Subject: Re: Science and TCM (was Re: Qi again)

From: [email-masked] (Z'ev Rosenberg)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 10:59:59 -0800

>At 13:06 16-01-95 GMT, Norm., our Moderator wrote:
>
>
>>The question of whether or not points and channels exist from the 
>>standpoint of Western science is indeed one worth having, and one in 
>>which I take a personal interest. To the extent that such discussions
>>revolve around increasing mutual understanding, this is fine. If Jan
>>or others intend to take the stance that we don't know what we're
>>talking about, or the Western science is somehow superior to what we
>>do, I will close the topic. 
>>
>>In the latter form, it might be more appropriate in the USENET 
>>newsgroup misc.health.alternative, or even the sci.med hierarchy.
>>
>>Norm. (OrMed Moderator)]
>
>I didn't subscribe to OrMed to fight or disagree.
>Believe me, I respect TCM and the TCM-practitioners who have shown in this
>list that they have studied Chinese and Indian philosophies very seriously.
>But I disagree with the statement that TCM and Science are incompatible.
>I hate Fundamentalism!
>What about all those Chinese research institutes investigating acupuncture
>and herb physiolgy and pharmacology?
>Don't you think that better understanding of chinese medicine is needed for
>better treatment of patients?
>Jan Nauta, Groningen, the Netherlands

Dear Jan, 
  Please do not feel that everyone on this conference feels that science
and Chinese medicine are incompatable; I for one do not.  However, how can
one understand the deep internal logic of Chinese medicine without deep
study, before one can translate it into another paradigm, i.e. Western
science?  There cannot be a conflict when there is mutual respect of
disciplines.
  Understand, Jan, that there are individuals that would like to completely
discard Chinese medical theory based on yin/yang and wu xing, and
retranslate it into a physiological understanding akin to modern
biomedicine. I, for one, feel it would be a great mistake to throw away
3000 years of acquired wisdom and PRINCIPLE for ever-changing modern
research ideas which are fragmented and speculative.  Modern medicine
itself is on the verge of great changes as it slowly embraces chaos theory,
complexity theory and systems theory from modern physics.  It is then when
compatability can arise, in my opinion.  
   In what CONTEXT do meridians and points exist or not exist?  What makes
modern scientific methodology more 'real' than classical Chinese medicine's
understanding of the body and mind? Do not both approaches treat and effect
changes on human health?

Z'ev Rosenberg, L. Ac., D.O.M.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 22:14:05 -0500

On Jan 21, Jan wrote

It is not a question so much of fundamentalism as much as an observed bigotry
from the "science" of biochemical medicine. In the US, "science" is only done
by recognized research institutions that get money to skew their research in
the direction of the sponsors and the powers that be. Between that and the
dependence on machinery that is 1/1000th as sensitive as it needs to be to
the body and its functions plus those who are sure enough of what they
presentl;y see to pronounce that they know it all.... I'm not quite so sure
of the attitude of scientific inquiry. 
True science is in the power of observation over the millenia, and this can
include the gross information derived from testing, as it will be. To be
truthful, though, biochemical science has not yet been around long enough to
meet the requirements of Oriental medical science. We should continue to
observe what they are doing and integrate what is useful, but to attempt to
fit what is not yet perceivable by methodology available into a corrupt
theoretical framework will have to wait for the time being. I enjoy reading
the theories and such of those in academia who are weaving such things, but
the framework I use makes sense to me and I would much prefer to understand
what they do within my understanding of the universe until their house is
more in order. It works better for my patients.
David Molony 
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 26 Jan 1995 12:41:05 GMT

Jan Nauta, Groningen, the Netherlands TCMA, Traditional
: Chinese Medicine Association  said, on Jan 26, 1995:

: For some people Chinese medical theory seems to be too Holy for
: serious and critical analysis. With such attitude TCM can't be
: improved anymore, because it is already perfect. I can't believe
: that. 

Well, not to flame you, but this is a strawman fallacy. You put words in a
proposed contestants mouth and then point to their absurdity. But I have seen
no one on this list yet who has proposed that East-Asian Traditional Healing
is too Holy for serious and critical analysis, or that 'TCM is perfect'
(something I would agree 'TCM' isn't, especially).

: I have the impression that the health condition and life
: expectancy of the average American or European is still better than
: for the Chinese. 

So what? This kind of guesswork we could do without. China is still immensely
poor, has very poor infrastructure, has terrible industrial pollution, and
relies on night soil fertilizer. It's amazing they aren't all dead.

