Introduction

[Guest guest]

Dave has asked an interesting question, but I would like to relate any

discussion of acupuncture to herbology. Please understand that one of

the purposes of this list is to establish a counterweight to the

disproportionate emphasis on acupuncture in professional TCM education

and publishing. Herbology is the core of TCM, yet it is not yet taken

seriously in any important forum.

 

When someone asks how acupuncture works, you can venture an explanation

based on the latest research, but remember to take the opportunity to

explain that acupuncture is only one small part of TCM. Let them know

the main part is herbology and there is no mystery about how herbs work.

Then, if you're still feeling bold, you can talk about the MRI research,

which was reported in discover magazine last winter or perhaps a new

study reported on NPR last week that showed acupuncture lowers cat blood

pressure by affecting endorphin levels (poor kitties!).

 

It is important to me that the public understand that the bulk of what

is called is not weird at all. The media and the

schools emphasize the unusual and sensational like acupuncture and qi

gong and equate that with TCM. Thats what sells, but it may be our

undoing. A look through so-called antiquackery websites like

www.skeptic.com under the topic of TCM will reveal attacks on TCM that

never once mention herbology! As long as TCM is equated mainly with

unexplainable and the weird, it will remain a curiosity.

 

If insurance only covers acupuncture, but not herbs, then eventually

someone will realize that patients are not getting the type of results

the chinese research indicates and they will pull the rug out. Subhuit

Dharmananda recently reported that several prominent insurance companies

dropped their acupuncture coverage after the much touted NIH report was

released in 1997. Because unlike the fanfare of the media, the report

actually shrunk the number of conditions acupuncture had been assumed

effective for.

 

I predict this will be a continuing trend. We have an enthusiastic

bunch of researchers around the country who seem ignorant of the fact

that the chinese research on acupuncture over the past 50 years does not

reveal a very cost effective modality for most conditions, at least not

under the private practice model. Just as the chinese herb research

consistently points to the use of large herb dosages, so the acupuncture

research points to a very high frequency of treatments over a long

period of time.

 

For instance, a study I just read about acupuncture and diabetes

recommended daily treatment for thirty days and that only for a

temporary effect. At typical office visit costs, the patient would pay

1500 per month for this inconvenience, which is not cost effective

compared to spending that much on herbs and office visits over a whole

year for a much more pronounced effect. It is thus vital that herbs be

restored to their rightful role within TCM before it is too late.

 

If anyone still wants to pursue a lengthy discussion of how acupuncture

works, feel free, but please use your personal e-mail. However, we can

certainly continue the discussion here of the relative imprtoance of the

two and the ramifications for the profession.

 

Thanks.

 

 

P.S. Another good use of this list is a place to send news clippings

about herbs copied off the web or webpage links of interest. Please

send interesting items you find. We are all interested and they are

good bases for discussion.

[Guest guest]

Welcome to the group

A little about me.My first exposure to TCM was as a lay monk in TAO Temple 2

nights a week the priest held open healing for the public. I was trained in

Qi Gong and the use of acupuncture. Although the Priest was good he knew

little about the use of herbs.I decided to study Chinese herbs to round out

my Knowledge. I am still studying as I found the root from witch all Chinese

healing arts grow.

-

David Russell <dcrussell

< >

Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:40 PM

introduction

 

 

> " David Russell " <dcrussell

>

> Hello everyone,

> My name is David Russell and this is my short introduction to the group.

> Well, presently I am an L.M.T., but soon I will be moving on to get my

> masters of acupuncture. That will be in 1.5 years, however, since I still

am

> working on my B.S. I have been extremely interested in TCM for about 10

> years and the only herbal training I have is my personal work through

> Subhuti Dharmanandas book on Chinese Herbology. I have also read The Web

has

> No Weaver multiple times.

> I am considering attending the Maryland Institute of Tradtional Chinese

> Medicine in Bethesda, MD.

> Although, much of the conversation I have read is above my head, I am

> interested in reading on and learning as much as I can...although it will

> take much refering to my text books.

> Recently I was asked by a fellow student at the University I am attending

> HOW acupuncture works- how it stimulates immune responses, hormonal

changes,

> etc... This is a basic concept, however, I was unable to explain it to her

> in the western terminology she was looking for.

> I recall reading one article where a series of MRI's were performed on an

> individuals brain while specific acupuncture points were stimulated. They

> found that the points caused specific regions of the brain to be

stimulated

> that did refer to the traditional points correspondences.

> Has anyone heard of this research...or perhaps have any other references

for

> me to read?

>

> David Russell

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> ONElist: home to the world's liveliest email communities.

>

> ------

> Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

>

[Guest guest]

A few comments:

I support the promotion of Chinese herbal medicine, and even more to

the point, Chinese internal medicine as one of the most sophisticated

medicines ever developed on the planet, and over millenia as well. It is a

profound healing SCIENCE, based on pattern discrimination that is

individualized for each patient. This is the real tragedy of the present

NIH/research scenario. . . .the only impetus on both sides (TCM/modern

medicine) seems to be to get TCM to conform to Western understanding. It

would seem much more reasonable to TEACH our colleagues in the Western

medical sciences the language, structure and theory of our medicine in a

clear, understandable way, and share the historical literature as the

template on which to design modern studies and interchanges of information.

I have found at various conferences that this approach generates much more

respect than a pseudo-biomedical approach, which is so crude with our

limited resources as to be laughable.

