Hi Noel, Daniel, Derek,all members. Im afraid we have posted a lot of posts in this discussion, and maybe it would be better if we will continue and will summarize all at separate discussion. I hope you dont mind. I agree with you Noel:” please note that TCM Organs were identified & functions defined well before modern technology existed.” In regards to “Therefore, current Western medical description dont correspond with TCM definitions.” Noel, yes ,Western medical description dont correspond with TCM definitions, but because lately scientist explained based foundation of mechanism/physiological effect of treatments, we can have interpretation, bridge of these two methods of medicine. Daniel I agree with you:” There are many very old descriptions and diagrams predating Western studies” many of them, all being Oriental massage approach , is contradicting each other. plus minus, I am familiar and confident in Manchurian /Siberian massage approach . Fundamentally its belong to TCM. There is five different schools , proposing different descriptions and diagrams, at the time performing similar hands-on techniques. It is true , from the very beginning(I believe intensive development of biomedical science started 300 years ago) that conventional medicine, including pharmaceuticals, learned a lot from TCM, but brought to us some greater treasure of medical physiology, pathology and capabilities to deal with illnesses. I know there is some “tension”between conventional methods of massage and Oriental massage practitioners. In my further posts I will offer my thoughts and views on this two medicine approaches. We shouldnt go radical, to none of this many different approaches to treatments, but we should be critical, and in our discussion we have to bring the best, and beneficial first of all for our clients ,general public, for our industry, as well as for our financial gain. Best wishes. Boris
Posted on: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:00:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015