integration or not? The study of tcm

[Guest guest]

In the same magazine in which Xie Zhu-fan's criticism of Wiseman's

terminology appeared, there was an editorial piece, entitled " Study of

traditional Chinese medicine-- which is after all the right way? "

Article reference: Chin J. Integr Med 2005 Dec;1),pp 241?242.

 

Intro:

 

" The study of traditional (TCM) with modern research

approach has been ongoing for more than half a century. Although great

achievement has been made, the progress is less significant when compared

with the advance made in other scientific disciplines such as Western

medicine (WM). TCM development has reached a crucial point in the era of

rapid development of modern sciences and technologies. Whether or not and

how to incorporate contemporary sciences and advanced technologies into the

study of TCM has been a hot topic discussed in the academics in China.

Different schools of thought have been surfaced and debated. In this article

we present these views as well as our own opinions over the direction of

TCM development. "

 

Some people argue that Chinese medicine should not be subjected to modern

research methods:

" Introducing modern medicine and scientific means into the study of TCM will

alter or misinterpret the essence of TCM and finally lead to the vanishing

or distinction of the ancient art. "

Some argue that Western methods are not applicable to Chinese medicine

because of a different paradigm:

" TCM originated in ancient times in accordance with the science and

technologies of that time. It was developed under the influence of simple

materialism and spontaneous dialectics. "

The authors of the article argue in favour of modern research:

" The ancient theories and rich experiences of TCM is not flawless, having

limitations both in its theory and practice. The understanding and

interpretation of the success and limitation of TCM can only be accomplished

with the assistance of modern scientific approaches. "

The article goes on about a possible integration of Chinese and Western

medicine, which is encouraged by the Chinese government. Although this

integration is not without its problems and is only in its initiative phase,

they believe that the outcome justifies the difficulties one may encounter

in the process:

" Relatively speaking, TCM emphasizes the macroscopic view and entirety,

while WM emphasizes the microscopic view and individual parts. Integrating

the two medicines involves identifying ways to complement each other and

developing more efficacious and safer therapies. "

And the issue comes back to terminology when they are criticising flaws in

Chinese medical theory (without giving any examples though):

" We believe that the objective and normative expressions in TCM are based on

classical Chinese physiology and experiences. The connotations of some basic

concepts are very vague, which severely limits the development of TCM itself

In addition,TCM could not have enough incorporated into the nature in

modern times. It is our belief that the fundamental theories of TCM need to

be enriched and developed. This can be accomplished by:(I)enhancing their

reference sorting and translation into the modern language; (2) summarizing

clinical works, experiances and literature reviews so as to propose new

hypotheses, explore new principles and form new theories. Only by so doing

can TCM be truly inherited and further developed. "

The authors of the article are Chen Ke-ji and Li Li-zhi. I have never heard

of them before, but they seem to have done some research on new Chinese

herbal treatments.

They do touch on some subjects which may not have easy answers to them: can

and should Chinese medicine be proven with modern scientific methods?

There was an editorial in the Lantern magazine (May 2004), entitled " The

Tyranny of the microscope. " making its point that Chinese medicine can and

does deal with the uncertainty of life, without concrete evidence like lab

tests etc.

From this editorial piece (probably written by Steve Clavey) I do get an

impression -my own impression- that they feel that Chinese medicine may

somehow be superior to the microscope, and may often yield results where

other Western therapies fail. This may well be so, but it is not ALWAYS true

I have an ALS patient whose health is slowly getting worse and worse, and

while Chinese medicine may have some effect on some ALS sufferers, wouldn't

it be nice to know how many patients would statistically respond to CM

treatments, and which treatment methods would have more effect?

The other day I was reading in Alon's book, noticing that in his experience

herbs that Invigorate Kidney and Liver often do not work well in chronic

impediment patterns. Wouldn't it be nice to know why? Is it because there

are limits to invigorating?

What are the limits of Chinese medicine? How does a 'master'practitioner

differ from younger disciple-practitoners? Is Chinese medicine truly an

art-form which can only be understood through inner experiences (Qi Gong,,

meditation) so we can grasp the true significance of Jing, Qi and Shen? And

while we're on the topic: there are so many ways to explore one's inner

worlds. Daoism is only one of those, others also have their merits. If

Daoism (and its consequent theories of Yin, Yang, Jing, Qi and Shen) is only

out of many ways to explore the inner territories, there must be several

limits to it, no?

I wish I could have some clear answers to these questions...in the mean time

I guess I have to live with the limits I encounter (or is that the answer to

my question , I wonder aloud.)

Oh by the way you may email me for a copy of the article I started this post

with.

Best regards to y'all,

 

Tom.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Tom

Thanks for sharing this article. I think these are extremely important questions

that we all need to entertain and deal with on a daily basis. As you know i

think the perspective of modern research is a must as it adds a missing emphasis

to CM, that is the idea of independent objective evaluation. The limited

understanding of specific disease processes in CM is also a big handicap in

understanding treatment outcomes and possible development. Another thing i agree

with in the article is the need to explore the expanding of CM theory.

PS. nice to know people are reading my book

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Tom Verhaeghe

;

Chinese Medicine

Sunday, April 02, 2006 1:59 AM

integration or not? The study of tcm

 

 

In the same magazine in which Xie Zhu-fan's criticism of Wiseman's

terminology appeared, there was an editorial piece, entitled " Study of

traditional Chinese medicine-- which is after all the right way? "

Article reference: Chin J. Integr Med 2005 Dec;1),pp 241?242.

 

Intro:

 

" The study of traditional (TCM) with modern research

approach has been ongoing for more than half a century. Although great

achievement has been made, the progress is less significant when compared

with the advance made in other scientific disciplines such as Western

medicine (WM). TCM development has reached a crucial point in the era of

rapid development of modern sciences and technologies. Whether or not and

how to incorporate contemporary sciences and advanced technologies into the

study of TCM has been a hot topic discussed in the academics in China.

Different schools of thought have been surfaced and debated. In this article

we present these views as well as our own opinions over the direction of

TCM development. "

 

Some people argue that Chinese medicine should not be subjected to modern

research methods:

" Introducing modern medicine and scientific means into the study of TCM will

alter or misinterpret the essence of TCM and finally lead to the vanishing

or distinction of the ancient art. "

Some argue that Western methods are not applicable to Chinese medicine

because of a different paradigm:

" TCM originated in ancient times in accordance with the science and

technologies of that time. It was developed under the influence of simple

materialism and spontaneous dialectics. "

The authors of the article argue in favour of modern research:

" The ancient theories and rich experiences of TCM is not flawless, having

limitations both in its theory and practice. The understanding and

interpretation of the success and limitation of TCM can only be accomplished

with the assistance of modern scientific approaches. "

The article goes on about a possible integration of Chinese and Western

medicine, which is encouraged by the Chinese government. Although this

integration is not without its problems and is only in its initiative phase,

they believe that the outcome justifies the difficulties one may encounter

in the process:

" Relatively speaking, TCM emphasizes the macroscopic view and entirety,

while WM emphasizes the microscopic view and individual parts. Integrating

the two medicines involves identifying ways to complement each other and

developing more efficacious and safer therapies. "

And the issue comes back to terminology when they are criticising flaws in

Chinese medical theory (without giving any examples though):

" We believe that the objective and normative expressions in TCM are based on

classical Chinese physiology and experiences. The connotations of some basic

concepts are very vague, which severely limits the development of TCM itself

In addition,TCM could not have enough incorporated into the nature in

modern times. It is our belief that the fundamental theories of TCM need to

be enriched and developed. This can be accomplished by:(I)enhancing their

reference sorting and translation into the modern language; (2) summarizing

clinical works, experiances and literature reviews so as to propose new

hypotheses, explore new principles and form new theories. Only by so doing

can TCM be truly inherited and further developed. "

The authors of the article are Chen Ke-ji and Li Li-zhi. I have never heard

of them before, but they seem to have done some research on new Chinese

herbal treatments.

They do touch on some subjects which may not have easy answers to them: can

and should Chinese medicine be proven with modern scientific methods?

