Number of herbs

[Guest guest]

Nothing of the sort was implied. I have no problem with larger Shaolin

prescriptions. But we should also remember the circles within which

these formulas were produced; high-intensity, injury-prone training in

which quick recovery was necessary, rebuilding qi and blood a priority.

 

 

On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 01:33 AM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> Larger herb formulas shouldn't necessarily

> imply " waste, " " unnecessary " ingredients, of " lack of elegance. "

> Many of the famous and highly effective formulas attributed to Hua

> T'o are large. And as I mentioned earlier, 35% of Shaolin formulas

> are larger formulas---a number of them highly effective and famous

> at least in martial art circles. Larger formulas can also imply a

> larger vision of CM. Keep in mind, both Hua T'o and the Shaolin

> monks developed formulas in a wide variety of sizes. Their lives and

> training depended on the full spectrum of possibilities that such a

> variety of formulas offered.

[Guest guest]

Were the Shaolin formulas really for the training monks only? I have been to the Shaolin temple in China and was introduced to a large group of meditative monks (they wear grey not orange) that do not practice the martial arts assiduously. _________________ Nothing of the sort was implied. I have no problem with larger Shaolin prescriptions. But we should also remember the circles within which these formulas were produced; high-intensity, injury-prone training in which quick recovery was necessary, rebuilding qi and blood a priority. _________________________On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 01:33 AM, James Ramholz wrote:> Larger herb formulas shouldn't necessarily> imply "waste,unnecessary" ingredients, of "lack of elegance."> Many of the famous and highly effective formulas attributed to Hua> T'o are large. And as I mentioned earlier, 35% of Shaolin formulas> are larger formulas---a number of them highly effective and famous> at least in martial art circles. Larger formulas can also imply a> larger vision of CM. Keep in mind, both Hua T'o and the Shaolin> monks developed formulas in a wide variety of sizes. Their lives and> training depended on the full spectrum of possibilities that such a> variety of formulas offered.

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz> wrote:

But there are

> also many wonderful and interesting larger formulas.

>

 

While I use medium size formulas, I have met a few who use very large

formulas (visa ve number of ingredients, not dosage, per se). While it is not

my style, one of my anecodotal observations is that these " mavericks " are

typically far more successful than those who use low dose prepared

medicines, no matter how sophisticated their methodology is. Large formulas

do tend to deliver in an important area; they provide adequate levels of

bioactive constituents to get the job done. It can alse be argued that well

crafted rx may do this with fewer side effects. while there is greater

potential

for negative interactions with more ingredients, the dosage of each herb is

usually fairly low (even if the total weight of the formula is large). side

effects

are very dose dependent. In fact, I have long argued that the main reason for

the safety of chinese herbs is that one involves multiple biochemical

pathways to cause change, rather than just a single one (like a drug). A few

small changes may summate to provide a safer effect than one massive

change.

 

[Guest guest]

While I use medium size formulas, I have met a few who use very large formulas (visa ve number of ingredients, not dosage, per se).

>>>Like i said in past the most popular outpatient Dr in the hospital I worked in used very very large formulas that had very little coherence from a modern TCM perspective. I have no idea how sucsrssful he was but he saw 100's of patients per day

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " Lea Inoue " <asianherb@m...> wrote:

> Were the Shaolin formulas really for the training monks only? I

have been to the Shaolin temple in China and was introduced to a

large group of meditative monks (they wear grey not orange) that do

not practice the martial arts assiduously.

 

 

Lea:

 

The formulas in Patriarch De Chan's Shaolin Secret Formulas are

clearly for training and injuries for fighting. Some are explicitly

for being hit by shovels, cut by swords, etc. Many formula names are

in the form of " [problem...] Due to Injury. "

 

Another martial art book is clearly about using formulas for

training and for endurance. It shows a specific formula accompanying

many of the typical training methods like hand toughening, holding

weighted blocks, doing bagua on the rim of a large urn, climbing up

walls like a spider, meditation, energy building, etc.

