 

We simply *have* to *work with* modern scientific

methodology - otherwise we will die.

 

Now someone will say that the scientific

methodology is not working in the West because it

is so expensive and is therefore being

'corrupted' by drug companies. This is true to a

degree of course. But just going back to the

ancient ways alone will not work either - in a

global economy.

 

I believe we have to embrace scientific

methodology, understand it (which, incidentally

many WM doctors and researchers *do not*) and

*teach them* how it should be applied in the

field of medicine. We should also seek to educate

the masses, raise finance for our own scientfic

research, as well as ...

 

.... embrace the ancient methods to show that

'there's more than one way to skin a cat'.

 

Best wishes

 

David Gordon

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.