Bacterial vs Viral

[Guest guest]

Is there a general consensus that Wind Cold is more bacterial and Wind

Heat more viral

 

Ed Kasper Santa Cruz, CA

[Guest guest]

I don't think there is any consensus here. It would be an

oversimplification at best.

 

 

On Sep 17, 2006, at 10:54 AM, happyherbalist2001 wrote:

 

> Is there a general consensus that Wind Cold is more bacterial and Wind

> Heat more viral

>

> Ed Kasper Santa Cruz, CA

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ed, I thought that yellow-green phlegm is indicative of bacterial infection.

(wind-heat).

 

On 9/17/06, happyherbalist2001 <eddy wrote:

>

> Is there a general consensus that Wind Cold is more bacterial and Wind

> Heat more viral

>

> Ed Kasper Santa Cruz, CA

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

CalPoly (university) has a self help Virtual Self Care Cold

Clinic.

shows a tongue / throat difference between bacterial (come

to clinic) and viral (stay home gargle with salt water).

http://www.hcs.calpoly.edu/coldclinic/quiz.html#tonsil

 

live free and healthy

Ed Kasper L.Ac., Santa Cruz, CA.

[Guest guest]

I recall being taught (in TCM school) that, as a simplification,

viral tended to be wind-cold, and bacterial (colored phlegm) tended

to be wind-heat.

 

Since learning that only 0.5-2.0% of URT conditions are supposedly

actually bacterial, I've gone more by severity than the simplification.

 

Actually, I suspect that there are matters of degree which don't seem

to be considered. Most URT conditions, e.g. common cold, begin as

viral. With weakened resistance bacterial can opportunistically

infect. But there are probably various degrees of bacterial infection

and at various localities. Small infections probably come and go.

 

Remember that, at last scientific count, while the human body is said

to consist of some 30 trillion cells, it is said to host some 100

trillion other microbes -- " friendly flora " . So bacteria are all over

and within us. And that's not just single cells, but various sizes of

colonies -- sizes of infections -- but usually not enough to damage

function of tissue. We all probably carry, from time to time, small

quantities of several common pathogenic bacteria, and our immune

systems successfully keep the size of their collections down. An out

of control infection, to the extent of causing functional damage to

tissue, is probably what is considered clinical infection.

 

While the materia medicae books list anti-microbal constituents to

herbs, especially things like the " yellows " , which indicates a

" suppressive " action (especially WenBing and later), I suspect that

there is a strong " supportive " action also, i.e. nurturing the

tissues own ability to control against infection.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I remember pathology lab, in which we took a swab from our skin, nose,

etc. and then cultured and identified the results. Every single one of us

had some pathogens just hanging out and growing. A good object lesson in

the importance of a functioning immune system.

 

Avery

 

 

 

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:21:50 -0400, < wrote:

 

> I recall being taught (in TCM school) that, as a simplification,

> viral tended to be wind-cold, and bacterial (colored phlegm) tended

> to be wind-heat.

>

> Since learning that only 0.5-2.0% of URT conditions are supposedly

> actually bacterial, I've gone more by severity than the simplification.

>

> Actually, I suspect that there are matters of degree which don't seem

> to be considered. Most URT conditions, e.g. common cold, begin as

> viral. With weakened resistance bacterial can opportunistically

> infect. But there are probably various degrees of bacterial infection

> and at various localities. Small infections probably come and go.

>

> Remember that, at last scientific count, while the human body is said

> to consist of some 30 trillion cells, it is said to host some 100

> trillion other microbes -- " friendly flora " . So bacteria are all over

> and within us. And that's not just single cells, but various sizes of

> colonies -- sizes of infections -- but usually not enough to damage

> function of tissue. We all probably carry, from time to time, small

> quantities of several common pathogenic bacteria, and our immune

> systems successfully keep the size of their collections down. An out

> of control infection, to the extent of causing functional damage to

> tissue, is probably what is considered clinical infection.

>

> While the materia medicae books list anti-microbal constituents to

> herbs, especially things like the " yellows " , which indicates a

> " suppressive " action (especially WenBing and later), I suspect that

> there is a strong " supportive " action also, i.e. nurturing the

> tissues own ability to control against infection.

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Guest guest]

One of the best examples that springs to mind is meningoccocal disease.

A normal part of the nasal flora in a large percentage of people, and then

sometimes it can cause the most extreme illness. I was reading recently

that some people are starting to get freaked out by the possibility of

diseases such as necrotising fasciitis. The recommendation, dont share

other peoples bath towels! I think this could be getting a little carried

away...

 

Lea.

Chinese Medicine , " Dr. Avery

Jenkins " <docaltmed wrote:

>

> I remember pathology lab, in which we took a swab from our skin, nose,

> etc. and then cultured and identified the results. Every single one of us

> had some pathogens just hanging out and growing. A good object lesson

in

> the importance of a functioning immune system.