 

The NIH view of acupuncture is still reductionist. . . .and the idea of

daily treatments for diabetics, for example, totally unfeasable. However,

we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Acupuncture as

developed in the classics (Nei Jing, Nan Jing) and as continued over the

centuries, especially in Japan, is a very potent treatment MODALITY. . .

..and the best method for manipulating qi in a clinical setting. The

results can be profound when applied not as direct treatment of disease,

but in working with a patient's life force in an intimate manner. This is

why acumoxatherapy and herbal medicine are so copacetic, they deal with

different aspects of a patient's life force. This is why great physicians

such as Zhang Zhong-jing, Sun Si-miao and Li Dong-yuan used both

modalities. We have a great tradition to stand on. If we study it

consistently, we will have a strong base that will survive the turbulence

that all medicine is going through at the present time.

 

By the way, for a very clear look at the historical differences and

development of Chinese and Western (via Greco-Arabic) medicine, read the

newly-published " The Expressiveness of the Body (and the Divergence of

Greek and ) " by Shigehisa Kuriyama, Zone Books 1999,

available from Amazon.com.

 

, D.O.M., F.N.A.A.O.M.

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>TLuger ()

>

>Dave has asked an interesting question, but I would like to relate any

>discussion of acupuncture to herbology. Please understand that one of

>the purposes of this list is to establish a counterweight to the

>disproportionate emphasis on acupuncture in professional TCM education

>and publishing. Herbology is the core of TCM, yet it is not yet taken

>seriously in any important forum.

>

>When someone asks how acupuncture works, you can venture an explanation

>based on the latest research, but remember to take the opportunity to

>explain that acupuncture is only one small part of TCM. Let them know

>the main part is herbology and there is no mystery about how herbs work.

>Then, if you're still feeling bold, you can talk about the MRI research,

>which was reported in discover magazine last winter or perhaps a new

>study reported on NPR last week that showed acupuncture lowers cat blood

>pressure by affecting endorphin levels (poor kitties!).

>

>It is important to me that the public understand that the bulk of what

>is called is not weird at all. The media and the

>schools emphasize the unusual and sensational like acupuncture and qi

>gong and equate that with TCM. Thats what sells, but it may be our

>undoing. A look through so-called antiquackery websites like

>www.skeptic.com under the topic of TCM will reveal attacks on TCM that

>never once mention herbology! As long as TCM is equated mainly with

>unexplainable and the weird, it will remain a curiosity.

>

>If insurance only covers acupuncture, but not herbs, then eventually

>someone will realize that patients are not getting the type of results

>the chinese research indicates and they will pull the rug out. Subhuit

>Dharmananda recently reported that several prominent insurance companies

>dropped their acupuncture coverage after the much touted NIH report was

>released in 1997. Because unlike the fanfare of the media, the report

>actually shrunk the number of conditions acupuncture had been assumed

>effective for.

>

>I predict this will be a continuing trend. We have an enthusiastic

>bunch of researchers around the country who seem ignorant of the fact

>that the chinese research on acupuncture over the past 50 years does not

>reveal a very cost effective modality for most conditions, at least not

>under the private practice model. Just as the chinese herb research

>consistently points to the use of large herb dosages, so the acupuncture

>research points to a very high frequency of treatments over a long

>period of time.

>

>For instance, a study I just read about acupuncture and diabetes

>recommended daily treatment for thirty days and that only for a

>temporary effect. At typical office visit costs, the patient would pay

>1500 per month for this inconvenience, which is not cost effective

>compared to spending that much on herbs and office visits over a whole

>year for a much more pronounced effect. It is thus vital that herbs be

>restored to their rightful role within TCM before it is too late.

>

>If anyone still wants to pursue a lengthy discussion of how acupuncture

>works, feel free, but please use your personal e-mail. However, we can

>certainly continue the discussion here of the relative imprtoance of the

>two and the ramifications for the profession.

>

>Thanks.

>

>Todd

>

>

>P.S. Another good use of this list is a place to send news clippings

>about herbs copied off the web or webpage links of interest. Please

>send interesting items you find. We are all interested and they are

>good bases for discussion.

>

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ONElist: your connection to online communities.

>

>------

>Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

Let me reply to Z'ev and elaborate my original position a bit. I

definitely think acupuncture is a powerful clinical tool. However, I

also think the following:

 

1) It is not a cost effective tool for managed care under the current

high fee model.

 

2) Most people do not use the nei or nan jing to guide them in clinical

practice and these texts also advocate regular treatment for serious

illness, not just 3-4 times per month. So even if people were

practicing sophisticated qi manipulation a la the classics, acupuncture

would still not be cost effective at $75 a pop.

 

3) While I have no doubt that acupuncture would be useful on a

substantial number of my patients, most of them have limited resources

and have to choose between herbs and acupuncture for economic reasons.

Since my patients are almost exclusively cancer, hep C , lupus, etc., I

can't rationalize regular acupuncture at the expense of herbs. Though

it would help the hep c patients ascites and bloating and the lupus

patients arthritic flare-ups, I think the herbs are more important to

long term care. I have recently opened a clinic that will allow me to

offer acupuncture to my patients for $25 per visit because of this cost

effectiveness issue.

 

4) While li dong yuan and zhang zhong jing occasionally mention

acupuncture, I find it more striking how little they seemed to turn to

this modality. While I agree that acupuncture and herbology are very

complementary in that they come at the qi from different angles, I think

Paul Unschuld has also demonstrated that these two practices have a

separate history and lineage and only began to converge in mainstream

practice about 800 years ago. Yet by the middle of the qing dynasty,

there were very few masters of acupuncture left. So they have generally

been taught and practiced as separate disciplines. I personally find

the two modalities so different that it is not surprising that the same

practitioner rarely excels in both.

