Language

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

This is an herbal forum; so I don't know how much we want to get into

acupuncture. But I don't think it matters all that much what system of

diagnosis one uses when it comes to acupuncture: viscera & bowel,

channel & network vessel, five phase, eight trigrams, stems &

branches, Korean constitutional (any one of several systems), Japanes

hara diagnosis, etc. In terms of acupuncture, I think it is very

effective therapy for all sorts of problems. But, similar to Felix

Mann, I have come to the conclusion that, while acupuncture practice

MAY be described from a Chinese medical point of view, that is not a

sine qua non for its effectiveness.

 

Bob

 

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> I agree with you that learning herbal medicine well and practicing

> rigorously according to pattern differentiation is essential. I

also

> agree that for Chinese medicine to survive, we need to practice it

> according to its rationalist structure.

>

> I am not so sure that the precent PRC (national medicine) model is

the

> best one for North America. It is my feeling that acupuncture and

> moxa are very important for Western patients, and they respond very

> well to it. It even seems to work when prescription drugs are being

> used (with a few exceptions), and helps people in touch with their

own

> bodies and minds. It would seem, generally speaking, that

acupuncture

> is being used in a more limited capacity in the PRC national system,

> largely musculoskeletal and neurological disorders.

>

> Secondly, we do not have an integrated school/hospital setup in

North

> America at this time. While I wholeheartedly support the

development

> of a TCM hospital model with specialty departments, I hope there

will

> always be room for private practitioners here, in the role of a

> 'general practitioner'.

>

> I think it is possible for at least some of us to do both herbal

> medicine and acupuncture well. As you've pointed out, however, each

> one is based on a different diagnostic model. I, for one, don't

think

> using the zang-fu model for acupuncture is always appropriate. So,

if

> a practitioner is using both acumoxa and herbal medicine with a

> patient, they need to use different models, and therefore, different

> diagnostic schemes for each one. It may be appropriate to use

5-phase,

> Nan Jing style acupuncture along with zang-fu pattern

differentiation

> for herbal medicine. This is not an easy job, and for this reason,

I

> think in our profession further specialization will be the general

> progression of things. I hope we will retain flexibility in this

> matter, as politically I wouldn't like to see separate licensing

for

> herbalists and acupuncturists in North America. The loss of herbal

> medicine to M.D.'s in Japan has relegated acupuncturists to a

secondary

> role in Japanese health care, from my point of view.

>

>

> On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 11:48 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

>

> > As for whether or not this is a good model for other

practitioners,

> > that's a very complicated discussion. It is the model that is used

in

> > the PRC. So a lot of people with a lot more knowledge and

experience

> > than me think it is a good model. Nevertheless, I am quite willing

to

> > consider if it is the best model for practice here in North

America.

> > As you mention, if treating with acupuncture and Chinese

medicinals at

> > the same time results in patients getting a mostly good outcome

even

> > if their practitioner's diagnosis and Chinese medicinal Rx are not

> > totally correct, then isn't it better to continue doing that?

[Guest guest]

In , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote:

> I agree that learning to read Chinese will not eliminate all

> differences of opinion and " fuzzy " areas of knowledge. However, in

my experience as a clinician and as a teacher, I have seen learning

> Chinese make expontential gains in a number of students' and

> practitioners' understanding and application of Chinese medicine.

 

Bob,

 

No doubt about it. That's why I taught myself to read some Chinese,

and buy Chinese texts.

 

 

> I don't find the SHL very important for contemporary clinical

practice. I am much more interested in knowing what contemporary

Chinese clinicians are doing and thinking. Until or unless one has

access to a large proportion of contemporary materials, I think

the " classics " are largely a waste of time. The fact that so many

Westerners are so fascinated by them is, to me, indicative of a

lack of familiarity with the contemporary literature and practice

and a mythological golden agism. Sorry.