>

> Avery

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It really does highlight the most salient difference between western

mainstream medicine and TCM as well as the other " alternatives. " The

latter focus on the patient (e.g., why did this patient get this infection

and how can I normalize the functioning of his immune system to fight it

off), while the former focuses on the disease (what antibiotic will kill

XXX.)

 

Which is one of the reasons RCTs don't work so well in this field when you

try to couple TCM therapies with western diagnoses. Give me 4 patients

with this year's strain of the flu, and I may well use 4 different

approaches to restore health. If we used the same therapy on all 4, we

would have gotten a rather sad 25% success rate.

 

Avery

 

 

 

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:45:27 -0400, Lea Starck <leabun1

wrote:

 

> One of the best examples that springs to mind is meningoccocal disease.

> A normal part of the nasal flora in a large percentage of people, and

> then

> sometimes it can cause the most extreme illness. I was reading recently

> that some people are starting to get freaked out by the possibility of

> diseases such as necrotising fasciitis. The recommendation, dont share

> other peoples bath towels! I think this could be getting a little carried

> away...

>

> Lea.

> Chinese Medicine , " Dr. Avery

> Jenkins " <docaltmed wrote:

>>

>> I remember pathology lab, in which we took a swab from our skin, nose,

>> etc. and then cultured and identified the results. Every single one of

>> us

>> had some pathogens just hanging out and growing. A good object lesson

> in

>> the importance of a functioning immune system.

>>

>> Avery

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Guest guest]

Zev,

 

I am an acupuncturist working at a cancer rehab center in Salt Lake, Utah. I

heard that you may have some resources from your experience treating cancer

patients. Where would I be able to get those materials?

 

Dan Clark

 

 

: zrosenbe:

Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:44:44 -0700Re: Bacterial vs Viral

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is any consensus here. It would be an oversimplification at

best.On Sep 17, 2006, at 10:54 AM, happyherbalist2001 wrote:> Is

there a general consensus that Wind Cold is more bacterial and Wind> Heat more

viral>> Ed Kasper Santa Cruz, CA>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

 

 

_______________

Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces

http://discoverspaces.live.com?source=hmtag1 & loc=us

 

 

[Guest guest]

I'll contact you privately.

 

 

On Sep 22, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Daniel Clark wrote:

 

> Zev,

>

> I am an acupuncturist working at a cancer rehab center in Salt

> Lake, Utah. I heard that you may have some resources from your

> experience treating cancer patients. Where would I be able to get

> those materials?

>

> Dan Clark

>

> To:

> Chinese Medicine:zrosenbe

> te: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:44:44 -0700Re: Bacterial vs

> Viral

>

> I don't think there is any consensus here. It would be an

> oversimplification at best.On Sep 17, 2006, at 10:54

> AM, happyherbalist2001 wrote:> Is there a general consensus that

> Wind Cold is more bacterial and Wind> Heat more viral>> Ed Kasper

> Santa Cruz, CA>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

> ________

> Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces

> http://discoverspaces.live.com?source=hmtag1 & loc=us

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think there is a way to integrate TCM and WM inclusion criteria for

RCT, (there must be!) but unfortunately there doesnt seem to be much

of a consensus on how to go about it. Does anybody know anything

about how much of a consensus there is among practitioners for a

TCM diagnosis alone? And how much of a consensus is there among

WM practitioners for a western diagnosis?

 

Lea.

Chinese Medicine , " Dr. Avery

Jenkins " <docaltmed wrote:

>

> It really does highlight the most salient difference between western

> mainstream medicine and TCM as well as the other " alternatives. "

The

> latter focus on the patient (e.g., why did this patient get this infection

> and how can I normalize the functioning of his immune system to

fight it

> off), while the former focuses on the disease (what antibiotic will kill

> XXX.)

>

> Which is one of the reasons RCTs don't work so well in this field

when you

> try to couple TCM therapies with western diagnoses. Give me 4

patients

> with this year's strain of the flu, and I may well use 4 different

> approaches to restore health. If we used the same therapy on all 4,

we

> would have gotten a rather sad 25% success rate.

>

> Avery

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I guess I'm a little confused as to why it is

necessary to " integrate " these approaches. Maybe you

can explain.

 

best health,

y.c.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Personally or professionally I am not trying to integrate WM

and TCM.

I am seeking to see if there is a connection between

bacteria and virus, heat and cold.

What conditions are set that will cause the flourishing or

demise of a bodily disorder.

 

We exist in a sea of life. The development of pleomorphic

microforms [fungus, yeasts, bacteria and molds] which make

up a far greater number of living cells - in our bodies -

than that of what we consider " our cells " .

Too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry. Interior or exterior.

