Guest guest Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Here's what I saw yesterday: In an affluent bedroom community of the city where I live there was a nice new store offering Wood fired pizzas and Traditional medicine. I had to go check that out. On the shelves between vitamins and homeopathics was a full-line of Plum Flower: the aforementioned Women's Precious that someone asked about earlier, Solitary hermit, Jade Screen decoction. There was a small notice posted that advised the consumer to see an acupuncturist IF the condition did not improve. I asked for the manager, went in the corner with him, and explained that after X amount of schooling and Y amount of graduate school expense I felt it was inappropriate to sell these products in a grocery store. He was completely dumbfounded and taken aback. When I explained these should be by prescription he said, " We have L., a licensed acupuncturist working here. " Now since I saw no sign for an acupuncturist and no treatment room and no pulse pillow, I imagine a hapless underemployed acupuncturist making espressos, browsing the aisles, dusting the shelves, and once in a while stopping a customer and saying " My, you're looking pale. How about some Woman's precious and a nice smoothie for you today. " L. of the Hill Country, if you read this list maybe you can tell me your thoughts on how you have set this up. (I'm purposely not going into a lot of detail here with names). Maybe L thought, this is an excellent way to take these products into public view and grow my practice. I don't know. I stopped my discussion with the manager, because after all, if the acupuncturist has assured him it should be done that way, there is no purpose in argueing with the manager. Here's my thought though: Isn't is sad that our practice sometimes has us midway between a grocery store clerk and a medical professional. Sure, those patients may help some people, and perhaps help people who would never go to an acupuncturist, but where does that leave the decades of serious study that people like Zev Rosenberg, Sharon W, Will Morris, have devoted to the subject. So those of you who read and don't post, (not picking on anyone in particular here) think of how you represent the dignity of profession as a whole when you choose a certain course of action. No matter how badly my practice goes, and some weeks it goes badly, and I am depressed, I try to maintain to the standards I think are due to our profession. I don't take short cuts, I don't let people bargain me into a lower price etc. (I may offer a lower price when moved by someone's circumstances but that is a different story). And personally, I don't think patents belong on a grocery shelf, although I may have misunderstood the situation. Regards, Gabrielle Mathieu L Ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. That is not a fair statement it is not just about money, it is also the fact the many do not agree that there is an inherent " danger " from patents and other OTC herbs and actually welcome the fact that they are becoming more available OTC. (has any one bothered to mention how much Long Dan Xie Gan Tang it takes to get to the point of kidney damage... I can assure you that if enough people falsely scream " danger " in the theater, you won't have a single patent on your shelf to hand to customers years from now, you are not going to see the US make them available to practitioners of TCM, you will see them not available at all or only from pharmaceuticals to MDs. OTC chinese patents of better quality like Plum Flower and other brands are important to displace the lesser quality and cheaper Chinese equivalents that pose a threat to the industry for their potential contaminants and lack of results. The solution is for us to become better practitioners to differentiate our herbal practice from the herbal aspirin at whole foods markets. > You might ask this question of those entities who have kept this profession > in the trade-school domain. > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. TCM is not like western medicine and to learn the basics that will prevent harming patients (the reason licensing exists!) and to offer them basic care, the current requirements are already more than sufficient. So again, your statement is unfair. Some people just feel that creating excessive professional regulation is the main way poor practitioners stay in practice while trying to create a more exclusive market for themselves. To be a superior practitioner of TCM takes many years beyond school and the current idea of additional levels of training (doctorate programs, etc), perhaps some future training for specialization, etc. are all positive. Creating a false air that people need more education than necessary to _begin_ practice again will only make it more difficult to justify to western minds and governments that there should be any TCM practitioners that are not MDs first or at the very least limit the profession to a select group of people that can afford to enter that " special " circle in time and finances. How many on this list would be practitioners if it was a _true_ full time 4-6 year program costing $100K a year like western medical school? How many people here would consider themselves good practitioners that did 2-3 years in the evenings and weekends or apprenticeships? Like western medicine, it is what you do and study after you graduate that makes the difference in what sort of practitioner you become. Sorry, money factors in, but it is not everything. David Botton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 I don't think it's a question of danger. Dangerous patents such as Long Dan Xie Gan Wan are banned and not available. What is the point is that giving a patent over the counter without a consultation will no doubt not benefit the customer at all. Patents are very limited in what they can and can't treat. Most of us know what key symptoms to look out for when deciding upon a pattern analysis and a suitable patent. However, customers don't and will often pick a patent that will be wrong for them and will make their pattern disharmony worse. It won't kill them, but it won't make them better either and for those reasons, patents shouldn't be sold OTC without a consultation. I used to sell patents online and had a consultation form built into the checkout process and I'm telling you from my own experience that you cannot give the person the right patent without a human consultation. It just doesn't work. It's not a question of keeping herbal medicine within practitioners only for the money; it's about providing the best possible treatment in a field that is infinity diverse. Attilio www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Chinese Medicine , " David Botton " <david wrote: > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > That is not a fair statement it is not just about money, it is also the fact the many do not > agree that there is an inherent " danger " from patents and other OTC herbs and actually > welcome the fact that they are becoming more available OTC. (has any one bothered to > mention how much Long Dan Xie Gan Tang it takes to get to the point of kidney damage... > > I can assure you that if enough people falsely scream " danger " in the theater, you won't > have a single patent on your shelf to hand to customers years from now, you are not going > to see the US make them available to practitioners of TCM, you will see them not available > at all or only from pharmaceuticals to MDs. > > OTC chinese patents of better quality like Plum Flower and other brands are important to > displace the lesser quality and cheaper Chinese equivalents that pose a threat to the > industry for their potential contaminants and lack of results. > > The solution is for us to become better practitioners to differentiate our herbal practice > from the herbal aspirin at whole foods markets. > > > You might ask this question of those entities who have kept this profession > > in the trade-school domain. > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > TCM is not like western medicine and to learn the basics that will prevent harming patients > (the reason licensing exists!) and to offer them basic care, the current requirements are > already more than sufficient. So again, your statement