Research Showing Differences Between Chinese & Germans

[Guest guest]

, rw2@r... wrote:

 

> The problem is that print textbooks, standard multiple choice quizzes,

> flash-card study methods, and listening to lectures are inherently

limited

> means of teaching the complex pattern analysis skills that a number of

> people on this (including myself) seem to think is necessary to improve

> American TCM practioners' skills.

 

Obviously a basic medicinal textbook is not going to provide the

full-spectrum of educational experience that an individual needs to

eventually acquire. But a solid foundation of basic knowledge is

essential if one is to later approach more complex subjects. There is

no way to skip the acquisition of basic knowledge, and no complex

theories are going to help a student who doesn't have a solid

fundamental grasp of the concepts involved.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

" Obviously a basic medicinal textbook is not going to provide the

full-spectrum of educational experience that an individual needs to

eventually acquire. But a solid foundation of basic knowledge is

essential if one is to later approach more complex subjects. There is

no way to skip the acquisition of basic knowledge, and no complex

theories are going to help a student who doesn't have a solid

fundamental grasp of the concepts involved.

 

Eric,

 

Agreed. We should also keep in mind that only a small proportion of

any profession are going to be able to function at the highest levels

of that profession. Complex reasoning skills simply cannot be taught

to all students. However, we've discussed the different levels of

reasoning before on this list.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

I don't quite get you two on this one. Eric says, " Obviously a basic medicinal

textbook is

not going to provide the full-spectrum of educational experience that an

individual needs

to eventually acquire. " and Bob, " only a small proportion of any profession

are going to

be able to function at the highest levels of that profession " .

What I see are students who aquire basic knowledge in their 1st and 2nd year and

then

basically re-hash the curriculum for 2 more years with slightly different slants

on zang-fu

theory. Most students get bored. Some just suffer through and the better ones

move to

Jeffery Yuen and esoteric disciplines because they figure they might as well get

something

out of the money and time they are putting out. This was borne out in a review

of State

Board scores in our California school. The best students in TCM were also the

ones doing

" extra " curriculum.

I say that you and I have the opportunity to nurture those who want to be at

" the highest

level of the profession " by providing support of that. If that means going back

over the

basics and applying them, that's fine. However most book are either the ancient

statements or " Modern " Zang Fu. What I am looking for is the bridge from what

they are

getting studying now to a higher level. And I am certainly looking for those

bridges

myself.

Perhaps the Pathomechanisms book by Paradigm will start to address all of this.

I would

await any Bob Damone book on the subject. Today in a case review class I

literally thrust

an open copy of Fluid Physiology in a better student's hands and told her to

start reading

out of it. She was amazed by the book. It was a start...

Am I alone on this? Anyone else?

doug

 

 

>

> " Obviously a basic medicinal textbook is not going to provide the

> full-spectrum of educational experience that an individual needs to

> eventually acquire. But a solid foundation of basic knowledge is

> essential if one is to later approach more complex subjects. There is

> no way to skip the acquisition of basic knowledge, and no complex

> theories are going to help a student who doesn't have a solid

> fundamental grasp of the concepts involved.

>

> Eric,

>

> Agreed. We should also keep in mind that only a small proportion of

> any profession are going to be able to function at the highest levels

> of that profession. Complex reasoning skills simply cannot be taught

> to all students. However, we've discussed the different levels of

> reasoning before on this list.

>

> Bob

>

[Guest guest]

On Oct 21, 2005, at 11:00 PM, wrote:

> What I see are students who aquire basic knowledge in their 1st and

> 2nd year and then

> basically re-hash the curriculum for 2 more years with slightly

> different slants on zang- fu theory. Most students get bored.

--

Doug,

 

Perhaps this is a problem with curriculum design as much as it is with

the required texts at the higher level. You mention one book that meets

the needs of advanced study, Fluid Physiology; and there are others,

such as the Paradigm Shang Han Lun, Eastland's Wen Bing, Blue Poppy's

integrated medicine texts (Psychiatry, Rheumatology, Cardiology), the

Maclean internal medicine books, various gyn texts, and the forthcoming

pathomechanism books from Paradigm.