There was an editorial in the Lantern magazine (May 2004), entitled " The

Tyranny of the microscope. " making its point that Chinese medicine can and

does deal with the uncertainty of life, without concrete evidence like lab

tests etc.

From this editorial piece (probably written by Steve Clavey) I do get an

impression -my own impression- that they feel that Chinese medicine may

somehow be superior to the microscope, and may often yield results where

other Western therapies fail. This may well be so, but it is not ALWAYS true

I have an ALS patient whose health is slowly getting worse and worse, and

while Chinese medicine may have some effect on some ALS sufferers, wouldn't

it be nice to know how many patients would statistically respond to CM

treatments, and which treatment methods would have more effect?

The other day I was reading in Alon's book, noticing that in his experience

herbs that Invigorate Kidney and Liver often do not work well in chronic

impediment patterns. Wouldn't it be nice to know why? Is it because there

are limits to invigorating?

What are the limits of Chinese medicine? How does a 'master'practitioner

differ from younger disciple-practitoners? Is Chinese medicine truly an

art-form which can only be understood through inner experiences (Qi Gong,,

meditation) so we can grasp the true significance of Jing, Qi and Shen? And

while we're on the topic: there are so many ways to explore one's inner

worlds. Daoism is only one of those, others also have their merits. If

Daoism (and its consequent theories of Yin, Yang, Jing, Qi and Shen) is only

out of many ways to explore the inner territories, there must be several

limits to it, no?

I wish I could have some clear answers to these questions...in the mean time

I guess I have to live with the limits I encounter (or is that the answer to

my question , I wonder aloud.)

Oh by the way you may email me for a copy of the article I started this post

with.

Best regards to y'all,

 

Tom.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hey Alon, have you had any opportunity to add blood moving herbs to your

chronic bi pain patients? I was thinking about your quoted statement about

how Liver and Kidney nourishment can fall short in these chronic cases.

 

Blue Poppy has a translation of Yan De-Xin's book. He's a proponent of blood

stasis as an important pathomechanism in geriatrics. The book is called

Aging & Blood Stasis - A New TCM Approach to Geriatrics. Have you looked at

it?

 

I'm quite intrigued by what he presents and I notice that some of the

Chinese supervisors at ECTOM often default to blood stasis in at least part

of the pattern differentiation of most patients over the age of 60.

 

-al.

 

On 4/2/06, <alonmarcus wrote:

>

> Tom

> Thanks for sharing this article. I think these are extremely important

> questions that we all need to entertain and deal with on a daily basis. As

> you know i think the perspective of modern research is a must as it adds a

> missing emphasis to CM, that is the idea of independent objective

> evaluation. The limited understanding of specific disease processes in CM is

> also a big handicap in understanding treatment outcomes and possible

> development. Another thing i agree with in the article is the need to

> explore the expanding of CM theory.

> PS. nice to know people are reading my book

>

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

> -

> Tom Verhaeghe

> ;

> Chinese Medicine

> Sunday, April 02, 2006 1:59 AM

> integration or not? The study of tcm

>

>

> In the same magazine in which Xie Zhu-fan's criticism of Wiseman's

> terminology appeared, there was an editorial piece, entitled " Study of

> traditional Chinese medicine-- which is after all the right way? "

> Article reference: Chin J. Integr Med 2005 Dec;1),pp 241?242.

>

> Intro:

>

> " The study of traditional (TCM) with modern research

> approach has been ongoing for more than half a century. Although great

> achievement has been made, the progress is less significant when

> compared

> with the advance made in other scientific disciplines such as Western

> medicine (WM). TCM development has reached a crucial point in the era of

> rapid development of modern sciences and technologies. Whether or not

> and

> how to incorporate contemporary sciences and advanced technologies into

> the

> study of TCM has been a hot topic discussed in the academics in China.

> Different schools of thought have been surfaced and debated. In this

> article

> we present these views as well as our own opinions over the direction of

> TCM development. "

>

> Some people argue that Chinese medicine should not be subjected to

> modern

> research methods:

> " Introducing modern medicine and scientific means into the study of TCM

> will

> alter or misinterpret the essence of TCM and finally lead to the

> vanishing

> or distinction of the ancient art. "

> Some argue that Western methods are not applicable to Chinese medicine

> because of a different paradigm:

> " TCM originated in ancient times in accordance with the science and

> technologies of that time. It was developed under the influence of

> simple

> materialism and spontaneous dialectics. "

> The authors of the article argue in favour of modern research:

> " The ancient theories and rich experiences of TCM is not flawless,

> having

> limitations both in its theory and practice. The understanding and

> interpretation of the success and limitation of TCM can only be

> accomplished

> with the assistance of modern scientific approaches. "

> The article goes on about a possible integration of Chinese and Western

> medicine, which is encouraged by the Chinese government. Although this

> integration is not without its problems and is only in its initiative

> phase,

> they believe that the outcome justifies the difficulties one may

> encounter

> in the process:

> " Relatively speaking, TCM emphasizes the macroscopic view and entirety,

> while WM emphasizes the microscopic view and individual parts.

> Integrating

> the two medicines involves identifying ways to complement each other and

> developing more efficacious and safer therapies. "

> And the issue comes back to terminology when they are criticising flaws

> in

> Chinese medical theory (without giving any examples though):

> " We believe that the objective and normative expressions in TCM are

> based on

> classical Chinese physiology and experiences. The connotations of some

> basic

> concepts are very vague, which severely limits the development of TCM

> itself

> In addition,TCM could not have enough incorporated into the nature in

> modern times. It is our belief that the fundamental theories of TCM need

> to

> be enriched and developed. This can be accomplished by:(I)enhancing

> their

> reference sorting and translation into the modern language; (2)

> summarizing

> clinical works, experiances and literature reviews so as to propose new

> hypotheses, explore new principles and form new theories. Only by so

> doing

> can TCM be truly inherited and further developed. "

> The authors of the article are Chen Ke-ji and Li Li-zhi. I have never

> heard

> of them before, but they seem to have done some research on new Chinese

> herbal treatments.

> They do touch on some subjects which may not have easy answers to them:

> can

> and should Chinese medicine be proven with modern scientific methods?

> There was an editorial in the Lantern magazine (May 2004), entitled " The

> Tyranny of the microscope. " making its point that Chinese medicine can

> and

> does deal with the uncertainty of life, without concrete evidence like

> lab

> tests etc.

> From this editorial piece (probably written by Steve Clavey) I do get an

> impression -my own impression- that they feel that Chinese medicine may

> somehow be superior to the microscope, and may often yield results where

> other Western therapies fail. This may well be so, but it is not ALWAYS

> true

> I have an ALS patient whose health is slowly getting worse and worse,

> and

> while Chinese medicine may have some effect on some ALS sufferers,

> wouldn't

> it be nice to know how many patients would statistically respond to CM

> treatments, and which treatment methods would have more effect?

> The other day I was reading in Alon's book, noticing that in his

> experience

> herbs that Invigorate Kidney and Liver often do not work well in chronic

> impediment patterns. Wouldn't it be nice to know why? Is it because

> there

> are limits to invigorating?

> What are the limits of Chinese medicine? How does a 'master'practitioner

> differ from younger disciple-practitoners? Is Chinese medicine truly an

> art-form which can only be understood through inner experiences (Qi

> Gong,,

> meditation) so we can grasp the true significance of Jing, Qi and Shen?

> And

> while we're on the topic: there are so many ways to explore one's inner

> worlds. Daoism is only one of those, others also have their merits. If

> Daoism (and its consequent theories of Yin, Yang, Jing, Qi and Shen) is

> only

> out of many ways to explore the inner territories, there must be several

> limits to it, no?

> I wish I could have some clear answers to these questions...in the mean

> time

> I guess I have to live with the limits I encounter (or is that the

> answer to

> my question , I wonder aloud.)

> Oh by the way you may email me for a copy of the article I started this

> post

> with.