is unfair. Some people just feel that > creating excessive professional regulation is the main way poor practitioners stay in > practice while trying to create a more exclusive market for themselves. > > To be a superior practitioner of TCM takes many years beyond school and the current idea > of additional levels of training (doctorate programs, etc), perhaps some future training for > specialization, etc. are all positive. Creating a false air that people need more education > than necessary to _begin_ practice again will only make it more difficult to justify to > western minds and governments that there should be any TCM practitioners that are not > MDs first or at the very least limit the profession to a select group of people that can > afford to enter that " special " circle in time and finances. > > How many on this list would be practitioners if it was a _true_ full time 4-6 year program > costing $100K a year like western medical school? How many people here would consider > themselves good practitioners that did 2-3 years in the evenings and weekends or > apprenticeships? > > Like western medicine, it is what you do and study after you graduate that makes the > difference in what sort of practitioner you become. > > Sorry, money factors in, but it is not everything. > > David Botton > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 I think it is about danger. If it wasn't about danger, then let them sell OTC if they are comfortable with that. Every prescription and OTC medicine has benefits and risks. The bottom line to the FDA is if it's more safe than dangerous. If herbs are dangerous then the FDA will make them either illegal or by prescription only (MD's). But for those who think herbs should not be OTC, then by that definition, aspirin should not be OTC. Many OTC drugs if taken the wrong way will have more harmful affects than herbs. So do you think we should have to get a prescription for aspirin whenever we feel we need it? Elie Chinese Medicine , " Attilio DAlberto " <attiliodalberto wrote: > > I don't think it's a question of danger. Dangerous patents such as > Long Dan Xie Gan Wan are banned and not available. What is the point > is that giving a patent over the counter without a consultation will > no doubt not benefit the customer at all. Patents are very limited in > what they can and can't treat. Most of us know what key symptoms to > look out for when deciding upon a pattern analysis and a suitable > patent. However, customers don't and will often pick a patent that > will be wrong for them and will make their pattern disharmony worse. > It won't kill them, but it won't make them better either and for > those reasons, patents shouldn't be sold OTC without a consultation. > > I used to sell patents online and had a consultation form built into > the checkout process and I'm telling you from my own experience that > you cannot give the person the right patent without a human > consultation. It just doesn't work. > > It's not a question of keeping herbal medicine within practitioners > only for the money; it's about providing the best possible treatment > in a field that is infinity diverse. > > Attilio > www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > > Chinese Medicine , " David Botton " > <david@> wrote: > > > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > > > That is not a fair statement it is not just about money, it is also > the fact the many do not > > agree that there is an inherent " danger " from patents and other OTC > herbs and actually > > welcome the fact that they are becoming more available OTC. (has > any one bothered to > > mention how much Long Dan Xie Gan Tang it takes to get to the point > of kidney damage... > > > > I can assure you that if enough people falsely scream " danger " in > the theater, you won't > > have a single patent on your shelf to hand to customers years from > now, you are not going > > to see the US make them available to practitioners of TCM, you will > see them not available > > at all or only from pharmaceuticals to MDs. > > > > OTC chinese patents of better quality like Plum Flower and other > brands are important to > > displace the lesser quality and cheaper Chinese equivalents that > pose a threat to the > > industry for their potential contaminants and lack of results. > > > > The solution is for us to become better practitioners to > differentiate our herbal practice > > from the herbal aspirin at whole foods markets. > > > > > You might ask this question of those entities who have kept this > profession > > > in the trade-school domain. > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > > > TCM is not like western medicine and to learn the basics that will > prevent harming patients > > (the reason licensing exists!) and to offer them basic care, the > current requirements are > > already more than sufficient. So again, your statement is unfair. > Some people just feel that > > creating excessive professional regulation is the main way poor > practitioners stay in > > practice while trying to create a more exclusive market for > themselves. > > > > To be a superior practitioner of TCM takes many years beyond school > and the current idea > > of additional levels of training (doctorate programs, etc), perhaps > some future training for > > specialization, etc. are all positive. Creating a false air that > people need more education > > than necessary to _begin_ practice again will only make it more > difficult to justify to > > western minds and governments that there should be any TCM > practitioners that are not > > MDs first or at the very least limit the profession to a select > group of people that can > > afford to enter that " special " circle in time and finances. > > > > How many on this list would be practitioners if it was a _true_ > full time 4-6 year program > > costing $100K a year like western medical school? How many people > here would consider > > themselves good practitioners that did 2-3 years in the evenings > and weekends or > > apprenticeships? > > > > Like western medicine, it is what you do and study after you > graduate that makes the > > difference in what sort of practitioner you become. > > > > Sorry, money factors in, but it is not everything. > > > > David Botton > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 If we are looking for herb patents or OTC, look and search for ESSIAC web page. Essiac was named after Caisee Rene the chief nurse. This is a true story and involved in politics. The formula ESSIAC is very interesting. It may help us in the future. If this formula has no value, there may be only a few web pages, but there are thousands of web pages about this. But the herbal life " our formulas " must go through the same sequence as ESSIAC before it is accepted or will never be accepted " I think " . If the Medical Board is involved, everything will be no scientific proof and will be hazard to health even though there is evidence of truthfully unharmed. It is the politic's game. Drugs and medications for patients dispensed by doctors are dangerous but they are safe !!! What is this??? The Medical BOard does not know anything about herbs or herbal formulas, but they want to get control on these things. This must be involved with ....??? Herbal formlas are not dangerous but they are hazardous because they are handled by disqualified or non-qualified acupuncturists or herbalists " I believed " Chinese Medicine , " Attilio DAlberto " <attiliodalberto wrote: > > I don't think it's a question of danger. Dangerous patents such as > Long Dan Xie Gan Wan are banned and not available. What is the point > is that giving a patent over the counter without a consultation will > no doubt not benefit the customer at all. Patents are very limited in > what they can and can't treat. Most of us know what key symptoms to > look out for when deciding upon a pattern analysis and a suitable > patent. However, customers don't and will often pick a patent that > will be wrong for them and will make their pattern disharmony worse. > It won't kill them, but it won't make them better either and for > those reasons, patents shouldn't be sold OTC without a consultation. > > I used to sell patents online and had a consultation form built into > the checkout process and I'm telling you from my own