 

To summarize, while acupuncture may have profound healing potential when

practiced in a sophisticated fashion, it has not proven itself to be a

reliable cost effective method of treating most chronic illness using

typical american methodology.

 

I would also argue that the type of healing Z'ev speaks of will never be

the basis of research, nor will researchers learn our language and that

neither of these things are necessary to produce research that will

ensure our acceptance in mainstream medicine. All we have to do is

duplicate the type of research that has been done in China over the past

50 years. Those protocols which involve mainly herbs and sometimes

acupuncture produce great results under the existing model of research.

I think it would be much easier to duplicate an existing study than to

teach TCM to researchers. Yet, for various reasons, researchers pursue

their pet projects and theories, most of which fly in the face of

chinese history and modern research.

 

Modern chinese research on acupuncture has been uniformly disappointing,

yet we are wasting money by not following the first rule of research:

start by exploring the successes and failures of the existing body of

research. Instead, researchers are basing research on their anecdotal

personal and clinical experiences, exactly the type of method that leads

to poor research in most cases.

 

Here's a great example of how this ignorance can mess up an herb study,

too.

 

Kaiser Permanente thought they could get on the NIH bandwagon, so they

developed a study on dang gui for menopause. Now dang gui alone has no

effect on hormone levels or any menopausal symptoms, which is well known

in the TCM literature. However, kaiser's advisor was a supposed expert,

a medical doctor from China who personally took dang gui. If they had

studied liu wei di huang wan without any deference to TCM, they would

have gotten a 75% effective rate. That would have been a good foot in

the door. The same thing is being done when sinusitis or PMS are

treated with acupuncture alone in NIH studies. The role of herbs is

being ignored and the studies are failing one after the other.

 

Finally, I must add that I do not believe that our holistic approach to

medicine will become dominant at any time in the future. We are here to

stay, but we have always fought against quick fix medicine throughout

history. Chinese med lit is filled with admonitions by great physicians

against the symptom oriented practices of their peers. So holistic med

has always been a minority practice and always will be. But like

communism caused great changes in our politics without america ever

becoming communist, I think TCM will impact the development of western

medicine, but not supplant its historical trajectory.

 

[Guest guest]

In reply to Todd and Z'ev

I tend to agree that acupuncture is a very effective treatment modality

for many illnesses. I also think it can complement any herbal treatment

regardless of the CC. I also agree that it is not a very cost effective

modality when used alone if done with the frequency cited in the chinese

literature (unless we switch to socialized medicine here). I strongly

agree with Todd that there are not enough forums out there to talk about

herbal medicine and I would like to see this one stick to that

exclusively.

In regard to the research issues, I believe we can teach the

establishment to do research our way. As supervisor of the OCOM herbal

dispensary, I worked with Kaiser Permanente on writing an $8 million

grant to the NIH to do acupuncture research on TMJ syndrome. This

project will allow us to use TCM treatment approaches on the subjects,

possibly including herbs. Kaiser was very open to this approach so

perhaps they've learned from they're mistakes? We are very confident

that we will receive this grant (Kaiser gets most of it though).

We are in the process of hiring a PhD research director at OCOM so we

can focus more in this area. I will be an assistant to the director and

plan on proposing mostly herbal research projects. (the 1st 2 I plan to

propose are Hep C and chemotherapy support/cancer treatment).I believe

we can teach western researchers to study TCM in it's true form but it

will require that some of us become trained and active in research so we

can meet them on their own ground. There are many open-minded MD's out

there that are only looking for substantiation before they let us in but

we have to come to them to get it done right.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

I don't disagree with anything Mark or Todd has said. . . .certainly your

arguments have backing in the literature, especially the modern.

But there are schools of thought, among the Japanese for example, that

don't require such heavy or frequent treatment. My experience is that

acupuncture can work at subtle levels, and that qi itself is often subtle

as well. Working a lot with chronic disorders, I find seeing patients once

every one to two weeks is quite sufficient, especially when doing five

phase or extraordinary vessel treatments. The modern TCM acupuncture

protocols in some case history texts where you do ten very strong

treatments for headache I think are overkill, and point out the limitations

of the straight TCM acupuncture method (too detailed as to what and why for

this particular e-mail).

 

Of course, I also am doing herbal medicine with almost all patients. . .

..without it , certainly things would be much slower.

 

I agree with Todd that doing research in the way it is done in the modern

Chinese journals, i.e outcome based and subdividing patterns of disharmony

when treating particular disorders is the way to go.

 

, D.O.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> " Mark Goldby M.Ac.O.M, L.Ac. " <herbs4u

>

>In reply to Todd and Z'ev

>I tend to agree that acupuncture is a very effective treatment modality

>for many illnesses. I also think it can complement any herbal treatment

>regardless of the CC. I also agree that it is not a very cost effective

>modality when used alone if done with the frequency cited in the chinese

>literature (unless we switch to socialized medicine here). I strongly

>agree with Todd that there are not enough forums out there to talk about

>herbal medicine and I would like to see this one stick to that

>exclusively.

>In regard to the research issues, I believe we can teach the

>establishment to do research our way. As supervisor of the OCOM herbal

>dispensary, I worked with Kaiser Permanente on writing an $8 million

>grant to the NIH to do acupuncture research on TMJ syndrome. This

>project will allow us to use TCM treatment approaches on the subjects,

>possibly including herbs. Kaiser was very open to this approach so

>perhaps they've learned from they're mistakes? We are very confident

>that we will receive this grant (Kaiser gets most of it though).