> Best regards to y'all,

>

> Tom.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The section that Tom quoted makes the case that dealing with excesses can be

much more important that deficiency even in older patients. There is also a

whole section on dealing with Blood-stasis from all its causes. The cause on

stagnation must be addressed and the incorporation of tonics may be important is

some patients.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Al Stone

Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:35 AM

Re: integration or not? The study of tcm

 

 

Hey Alon, have you had any opportunity to add blood moving herbs to your

chronic bi pain patients? I was thinking about your quoted statement about

how Liver and Kidney nourishment can fall short in these chronic cases.

 

Blue Poppy has a translation of Yan De-Xin's book. He's a proponent of blood

stasis as an important pathomechanism in geriatrics. The book is called

Aging & Blood Stasis - A New TCM Approach to Geriatrics. Have you looked at

it?

 

I'm quite intrigued by what he presents and I notice that some of the

Chinese supervisors at ECTOM often default to blood stasis in at least part

of the pattern differentiation of most patients over the age of 60.

 

-al.

 

On 4/2/06, <alonmarcus wrote:

>

> Tom

> Thanks for sharing this article. I think these are extremely important

> questions that we all need to entertain and deal with on a daily basis. As

> you know i think the perspective of modern research is a must as it adds a

> missing emphasis to CM, that is the idea of independent objective

> evaluation. The limited understanding of specific disease processes in CM is

> also a big handicap in understanding treatment outcomes and possible

> development. Another thing i agree with in the article is the need to

> explore the expanding of CM theory.

> PS. nice to know people are reading my book

>

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

> -

> Tom Verhaeghe

> ;

> Chinese Medicine

> Sunday, April 02, 2006 1:59 AM

> integration or not? The study of tcm

>

>

> In the same magazine in which Xie Zhu-fan's criticism of Wiseman's

> terminology appeared, there was an editorial piece, entitled " Study of

> traditional Chinese medicine-- which is after all the right way? "

> Article reference: Chin J. Integr Med 2005 Dec;1),pp 241?242.

>

> Intro:

>

> " The study of traditional (TCM) with modern research

> approach has been ongoing for more than half a century. Although great

> achievement has been made, the progress is less significant when

> compared

> with the advance made in other scientific disciplines such as Western

> medicine (WM). TCM development has reached a crucial point in the era of

> rapid development of modern sciences and technologies. Whether or not

> and

> how to incorporate contemporary sciences and advanced technologies into

> the

> study of TCM has been a hot topic discussed in the academics in China.

> Different schools of thought have been surfaced and debated. In this

> article

> we present these views as well as our own opinions over the direction of

> TCM development. "

>

> Some people argue that Chinese medicine should not be subjected to

> modern

> research methods:

> " Introducing modern medicine and scientific means into the study of TCM

> will

> alter or misinterpret the essence of TCM and finally lead to the

> vanishing

> or distinction of the ancient art. "

> Some argue that Western methods are not applicable to Chinese medicine

> because of a different paradigm:

> " TCM originated in ancient times in accordance with the science and

> technologies of that time. It was developed under the influence of

> simple

> materialism and spontaneous dialectics. "

> The authors of the article argue in favour of modern research:

> " The ancient theories and rich experiences of TCM is not flawless,

> having

> limitations both in its theory and practice. The understanding and

> interpretation of the success and limitation of TCM can only be

> accomplished

> with the assistance of modern scientific approaches. "

> The article goes on about a possible integration of Chinese and Western

> medicine, which is encouraged by the Chinese government. Although this

> integration is not without its problems and is only in its initiative

> phase,

> they believe that the outcome justifies the difficulties one may

> encounter

> in the process:

> " Relatively speaking, TCM emphasizes the macroscopic view and entirety,

> while WM emphasizes the microscopic view and individual parts.

> Integrating

> the two medicines involves identifying ways to complement each other and

> developing more efficacious and safer therapies. "

> And the issue comes back to terminology when they are criticising flaws

> in

> Chinese medical theory (without giving any examples though):

> " We believe that the objective and normative expressions in TCM are

> based on

> classical Chinese physiology and experiences. The connotations of some

> basic

> concepts are very vague, which severely limits the development of TCM

> itself

> In addition,TCM could not have enough incorporated into the nature in

> modern times. It is our belief that the fundamental theories of TCM need

> to

> be enriched and developed. This can be accomplished by:(I)enhancing

> their

> reference sorting and translation into the modern language; (2)

> summarizing

> clinical works, experiances and literature reviews so as to propose new

> hypotheses, explore new principles and form new theories. Only by so

> doing

> can TCM be truly inherited and further developed. "

> The authors of the article are Chen Ke-ji and Li Li-zhi. I have never

> heard

> of them before, but they seem to have done some research on new Chinese

> herbal treatments.

> They do touch on some subjects which may not have easy answers to them:

> can

> and should Chinese medicine be proven with modern scientific methods?

> There was an editorial in the Lantern magazine (May 2004), entitled " The

> Tyranny of the microscope. " making its point that Chinese medicine can

> and

> does deal with the uncertainty of life, without concrete evidence like

> lab

> tests etc.

> From this editorial piece (probably written by Steve Clavey) I do get an

> impression -my own impression- that they feel that Chinese medicine may

> somehow be superior to the microscope, and may often yield results where

> other Western therapies fail. This may well be so, but it is not ALWAYS

> true

> I have an ALS patient whose health is slowly getting worse and worse,

> and

> while Chinese medicine may have some effect on some ALS sufferers,

> wouldn't

> it be nice to know how many patients would statistically respond to CM

> treatments, and which treatment methods would have more effect?

> The other day I was reading in Alon's book, noticing that in his

> experience

> herbs that Invigorate Kidney and Liver often do not work well in chronic

> impediment patterns. Wouldn't it be nice to know why? Is it because

> there

> are limits to invigorating?

> What are the limits of Chinese medicine? How does a 'master'practitioner

> differ from younger disciple-practitoners? Is Chinese medicine truly an

> art-form which can only be understood through inner experiences (Qi

> Gong,,

> meditation) so we can grasp the true significance of Jing, Qi and Shen?

> And

> while we're on the topic: there are so many ways to explore one's inner

> worlds. Daoism is only one of those, others also have their merits. If

> Daoism (and its consequent theories of Yin, Yang, Jing, Qi and Shen) is

> only

> out of many ways to explore the inner territories, there must be several

> limits to it, no?

> I wish I could have some clear answers to these questions...in the mean

> time

> I guess I have to live with the limits I encounter (or is that the

> answer to

> my question , I wonder aloud.)

> Oh by the way you may email me for a copy of the article I started this

> post

> with.

> Best regards to y'all,

>

> Tom.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus wrote:

>

> The section that Tom quoted makes the case that dealing with

excesses can be much more important that deficiency even in older

patients. There is also a whole section on dealing with Blood-stasis

from all its causes. The cause on stagnation must be addressed and the

incorporation of tonics may be important is some patients.

>

Yes, I wasn't implying that Alon was ONLY using supplementing herbs,

but that he thought their clinical use was limited, especially when

they are applied in chronic impediment patients suffering from W-D-C

and weakness of Liver, Kidneys, Qi and Blood(p. 668 in Alon's book).

 

Tom.

[Guest guest]

Hello Tom, and All,

 

My thoughts about this comparison, I can't see them integrated until

they can be properly separated. They are entirely different scopes and

lenses.

 

What I am thinking this moment, is that a database could be created,

where a Chinese pattern could have underneath that heading all the

results from western testing. Yes, all of it. Then we could see the

correspondences, where they overlap, where they vary. Herbs can be very

flexible in their treatment, more than western pharmaceuticals. With a

database, maybe people could start to see some patterns developing.

 

In this imaginary website, maybe Western doctors can put up a real

person Diagnosis along with the tests performed, and then the treating

TCM pattern given it by a practitioner. So this could work both ways.

 

Side by side this way,this could yield useful information about what is

going on physiologically in each of these patterns more so than a single

event study that western medicine is so fond of. I see TCM as a useful

net or broad map that treats systemically, perhaps in ways Western

medicine can't see yet.

