World Medicine of Tao

[Ya Mu]

I do have hopes that this thread will not turn into personal attacks and kindly ask that all keep civil as this IS an important topic.

 

TAOism - Everything. Why Not World Medicine?

 

My personal experience has led me to the concept of "World Medicine". Although some on here have not read my previous postings and apparently some think I practice "alternative medicine" (I was actually amazed to learn that some thought this as I have posted quite a bit on medical therapeutics) I actually do not like or agree with alternative medicine.

 

Why? Alternative to what? That would depend on what culture one was brought up in and on what education level one has concerning medicines of the world. In the west, most think of the term "alternative" medicine to be against western medicine. And I do believe this to be true. In my career I have run across many practitioners of many forms of therapeutics and, IMO it is unfortunate for anyone not to have an open mind concerning therapeutics that work. Although western medicine does indeed have its problems, it is amazing for those things that it will address. So my personal viewpoint is that anyone totally against western medicine is simply not looking at the big picture.

 

By the same token, those that close their minds to therapeutics utilized across the world are also missing the big picture. How about let us all form a system of medicine that encompasses "all that works". Wouldn't this be a grand concept?

 

The closest I have personally seen to this concept is in the hospitals of China. Currently one does not see this as much if at all, but before the crackdown of about 13 years ago many hospitals had a western medicine department (many with Harvard trained MD's), a TCM department including acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine, a tui na department, and a medical qigong department. It was very interesting to see the patient sent to whichever department they needed to go through. Of course often this could be very broad, as the patient was sent through many of the departments, usually not just one. If a person was having a stroke they of course sent them to the acupuncture department - NOT. That would have been dumb; they were immediately sent to the western medicine department. On the other hand, if a person had neuro-muscular problems they were usually sent to Tui Na, medical qigong and acupuncture departments. This makes sense as these therapeutics excel with neuro muscular problems. I would like to point out that the Chinese herbal medicine departments had their own pharmacists. These folks were amazing as they had over 5,000 ingredients in the parmacopeia.

 

The closest I have personally been involved with this concept was when I had the opportunity

to work side by side with a western trained MD in my pain clinic.

 

All sort of arguments can be made, some with merit and others through pure ignorance, about "proof" of what works. In western medicine, "proof" is established through chemical analysis leading to double blind studies then submittal of drugs to the FDA for approval. What many do not realize is that this process is rife with corruption and that the FDA is not the organization that actually goes through the drug company's data. These are independent reviewers who are subject to all sorts of corruption. I am not sure as I can't recall which major network did this (possibly NBC), but not too long ago they took all the data from one of the drugs that was previously approved and submitted the data under a fictitious drug company name for approval. And guess what? Even though HISTORY OF USE had found that particular drug to cause many fatal and near fatal problems with people and had indeed been taken off the market, it was approved with the reviewer finding no problems at all with the drug!

 

So we have double blind studies as one process of "proof". History of use is the other. IMO history of use wins out every time. I totally support western medicine. But I personally would much rather take a proven drug than a newly developed one. Far too many of the newly developed drugs end up having problems, although some of them are amazing, and, if it was a life and death situation, I personally would not hesitate to take a newly developed drug.

 

And this leads into what are mentioned above and are considered, here in the west, COMPLEMENTARY therapies. The Chinese people have proven the efficacy, through history of use, of therapies such as acupuncture, tui na, and medical qigong. Why no double blind studies? Actually there are but they are few and far between - no rich drug company to pay for such. And, to be fair, the Chinese people did not need western double blind studies for many of these therapies had been performed for quite some time.

 

A valid question was asked on the other thread about how these therapies could be seen as not having conflict and I posted a link to a physician based organization, www.medicalacupuncture.org, that had resolved a part of this question. Unfortunately, a couple of people did not bother to look at the site and immediately talked sarcastically about them being an "alternative" medicine site. They absolutely are not such. It is a quite-large group of western trained physicians who add medical acupuncture to the services they offer. And they are all certified in acupuncture with very good training. I went through (unofficially) the training program. I have studied acupuncture in China and thought their program was very good.