 

Are these not the sorts of books you are looking for?

 

Rory

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> What I see are students who aquire basic knowledge in their 1st and

2nd year and then

> basically re-hash the curriculum for 2 more years with slightly

different slants on zang-fu

> theory. Most students get bored.

 

If two years are spent re-hashing, there is something wrong somewhere.

If students acquire the basic knowledge well, there should be little

need to re-hash, assuming that the teachers know enough advanced stuff

to continue to stimulate the students' interest. There is far more

" basic " information in TCM than anyone can master in four years. Most

Chinese students have 7-10 different materia medicas in their personal

library, and some of these individual books which would fill 3500-4000

pages in English. I have a standard gynecology text that would

translate into 3000 pages in English, and a dietary therapy text that

would turn into 2500 pages in English. These are all basic books with

standard data, yet there is far more there than most practitioners

will ever master.

 

Mainstream TCM also includes study of the Shang Han Lun, Jin Gui, Nei

Jing, Wen Bing Tiao Bian, and a variety of other classical texts.

Students with an interest in pharmacology have lots to learn about,

and students interested in straight CM can endlessly pursue any given

specialty. There are no limitations besides lack of student interest,

lack of proficient instructors, and a general idea that TCM is a

simple and intuitive subject that doesn't require extensive pursuit of

book knowledge. If students are getting bored, there is something

wrong. If they are moving on to fringe subjects without sufficiently

first mastering the basic consensus approach to Chinese medical care,

there is also something wrong.

 

The only thing that really teaches students to deal with complex

clinical scenarios is clinical experience. Any motivated student can

pursue endless clinical opportunities. Anyone can learn an Asian

language and study for free with great doctors for years in integrated

hospitals if they want more advanced clinical experience. Such things

are easy to do because very few people actually do it.

 

>Some just suffer through and the better ones move to

> Jeffery Yuen and esoteric disciplines because they figure they might

as well get something

> out of the money and time they are putting out.

 

I think that many students who gravitate towards the esoteric stuff

after only 2 years of study do so because they are pursuing a

romanticized preconception that they have in their minds (or they are

just checking out the esoteric stuff for fun). Many people have some

baseless fear that TCM is some simplified cover-up of the " real "

Chinese medicine, and tune out before they even realize that TCM is

incredibly profound, hardly simple, and hardly lacking in holistic

potential.

 

>This was borne out in a review of State

> Board scores in our California school. The best students in TCM were

also the ones doing

> " extra " curriculum.

 

Many of the best students will naturally select to go to a school that

offers more than just preparation for the test and a quick and cheap

degree. It is not the extra subjects that the school provides that

makes the difference, but rather the self-selection that drives

certain students to pursue what they perceive to be the best education

available to them.

 

>I would

> await any Bob Damone book on the subject.

 

I was very fortunate to have Bob Damone as my most influential teacher

from the beginning of school till my final day in the school clinic.

I have a great deal of respect for Bob and his approach to CM. Bob is

an inspiration to many many students; he has a great understanding of

CM, he is a very good teacher, a very warm practitioner, a very

diligent scholar, and a deeply good human being. I never found myself

bored in his classes nor did I ever feel like we were re-hashing basic

stuff. However, what I studied with Bob was straight, authentic TCM.

He emphasized solid application of the basics: clear TCM disease

diagnosis, pattern identification, and clear treatment principles and

medicinal application. There is nothing simple or limited about this

approach. It is not some esoteric " lost secret " but rather just the

application of a solid understanding of pathomechanisms and

appropriate therapy. It yields good results, but many students never

even know what results consensus TCM can achieve because they start

running off stabbing obscure points based on dubious sources before

they even master the basic principles of treatment.

 

Incidentally, if you are looking for new books from Bob Damone, I

would highly recommend you to check out the Jiao Shu-De formula book

and the Golden Mirror of Orthodox Medicine (yi zong jin jian). Bob

was a central figure in the creation of both of those books, so they

give you the chance to see his work in both modern clinical and

classical subjects. If you want more pathomechanisms and clinical

strategies, you might also consider seeing him lecture at the Pacific

Symposium, where he is speaking on the topic of men's health in CM

(nan ke), one of his specialties.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Eric, I agree with most of what you say.And I agree with your

statement below especially. Perhaps Bob was your key to the tuning

into your insights. I'm sure there are comparable if not equal

teachers out there.