 

 

I find your opinion understandable and persuasive. But I hope it

won't discourage you from publishing other translations of classical

material in the future. Some of the prior BP publications---the

Shaolin herb book and the Mai Jing, in particular---are immensely

important and illustrate a line of thinking that isn't utilized in

contemporary literature and practice; yet [iMO] should be.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

As for the SHL, I thought the discussion was largely a waste of time. (That's just my opinion.) I don't find the SHL very important for contemporary clinical practice. I am much more interested in knowing what contemporary Chinese clinicians are doing and thinking. Until or unless one has access to a large proportion of contemporary materials, I think the "classics" are largely a waste of time. The fact that so many Westerners are so fascinated by them is, to me, indicative of a lack of familiarity with the contemporary literature and practice and a mythological golden agism. Sorry.

 

 

 

Bob - it is good to see you back. And - no need to apologize, it is your opinion ;-)

 

I never saw a response to my comments about gallbladder syndromes. Maybe you would like to address that. Especially since it speaks in part to modern day application of SHL theory. I find SHL particularly useful for contemporary clinical practice as does my mentor Yang Maiqing (Kanpo practitioners and Taiwanese practitioners also tend to find a high degree of clinical relevancy in this model). In addition, after 22 years of experience and some

I admit my translational skills aren't up to instant reading level. However, through the translational team approach, I find a depth of understanding that is enriching. In addition, I find the contemporary materials somewhat flat, predictable and mundane. In my opinion, the classical material on the other hand is useful to me with it's open logical architecture for inspiring depths of thought and analysis. So - quite the contrary, I find classical study valuable at any stage of training. And in my opinion, the fascination with classical study is more likely because there is greater depth and wisdom in the classics than the mere pattern differentiation in much of contemporary literature; it often times is a replication of basic zang fu training with an occasionally well picked specific medicinal.

 

The use of classical study is not merely for a fanciful connection to some Golden Age although it can fulfill this end well. The purposes include The development of insight and context for the historical practice of this medicine in addition to providing seed for current clinical thought and the development of new ideas based on a foundation of the whole development of the medicine instead of relying on the opinions of those practicing a post modern Chinese methodology. This can allow one to avoid the plague of what I call chronocentrism - the notion that the products of any single time frame have more to offer than another. (this is a prelude to a call for a return to Shang and Zhou dynasty styles of practice that are still alive in the back country and many parts of Taiwan)

 

Will Morris

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001>

wrote:

If one only has a duty to

> the patient, then the answer is yes. If all that matters is the

> patient getting well, then empirical pragmatism is all that is

> necessary. But, while I agree that getting the patient better is

the

> MAIN job of the practitioner, it is not the ONLY duty the

practitioner

> has.

I believe that the practitioner also has an obligation to their

> art.

 

Bob

 

Thanks for your frank reply. You are the first one to admit that an

eclectic approach can be equally clinically efficacious as a learned

scholarly approach. We all know that to be true. But I have to

respectfully disagree with you on that last point. It is the

obligation of the profession to preserve the art, particularly the

schools. No single doctor has any obligation other than getting his

patients well; it is not necessary to leave a textbook trail for

posterity; if one is successful, then scholars can debate why your

methods worked over the centuries. In some cases, that obligation

may be best served by the scholarly pure TCM method.It is vital we

have such scholars. However, some might be better served by pursuing

their actual strengths (manualskills, western science, etc.) than

struggling in an area where they may have little aptitude and in

which they see little gain.

 

I certainly would not alter my style of practice for the sake of the

art, in the meantime depriving my patients of what I know to be

effective, TCM or not. The few modalities I pursue I take seriously.

But in order to take any one more seriously would require sacrifices

in the others. I don't see why I should put myself and my patients

through this for no ROI, a term you use a lot. I stand firmly behind

the use of standard translations as the basis for TCM education. I

think basic education should not be too eclectic. I think all

students should have introduction to chinese, knowing full well, as

Wiseman has stated, that only a few will become scholars and that is

all that is necessary to preserve the art. Get a firm foundation,

then decide to pursue language or research or nutrition. Our 21st

century american version of TCM is going to be eclectic,like it or

not. Let's see what we can do to insure it is still rational,

effective and centered around TCM pattern discrimination. Let us not

forget that the chinese are quite eclectic, having absorbed many

herbs from other cultures for their empirical qualities, only later

determining their rational uses and the system survived this

indignity. It will survive us in some fashion, as well,if it has

anything to offer to human cultural evolution.