 

But that doesn't mean that the applications must be limited to that

lifestyle. Formulas for being cut by a sword can also be use today

for surgical injuries. In fact, I use one of my favorite formulas

attributed to Hua T'o for postsurgical patients. It resolves

swelling, bruising, and spends up healing. Several patients have

told me that their doctors have commented to them that they were

healing faster then expected. The tincture of it in my office is

about 5 years old. I have a liter of the Hua T'o tincture at home

that is about 20 years old. I consider it worth its weight in gold.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I have seen many cases where small, sometimes _very_ small doses of herbs were more effective than large doses. I like Ted Kaptchuk's write up on dosage for Constitutional, Spiritual, Mental and Physical effects in the Kan literature. For some people, where you want to have the greatest effect is more mentally or spiritually - then smaller doses work better, in my experience. I have had patients up the dose that I give them from 1g BID or TID to 3g TID (esp. w/ acupuncture students) and the formula hasn't been effective anymore. They decrease the dose and the formula is effective once again. This seems to be different from practitioner to practitioner. I almost always stick with very small doses of herbs and it works fine. It all depends on what changes you are looking for.

-Anne

[Guest guest]

In the thread on dosage, I still have reservations about using small amounts of a granular formula to effect a secondary or underlying syndrome or imbalance. I have seen this with experienced, much respected supervisors in the school clinic where I assist.

As an example, if you add twenty grams(for a week) of granulated " liu wei di huang wan " to a formula to tonify yin, you look at the therapeutic dose of shu di, and it is equivalent to 1.5 grams of raw shu di per day. I went to school with Todd's herb teacher, and I remember her jokingly refering this to a " homeopathic dose " . As a result of my education, I am resistant to this. (as is apparently)

When I hear that the formula has a " symbiotic " , or " vibrational " quality, it calls to mind kinesiology, and NAET.(I use these) I have a lot of respect for practicioners who use these prescribing methods, it just doen't jibe with my feelings. As an adjunct to another formula, is 15 grams total of raw " liu wei " per day more effective that 9 grams zhi mu?

I don't feel that there is a right or wrong here, I am interested in the different views.

 

one of the liabilities of TCM in the big political picture is this inconsistancy in terms of standard of care. This legal system is based on litigation to determine appropriate vs sub-standard care. Imaginge the horror of a list of witnesses to deny the viability of my (or anyone's) herbal care of a patient, as they do with pysicians in malpractice suits.

I have worked extensively with physicians, and this " many doors leading to the same room " only degrades our legitamacy in their eyes. The more I examine my experience, the more I think it is best to not try to explain much to physicians.

Mark Costello

 

Ps:(but I listen to physicians, because they have interesting things to say)

[Guest guest]

Mark, I have some brief questions and comments below…

From Mark: When I hear that the formula has

a " symbiotic " , or " vibrational " quality, it calls to mind

kinesiology, and NAET.(I use these) I have a lot of respect for practicioners

who use these prescribing methods, it just doen't jibe with my feelings.

From Stephen: Do you use kinesiology to determine

optimal formula selection, dosage, diagnosis or…?? And, what does it tell you that you are not able to

determine using traditional methods?

 

From Mark: In the thread on dosage, I still have

reservations about using small amounts of a granular formula to effect a

secondary or underlying syndrome or imbalance. I have seen this with

experienced, much respected supervisors in the school clinic where I assist.