Ironically it was reading the final chapters of the Scheid book that

clued me to the complexity of by putting in

perspective some of the limitations and possibilities of our standard

bian zheng TCM. But that's just my opinion.

Perhaps the problem for teachers is how to make those first semesters

and years coherent yet point towards the incredibly profound and

hardly simple to be taken up later. Again, perhaps the new books on

pathomechanisms will rectify some of this. As it is I see focused

books, Fluid Physiology being the best example, that tend to leap-frog

over what students are taught to more comprehensive texts.

I don't think its just the Western schools that have these problems.

doug

 

 

Many people have some

> baseless fear that TCM is some simplified cover-up of the " real "

> Chinese medicine, and tune out before they even realize that TCM is

> incredibly profound, hardly simple, and hardly lacking in holistic

> potential.

>

 

 

, " Eric Brand "

<smilinglotus> wrote:

>

> , " "

> wrote:

>

> > What I see are students who aquire basic knowledge in their 1st and

> 2nd year and then

> > basically re-hash the curriculum for 2 more years with slightly

> different slants on zang-fu

> > theory. Most students get bored.

>

> If two years are spent re-hashing, there is something wrong somewhere.

> If students acquire the basic knowledge well, there should be little

> need to re-hash, assuming that the teachers know enough advanced stuff

> to continue to stimulate the students' interest. There is far more

> " basic " information in TCM than anyone can master in four years. Most

> Chinese students have 7-10 different materia medicas in their personal

> library, and some of these individual books which would fill 3500-4000

> pages in English. I have a standard gynecology text that would

> translate into 3000 pages in English, and a dietary therapy text that

> would turn into 2500 pages in English. These are all basic books with

> standard data, yet there is far more there than most practitioners

> will ever master.

>

> Mainstream TCM also includes study of the Shang Han Lun, Jin Gui, Nei

> Jing, Wen Bing Tiao Bian, and a variety of other classical texts.

> Students with an interest in pharmacology have lots to learn about,

> and students interested in straight CM can endlessly pursue any given

> specialty. There are no limitations besides lack of student interest,

> lack of proficient instructors, and a general idea that TCM is a

> simple and intuitive subject that doesn't require extensive pursuit of

> book knowledge. If students are getting bored, there is something

> wrong. If they are moving on to fringe subjects without sufficiently

> first mastering the basic consensus approach to Chinese medical care,

> there is also something wrong.

>

> The only thing that really teaches students to deal with complex

> clinical scenarios is clinical experience. Any motivated student can

> pursue endless clinical opportunities. Anyone can learn an Asian

> language and study for free with great doctors for years in integrated

> hospitals if they want more advanced clinical experience. Such things

> are easy to do because very few people actually do it.

>

> >Some just suffer through and the better ones move to

> > Jeffery Yuen and esoteric disciplines because they figure they might

> as well get something

> > out of the money and time they are putting out.

>

> I think that many students who gravitate towards the esoteric stuff

> after only 2 years of study do so because they are pursuing a

> romanticized preconception that they have in their minds (or they are

> just checking out the esoteric stuff for fun). Many people have some

> baseless fear that TCM is some simplified cover-up of the " real "

> Chinese medicine, and tune out before they even realize that TCM is

> incredibly profound, hardly simple, and hardly lacking in holistic

> potential.

>

> >This was borne out in a review of State

> > Board scores in our California school. The best students in TCM were

> also the ones doing

> > " extra " curriculum.

>

> Many of the best students will naturally select to go to a school that

> offers more than just preparation for the test and a quick and cheap

> degree. It is not the extra subjects that the school provides that

> makes the difference, but rather the self-selection that drives

> certain students to pursue what they perceive to be the best education

> available to them.

>

> >I would

> > await any Bob Damone book on the subject.

>

> I was very fortunate to have Bob Damone as my most influential teacher

> from the beginning of school till my final day in the school clinic.