 

Some disorders are " bacterial " some " viral " , some are

secondary bacterial caused by the viral. WM only looks at

" bacteria " or " viral " and seeks to eliminate them. TCM, IMO,

looks at the terrain. Seeks to moderate the terrain that

allowed the disorder to propagate. And then or further, to

explore the root cause of how the terrain become " corrupted "

in the first place.

 

The use of western terms are useful because 1. they are

common and 2 they are definitive.

I may treat a bacteria or viral infection with Yin Qiao San

and it may help. I may treat it with an anti-biotic and it

may help. But unless I understand the terrain that lead to

that disorder and treat the underlying disorder, the

condition will return. Therefore IMO, TCM seeks to

understand the terrain - western medicine does not, nor ever

will, hence there never will be an integration. The thought

process is on different planes.

 

 

 

live free and healthy

 

Ed Kasper L.Ac., . Santa Cruz, CA. 95060

[Guest guest]

I was talking about integrating inclusion criteria in RCT. (Randomized

controlled trials) To give an example, just say a western doc designs a

trial testing the efficacy of dang gui in menopause. His inclusion

criteria is " menopausal women " but we all know that the TCM

differentiaion of menopausal symptoms can be very different, and so

dang gui wouldnt be used for all the differing TCM syndromes of

menopause. So the efficacy of the trial would be greatly reduced and

there might even be a result that is taken as evidence that the herb is

not efficacious for the disease. Now if you were able to have inclusion

criteria that went along the lines of: 1. menopausal women. 2: Blood

deficiency. (Im just making all this up as I go along.) Then the women

would actually have the herb dang gui indicated in their tx from a TCM

perspective and efficacy would be much higher. Unfortunately, because

the methodology behind RCT is a western one, this is just one of the

problems inherent in trials of TCM, whether herbs or acupuncture.

I have read many trials that had a negative outcome because TCM

diagnosis wasnt a part of the inclusion criteria. However there is

problems with having only TCM inclusion criteria, such as the study

then being deemed irrelevent to the rest of the medical and scientific

community. Some kind of integration needs to happen for meaningful

studies to take place.

And why do we need studies in the first place? Well, (sometimes

unfortunately) EBM (evidence based medicine) has become the holy grail

of medicine these days. If it aint EBM then its deemed to be up their

with witchcraft by many in the scientific and medical communities. Dont

get me started with the flaws in this type of thinking. (Eg. Empirical

evidence of about 3000 years for TCM, 1.2 Billion Chinese people using

it as a major part of their government provided health care, plus the

largest ethnic diaspora on the planet, the fact that western medicine

has only been applying EBM to their own discipline for about 40 odd

years, big pharma, EBM fundamentally flawed for disciplines such as

surgery etc etc.)

So when we have the studies with the positive outcomes, efforts by some

in the medical and scientific community to marginalize our profession

can be countered with the type of evidence they respect. Then TCM

practitioners in the west can push for status as practitioners of a

true complementary (and not just " alternative " ) medicine.

There is also the issue of practicing " integrative " medicine as a

primary care physician, the way that many TCM doctors do in China,

where western biomedicalism has been integrated with TCM theory. (Eg.

Seeing a patient in the respiratory dept. of the internal medicine

department in China, many patient present for treatment of TB. They are

prescribed herbs based on the TCM differentiation, but also antibiotics

based on the western diagnosis, and chest x rays used for diagnostic

information.)

As a practitioner of TCM you dont necessarily have to integrate the two

disciplines. TCM stands on its own as a system of medicine. But be

mindful of the fact that whilst legal precedent in the west does not

hold you accountable to the standards of knowledge of a western doctor,

practitioners have been held accountable to the standards of knowledge

expected of a " reasonably competent practitioner " of the modality. So

if you had a patient with back pain that did not improve with

treatment, and you didnt suspect cancer and refer them to a doctor to

have it investigated, and it was decided in a court that a reasonably

competent practitioner of TCM should have the training to suspect, if

not diagnose, cancer. Then you are negligent and liable for damages.

(This is an example taken from an actual legal case in the US against a

chiropractor and sets a certain legal precedent for all complementary /

alternative therapies.)

I hope this answered your question to some extent.

Regards,

Lea Starck.

 

Chinese Medicine , Yangchu Higgins

<ycmgh wrote:

>

> I guess I'm a little confused as to why it is

> necessary to " integrate " these approaches. Maybe you

> can explain.

>

> best health,

> y.c.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I just forgot to add that, since TCM is based on such a long history of

empirical knowledge, I believe it is remiss of the practitioner to treat the

patient based on anything but a TCM differentiation. So even though a

certain amount of integration can take place, I am not advocating

abandoning TCM diagnosis.

Lea.

Chinese Medicine , Yangchu Higgins

<ycmgh wrote:

>

> I guess I'm a little confused as to why it is

> necessary to " integrate " these approaches. Maybe you

> can explain.

>

> best health,

> y.c.

>

>

>

>

>

>