 

From

Stephen: I agree that dosage

considerations need to be better understood and sorted out so that eventually

some kind of agreement among TCM practitioners is reached. I know that a small amount of coffee or

ephedra can have measurable effects on neuro-sensitive individuals. Consequently it makes me wonder how much

of the perfect therapeutic substance for each situation is needed to effect lasting

change. My preferred form of therapy, if I could control it, would be the placebo

effect. I personally take 5 to 10

grams of herbal extracts every day, and have for many years. But if I use 5 grams of ONE formula

twice a day then my body won’t tolerate it for very long, even if it still

needs it for the original reason I took it for a longer period than I can

tolerate it. In my still

developing opinion, it seems that smaller doses of tonics taken over the long

term is better than taking more over a shorter period. Herbs to reduce excesses such as

dampness or heat, or herbs to remove stasis, seem to be better tolerated in

larger doses. Have you or anyone

else noticed this? It seems to me that much of the question

about dosage depends on how long one is expected to stay on that formula.

In a book that Will Morris recommended to

me on the clinical applications of the Shang Han Lun, I recall that the author

states that herbs should only be used until 60 percent improvement of the

condition is attained and then diet and other means should be able to take them

the rest of the way. At a minimum

the formula should be adjusted or changed at that point.

 

Stephen

 

The Chinese Herb

Academy, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners,

matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal

Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved

online continuing education.

 

 

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 03:35 PM, neuromatrix

wrote:

 

>

> When I hear that the formula has a " symbiotic " , or " vibrational "

> quality, it calls to mind kinesiology, and NAET.(I use these) I have a

> lot of respect for practicioners who use these prescribing methods, it

> just doen't jibe with my feelings.  As an adjunct to another formula,

> is 15 grams total of raw " liu wei " per day more effective that 9 grams

> zhi mu?

 

Neither of these ideas has any clear meaning that has any source in

Chinese medical literature. The concept 'vibrational' or 'symbiotic'

is imposing an 'energetic' idea onto the idea of patterns and

associated prescriptions. Adding a prescription to another as an

adjunct in order to gain access to one medicinal also doesn't make

sense, this is different than combining prescriptions in complex

patterns. If we are going to be eclectic and interpretive, let's at

least be honest (I don't mean any personal reference here to you) and

call it eclectic medicine, rather than Chinese medicine. When one

interprets in this manner, one is not using the tools of the tradition,

but something that has been invented independently. I consider this

experimental medicine, and I think our patients have a right to know

that we are experimenting on them without sources when we do this.

>

> I don't feel that there is a right or wrong here, I am interested in

> the different views.

 

Again, do these ideas have a source, a logic, that can be explained as

Chinese medicine?

>

> one of the liabilities of TCM in the big political picture is this

> inconsistancy in terms of standard of care.  This legal system is

> based on litigation to determine appropriate vs sub-standard care. 

> Imaginge the horror of a list of witnesses to deny the viability of my

> (or anyone's) herbal care of a patient, as they do with pysicians in

> malpractice suits.

>

> I have worked extensively with physicians, and this " many doors

> leading to the same room " only degrades our legitamacy in their eyes. 

> The more I examine my experience, the more I think it is best to not

> try to explain much to physicians. 

 

The many doors leading to the same room idea doesn't negate the rigor

or logic necessary in designing an appropriate diagnosis and

prescription. There is nothing in the Chinese medical literature that

supports an 'anything goes' approach. This type of approach is

detrimental to our profession and patient care. There is a lot more

agreement among experienced practitioners of CM than is given credit.

 

I think the concepts of Chinese medicine are logical and can be

explained to physicians. While there is more flexibility and

variability than in biomedicine, there is a logical system that can be

explained quite readily.

 

 

[Guest guest]

My experience is the same. Supplementing prescriptions should be taken

in smaller doses over longer periods, prescriptions to drain repletions

larger doses over shorter periods.

 

 

On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 03:49 PM, Stephen Morrissey wrote:

 

>   In my still developing opinion, it seems that smaller doses of

> tonics taken over the long term is better than taking more over a

> shorter period. Herbs to reduce excesses such as dampness or heat, or

> herbs to remove stasis, seem to be better tolerated in larger

> doses. Have you or anyone else noticed this?  It seems to me that much

> of the question about dosage depends on how long one is expected to

> stay on that formula. 

