Claims of the superiority of qigong and some terminology issues

[Guest guest]

Hi Rich,

 

On 18/09/2004, at 6:19 AM, Rich wrote:

>

>> You consistently claim that Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture

>> are not very effective treatments for disease and are much simpler

>> to learn than your particularly effective " style " of qigong/tuina.

>

> Hmmm ... you'll have to find the quote. I don't recall saying this.

> Please find me the message where I said this and I will review it.

> Thanks.

>

 

Ok, you consistently claim or insinuate that qigong/tuina is superior

to herbs and/or acupuncture as the following show...

 

On 11/05/2004, at 1:05 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> the combination of Tuina and Qigong

> has been the most effective with the broadest use in both acute and

> chronic conditions. The results appear to be very rapid, predictable

> (more so than acupuncture and herbs), and longer lasting and complete.

 

On 18/05/2004, at 5:38 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> 2) Herb theory does not seem to properly address the heart/mind

> component which invariably seems to be the root of chronic as well as

> many acute problems.

>

 

On 20/05/2004, at 5:01 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> My view of " dosage " has changed over time - as I observed

> acupuncturists and herbalists attempt to find " just the right amount "

> dosage that will bring the body into the " balance " . It seemed to me to

> be impossible.

 

On 27/05/2004, at 6:48 AM, Rich wrote:

>

> The fundamental issues I have with herbs as a primary source for

> treatment, as opposed to a supportive role, are these:

>

> 1) Herb repertorization seems to be very complex and without a single

> unifying theory - at least none that I can make out at this time.

> There seem to be " rules " and " goals " , (e.g. tonify that which is

> deficient, sedate that which is excess), but no underlying theory. I

> am familiar with the concept of " balancing the body " , but this

> objective seems to be fraught with problems. However, I am always open

> to exploring this further.

>

> 2) The actual results of herb administration, for the most part, is

> happening outside of the doctors direct observation - i.e. during the

> week or so that follows the visit to the doctor's office. This

> " disconnection " in communication seems to me to be less than optimal

> when compared the direct and immediate feedback that is usually

> accompanied with treatments such as tuina, acupuncture, cupping, gua

> sha, etc.

 

On 28/05/2004, at 10:33 PM, Rich wrote:

> I believe that herbs, because they have their own inherent energetic

> patterns (in some cases very powerful) are more likely to cause

> aggravations. Some herb combinations may be powerful enough to " break

> through " the dams of obstructions, but if they don't they could cause

> aggravations as an overflowing dam might cause.

>

 

This may very well be true of a incompetent or inexperienced

herbalist......but it is not the mark of a professional practintioner.

 

On 21/06/2004, at 6:53 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> My family and friends had been using very competent acupuncture for

> over 15 years and are now exclusively using Tuina/Qigong with far

> superior longer lasting results.

 

Hardly justification that tuina/qigong actually ARE superior as is your

insinuation.

 

On 29/07/2004, at 11:35 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> 5) I do not do any diagnosis of any sort. It is not only unnecessary

> but I also feel it is a subjective manifestation of my own biases -  I

> in psychology I guess this would be called " projection " . :-) This

> phenonmenon became very clear to me as I observed over a period of

> time how each practitioner would " diagnose " me and my family based

> upon their own history and perspective. I believe that the only way to

> get around personal biases and subjectivity is to allow the

> client/patient to guide the treatment - as opposed to the other way

> around. They show me where the stagnation exists and I try to move it.

> Just like a good plumber. :-) You tell me which pipe is stuck and I'll

> try to release the energy. :-) To do this, it is necessary to work at

> both the physical and energetic level. Something else that I have

> observed.

 

I find this especially fascinating......... why are you even arguing

about concepts, terminology and the methods of acupuncture and

herbalism use to diagnose and treat a patient? You don't need any of

it!!!

 

Treating a patient without diagnosis in TCM is unethical,

unprofessional and not part of any Chinese medical system I have heard

of (beyond yours).