>We are in the process of hiring a PhD research director at OCOM so we

>can focus more in this area. I will be an assistant to the director and

>plan on proposing mostly herbal research projects. (the 1st 2 I plan to

>propose are Hep C and chemotherapy support/cancer treatment).I believe

>we can teach western researchers to study TCM in it's true form but it

>will require that some of us become trained and active in research so we

>can meet them on their own ground. There are many open-minded MD's out

>there that are only looking for substantiation before they let us in but

>we have to come to them to get it done right.

>

>Mark

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ONElist: your connection to online communities.

>

>------

>Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

The research results from China are so impressive, even in studies that

ignore TCM differentiation, then if we got half as good results, the

insurance companies would all jump on board. I also think there is a

place for allopathic herbology and just like Japanese MD's use herbs, I

would like to see ours do likewise, but I really do not believe they

will learn TCM. If people are openminded, then by all means incorporate

bian zheng into your research proposals. But I wouldn't make this point

a dealbreaker and I would certainly avoid acupuncture only studies,

except in the few areas where we can expect cost effective results (like

stroke rehab, for instance). Yes, I am a pragmatist, not a

philosophical purist. We need to rack up a string of successes or the

research well will dry up. Once the patients set foot in our offices,

we will have a lot of latitude since our treatments cost the same

regardless of diagnosis. As long as patients are satisfied with our

treatments (and they usually are), we can do somewhat as we please. But

we need to prove a few things on their terms right now. Again, this

requires that we set internal practice standards visa ve herbology and

police those standards. Otherwise, we may find our hands tied by

outside sources. Whatever the final result of successful research, we

will be a much stronger position than we are right now.

 

[Guest guest]

Well, I think enough has been said about acupuncture in general. If you

use acupuncture on a given herbal case you are reporting, I believe that

is relevant to our understanding of the effectiveness of herbology, so

please include that information.

 

While I would like to see studies done using outcomes based methodology

and TCM bian zheng, I am also comfortable with allopathic studies

because they serve my purposes. I am only interested in the utility of

research for political and economic reasons. I don't need to be

convinced that TCM works, nor do I expect research to yield any major

insights into my practice. Thus far, chinese research has only served

to confirm tradition in most cases, so I will continue to rely on the

classics. So I want research that causes rapid changes in the way

medicine is practiced, even if the end result does not conform to my

personal holistic ideal.

 

For example, I would rather see every patient in the US with hep C take

xiao chai hu tang than see no patient take it. Ideally, I would like to

see the right formula given to the right patient, but Japanese research

suggests even generalized prescribing for hepatitis in this fashion

yields results far superior to modern meds with fewer side effects in

all cases.

[Guest guest]

 

It is interesting you mentioned Hepatitis C and xiao chai hu tang here.

.. . .it would be advisable to check on the western treatment of Hep C

cases, since research indicates that xiao chai hu tang is strongly

counterindicatied for patients using interferon therapy for Hep C. . .

..several deaths were reported in Japan from this combination.

 

 

 

 

 

> " " <herb-t

>

>Well, I think enough has been said about acupuncture in general. If you

>use acupuncture on a given herbal case you are reporting, I believe that

>is relevant to our understanding of the effectiveness of herbology, so

>please include that information.

>

>While I would like to see studies done using outcomes based methodology

>and TCM bian zheng, I am also comfortable with allopathic studies

>because they serve my purposes. I am only interested in the utility of

>research for political and economic reasons. I don't need to be

>convinced that TCM works, nor do I expect research to yield any major

>insights into my practice. Thus far, chinese research has only served

>to confirm tradition in most cases, so I will continue to rely on the

>classics. So I want research that causes rapid changes in the way

>medicine is practiced, even if the end result does not conform to my

>personal holistic ideal.

>

>For example, I would rather see every patient in the US with hep C take

>xiao chai hu tang than see no patient take it. Ideally, I would like to

>see the right formula given to the right patient, but Japanese research

>suggests even generalized prescribing for hepatitis in this fashion

>yields results far superior to modern meds with fewer side effects in

>all cases.

>

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ONElist: the best place to EXPLORE topics, SHARE ideas, and

>CONNECT to people with the same interests.

>

>------

>Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

When I chose xiao chai hu tang as my hypothetical hep C formula, I did

forget about this controversy Z'ev mentions. However, it is my

understanding that the cause of those deaths may be being blamed

erroneously on chinese herbs, similar to the belgian weight loss therapy

several years ago. The real culprit will likely turn out to be a drug

combination or adulterated batch of herbs, in the opinion of informed

observers like Subhuti Dharmananda

 

In any event, this is an allopathic contraindication for an allopathic

use of the herbs. So NO ONE should use this rx with interferon patients

until further notice. However, I wonder if TCM theory would have

prevented an herbalist from prescribing this rx to such a patient. I

doubt it. I think this example actually makes a case that our training

is not adequate in order to safely practice TCM in some instances, but I

don't think that is what you meant. It certainly does not point out any

inherent problem with allopathic prescribing.