 

[Guest guest]

Ken -

 

[What percentage of the curriculum at Emperor's

is formulated on the basis of definitions of optimal outcomes

of Chinese medical training which have been determined

by sound educational research? And can you point

us to this research?]

 

 

 

Aha - good question. We modeled Beijing TCM University. The practice of using sound educational research is emerging for standard medical care institutions. I advocate it for TCM school in this countr as well. Now that the research methods and awareness are developing are you suggesting that because it has not been done in the past we should not do it in the future?

 

Will Morris

[Guest guest]

Will,

 

One quick question.

 

>

> It is my opinion that knowing the basic terms is useful.

>

> > further agree that one has to have some

> > basic knowledge of Chinese to know the

> > meanings of the Chinese medical terms?

> >

>

> We don't have an answer to this question since optimal outcomes

for language

> training based on sound educational research has yet to be defined.

>

 

What percentage of the curriculum at Emperor's

is formulated on the basis of definitions of optimal outcomes

of Chinese medical training which have been determined

by sound educational research? And can you point

us to this research?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

 

 

But what is the profession other than the abstract aggregate of all us

individuals? The people who run and teach at the schools are, for the

most part, also practitioners. So if we all do not take responsibility

for the art, then, in reality, no one takes responsibility.

 

Bob

 

, " " <@i...> wrote:

> , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001>

> wrote:

> If one only has a duty to

> > the patient, then the answer is yes. If all that matters is the

> > patient getting well, then empirical pragmatism is all that is

> > necessary. But, while I agree that getting the patient better is

> the

> > MAIN job of the practitioner, it is not the ONLY duty the

> practitioner

> > has.

> I believe that the practitioner also has an obligation to their

> > art.

>

> Bob

>

> Thanks for your frank reply. You are the first one to admit that an

> eclectic approach can be equally clinically efficacious as a learned

> scholarly approach. We all know that to be true. But I have to

> respectfully disagree with you on that last point. It is the

> obligation of the profession to preserve the art, particularly the

> schools. No single doctor has any obligation other than getting his

> patients well; it is not necessary to leave a textbook trail for

> posterity; if one is successful, then scholars can debate why your

> methods worked over the centuries. In some cases, that obligation

> may be best served by the scholarly pure TCM method.It is vital we

> have such scholars. However, some might be better served by

pursuing

> their actual strengths (manualskills, western science, etc.) than

> struggling in an area where they may have little aptitude and in

> which they see little gain.

>

> I certainly would not alter my style of practice for the sake of the

> art, in the meantime depriving my patients of what I know to be

> effective, TCM or not. The few modalities I pursue I take seriously.

> But in order to take any one more seriously would require sacrifices

> in the others. I don't see why I should put myself and my patients

> through this for no ROI, a term you use a lot. I stand firmly

behind

> the use of standard translations as the basis for TCM education. I

> think basic education should not be too eclectic. I think all

> students should have introduction to chinese, knowing full well, as

> Wiseman has stated, that only a few will become scholars and that is

> all that is necessary to preserve the art. Get a firm foundation,

> then decide to pursue language or research or nutrition. Our 21st

> century american version of TCM is going to be eclectic,like it or

> not. Let's see what we can do to insure it is still rational,

> effective and centered around TCM pattern discrimination. Let us

not

> forget that the chinese are quite eclectic, having absorbed many

> herbs from other cultures for their empirical qualities, only later

> determining their rational uses and the system survived this

> indignity. It will survive us in some fashion, as well,if it has

> anything to offer to human cultural evolution.

>

 

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

Shaolin Secret Formulas for the Treatment of Traumatic Injury is a

contemporary text. That aside, BPP hopes to bring out a translation of

the Yi Lin Gai Cuo (Correcting the Errors in the Forest of Medicine)

in the next year or so. However, due to poor sales, we can't even

justify keeping all our Great Masters Series in print, let alone

continue doing new ones.