[Guest guest]

Zev,

thanks for offering up your valued opinion on dosage. In terms of eclectic medicine being experimental, I have a

bit of a different take. Last week

I gave a short talk at a very well attended conference in Chengdu (several

thousand at the conference). The

conference was on “The Modernization of ”. Note that the word Traditional was left

out. It seems to me that TCM has

evolved over the centuries because of skilled practitioners doing what you

might refer to as experimental or eclectic practices. If we are to continue that process of evolution we should be

seeking to learn about the innovations that work, whether they perfectly fit a

historical mold or not. All of

science follows this path, not just TCM.

I personally don’t get confused when people use words or concepts that

are not direct translations of words used in traditional texts. Sometimes they work better in

explaining a concept for me and sometimes they don’t. Although I would prefer, as you do, that they not infiltrate

descriptions and explanations of TCM unless there is general agreement among

the profession. Perhaps this would

require an international group of academic and professional people to approve

such ideas being incorporated into the definition of TCM. With the significant movement that has

and continues to take place in China toward “modernization” of TCM, the

definition of what TCM is will inevitably need to broaden in scope.

 

Stephen

 

 

Neither of these ideas has any clear meaning that has any source in Chinese

medical literature. The concept 'vibrational' or 'symbiotic' is imposing an

'energetic' idea onto the idea of patterns and associated prescriptions. Adding

a prescription to another as an adjunct in order to gain access to one

medicinal also doesn't make sense, this is different than combining

prescriptions in complex patterns. If we are going to be eclectic and

interpretive, let's at least be honest (I don't mean any personal reference

here to you) and call it eclectic medicine, rather than Chinese medicine. When

one interprets in this manner, one is not using the tools of the tradition, but

something that has been invented independently. I consider this experimental

medicine, and I think our patients have a right to know that we are

experimenting on them without sources when we do this.

 

[Guest guest]

In , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> My experience is the same. Supplementing prescriptions should be

taken in smaller doses over longer periods, prescriptions to drain

repletions larger doses over shorter periods.

 

 

Ditto.

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Note that the word Traditional was left out. It seems to me that TCM has evolved over the centuries because of skilled practitioners doing what you might refer to as experimental or eclectic practices. If we are to continue that process of evolution we should be seeking to learn about the innovations that work, whether they perfectly fit a historical mold or not. All of science follows this path, not just TCM

>>>I totally agree and so would not put down making stuff up if it is rooted in principles. The question then always comes to clinical research

Alon

[Guest guest]

How often is some of this eclectic stuff rooted in principles? And

what do we do with stuff that mostly becomes part of clinical practice

through advertising and exposure?

 

 

On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 08:07 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> Note that the word Traditional was left out. It seems to me that TCM

> has evolved over the centuries because of skilled practitioners doing

> what you might refer to as experimental or eclectic practices. If we

> are to continue that process of evolution we should be seeking to

> learn about the innovations that work, whether they perfectly fit a

> historical mold or not. All of science follows this path, not just TCM

> >>>I totally agree and so would not put down making stuff up if it is

> rooted in principles. The question then always comes to clinical

> research

> Alon

[Guest guest]

Anne,

recent clinical research on hou pu using less than 325mg of an extract BID as

an anxiolytic supports your postulation.

Changes in cortisol and other clinical end points were statistically

significant.

 

Stephen

 

 

I have

seen many cases where small, sometimes _very_ small doses of herbs were more

effective than large doses. -Anne

 

 

 

 

 

The Chinese Herb

Academy, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners,

matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal

Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved

online continuing education.

 

 

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

How often is some of this eclectic stuff rooted in principles? And what do we do with stuff that mostly becomes part of clinical practice through advertising and exposure?

 

>>>Hopefully people share their experience, but often do not, unfortunately. Like my fibromyalgia approach I have been trying to findout if anybody else has tried it and what were their experiences. I get a lot of, that was a great article, but no feedback on clinical experience.