 

 

todd

[Guest guest]

No, I do think there is a problem with " allopathic prescribing " . To give

any prescription routinely to patients with specific diseases without

pattern differentiation, especially when there are strong pharmaceuticals

taken is risky in my opinion. . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>When I chose xiao chai hu tang as my hypothetical hep C formula, I did

>forget about this controversy Z'ev mentions. However, it is my

>understanding that the cause of those deaths may be being blamed

>erroneously on chinese herbs, similar to the belgian weight loss therapy

>several years ago. The real culprit will likely turn out to be a drug

>combination or adulterated batch of herbs, in the opinion of informed

>observers like Subhuti Dharmananda

>

>In any event, this is an allopathic contraindication for an allopathic

>use of the herbs. So NO ONE should use this rx with interferon patients

>until further notice. However, I wonder if TCM theory would have

>prevented an herbalist from prescribing this rx to such a patient. I

>doubt it. I think this example actually makes a case that our training

>is not adequate in order to safely practice TCM in some instances, but I

>don't think that is what you meant. It certainly does not point out any

>inherent problem with allopathic prescribing.

>

>

>todd

>

>

>Received: from mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.99) by

> postoffice-243.iap.bryant.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Thu, 2 Sep 1999

> 11:03:37 -0700 (PDT)

>Return-Path: <errors-201013-27-TLuger=webtv.net >

>Received: from (pop1. [209.207.164.229]) by

> mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)

> with SMTP id LAA06946 for <TLuger; Thu, 2 Sep 1999

> 11:03:31 -0700 (PDT)

>Received: (qmail 2063 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 1999 18:03:49 -0000

>Received: (qmail 2002 invoked from network); 2 Sep 1999 18:03:40 -0000

>Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.inreach.com) (209.142.0.6) by

> pop1. with SMTP; 2 Sep 1999 18:03:40 -0000

>Received: from [209.209.66.14] (209-209-66-14.la.inreach.net

> [209.209.66.14]) by smtp.inreach.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id

> KAA03417 for < >; Thu, 2 Sep 1999

> 10:48:04 -0700 (PDT)

>Message-Id: <v03007800b3f46bcff393@[209.209.66.103]>

>In-<37CEAF5E.9FDC0F0

>References: <23005-37CDB9A5-3385

><v03007800b3f4412d3f9d@[209.209.66.115]>

>Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:02:22 -0700

>

> " " <zrosenberg

>Mailing-List: list ; contact

> -owner

>Delivered-mailing list

>Precedence: bulk

>List-Un: <- (AT) ONElist (DOT) com>

>Reply-to:

>Mime-Version: 1.0

>Content-Type: text/plain; charset= " us-ascii "

>Re: introduction

>

> " " <zrosenberg

>

>

> It is interesting you mentioned Hepatitis C and xiao chai hu tang here.

>. . .it would be advisable to check on the western treatment of Hep C

>cases, since research indicates that xiao chai hu tang is strongly

>counterindicatied for patients using interferon therapy for Hep C. . .

>.several deaths were reported in Japan from this combination.

>

>

>

>

>

>> " " <herb-t

>>

>>Well, I think enough has been said about acupuncture in general. If you

>>use acupuncture on a given herbal case you are reporting, I believe that

>>is relevant to our understanding of the effectiveness of herbology, so

>>please include that information.

>>

>>While I would like to see studies done using outcomes based methodology

>>and TCM bian zheng, I am also comfortable with allopathic studies

>>because they serve my purposes. I am only interested in the utility of

>>research for political and economic reasons. I don't need to be

>>convinced that TCM works, nor do I expect research to yield any major

>>insights into my practice. Thus far, chinese research has only served

>>to confirm tradition in most cases, so I will continue to rely on the

>>classics. So I want research that causes rapid changes in the way

>>medicine is practiced, even if the end result does not conform to my

>>personal holistic ideal.

>>

>>For example, I would rather see every patient in the US with hep C take

>>xiao chai hu tang than see no patient take it. Ideally, I would like to

>>see the right formula given to the right patient, but Japanese research

>>suggests even generalized prescribing for hepatitis in this fashion

>>yields results far superior to modern meds with fewer side effects in

>>all cases.

>>

>>

>>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>>

>>ONElist: the best place to EXPLORE topics, SHARE ideas, and

>>CONNECT to people with the same interests.

>>

>>------

>>Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

>

>

>

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ATTN ONELIST USERS: stay current on the latest activities,

>programs, & features at ONElist by joining our member newsletter at

><a href= " http://clickme./ad/newsletter4 " >Click Here</a>

>

>------

>Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

 

I also would like to see research done both ways. There is value in

each. In the Hep C research I will propose, I intend to do it with a

western approach in that all patients will get either the same Rx or

placebo- no differentiation here. I want to establish that chinese herbs

can be effective against this disease in general in the least

complicated manner. Differentiation would then be done in future

research to establish it's superiority in getting results (hopefully).

The most important thing is to open a pipeline of research funding for

chinese herbs and get some good studies under our belts.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Todd and Z'ev, wasn't the problem that Chai Hu can increase interferon

production in the body by itself according to some study so that they

ended up with too much of it overall? So if a patient is on interferon

therapy + a chai hu Rx, their interferon levels would have to be

monitored more closely and dose of drugs adjusted accordingly. I still

don't treat people that are on interferon but in theory I think this

could work safely.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Dear Mark,

 

I applaud your efforts. But. . . . .

 

 

What is essential in Chinese medicine is the theory and philosophy,

more than herbs or acupuncture. Using herbs or acupuncture

allopathically is NOT Chinese medicine. . . .it is biomedicine with

different tools (not as accurate as its present pharmacological ones).

I don't share your optimism with results in such complex scenarios. I

think a hybrid of biomedicine and Chinese medicine will prove to be as

sterile as Monsanto bioengineered seeds, unable to reproduce itself.

 

 

For further reading and insights, download Manfred Porkert's " The

Debasing of " from his website,

<underline><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param>www.phainon.com</color></underlin\

e><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param>.