 

Bob

 

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz> wrote:

> In , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001>

wrote:

> > I agree that learning to read Chinese will not eliminate all

> > differences of opinion and " fuzzy " areas of knowledge. However, in

> my experience as a clinician and as a teacher, I have seen learning

> > Chinese make expontential gains in a number of students' and

> > practitioners' understanding and application of Chinese medicine.

>

> Bob,

>

> No doubt about it. That's why I taught myself to read some Chinese,

> and buy Chinese texts.

>

>

> > I don't find the SHL very important for contemporary clinical

> practice. I am much more interested in knowing what contemporary

> Chinese clinicians are doing and thinking. Until or unless one has

> access to a large proportion of contemporary materials, I think

> the " classics " are largely a waste of time. The fact that so many

> Westerners are so fascinated by them is, to me, indicative of a

> lack of familiarity with the contemporary literature and practice

> and a mythological golden agism. Sorry.

>

>

> I find your opinion understandable and persuasive. But I hope it

> won't discourage you from publishing other translations of classical

> material in the future. Some of the prior BP publications---the

> Shaolin herb book and the Mai Jing, in particular---are immensely

> important and illustrate a line of thinking that isn't utilized in

> contemporary literature and practice; yet [iMO] should be.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Will,

 

Having been involved in the word-forword, line-for-line translation of

more premodern Chinese texts than anyone else I know, I agree that

reading and studying these books is an important part to the overall

education of a contemporary Chinese medical practitioner. But I also

believe that many people take these texts out of context and accord

them an importance that is over-inflated. Being able to read both the

classics and the contemporary Chinese literature, I typically find

more immediately clinically useful information in the contemporary

literature.

 

Bob

 

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

>

> > As for the SHL, I thought the discussion was largely a waste of

time.

> > (That's just my opinion.) I don't find the SHL very important for

> > contemporary clinical practice. I am much more interested in

knowing

> > what contemporary Chinese clinicians are doing and thinking. Until

or

> > unless one has access to a large proportion of contemporary

materials,

> > I think the " classics " are largely a waste of time. The fact that

so

> > many Westerners are so fascinated by them is, to me, indicative of

a

> > lack of familiarity with the contemporary literature and practice

and

> > a mythological golden agism. Sorry.

> >

>

>

> Bob - it is good to see you back. And - no need to apologize, it is

your

> opinion ;-)

>

> I never saw a response to my comments about gallbladder syndromes.

Maybe you

> would like to address that. Especially since it speaks in part to

modern day

> application of SHL theory. I find SHL particularly useful for

contemporary

> clinical practice as does my mentor Yang Maiqing (Kanpo

practitioners and

> Taiwanese practitioners also tend to find a high degree of clinical

relevancy

> in this model). In addition, after 22 years of experience and some

>

> I admit my translational skills aren't up to instant reading level.

However,

> through the translational team approach, I find a depth of

understanding that

> is enriching. In addition, I find the contemporary materials

somewhat flat,

> predictable and mundane. In my opinion, the classical material on

the other

> hand is useful to me with it's open logical architecture for

inspiring depths

> of thought and analysis. So - quite the contrary, I find classical

study

> valuable at any stage of training. And in my opinion, the

fascination with

> classical study is more likely because there is greater depth and

wisdom in

> the classics than the mere pattern differentiation in much of

contemporary

> literature; it often times is a replication of basic zang fu

training with an

> occasionally well picked specific medicinal.

