Antibiotics + TCM

April 13, 2005

What kind of response is this?

If what are are discussing and practicing is Chinese medicine, let's do

that. Chinese medicine is a way of thinking, a set of principles, and

if you ignore those in treating your patients, it is no longer Chinese

medicine.

On Apr 11, 2005, at 12:58 AM, Pete Theisen wrote:

>

> wrote:

>> I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable giving cold,

>> moist

>> substances to patients with wind/cold attacks, or with spleen qi or

>> yang vacuity with damp or cold. It goes against the principles of

>

> Hi Z'ev!

>

> I have been using this myself for twenty plus years. TCM has no

> monopoly

> on truth, we can learn from the likes of Linus Pauling.

>

> Regards,

>

> Pete

>

April 13, 2005

wrote:

> What kind of response is this?

>

> If what are are discussing and practicing is Chinese medicine, let's

> do that.

Hi Z'ev!

When I went to TCM medical school we learned both TCM and Western

medicine, I thought everyone did. If there is something OTC that will

help a patient, I think we should recommend it. If it is OTC, they

should not have to go to a MD to get it, or hear about it. Usually I am

criticized as being too TCM, so this is a departure in that sense.

If you think that although time release vitamin c works for me in not

having colds, it won't work for anyone else - then, for heaven's sake,

don't recommend it. But this is a discussion list for patient's problems

as well as a discussion list for pages and pages of theory about what

the translations *really* mean etc., etc..

When I offered my reply to the issue it was if the vitamin c (or drug)

causes diarrhea, not if you use vitamin c at all. I think *time*release*

vitamin c is preferable to the drug, preferable to staying sick and

preferable to the diarrhea, even if it is not TCM.

In my post I also mentioned it was not TCM. If you are determined to

deprecate anything that is not TCM that is your privilege, but as far as

I remember this is not one of the list rules that we deprecate (and

never mention) everything not TCM, particularly if we have found

something to work and work well. I think it is proper that we consider

such things.

Regards,

Pete

April 13, 2005

Matt,

This is been my observation, yes. Also Dan Bensky has spoken about

this in his Shang Han Lun lectures, and I believe Bob Flaws has come to

similar conclusions in his writings, if my memory serves me well

(sometimes it doesn't). Clearly there are many variables (source

material, preparation, dosage), but seems to be primarily sour and

secondarily sweet. Sour substances moisten, such as bai shao/white

peony or wu mei/fr. mume. My experience is that Vit. C clears heat. I

am not stating this as a definitive addition to the materia medica, but

as an experimental observation. However, if we are practicing Chinese

medicine, we do need to come to some consensus on new medicinal

substances through observation, so that we could then use them

alongside the other medicinals we use. This is my main point in this

discussion.

This isn't saying Vitamin C is BAD. I am just pointing out it is

not good for everybody, for every cold or flu, or all the time. Let's

just be careful in blanket recommendations.

There are no medical panaceas, including vitamin C. What is good

for one patient, in one clinical situation, is not necessarily good for

everyone. Nor is it good for the same patient all the time. My

understanding of one of Dan Bensky's lectures on the Shang Han Lun was

that taking too much vitamin C can lead to driving the external

pattern into the interior, producing a tai yin/spleen qi vacuity

pattern, one symptom of which is diarrhea.

On Apr 10, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Matt Bauer wrote:

> So, are you saying Z'ev, that vitamin C is a cold, moist substance? If

> so, who was it that determined this and how was this determined? It

> cannot be from any CM classic text. Matt Bauer

April 13, 2005

wrote:

> Matt,

> This is been my observation, yes. Also Dan Bensky has spoken about

> this in his Shang Han Lun lectures, and I believe Bob Flaws has come to

> similar conclusions in his writings, if my memory serves me well

> (sometimes it doesn't). Clearly there are many variables (source

> material, preparation, dosage), but seems to be primarily sour and

> secondarily sweet. Sour substances moisten, such as bai shao/white

> peony or wu mei/fr. mume. My experience is that Vit. C clears heat. I

> am not stating this as a definitive addition to the materia medica, but

> as an experimental observation. However, if we are practicing Chinese

> medicine, we do need to come to some consensus on new medicinal

> substances through observation, so that we could then use them

> alongside the other medicinals we use. This is my main point in this

> discussion.

>

> This isn't saying Vitamin C is BAD. I am just pointing out it is

> not good for everybody, for every cold or flu, or all the time. Let's

> just be careful in blanket recommendations.

>

> There are no medical panaceas, including vitamin C. What is good

> for one patient, in one clinical situation, is not necessarily good for

> everyone. Nor is it good for the same patient all the time. My

> understanding of one of Dan Bensky's lectures on the Shang Han Lun was

> that taking too much vitamin C can lead to driving the external

> pattern into the interior, producing a tai yin/spleen qi vacuity

> pattern, one symptom of which is diarrhea.

