Granulars

June 20, 2008

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Sean Doherty <sean wrote:

> Basically you

> can kill the qi, essence, mojo, nutrients in the herbs with a cookstove

> just

> as easily, and most patients probably do overcook their herbs.

>

OMG, how funny.

We've finally discovered the perfect translation for qi...

MOJO!

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

June 24, 2008

Bob,

There is no real evidence of the existence of Qi (sorry Zev,

historical literature isn't evidence), or most TCM patterns. What we

practice is born out of observation, trial and error. My own

observation of microwaves are born out of my own observations upon

myself and patients and it seems my views are shared by many other

practitioners.

I think its a much better idea to observe ourselves and our patients

before hitting the reply button and having a rant.

Attilio

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> Michael,

>

> I was dismayed and disappointed to see a belief posted on a

> professional medical forum that had absolutely no supporting evidence

> of any kind. After all, we are practicing medicine which at least some

> people think should be evidence-based. To me, this belief smacks of

> the romantic, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific streak within our

> profession's version of medicine, Western CM. From my point of view,

> this is an example of an all too pervasive Ludditism couple with a

> lack of critical judgment among a large portion of Western students

> and practitioners of CM.

>

> Further, to suggest, as you seem to do, that beliefs require no

> evidence seems very facile and disingenuous to me -- as in " it's all

> good. " I can only think you are inferring specifically religious

> beliefs as evidence of a type of common belief not supported by

> evidence, since, in all other areas of human endeavor, belief is

> typically judged by the evidence for that belief -- as in right and

> wrong beliefs, good and bad beliefs, etc. If you go on to say that

> religious belief is a form of valid evidence-less belief, then I would

> say that is extremely naive religious belief. In my experience and

> according to Buddhist teachings on the three potential levels of

> belief (or faith), mature religious belief is based on doing certain

> practices (experiments, if you will) and then having certain

> compelling personal experiences resulting in wisdom or a higher type

> of knowledge. As Western examples of such higher knowledge based on

> personal experience (i.e., spiritual exercises or experiments), I

> would point to Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross whose faith

> was certainly not evidence-less.

>

> If, on the other hand, you are arguing that it is perfectly valid to

> hold any and all beliefs without evidence, then I think that is a

> puerile point of view. Consider the belief common in Nazi Germany that

> Jews are somehow an inferior race and that the world would be a better

> place if all Jews were exterminated. If we give a free pass to an idea

> simply because it is labeled a belief, see where that can get us!

>

> As for whether I do or do not believe in qi, if qi is defined as the

> dynamic for change inherent in phenomenal existence (i.e., nature),

> then, yes, I do believe in qi based on direct, personal (however

> potentially universal) non-conceptual perception. In terms of

> medicine, then, qi describes the dynamic phenomena of the body

> manifesting as 1) movement, 2) transformation, 3) warming, 4)

> defending, and 5) containing (viz. Wiseman & Feng). " Dynamic: "

> " Relating to energy or physical force in motion... " (Webster's New

> World Dictionary, College Edition, The World Publishing Company,

> Cleveland & New York, 1966).

>

> As for whether I believe that microwaves are deleterious to the qi of

> food cooked in a microwave oven and, therefore, are deleterious to

> human health, I have no idea because I lack any concrete evidence. If

> you or anyone presents rationally compelling evidence of such a

> deleterious effect, then I would be more than happy to entertain that

> notion. However, I strongly believe that professional practitioners of

> medicine, albeit CM, should present some sort of evidence before

> publishing such beliefs on a forum such as this. As I perhaps more

> than anyone else on this forum know, when you put thoughts in print,

> these thoughts take on a life of their own. As Ben Franklin says in

> the TV drama about John Adams (part 2), thinking out loud is the

> source of many of the problems in this world.

>

> Bob

>

June 25, 2008

Bob,

I believe, as you do in evidence based medicine, but in all due

respect after 20 years in medicine, the one thing I have evidenced

myself is that what I was taught to be the " absolute truth " changes

every decade or so. A decade ago in medicine, I was taught that

unless there was a history of breast or ovarian cancer or other

contraindication, post-menopausal women would benefit from hormone

replacement therapy...better heart, better bones, better mind...now I

rarely see it prescribed. A decade ago I was taught cholestrol

reducing statins would prevent heart attacks...now that is being

challenged. All were evidence based...and the same evidence basing

challenges their very use. As we learn more, what we evidence

changes...and wasn't it someone " thinking out loud " that questioned

those absolute truths?

Nearly a decade ago, during rounds I was " thinking out loud " and

questioning why some patients were given diuretics post operatively

and others weren't. I had noticed that those who were not were

coming back with pleural effusions. I was informed that I was not to

voice my opinions and only state that which was evidence based and

studied...a few of the NP's got together and did such a study...and

confirmed what I believed.

Should we stifle beliefs that might result in new information? Do we

help or harm by thinking out loud as long as we define that which we

believe and that which we know from evidence?

What we know of energy is so limited, yet we know it exists... is it

out of the realm of possiblity that a microwave may damage certain

components of plant based material? I don't have an opinion either

way but I would welcome anyone to find out.

As I read you statement about beliefs I was reminded about something

I read many decades ago...before medicine as we know it, before even

electricity...it was a common " belief " that if you coughed you should

cover your mouth or you could become ill. Now there was no concept

of germs at that time, the " belief " was that having your mouth opened

and unguarded could invite evil spirits in.

Having said that, if I have insulted anyone with my soapbox, I will

plead the evil spririt defense

Wishing you wisdom,

Randy

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> Michael,

>

> I was dismayed and disappointed to see a belief posted on a

> professional medical forum that had absolutely no supporting

evidence

> of any kind. After all, we are practicing medicine which at least

some

> people think should be evidence-based. To me, this belief smacks of

> the romantic, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific streak within our

> profession's version of medicine, Western CM. From my point of view,

> this is an example of an all too pervasive Ludditism couple with a

> lack of critical judgment among a large portion of Western students

> and practitioners of CM.

>

> Further, to suggest, as you seem to do, that beliefs require no

> evidence seems very facile and disingenuous to me -- as in " it's all

> good. " I can only think you are inferring specifically religious

> beliefs as evidence of a type of common belief not supported by

> evidence, since, in all other areas of human endeavor, belief is

> typically judged by the evidence for that belief -- as in right and

> wrong beliefs, good and bad beliefs, etc. If you go on to say that

> religious belief is a form of valid evidence-less belief, then I

would

> say that is extremely naive religious belief. In my experience and

> according to Buddhist teachings on the three potential levels of

> belief (or faith), mature religious belief is based on doing certain

> practices (experiments, if you will) and then having certain

> compelling personal experiences resulting in wisdom or a higher type

> of knowledge. As Western examples of such higher knowledge based on

> personal experience (i.e., spiritual exercises or experiments), I

> would point to Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross whose

faith

> was certainly not evidence-less.

>

> If, on the other hand, you are arguing that it is perfectly valid to

> hold any and all beliefs without evidence, then I think that is a

> puerile point of view. Consider the belief common in Nazi Germany

that

> Jews are somehow an inferior race and that the world would be a

better

> place if all Jews were exterminated. If we give a free pass to an

idea