FoxNews.com Acupuncture Allergy Article Link - and critique

[Guest guest]

Good news, excellent article. On several fronts,

alternative and AOM practice is surging into

mainstream media in recent months. As in the

magazine " Alternative Medicine " , and the hardcopy

edition from Acufinder. What this means,

basicially, is that financial interests are

betting that there's money to be made in this

direction. And there's a growing market for A/OM

articles, i.e. career opportunities for those in

our field on the media side per se, as well as a

means of PR for practice building. One open

question has to do with how we manage ourselves

to survive what might well turn out to be a media fad.

 

As our field becomes more well known, I find it

increasingly disturbing that people in the field

continue to cling to, and voice publicly the

various mythic beliefs, especially as to

historical origins, that we've been indoctrinated

in through TCM education, i.e. according to a

culture-bound Chinese sense of mythic history. As

Unschuld points out (page 1 of his 2003

introductory work on the SuWen) scholars in China

and elsewhere recognize, for instance, that the

NeiJing wasn't written 5000 years ago by the

legendary HuangDi. But in the official and

popular mind (in China and in the West), such mythic ideas persist.

 

I am taking this opportunity to launch a campaign

I've been contemplating, to actively promote the

de-mythologisation of AOM. The more I learn about

the concrete history of the medicine, and the

clinical relevance found in the study and

interpretation of the actual historical

information, the more I feel that naïve mythic

assumptions we've been taught are disposable, are

in fact a liability. Based in the genuine

historical facts, and a better understanding of

the medicine itself, the medicine becomes even

more convincing and demonstrable on its own.

 

As an example, the following from Dr. Manny Alvarez' article:

 

" Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine,

was a firm believer in the body's ability to heal

itself, saying, " the natural healing force within

each of us is the greatest force in getting well. "

But long before Hippocrates, the ancient Chinese

were already practicing what he would later

preach, through the art of acupuncture. "

 

Hippocrates produced an extensive corpus of

organized medical writings several centuries

before any comparable substantial and coherent

documents emerged in China. (See Unschuld, and

especially Harper on MaWangDui and other early

manuscripts.) And there's no historical evidence,

rather evidence to the contrary, that documents

genuine acupuncture until at least 300 years

after Hippocrates. There's no basis for the claim

the above claim other than (both " ancient " and

modern) folklore. That does not mean Hippocratic

(essentially naturopathic) medicine is any better

than Han (suwen, shanghanlun) medicine (or vice versa).

 

Acupuncture, as a medical art, is documented to

be ca. 2100 years old. And the overall medicine

in the specific form we are taught and, largely,

practice it dates from roughly the 16th to 18th

centuries (and as radically reframed in the

mid-20th century). There's nothing, other than

culture-bound mythos, to establish CM as 5000

years old, or even 4000 or 3000. All traces up to

the late Zhou are primitive and comparable to

what's found in other cultures. There are, for

instance, extensive artifacts of Egyptian

medicine dated reliably to 5000 years ago (but

not much of a theoretical corpus to make it

interesting). This does not mean that acupuncture

is any less effective or applicable in the present age.

 

Is it essential to our sense of self-worth in

A/OM to believe it's better because it's older?

 

It's just a matter of reframing without the pretense.

 

" With seasonal allergies torturing one-third of

Americans, ancient acupuncture can provide a new kind of relief. "

 

" Ancient " , as I've pointed out before, means (in

usages both Eastern and Western) from prior

generations, i.e. 3rd Century CE, or 18th Century

CE. What we in fact do is a modern

interpretation, conditioned by our understanding

of historical precedents as well as the

challenges of our times (e.g. epidemic,

environmental allergies). Adapting to the

present, just like they (the " ancient masters " )

were doing in any particular era in the history of CM.

 

Another example: Maciocia's ancedote (in the

preface to his first big book), that someone in

the clinic down the street today is getting

similar treatment as a peasant farmer women in

China ca. 150 BCE. is simply embarrassing. For

most of its first two millennia, zhen-jiu was a

medicine of the elite classes. The medicine for

ca. 95+% of all Chinese who ever lived (prior to

the 20th Century) was herbal, and largely village/family based.

 

We don't need the historical mythos to be

convincing, and, when, as is inevitable, the

historical realities become more commonly known,

we needn't be scrambling for damage-control of our credibility.