 

On 31/07/2004, at 1:14 PM, Rich wrote:

 

>

> As I noted in a post to Jason, qigong (chi kung) is very much part of

> the national medicine of the PRC and is taught in universities in

> China and is considered a seperate branch within hospitals that sits

> alongside herbology, acupuncture, and tuina. There is no conflict, as

> far as I can see, in discussing qigong within any definition of TCM.

 

There is a huge conflict here when TCM, as opposed to Chinese folk

medicine, uses precise diagnosis as the basis for treatment.

 

On 01/08/2004, at 3:01 PM, Rich wrote:

 

> ......I have tried many

> modalities, as have my friends, and at this point we seem to have come

> to an agreement that this qigong combined with tuina are the most

> effective approach - and one that we can also assimilate into our

> daily lives.

>

 

On 02/08/2004, at 8:42 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> ..... my doctor who has 30 years of tuina/qigong training.

 

This sort of stuff appears over and over in your posts as a

justification for your ideas...... " your doctor " ....this is what I refer

to as worship of a teacher and style.........at the cost of an open

mind.

 

On 02/08/2004, at 11:42 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> There exists " egos " in every profession. Qigong doctors think what

> they are doing is best, tuina doctors think their practice is best,

> and acupuncturists/herbalists think their's is best. Western MDs think

> theirs is best and TCM is quackery. And so on.

 

It seems to me you are the only one on this list who is expressing this

" ego " .....I am just trying to show you that you are. I don't claim any

method is superior, whereas you consonantly do.

 

On 02/08/2004, at 12:31 AM, Rich wrote:

>

> ..... My friends and acquaintenances have used qigong/tuina with more

> effectiveness than herbs/acupuncture in the following situations:

>

> 1) ovarian cysts

> 2) high blook pressure

> 3) infertility

> 4) arthritis

> 5) bursitus

> 6) severe curvature of the spine (I forgot the western diagnosis)

> 7) insomnia

>

> This is a short list since in many cases the problems were so strange

> that no diagnosis, western or eastern, were possible. In all cases,

> acupuncture and herbal treatment by highly skilled, Chinese trained

> doctors had failed and in several cases surgery was avoided.

 

What is impossible here is that a professional Chinese medicine

practitioner couldn't make a diagnosis.....if this is truly the case;

those doctors were incompetent in the extreme. There is ALWAYS one or

more (usually more) syndromes/patterns (that is diagnosis) in ANY

condition.

 

On 07/09/2004, at 9:09 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> .....acupressure is at least as effective as

> acupuncture if not more so, depending upon the approach that the

> acuppressurist has adopted.

 

 

On 10/09/2004, at 6:17 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> If you wish to speak about clarity, I would suggest that we start from

> the beginning. May I ask for a very clear and precise description of

> Yin,Yang and Qi, since much (or as I feel all) Chinese medicine begins

> with these definitions. Without clear and precise defintions of these

> terms, nothing that is derived from these terms can possibly be

> precise. For me it is like the study of quantum physics. Before it is

> possible to discuss quantum physics, then we must be able to define

> with precision what is quanta. Or do we? Anyone want to take a stab

> and Yin, Yang, Qi or Quanta (for those of a more Physics bent)?

>

 

This is rich, Rich. More than a few members on this list have been

trying to explain such definitions while you look for an exception to

deny them with, or use " my doctor " as a source to confuse the issue

before you learn and accept the definitions which allow others to be

clear when communicating among the profession.

 

From start to end, TCM is surprisingly consistent in terminology and

theory, something you will never grasp until you open you mind to what

the definitions actually are and stop placing your personal definitions

upon them.

 

My issue with all this is that you continually change the professional

definitions of TCM to suit your understanding which is based upon your

assumptions rather that the professional definition of the medicine.

There is no explaining anything to you in terms of TCM if you continue

with this attitude.

 

To understand what someone is trying tell you, you must first accept

the meaning as they express it (here it is usually professionally

educated TCM practitioners) , NOT look for an exception based upon your

personal misunderstanding of the definition and/or context of the term!

 

I particularly find in laughable when you argue against individuals

like Z'ev without understanding the professional terms of reference he

uses to try to communicate with you. You argue that precision is not

necessary in terminology; but then wonder why you have such difficulty

understanding basic TCM concepts. This is truly ironic and approaches

the level of living your own personal oxymoron.