 

I have stated, though, that I wasn't a particular fan of acupuncture or TCM. But that is mostly due to the efficacy I found with medical qigong so there was no need for me personally to continue with needle acupuncture (I do Qigong-style acupuncture - no needle inserted). I have seen many people get results with acupuncture. I also personally take Chinese herbal medicines when needed - with excellent results.

 

Tui Na? NOBODY who has ever had Tui Na doesn't like it. HA HA. At least I have never seen anyone that didn't like it. Tui Na encompasses the full extent of physical medicine, massage, manipulation, etc. Yep. Chinese Tui Na practitioners did manipulation WAY before the Osteopaths and WAY WAY before the Chiropractors. In China I saw great results with Tui Na and had the opportunity to study with the head doctor of the Chinese Olympic team as well as with other doctors. Here in the US it is fairly easy to find a Tui Na practitioner although their scope of practice will probably be limited to be much less than the training. Some massage therapy programs here in the USA have initiated Tui Na into the training.

 

Medical Qigong? As I stated previously, once in China there were many medical qigong hospitals. Unfortunately, in the last decade or so these have diminished with most of them being shut down. Why? Falun Gong was the main culprit. The government had a reversal in their policy and now, when qigong is taught, it must be referred to as "scientific breathing exercise". The government has also mandated which exercises can be taught. Think "CONTROL" here. If people were continued to be taught spiritual freedom they were much more likely to be against strict control and therefore anti-government. Such a waste and such a shame that this has happened. Fortunately, many visited China and were taught prior to the last 13 or so years and the knowledge of medical qigong has multiplied big time over the last 15 years here in the west.

For those that do not know, I ran a pain clinic utilizing medical qigong, qigong tui na (of a style mostly built into the Taoist medicine form), and Chinese Taoist medicine for right around 30 years before I retired to teach full time. We had outstanding results in the clinic with these amazing therapeutics.

 

No need for anyone to argue about forms of medicine - I say lets use the world medicine concept, giving us CHOICE. I highly suggest those that do not understand these forms, as well as MANY others not mentioned, educate themselves about each forms efficacy and make intelligent choices - not choices based on bias or ignorance.

 

As a footnote I will say I do like homeopathy and studied the British Institute of Homeopathy program. Unfortunately or fortunately as the case may be, it came down to the problem that, if I had of practiced it on the public, I would have been beyond my own license scope of practice. So I never practiced it. I encourage ALL practitioners of therapeutics not to go beyond their individual scope of practice.

 

DANG, I can't believe I made that long of post. I hope it helps people broaden their understanding of these therapeutics as well as their own choices.

[Aetherous]

Well, Western medicine has become world medicine. It's what is accepted by the medical community worldwide.

 

In order for complementary therapies to be taken more seriously, they need to be effective...and then studied. Only then can they fit into this paradigm.

[skydog]

^hmm turtle shell, I hear what your saying, but what if they already are effective, but not studied due to social pressures on scientists and big pharmas money

[Aetherous]

Cinnamon was studied...exercise has been studied...

 

It is possible to find a scientist that's willing to work with you. If your therapy actually has near 100% efficacy, then (I don't mean to put pressure on anyone) it's your DUTY to spread that knowledge and ability to the rest of the world.

Edited November 17, 2012 by turtle shell

[Aetherous]

But attempting to put evidence based practice (western medicine, which IS "world medicine") beneath your unproven system of medicine...well, that won't be taken seriously by most people. And it may lead some to thinking that this is an alternative medicine. "I don't need western medicine, I've got WORLD medicine".

[Ya Mu]

Well, Western medicine has become world medicine. It's what is accepted by the medical community worldwide.

 

In order for complementary therapies to be taken more seriously, they need to be effective...and then studied. Only then can they fit into this paradigm.

I think it is a given that they have to be effective. No one wishes to take or have a therapy performed that is ineffective. History of use does weed this out very well.

 

Could I summarize your statement to say that it is your opinion that ONLY therapeutics that have passed double-blind studies with government approval are valid and those therapies that have not are not valid? My argument for HISTORY OF USE didn't sway you, eh?