 

Maybe there is already something like this. I'd like to know about it.

 

Just my two cents.

Rozz

 

Tom Verhaeghe wrote:

 

> " The study of traditional (TCM) with modern research

> approach has been ongoing for more than half a century. Although great

> achievement has been made, the progress is less significant when compared

> with the advance made in other scientific disciplines such as Western

> medicine (WM). TCM development has reached a crucial point in the era of

> rapid development of modern sciences and technologies. Whether or not and

> how to incorporate contemporary sciences and advanced technologies into the

> study of TCM has been a hot topic discussed in the academics in China.

> Different schools of thought have been surfaced and debated. In this article

> we present these views as well as our own opinions over the direction of

> TCM development. "

 

>

> Tom.

 

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Tom

Thanks for sharing this article. I think these are extremely important questions

that we all need to entertain and deal with on a daily basis. As you know i

think the perspective of modern research is a must as it adds a missing emphasis

to CM, that is the idea of independent objective evaluation. The limited

understanding of specific disease processes in CM is also a big handicap in

understanding treatment outcomes and possible development. Another thing i agree

with in the article is the need to explore the expanding of CM theory.

PS. nice to know people are reading my book

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Tom Verhaeghe

;

Chinese Medicine

Sunday, April 02, 2006 1:59 AM

integration or not? The study of tcm

 

 

In the same magazine in which Xie Zhu-fan's criticism of Wiseman's

terminology appeared, there was an editorial piece, entitled " Study of

traditional Chinese medicine-- which is after all the right way? "

Article reference: Chin J. Integr Med 2005 Dec;1),pp 241?242.

 

Intro:

 

" The study of traditional (TCM) with modern research

approach has been ongoing for more than half a century. Although great

achievement has been made, the progress is less significant when compared

with the advance made in other scientific disciplines such as Western

medicine (WM). TCM development has reached a crucial point in the era of

rapid development of modern sciences and technologies. Whether or not and

how to incorporate contemporary sciences and advanced technologies into the

study of TCM has been a hot topic discussed in the academics in China.

Different schools of thought have been surfaced and debated. In this article

we present these views as well as our own opinions over the direction of

TCM development. "

 

Some people argue that Chinese medicine should not be subjected to modern

research methods:

" Introducing modern medicine and scientific means into the study of TCM will

alter or misinterpret the essence of TCM and finally lead to the vanishing

or distinction of the ancient art. "

Some argue that Western methods are not applicable to Chinese medicine

because of a different paradigm:

" TCM originated in ancient times in accordance with the science and

technologies of that time. It was developed under the influence of simple

materialism and spontaneous dialectics. "

The authors of the article argue in favour of modern research:

" The ancient theories and rich experiences of TCM is not flawless, having

limitations both in its theory and practice. The understanding and

interpretation of the success and limitation of TCM can only be accomplished

with the assistance of modern scientific approaches. "

The article goes on about a possible integration of Chinese and Western

medicine, which is encouraged by the Chinese government. Although this

integration is not without its problems and is only in its initiative phase,

they believe that the outcome justifies the difficulties one may encounter

in the process:

" Relatively speaking, TCM emphasizes the macroscopic view and entirety,

while WM emphasizes the microscopic view and individual parts. Integrating

the two medicines involves identifying ways to complement each other and

developing more efficacious and safer therapies. "

And the issue comes back to terminology when they are criticising flaws in

Chinese medical theory (without giving any examples though):

" We believe that the objective and normative expressions in TCM are based on

classical Chinese physiology and experiences. The connotations of some basic

concepts are very vague, which severely limits the development of TCM itself

In addition,TCM could not have enough incorporated into the nature in

modern times. It is our belief that the fundamental theories of TCM need to

be enriched and developed. This can be accomplished by:(I)enhancing their

reference sorting and translation into the modern language; (2) summarizing

clinical works, experiances and literature reviews so as to propose new

hypotheses, explore new principles and form new theories. Only by so doing

can TCM be truly inherited and further developed. "

The authors of the article are Chen Ke-ji and Li Li-zhi. I have never heard

of them before, but they seem to have done some research on new Chinese

herbal treatments.

They do touch on some subjects which may not have easy answers to them: can

and should Chinese medicine be proven with modern scientific methods?

There was an editorial in the Lantern magazine (May 2004), entitled " The

Tyranny of the microscope. " making its point that Chinese medicine can and

does deal with the uncertainty of life, without concrete evidence like lab

tests etc.

From this editorial piece (probably written by Steve Clavey) I do get an

impression -my own impression- that they feel that Chinese medicine may

somehow be superior to the microscope, and may often yield results where

other Western therapies fail. This may well be so, but it is not ALWAYS true

I have an ALS patient whose health is slowly getting worse and worse, and

while Chinese medicine may have some effect on some ALS sufferers, wouldn't

it be nice to know how many patients would statistically respond to CM

treatments, and which treatment methods would have more effect?

The other day I was reading in Alon's book, noticing that in his experience

herbs that Invigorate Kidney and Liver often do not work well in chronic

impediment patterns. Wouldn't it be nice to know why? Is it because there

are limits to invigorating?

What are the limits of Chinese medicine? How does a 'master'practitioner

differ from younger disciple-practitoners? Is Chinese medicine truly an

art-form which can only be understood through inner experiences (Qi Gong,,

meditation) so we can grasp the true significance of Jing, Qi and Shen? And

while we're on the topic: there are so many ways to explore one's inner

worlds. Daoism is only one of those, others also have their merits. If

Daoism (and its consequent theories of Yin, Yang, Jing, Qi and Shen) is only

out of many ways to explore the inner territories, there must be several

limits to it, no?

I wish I could have some clear answers to these questions...in the mean time

I guess I have to live with the limits I encounter (or is that the answer to

my question , I wonder aloud.)

Oh by the way you may email me for a copy of the article I started this post

with.

Best regards to y'all,

 

Tom.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Tom,

You've raised a lot of interesting and provocative questions in

your post. I'm going to try to deal with them one at a time, over

quite a long period of time, I think.

 

It seems to me that many of the mainland Chinese articles are

always pressuring Chinese medicine to integrate with Western medicine

and 'scientific methodology'. However, biomedicine and its models of

research and technology also has limits as well. And guess which

medicine predominates in both China and the West, which determines

where the pressure will be felt? In other words, " modernize or die'.

 

Also, in these various journal articles, other systems of

medicine are totally ignored, such as homeopathy, naturopathy,

Tibetan and Ayurvedic medicine, as if they are not legitimate

systems. Why not include these in our discusssions as well?

 

We should not be so dazzled by technological diagnosis and

treatment to think that somehow Chinese medicine is 'primitive'. Its

theoretical foundations are, in my opinion, very sophisticated and

more advanced than biomedicine in some areas. As I've said so many

times in so many forums, the underlying paradigm and philosophy is

what defines the essence of a medicine, not its technology. It is

not needles and herbs vs. drugs and surgery. It is the modality of

thought that is essential. The mind must be trained differently to

practice Chinese medicine.

 

The newer realms of quantum physics and complexity theory are

just beginning to inform biomedicine, and with their more 'fuzzy',

'uncertainty' logic at work, they are more similar to Chinese

medicine. The clinical encounter of Chinese medicine differs in some

fundamental ways from that of biomedicine, and this must again be

emphasized by training and practice.

 

 

 

On Apr 2, 2006, at 12:59 AM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote:

 

> And the issue comes back to terminology when they are criticising

> flaws in

> Chinese medical theory (without giving any examples though):

> " We believe that the objective and normative expressions in TCM are

> based on

> classical Chinese physiology and experiences. The connotations of

> some basic

> concepts are very vague, which severely limits the development of

> TCM itself

> In addition,TCM could not have enough incorporated into the nature in

> modern times. It is our belief that the fundamental theories of TCM

> need to

> be enriched and developed. This can be accomplished by:(I)enhancing

> their

> reference sorting and translation into the modern language; (2)

> summarizing

> clinical works, experiances and literature reviews so as to propose

> new

> hypotheses, explore new principles and form new theories. Only by

> so doing

> can TCM be truly inherited and further developed. "

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Rozz Lieght wrote:

> Hello Tom, and All,

>

> My thoughts about this comparison, I can't see them integrated until

> they can be properly separated. They are entirely different scopes and

> lenses.