 

Undoubtedly more to follow…

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release 4/7/2007 10:57 PM

[Guest guest]

Chris...

 

Respectfully, while I can certainly appreciate your historical view I think

what matters most is honing our skills to effectively treat and relieve dis-ease

for the millions of people globally who cannot afford increasingly out of reach

allopathic care. We are all painfully aware of the enormous crisis in healthcare

and Big Pharma. (Bayer is now making 'vitamins'!)

 

One of the fascinating things about history is the Eurocentric view

presupposes nothing exists of value unless there is written documentation. Huge

mistake. The oral tradition persisted for millenia globally and still does in

many parts of the planet where respect for learning through apprenticeship still

obtains. From my humble stool, it matters not the historical polemics about

origination - who, what, when, where, why - so I leave that up to the medical

academics and historians who reside outside the treatment room.

 

As a former journalist, I do concur wholeheartedly more of us ought to be

using our skills to publicly engage in promoting the profound ways in which

can impact on public health at a fraction of the cost of

allopathic care. Personally, I like a little mythology now and then, thus I

have no objection to the collection of myths in the Bible, Koran, Gita, Dao,

etc.

 

 

< wrote:

Good news, excellent article. On several fronts,

alternative and AOM practice is surging into

mainstream media in recent months. As in the

magazine " Alternative Medicine " , and the hardcopy

edition from Acufinder. What this means,

basicially, is that financial interests are

betting that there's money to be made in this

direction. And there's a growing market for A/OM

articles, i.e. career opportunities for those in

our field on the media side per se, as well as a

means of PR for practice building. One open

question has to do with how we manage ourselves

to survive what might well turn out to be a media fad.

 

As our field becomes more well known, I find it

increasingly disturbing that people in the field

continue to cling to, and voice publicly the

various mythic beliefs, especially as to

historical origins, that we've been indoctrinated

in through TCM education, i.e. according to a

culture-bound Chinese sense of mythic history. As

Unschuld points out (page 1 of his 2003

introductory work on the SuWen) scholars in China

and elsewhere recognize, for instance, that the

NeiJing wasn't written 5000 years ago by the

legendary HuangDi. But in the official and

popular mind (in China and in the West), such mythic ideas persist.

 

I am taking this opportunity to launch a campaign

I've been contemplating, to actively promote the

de-mythologisation of AOM. The more I learn about

the concrete history of the medicine, and the

clinical relevance found in the study and

interpretation of the actual historical

information, the more I feel that naïve mythic

assumptions we've been taught are disposable, are

in fact a liability. Based in the genuine

historical facts, and a better understanding of

the medicine itself, the medicine becomes even

more convincing and demonstrable on its own.

 

As an example, the following from Dr. Manny Alvarez' article:

 

" Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine,

was a firm believer in the body's ability to heal

itself, saying, " the natural healing force within

each of us is the greatest force in getting well. "

But long before Hippocrates, the ancient Chinese

were already practicing what he would later

preach, through the art of acupuncture. "

 

Hippocrates produced an extensive corpus of

organized medical writings several centuries

before any comparable substantial and coherent

documents emerged in China. (See Unschuld, and

especially Harper on MaWangDui and other early

manuscripts.) And there's no historical evidence,

rather evidence to the contrary, that documents

genuine acupuncture until at least 300 years

after Hippocrates. There's no basis for the claim

the above claim other than (both " ancient " and

modern) folklore. That does not mean Hippocratic

(essentially naturopathic) medicine is any better

than Han (suwen, shanghanlun) medicine (or vice versa).

 

Acupuncture, as a medical art, is documented to

be ca. 2100 years old. And the overall medicine

in the specific form we are taught and, largely,

practice it dates from roughly the 16th to 18th

centuries (and as radically reframed in the

mid-20th century). There's nothing, other than

culture-bound mythos, to establish CM as 5000

years old, or even 4000 or 3000. All traces up to

the late Zhou are primitive and comparable to

what's found in other cultures. There are, for

instance, extensive artifacts of Egyptian

medicine dated reliably to 5000 years ago (but

not much of a theoretical corpus to make it

interesting). This does not mean that acupuncture

is any less effective or applicable in the present age.

 

Is it essential to our sense of self-worth in

A/OM to believe it's better because it's older?

 

It's just a matter of reframing without the pretense.

