integration or not? The study of tcm

[Guest guest]

Correct me if i am wrong but does not all pattern DX start with disease

categories? Is your pattern DX for wrist pain the same as for cancer? TCM

diseases were almost always the starting point for pattern DX (and in many

styles of CM were it). The fact that now we often use a WM disease name (which

allows us to have a much more precise standard to follow and evaluate) has

nothing to do with pattern DX. There is obsoletely no conflict between the two.

If you are treating tremor for example knowing if it is benign tremor or

Parkinson's makes all the difference in evaluating outcome and making statements

on the effectiveness of CM in treating tremor. You need WM to do that. The

discussion here is about verified outcome period.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

David Gordon

Chinese Medicine

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:19 PM

Re: integration or not? The study of tcm

 

 

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

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click,

http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon, that's a good point about pattern DX. I may have been too hasty

with the keyboard early this morning ... felt I'd overstepped the

mark actually as soon as I'd hit the 'Send' button.

 

I'm very much a junior practitioner at the moment - maybe as I learn

more I'll be able to evaluate these things more clearly. In the

meantime I take back my earlier comments.

 

All the best, David

 

 

Chinese Medicine , " Alon Marcus

DOM " <alonmarcus wrote:

>

> Correct me if i am wrong but does not all pattern DX start with

disease categories? Is your pattern DX for wrist pain the same as for

cancer? TCM diseases were almost always the starting point for

pattern DX (and in many styles of CM were it). The fact that now we

often use a WM disease name (which allows us to have a much more

precise standard to follow and evaluate) has nothing to do with

pattern DX. There is obsoletely no conflict between the two. If you

are treating tremor for example knowing if it is benign tremor or

Parkinson's makes all the difference in evaluating outcome and making

statements on the effectiveness of CM in treating tremor. You need WM

to do that. The discussion here is about verified outcome period.

>

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>