>

> What I am thinking this moment, is that a database could be created,

> where a Chinese pattern could have underneath that heading all the

> results from western testing. Yes, all of it.

 

Hi Rozz!

 

Well, I think you are right, we need a database. I think that so much

that I have been working on one such as you describe for ten years.

Unfortunately, I haven't got the controls working yet. I do have a lot

of data.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

wrote:

<snip>

> We should not be so dazzled by technological diagnosis and

> treatment to think that somehow Chinese medicine is 'primitive'. Its

> theoretical foundations are, in my opinion, very sophisticated and

> more advanced than biomedicine in some areas. As I've said so many

> times in so many forums, the underlying paradigm and philosophy is

> what defines the essence of a medicine, not its technology. It is

> not needles and herbs vs. drugs and surgery. It is the modality of

> thought that is essential. The mind must be trained differently to

> practice Chinese medicine.

 

Hi Z'ev!

 

Goodness, that is profound. Would you mind if I quote you? With credit,

of course.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

Tom,

 

Chen Ke-ji is very famous in TCM circles in China. He has written and

edited a number of books and, I believe, holds an official position in

the Ministry of Health.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Two well known statements in Chinese medicine a propos of this discussion:

 

In enduring disease, there MUST be blood stasis.

 

Enduring disease enters the network vessels.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Pete,

I don't know how profound it is, but feel free to quote it.

 

Thanks,

 

 

On Apr 2, 2006, at 11:00 PM, petetheisen wrote:

 

> Hi Z'ev!

>

> Goodness, that is profound. Would you mind if I quote you? With

> credit,

> of course.

>

> Regards,

>

> Pete

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

thank you for taking the time to respond; I am looking forward to the rest

of your answers.

 

It is true that homeopathy and other systems of medicine are largely ignored

in China, although I have seen some articles on chiropractic methods in

recent Chinese journals.

 

Some additional thoughts on 'modernize or die'. Classical Chinese medicine

has true treasure houses in its treatment repertoire, but as it is now it is

hard to distinguish between what is really useful and what has been useful

and what is not useful at all. Clinical research comes in very handy here.

From the limited studies that have been done in the past 10-20 years,

acupuncture has proven to not be a miracle cure for all. So why is that? We

can keep talking about trial methodology, pattern identification (and we

should), but it is also very informative to find out what works and what

doesn't work. Modern RCT's are very helpful in that, notwithstanding that

they themselves also have their limitations. So I do not really see how we

can avoid modernization. I feel Chinese medicine should be subjected to

modern investigations. Integration into modern times. Not an easy task if it

is not to be diluted in the process, but a very worthwhile task.

 

I very much agree with what you wrote here:

" As I've said so many times in so many forums, the underlying paradigm and

philosophy is

what defines the essence of a medicine, not its technology. It is

not needles and herbs vs. drugs and surgery. It is the modality of

thought that is essential. The mind must be trained differently to

practice Chinese medicine. "

I know some people in Belgium that find Chinese medical theories to be quite

limited. For example, the people from this school http://www

4dimensionallife.com will train people to forget all about their training :

)

My point is that no matter what kind of spectacles we wish to use to see the

world [and more specifically its diseases], there will always be limits to

it. Chinese medicine, western medicine, homeopathy, healing,... they are

systems that can get close to 'reality' at certain times, but it is

important that we understand their limits. I cannot believe that Chinese

medicine, classical or modern, can treat every disease. As practitioners I

believe it is our duty to find out how many of the classical theories bear

how much significant clinical value. There have been many schools of

thoughts, several pulse reading systems,...

 

I suspect and hope that disciplines like quantum physics will reveal more

about what there is to Chinese medicine. Let's see where it goes. I'm

interested : )

 

Tom.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Tom,

I read Dr. Ke-ji's article, and I get his point. I want to

address two things with this post:

 

1) On the acupuncture studies you mentioned. Of course it is not a

miracle cure for all. But we must remember that acupuncture plays a

relatively second-rate role in Chinese health care when compared with

herbal medicine, and I wonder if any studies have been done on more

channel-based acupuncture/moxa methods. I do know that the Nan Jing

has been demoted from its previous " essential classic " status in

modern TCM despite its superior position in Japan, Korean and SE

Asian medicine.

 

2) Dr. Ke-ji is clearly an eminent physician, I've also seen some of

his writings over the years. But like Xie Zhu-fan, he is employed by

institutions devoted to integrated Chinese/Western medicine. In

other words, one's words are often influenced by who writes one's

paycheck. Again, socioeconomic and political forces largely direct

macroscopic changes in medical systems, and this scenario is no

exception.

 

3) It is interesting that while he proposes further development in

Chinese medicine, the example he gives, i.e. of developing an

injection from an isolate of rx. salvia/dan shen is nothing new.

Pharmaceutical research institutions have been developing new drugs

from the natural world for over a century. They've looked at sea

life, bacteria, plants, and animal parts. This is one of the

mainstays of drug development. While it is interesting that dan shen

can be applied in this way, is this really what we consider to be

development of Chinese medicine? In other words, is the rich data

base of Chinese medicine merely fodder for the development of new

pharmaceuticals? With this perspective, Chinese medicine's future is

quite limited in scope.

 

We need to evolve and develop Chinese medical thought, but not by

radical departures from its long tradition.

 

 

On Apr 3, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote:

 

> Some additional thoughts on 'modernize or die'. Classical Chinese

> medicine

> has true treasure houses in its treatment repertoire, but as it is

> now it is

> hard to distinguish between what is really useful and what has been

> useful

> and what is not useful at all. Clinical research comes in very

> handy here.

> From the limited studies that have been done in the past 10-20 years,

> acupuncture has proven to not be a miracle cure for all. So why is

> that? We

> can keep talking about trial methodology, pattern identification

> (and we

> should), but it is also very informative to find out what works and

> what

> doesn't work. Modern RCT's are very helpful in that,

> notwithstanding that

> they themselves also have their limitations. So I do not really see

> how we

> can avoid modernization. I feel Chinese medicine should be

> subjected to

> modern investigations. Integration into modern times. Not an easy

> task if it

> is not to be diluted in the process, but a very worthwhile task.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

----

 

 

04/03/06 19:34:58

Chinese Medicine

Re: integration or not? The study of tcm

 

 

 

While it is interesting that dan shen

can be applied in this way, is this really what we consider to be

development of Chinese medicine? In other words, is the rich data

base of Chinese medicine merely fodder for the development of new

pharmaceuticals? With this perspective, Chinese medicine's future is

quite limited in scope.

 

We need to evolve and develop Chinese medical thought, but not by

radical departures from its long tradition.

 

>>>>>> if pharmaceuticals can relieve people's suffering, I'm all for it.

But developing pharmaceuticals is not the only development that can happen

with the integration of Chinese and western medicine. From the many articles

appearing in China, one can find acupuncture formulas for lateral meniscus

pain, epicondylitis, vascular dementia; herbal formulas for cardiovascular

diseases and hyperlipidemia,...

 

I recall that Bob Flaws' book " The treatment of modern western medical

diseases with Chinese medicine " is a best-seller. Isn't that a good example

of integration of Chinese and western medicine?

 

In order for integrative medicine to really shine, we should find what

really shines in classical Chinese medicine; something which is still rather

unclear, at least to me. Enter as-objective-as-possible testing. A study

that compares channel-based acupuncture with other styles of acupuncture

would be very interesting. Maybe it exists already?

 

Tom.

 

PS below I included a content overview of one of the leading integrative

medicine journals of China. Much (but not all) of Chinese medical theories

are pushed aside in favour of biomedical theories. But if patients receive

benefits from that, why not? ( what can anyone say against that?). There's a

place for everything.