 

" With seasonal allergies torturing one-third of

Americans, ancient acupuncture can provide a new kind of relief. "

 

" Ancient " , as I've pointed out before, means (in

usages both Eastern and Western) from prior

generations, i.e. 3rd Century CE, or 18th Century

CE. What we in fact do is a modern

interpretation, conditioned by our understanding

of historical precedents as well as the

challenges of our times (e.g. epidemic,

environmental allergies). Adapting to the

present, just like they (the " ancient masters " )

were doing in any particular era in the history of CM.

 

Another example: Maciocia's ancedote (in the

preface to his first big book), that someone in

the clinic down the street today is getting

similar treatment as a peasant farmer women in

China ca. 150 BCE. is simply embarrassing. For

most of its first two millennia, zhen-jiu was a

medicine of the elite classes. The medicine for

ca. 95+% of all Chinese who ever lived (prior to

the 20th Century) was herbal, and largely village/family based.

 

We don't need the historical mythos to be

convincing, and, when, as is inevitable, the

historical realities become more commonly known,

we needn't be scrambling for damage-control of our credibility.

 

Undoubtedly more to follow…

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release 4/7/2007 10:57 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get your own web address.

Have a HUGE year through Small Business.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Twyla and Chris...

Things look a little different from where I sit (the floor). I am sorely

lacking in academic knowledge and I can't really argue with Unschuld and the

likes...probably never will... what I can say, though, is that writing something

down is simply one way of transmitting information...and that our current habit

of writing things down " solidly " with " evidence " and " authority " is, from my

p.o.v., simply a reflection of our modern materialistic preoccupation with what

we presuppose to be a static, easily delineated (and therefore amenable to

written exposition) reality. As far as I am concerned, writing is a fairly dead

way of recording events that - /perhaps/ - obcures an essential " plasticity " of

reality. Cultures who placed importance on verbal tradition, throughout the

world, have very interesting opinions on this topic - essentially why writing

things down can be deleterious to understanding our place in the world. As far

as I am concerned, this is a war to be waged

between the substantial and the insubstatial. As always.

Yin and Yang.

And anyway, no matter what we do, half of all people will be against us anyway.

Hugo

 

 

Twyla <twylahoodah

Chinese Medicine

Monday, 9 April, 2007 7:38:41 AM

Re: FoxNews.com Acupuncture Allergy Article Link - and critique

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris...

 

 

 

Respectfully, while I can certainly appreciate your historical view I think

what matters most is honing our skills to effectively treat and relieve dis-ease

for the millions of people globally who cannot afford increasingly out of reach

allopathic care. We are all painfully aware of the enormous crisis in healthcare

and Big Pharma. (Bayer is now making 'vitamins'!)

 

 

 

One of the fascinating things about history is the Eurocentric view

presupposes nothing exists of value unless there is written documentation. Huge

mistake. The oral tradition persisted for millenia globally and still does in

many parts of the planet where respect for learning through apprenticeship still

obtains. From my humble stool, it matters not the historical polemics about

origination - who, what, when, where, why - so I leave that up to the medical

academics and historians who reside outside the treatment room.

 

 

 

As a former journalist, I do concur wholeheartedly more of us ought to be

using our skills to publicly engage in promoting the profound ways in which

can impact on public health at a fraction of the cost of

allopathic care. Personally, I like a little mythology now and then, thus I

have no objection to the collection of myths in the Bible, Koran, Gita, Dao,

etc.

 

 

 

 

 

< (AT) well (DOT) com> wrote:

 

Good news, excellent article. On several fronts,

 

alternative and AOM practice is surging into

 

mainstream media in recent months. As in the

 

magazine " Alternative Medicine " , and the hardcopy

 

edition from Acufinder. What this means,

 

basicially, is that financial interests are

 

betting that there's money to be made in this

 

direction. And there's a growing market for A/OM

 

articles, i.e. career opportunities for those in

 

our field on the media side per se, as well as a

 

means of PR for practice building. One open

 

question has to do with how we manage ourselves

 

to survive what might well turn out to be a media fad.