>

> The use of classical study is not merely for a fanciful connection

to some

> Golden Age although it can fulfill this end well. The purposes

include The

> development of insight and context for the historical practice of

this

> medicine in addition to providing seed for current clinical thought

and the

> development of new ideas based on a foundation of the whole

development of

> the medicine instead of relying on the opinions of those practicing

a post

> modern Chinese methodology. This can allow one to avoid the plague

of what I

> call chronocentrism - the notion that the products of any single

time frame

> have more to offer than another. (this is a prelude to a call for a

return to

> Shang and Zhou dynasty styles of practice that are still alive in

the back

> country and many parts of Taiwan)

>

> Will Morris

[Guest guest]

Will,

>

> Aha - good question. We modeled Beijing TCM University. The

practice of using

> sound educational research is emerging for standard medical care

> institutions. I advocate it for TCM school in this countr as well.

Now that

> the research methods and awareness are developing are you

suggesting that

> because it has not been done in the past we should not do it in

the future?

 

No. I'm a big fan of research. I was curious

to know whether or not you were applying criteria

to the inclusion of language training (rather to

the exclusion of it) that you had/had not applied

to the inclusion or exclusion of other components

in the curriculum. If I understand you correctly

you are saying that the Emperor's curriculum

is modeled on Beijing TCM University's curriculum

and that the Beijing curriculum is based on

sound educational research.

 

That raises the question of whether or not

the research done as the foundation of

Beijing's curriculum is applicable to

the situation Emperor's faces. After all,

any research done at or by the folks in

Beijing was and is probably focused on

Chinese students for the most part.

 

Or are you referring to Beijing's program

for foreign students?

 

It also raises the question of doesn't Beijing

TCM University have an yi1 gu3 wen2 course?

I believe it does, as it is a standard aspect

of the nationally approved curriculum here in China.

Why wasn't it modeled into your curriculum?

Was that decision based on sound education

research? And can you share that research?

 

More generally, when you say you modeled them,

what does that actually mean? Have you seen the

research on which their curriculum is based?

 

I presume you adapted their curriculum

rather than actually constructing your

own based on their model. Was this adaptation

based on sound education research?

 

I am very interested in any/all educational

research on TCM. Can you cite studies?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

>

> But what is the profession other than the abstract aggregate of

all us

> individuals? The people who run and teach at the schools are, for

the

> most part, also practitioners. So if we all do not take

responsibility

> for the art, then, in reality, no one takes responsibility.

>

Very well put.

 

I just want to add that the taking of

responsibility for the art is an

important dimension of the construction

of the character of a traditional Chinese

medical doctor.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 10:05 PM +0000 12/4/02, Bob Flaws wrote:

>I don't find the SHL very important for

>contemporary clinical practice. I am much more interested in knowing

>what contemporary Chinese clinicians are doing and thinking.

--

 

I was in clinic in China a month ago, at a provincial TCM college

hospital, and looking at my notes I see that many of the guiding

formulae are from the SHL & JGYL. At the two major Beijing hospitals

I've studied at in the past, I'd say that SHL & JGYL formulae are

used often. Of course, there are some departments where this is less

true. I'd be interested to hear if this corresponds at all to the

experience of others.

 

Rory

 

--

[Guest guest]

In , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote:

However, due to poor sales, we can't even justify keeping all our

Great Masters Series in print, let alone continue doing new ones.

 

 

Bob:

 

What about keeping the series in print by publishing them to your

website as a subscription service?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Rory,

 

I too use many SHL formulas. But I don't study the SHL to decide how

to use them. I base their use on a contemporary analysis of the

medicinals these formulas contain and how those medicinals fit my

patient's therapeutic requirements. Saying that SHL formulas are

important to clinical practice is categorically different than saying

that the studying the SHL is important to clinical practice.

 

Bob

 

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote:

> At 10:05 PM +0000 12/4/02, Bob Flaws wrote:

> >I don't find the SHL very important for

> >contemporary clinical practice. I am much more interested in

knowing

> >what contemporary Chinese clinicians are doing and thinking.

> --

>

> I was in clinic in China a month ago, at a provincial TCM college

> hospital, and looking at my notes I see that many of the guiding

> formulae are from the SHL & JGYL. At the two major Beijing hospitals

> I've studied at in the past, I'd say that SHL & JGYL formulae are

> used often. Of course, there are some departments where this is less

> true. I'd be interested to hear if this corresponds at all to the

> experience of others.