I strongly believe that many of the so called great TCM master just made up stuff according to their experience. It is clear that they all had quite different ideas from one another. Certainly there is no great volumes of case studies for any of them.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Certainly you are right about some cases. From my observations of many practitioners over the years I would say that those with healthy roots in Chinese medicine training who have learned other modalities, and have found ways to incorporate their new perspective into their TCM roots, in many cases have become very impressive practitioners and healers.

>>>I would not practice a single day without doing this with great advantages

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

There is a difference between 'making stuff up' and applying the

principles of yin-yang theory to clinical practice. No one is saying

that Chinese medicine shouldn't be creative or respond to the moment.

As far as case histories go, there are voluminous volumes of them,

from the Tang and Qing dynasties for example. Ye Tian-shi's volumes on

case histories are a good source for interesting case histories.

 

I thought you and others on the list would appreciate this quote from

Moses Maimonides, in his " On Asthma " , the great physician and Rabbi who

lived in the 12th century:

 

" When I come home, the most that I can do during what is left of the

day and the night is to study that which I may need to know from the

medical books. For you know how long and difficult this art is for

someone who is conscientious and fastidious, and who does not wish to

say anything without first knowing its proof, its source (in the

literature), and the type of reasoning involved. "

 

Commentary (from the translator's introduction): Maimonides considered

theoretical study to be an essential part of the medical art because,

according to him, the treatment of every case had to be deduced by

means of analogical reasoning from general rules formulated in the

medical literature. He held in lower regard empiricist-physicians, who

relied instead on observation and experience and used the inductive

method, and warned against the detrimental effects of their practices.

 

I interpret this as it applies to our practice of medicine as follows.

The principles of yin-yang, five phase, six channel are analogical

tools for determining a pattern diagnosis. These tools are developed

in the Chinese medical literature. While much can be gained from

observations in the clinic, it will take a long time of accumulated

experience of multiple practitioners to build a reliable base on which

to choose treatment in the future.

 

 

On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 09:13 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> I strongly believe that many of the so called great TCM master just

> made up stuff according to their experience. It is clear that they all

> had quite different ideas from one another. Certainly there is no

> great volumes of case studies for any of them.

> Alon

[Guest guest]

My concerns for our practice of Chinese medicine do not exclude other

perspectives to health.

 

If we are going to discuss the issue of eclecticism in CM practice, let

me establish what I think may be useful criteria:

 

1) How do we determine a practitioner's proficiency in a 'non-CM'

methodology? Some techniques and methodology have as their

certification only the organizations that sell the techniques.

 

2) We are trained and licensed to practice what is defined as Chinese

medicine. How do we determine which of the 'non-Chinese' techniques

are appropriate for our profession? By extension, how do we represent

ourselves to our patients if we use kinesiology, combination

homeopathics, or vitamin supplements?

 

3) To what degree is eclecticism covering up for lack of proficiency?

For example, if there is a regrettable lack of expertise from one's

training in pulse diagnosis and pattern differentiation, some

practitioners will turn to such techniques as muscle testing and

diagnoses as 'adrenal insufficiency', and prescribe herbs and

supplements for these. While there may be validity in these choices,

can or should we represent ourselves in this manner to the public as

Chinese medicine?

 

I know it is only personal opinion, but despite my interest in

homeopathy, Ayurveda, Tibetan medicine, and Greco/Arabic medicine, it

is difficult to master one field of medicine, i.e. Chinese. Focusing

on Chinese medicine doesn't 'clip my wings', au contraire, it allows me

to do better work and deepen my knowledge. To me this is preferable to

skimming the surface of the other medical systems I love, and providing

superficial care. I would need an extra brain to memorize and utilize

homeopathic materia medica, for example.

 

I love getting adjustments, homeopathic medicines, and having

craniosacral work done. There is no reason why we cannot access these

methods for ourselves or recommend them to our patients. However, to

practice them professionally along with Chinese medicine requires a

great degree of depth and mastery that I, for one, don't have.