experience that > you cannot give the person the right patent without a human > consultation. It just doesn't work. > > It's not a question of keeping herbal medicine within practitioners > only for the money; it's about providing the best possible treatment > in a field that is infinity diverse. > > Attilio > www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > > Chinese Medicine , " David Botton " > <david@> wrote: > > > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > > > That is not a fair statement it is not just about money, it is also > the fact the many do not > > agree that there is an inherent " danger " from patents and other OTC > herbs and actually > > welcome the fact that they are becoming more available OTC. (has > any one bothered to > > mention how much Long Dan Xie Gan Tang it takes to get to the point > of kidney damage... > > > > I can assure you that if enough people falsely scream " danger " in > the theater, you won't > > have a single patent on your shelf to hand to customers years from > now, you are not going > > to see the US make them available to practitioners of TCM, you will > see them not available > > at all or only from pharmaceuticals to MDs. > > > > OTC chinese patents of better quality like Plum Flower and other > brands are important to > > displace the lesser quality and cheaper Chinese equivalents that > pose a threat to the > > industry for their potential contaminants and lack of results. > > > > The solution is for us to become better practitioners to > differentiate our herbal practice > > from the herbal aspirin at whole foods markets. > > > > > You might ask this question of those entities who have kept this > profession > > > in the trade-school domain. > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > > > TCM is not like western medicine and to learn the basics that will > prevent harming patients > > (the reason licensing exists!) and to offer them basic care, the > current requirements are > > already more than sufficient. So again, your statement is unfair. > Some people just feel that > > creating excessive professional regulation is the main way poor > practitioners stay in > > practice while trying to create a more exclusive market for > themselves. > > > > To be a superior practitioner of TCM takes many years beyond school > and the current idea > > of additional levels of training (doctorate programs, etc), perhaps > some future training for > > specialization, etc. are all positive. Creating a false air that > people need more education > > than necessary to _begin_ practice again will only make it more > difficult to justify to > > western minds and governments that there should be any TCM > practitioners that are not > > MDs first or at the very least limit the profession to a select > group of people that can > > afford to enter that " special " circle in time and finances. > > > > How many on this list would be practitioners if it was a _true_ > full time 4-6 year program > > costing $100K a year like western medical school? How many people > here would consider > > themselves good practitioners that did 2-3 years in the evenings > and weekends or > > apprenticeships? > > > > Like western medicine, it is what you do and study after you > graduate that makes the > > difference in what sort of practitioner you become. > > > > Sorry, money factors in, but it is not everything. > > > > David Botton > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Hi Attilio, David and all, David brought up the point that LDXG is not dangerous, in that it takes a lot of LDXG to cause organic damage and so on. The issue for me is not so much about herb toxicity, although that is a reasonable topic to discuss. For me I am frustrated by self-medication on the basis of entangling patterns. Any professional on this list recognises that entangled patterns are very difficult to differentiate and treat, and I believe that most of us (me anyway) have had the experience of entangling a patient further by offering the wrong medicinals. The good thing is that, with awareness, a professional can recognise and fix the mistake, whereas a non-professional cannot. How many times do I have to deal with people who are self-medicating with the very benign-sounding " cleanse " when the _last_ thing they need is purgative therapy? I tend to think over the long term, and as the old Tai Chi adage goes about moving a thousand pounds with 4 ounces, we should all recognise that small mistreatments over time really accumulate into a very difficult mess. i.e. we can deflect a huge mass away from us...or toward us. Witness poor dietary habits, which is nothing but weak medicine applied wrongly over a long period of time. People should have more respect for medicinals and professionals. We are here to help them, and there is nothing wrong with paying us for our professional care. Hugo <attiliodalberto wrote: I don't think it's a question of danger. Dangerous patents such as Long Dan Xie Gan Wan are banned and not available. What is the point is that giving a patent over the counter without a consultation will no doubt not benefit the customer at all. Patents are very limited in what they can and can't treat. Most of us know what key symptoms to look out for when deciding upon a pattern analysis and a suitable patent. However, customers don't and will often pick a patent that will be wrong for them and will make their pattern disharmony worse. It won't kill them, but it won't make them better either and for those reasons, patents shouldn't be sold OTC without a consultation. I used to sell patents online and had a consultation form built into the checkout process and I'm telling you from my own experience that you cannot give the person the right patent without a human consultation. It just doesn't work. It's not a question of keeping herbal medicine within practitioners only for the money; it's about providing the best possible treatment in a field that is infinity diverse. Attilio www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Chinese Medicine , " David Botton " <david wrote: > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > That is not a fair statement it is not just about money, it is also the fact the many do not > agree that there is an inherent " danger " from patents and other OTC herbs and actually > welcome the fact that they are becoming more available OTC. (has any one bothered to > mention how much Long Dan Xie Gan Tang it takes to get to the point of kidney damage... > > I can assure you that if enough people falsely scream " danger " in the theater, you won't > have a single patent on your shelf to hand to customers years from now, you are not going > to see the US make them available to practitioners of TCM, you will see them not available > at all or only from pharmaceuticals to MDs. > > OTC chinese patents of better quality like Plum Flower and other brands are important to > displace the lesser quality and cheaper Chinese equivalents that pose a threat to the > industry for their potential contaminants and lack of results. > > The solution is for us to become better practitioners to differentiate our herbal practice > from the herbal aspirin at whole foods markets. > > > You might ask this question of those entities who have kept this profession > > in the trade-school domain. > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > TCM is not like western medicine and to learn the basics that will prevent harming patients > (the reason licensing exists!) and to offer them basic care, the current requirements are > already more than sufficient. So again, your statement is unfair. Some people just feel that > creating excessive professional regulation is the main way poor practitioners stay in > practice while trying to create a more exclusive market for themselves. > > To be a superior practitioner of TCM takes many years beyond school and the current idea > of additional levels of training (doctorate programs, etc), perhaps some future training for > specialization, etc. are all positive. Creating a false air that people need more education > than necessary to _begin_ practice again will only make it more difficult to justify to > western minds and governments that there should be any TCM practitioners that are not > MDs first or at the very least limit