How about this to support my argument for history of use as being MORE valid than double blind studies?: A list of drugs that completed doubly blind double blind studies that were taken off the market due to immense problems: http://en.wikipedia....withdrawn_drugs

 

Drug name Withdrawn Remarks Thalidomide 1950s–1960s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity; returned to market for use in leprosy and multiple myeloma under FDA orphan drug rules Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) 1950s–1960s Marketed as a psychiatric drug; withdrawn after it became widely used recreationally Diethylstilbestrol 1970s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity Phenformin and Buformin 1978 Withdrawn because of risk of lactic acidosis Ticrynafen 1982 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatitis Zimelidine 1983 Withdrawn worldwide because of risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome Phenacetin 1983 An ingredient in "A.P.C." tablet; withdrawn because of risk of cancer and kidney disease Methaqualone 1984 Withdrawn because of risk of addiction and overdose Nomifensine (Merital) 1986 Withdrawn because of risk of hemolytic anemia Triazolam 1991 Withdrawn in the United Kingdom because of risk of psychiatric adverse drug reactions. This drug continues to be available in the U.S. Terodiline (Micturin) 1991 Prolonged QT interval Temafloxacin 1992 Withdrawn in the United States because of allergic reactions and cases of hemolytic anemia, leading to three patient deaths.[1] Flosequinan (Manoplax) 1993 Withdrawn in the United States because of an increased risk of hospitalization or death Alpidem (Ananxyl) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious hepatotoxicity. Chlormezanone (Trancopal) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis Fen-phen (popular combination of fenfluramine andphentermine) 1997 Phentermine remains on the market, dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine – later withdrawn as caused heart valve disorder Tolrestat (Alredase) 1997 Withdrawn because of risk of severe hepatotoxicity Terfenadine (Seldane, Triludan) 1998 Withdrawn because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias; superseded by fexofenadine Mibefradil (Posicor) 1998 Withdrawn because of dangerous interactions with other drugs Etretinate 1990s Risk of birth defects; narrow therapeutic index Tolcapone (Tasmar) 1998 Hepatotoxicity Temazepam (Restoril, Euhypnos, Normison, Remestan, Tenox, Norkotral) 1999 Withdrawn in Sweden and Norway because of diversion, abuse, and a relatively high rate of overdose deaths in comparison to other drugs of its group. This drug continues to be available in most of the world including the U.S., but under strict controls. Astemizole (Hismanal) 1999 Arrhythmias because of interactions with other drugs Grepafloxacin (Raxar) 1999 Prolonged QT interval Levamisole (Ergamisol) 1999 Still used as veterinary drug; in humans was used to treat melanoma before it was withdrawn for agranulocytosis Troglitazone (Rezulin) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity; superseded by pioglitazone and rosiglitazone Alosetron (Lotronex) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of fatal complications of constipation; reintroduced 2002 on a restricted basis Cisapride (Propulsid) 2000s Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias Amineptine (Survector) 2000 Withdrawn because of hepatotoxicity, dermatological side effects, and abuse potential. Phenylpropanolamine (Propagest, Dexatrim) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of stroke in women under 50 years of age when taken at high doses (75 mg twice daily) for weight loss. Trovafloxacin (Trovan) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of liver failure Cerivastatin (Baycol, Lipobay) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of rhabdomyolysis Rapacuronium (Raplon) 2001 Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of fatal bronchospasm Rofecoxib (Vioxx) 2004 Withdrawn because of risk of myocardial infarction Co-proxamol (Distalgesic) 2004 Withdrawn in the UK due to overdose dangers. mixed amphetamine salts (Adderall XR) 2005 Withdrawn in Canada because of risk of stroke. See Health Canada press release. The ban was later lifted because the death rate among those taking Adderall XR was determined to be no greater than those not taking Adderall. hydromorphone extended-release (Palladone) 2005 Withdrawn because of a high risk of accidental overdose when administered with alcohol Thioridazine (Melleril) 2005 Withdrawn from U.K. market because of cardiotoxicity Pemoline (Cylert) 2005 Withdrawn from U.S. market because of hepatotoxicity Natalizumab (Tysabri) 2005–2006 Voluntarily withdrawn from U.S. market because of risk of Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Returned to market July, 2006. Ximelagatran (Exanta) 2006 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity (liver damage). Pergolide (Permax) 2007 Voluntarily withdrawn in the U.S. because of the risk of heart valve damage. Still available elsewhere. Tegaserod (Zelnorm) 2007 Withdrawn because of imbalance of cardiovascular ischemic events, including heart attack and stroke. Was available through a restricted access program until April 2008. Aprotinin (Trasylol) 2007 Withdrawn because of increased risk of complications or death; permanently withdrawn in 2008 except for research use Inhaled insulin (Exubera) 2007 Withdrawn in the UK due to poor sales caused by national restrictions on prescribing, doubts over long term safety and too high a cost Lumiracoxib (Prexige) 2007–2008 Progressively withdrawn around the world because of serious side effects, mainly liver damage Rimonabant (Acomplia) 2008 Withdrawn around the world because of risk of severe depression and suicide Efalizumab (Raptiva) 2009 Withdrawn because of increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy; to be completely withdrawn from market by June 2009 Sibutramine (Reductil/Meridia) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe, Australasia, Canada, and the U.S. because of increased cardiovascular risk Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg) 2010 Withdrawn in the U.S. due to increased risks of veno-occlusive disease and based on results of a clinical trial in which it showed no benefit in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) Propoxyphene (Darvocet/Darvon) 2010 Withdrawn from worldwide market because of increased risk of heart attacks and stroke.^[1] Rosiglitazone (Avandia) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe because of increased risk of heart attacks and death. This drug continues to be available in the U.S. Drotrecogin alfa (Xigris) 2011 Withdrawn by Lily worldwide follo