 

?????????(???)

CHINESE JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE

2005 Vol.11 No.3

 

 

 

CONTENTS

Original Articles

 

A Comparative Study on the Acupoints of Specialty of Baihui,Shuigou and

Shenmen in Treating Vascular Dementia LAI Xin-sheng,HUANG Yong <Partly

contents> <PDF file> (161)

Clinical Study on Zhuyu Tongfu(????) Serial Recipe Combined with Acupuncture

and Massotherapy in Treating Hypertensive Cerebral Hemorrhage LIU Hua

ZHANG Guo-ping,SONG Shui-jiang,et al <Partly contents> <PDF file> (167)

Trial Study on DENG Tie-tao's Coronary Heart Disease Capsules in Improving

Patients' Quality of Life WU Huan-lin,WANG Xia,LI Xin-mei,et al <Partly

contents> <PDF file> (173)

Effect of Yufeining(???) on Induced Sputum Interleukin-8 in Patients with

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease at the Stable Phase HONG Min-li

YANG Guo-zong,CHEN Wen-xi,et al <Partly contents> <PDF file> (179)

Clinical Study of Acoustic Densitometry Technique in Detecting

Atherosclerotic Plaque ZHAO Yu-xia,LIU Yun-fang,YU Hui-ming <Partly

contents> <PDF file> (183)

Effect of Astragalus Injection on Plasma Levels of Apoptosis-related Factors

in Aged Patients with Chronic Heart Failure ZHANG Jin-guo,YANG Na,HE Hua

et al <Partly contents> <PDF file> (187)

Experimental Work and Research

 

Effects of Shenggu Injection (?????) on mRNA Expression of Vascular

Endothelia Growth Factor in Rat Osteoblasts in vitro CHENG Jie ,PENG Rui

YU Yuan,et al <Partly contents> <PDF file> (191)

A New Rat Model of Cerebral Infarction Based on the Injury of Vascular

Endothelial Cell CHEN Yi ,GE Jin-wen,DENG Bing-xiang <Partly contents>

<PDF file> (195)

Effect of Curcumin on the Gene Expression of Low Density Lipoprotein

Receptors FAN Chun-lei,QIAN Ying,WO Xing-de,et al <Partly contents> <PDF

file> (201)

Effect of Compound Recipe Gengniankang (???) on Senile Sexual Hormone and

Expression of Estrogen Receptor in Bone of Climacteric Female Rats WU

Su-hui,SUN Jing-fen,GUO Shu-zhen <Partly contents> <PDF file> (205)

The More Efficacious Acupoints of Zusanli and Sanyinjiao Than That of

Non-acupoints on Bone Mass in Osteopenic Ovariectomized Rats ZHANG

Wen-ping,KANEHARA Masayuki,ZHANG Yan-jun,et al <Partly contents> <PDF file>

(209)

Study of Total Alkaloids from Rhizoma Coptis Chinensis on Experimental

Gastric Ulcers LI Bei ,SHANG Jing-chuan,ZHOU Qi-xin <Partly contents>

<PDF file> (217)

Clinical Experiences

 

A Clinical Study of Safflower Yellow Injection in Treating Coronary Heart

Disease Angina Pectoris with Xin-Blood Stagnation Syndrome ZHANG Qiong

PENG Jian-hua,ZHANG Xiang-nong <Partly contents> <PDF file> (222)

Clinical Observation of Gingko Biloba Extract Injection in Treating Early

Diabetic Nephropathy LU Jie ,HE Hai <Partly contents> <PDF file> (226)

A Clinical Study on the Effect of Yinxing Damo (????) Combined with

Betahistine Hydrochloride Injection on Vertebral Basilar Artery Ischemic

Vertigo DENG Yan ,ZHU Hai-qing,DENG Guo-bao,et al <Partly contents> <PDF

file> (229)

Reviews

 

Effect of Intestinal Cytochrome P450 3A on Phytochemical Presystemic

Metabolism XIA Fang ,CHEN Xiao-yin <Partly contents> <PDF file> (232)

Assessment and Explorations on the Mechanism of Neuroprotection of Patients

in Ischemic Stroke by Traditional SHEN Si-yu,FU

Xiao-dong,FEI Zhen-yu <Partly contents> <PDF file> (237)

 

BACK

 

 

[Guest guest]

wrote:

 

Hi Z'ev!

 

Thanks. I will work it in to an article on my website. Getting behind on

that - wanted to have 1000 pages up by now, only have about 300, though.

Little, short articles.

 

I wish it would lead to patients, but it seems not to. I think we have

oversupplied our area's market. Used to have three acupuncture schools

in town, still have one. Even some of the Chinese practitioners are

complaining about business!

 

Regards,

 

Pete

> Pete, I don't know how profound it is, but feel free to quote it.

>

> Thanks,

>

> On Apr 2, 2006, at 11:00 PM, petetheisen wrote:

>

>> Hi Z'ev!

>>

>> Goodness, that is profound. Would you mind if I quote you? With

>> credit, of course.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tom

 

Chinese Medicine , " Tom Verhaeghe "

<tom.verhaeghe wrote:

> PS below I included a content overview of one of the leading

integrative

> medicine journals of China. Much (but not all) of Chinese medical

theories

> are pushed aside in favour of biomedical theories. But if patients

receive

> benefits from that, why not? ( what can anyone say against that?).

There's a

> place for everything.

 

I think one should no longer call it (traditional) chinese medicine,

but call it integrative medicine or something like that.

It just becomes a fork in the development of chinese medicine, a

branch-off from the (traditional) chinese medicine. The only thing

is that I personally think it should not be seen as a 'linear'

progression of chinese medicine but a branche-off/diversion of it.

 

That is fine with me, but it should not be seen as ONLY possible,

meaningful or valuable way forward.

 

That many chinese doctors in China are adhering to this

biomedicalisation as the way forward might also be part of

their 'quest for fame' that I notice with a certain type of chinese

doctors I've met.

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:33 PM, Alwin van Egmond wrote:

 

> I think one should no longer call it (traditional) chinese medicine,

> but call it integrative medicine or something like that.

> It just becomes a fork in the development of chinese medicine, a

> branch-off from the (traditional) chinese medicine. The only thing

> is that I personally think it should not be seen as a 'linear'

> progression of chinese medicine but a branche-off/diversion of it.

 

I agree. That would be ideal, for the integrative approach to be a

branch phenomenon rather that the only possible development of

Chinese medicine. But it isn't being set up that way.

>

> That is fine with me, but it should not be seen as ONLY possible,

> meaningful or valuable way forward.

 

Agreed.

>

> That many chinese doctors in China are adhering to this

> biomedicalisation as the way forward might also be part of

> their 'quest for fame' that I notice with a certain type of chinese

> doctors I've met.

 

There is a lot of pressure to conform to these expectations in China,

I believe, even as debate is clearly going on over there. I wonder

how integration would happen in the West, seeing as the foundations

for CM practice are so much weaker over here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I have been exploring with interest the conceptualization of TCM as

posited by Deke Kendall in his book " The Dao of " . He

makes some very good points about the proper translation of key terms

in Chinese medicine, such as Qi and Jingluo among others, and shows

convincingly that at the time of the writing of the Neijing, the

Chinese understanding of physiological principles and relationships

was very advanced and is in harmony with a modern medical

understanding. Has anyone else in CHA read his work? I would love to

hear what you think of it and the possible implications for the

integration of TCM into mainstream medicine. Thanks in advance!

 

Andrew Fisher, L.Ac.

Inner Balance Center of Health

3549 North University Ave., Suite 200

Provo, UT 84604

801.356.7600

www.innerbalancesolutions.com

[Guest guest]

I'm reading the Dao of right now.

 

There are some holes in his assumptions that I'll comment on when I've

completed the book and the class he'll be teaching in the ECTOM doctorate.

Perhaps by the end I'll have seen him fill in those holes, but right now, it

looks like he is making some statements that simply don't jive with the

experience of the Chinese with whom I work and study.