the profession to a select group of people that can > afford to enter that " special " circle in time and finances. > > How many on this list would be practitioners if it was a _true_ full time 4-6 year program > costing $100K a year like western medical school? How many people here would consider > themselves good practitioners that did 2-3 years in the evenings and weekends or > apprenticeships? > > Like western medicine, it is what you do and study after you graduate that makes the > difference in what sort of practitioner you become. > > Sorry, money factors in, but it is not everything. > > David Botton > Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Hugh, I don't think that's strictly true. As we all know, Long Dan Xie Gan Wan traditionally has Mu Tong in it. This herb was banned not because it was necessarily toxic, but because the common name 'Mu Tong' was used to describe different species, some of which were toxic, whilst others weren't. At least, that's what the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) are saying. Attilio www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Hi Attilio, David and all, > David brought up the point that LDXG is not dangerous, in that it takes a lot of LDXG to cause organic damage and so on. The issue for me is not so much about herb toxicity, although that is a reasonable topic to discuss. For me I am frustrated by self-medication on the basis of entangling patterns. Any professional on this list recognises that entangled patterns are very difficult to differentiate and treat, and I believe that most of us (me anyway) have had the experience of entangling a patient further by offering the wrong medicinals. The good thing is that, with awareness, a professional can recognise and fix the mistake, whereas a non- professional cannot. How many times do I have to deal with people who are self-medicating with the very benign-sounding " cleanse " when the _last_ thing they need is purgative therapy? > I tend to think over the long term, and as the old Tai Chi adage goes about moving a thousand pounds with 4 ounces, we should all recognise that small mistreatments over time really accumulate into a very difficult mess. i.e. we can deflect a huge mass away from us...or toward us. Witness poor dietary habits, which is nothing but weak medicine applied wrongly over a long period of time. People should have more respect for medicinals and professionals. We are here to help them, and there is nothing wrong with paying us for our professional care. > > Hugo > > <attiliodalberto wrote: I don't think it's a question of danger. Dangerous patents such as > Long Dan Xie Gan Wan are banned and not available. What is the point > is that giving a patent over the counter without a consultation will > no doubt not benefit the customer at all. Patents are very limited in > what they can and can't treat. Most of us know what key symptoms to > look out for when deciding upon a pattern analysis and a suitable > patent. However, customers don't and will often pick a patent that > will be wrong for them and will make their pattern disharmony worse. > It won't kill them, but it won't make them better either and for > those reasons, patents shouldn't be sold OTC without a consultation. > > I used to sell patents online and had a consultation form built into > the checkout process and I'm telling you from my own experience that > you cannot give the person the right patent without a human > consultation. It just doesn't work. > > It's not a question of keeping herbal medicine within practitioners > only for the money; it's about providing the best possible treatment > in a field that is infinity diverse. > > Attilio > www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Chinese Medicine , " David Botton " > <david@> wrote: > > > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > > > That is not a fair statement it is not just about money, it is also > the fact the many do not > > agree that there is an inherent " danger " from patents and other OTC > herbs and actually > > welcome the fact that they are becoming more available OTC. (has > any one bothered to > > mention how much Long Dan Xie Gan Tang it takes to get to the point > of kidney damage... > > > > I can assure you that if enough people falsely scream " danger " in > the theater, you won't > > have a single patent on your shelf to hand to customers years from > now, you are not going > > to see the US make them available to practitioners of TCM, you will > see them not available > > at all or only from pharmaceuticals to MDs. > > > > OTC chinese patents of better quality like Plum Flower and other > brands are important to > > displace the lesser quality and cheaper Chinese equivalents that > pose a threat to the > > industry for their potential contaminants and lack of results. > > > > The solution is for us to become better practitioners to > differentiate our herbal practice > > from the herbal aspirin at whole foods markets. > > > > > You might ask this question of those entities who have kept this > profession > > > in the trade-school domain. > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > > > TCM is not like western medicine and to learn the basics that will > prevent harming patients > > (the reason licensing exists!) and to offer them basic care, the > current requirements are > > already more than sufficient. So again, your statement is unfair. > Some people just feel that > > creating excessive professional regulation is the main way poor > practitioners stay in > > practice while trying to create a more exclusive market for > themselves. > > > > To be a superior practitioner of TCM takes many years beyond school > and the current idea > > of additional levels of training (doctorate programs, etc), perhaps > some future training for > > specialization, etc. are all positive. Creating a false air that > people need more education > > than necessary to _begin_ practice again will only make it more > difficult to justify to > > western minds and governments that there should be any TCM > practitioners that are not > > MDs first or at the very least limit the profession to a select > group of people that can > > afford to enter that " special " circle in time and finances. > > > > How many on this list would be practitioners if it was a _true_ > full time 4-6 year program > > costing $100K a year like western medical school? How many people > here would consider > > themselves good practitioners that did 2-3 years in the evenings > and weekends or > > apprenticeships? > > > > Like western medicine, it is what you do and study after you > graduate that makes the > > difference in what sort of practitioner you become. > > > > Sorry, money factors in, but it is not everything. > > > > David Botton > > > Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Mail. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2007 Report Share Posted March 17, 2007 'So those of you who read and don't post, (not picking on anyone in particular here) think of how you represent the dignity of profession as a whole when you choose a certain course of action. " So I'm not really sure what you meant by this, Gabrielle. I mostly read the posts and learn, as I have only been in practice a year and a half. Much of the conversation in this group is way over my head and I don't feel capable of adding to the conversation, except to ask questions of those who are more experienced with herbs and acupuncture than I am. And yes, I do see a lot of problems with the profession and my ability to grow my practice, but again, as a newcomer, I am learning as I go along. I am trying to do my best, with integrity. I wholeheartedly share your " shock " and disapproval of the grocery store selling of Chinese herbs. They (Chinese herbs) can do so much harm without proper diagnosis and treatment and follow-up. And as a practicing naturopath as well as an LAc and a Chinese herbalist, I compete daily with the sale of supplements everywhere and some not of very good quality and then patients saying " oh, I tried that and it didn't work " or good quality and the bulk, national chains giving deep discounts. The other potential problem going forward is what we saw with ma huang and it's use and misuse when the public was allowed to purchase on the open