 

Your argument assumes that only western people can judge the efficacy of a therapy and that history of use is not as valid as double blind studies. Non-western countries would think that typical western arrogant thinking. Hmmm, I do believe the above list throws a kink into that "only double blind studied therapies are valid" as it appears that History of Use PROVED the studies to be wrong.

[Aetherous]

Western medicine is not Western versus Eastern. It's evidence based practice, versus not. Why can't you prove what you do?

 

People in many other countries, such as Japan, China, Germany, whatever...all publish studies on medicine.

[Ya Mu]

But attempting to put evidence based practice (western medicine, which IS "world medicine") beneath your unproven system of medicine...well, that won't be taken seriously by most people. And it may lead some to thinking that this is an alternative medicine. "I don't need western medicine, I've got WORLD medicine".

It is beneath it only as a new category. To ignore the rest of the world is putting blinders on. And that statement "I don't need western medicine, I've got WORLD medicine" is false thinking as it is plainly listed that Western Medicine is an INHERENT aspect of the proposed category of World Medicine. Lets use what works!

[Aetherous]

By the way...real medicine fixes itself, and adjusts for truth. That's why you have the info that you do on all of those drugs.

 

Work with the system (which is world medicine)...if your therapy doesn't fit in, you're either not trying hard enough, or it's not effective enough. According to you, it is effective enough. Great.

 

Arguing with me on here about how good or bad real medicine is, isn't going to get you in contact with someone who is willing to publish your work.

[Ya Mu]

Western medicine is not Western versus Eastern. It's evidence based practice, versus not. Why can't you prove what you do?

 

People in many other countries, such as Japan, China, Germany, whatever...all publish studies on medicine.

ARRGH. So you wish to also turn this into a personal argument - sorry, what I do already has been proven many times over, over, and over and this thread is about a "thinking person's concept of World Medicine" NOT about "what I do". Of course it is open to non-thinking people as well.

[Enishi]

The history of Western Medicine, when fully examined, is not quite as glorious as the media and the academic/medical establishment would have one think. It's excellent for treating emergencies but in terms of preventive care it is quite lacking, and there's quite a few nasty skeletons in its closet, among them the suppression of treatments that didn't fit into the materialist paradigm.

 

Numerous procedures performed at hospitals here in America aren't even necessary, but done for the sake of regulations to prevent lawsuits. More complementary treatments would help prevent such colossal suffering and waste.

 

http://www.ahealedpl...et/medicine.htm

Edited November 24, 2012 by Enishi

[Aetherous]

Lets use what works!

 

Yup...that's what everyone is aiming for.

[Aetherous]

ARRGH. So you wish to also turn this into a personal argument - sorry, what I do already has been proven many times over, over, and over and this thread is about a "thinking person's concept of World Medicine" NOT about "what I do". Of course it is open to non-thinking people as well.