: BTW, the Chinese health situation improved
: considerably after introduction of Western medicine. 

So what? 

: One might
: therefore conclude that traditional medicine has only a limited
: value. 

You might, perhaps, but this comparison is exactly what is not appropriate to
this group. I would argue that any one-to-one correlation between a system of
'medicine' and a system of 'healing' is bound to be in error. Shall we use
Scutellaria to fight typhoid? Probably not. Should we use Prozac to fight
Spirit imbalance? Probably not. 

Is it better to remove Heat from the Blood in a Beng lou case, or do a
hysterectomy? After all, a uterus in a menopausal woman is only of 'limited
value.' There is no basis for adequate comparison, the goals of a system of
healing being eventual wholeness--the goal of a system of medicine being
quick 'disease' removal.

[email-masked] (Paul Iannone, P.O.B. 66843, L.A., CA 90066).

---

From: [email-masked] (Jan Nauta)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 13:11:49 +0200

At 12:41 26-01-95 GMT, [email-masked] wrote:
>..........

Let me put it in another way:
Does it make sense to discuss the possibility that the effects of
acupuncture and traditional chinese formulas can be explained by modern
physiology and pharmacology?

Are you prepared to consider the possibility that some of the traditional
chinese formulas are of no therapeutic value?

Is it possible to organise a close cooperation between TCM-therapists
(including their indispensible experience) and scientists (physiologists,
psychologists, pharmacologists etc.)?

Jan Nauta, Groningen, the Netherlands
TCMA, Traditional Chinese Medicine Association

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 95 23:29:27 EST

(this is Jan)
>> BTW, the Chinese health situation improved considerable after introduction
>> of Western medicine. One might therefore conclude that traditional medicine
>> has only a limited value.
>
>
(this is Paul B.)
>This is not to argue that TCM can meet the entire health care needs of a 
>polulation, but consider that at the same time Western medicine was 
>introduced in China, sweeping public health measures and sanitation were 
>also introduced, and the economic condition of the average citizen was 
>improved as well. These measures dramatically improved the health of 
>Westerners when introduced there, and surely contributed to the 
>improvement in the health of the Chinese. It is not all due to 

Exactly. It is not possible make the kind of leap Jan made with any
kind of certainty because it is not possible to isolate the variable.
Indeed, access is another vector that would apply. In fact, if I
remember correctly, the people of Japan are significantly healthier
than those in the US, and TCM is commonly used there also. I believe
the same is true in Singapore. If I am right, then this is a significant
counter argument which would indicate that other factors need to be
considered. I'm surprised such a strong proponent of science as Jan
should have made such an assertion.

At any rate, I wonder if this is getting off the subject, or how
exactly it relates. I don't really see the connexion.

				-- Chris.

---

From: [email-masked] (Z'ev Rosenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 16:33:59 -0800

>psychologists, pharmacologists etc.)?
 By what and whose criteria would it be determined the therapeutic value of
chinese herbal formulas?  What is a therapeutic result? Biomedicine and
Chinese medicine have different criteria for clinical success.  Is
biomedicine prepared to consider the possibility that some of its
medications are of no therapeutic value?  That routine HRT or hysterectomy
is not therapeutically sound?
  The close cooperation you and others seek is possible, but only when
Chinese medicine is seen to the public, biomedical practioners, and even
many of its own practitioners to be a powerful, valid therapeutic entity in
its own right.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 30 Jan 1995 09:22:22 GMT

On Jan 30, 1995, Jan Nauta said:
: Let me put it in another way:
: Does it make sense to discuss the possibility that the effects of
: acupuncture and traditional chinese formulas can be explained by
: modern physiology and pharmacology?

Sense? Fine, let it make sense. But the approach is a kind of
ethnocentrism--East-Asian Traditional Healing needs validation by Western
scientific means before it is valid. Wrong. The theory of healing in ETH is
not some kind of naive code utilized until science could come along and bail
us out with 'facts.'
 
: Are you prepared to consider the possibility that some of the
: traditional chinese formulas are of no therapeutic value?

Why would you conceive that this process of investigation isn't ongoing
within East-Asian Traditional Healing all the time? It presupposes a kind of
foggy-headedness in ETH to presume this is some kind of novel idea. 

Still, what are the methods for that assessment? Science? Science, as
practiced, continues to be rather misleadingly convenient. Just because this
convenience leads to discoveries shouldn't confuse anyone that science is
going to reveal all things. 