 

 

</color>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> " Mark Goldby M.Ac.O.M, L.Ac. " <<herbs4u

 

>

 

>

 

>I also would like to see research done both ways. There is value in

 

>each. In the Hep C research I will propose, I intend to do it with a

 

>western approach in that all patients will get either the same Rx or

 

>placebo- no differentiation here. I want to establish that chinese

herbs

 

>can be effective against this disease in general in the least

 

>complicated manner. Differentiation would then be done in future

 

>research to establish it's superiority in getting results

(hopefully).

 

>The most important thing is to open a pipeline of research funding

for

 

>chinese herbs and get some good studies under our belts.

 

>

 

>Mark

 

>

 

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor

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

 

>

 

>You can WIN $100 to Amazon.com!

 

>If you join ONElist's FRIENDS & FAMILY program. For details, go to

 

><<a href= " http://clickme./ad/Teaser115 " >Click Here<</a>

 

>

 

>------

 

>Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

I believe it is me who is making the case for a hybrid medicine. But

understand several things:

 

1) I consider any hybrid medicine, such as much modern kanpo, to be

inferior to TCM

 

2) However I consider such hybrid medicines to be superior to

allopathic medicine, which means they may have a place in modern

healthcare

 

3) I am not optimistic about this style of hybrid medicine as getting

to the root of our healthcare crisis the way TCM can, but I do not think

TCM can can have much effect in its pure form, because it is too alien

to our culture.

 

In addition, I have read Porkert's article and others in the same vein

and I actually agree with him with regard to the topic he discusses.

But I consider this a different topic. Porkert is concerned with the

new age bastardization of TCM as much as he is concerned with the

attempts to explain it away scientifically. I support neither of these

things and we should make every effort to elevate the admissions,

education and practice requirements of our students and graduates in

order to meet Porkert's goal.

 

I also don't disagree that using chinese herb formula is not TCM. It

certainly isn't, however it is a medical use of Chinese Herbs and lest

anyone get the wrong idea, this is a forum to discuss chinese herbs, not

TCM, per se. These subjects will logically overlap, however academics

and practitioners from all fields are invited to participate, even if

their approach is allopathic. This is my pragmatic and I think

compassionate approach to our healthcare crisis. I am not an idealist,

so I am willing to accept changes where I think they can be made.

 

As I said previously, I do not think our society is really interested

in holistic medicine and what that entails. However, they remain

fascinated with herbs and asian medicine and this an opportunity to do

some good, however small. It would ony debase Chinese medicine for me

to suggest that this is better or desirable than TCM. It is not. It is

just one way to use chinese herbs in a modern healthcare setting. The

Japanese are the longest lived urbanites in the world and I think the

widespread use of herbs by allopathic physicans plays a major role in

this. Using the wrong formula is usually not near as bad as using any

drug therapy. So it would be a step up in efficacy and compassion. In

Japan also, many doctors have decided to learn traditional kanpo because

it gets better results than allopathy. But that is a slow trend that

has only recently become widespread. So the foot in the back door

worked in Japan; why not here?

 

[Guest guest]

I concur

[Guest guest]

Dear

I really enjoyed your post. . . .very well expressed and thought out.

My experience is that there are interested physicians and scholars who want

to hear the essence of what Chinese medical philosophy is.. . . .not only

that, but the leading edge of theorists in the medical world are beginning

to be influenced by post-modern physics. For an example the work of

Werner Lowenstein (The Touchstone of Life), who postulates in his molecular

biology research about a cell communication system based on the concept of

information. According to him, the concept of information comes from

Aristotle, who postulated eidos, the form-giving principle that shapes the

material development of the body without being part of it. Since so much

of Chinese medicine is based on a similar information system, controlling

but not necessarily part of the physical organism, there are plenty of

places for parallels to be sought out.

 

 

 

 

 

>TLuger ()

>

>I believe it is me who is making the case for a hybrid medicine. But

>understand several things:

>

>1) I consider any hybrid medicine, such as much modern kanpo, to be

>inferior to TCM

>

>2) However I consider such hybrid medicines to be superior to

>allopathic medicine, which means they may have a place in modern

>healthcare

>

>3) I am not optimistic about this style of hybrid medicine as getting

>to the root of our healthcare crisis the way TCM can, but I do not think

>TCM can can have much effect in its pure form, because it is too alien

>to our culture.

>

>In addition, I have read Porkert's article and others in the same vein

>and I actually agree with him with regard to the topic he discusses.

>But I consider this a different topic. Porkert is concerned with the

>new age bastardization of TCM as much as he is concerned with the

>attempts to explain it away scientifically. I support neither of these

>things and we should make every effort to elevate the admissions,

>education and practice requirements of our students and graduates in

>order to meet Porkert's goal.

>

>I also don't disagree that using chinese herb formula is not TCM. It

>certainly isn't, however it is a medical use of Chinese Herbs and lest

>anyone get the wrong idea, this is a forum to discuss chinese herbs, not

>TCM, per se. These subjects will logically overlap, however academics

>and practitioners from all fields are invited to participate, even if

>their approach is allopathic. This is my pragmatic and I think

>compassionate approach to our healthcare crisis. I am not an idealist,

>so I am willing to accept changes where I think they can be made.