 

 

 

As our field becomes more well known, I find it

 

increasingly disturbing that people in the field

 

continue to cling to, and voice publicly the

 

various mythic beliefs, especially as to

 

historical origins, that we've been indoctrinated

 

in through TCM education, i.e. according to a

 

culture-bound Chinese sense of mythic history. As

 

Unschuld points out (page 1 of his 2003

 

introductory work on the SuWen) scholars in China

 

and elsewhere recognize, for instance, that the

 

NeiJing wasn't written 5000 years ago by the

 

legendary HuangDi. But in the official and

 

popular mind (in China and in the West), such mythic ideas persist.

 

 

 

I am taking this opportunity to launch a campaign

 

I've been contemplating, to actively promote the

 

de-mythologisation of AOM. The more I learn about

 

the concrete history of the medicine, and the

 

clinical relevance found in the study and

 

interpretation of the actual historical

 

information, the more I feel that naïve mythic

 

assumptions we've been taught are disposable, are

 

in fact a liability. Based in the genuine

 

historical facts, and a better understanding of

 

the medicine itself, the medicine becomes even

 

more convincing and demonstrable on its own.

 

 

 

As an example, the following from Dr. Manny Alvarez' article:

 

 

 

" Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine,

 

was a firm believer in the body's ability to heal

 

itself, saying, " the natural healing force within

 

each of us is the greatest force in getting well. "

 

But long before Hippocrates, the ancient Chinese

 

were already practicing what he would later

 

preach, through the art of acupuncture. "

 

 

 

Hippocrates produced an extensive corpus of

 

organized medical writings several centuries

 

before any comparable substantial and coherent

 

documents emerged in China. (See Unschuld, and

 

especially Harper on MaWangDui and other early

 

manuscripts. ) And there's no historical evidence,

 

rather evidence to the contrary, that documents

 

genuine acupuncture until at least 300 years

 

after Hippocrates. There's no basis for the claim

 

the above claim other than (both " ancient " and

 

modern) folklore. That does not mean Hippocratic

 

(essentially naturopathic) medicine is any better

 

than Han (suwen, shanghanlun) medicine (or vice versa).

 

 

 

Acupuncture, as a medical art, is documented to

 

be ca. 2100 years old. And the overall medicine

 

in the specific form we are taught and, largely,

 

practice it dates from roughly the 16th to 18th

 

centuries (and as radically reframed in the

 

mid-20th century). There's nothing, other than

 

culture-bound mythos, to establish CM as 5000

 

years old, or even 4000 or 3000. All traces up to

 

the late Zhou are primitive and comparable to

 

what's found in other cultures. There are, for

 

instance, extensive artifacts of Egyptian

 

medicine dated reliably to 5000 years ago (but

 

not much of a theoretical corpus to make it

 

interesting) . This does not mean that acupuncture

 

is any less effective or applicable in the present age.

 

 

 

Is it essential to our sense of self-worth in

 

A/OM to believe it's better because it's older?

 

 

 

It's just a matter of reframing without the pretense.

 

 

 

" With seasonal allergies torturing one-third of

 

Americans, ancient acupuncture can provide a new kind of relief. "

 

 

 

" Ancient " , as I've pointed out before, means (in

 

usages both Eastern and Western) from prior

 

generations, i.e. 3rd Century CE, or 18th Century

 

CE. What we in fact do is a modern

 

interpretation, conditioned by our understanding

 

of historical precedents as well as the

 

challenges of our times (e.g. epidemic,

 

environmental allergies). Adapting to the

 

present, just like they (the " ancient masters " )

 

were doing in any particular era in the history of CM.

 

 

 

Another example: Maciocia's ancedote (in the

 

preface to his first big book), that someone in

 

the clinic down the street today is getting

 

similar treatment as a peasant farmer women in

 

China ca. 150 BCE. is simply embarrassing. For

 

most of its first two millennia, zhen-jiu was a

 

medicine of the elite classes. The medicine for

 

ca. 95+% of all Chinese who ever lived (prior to

 

the 20th Century) was herbal, and largely village/family based.

 

 

 

We don't need the historical mythos to be

 

convincing, and, when, as is inevitable, the

 

historical realities become more commonly known,

 

we needn't be scrambling for damage-control of our credibility.

 

 

 

Undoubtedly more to follow…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

 

 

Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release 4/7/2007 10:57 PM

 

 

 

------------ --------- --------- ---

 

Get your own web address.

 

Have a HUGE year through Small Business.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Not only that, Han acupuncture clearly does not state that the body heals it

self, on the contrary, acupuncture intervention is called for at the earliest

evidence of imbalance.

