Digest Number 2446

[Guest guest]

Bob -

 

I agree with your concern about insubstantial assertions. However, I

disagree with the pejorative stance you take on 'shooting the breeze.' There are

increasing bodies of evidence that technical skills are more often transferred

by story telling than through any other means.

 

I believe I clarified my process, but let me go further. I consider

comparative analyses of active biological compounds to be of use; for instance

the

bioflavanoid berberine found in some of the 'huang' plants lend them similar

functions as American plant materials such as gold thread or Oregon grape root.

By the same token, the common saponins between ginseng and gynostemma lead me

to consider that they may have some properties in common. This, in

combination with personal and clinical use have brought me to a conclusion that

the

material boosts qi. I can appreciate and respect your beliefs. In this

instance I am sharing personal opinion based on clinical experience and analysis

of

the available literature, and my opinion stands until presented with a more

conclusive perspective on gynostemma.

 

Will

 

Will,

 

Sorry, I don't agree. You made a claim and I was asking for

clarification on criteria for that claim. My request had nothing to do

with RCTs -- just substantiation of an assertion. I believe we've had

enough of unsubstantiated assertions of efficacy in this profession.

Until assertions of efficacy are looked at critically, we're all just

shooting the breeze.

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Will,

 

I think your chemical comparison is compelling, and I will have to

take that into account. This is not my strong suit, but it is

definitely germane to the discussion. However, it was the statements

you made based on clinical experience that I wanted clarification of.

It seems to me that how we substantiate claims of function and

efficacy is extremely important. I believe we have been too naive and

trusting, not to say gullible, for too long.

 

Bob

 

> Bob -

>

> I agree with your concern about insubstantial assertions. However, I

> disagree with the pejorative stance you take on 'shooting the

breeze.' There are

> increasing bodies of evidence that technical skills are more often

transferred

> by story telling than through any other means.

>

> I believe I clarified my process, but let me go further. I consider

> comparative analyses of active biological compounds to be of use;

for instance the

> bioflavanoid berberine found in some of the 'huang' plants lend them

similar

> functions as American plant materials such as gold thread or Oregon

grape root.

> By the same token, the common saponins between ginseng and

gynostemma lead me

> to consider that they may have some properties in common. This, in

> combination with personal and clinical use have brought me to a

conclusion that the

> material boosts qi. I can appreciate and respect your beliefs. In this

> instance I am sharing personal opinion based on clinical experience

and analysis of

> the available literature, and my opinion stands until presented with

a more

> conclusive perspective on gynostemma.

>

> Will

>

> Will,

>

> Sorry, I don't agree. You made a claim and I was asking for

> clarification on criteria for that claim. My request had nothing to do

> with RCTs -- just substantiation of an assertion. I believe we've had

> enough of unsubstantiated assertions of efficacy in this profession.

> Until assertions of efficacy are looked at critically, we're all just

> shooting the breeze.

>

> Bob

 

[Guest guest]

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

>

> Bob -

>

> I agree with your concern about insubstantial assertions. However, I

> disagree with the pejorative stance you take on 'shooting the breeze.' There

are

> increasing bodies of evidence that technical skills are more often transferred

> by story telling than through any other means.

 

The attribution of properties to herbs in not a technical skill. The type of

skills that are

transferred by story telling in our field are techniques of acupuncture, etc,

not herb

properties. Those largely rely on text based consensus, which is why there is

so much

relative uniformity in herbology compared to acupuncture. While I agree with

Will's

assertions about the relationship between biochem and herb properties foor the

most part,

it is because of this that I put most stock in his claims. With all due

respect, Will and I

have never met and I don't just take people at their word based upon their

experience.

Perhaps if I had a lifetime to observe him, I would feel differently. I also

wonder why the

pressing need to stray from the tied and true. It almost always works, yet it

seems that

some in the profession are drawn to developing new ideas for their own sake. It

may be

more than shooting the breeze, but I think such speculation still should be

taken with a

large grain of salt by anyone who does not have personal reasons to trust the

source.

Especially when so much of the actual source material remains inaccessible to

most

(including myself).