>

>As I said previously, I do not think our society is really interested

>in holistic medicine and what that entails. However, they remain

>fascinated with herbs and asian medicine and this an opportunity to do

>some good, however small. It would ony debase Chinese medicine for me

>to suggest that this is better or desirable than TCM. It is not. It is

>just one way to use chinese herbs in a modern healthcare setting. The

>Japanese are the longest lived urbanites in the world and I think the

>widespread use of herbs by allopathic physicans plays a major role in

>this. Using the wrong formula is usually not near as bad as using any

>drug therapy. So it would be a step up in efficacy and compassion. In

>Japan also, many doctors have decided to learn traditional kanpo because

>it gets better results than allopathy. But that is a slow trend that

>has only recently become widespread. So the foot in the back door

>worked in Japan; why not here?

>

>Todd

>

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ONElist: your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.

>

>------

>Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

Perhaps you are right Z'ev, but I believe that compromise may be

necessary AT FIRST to get things rolling. We are facing some stiff

resistance from the med/pharm industry. In the long run I intend to do

research with TCM methods. One phase of our study with Kaiser will be

done this way. It's only a matter of time and effort....

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Here is the crux of my position. While I agree that the leading edge of

science, especially systems science (even moreso than quantum physics),

points to an information oriented self-regulating reality that sounds

very similar to the traditional chinese cosmology. However, I think

that leading edge is very disconnected from the mainstream of america

who are our patients. So we can be optimistic about what these

scientists and philosphers say, but at the same time be aware that the

masses are still mostly superstitious, fundamentalist, conspiracy minded

and suspicious of intellectuals and new ideas, especially here in

America. If you live in an urban area, especially on the west coast, it

may be easy to forget what the typical folk is like. I too live in the

West, but it appears that most of the country is kinda ignorant still.

Plus science especially does not resonate with the american masses. We

are like the dumbest in the developed world in this regard and we are

regarded as even worse when it comes to deep philosophy. So whatever

great ideas are out there, I am not so sure they have much impact.

Heck, we have had enlightened philosophers in every era, but society

still organizes around the lowest common denominator whether now or in

ancient greece or tang china. The only way holistic medicine can become

the linchpin of our healthcare system is if everything changes very

radically, such as the concept of working 60 hours a week doing

unfullfilling work just to make ends meet. There is no true health

possible in this type of world, i fear. Until then I am willing to

compromise to render aid where I can.

 

[Guest guest]

I think studies on herbs can be done, even pharmacologically.

 

I DON'T think we ever have to compromise the principles of our medicine. .

.. .we can explain them clearly to all interested parties and show that

there is a SCIENTIFIC BASIS already preexisting to our medicine. . . .that

the studies are interesting and confirmatory, perhaps, but that Chinese

medicine has to be understood on its own terms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

> " Mark Goldby M.Ac.O.M, L.Ac. " <herbs4u

>

>Perhaps you are right Z'ev, but I believe that compromise may be

>necessary AT FIRST to get things rolling. We are facing some stiff

>resistance from the med/pharm industry. In the long run I intend to do

>research with TCM methods. One phase of our study with Kaiser will be

>done this way. It's only a matter of time and effort....

>

>Mark

[Guest guest]

Well stated, Todd.

However, with the 'masses', there is also another factor to consider,

one I see daily with my patients. At a gut level, many people distrust

modern medicine at a gut level, and want clear, relatively non-invasive

alternatives. They are willing to listen to anyone who offers it to them,

from aromatherapy to chiropractic and inbetween. Why not offer the people

the best alternative, a scientifically-based medicine with 2500 years of

case histories, practice and clinical information?

 

 

 

 

 

>Here is the crux of my position. While I agree that the leading edge of

>science, especially systems science (even moreso than quantum physics),

>points to an information oriented self-regulating reality that sounds

>very similar to the traditional chinese cosmology. However, I think

>that leading edge is very disconnected from the mainstream of america

>who are our patients. So we can be optimistic about what these

>scientists and philosphers say, but at the same time be aware that the

>masses are still mostly superstitious, fundamentalist, conspiracy minded

>and suspicious of intellectuals and new ideas, especially here in

>America. If you live in an urban area, especially on the west coast, it

>may be easy to forget what the typical folk is like. I too live in the

>West, but it appears that most of the country is kinda ignorant still.

>Plus science especially does not resonate with the american masses. We

>are like the dumbest in the developed world in this regard and we are

>regarded as even worse when it comes to deep philosophy. So whatever

>great ideas are out there, I am not so sure they have much impact.

>Heck, we have had enlightened philosophers in every era, but society

>still organizes around the lowest common denominator whether now or in

>ancient greece or tang china. The only way holistic medicine can become

>the linchpin of our healthcare system is if everything changes very

>radically, such as the concept of working 60 hours a week doing

>unfullfilling work just to make ends meet. There is no true health

>possible in this type of world, i fear. Until then I am willing to

>compromise to render aid where I can.

>

>Todd

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well-said, Todd!

 

Mark

 

wrote:

>

> Here is the crux of my position. While I agree that the leading edge of

> science, especially systems science (even moreso than quantum physics),

> points to an information oriented self-regulating reality that sounds

> very similar to the traditional chinese cosmology. However, I think

> that leading edge is very disconnected from the mainstream of america

> who are our patients. So we can be optimistic about what these

> scientists and philosphers say, but at the same time be aware that the

> masses are still mostly superstitious, fundamentalist, conspiracy minded

> and suspicious of intellectuals and new ideas, especially here in

> America. If you live in an urban area, especially on the west coast, it

> may be easy to forget what the typical folk is like. I too live in the

> West, but it appears that most of the country is kinda ignorant still.