>

> Rory

>

> --

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

We haven't thought of that. That's an interesting idea. For instance,

we just cannot justify the cash flow to reprint the Systematic

Classic. I will make this suggestion to our General Manager this

morning.

 

Thanks.

 

Bob

 

BTW, I will be off list till next Tuesday. I'll be teaching this

weekend in Santa Monica.

 

 

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz> wrote:

> In , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001>

wrote:

> However, due to poor sales, we can't even justify keeping all our

> Great Masters Series in print, let alone continue doing new ones.

>

>

> Bob:

>

> What about keeping the series in print by publishing them to your

> website as a subscription service?

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001>

wrote:

> Rory,

>

> I too use many SHL formulas. But I don't study the SHL to decide how

> to use them.

 

this seems to follow qin bo wei's advice, to paraphrase, that one can apply a

formula based upon the disease factor it treats and the location of the body it

is focused upon. It is not necessary for textbook symptomology to match in

any given patient as long as the pattern is correct and the herbs are able to

address the symptoms at hand.

 

[Guest guest]

--- Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001 wrote:

I base their use on a contemporary

> analysis of the

> medicinals these formulas contain and how those

> medicinals fit my

> patient's therapeutic requirements.

 

What are the elements comprising a " contemporary

analysis? "

 

Brandt Stickley

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Rory,

 

I have to oncur with you on this. In addition, to of the most senior Chinese docs I know are considered masters of SHL. One practives strictly Shang Han Za Bing Lun, the other is closer to Li's style with occassional SHL...however he knows it cold (no pun intended). In addition, I have the recent acquantance of a PhD in SHL. I find it fascinating and clinically viable.

 

Will

 

Frankly, I've found SHL study (and I include the study of the commentaries in my meaning), and trying to see with SHL eyes, to the limited extent that I'm able to do so, to be useful in refining my clinical acumen.

[Guest guest]

At 4:43 PM +0000 12/6/02, Bob Flaws wrote:

>Saying that SHL formulas are

>important to clinical practice is categorically different than saying

>that the studying the SHL is important to clinical practice.

--

Well, I agree with the distinction you're making -- I was trying to

answer your previous question about modern practice in China.

However, I've certainly encountered well respected Chinese

practitioners who've studied SHL in depth, and recently was treated

to several hours of lectures on the adaptation of some SHL formulas

by a professor who did it very much in the SHL style, as distinct

from the modern style. My impression is that modern training in China

includes more on the SHL (and other classics) than is typically

offered to students in the USA. Whether they do that for it's

clinical usefulness or not, I don't know.

 

Frankly, I've found SHL study (and I include the study of the

commentaries in my meaning), and trying to see with SHL eyes, to the

limited extent that I'm able to do so, to be useful in refining my

clinical acumen.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

At 4:01 PM +0000 12/5/02, Bob Flaws wrote:

>However, due to poor sales, we can't even

>justify keeping all our Great Masters Series in print, let alone

>continue doing new ones.

--

 

Aren't there grants that would support this sort of project?

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

> Rory,

>

> I have to oncur with you on this. In addition, to of the most senior Chinese

> docs I know are considered masters of SHL.

 

my own teacher who learned CM as a young girl from her father's family

tradition did not put much stock in the study of SHL, feeling that insights from

that book visa ve prescription writing had been incorporated into later texts

she preferred, such as dan xi xin fa and wen bing xue. As qin bo wei writes,

" dan xi established prescriptions modeled upon the prescriptions of zhongjing

and used medicinals in a manner that was modeled on that of li [dongyuan] "

We also know that the wen bing theorists were strongly influenced in their

prescriptionology by the SHL. Arguably, these two trends had a strong

influence on the style of practice of modern TCM. SHL forms the roots, but my

teacher felt one could practice as well or better using the fruits of the

development of these roots over the centuries than by accessing the roots

themselves. A modernist position perhaps, but not unheard of in chinese

history. On the other hand, Heiner Fruehauf was strongly in favor of studying

old prescriptions in their orginal context.