 

Personally I have no difficulty understanding most of the posters on

this list because we share the basic terms of reference of our

profession. By definition, a profession tends to have its own language,

terminology and definitions which form the tools for basic

communication within that profession. You have not yet understood these

basic tools........no wonder you have such difficulty accepting

anything that is part of professional TCM.

 

Do you understand what I am getting at?

 

I truly don't have issue with your different perspective on healing; I

am just getting very tired of watching you denigrate the accuracy or

usefulness of basic TCM theory via your misconceptions of the basic

definitions of concepts themselves!

 

Please learn the actual definitions of a concept before you argue their

usefulness or lack thereof. This is all I ask.

 

When a professional on this list mention yin, yang, qi, evil, right

etc......... others with similar professional training will have little

difficulty understanding their intended meaning, and understand deeper

nuances of these terms by their context. Those who don't have this

basic understanding will be forever confused.

 

I am sure you will express many " exceptions to the rule " in reply to

me. However, as exceptions that are not generally true, I will severely

limit my future responses to such arguments.

 

On 14/09/2004, at 6:23 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> I have observed the following types of problems solved in specific

> individuals where acupunture alone provided only temporary relief but

> were sucessfully treated using tuina/qigong:

>

> 1) Inability to sleep

> 2) Inability to walk (individual was able to forego surgery)

> 3) Ovarian cysts

> 4) Schizophrenia

> 5) Arthritis

> 6) Bursitis

> 7) Overweight conditions

> 8) Allergies

> 9) High blood pressure

> 10) Infertility

>

> There have been many other circumstances. Some of the problems are

> " uncategorizable " .Best wishes,

In professional TCM, there is nothing " uncategorizable " and the

conditions you list are readily ammenable to herbs and/or acupuncutre

treatment based on my clinical experience both here and in china. This

is why I don't think you should claim qigong is more effective......adn

individuals personal experience is small and if qigong were so much

more effective it would be used more for these conditions in china.

Howver, these conditions are mostly referred for herbal treatment, and

some for acupuncture as the first option due to the better record these

therapies have in treating these conditions...........sure there are

exceptions, but these are NOT the general rule. Please notice, in

contrast to you claim.....I am not saying qigong is less effective.

 

On 15/09/2004, at 12:19 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> I have found that tuina is the most effective with the greatest

> breath. The problem with this modality is the amount of time it takes

> to complete a full bodywork session with qigong. I know of some

> schools that teach bodywork in such a way that one treats only one

> aspect of the body in a given session. I feel that this approach is

> " incomplete " and could actually make things worse if the energy that

> is released is not fully directed out of the patient/client. But if

> you want to learn something that will be able to use wherever you go

> and even teach your clients/patients so that they can become

> self-maintaining, tuina (or any of the other asian bodywork methods)

> cannot be beat.

>

>

On 15/09/2004, at 10:25 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> it is not necessary in the model I use to

> create any more variations of qi. However, I recognize it may be

> helpful in other models.

>

>

I really wish you would practice what you preach here.

 

On 16/09/2004, at 3:16 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> We can all translate words in the way we want. Is a " poison " (as used

> in herbs or homeopathy) that cures a person " evil " ? Evil to one -

> beneficial to another. When one gets sick because one's Wei Qi is low

> is it " evil " or beneficial " ? Does it not warn the person that he/she

> has a problem with their physical/mental/spiritual body? Is " sickness "

> (which I view as the merging of " waves of qi " ) " evil " or a " gift of

> nature " -  a generous warning?

>

If we all translate words the way we want there can be no accurate

communication between professionals as you show by your

misunderstanding of Z'ev, Mike et al. say on this forum. Again, you are

placing your preconceived understand of the english word " evil " where

is simply does not belong!!