You really can't do great science on healing, that is clear. Statistical
studies, and even they are less than wholly satisfying.
 
: Is it possible to organise a close cooperation between
: TCM-therapists (including their indispensible experience) and
: scientists (physiologists, psychologists, pharmacologists etc.)?

Go for it. But don't expect those of us Archaic Healer types to care too much
about what you're 'uncovering.' When you get around to considering what
consciousness and Spirit actually are, let us know...we'll have a lot to add
to that meta-scientific discussion. By then, convenience will have failed,
and science will seem like a vacuum cleaner whose nozzles just can't clean
every crack of Mystery and should never have expected to. Meanwhile, I'll
just continue to heal and meditate on the 'skirts' of the self-validating
Dao, if that's OK with you.
 
: Jan Nauta, Groningen, the Netherlands
: TCMA, Traditional Chinese Medicine Association

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 15:03:52 EST

>physiology and pharmacology?

I don't know that it does. You seem to be making an assumption of isomorphism,
which may or may not be correct. To be honest, I'm not so sure they
are both just different ways of saying the same thing. There is certainly
overlap, but they both have their strengths and weaknesses. This may
because they look at different characteristics, and therefore address
some different problems.

I also think the distiction is not between TCM and "modern" physio and
pharamacology. That implies that TCM has been static all these years,
and nothing new is happening. And that is certainly not true. Work
is on-going in advancing TCM's abilities, and developing new formuae.
I think your word usage perhaps betrays a subconscious bias?

>chinese formulas are of no therapeutic value?

Perhaps, but I am doubtful that is the case with most formulae since
they have been tested quite a bit (some of the older ones, anyway).
Then again, are you prepared to admit that some Western medicines suffer
from this very same defect? (They do).

>psychologists, pharmacologists etc.)?

I doubt it if they can't accept each other as equals.

			-- Chris.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 20 Jan 1995 19:32:26 GMT

On 1/20/95, Jan Nauta said (in part):
: But I disagree with the statement that TCM and Science are incompatible.
: I hate Fundamentalism!
: What about all those Chinese research institutes investigating
: acupuncture and herb physiolgy and pharmacology? Don't you think
: that better understanding of chinese medicine is needed for better
: treatment of patients? Jan Nauta, Groningen, the Netherlands

What about them, and NO (useful, not necessarily needed)(and what does
'better' mean?). I have no problem with expanding ETH knowledge through
Western scientific means, but there are several caveats:

1) such study overemphasizes the medical side, ignoring the many healing
aspects of ETH that cannot be conveniently studied. Western science can find
no convenient way to study many phenomena of life, so the actual domain of
validation never represents a fully-validated idea of life, but rather
reflects the paradigm that develops it--in this case leaving the modern
paradigm as the unstated, unstudied subtext. ETH has a general idea of life
that differs, and most of that idea cannot be validated empirically by this
kind of science. The best we can hope for are population studies, which are
always vulnerable to the one word dismissal: "placebo."

2) this study tends to undermine the original, whole, principles of ETH in
favor of a bastardized culling of the system for easily-rationalized
artifacts. This 'pillage' essentially diverts the culture of study of ETH to
the needs of the modern paradigm--which has a hard time understanding what
isn't known and what needs to be known, even in its own terms, anyhow.

Science is, if we are honest, a highly arbitrary process. What is studied and
why is really not the result of great deliberation, but more of perceived
need and convenience. The AMA would be _delighted_ if some herb healed a
problemsome illness, just by its chemistry! How convenient! (and many TCM and
ETH practitioners would like to have their therapy validated socially,
politically, economically, and even 'factually' by such 'simple
discoveries').

This randomness is exacerbated when it comes to applying that tool to
something as extensive as ETH. Will ETH be left, once the chemists and
physiologists have picked it apart? A real question.

Fundamentalists, or rather, traditionalists, prefer to validate the whole
system, its outlook and manner of understanding, first. It is the experience
of _this_ traditionalist that the ones doing this kind of research have
rarely done the philological, educational, historical, and practical research
first. For this reason, let it be said: _I love fundamentalists!_

---As an aside---L'ev, I am in entire agreement about traditional homeopathy,
and argue for it frequently. My thoughts on the relationships between these
two distinct systems of healing were not fully represented in that post, nor
were they intended to be.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jan Nauta)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 13:25:04 +0200