> Plus science especially does not resonate with the american masses. We

> are like the dumbest in the developed world in this regard and we are

> regarded as even worse when it comes to deep philosophy. So whatever

> great ideas are out there, I am not so sure they have much impact.

> Heck, we have had enlightened philosophers in every era, but society

> still organizes around the lowest common denominator whether now or in

> ancient greece or tang china. The only way holistic medicine can become

> the linchpin of our healthcare system is if everything changes very

> radically, such as the concept of working 60 hours a week doing

> unfullfilling work just to make ends meet. There is no true health

> possible in this type of world, i fear. Until then I am willing to

> compromise to render aid where I can.

>

 

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Re: introduction

> Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:06:07 -0700

> " " <zrosenberg

>

>

> References: " " <zrosenberg's message of Fri, 3

Sep 1999 08:49:13 -0700

>

> " " <zrosenberg

>

> Dear

> I really enjoyed your post. . . .very well expressed and thought out.

> My experience is that there are interested physicians and scholars who want

> to hear the essence of what Chinese medical philosophy is.. . . .not only

> that, but the leading edge of theorists in the medical world are beginning

> to be influenced by post-modern physics. For an example the work of

> Werner Lowenstein (The Touchstone of Life), who postulates in his molecular

> biology research about a cell communication system based on the concept of

> information. According to him, the concept of information comes from

> Aristotle, who postulated eidos, the form-giving principle that shapes the

> material development of the body without being part of it. Since so much

> of Chinese medicine is based on a similar information system, controlling

> but not necessarily part of the physical organism, there are plenty of

> places for parallels to be sought out.

>

>

>

> >TLuger ()

> >

> >I believe it is me who is making the case for a hybrid medicine. But

> >understand several things:

> >

> >1) I consider any hybrid medicine, such as much modern kanpo, to be

> >inferior to TCM

> >

> >2) However I consider such hybrid medicines to be superior to

> >allopathic medicine, which means they may have a place in modern

> >healthcare

> >

> >3) I am not optimistic about this style of hybrid medicine as getting

> >to the root of our healthcare crisis the way TCM can, but I do not think

> >TCM can can have much effect in its pure form, because it is too alien

> >to our culture.

> >

> >In addition, I have read Porkert's article and others in the same vein

> >and I actually agree with him with regard to the topic he discusses.

> >But I consider this a different topic. Porkert is concerned with the

> >new age bastardization of TCM as much as he is concerned with the

> >attempts to explain it away scientifically. I support neither of these

> >things and we should make every effort to elevate the admissions,

> >education and practice requirements of our students and graduates in

> >order to meet Porkert's goal.

> >

> >I also don't disagree that using chinese herb formula is not TCM. It

> >certainly isn't, however it is a medical use of Chinese Herbs and lest

> >anyone get the wrong idea, this is a forum to discuss chinese herbs, not

> >TCM, per se. These subjects will logically overlap, however academics

> >and practitioners from all fields are invited to participate, even if

> >their approach is allopathic. This is my pragmatic and I think

> >compassionate approach to our healthcare crisis. I am not an idealist,

> >so I am willing to accept changes where I think they can be made.

> >

> >As I said previously, I do not think our society is really interested

> >in holistic medicine and what that entails. However, they remain

> >fascinated with herbs and asian medicine and this an opportunity to do

> >some good, however small. It would ony debase Chinese medicine for me

> >to suggest that this is better or desirable than TCM. It is not. It is

> >just one way to use chinese herbs in a modern healthcare setting. The

> >Japanese are the longest lived urbanites in the world and I think the

> >widespread use of herbs by allopathic physicans plays a major role in

> >this. Using the wrong formula is usually not near as bad as using any

> >drug therapy. So it would be a step up in efficacy and compassion. In

> >Japan also, many doctors have decided to learn traditional kanpo because

> >it gets better results than allopathy. But that is a slow trend that

> >has only recently become widespread. So the foot in the back door

> >worked in Japan; why not here?

> >

> >Todd

> >

> >

> >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

> >

> >ONElist: your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.

> >

> >------

> >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> ONElist: your connection to online communities.

>

> ------

> Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

Yes, Z'ev,

But to a western doc, " scientific basis " means lots of double-blind,

repeatable studies, not thousands of years of empirical and anecdotal

evidence. I am optimistic that we will soon be doing research our way

but we still have to build a bridge for open communication.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

The purpose of a study is to convince " them " of " our " efficacy. So we

might as well do the studies their way. Why waste time doing the

studies TCM style when all we will prove is what we already know. Lets

prove what they want to know and move on. In order to do a large scale

true TCM style study will take much more than just convincing anyone

about our method. We will need to prove that there is a physiological

difference between say liver qi stag patients and kidney yin xu patients

in order to justify treating them differently for the same disease.

While such an undertaking would have profond beneficial ramifications

for all of medicine (it would be the beginning of bian zheng style

western medicine, perhaps!), this is a very complex matter which would

forestall research for years. Remember, TCM research was done in TCM

schools. No one needed to be convinced about bian zheng. Its a whole

different ballgame, here.

 

[Guest guest]

Nothing stops us from offering the best medicine to our patients, which

is of course TCM in its traditional form. Yes, our patients are willing

to try what might help in their own suffering, yet ironically this is

something they mainly do on faith or out of desperation. I don't think

these patients represent a fundamental change in the prevailing modern

worldview. And while we have cutting edge thinkers in America, it is

actually most of the other scientists who really bog things down. These

folks are too smart to accept new ideas on faith and too scared and

conformist to make an intellectual leap. These are the folks who stalk

the hallways of the antiquackery sites like http://www.skeptic.com.