 

I don't wish to turn it into a personal argument at all. Please don't get uptight about me wishing you would get your work published.

[Aetherous]

The history of Western Medicine, when fully examined, is not quite as glorious as the media and the academic/medical establishment would have one think. It's excellent for treating emergencies but in terms of preventive care it is quite lacking, and there's quite a few nasty skeletons in its closet, such as suppression of treatments that didn't fit into the materialist paradigm.

 

I disagree entirely...and it's unfortunate that this sort of discussion leads people to saying such things.

[Ya Mu]

By the way...real medicine fixes itself, and adjusts for truth. That's why you have the info that you do on all of those drugs.

 

Work with the system (which is world medicine)...if your therapy doesn't fit in, you're either not trying hard enough, or it's not effective enough. According to you, it is effective enough. Great.

 

Arguing with me on here about how good or bad real medicine is, isn't going to get you in contact with someone who is willing to publish your work.

WHO said I was looking for someone to publish my work? My work is ALREADY published and in most countries of the world. These therapies are in most countries of the world, utilized in clinic. ONE MORE TIME, please stick to the topic. I like your argument, so please use those facts.

[Aetherous]

WHO said I was looking for someone to publish my work? My work is ALREADY published and in most countries of the world. These therapies are in most countries of the world, utilized in clinic. ONE MORE TIME, please stick to the topic. I like your argument, so please use those facts.

 

Your medical qigong is published? Legitimately? If not...I say you should be looking for someone to publish your work.

 

...

 

Alright dudes...that's enough from me. I've said my piece, and I'll only just keep repeating it if I engage you guys in discussion.

 

Silencio!

Edited November 17, 2012 by turtle shell

[Ya Mu]

I don't wish to turn it into a personal argument at all. Please don't get uptight about me wishing you would get your work published.

Again, my work is already published. But thank you.

[Aetherous]

Why so fucking obstinate, Ya Mu? I don't stand in opposition to you at all. CHILL.

 

Where is your medical qigong published exactly?

[Ya Mu]

The history of Western Medicine, when fully examined, is not quite as glorious as the media and the academic/medical establishment would have one think. It's excellent for treating emergencies but in terms of preventive care it is quite lacking, and there's quite a few nasty skeletons in its closet, among them as suppression of treatments that didn't fit into the materialist paradigm.

 

Numerous procedures performed at hospitals here in America aren't even necessary, but done for the sack of regulations meant to prevent lawsuits. More complementary treatments would help prevent such colossal suffering and waste.

 

http://www.ahealedpl...et/medicine.htm

A good point. But one problem with western medicine is not the therapies themselves, or the physicians, but a thing contrived by the insurance companies called "Standard of care". If the physician knows of a therapy that works very well but is not listed as part of the "standard of care", and they go ahead and use it - EVEN if it is effective, they are opened up for a possible lawsuit. Asinine, but the way it is. Sounds to me like it needs an overhaul.

[Ya Mu]

Why so fucking obstinate, Ya Mu? I don't stand in opposition to you at all. CHILL.

 

Where is your medical qigong published exactly?

ARRgh (again)

I am not being obstinate. YOU wished to take the thread personal into one of those "prove it to MY standard" type of arguments and I had asked that not happen. I haven't said your argument is wrong. I just gave my reasons why I don't agree with it. Please stick to your argument instead of going off into personal tangents. You have a good argument, why not say why the things I listed are not valid in your opinion?

 

edit: forgot to answer rest of question as I was busy typing another reply.

My work as of 2002, is published in my book, A Light Warrior's Guide to High Level Energy Healing

Several medical qigong treatment methods are listed. This book has shipped literally all over the world and has sold out of print edition but is available on kindle. My written work from 2002-today is in the form of another book. I already have a publisher.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Ya Mu

[GrandmasterP]

One of the problems with complementary therapists is that anyone can hang out their shingle.

Some complementary therapies are regulated but it depends on where you live as to who is licensed by what to do which.

Some treatment regimens are self referential, therapist A sets up a school, sells his woo via books and DVDs and issues certificates to the high rollers who then continue in the same vein in their part of the forest. Classic franchise setup and Tao help their victims in some cases.

Now that's not to say that all complementary therapies and therapists are snake oil and woo, many are tried and tested.