market. Will we see other herbs or formulas pulled from our shelves because of patients injury? In the meantime, IMVHO, we need to be good practitioners as well as good business persons and sometimes stay one step ahead of the latest evolution in marketing (for better or worse) and do it with dignity and integrity. Although I currently use patent teapills, which has been the easiest way to get my practice up and running, I am certainly thinking now more seriously about custom formulating and providing a service added rather than competing with the store shelves. Meredith Young, LAc, MSOM, ND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2007 Report Share Posted March 17, 2007 Hi Attilio and all, I'm not sure what you are referring to, perhaps my comment that a discussion on herb toxicity is warranted? Maybe what should be clarified is " pattern entanglement through innapropriate treatment " versus " toxicity caused by herbs " . I believe the former is common and the latter is very uncommon and tends to occur in exceptional circumstances, such as in the treatment of dangerously feeble patients, and in the case of completely improper application of herbs. Having said that, I don't have my nieces visit my home without making sure all herbs are away and inaccessible, fu zi in particular, and without the girls either understanding (if they're old enough) that nothing is to go in their mouths or providing them with total supervision. We are in the position of having to do a lot of really delicate education to protect our profession. I'm not sure how to " admit " that herbs are dangerous in _some_ instances without at the same time capitulating to the forces which would like to have our profession put in a stranglehold. Hugo <attiliodalberto Hugh, I don't think that's strictly true. As we all know, Long Dan Xie Gan Wan traditionally has Mu Tong in it. This herb was banned not because it was necessarily toxic, but because the common name 'Mu Tong' was used to describe different species, some of which were toxic, whilst others weren't. At least, that's what the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) are saying. > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " David Botton " > <david@> wrote: > > > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > > > That is not a fair statement it is not just about money, it is also > the fact the many do not > > agree that there is an inherent " danger " from patents and other OTC > herbs and actually > > welcome the fact that they are becoming more available OTC. (has > any one bothered to > > mention how much Long Dan Xie Gan Tang it takes to get to the point > of kidney damage... > > > > I can assure you that if enough people falsely scream " danger " in > the theater, you won't > > have a single patent on your shelf to hand to customers years from > now, you are not going > > to see the US make them available to practitioners of TCM, you will > see them not available > > at all or only from pharmaceuticals to MDs. > > > > OTC chinese patents of better quality like Plum Flower and other > brands are important to > > displace the lesser quality and cheaper Chinese equivalents that > pose a threat to the > > industry for their potential contaminants and lack of results. > > > > The solution is for us to become better practitioners to > differentiate our herbal practice > > from the herbal aspirin at whole foods markets. > > > > > You might ask this question of those entities who have kept this > profession > > > in the trade-school domain. > > > The answer is that there's bundles of money at stake. > > > > TCM is not like western medicine and to learn the basics that will > prevent harming patients > > (the reason licensing exists!) and to offer them basic care, the > current requirements are > > already more than sufficient. So again, your statement is unfair. > Some people just feel that > > creating excessive professional regulation is the main way poor > practitioners stay in > > practice while trying to create a more exclusive market for > themselves. > > > > To be a superior practitioner of TCM takes many years beyond school > and the current idea > > of additional levels of training (doctorate programs, etc), perhaps > some future training for > > specialization, etc. are all positive. Creating a false air that > people need more education > > than necessary to _begin_ practice again will only make it more > difficult to justify to > > western minds and governments that there should be any TCM > practitioners that are not > > MDs first or at the very least limit the profession to a select > group of people that can > > afford to enter that " special " circle in time and finances. > > > > How many on this list would be practitioners if it was a _true_ > full time 4-6 year program > > costing $100K a year like western medical school? How many people > here would consider > > themselves good practitioners that did 2-3 years in the evenings > and weekends or > > apprenticeships? > > > > Like western medicine, it is what you do and study after you > graduate that makes the > > difference in what sort of practitioner you become. > > > > Sorry, money factors in, but it is not everything. > > > > David Botton > > > > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- --- > Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Mail. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 << For me I am frustrated by self-medication on the basis of entangling patterns.>> No one supports or thinks it is positive for people to self medicate in almost all cases. The issue is a disagreement as if to " force " people to not self medicate or " educate " them not to. Abuse of even " water " is dangerous, but inherent danger in any herb or formula is not there and therefor we have to be responsible not to introduce false claims of danger with the mistaken notion that government regulation of herbs is some how going to help our field or our patients. This thread began with people outraged at the retail sales of the same herb product they are using and as such making it easier for their patients to both circumvent purchasing the herbs from the practitioner and also the possibility that a patient will just " reorder " with out taking in to account that ones pattern changes over time. In both cases there are clear cut easy solutions to these problems, some at the branch (packaging, etc.) some at the root (fine tuning ones ability to create custom formulas and prescribing them). As a group we need to work ultimately not at trying to " control " the market, but rather increasing the level of education of our market and ourselves. Now that solves problems. David Botton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 If time-tested Chinese formulas in classic form are considered dangerous enough to keep off the OTC shelves, what about all of the other " dietary and food " category products (nutraceuticals, vitamins, western herbal teas, water! ) that are sold everywhere? There would have to be a re-classification of these Chinese formulas (in pill, tablet, capsule, tincture, tea, powder form) out of " dietary and food " products, into " drug " status, which would be heavily regulated by the federal agencies, just like pharmaceuticals. Instead, what about having industrial standards for herbal purity and a third-party private organization (could be a branch of a major acupuncture association) which monitors honesty in advertising and transparency in product description and educates acupuncturists about this ? Also, in principle, there is a difference between having classic time-tested formulas sold OTC and " patents " that have been designed by a contemporary herbalist being sold to the general public. In the former, there is a tradition of using these formulas for centuries in the precise proportions that have become standard. In the latter, there is more a sense of experimentation of a product on to the public. My opinion is that herbs that have ephedrine content, such as ma huang or have aristocholic acid content, such as guang fang ji (not han fang ji) or herbs that are potentially dangerous in large doses, or during pregnancy or might be used for long durations, such as fu zi, should not be sold sold to the general public without a prescription diagnosed by a licensed