 

While there are some ideas that he advances that I think have some value (

i.e. the chong mai being the aorta), overall I'm somewhat put off by his

statements suggesting that only he and everybody who did TCM before the year

500 understand TCM correctly. I just can't buy that... yet.

 

-al.

 

On 4/4/06, taoenergetics <afisher wrote:

>

> I have been exploring with interest the conceptualization of TCM as

> posited by Deke Kendall in his book " The Dao of " . He

> makes some very good points about the proper translation of key terms

> in Chinese medicine, such as Qi and Jingluo among others, and shows

> convincingly that at the time of the writing of the Neijing, the

> Chinese understanding of physiological principles and relationships

> was very advanced and is in harmony with a modern medical

> understanding. Has anyone else in CHA read his work? I would love to

> hear what you think of it and the possible implications for the

> integration of TCM into mainstream medicine. Thanks in advance!

>

> Andrew Fisher, L.Ac.

>

 

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think that the ancient Chinese probably did know a good deal about

physiology, but I think perhaps Deke takes it a bit too far. He is

free to interpret the classics as he wishes, but it is just that, an

interpretation that will need to be tested over many years by other

practitioners and researchers.

 

 

On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:47 AM, taoenergetics wrote:

 

> I have been exploring with interest the conceptualization of TCM as

> posited by Deke Kendall in his book " The Dao of " . He

> makes some very good points about the proper translation of key terms

> in Chinese medicine, such as Qi and Jingluo among others, and shows

> convincingly that at the time of the writing of the Neijing, the

> Chinese understanding of physiological principles and relationships

> was very advanced and is in harmony with a modern medical

> understanding. Has anyone else in CHA read his work? I would love to

> hear what you think of it and the possible implications for the

> integration of TCM into mainstream medicine. Thanks in advance!

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Is it just me, or is it obvious to other how much either/both Integral

frameworks or/and a rigorous phenomenology (eg. Heidigger) has to

usefully inform and clarify this integration conversation? This from

a book I am reading now called " Heidigger, Medicine & 'Scientific

Method " by Peter Wilberg (a book on medical humanities, not TCM):

 

 

" The term phenomenology designates the fundamental essence of science

and scientific method as such - the essence of any genuinely

fundamental science. The 'phenomenological method' is scientific

method properly understood.

 

By contrast, what passes as 'method' today in the physical sciences

is, as Heidigger puts it, " through and through dogmatic; dealing with

un-thought-through conceptions and preconceptions " ....

 

....The phenomenological method is not a body of beliefs. It is based

on the suspension or " bracketing " of all beliefs and preconceptions.

Therefore its starting point is not and cannot be a preconceived

division of phenomena into two domains of experience: 'objective' and

'subjective, 'outer' and 'inner', 'public' and 'private'. Nor does it

begin by 'bracketing off' the entire realm of 'inner experience',

treating it as something purely 'private' and therefore not capable of

methodical scientific research. "

 

 

For the uninformed about Wilber's integral work, here are some short

audio and visual summaries of AQAL:

http://www.integralnaked.org/Podcast/KenWilber-APuzzleCalledAQAL.mp3

http://formlessmountain.com/quads.htm

 

Cheers

Lionel

 

--

It is not the victory of science that characterises our 19th century,

but the victory of scientific METHOD over science.

-Friedrich Nietzsche

[Guest guest]

I'm going to try for an Integral criticism of the perspective

presented in Tom's comments (and indirectly the Chinese article). I'm

going to be using some Spiral Dynamics jargon here, so please read

through this Wiki entry before proceeding if you don't want to get

lost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_dynamics

 

>They do touch on some subjects which may not have easy answers to them:

>can and should Chinese medicine be proven with modern scientific methods?

>There was an editorial in the Lantern magazine (May 2004), entitled

" The Tyranny

>of the microscope. " making its point that Chinese medicine can and

does deal with

>the uncertainty of life, without concrete evidence like lab tests

etc. From this

>editorial piece (probably written by Steve Clavey) I do get an

impression -my own

>impression- that they feel that Chinese medicine may somehow be superior to the

>microscope, and may often yield results where other Western therapies fail.

 

I think this is a pretty selective reading of Clavey (or whoever the

editor was at the time). Again, just because he criticises modern

science, does not mean he is rejecting its usefulness outright. It is

about rebalancing emphasis towards where emphasis, due to difficulty

of access and lack of rigour/lazy thinking, has been lost.

 

Let's face it, one of the beauties of modern scientific

method/objective conceptual rationality is that compared to

really understanding, from the inside, other people,

other cultures and/or radically different perspectives, it is easy.

It is also less confronting to one's own preconceived notions of

" self " - what is conceived as " objective " are forever apart from what

I feel as " me " , hence " me " is safer in this way of seeing from the

demand to change/develop.

 

>This may well be so, but it is not ALWAYS true I have an ALS patient

>whose health is slowly getting worse and worse, and while Chinese

>medicine may have some effect on some ALS sufferers, wouldn't it be

>nice to know how many patients would statistically respond to CM treatments,

>and which treatment methods would have more effect?

 

What I believe Integral perspective in particular have to offer TCM is

to remind us Green Memers/postmodernists that there is such things as

development, and some people are more developed in certain things than

others. Sure it would be nice " to know how many patients would

statistically respond to CM treatments " , but whose CM? Similarly

" which treatment methods would have more effect? " is greatly

determined by who is using those particular treatment methods. In CM,

the tool user is more important than the tool, and there are many

(infinite?) layers of tool...

 

Both the Orange Meme/modernism/modern scientific thinking and the

Green Meme/postmodernism/New Agist pluralism simply cannot see this,

insisting as they both do in their own ways in a kind of false

epistemological egaltarianism. And TCM, cut loose from an anchoring

in the more phenomenological perspectives and intersubjective rigours

of the past, often falls into the same trap.

 

Nevertheless, I would have to say in response to Tom's question, of

course CM should be proven with scientific methods. Just so long as

it doesn't take that as the be all and end all. I do agree with Tom

in saying that studies towards examining " how many patients would

statistically respond to CM treatments " and " which treatment methods

would have more effect " are very very useful to TCM as it is practiced

today. It is important to see that the dogmatic acceptance of passed

down tradition is very easy to fall for in the study/practice CM, and

how good application of modern scientific method and its demand for

evidence has the power to pull us up and out of that trap. It also

has the power to crush the truly transrational (which includes but

goes beyond conceptual rationality) along with the prerational, as it

cannot tell the difference.

 

[in Spiral Dynamical terms, the input of Orange/modern science and

Green/pluralism's utilitarian defence of it is on balance a good thing

for TCM today. It serves to pull up the Purple/Magical-Animistic,

Red/ " Bad Guru " and Blue/ " Traditional is always right " elements to a

higher level. The problem starts when Orange/Green start bearing down

on anything higher/more inclusive/integrative than themselves and

mistaking them for those lower. This is manifested for example in an

inability to distinguish between " Good " and " Bad " master-apprentice

relationships and see them all as inherently destructive, the classic

pre-trans fallacy ( http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html )]

 

I am keen to hear what y'all think. Again, please keep in mind that

in making this critique I truly do not want to pick on modern TCM,

because they are issues not isolated to modern TCM. All comments,

criticisms and requests for clarification are most welcome.

 

Cheers

Lionel

 

On 4/2/06, Tom Verhaeghe <tom.verhaeghe wrote:

> In the same magazine in which Xie Zhu-fan's criticism of Wiseman's

> terminology appeared, there was an editorial piece, entitled " Study of

> traditional Chinese medicine-- which is after all the right way? "

> Article reference: Chin J. Integr Med 2005 Dec;1),pp 241?242.

>

> Intro:

>

> " The study of traditional (TCM) with modern research

> approach has been ongoing for more than half a century. Although great

> achievement has been made, the progress is less significant when compared

> with the advance made in other scientific disciplines such as Western

> medicine (WM). TCM development has reached a crucial point in the era of

> rapid development of modern sciences and technologies. Whether or not and

> how to incorporate contemporary sciences and advanced technologies into the

> study of TCM has been a hot topic discussed in the academics in China.