 

Alon

 

 

< wrote:

Good news, excellent article. On several fronts,

alternative and AOM practice is surging into

mainstream media in recent months. As in the

magazine " Alternative Medicine " , and the hardcopy

edition from Acufinder. What this means,

basicially, is that financial interests are

betting that there's money to be made in this

direction. And there's a growing market for A/OM

articles, i.e. career opportunities for those in

our field on the media side per se, as well as a

means of PR for practice building. One open

question has to do with how we manage ourselves

to survive what might well turn out to be a media fad.

 

As our field becomes more well known, I find it

increasingly disturbing that people in the field

continue to cling to, and voice publicly the

various mythic beliefs, especially as to

historical origins, that we've been indoctrinated

in through TCM education, i.e. according to a

culture-bound Chinese sense of mythic history. As

Unschuld points out (page 1 of his 2003

introductory work on the SuWen) scholars in China

and elsewhere recognize, for instance, that the

NeiJing wasn't written 5000 years ago by the

legendary HuangDi. But in the official and

popular mind (in China and in the West), such mythic ideas persist.

 

I am taking this opportunity to launch a campaign

I've been contemplating, to actively promote the

de-mythologisation of AOM. The more I learn about

the concrete history of the medicine, and the

clinical relevance found in the study and

interpretation of the actual historical

information, the more I feel that naïve mythic

assumptions we've been taught are disposable, are

in fact a liability. Based in the genuine

historical facts, and a better understanding of

the medicine itself, the medicine becomes even

more convincing and demonstrable on its own.

 

As an example, the following from Dr. Manny Alvarez' article:

 

" Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine,

was a firm believer in the body's ability to heal

itself, saying, " the natural healing force within

each of us is the greatest force in getting well. "

But long before Hippocrates, the ancient Chinese

were already practicing what he would later

preach, through the art of acupuncture. "

 

Hippocrates produced an extensive corpus of

organized medical writings several centuries

before any comparable substantial and coherent

documents emerged in China. (See Unschuld, and

especially Harper on MaWangDui and other early

manuscripts.) And there's no historical evidence,

rather evidence to the contrary, that documents

genuine acupuncture until at least 300 years

after Hippocrates. There's no basis for the claim

the above claim other than (both " ancient " and

modern) folklore. That does not mean Hippocratic

(essentially naturopathic) medicine is any better

than Han (suwen, shanghanlun) medicine (or vice versa).

 

Acupuncture, as a medical art, is documented to

be ca. 2100 years old. And the overall medicine

in the specific form we are taught and, largely,

practice it dates from roughly the 16th to 18th

centuries (and as radically reframed in the

mid-20th century). There's nothing, other than

culture-bound mythos, to establish CM as 5000

years old, or even 4000 or 3000. All traces up to

the late Zhou are primitive and comparable to

what's found in other cultures. There are, for

instance, extensive artifacts of Egyptian

medicine dated reliably to 5000 years ago (but

not much of a theoretical corpus to make it

interesting). This does not mean that acupuncture

is any less effective or applicable in the present age.

 

Is it essential to our sense of self-worth in

A/OM to believe it's better because it's older?

 

It's just a matter of reframing without the pretense.

 

" With seasonal allergies torturing one-third of

Americans, ancient acupuncture can provide a new kind of relief. "

 

" Ancient " , as I've pointed out before, means (in

usages both Eastern and Western) from prior

generations, i.e. 3rd Century CE, or 18th Century

CE. What we in fact do is a modern

interpretation, conditioned by our understanding

of historical precedents as well as the

challenges of our times (e.g. epidemic,

environmental allergies). Adapting to the

present, just like they (the " ancient masters " )

were doing in any particular era in the history of CM.

 

Another example: Maciocia's ancedote (in the

preface to his first big book), that someone in

the clinic down the street today is getting

similar treatment as a peasant farmer women in

China ca. 150 BCE. is simply embarrassing. For

most of its first two millennia, zhen-jiu was a

medicine of the elite classes. The medicine for

ca. 95+% of all Chinese who ever lived (prior to

the 20th Century) was herbal, and largely village/family based.

 

We don't need the historical mythos to be

convincing, and, when, as is inevitable, the

historical realities become more commonly known,

we needn't be scrambling for damage-control of our credibility.

 

Undoubtedly more to follow…

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release 4/7/2007 10:57 PM