physician. For the most part, the FDA already keeps a tight lid on some of the bigger companies distribution of these said herbs. Interestingly, it's the knock-offs (counterfeits) and some of the smaller companies that don't do any testing and are not GMP certified, that the acupuncture community should be wary of. There are some good articles you can read about adulterants and unlabeled chemicals inside some Chinese patents... http://home.caregroup.org/clinical/altmed/interactions/Herb_Groups/Adulteration_\ an.htm Especially read this: The California Department of Health Services, Food and Drug Branch, initiated a study to screen imported Asian patent medicines for undeclared pharmaceuticals and heavy-metal contamination, using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and atomic-absorption methods. Our objectives were to establish a computer data base for these products; educate the public, the herbal industry, and the medical community about the potential danger of Asian patent medicines; and provide objective information about toxicity. Of 260 Asian patent medicines that have been collected from California retail herbal stores, 14 had labels that declared pharmaceutical ingredients, and 3 had insufficient sample amounts. Of the remaining 243 products, 17 (7 percent) contained undeclared pharmaceuticals. The most common undeclared ingredients were ephedrine, chlorpheniramine, methyltestosterone, and phenacetin. A total of 251 products were analyzed for lead, arsenic, and mercury; 9 other samples, including the 3 noted above, were insufficient for this analysis. Twenty-four products contained lead in a quantity of at least 10 parts per million (ppm) (range, 10 to 319; median, 29.8; mean, 54.9). Thirty-six products contained arsenic (range, 20.4 to 114,000 ppm; median, 180.5; mean, 14,553). Thirty-five products contained mercury (range, 22.4 to 5070 ppm; median, 329; mean, 1046); 2 of the 35 had labels that identified only pharmaceutical ingredients. The United States Pharmacopoeia limits heavy metals in most oral pharmaceuticals to 30 ppm, with lower limits for lead, arsenic, and mercury. Of the 260 products we investigated, at least 83 (32 percent) contained undeclared pharmaceuticals or heavy metals, and 23 had more than one adulterant. The remaining products, which contained no detectable adulterants, cannot be assumed to be safe and free of toxic ingredients, in view of their batch-to-batch inconsistency, as well as limitations in our detection methods. source: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/fdb/HTML/drug/nejmlet.htm and what about this... Western Drugs in Patent Medicines Western drugs are present in some patent formulas made in China, and this is not always indicated on the label. A well-known case is a variety of Yin Chiao tablet ( " superior quality-sugar coated " ) from Tianjin, which includes an analgesic and an antihistamine (it also has caffeine added). Many practitioners and consumers are not familiar with the ingredient labeling of herbs and drug ingredients, and therefore may not realize that a drug is present in a Chinese product sold in a Chinese herb shop. Although it is illegal to import such materials for sale in the U.S., they have found their way into several Chinatown shops. A product manufactured in Hong Kong, Nanlian Chuifong Tokou Wan contains a number of Western drugs, while the labeling claims the product to be free of drugs. It was discovered by the FDA after drug side effects (including a fatality) occurred, probably as a result of taking the product along with prescription drugs. This product had been repackaged under labels such as Black Pearls and San Kee, and remained available for several years. The product is illegal in Hong Kong as well as in other countries. Continued claims that the product, under a growing number of names, does not contain drugs had been investigated in Texas: those claims were unsupported. Similarly, Western drugs are used in Vine Essence Pills, and some other arthritis patents, in An Mien Pian (for insomnia), Seven Flower Pills (for hypertension), and Pe Men Kan Wan (for sinusitis), to name a few. Recently, in England, a Chinese doctor was prescribing what were described as all natural Chinese herbal weight loss pills. These caused serious adverse effects that were traced to its inclusion of the now banned drug fenfluramine. Mayway Trading Company had several dozen commonly-used patents tested for Western drugs in 1997. Drugs were found in numerous remedies, especially those for treating common cold, influenza, sinus congestion, and other acute disorders. Typical drug additives were antipyretics ( e.g., aspirin and acetaminophen), antihistamines, and antibiotics. The products were not labeled to indicate that they contain drugs. Mayway switched supply for its patents, and relies either on a well-controlled factory in Lanzhou or its own new factory established to help avoid problems such as contamination with undesired ingredients. All companies that claim testing and control of imported Chinese patents that they sell should be questioned carefully to make sure that those claims are supported by evidence. source: http://www.itmonline.org/arts/cleanhrb.htm I'm adding material from a previous letter I sent to this group in support of education on this subject. " There are a few questions I think we should ask every herb company before we dispense their products to our patients: For instance, Do they do third party lab tests, testing for heavy metals, preservatives, molds and pesticides? If not, why not? If they claim to be " organic " , are they " Certified Organic " ? There are two levels here, " organically grown " and " organically processed " Organically grown is what you want, anyone can send their raw products to a " organic processor " , get them washed with clean water and sun-dried and get a " organically processed " label. Who is the " Organic certifier " ? Then, there is the GMP certification, Good Manufacturing Practices sticker, which is the gold standard for International Heavy Metals limit on products and clean facilities/manufacturing. If a company has the GMP certification (not just processed in GMP conditions) than the heavy metal counts on the herbs (mercury,cadmium,lead, and arsenic) are below USDA standards and are deemed " safe " at least according to the assumed industry standards (which do not legally exist). Does the company have GMP Certification? Between, third party lab tests, Organic certification and GMP certification, if the company meets at least two of these, then I personally would trust at least the purity of their herbs. Of course, species identification and regions grown, as well as the farms (soil, water, air, seed), farmers who tend to the former, and preservation methods are all important. There are a few reliable companies in the U.S. Subbhuti Dharmananda wrote an informative article that is a must read: http://www.itmonline.org/arts/cleanhrb.htm " Hope this helps, k. On 3/17/07, David Botton <david wrote: > > << For me I am frustrated by self-medication on the basis of entangling > patterns.