Hi Z'ev!

But Vitamin C clears the body very quickly, this is the whole point of

using time-release, to maintain a consistent presence in the body

without too much presence at any one time. You and Bensky are correct

about too much, the time-release *prevents* huge doses from being " too

much " .

People will be sick forever unless they get Vitamin C because the body's

natural defense system, defensive qi if you prefer, uses it. Nearly all

animals make their own Vitamin C, man for some reason has to get it from

dietary sources.

When the body is under attack by a living pathogen more Vitamin C is

needed, hence the higher dose which could never be tolerated unless it

were in the form of time-release.

Regards,

Pete

April 13, 2005

Ahhh, yes the age old question, do we limit our knowledge to ancient ideas

or include new knowledge much like the ancients did? Vit C is a necessary

biological compound found within the human body and is a cofactor for

various reactions as well as collagen synthesis.

What does this have to do with immune system you ask? Well, if we take a

look at some of Kiiko's work (Reflections on the Sea), she does make an

argument for a connection between immunity and connective tissue. The shao

yang is neither inside nor outside. This makes sense to me and I hope

others as well. It is how you frame something that seems to matter most.

We cannot become an island unto ourselves or we perish. Learn from both

ancient and modern, then apply what works.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>Pete Theisen <petet

>Chinese Medicine

>Re: Antibiotics + TCM

>Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:03:13 -0400

>

> wrote:

> > What kind of response is this?

> >

> > If what are are discussing and practicing is Chinese medicine, let's

> > do that.

>

>Hi Z'ev!

>

>When I went to TCM medical school we learned both TCM and Western

>medicine, I thought everyone did. If there is something OTC that will

>help a patient, I think we should recommend it. If it is OTC, they

>should not have to go to a MD to get it, or hear about it. Usually I am

>criticized as being too TCM, so this is a departure in that sense.

>

>If you think that although time release vitamin c works for me in not

>having colds, it won't work for anyone else - then, for heaven's sake,

>don't recommend it. But this is a discussion list for patient's problems

>as well as a discussion list for pages and pages of theory about what

>the translations *really* mean etc., etc..

>

>When I offered my reply to the issue it was if the vitamin c (or drug)

>causes diarrhea, not if you use vitamin c at all. I think *time*release*

>vitamin c is preferable to the drug, preferable to staying sick and

>preferable to the diarrhea, even if it is not TCM.

>

>In my post I also mentioned it was not TCM. If you are determined to

>deprecate anything that is not TCM that is your privilege, but as far as

>I remember this is not one of the list rules that we deprecate (and

>never mention) everything not TCM, particularly if we have found

>something to work and work well. I think it is proper that we consider

>such things.

>

>Regards,

>

>Pete

April 13, 2005

Zev,

I agree with the mindset and have found that this important concept is

missing in many of today's graduates/students/practitioners. Even those

coming over from mainland China tend to have a bias toward a western medical

thinking.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> " " <zrosenbe

>Chinese Medicine

>Re: Antibiotics + TCM

>Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:40:45 -0700

>

>What kind of response is this?

>

>If what are are discussing and practicing is Chinese medicine, let's do

>that. Chinese medicine is a way of thinking, a set of principles, and

>if you ignore those in treating your patients, it is no longer Chinese

>medicine.

>

>On Apr 11, 2005, at 12:58 AM, Pete Theisen wrote:

>

> >

> > wrote:

> >> I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable giving cold,

> >> moist

> >> substances to patients with wind/cold attacks, or with spleen qi or

> >> yang vacuity with damp or cold. It goes against the principles of

> >

> > Hi Z'ev!

> >

> > I have been using this myself for twenty plus years. TCM has no

> > monopoly

> > on truth, we can learn from the likes of Linus Pauling.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Pete

> >

>

April 13, 2005

Mike,

No one is suggesting that we 'limit our knowledge'. However, if you

want to use Vitamin C as a practitioner of Chinese medicine, the burden

is on you (and me) to find out how it works in terms of Chinese

materia medica. As the Chinese have done for millenia, when new

substances have been discovered and adapted, they have been described

according to qi, flavor, channel entry, actions and combinations with

other medicinal substances. Their toxicity and contraindications have

always been described as well. Then you need to get consensus over

time as other practitioners share their experiences. There is plenty of

room for creativity in Chinese medicine, if we know clearly how to use

the tools of Chinese medicine.

On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:58 AM, mike Bowser wrote:

>

> Ahhh, yes the age old question, do we limit our knowledge to ancient

> ideas

> or include new knowledge much like the ancients did? Vit C is a

> necessary

> biological compound found within the human body and is a cofactor for

> various reactions as well as collagen synthesis.