 

 

 

 

 

On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 10:15 PM, Stephen Morrissey wrote:

 

> Certainly you are right about some cases.  From my observations of

> many practitioners over the years I would say that those with healthy

> roots in Chinese medicine training who have learned other modalities,

> and have found ways to incorporate their new perspective into their

> TCM roots, in many cases have become very impressive practitioners and

> healers.  People can bring dedication and sincerity to fruition

> through health care in many ways.  What would be the difference

> between a medical doctor that is not interested in listening to

> someone discuss health and illness from a TCM perspective and a TCM

> practitioner who assumes other people’s perspectives have no valid

> principles? Maybe they don’t, maybe they do. It can be deceiving. Shi

> bu shi, dui bu dui?  Those who develop your very accomplished level of

> knowledge in traditional Chinese medicine provide a strong rooting

> influence for they whole profession. So keeping everyone focused on

> the traditions is greatly appreciated, but some also want to grow new

> branches. 

[Guest guest]

As far as case histories go, there are voluminous volumes of them, from the Tang and Qing dynasties for example. Ye Tian-shi's volumes on case histories are a good source for interesting case histories.>>>>Many of the so called great masters did not leave such record. I have no argument with having strong grounding in TCM. However, what we see may be unique to this time in history, we have much information that has never been available, we can understand disease processes to an extent never imagined and thus, at least in my case, see much that I need to "fill in"my self. When I say make stuff up I am talking about applying TCM principles flexibly. If we know of a pattern that seem to organize information in an eliminating way I try to see how I can use it within the tools of Chinese medicine. I find this extremely successful, as well as many of my students, in every day practice.

Alon

[Guest guest]

which of the 'non-Chinese' techniques

>>How do you define chinese techniques

alon

[Guest guest]

I have no argument with this, Alon.

 

 

On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 03:55 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> However, what we see may be unique to this time in history, we have

> much information that has never been available, we can understand

> disease processes to an extent never imagined and thus, at least in my

> case, see much that I need to " fill in " my self.  When I say make stuff

> up I am talking about applying TCM principles flexibly. If we know of

> a pattern that seem to organize information in an eliminating way I

> try to see how I can use it within the tools of Chinese medicine. I

> find this extremely successful, as well as many of my students, in

> every day practice.

> Alon

[Guest guest]

Hi Zev-

 

I interpret this as it applies to our

practice of medicine as follows.

The principles of yin-yang, five phase, six channel are analogical

tools for determining a pattern diagnosis. These tools are

developed

in the Chinese medical literature. While much can be gained

from

observations in the clinic, it will take a long time of

accumulated

experience of multiple practitioners to build a reliable base on

which

to choose treatment in the future.

 

Thanks for the quote from Maimonides and the thoughts on CM.

I agree that we need to adhere closely to the classics of our

tradition and build up extensive experience before we seek to

" make stuff up " to fill in the gaps. This is

especially important for newer practitioners and students, like

myself, to keep in mind. Not for tradition's sake, but because

it is only after long immersion in the clinical application of TCM

coupled with reflection on the theoretical notions embedded in the

classics and modern interpretations that can we begin to fully realize

its strengths and weaknesses. I feel compelled to say this,

because I saw an example of " flexibly applying theory "

grossly misused in school last night.

 

A student presented a case study on treating an old knee injury

last night in our orthopedics class. The student went through

the usual history taking, ortho tests, and TCM diagnostics and decided

that it was a weak MCL and damaged medial meniscus. As far as

TCM went, he had discerned that the injury was on the K channel and

that this channel needed to be treated. Then, he said, because

it had come from a trauma (some 20+ years earlier), the H was involved

and that needed to be treated as well. He called this a

disharmony of Fire and Water, basing his ideas, very loosely by his

own admission, on five-phase thinking. His choice of points

included knee points on the opposite leg of the injury, LI-11, and

most importantly, he told us, H-8! The H had been damaged in the

trauma, so he needed to stimulate H-8 very vigorously!! The

student pumped the needle in that point for several minutes.