>> > > No one supports or thinks it is positive for people to self medicate in > almost all cases. The > issue is a disagreement as if to " force " people to not self medicate or > " educate " them not > to. > > Abuse of even " water " is dangerous, but inherent danger in any herb or > formula is not > there and therefor we have to be responsible not to introduce false claims > of danger with > the mistaken notion that government regulation of herbs is some how going > to help our > field or our patients. > > This thread began with people outraged at the retail sales of the same > herb product they > are using and as such making it easier for their patients to both > circumvent purchasing the > herbs from the practitioner and also the possibility that a patient will > just " reorder " with > out taking in to account that ones pattern changes over time. > > In both cases there are clear cut easy solutions to these problems, some > at the branch > (packaging, etc.) some at the root (fine tuning ones ability to create > custom formulas and > prescribing them). > > As a group we need to work ultimately not at trying to " control " the > market, but rather > increasing the level of education of our market and ourselves. Now that > solves problems. > > David Botton > > > -- 'Freedom from the desire for an answer is essential to the understanding of a problem.' Jiddu Krishnamurti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 David: Your arguments are good and I just want to make a case that probably most of us are familar with. A few years ago, the herb co in California was selling an herb for prostate cancer. Eventually they started lacing it with pharmaceticals (that were banned in the U.S.) Now this was a herb company that people and doctors trusted. Well, when the story broke, it was all over the Washington Post. One of their indepth stories starting on the front right page and going into a full page on the front section (and more as I recall.) The story of the company, it's success, doctor's endorsements, and their alleged lacing which led to the death of a patient. I remember reading evey word of the story, and coming away feeling a lot of distrust of herbs has just been transmitted to the public. Nothing positive at the end. A friend of mine's wife was recovering( probably a year or 2 out) from breast cancer and taking all kinds of meds that were draining her energy. One day she ran off the road coming home from work because she was so sleepy. I was trying to get them to go to an herbalist who makes custom formulas. After she read that article, she would have nothing to do with it. (She is from a Western Med family). Another patient came in to see me with severe sciatica. I treated him with acupuncture and wanted to give him a patent herb. He could not even sit down because of the pain. He was very distrusting of the herbs. I just wanted to move his pain faster. He evenutally stopped coming because I may have pushed them too much. I guess what I am getting at here, is I don't want to fuel the fire any more on herbs. People can go to a Health food store and buy Western herbs. I would like the Chinese herbs more controlled (through practitoners - not on the internet or health food store where good advice may not be available. Anne -------------- Original message ---------------------- " David Botton " <david > << For me I am frustrated by self-medication on the basis of entangling > patterns.>> > > No one supports or thinks it is positive for people to self medicate in almost > all cases. The > issue is a disagreement as if to " force " people to not self medicate or > " educate " them not > to. > > Abuse of even " water " is dangerous, but inherent danger in any herb or formula > is not > there and therefor we have to be responsible not to introduce false claims of > danger with > the mistaken notion that government regulation of herbs is some how going to > help our > field or our patients. > > This thread began with people outraged at the retail sales of the same herb > product they > are using and as such making it easier for their patients to both circumvent > purchasing the > herbs from the practitioner and also the possibility that a patient will just > " reorder " with > out taking in to account that ones pattern changes over time. > > In both cases there are clear cut easy solutions to these problems, some at the > branch > (packaging, etc.) some at the root (fine tuning ones ability to create custom > formulas and > prescribing them). > > As a group we need to work ultimately not at trying to " control " the market, but > rather > increasing the level of education of our market and ourselves. Now that solves > problems. > > David Botton > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 there is one thing people are missing here. If a chinese or any other herb is unsafe for OTC, then as far as the FDA it is unsafe for any use. Herbs are not drugs and the FDA has zero tolerance for any danger for any food supplement. If we are to make them a drug then we would have to go through drug approval something that would basically make chinese medicine unavailable to all of us. The only choice anyone has is to vote with their cash and buy from companies that do not sell to public. Saying it is dangerous to have any chinese herb OTC could cost us excess to this therapy. - Chinese Medicine Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:17 AM Re: Re: Herb sales and OTC If time-tested Chinese formulas in classic form are considered dangerous enough to keep off the OTC shelves, what about all of the other " dietary and food " category products (nutraceuticals, vitamins, western herbal teas, water! ) that are sold everywhere? There would have to be a re-classification of these Chinese formulas (in pill, tablet, capsule, tincture, tea, powder form) out of " dietary and food " products, into " drug " status, which would be heavily regulated by the federal agencies, just like pharmaceuticals. Instead, what about having industrial standards for herbal purity and a third-party private organization (could be a branch of a major acupuncture association) which monitors honesty in advertising and transparency in product description and educates acupuncturists about this ? Also, in principle, there is a difference between having classic time-tested formulas sold OTC and " patents " that have been designed by a contemporary herbalist being sold to the general public. In the former, there is a tradition of using these formulas for centuries in the precise proportions that have become standard. In the latter, there is more a sense of experimentation of a product on to the public. My opinion is that herbs that have ephedrine content, such as ma huang or have aristocholic acid content, such as guang fang ji (not han fang ji) or herbs that are potentially dangerous in large doses, or during pregnancy or might be used for long durations, such as fu zi, should not be sold sold to the general public without a prescription diagnosed by a licensed physician. For the most part, the FDA already keeps a tight lid on some of the bigger companies distribution of these said herbs. Interestingly, it's the knock-offs (counterfeits) and some of the smaller companies that don't do any testing and are not GMP certified, that the acupuncture community should be wary of. There are some good articles you can read about adulterants and unlabeled chemicals inside some Chinese patents... http://home.caregroup.org/clinical/altmed/interactions/Herb_Groups/Adulteration_\ an.htm Especially read this: The California Department of Health Services, Food and Drug Branch, initiated a study to screen imported Asian patent medicines for undeclared pharmaceuticals and heavy-metal contamination, using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and atomic-absorption methods. Our objectives were to establish a computer data base for these products; educate the public, the herbal industry, and the medical community about the potential danger of Asian patent medicines; and provide objective information about toxicity. Of 260 Asian patent medicines that have been collected from California retail herbal stores, 14 had labels that declared pharmaceutical ingredients, and 3 had insufficient sample amounts. Of the remaining 243 products, 17 (7 percent) contained undeclared pharmaceuticals. The most common undeclared ingredients were ephedrine, chlorpheniramine, methyltestosterone, and phenacetin. A total of 251 products were analyzed for lead, arsenic, and mercury; 9 other samples, including the 3 noted above, were insufficient for this analysis. Twenty-four products contained lead in a quantity of at least 10 parts per million (ppm) (range, 10 to 319; median, 29.8; mean, 54.9). Thirty-six products contained arsenic (range, 20.4 to 114,000 ppm; median, 180.5; mean, 14,553). Thirty-five products contained mercury (range, 22.4 to 5070 ppm; median, 329; mean, 1046); 2 of the 35 had labels that identified only pharmaceutical ingredients. The United States Pharmacopoeia limits heavy metals in most oral pharmaceuticals to 30 ppm, with lower limits for lead, arsenic, and mercury. Of the 260 products we investigated, at least 83 (32 percent) contained undeclared pharmaceuticals or heavy metals, and 23 had more than one adulterant. The remaining products, which contained no detectable adulterants, cannot be assumed to be safe and free of toxic ingredients, in view of their batch-to-batch inconsistency, as well as limitations in our detection