 

Will is right that many senior docs who are scholarly oriented do put emphasis

on SHL studies. but according to Fruehauf, this is truer in chengdu than in

other parts of china, where many senior docs are actually focused more on

western style research. And while many modern formulas used are from the

SHL, they are not conceptualized according to that framework in internal

medicine texts (like xiao chai hu tang for liver/stomach disharmony with

vomiting or ma huang tang for wind cold). some people may call it shaoyang

or taiyang whenever these formulas are used, but others do not put much

stock in this idea. There is no consensus on this, never was and never will

be. some people find great value in classic texts; others find little. It is

good to

hear various personal experiences with different approaches, classical or

modern, hybrid, eclectic or purist, but I hope no one thinks thinks these issues

can be resolved. there is no right answer. does one need to study

paracelsus and the roots of modern allopathic drug therapy in order to

practice modern medicine? What little research we have supports the

modern TCM method. the rest is all personal bias and predilection of the

dcotors who use other methods. If indeed, these anceint methods are more

effective than the TCM method, then:

 

1. why is this not the dominant method in the PRC; they are pragmatic,right?

2. only research can prove this, not anecdote

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jim and Bob Flaws,

 

 

I too think it is a very interesting idea...

 

 

Not being "funny" but in a way it would possibly start an ecological trend. Also, an interactive course could possibly be more easily constructed.

 

Marco Bergh

 

 

 

 

Jim,We haven't thought of that. That's an interesting idea. For instance, we just cannot justify the cash flow to reprint the Systematic Classic. I will make this suggestion to our General Manager this morning. Thanks.BobBTW, I will be off list till next Tuesday. I'll be teaching this weekend in Santa Monica.

[Guest guest]

> be. some people find great value in classic texts; others find little. =

It is good to

> hear various personal experiences with different approaches, classical or=

 

> modern, hybrid, eclectic or purist, but I hope no one thinks thinks these=

issues

> can be resolved. there is no right answer. does one need to study

> paracelsus and the roots of modern allopathic drug therapy in order to

> practice modern medicine?

 

I see a major distinction between western and eastern. TCM by nature is an=

accumulation of ideas vs. the western idea a throwing out of PAST ideas. Th=

is is obvious, but I think the point with classical studies like the SHL is =

this: It is not about the formulas, it about a different way of thinking abo=

ut the disease process, which yes is somewhat outdated. The pathomechanisms=

are different in such texts and therefore give us OTHER options when the ma=

instream ideas fail. TO ignore where TCM is today (zang-fu + modern western/=

eastern research) IMO, would be foolish. But as Alon as tooted before, TCM=

doesn't always work... Well understanding the classics IN DETAIL, not just =

learning the formulas, gives a practitioner much more options. I am currentl=

y doing a detailed study of SHL style prescribing, and not just a classical =

approach, but with modern case studies... One sees formulas given over and o=

ver that one could Never have gotten to using modern TCM style (zang-fu) pra=

ctice – or atleast with my education. So I disagree with BoB F. that it is =

all about the herbs - It is the pathomechanism that seems different. IT is n=

ot that the herbs in those books do different things. Although, there are in=

stances that do give different insights into the herbs attributes (i.e. It i=

s a strong belief from studying the SHL that guizhi DOES NOT release the ext=

erior) - this sounded crazy to me, but not after study I see where that is c=

oming from.. That stuff is important to me.

 

Let us not loose the PAST by adopting a western model of throwing out what =

is not prevailing/ in the present- This has been a huge stregth of CM in the=

past... anyway.,..

 

-JAson

 

 

>

> 1. why is this not the dominant method in the PRC; they are pragmatic,ri=

ght?

> 2. only research can prove this, not anecdote

>

 

[Guest guest]

At 6:56 AM +0000 12/7/02, < wrote:

> What little research we have supports the

>modern TCM method. the rest is all personal bias and predilection of the

>dcotors who use other methods. If indeed, these anceint methods are more

>effective than the TCM method, then:

>

>1. why is this not the dominant method in the PRC; they are pragmatic,right?