Needless to say the patient (another student, thank God) was not very

happy with the treatment. Nor was it particularly

successful.

 

Now I can understand if this was simply a mistake of choosing

incorrect points by an incompetent student. This would have been

an error that the teacher could have corrected. But he insisted

that the treatment followed from the core of TCM theory. He said

that he was applying five-phase thinking flexibly to the situation:

TCM, after all, is all about applying theory flexibly. He was

under the erroneous impression that " applying theory flexibly "

meant that he could throw out what theory did not like (or did not

understand) and do what he wanted.

 

I think the scariest thing about this situation is not the fact

that the school I attend might graduate this student, but that he sees

in the field examples for his idea of " flexibly applying

theory. " And that if he sees this, who else sees this

freedom to do whatever they want as long as they can in some twisted

way link it to theory? What message is being spread that allows

a student to get such a whacked-out notion of what TCM is?

 

Maybe this is an isolated case. Maybe this student is just

a blip in the long history of CM. But I think we should, as a

profession, keep ourselves in check when we look to try out our own

ideas. For the most part, I want to advocate for a more conservative

approach when discussing theory, keeping a close eye on the classics.

It is a slippery slope making stuff up, and a disastrous fall may be

difficult to avoid once we start down that path.

 

-Steve

--

 

Stephen Bonzak

<smb021169

[Guest guest]

>

> Now I can understand if this was simply a mistake of choosing

> incorrect points by an incompetent student. This would have been an

> error that the teacher could have corrected. But he insisted that

> the treatment followed from the core of TCM theory. He said that he

> was applying five-phase thinking flexibly to the situation: TCM,

> after all, is all about applying theory flexibly. He was under the

> erroneous impression that " applying theory flexibly " meant that he

> could throw out what theory did not like (or did not understand) and

> do what he wanted.

>

>

> <smb021169@e...>

 

I find that this flexibly of applying theory is much more common than we think -

and not just from students. This idea that you can MSU is what attracts many

people to this profession... One can open up your local acu mag and see this-

but we have all been through this...

I really believe that one needs to read Chinese to have enough of a solid

foundation to start to develop there own theories(Unless a topic has extensively

been translated), and of course years of experience. - But, Some examples are

yin-fire and lurking pathogens. AS for Lurking pathogens I think it is very

clear that western's have taken this idea and ran with it far past the point of

what the Chinese really meant by the concept... But another example I am

currently exploring is how much deviation has come out of that 1 translation of

the PiWeiLun... maybe none... But it is real easy for a western practitioner to

read that book and develop some ideas on what it says and develop there own

theories, which are " supposedly rooted " ... I would highly question this. a)

because as we have discussed this translation is debatable, b) The Chinese isn't

that clear either, it is somewhat cryptic (I am currently re-translating various

yin-fire sections for kicks) c) because of this we need commentaries and case

studies surrounding these issues, to further elaborate on this topic...These are

currently not in English (as far as I know) so I am currently translating some

of these also... Maybe this yin-fire is totally clear to everyone due to the

PWL and Bob's commentary.. but for me there are still some unanswered questions,

but I know I have heard and read some stuff that I don't completely buy..

SO is it valid for somewhat to read one of these 'classic' books, especially

with no commentary/ case studies, and a) think they actually understand it, b)

deviate from this, and develop their own theory, while not even reading the

language? Some say definitely yes to this question; I would like to hear from

these people...

 

-

[Guest guest]

H had been damaged in the trauma, so he needed to stimulate H-8 very vigorously

>>>I have news for you Miriam Lee used to say almost the same thing. She often related inflammatory knee pain to Heart channel. Used Tong points such as Heart Knee. So while this was not effective it was not totally off of some systems. If this was truly an MCL and meniscus not this or Miriam's approach would do much in the long run anyway

Alon