Our own dear Queen is rumoured to favour homeopathic remedies for certain ailments.

However the fact remains that anyone can set up. TCM in China is pretty well regulated and it would be a brave practitioner who attempted to simply announce one day that he was a TCM expert unless he actually was. That doesn't apply here in the west hence TCM or its variations as advertised and sold needs to be approached , along with its potentially self styled 'doctors or therapists' with the greatest caution.

[Celestial]

Coming from someone who has two doctors in his family and married to a pharmacist, I can tell you that western medicine is about as corrupt as it gets. I used to get sick - a lot - pills weren't helping. I changed my diet and started exercising, guess what? I haven't been sick in 2 years, not even so much as a cold.

 

I see people RUSHING OUT to their doctors asking for all these prescriptions but on the way home stopping for some McDonald's. After they down a 40oz super gulp, DIET COKE mind you, they drink SLIM FAST.

 

I've lived it, seen it, been there done that and back again.

 

Edit: I hate to burst anyone's bubble on here but we're living in an unnatural state. Our biology is struggling to keep up with our technology. We're sitting majority of the time and not moving our bodies. We're stuffing our faces with PROCESSED FOODS and expecting some cure in the form of a pill.

 

Like I said, I've been there, I see it all around me wherever I go. People are sick and western medicine isn't helping. That is to say however that eastern medicine isn't the cure either. The cure is within you. But of course no one wants to hear this, they would rather live in their own delusional world believing every little thing a 'white coat' tells them.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Celestial

[Ya Mu]

One of the problems with complementary therapists is that anyone can hang out their shingle.

Some complementary therapies are regulated but it depends on where you live as to who is licensed by what to do which.

Some treatment regimens are self referential, therapist A sets up a school, sells his woo via books and DVDs and issues certificates to the high rollers who then continue in the same vein in their part of the forest. Classic franchise setup and Tao help their victims in some cases.

Now that's not to say that all complementary therapies and therapists are snake oil and woo, many are tried and tested.

Our own dear Queen is rumoured to favour homeopathic remedies for certain ailments.

However the fact remains that anyone can set up. TCM in China is pretty well regulated and it would be a brave practitioner who attempted to simply announce one day that he was a TCM expert unless he actually was. That doesn't apply here in the west hence TCM or its variations as advertised and sold needs to be approached , along with its potentially self styled 'doctors or therapists' with the greatest caution.

Good point. I am ignorant of how things work in the UK.

But here in the USA that would not happen. TCM is regulated, massage therapy is regulated, Chiropractic is regulated, and of course western MD is regulated.

 

"What works" is a regulator in itself. Yes, "God is Great, Beer is Good, and People are Crazy" (song) but people aren't dumb enough to keep paying out for a therapy that doesn't work (well, for the most part).

[Ya Mu]

Coming from someone who has two doctors in his family and married to a pharmacist, I can tell you that western medicine is about as corrupt as it gets. I used to get sick - a lot - pills weren't helping. I changed my diet and started exercising, guess what? I haven't been sick in 2 years, not even so much as a cold.

 

I see people RUSHING OUT to their doctors asking for all these prescriptions but on the way home stopping for some McDonald's. After they down a 40oz super gulp, DIET COKE mind you, they drink SLIM FAST.

 

I've lived it, seen it, been there done that and back again.

Yes people who live it have a difference in understanding than those who haven't. I too have a western MD in my family. They are always saying about the newly minted MD's "Just wait until they experience the real world." "It's gonna be a harsh awakening".

 

edit to add:

And good point about diet and exercise. This is an important aspect of Naturopathic Medicine, which I have not as yet mentioned. A true story of one of the first famous naturopaths (from England). He was called to the bedside of a dying child who had been treated by "modern medicine" but was still dying. He walked into the closed off room of the child, took one look around, picked up a chair, and threw it through the window. Then told the parents the child would be alright and he would be by to collect his bill the next week. The child lived.

Naturopathy - Fresh air, fresh water, diet (including supplements), and exercise.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Ya Mu

[henro]

Western medicine is not Western versus Eastern. It's evidence based practice, versus not. Why can't you prove what you do?

 

People in many other countries, such as Japan, China, Germany, whatever...all publish studies on medicine.

 

 

They're out there:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=qigong