 

On 16/09/2004, at 3:30 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> My own preference for the time being is " irregular " as a direct

> translation of of Xie since I think this best describes the " event "

> where an " irregular qi waveform " is created that causes a blockage

> that is obstructing the natural flow of qi in a body. It doesn't even

> have to be a human body though I recognize that this would be its most

> common usage. The reason I do not use the word evil is because in many

> ways it is a natural warning to the human body and mind that something

> is wrong that is affecting its ability to exist - e.g. inadequate Wei

> Qi.

>

>

 

The definition of xie qi as " Irregular " is insufficient unless there

are subtypes of irregular to guide treatment.

 

Your unwavering belief in your doctor will guarantee to a large degree

the success of any treatment he gives you, and I hope this continues to

be the case. Faith is a powerful healer, and without it, I am sure many

of my patients would not respond so positively to my treatments. I find

that I can heal a great deal of an underlying problem just by listening

and showing deep interest in a patients condition....something WM in

general no longer does with it's 5 minute consultations. Perhaps the

longer a well meaning practitioner spends with a patient, the better

the patients condition will improve regardless of treatment. I think

perhaps we may be in agreement here.

 

I look forward to learning more from you personal viewpoint, but have a

feeling of trepidation when you move from your personal area of

expertise and try to paint professional TCM with the severely limited

tools of your own system ie. no types of evil qi, no diagnosis etc.

 

You win some and lose some I guess; so far the few gems you provide me

are worth the torment of circular arguments based upon poor

understanding of professional TCM terminology.

 

 

Steve

 

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0418 343 545

chinese_medicine

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

 

>

> Ok, you consistently claim or insinuate that qigong/tuina is superior

> to herbs and/or acupuncture as the following show...

 

Never did the sort. I only relate my own experiences.

>

> > ..... my doctor who has 30 years of tuina/qigong training.

>

> This sort of stuff appears over and over in your posts as a

> justification for your ideas...... " your doctor " ....this is what I refer

> to as worship of a teacher and style.........at the cost of an open

> mind.

 

Just another point of view with different experiences that represents

another aspect of TCM and Chinese medicine. After all he did work and

teach for decades in TCM hospitals.

 

>I don't claim any

> method is superior, whereas you consonantly do.

 

I never claimed any method was superior. I simply said in " my

experiences " and in the experiences of many of my friends who have

used acupunture and herbs in the past and no longer do so.

 

>

> This is rich, Rich. More than a few members on this list have been

> trying to explain such definitions while you look for an exception

>

> From start to end, TCM is surprisingly consistent in terminology

>and theory,

 

Then I ask you once again to clearly define yin, yang, and qi for me

in a clear, precise, consistent manner.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Rich,

 

This is my last reply to you regarding claims of any superiority of ANY

method encompassed in Chinese medicine and any issue of the generally

professionally accepted terminology of TCM.

 

On 19/09/2004, at 1:08 AM, Rich wrote:

 

>

> Hi Steve,

>

>>

>> Ok, you consistently claim or insinuate that qigong/tuina is superior

>> to herbs and/or acupuncture as the following show...

>

> Never did the sort. I only relate my own experiences.

 

The statements you make via the content of " your own experiences " state

repeatedly that your qigong/tuina style produces superior and

longer-lasting results. I suggest you take ownership of your claims

based on your " experience " .

 

>

>> I don't claim any

>> method is superior, whereas you consonantly do.

>

> I never claimed any method was superior. I simply said in " my

> experiences " and in the experiences of many of my friends who have

> used acupunture and herbs in the past and no longer do so.

>

 

Right; from your " experiences " you think your method is superior. To

me, any difference between a " claim " and a " statement based upon

experience " is only semantics.

 

>>

>> This is rich, Rich. More than a few members on this list have been

>> trying to explain such definitions while you look for an exception

>>

>> From start to end, TCM is surprisingly consistent in terminology

>> and theory,

>

> Then I ask you once again to clearly define yin, yang, and qi for me

> in a clear, precise, consistent manner.

>

 

Sorry Rich, I shall not.

 

This is up to you to learn like the other professionally qualified

practitioners on this list did through years of hard work and with at

often times; disease inducing confusion and frustration. This is not a

tutorial list in basic TCM theory despite the generous efforts that

many on this list have given you from their little spare time.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve