misconceptions persist?

[Guest guest]

At 6:08 AM +0000 1/8/04, wrote:

>But he is then saying that everyone out

>there, many famous doctors (modern and pre-modern), that have taken

>the approach of not using qi supplementing medicinals with fatigue,

>are incorrect and just wrong.

--

 

Jason,

 

I don't recall Bob saying that. I recall him simply saying that

fatigue is, ipso facto, qi vacuity. If he did say that these that

these doctors were wrong, can you point me to the message, because I

can't find it.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " wrote:

>>>>>>Jason this just goes back to people trying to make CM what it

is not, clinging to a so-called standard approach, which they can

not even do by them self's. As you and i said many times you can

show evidence for support for just about anything in CM literature,

both modern and old. If we are to allow for this plurality or as PU

calls cognitive aesthetics notion of contradictions, which i think

is a potential strength of CM, then these arguments are really

silly. >>>

 

 

Alon:

 

I agree with you. IMO, Bob's arguments demonstrate what Ken's did

earlier, that standardization doesn't really work better or have a

privledged perspective. It is only another style, academic, of CM.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> that it

> would be a more effective treatment if qi were supplemented in those

> cases.

> >>>Well i can tell you from real life experience that in many

patients this is simply not true

> Alon

 

While we have to rely on clinical reality to judge issues on theory,

the inherit problem with that is not knowing whether or not the

practitioner's diagnosis was completely correct. Also, if

supplementation in a case where fatigue presented actually made the

patient worse, then one cannot turn back the clock and try a different

dose or even different supplementing medicinals. So, one cannot

really say that supplementation was wrong, rather, the specific type

of supplementing that the practitioner did was wrong.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> transforms to fire in a person with no spleen qi vacuity

> >>>Todd at the same time it is said " when treating the liver first

treat the spleen " so again you can find support for anything

> Alon

 

 

I do not believe that " one can find support for anything " theory

related in Chinese classic texts. I do not believe that you think so

either. Stating such an erroneous exaggeration does not serve your

position well, and is more or less a cop-out on the part of those who

use the phrase.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

At 5:48 AM +0000 1/8/04, wrote:

> >>I do not see the qi xu if you cure a problem without supplementing qi.

>

>I already wrote my schpiel on this, but I'm curious if anyone still

>does not see the need to rectify some of these issues with

>standards. If more than one point of view is valid, let's prove it

>with citations and case studies. Our standards would be different

>if it turned out only one position could actually be jusitified. It

>is a serious issue if the most complete healing hinges on the proper

>application of theory. Otherwise our work is palliative at best,

>iatrogenic at worst.

--

 

 

 

There is nothing to rectify here, IMO. To say that fatigue shows qi

vacuity is not to say that qi vacuity necessarily needs to be treated

with herbs (or anything else for that matter). If the fatigue is

caused by a night's poor sleep, and the person has a concurrent cold,

the diagnosis may be tai yang shan han, but that does not mean that

there is not qi vacuity, or that if the qi vacuity is acknowledged

that it needs to be treated. If the patient has qi vacuity due to an

enduring condition and catches a cold, the symptom picture will not

be be tai yang shan han, and the treatment of the cold will no doubt

include qi supplementing herbs.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

 

> While we have to rely on clinical reality to judge issues on theory,

> the inherit problem with that is not knowing whether or not the

> practitioner's diagnosis was completely correct.

 

which underscores a point I made and Bob flaws agreed with a month ago, which is

that an analysis of the herbs in a successful rx is usually the best assessment

of what

the correct dx was. However Rory said there are lots of reasons px make herb

choices and we cannot read into that. Well, that is an interesting statement in

light of

Bob Damone's presentation on premodern cases at symposium 2002. Bob said the

authors of premodern cases often did not give a discussion of the rationale Rory

said

would be the ultimate arbiter of why the herbs were chosen. In fact,it was

complewtely up to the reader to make this determination in many cases and the

main

recourse one had was to analyze the herbs. However an analysis of the herbs

cannot

lead one to an impermissible conclusion. I would still suggest the possibility

that the

absence of hebs to supplement the qi in a formula DOES NOT mean that pattern was

not part of the diagnosis, just that the px did not think it necessary to

include such

herbs.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

I would still suggest the possibility that the absence of herbs to

supplement the qi in a formula DOES NOT mean that pattern was

not part of the diagnosis, just that the px did not think it

necessary to include such herbs. >>>

 

 

 

:

 

I've been trying to follow this thread and it seems like all these

ideas could be valid in a particular context or patient. But without

any clear and specific case history, it is easy to see how these

generalizations lead to disagreements.

 

Your comment above seems like a real stretch to justify that qi

vacuity is always found in fatigue, otherwise the formula does not

fit the pattern or is only for some symptomatic relief. If the

practitioner did not think is necessary to include them then,

logically, there wasn't qi vacuity if we assume the formula fits the

patient. Unless you're proposing another, less direct method of

supplementing the qi like the Mother-son rule from 5-Phases.

 

Without a specific case and formula, it seems that we shouldn't take

any generalization for more than it is.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz@m...>

wrote:

 

If the

> practitioner did not think is necessary to include them then,

> logically, there wasn't qi vacuity if we assume the formula fits the

> patient. Unless you're proposing another, less direct method of

> supplementing the qi like the Mother-son rule from 5-Phases.

 

 

actually the idea was that by disencumbering an organ from a pathogen in a

patient

with only mild vacuity, the vacuity would be restored naturally. However I have

been

playing both sides of the fence here. I began by saying, as you state,

" logically, there

wasn't qi vacuity if we assume the formula fits the patient " . But if fatigue

must be

due to qi xu (not my position, but I cnnot find a valid countercitation, either)

and th

formula used to treat fatigue did not address it directly, we must postulate

another

hypothesis.

 

[Guest guest]

I appreciate your gathering data at the PCOM clinic, Todd. But from my

experience recently one semester as a supervisor, there are a number of

factors you have to consider.

First, most patients are not aware that CM can help with more chronic

and complex conditions, so they come for back pain, musculoskeletal,

etc. Secondly, student practitioners are not really that prepared to

deal with such complex conditions. My observation as a sometime

supervisor is that several patients have had chronic health conditions,

but didn't expect to have them treated at the PCOM clinic. We have to

educate patients that options are available for these things.

 

Not all patients with chronic diseases and/or autoimmune disorders are

on immunosuppressive medications, or have their doctors steering them

away from herbal medicines. Certainly that is not my experience. As

you know, I treat cancer patients, lupus patients, kidney disease

patients and many other serious conditions and patients. Many times,

although I do not generally treat musculoskeletal disorders (if

difficult cases, I refer them out), I'll take a simple case and find

they have other, more chronic health problems, which I then educate

them about, and eventually may treat them as well.

 

Treating musculoskeletal disorders, and other acute or simpler

complaints, is a good foot in the door and a beginning to expose people

to the strengths of Chinese medicine. Once we have that foot in the

door, it is important to educate them in how to take care of their own

health, and that we can treat internal conditions as well. This is

slow and takes time, but I think percentages of patients seeking such

treatment will increase.

 

We are just skimming the surface of what we can do. For example,

pediatrics. Chinese medicine is great for children, but how many of us

treat large numbers of kids?

 

 

On Jan 7, 2004, at 10:34 PM, wrote:

 

> , " "

> <zrosenbe@s...>

> wrote:

>> Yin fire theory is not designed for wai gan/external contractions, it

>> is mainly designed for nei shang/internal damage diseases. So,

>> certainly, for earlier stage, exterior patterns, or simple, acute or

>> recent diseases, other approaches may be more germane.

>

>

> Z'ev

>

> That has been my point also. I certainly find yin fire theory useful

> in many of the

> most complex diseases we face (mostly autoimmune). However while some

> of us

> have patient loads largely comprised of such illnesses as I did for

> many years, such

> patients make up a minute fraction of those who receive complex herbal

> prescriptions nationwide. the main reason is that these patients are

> typically on

> immunosuppressives and 90% of the time their doctors ban the use of

> any herbs that

> might stimulate the immune system. so much for bu zhong yi qi tang

> and all its

> variations.

>

> according to studies, the bulk of patients in general practice are

> neuromuscular

> (60%). And most these are injury, repetitive stress, osteoarthritis,

> emotional stress

> and idiopathic. A much smaller number are autoimmune. this is my

> specific

> observation at PCOM. the PCOM clinic sees 2000 pt. per month. No

> more than 3% of

> patients come for any other chronic internal condition according to

> nationwide stats.

> So the bulk of our patients may not be experiencing the complex yin

> fire scenarios.

> Thus, as you said, other approaches maybe more germane.

>

> I am just thinking here about what constitutes the most essential

> master's education.

> One that stresses how to treat diseases not commonly seen in practice

> or one that

> does. Now on one hand, we have a lot to offer in the diseases you

> speak of, thus it is

> essential that students be exposed and apply these ideas. but I

> wonder if the bulk of

> their time would be better spent learning how to address more common

> things in a

> thorough fashion. As for yin fire theory, who am I to say? However,

> I think I am

> correct that PCOM chose to NOT include li dong yuan in their classics

> series at the

> DAOM level. Though I suppose some might say this represents a certain

> type of

> limited thinking Bob referred to earlier.

>

 

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> I appreciate your gathering data at the PCOM clinic, Todd. But from my

> experience recently one semester as a supervisor, there are a number of

> factors you have to consider

 

Z'ev

 

you are not telling me anything I don't already know about patients with pain

who

have lots of other stuff.. However after doing 50 clinic shifts at PCOM in the

past 3.5

years, I do not find that the clientele of the general populace seen at PCOM (as

opposed to the elite patients I used to see for 7 years) to be that sick. It is

well

known statistic that 90% of all visits to a doctor are for self-limited

complaints.

Which means only 10% could be for the complex conditions you describe.

Addressing

a patient's chief complaint is one level of care. Educating them in a way that

might

allow treatment of other more complex ailments is another. I am just asking

(not

telling) what is most essential at the master's level and what should be left

for the

DAOM?

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> I appreciate your gathering data at the PCOM clinic, Todd. But from my

> experience recently one semester as a supervisor, there are a number of

> factors you have to consider

 

Z'ev

 

I did not gather data. this was formally done by our Administration and clinic

chair

and was based on a statisitical analysis of 2000 pt. charts. I merely reported

the

results and added my observation that only a small % of our neuromuscular

patients

had autoimmune diseases. Most were there were injury or stress. The other data

on

usage was based on a national survey of 3000 patients.

 

[Guest guest]

But then again the student clinics, as do private clinics, get the cases that

are " beyond

hope " in the Western sense and/or the patient rejects Western treatment. Granted

these aren't the majority but neither are they in most private clinics. I think

students

get a good range given that these are all outpatients.

doug

 

, " " wrote:

> , " " <zrosenbe@s...>

> wrote:

> > I appreciate your gathering data at the PCOM clinic, Todd. But from my

> > experience recently one semester as a supervisor, there are a number of

> > factors you have to consider

>

> Z'ev

>

> I did not gather data. this was formally done by our Administration and

clinic chair

> and was based on a statisitical analysis of 2000 pt. charts. I merely

reported the

> results and added my observation that only a small % of our neuromuscular

patients

> had autoimmune diseases. Most were there were injury or stress. The other

data

on

> usage was based on a national survey of 3000 patients.

>

 

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr

<rory.kerr@w...> wrote:

> At 5:24 AM +0000 1/8/04, wrote:

> > , Rory Kerr

<rory.kerr@w...> wrote:

> > I think this

> > >is why Bob is challenging you to give a citation.

> >

> >I agree, but did I not give examples?

> --

> Jason,

>

> The facts of Chinese medicine are those that are established in

the

> literature as facts. For you to state a fact of Chinese medicine,

eg

> 'fatigue is a symptom of yin vacuity' (I think this was one of

your

> claims) requires you to source that in the literature. If this

cannot

> be done, then it isn't a fact of Chinese medicine. That does not

> necessarily invalidate your observations, but you cannot claim it

as

> a fact of Chinese medicine.

 

Rory,

 

I am unclear… I have already stated my Chinese source for what I

say… It is almost every book I open. A basic zhongyineike describes

this phenomenon… Vacuity taxation can be yin xu, xue xu, yang xu,

qi xu, blood stasis… This is in the literature and very abundantly.

Please re-read my posts, my observations are only a small part of

what I am talking about.

 

>

>

> >Please explain. My evidence is case studies and texts that use

other

> >herbs besides qi supplementing herbs to treat conditions with

> >fatigue. Simple as that. I agree there can be counter arguments

for

> >all of this, but they are all valid. That is my point. And I did

> >give examples that support the other side.

> --

>

> I believe you are using backwards logic to reach your conclusion.

> Which herbs a practitioner uses to treat a given patient on a

given

> day does not establish a fact of Chinese medicine. There are many

> reasons clinical choices are made, and often they remain unstated

in

> case studies.

>

 

 

This is a interesting statement… We are trying to prove that fatigue

is not always caused by qi xu. The literature says this. So the

next step is too look at case studies… This is the real essence of

CM anyways, because as alon, I, and others say you can

find `statements of fact' to say anything. So if we find real life

examples this too me puts the nail in the coffin for the issue

(especially since basic literature supports the idea.).

 

Case studies are not just what some practitioner did on a certain

day… It is a lesson and one of the most important ways the CM is

transmitted. Case studies documented are recorded for a reason… And

if one seems a theme (i.e. many situations where fatigue is relieved

without qi supplementation) then this says it all… Sorry I disagree

with your conclusion that this backwards logic…

Maybe you missed a few of my statements is the firestorm of emails…

 

Let me ask you this Rory. What more do you need… I have supplied

almost everything?

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> , " James Ramholz "

<jramholz@m...>

> wrote:

>

> If the

> > practitioner did not think is necessary to include them then,

> > logically, there wasn't qi vacuity if we assume the formula fits

the

> > patient. Unless you're proposing another, less direct method of

> > supplementing the qi like the Mother-son rule from 5-Phases.

>

>

> actually the idea was that by disencumbering an organ from a

pathogen in a patient

> with only mild vacuity, the vacuity would be restored naturally.

However I have been

> playing both sides of the fence here. I began by saying, as you

state, " logically, there

> wasn't qi vacuity if we assume the formula fits the patient " . But

if fatigue must be

> due to qi xu (not my position, but I cnnot find a valid

countercitation, either)

 

 

 

What kind of citation are you looking for? I feel that looking at

the disease heading in a internal medicine book serves well. For

example I gave 5 basic patterns for vacuity taxation. I mentioned

blood stasis. But I like the yin xu - where shashenmaimendongtang

is recommended without any qi supplementation. Bob claims MMD and

sha shen supplement qi. This is a stretch, especially since under

the Rx in Bensky it says, " similar in fx to the principle Rx (qing

zao … except that it treats relatively mild conditions were only the

yin and fluids have been injured and not the qi. " and I have yet to

see it mentioned in MM's to supplment qi.

 

I quoted a yang rising citation that treated fatigue as part of the

pattern without supplementation. I am wondering what you Todd are

wanting?

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

At 6:13 PM +0000 1/8/04, wrote:

>However Rory said there are lots of reasons px make herb choices and

>we cannot read into that.

--

 

 

 

I didn't say we cannot read into the herb choices. I said:

 

>Which herbs a practitioner uses to treat a given patient on a given

>day does not establish a fact of Chinese medicine. There are many

>reasons clinical choices are made, and often they remain unstated in

>case studies.

--

 

I believe that one of the values of reading and discussing case

studies that contain scanty explanations is that it forces us into

our own understanding of the case, as opposed to being spoon-fed the

clinician's reasoning.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is one of aspects I enjoy about Ye Tianshi's case histories.

 

 

On Jan 8, 2004, at 3:18 PM, Rory Kerr wrote:

 

>

> I believe that one of the values of reading and discussing case

> studies that contain scanty explanations is that it forces us into

> our own understanding of the case, as opposed to being spoon-fed the

> clinician's reasoning.

>

> Rory

[Guest guest]

I do not believe that " one can find support for anything " theory

related in Chinese classic texts. I do not believe that you think so

either. Stating such an erroneous exaggeration does not serve your

position well, and is more or less a cop-out on the part of those who

use the phrase.

 

>>>>May it is stated as an exaggeration but you would find it difficult to find

examples (unless just ridiculous arguments), to show me otherwise

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Not all patients with chronic diseases and/or autoimmune disorders are

on immunosuppressive medications, or have their doctors steering them

away from herbal medicines. Certainly that is not my experience.

>>>>Nor myn

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <@h...>

wrote:

 

>

>

>

> What kind of citation are you looking for? I feel that looking at

> the disease heading in a internal medicine book serves well. For

> example I gave 5 basic patterns for vacuity taxation.

 

I must have missed your post. sorry. In citations I examined for fatigue (pi

juan or

juan dai), only qi xu was mentioned. For vacuity taxation (xu lao), wiseman

refers to

vacuity detriment (xu sun). Indeed, all the various vacuities are noted as sole

patterns

for this condition in this entry. However, the basic entry on xu sun does not

list

fatigue as a symptom, but rather as a cause (taxation fatigue). so is fatigue a

SYMPTOM of xu lao or not? If its a cause, then it would still be present in a

patient

after xu lao arose, but it would really be a symptoms of whatever pattern that

led to

xu lao (perhaps qi xu?). Can anyone lend more clarity?

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> for this condition in this entry. However, the basic entry on xu

sun does not list

> fatigue as a symptom, but rather as a cause (taxation fatigue). so

is fatigue a

> SYMPTOM of xu lao or not? If its a cause, then it would still be

present in a patient

> after xu lao arose, but it would really be a symptoms of whatever

pattern that led to

> xu lao (perhaps qi xu?). Can anyone lend more clarity?

>

 

 

This is interesting, Todd. A bit ago, on the thread regarding grief

and LU qi xu, Jason stated that grief can cause LU qi xu, but is not a

symptom of it. He then stated that treating a pattern will not affect

the cause. I did not agree with that position, but the discussion

reached an en passe, so I dropped it.

 

Jason, in light of the information that Todd presented above, do you

still feel that treating a pattern will not affect the cause?

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

< wrote:

I was told by a recent grad from PCOM:

 

 

2. getting a cold is good for immunity and a sign of strong immune

system.

 

 

 

I think this is actually a WM idea that, when our immune system mounts a defense

against a pathogen, our immune system is then strengthened towards, or immune

to, that particular strain of pathogen - in other words, we cannot get the same

cold twice, unless we have not completely recovered and then it resurfaces. It

is Western Medicine's concept that our immunity is built through exposure to,

and therefore building immune defenses against, viruses, bacteria and fungi.

How the student mixed this up with TCM I can't say. When I was a tutor at

PCOM-SD, I did have the unfortunate opportunity to notice that some students

can't seem to keep their Western and TCM categories of information straight and

separate - and they just mix the two. Scary, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the " Signing Bonus " Sweepstakes

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> , " "

<@h...>

> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> >

> > What kind of citation are you looking for? I feel that looking

at

> > the disease heading in a internal medicine book serves well.

For

> > example I gave 5 basic patterns for vacuity taxation.

>

> I must have missed your post. sorry. In citations I examined for

fatigue (pi juan or

> juan dai), only qi xu was mentioned. For vacuity taxation (xu

lao), wiseman refers to

> vacuity detriment (xu sun). Indeed, all the various vacuities are

noted as sole patterns

> for this condition in this entry. However, the basic entry on xu

sun does not list

> fatigue as a symptom, but rather as a cause (taxation fatigue).

so is fatigue a

> SYMPTOM of xu lao or not? If its a cause, then it would still be

present in a patient

> after xu lao arose, but it would really be a symptoms of whatever

pattern that led to

> xu lao (perhaps qi xu?). Can anyone lend more clarity?

 

 

 

I hope this leads to some clarity. First this Chinese source,

actually a very famous (many awards) book in china, has 20 patterns

listed for xu lao (xu sun). Listed as a general comment it

says, " TCM has a complete therapeutic method the treat `xu sun' to

recover one's physical strength. "

 

It lists different pathomechanisms (bing yin - disease causes) for

every pattern- Most are all different and quite extensive, and

actually in this text does not include fatigue as a disease cause.

But under zhu yao bian xian (chief manifestations) are things like

tiredness/ fatigue (juan dai) and lack of strength (fa li),. I

think it is clear, at least from this source that fatigue is very

much part of the disease.

 

What do you think of the external attack idea. If we agree that

people come in feeling tired – Is this fatigue? – if so, and you

give a basic external releasing Rx and their fatigue is gone, what

do you call this?

 

(maybe) More importantly is, if we define fatigue, ipso facto, as qi

xu. Then does this just limit us? If we view everything that gets

rid of fatigue to indirectly tonifing qi, does this get us

anywhere? If we can prove through case studies, literature, etc.

that there are very valid ways to deal with fatigue without

supplementing (especially with reducing methods) then by falling

back on comments like " the reducing just allowed qi to fill again

(or whatever) " and then we make statements like fatigue then must =

qi xu. Then others (as we see just happen) assume that one must

supplement to get rid of the fatigue. Or is it a well established

TxP that one can move to tonify qi? Although on some level this may

be true, it does not help us in the communication of case studies,

charts, etc. I assume if someone has a dx as qi xu, you see tonics

of some sort in the Rx. If one dx's yin xu, one see yin tonics, at

least 1, one doesn't see all movers. This is just sloppy thinking/

or charting IMO.

 

So as theoretical as such a statement is, IMO, it just limits many

practitioners. Or maybe such statements are out there for the

student, so they learn the basics, and clinical reality is then a

step beyond. I am just trying to figure out why such a statement is

used. Because obviously in clinical reality, there is many other

ways. Comments?

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

wrote:

> , " "

 

> wrote:

>

> > for this condition in this entry. However, the basic entry on xu

> sun does not list

> > fatigue as a symptom, but rather as a cause (taxation fatigue).

so

> is fatigue a

> > SYMPTOM of xu lao or not? If its a cause, then it would still be

> present in a patient

> > after xu lao arose, but it would really be a symptoms of whatever

> pattern that led to

> > xu lao (perhaps qi xu?). Can anyone lend more clarity?

> >

>

>

> This is interesting, Todd. A bit ago, on the thread regarding

grief

> and LU qi xu, Jason stated that grief can cause LU qi xu, but is

not a

> symptom of it. He then stated that treating a pattern will not

affect

> the cause. I did not agree with that position, but the discussion

> reached an en passe, so I dropped it.

>

> Jason, in light of the information that Todd presented above, do

you

> still feel that treating a pattern will not affect the cause?

>

> Brian C. Allen

 

Brian,

 

as far as answering the question at hand (todd's question) I just

did in my last msg. As far what you think I said above, I think you

have partially misinterpreted my previous posts, please re-read

them. You ask, will treating a pattern affect the cause, well this

is completely dependent on the type of disease cause, obviously.

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> as far as answering the question at hand (todd's question) I just

> did in my last msg. As far what you think I said above, I think you

> have partially misinterpreted my previous posts, please re-read

> them. You ask, will treating a pattern affect the cause, well this

> is completely dependent on the type of disease cause, obviously.

>

> -Jason

 

Thanks, I did read it. There does seem to be a descrepancy among

sources on this issue. It does not seem like something that can be

solved.

 

Furthermore, if fatigue can be remedied without supplementing qi, then

as you say, perhaps it should not be a priority to include qi vacuity

in the diagnosis.

 

However, I am still interested in some of what Bob said. In a

repletion case in which fatigue is present, would it be bad for the

patient, if the right kind of qi supplementors were used along with

those that drain? Would it speed up recovery?

 

Does anyone have experience with this other than Bob? It sounds like

an interesting notion, one that I'd like to keep in the back of my

mind if I can find more support for the idea.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

If I understand you correctly, sure, we do this all the time. But I'm not sure

the

supplementation is to take care of the fatigue, per se. It's more that an

underlying

deficiency condition would be harmed by too much clearing. Most of the classic

formulas have this " elequent " balance of draining and tonifiication. Does this

answer

the question?

doug

 

 

> However, I am still interested in some of what Bob said. In a

> repletion case in which fatigue is present, would it be bad for the

> patient, if the right kind of qi supplementors were used along with

> those that drain? Would it speed up recovery?

>

> Does anyone have experience with this other than Bob? It sounds like

> an interesting notion, one that I'd like to keep in the back of my

> mind if I can find more support for the idea.

>

> Brian C. Allen