methods. source: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/fdb/HTML/drug/nejmlet.htm and what about this... Western Drugs in Patent Medicines Western drugs are present in some patent formulas made in China, and this is not always indicated on the label. A well-known case is a variety of Yin Chiao tablet ( " superior quality-sugar coated " ) from Tianjin, which includes an analgesic and an antihistamine (it also has caffeine added). Many practitioners and consumers are not familiar with the ingredient labeling of herbs and drug ingredients, and therefore may not realize that a drug is present in a Chinese product sold in a Chinese herb shop. Although it is illegal to import such materials for sale in the U.S., they have found their way into several Chinatown shops. A product manufactured in Hong Kong, Nanlian Chuifong Tokou Wan contains a number of Western drugs, while the labeling claims the product to be free of drugs. It was discovered by the FDA after drug side effects (including a fatality) occurred, probably as a result of taking the product along with prescription drugs. This product had been repackaged under labels such as Black Pearls and San Kee, and remained available for several years. The product is illegal in Hong Kong as well as in other countries. Continued claims that the product, under a growing number of names, does not contain drugs had been investigated in Texas: those claims were unsupported. Similarly, Western drugs are used in Vine Essence Pills, and some other arthritis patents, in An Mien Pian (for insomnia), Seven Flower Pills (for hypertension), and Pe Men Kan Wan (for sinusitis), to name a few. Recently, in England, a Chinese doctor was prescribing what were described as all natural Chinese herbal weight loss pills. These caused serious adverse effects that were traced to its inclusion of the now banned drug fenfluramine. Mayway Trading Company had several dozen commonly-used patents tested for Western drugs in 1997. Drugs were found in numerous remedies, especially those for treating common cold, influenza, sinus congestion, and other acute disorders. Typical drug additives were antipyretics ( e.g., aspirin and acetaminophen), antihistamines, and antibiotics. The products were not labeled to indicate that they contain drugs. Mayway switched supply for its patents, and relies either on a well-controlled factory in Lanzhou or its own new factory established to help avoid problems such as contamination with undesired ingredients. All companies that claim testing and control of imported Chinese patents that they sell should be questioned carefully to make sure that those claims are supported by evidence. source: http://www.itmonline.org/arts/cleanhrb.htm I'm adding material from a previous letter I sent to this group in support of education on this subject. " There are a few questions I think we should ask every herb company before we dispense their products to our patients: For instance, Do they do third party lab tests, testing for heavy metals, preservatives, molds and pesticides? If not, why not? If they claim to be " organic " , are they " Certified Organic " ? There are two levels here, " organically grown " and " organically processed " Organically grown is what you want, anyone can send their raw products to a " organic processor " , get them washed with clean water and sun-dried and get a " organically processed " label. Who is the " Organic certifier " ? Then, there is the GMP certification, Good Manufacturing Practices sticker, which is the gold standard for International Heavy Metals limit on products and clean facilities/manufacturing. If a company has the GMP certification (not just processed in GMP conditions) than the heavy metal counts on the herbs (mercury,cadmium,lead, and arsenic) are below USDA standards and are deemed " safe " at least according to the assumed industry standards (which do not legally exist). Does the company have GMP Certification? Between, third party lab tests, Organic certification and GMP certification, if the company meets at least two of these, then I personally would trust at least the purity of their herbs. Of course, species identification and regions grown, as well as the farms (soil, water, air, seed), farmers who tend to the former, and preservation methods are all important. There are a few reliable companies in the U.S. Subbhuti Dharmananda wrote an informative article that is a must read: http://www.itmonline.org/arts/cleanhrb.htm " Hope this helps, k. On 3/17/07, David Botton <david wrote: > > << For me I am frustrated by self-medication on the basis of entangling > patterns.>> > > No one supports or thinks it is positive for people to self medicate in > almost all cases. The > issue is a disagreement as if to " force " people to not self medicate or > " educate " them not > to. > > Abuse of even " water " is dangerous, but inherent danger in any herb or > formula is not > there and therefor we have to be responsible not to introduce false claims > of danger with > the mistaken notion that government regulation of herbs is some how going > to help our > field or our patients. > > This thread began with people outraged at the retail sales of the same > herb product they > are using and as such making it easier for their patients to both > circumvent purchasing the > herbs from the practitioner and also the possibility that a patient will > just " reorder " with > out taking in to account that ones pattern changes over time. > > In both cases there are clear cut easy solutions to these problems, some > at the branch > (packaging, etc.) some at the root (fine tuning ones ability to create > custom formulas and > prescribing them). > > As a group we need to work ultimately not at trying to " control " the > market, but rather > increasing the level of education of our market and ourselves. Now that > solves problems. > > David Botton > > > -- 'Freedom from the desire for an answer is essential to the understanding of a problem.' Jiddu Krishnamurti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Chinese Medicine , " natdoc48 " <natdoc48 wrote: > So I'm not really sure what you meant by this, Gabrielle. when I wrote- > 'So those of you who read and don't post, (not picking on anyone in > particular here) thinkof how you represent the dignity of profession as a whole when you > choose a certain course of action. " > It encompasses a range of behavior, including needling at health fairs (I think since chiropracters don't give adjustments at health fairs and MD's don't perform procedures, it is kind of wierd for us to do 'mini-treatments " but nevertheless, not everyone agrees), not having a cancellation policy, spending hours with the patient not because they need it but because you have nothing else to do (they pick up on this), discounting a treatment because someone seems hesitant to come in-stuff I've been tempted to do. And I am comfortable with things others might consider unprofessional-although I never wear jeans I do treat in a residential office and I let my friendly dog greet some of my patients. I don't like stuffiness but I always expect my patients to respect me as a professional, and if I approached them in the aisle of the natural foods store stocked with patents and offerred them some suggestions, I would not feel as if I was honoring my training. I used to be a clerk in a natural food stores in 1980 and that, to my mind, was quite a different experience from the one I choose now. Gabrielle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Chinese Medicine , " David Botton " <david wrote: > No one supports or thinks it is positive for people to self medicate in almost all cases. The > issue is a disagreement as if to " force " people to not self medicate or " educate " them not > to. > David, My point was actually that is was not the store owner or the company that had created public access to the formulas, but rather the acupuncturist himself, who works there as some type of employee. I'm not saying he is doing something dangerous, just maybe his perceptions of how our medicine is used are different from many members of this group. I would hate to see this become a common practice at health food stores. (unless they give the acupuncturist an office and signage) Gabrielle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.