>2. only research can prove this, not anecdote

--

 

Once again the discussion devolves into this versus that. Help me

make sense of your claims above:

 

-Because we have research (as you say, pretty meager research) into

TCM, does that negate the effectiveness of other styles?

-Do you know of any study that has compared TCM style with any other

style, with the intention of deciding which is better?

-What basis do you have for your assertion that the " rest is all

personal bias and predilection? "

-Was TCM adopted as the dominant style because it was proven more

effective by research? I don't think so. Reasons that a particular

style becomes dominant are not necessarily due simply to clinical

effectiveness based on research. Other influences are political,

historical accident, profit motive, personal bias of the researchers,

institutional inertia,...etc.

- " only research " can prove what? if one thing is researched and the

other is not, what does that prove in comparing the two things, other

than the fact that one has been researched? -- nothing.

 

I'm not saying that I don't, and one shouldn't, study modern methods,

and only study SHL. I'm interested in TCM, and read a lot of it, and

use it. I read and use information in integrated medicine books and

journal articles. I don't personally practice SHL style, one reason

being that I'm probably not yet competent to do so.

 

It's not a question of choosing one thing, and excluding everything

else. The SHL style practitioners I know use modern research methods

to refine their knowledge and practice. I find great value in

studying historical material, because the process that goes on inside

me when I do so leads to greater depth of understanding, and I can

take that into the clinic. This has to do with the maturing of an

individual practitioner, and is not researchable, AFAIK.

 

Rory

 

--

[Guest guest]

To elaborate just slightly on my last post, in regard to

pathomechanism. IMO, if one tries to match the s/s (given) with the

SHL formuals this method is futile. (I think something about this was

discussed previously). Only when one can look beyond the s/s to see

what underlyinhg pathomechanism is present can one start to apply

these type of formulas to modern day cases. This is not easy and definitly=

not taught in a most 4-year graduate courses. Therefore to the

untrained eye, the RX uses seem strange, archaic, or unreasonable

(especially from a western trained practitioner who basically only

knows zang-fu). I see brilliance in some of these applications, i.e.

mahuangtang for uterine pain, and encourage others to stay open to

other possibilities.

 

-

 

 

>

> I see a major distinction between western and eastern. TCM by

nature is an=

> accumulation of ideas vs. the western idea a throwing out of PAST

ideas. Th=

> is is obvious, but I think the point with classical studies like

the SHL is =

> this: It is not about the formulas, it about a different way of

thinking abo=

> ut the disease process, which yes is somewhat outdated. The

pathomechanisms=

> are different in such texts and therefore give us OTHER options

when the ma=

> instream ideas fail. TO ignore where TCM is today (zang-fu + modern

western/=

> eastern research) IMO, would be foolish. But as Alon as tooted

before, TCM=

> doesn't always work... Well understanding the classics IN DETAIL,

not just =

> learning the formulas, gives a practitioner much more options. I am

currentl=

> y doing a detailed study of SHL style prescribing, and not just a

classical =

> approach, but with modern case studies... One sees formulas given

over and o=

> ver that one could Never have gotten to using modern TCM style

(zang-fu) pra=

> ctice – or atleast with my education. So I disagree with BoB

F. that it is =

> all about the herbs - It is the pathomechanism that seems

different. IT is n=

> ot that the herbs in those books do different things. Although,

there are in=

> stances that do give different insights into the herbs attributes

(i.e. It i=

> s a strong belief from studying the SHL that guizhi DOES NOT

release the ext=

> erior) - this sounded crazy to me, but not after study I see where

that is c=

> oming from.. That stuff is important to me.

>

> Let us not loose the PAST by adopting a western model of throwing

out what =

> is not prevailing/ in the present- This has been a huge stregth of

CM in the=

> past... anyway.,..

>

> -JAson

>

>

> >

> > 1. why is this not the dominant method in the PRC; they are

pragmatic,ri=

> ght?

> > 2. only research can prove this, not anecdote

> >

>