>

> What does this have to do with immune system you ask? Well, if we

> take a

> look at some of Kiiko's work (Reflections on the Sea), she does make an

> argument for a connection between immunity and connective tissue. The

> shao

> yang is neither inside nor outside. This makes sense to me and I hope

> others as well. It is how you frame something that seems to matter

> most.

> We cannot become an island unto ourselves or we perish. Learn from

> both

> ancient and modern, then apply what works.

>

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

April 13, 2005

Zev,

Much agreed. You are preaching to the choir. How do we initiate " thought

classes " to get students to think straight about this as many are putting it

all into western ideas and terminology? This seems to be the most

important area for future investment in education. I still think we need to

consider creating a school that would have more to offer in this way. Your

thoughts?

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> " " <zrosenbe

>Chinese Medicine

>Re: Antibiotics + TCM

>Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:58:11 -0700

>

>Mike,

> No one is suggesting that we 'limit our knowledge'. However, if you

>want to use Vitamin C as a practitioner of Chinese medicine, the burden

>is on you (and me) to find out how it works in terms of Chinese

>materia medica. As the Chinese have done for millenia, when new

>substances have been discovered and adapted, they have been described

>according to qi, flavor, channel entry, actions and combinations with

>other medicinal substances. Their toxicity and contraindications have

>always been described as well. Then you need to get consensus over

>time as other practitioners share their experiences. There is plenty of

>room for creativity in Chinese medicine, if we know clearly how to use

>the tools of Chinese medicine.

>

>On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:58 AM, mike Bowser wrote:

>

> >

> > Ahhh, yes the age old question, do we limit our knowledge to ancient

> > ideas

> > or include new knowledge much like the ancients did? Vit C is a

> > necessary

> > biological compound found within the human body and is a cofactor for

> > various reactions as well as collagen synthesis.

> >

> > What does this have to do with immune system you ask? Well, if we

> > take a

> > look at some of Kiiko's work (Reflections on the Sea), she does make an

> > argument for a connection between immunity and connective tissue. The

> > shao

> > yang is neither inside nor outside. This makes sense to me and I hope

> > others as well. It is how you frame something that seems to matter

> > most.

> > We cannot become an island unto ourselves or we perish. Learn from

> > both

> > ancient and modern, then apply what works.

> >

> > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> >

>

April 13, 2005

Hi Z'ev - you wrote: " if we are practicing Chinese

medicine, we do need to come to some consensus on new medicinal

substances through observation, so that we could then use them

alongside the other medicinals we use. This is my main point in this

discussion. "

Consensus building is a very useful thing but I would argue a body must first

reach a consensus on how to go about reaching a consensus. At issue in this

thread is Vit. C, and more specifically - time released Vit. C. Pete insists

that his clinical observation leads to one conclusion, while you quote some

respected authorities citing another. Pete points out that he is only referring

to a different variation - time released - that he claims alters vit.C's impact

on the body. So how do we consider such an issue? We do not have a consensus on

how to reach a consensus.

One might wonder how such issues were dealt with over the long history of CM. I

certainly wonder this. Unschuld states that different authorities disagreed over

such seemingly straight-forward issues as the taste of medicinals, let alone

questions regarding what channels their essences entered. And what about all the

complex details of the jing-luo system expounded upon in the classics? How did

they figure this out? The popularly accepted implication many of us seem to

gloss over, is the idea that the essential knowledge of CM was discovered by

ancient Sages of extra-ordinary sensory perception. Those herb-tasters and

meridian sensors who could intuit things you or I today cannot so we must defer

to the Classics. This is what I was alluding to in a posting some months ago

when I asked if people believe in the Yellow Emperor?

Now, granted, in the case of medicinals, we have at least a spotty paper trail

we can trace to attempt to learn of the evolution of theories, but these contain

little if any information I am aware of regarding how proponents of this school

of thought or that reached their conclusions. Was it systematic clinical

observation? If so where is the data? Was it intuition by extra-ordinary

sensitive Sages? If so how do we separate the true Sage from the false? Is

successful clinical outcomes following a particular school of thought the

ultimate arbiter of such debate? I certainly favor the bottom-line of clinical

outcomes, but in this instance Pete is telling us his protocol has achieved

better than average clinical outcomes.

My issue here is clarity regarding consensus building and why I believe we need

to look seriously at what we know and don't know about how the information in

the Classics themselves was reached. I believe as CM grows in modern time, we

will need to better define what we believe about the roots of this medical

system and what this tells us about how we can reach consensus on such emerging

issues as how to classify new medicinal substances as vit. C. Perhaps more

importantly, the greater acceptance of CM techniques in general will see a rise

of differing ideas over how it should be applied such as " medical acupuncture "

that will question traditional concepts. The more clear we are amongst ourselves

regarding CM's roots, the better we will be able to protect its future. -

Matthew Bauer

-

Chinese Medicine

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:51 PM

Re: Antibiotics + TCM