Endorsing what? His amazing knowledge of Chinese medicine? I would be perplexed and vexed that if by talking to one doctor, the same one I saw, that he's become a more trusted source than a host of allergists in Asia serving some of the largest populations globally and also putting out major discovery and research contributions.
Maybe he's a crack biographer. No argument from me there. An expert on pharmacognosy? Based on what? Perhaps Dr. Li is the most prominent name in USA, but none of this is center stage in Asian research, nor is it of great interest for research. I greatly respect and trust Dr. Li, the very reason I put myself in her care. I am hopeful that more discovery comes out. But when you expand the scope and look at native populations and the body of research it occupies a very different point on a continuum.
Rather than giving it the frame of mystery and magic of TCM because we're America and therefore Americans supposedly can't understand it truly I'd rather see it as a region-specific population answer because our group of allergens and how allergic disease manifest in America might benefit more from FAHF in concert with OIT.
FAHF is TCM but not all pharmacognosy is FAHF and as far as implementing TCM into large population treatment with proven efficacy and interest, not the case in Asia although joint US-Asia symposiums in China on the topic of FAHF began in 2010. Not a whiff of it at the largest congress in Asia 2014.
The problem isn't whether or not Dr. Li is talking to him. The problem is scientific. We need replication in different populations and if the population to which TCM is native is different in manifestations, has not seen the value of this one formula and has scant research on other formulae (see congress papers), then the argument becomes one here of ethnicity, technology, perceived belief on culture, pretty much anything that does nothing than get further away from the science.
She is a great source--here in USA. When she is treated as the sole source globally by others the narrative and belief system get at best myopic.
No one needs to respect my opinion on it. If anything I'd rather they read all the credible resources I've gathered on FAS to expand the scope and gain a stable, realistic perspective rather than flowery orientalist philosophical entries such as the 'resource' I've seen him blog about.
Flat out I don't consider him a credible source. The data will bear out efficacy, mechanisms and safety in the long run. For that we're on the right track. Because FAHF seems to be a safe and effective symptom controller its role may be one where it assists and raises the success and safety of long term OIT. My husband asked Dr. Li via email directly years ago when I first established with her. She's Mt. Sinai and our kids saw Sicherer. Having used pharmacognosy in the past it's a normal part of our lives and our cultural perspective of medicine. However, what it's short on is mechanism and lack of any known effect on sensitization or root level allergic disease effect.
The best guess of prominent researchers from around the Australasian nations was no data on mechanisms strongly suggests it's a symptom controller. In Taiwan and Hong Kong there are other pharmacognosy formulae under research. But the biggest front of discovery remains anti-IgE with the same researcher who discovered Xolair working on the next generation there.
But no, I have to keep reading garbage about some guy's wife who is Chinese get him turtle blood while dining out then navel gaze how much 'we' don't know about Chinese medicine. That's where the divide is: people who are wanting to consider the validity but want to treat it as any other medical answer (that includes me, the FDA, most scientists Asian or not and Dr. Li herself), and people who want it to be 'other' which looks no different than willful ignorance.
Topic: Desensitization Programs in the US -- OIT SLIT SCIT (Read 87756 times)