> Different schools of thought have been surfaced and debated. In this

> article

> we present these views as well as our own opinions over the direction of

> TCM development. "

>

> Some people argue that Chinese medicine should not be subjected to modern

> research methods:

> " Introducing modern medicine and scientific means into the study of TCM

> will

> alter or misinterpret the essence of TCM and finally lead to the vanishing

> or distinction of the ancient art. "

> Some argue that Western methods are not applicable to Chinese medicine

> because of a different paradigm:

> " TCM originated in ancient times in accordance with the science and

> technologies of that time. It was developed under the influence of simple

> materialism and spontaneous dialectics. "

> The authors of the article argue in favour of modern research:

> " The ancient theories and rich experiences of TCM is not flawless, having

> limitations both in its theory and practice. The understanding and

> interpretation of the success and limitation of TCM can only be

> accomplished

> with the assistance of modern scientific approaches. "

> The article goes on about a possible integration of Chinese and Western

> medicine, which is encouraged by the Chinese government. Although this

> integration is not without its problems and is only in its initiative

> phase,

> they believe that the outcome justifies the difficulties one may encounter

> in the process:

> " Relatively speaking, TCM emphasizes the macroscopic view and entirety,

> while WM emphasizes the microscopic view and individual parts. Integrating

> the two medicines involves identifying ways to complement each other and

> developing more efficacious and safer therapies. "

> And the issue comes back to terminology when they are criticising flaws in

> Chinese medical theory (without giving any examples though):

> " We believe that the objective and normative expressions in TCM are based

> on

> classical Chinese physiology and experiences. The connotations of some

> basic

> concepts are very vague, which severely limits the development of TCM

> itself

> In addition,TCM could not have enough incorporated into the nature in

> modern times. It is our belief that the fundamental theories of TCM need to

> be enriched and developed. This can be accomplished by:(I)enhancing their

> reference sorting and translation into the modern language; (2) summarizing

> clinical works, experiances and literature reviews so as to propose new

> hypotheses, explore new principles and form new theories. Only by so doing

> can TCM be truly inherited and further developed. "

> The authors of the article are Chen Ke-ji and Li Li-zhi. I have never heard

> of them before, but they seem to have done some research on new Chinese

> herbal treatments.

> They do touch on some subjects which may not have easy answers to them: can

> and should Chinese medicine be proven with modern scientific methods?

> There was an editorial in the Lantern magazine (May 2004), entitled " The

> Tyranny of the microscope. " making its point that Chinese medicine can and

> does deal with the uncertainty of life, without concrete evidence like lab

> tests etc.

> From this editorial piece (probably written by Steve Clavey) I do get an

> impression -my own impression- that they feel that Chinese medicine may

> somehow be superior to the microscope, and may often yield results where

> other Western therapies fail. This may well be so, but it is not ALWAYS

> true

> I have an ALS patient whose health is slowly getting worse and worse, and

> while Chinese medicine may have some effect on some ALS sufferers, wouldn't

> it be nice to know how many patients would statistically respond to CM

> treatments, and which treatment methods would have more effect?

> The other day I was reading in Alon's book, noticing that in his experience

> herbs that Invigorate Kidney and Liver often do not work well in chronic

> impediment patterns. Wouldn't it be nice to know why? Is it because there

> are limits to invigorating?

> What are the limits of Chinese medicine? How does a 'master'practitioner

> differ from younger disciple-practitoners? Is Chinese medicine truly an

> art-form which can only be understood through inner experiences (Qi Gong,,

> meditation) so we can grasp the true significance of Jing, Qi and Shen? And

> while we're on the topic: there are so many ways to explore one's inner

> worlds. Daoism is only one of those, others also have their merits. If

> Daoism (and its consequent theories of Yin, Yang, Jing, Qi and Shen) is

> only

> out of many ways to explore the inner territories, there must be several

> limits to it, no?

> I wish I could have some clear answers to these questions...in the mean

> time

> I guess I have to live with the limits I encounter (or is that the answer

> to

> my question , I wonder aloud.)

> Oh by the way you may email me for a copy of the article I started this

> post

> with.

> Best regards to y'all,

>

> Tom.

>

>

>

 

 

--

Knowing ignorance is strength; ignoring knowledge is sickness.

-Tao te ching

[Guest guest]

Hi Alwin

 

I absolutely agree. As Z'ev so aptly put it recently, it is *the mode

of thought* that primarily defines . If you move away

from *pattern differentiation* (which goes back at least as far as

Shang Han Lun) towards doing RCTs on *disease categories* you are

doing a different medicine.

 

It is clear from the contents page of the Integrative Chinese

Medicine journal that Tom recently quoted that they are doing some

wonderful medicine there - could help or even cure many people. But

its thinking paradigm is moving away from 's paradigm

(of the last 2,500 or more years).

 

Now, somebody on this forum recently sung the praises (correctly, I'm

sure) of some Chinese TCM practitioner(s) (I forget their name(s) )

who, while embracing the modern scientific approach to TCM, were also

deeply steeped in the Classics and, I think, used them in their

research and clinical practice.

 

This is surely laudable. To be able to do both, to bridge the gap

between the two systems, without losing the essence of either, is a

mighty task. However, the *impression* I get is that within the TCM

profession in China (and in the West) there is a growing emphasis on

*disease* differentiation and RCTs on those 'diseases'. Is that

correct?

 

If the adoption of 'disease' categories and RCTs *is* gradually

subsuming pattern differentiation and CM pathomechanisms, reducing

practitioners' inclination to utilize them in clinic and stifling

genuine research into developing them, then we *must* rename this

emerging style of TCM as 'Integrative ' or something

similar.

 

In my opinion...

 

David

 

 

Chinese Medicine , " Alwin van

Egmond " < wrote:

>

> Hi Tom

>

> Chinese Medicine , " Tom

Verhaeghe "

> <tom.verhaeghe@> wrote:

> > PS below I included a content overview of one of the leading

> integrative

> > medicine journals of China. Much (but not all) of Chinese medical

> theories

> > are pushed aside in favour of biomedical theories. But if

patients

> receive

> > benefits from that, why not? ( what can anyone say against

that?).

> There's a

> > place for everything.

>

> I think one should no longer call it (traditional) chinese

medicine,

> but call it integrative medicine or something like that.

> It just becomes a fork in the development of chinese medicine, a

> branch-off from the (traditional) chinese medicine. The only thing

> is that I personally think it should not be seen as a 'linear'

> progression of chinese medicine but a branche-off/diversion of it.

>

> That is fine with me, but it should not be seen as ONLY possible,

> meaningful or valuable way forward.

>

> That many chinese doctors in China are adhering to this

> biomedicalisation as the way forward might also be part of

> their 'quest for fame' that I notice with a certain type of chinese

> doctors I've met.

>

> Best wishes

>

> Alwin

>

 

 

Chinese Medicine , " Alwin van

Egmond " < wrote:

>

> Hi Tom

>

> Chinese Medicine , " Tom

Verhaeghe "

> <tom.verhaeghe@> wrote:

> > PS below I included a content overview of one of the leading

> integrative

> > medicine journals of China. Much (but not all) of Chinese medical

> theories

> > are pushed aside in favour of biomedical theories. But if

patients

> receive

> > benefits from that, why not? ( what can anyone say against

that?).

> There's a

> > place for everything.

>

> I think one should no longer call it (traditional) chinese

medicine,

> but call it integrative medicine or something like that.

> It just becomes a fork in the development of chinese medicine, a

> branch-off from the (traditional) chinese medicine. The only thing

> is that I personally think it should not be seen as a 'linear'

> progression of chinese medicine but a branche-off/diversion of it.

>

> That is fine with me, but it should not be seen as ONLY possible,

> meaningful or valuable way forward.

>

> That many chinese doctors in China are adhering to this

> biomedicalisation as the way forward might also be part of

> their 'quest for fame' that I notice with a certain type of chinese

> doctors I've met.

>

> Best wishes

>

> Alwin

>