> I have a great deal of respect for Bob and his approach to CM. Bob is

> an inspiration to many many students; he has a great understanding of

> CM, he is a very good teacher, a very warm practitioner, a very

> diligent scholar, and a deeply good human being. I never found myself

> bored in his classes nor did I ever feel like we were re-hashing basic

> stuff. However, what I studied with Bob was straight, authentic TCM.

> He emphasized solid application of the basics: clear TCM disease

> diagnosis, pattern identification, and clear treatment principles and

> medicinal application. There is nothing simple or limited about this

> approach. It is not some esoteric " lost secret " but rather just the

> application of a solid understanding of pathomechanisms and

> appropriate therapy. It yields good results, but many students never

> even know what results consensus TCM can achieve because they start

> running off stabbing obscure points based on dubious sources before

> they even master the basic principles of treatment.

>

> Incidentally, if you are looking for new books from Bob Damone, I

> would highly recommend you to check out the Jiao Shu-De formula book

> and the Golden Mirror of Orthodox Medicine (yi zong jin jian). Bob

> was a central figure in the creation of both of those books, so they

> give you the chance to see his work in both modern clinical and

> classical subjects. If you want more pathomechanisms and clinical

> strategies, you might also consider seeing him lecture at the Pacific

> Symposium, where he is speaking on the topic of men's health in CM

> (nan ke), one of his specialties.

>

> Eric

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

>Perhaps Bob was your key to the tuning

> into your insights. I'm sure there are comparable if not equal

> teachers out there.

 

Definitely. There are many excellent teachers out there. Many avenues

open for students who want to learn.

 

> Ironically it was reading the final chapters of the Scheid book that

> clued me to the complexity of by putting in

> perspective some of the limitations and possibilities of our standard

> bian zheng TCM.

 

There is far more to Chinese medicine than bian zheng (pattern

identification). I am not in any way suggesting that we limit our

understanding to bian zheng; I simply think that people should first

acquire basic skills from the consensus of Chinese medical thought,

and then branch out after they have a solid foundation.

 

> Perhaps the problem for teachers is how to make those first semesters

> and years coherent yet point towards the incredibly profound and

> hardly simple to be taken up later.

 

Once the foundation is laid, an overview of the specialty subjects can

be taught: external medicine, traumatology, pediatrics, obstetrics,

acupuncture, shang han lun, nei jing, gynecology, andrology (what do

we call male diseases, anyway? In Chinese it is just fu ke-

gynecology and nan ke- men's department), etc. The way formulas are

varied in all the different departments for the various tcm diseases

naturally shows that TCM is complex yet simple, straightforward yet

profound.

 

Again, perhaps the new books on

> pathomechanisms will rectify some of this.

 

I think the main advantage of the pathomechanisms series is that it

reveals far more detail about the possible disease dynamics than most

of us are familiar with. I've been reading the Chinese text that the

books are translated from and see the books as they are turned into

English, so I have a feel for the style of the presentation. The

books were written by a modern Chinese doctor who draws examples from

the classics to show how the various modern pathomechanisms evolved

over time. Each viscera is evaluated in great detail, which reveals

many mechanisms and possibilities that we may not have been aware of.

Treatments are listed as well. The books attempt to bridge the

static patterns, which are snapshot images of a single moment in time,

with the active and dynamic mechanisms that produce the diseases. It

is interesting reading because it makes one realize that there are

more patterns possible involving a given viscera than we typically

think about.

 

> I don't think its just the Western schools that have these problems.

 

I agree. For example, in Chinese materia medicas, there is just a

dumping of data. There is rarely any didactic approach that

approaches the subject from the known to the unknown. When we made

our materia medica, we tried to find Chinese source texts that really

introduced the concepts as they arose and embodied a more modern

educational style; most of the Chinese texts are not designed to be

teaching manuals so much as repositories of data, so it was a

challenging process.

 

Chinese students also have a logical scientific framework that must be

stretched to accomodate TCM. Traditionally students just had a pile

of classical texts to sort through. Now the modern curriculum

approach of TCM has given a logical structure and method of

approaching the material. Contrary to the opinions of the anti-TCM

crowd, TCM has done a great deal to improve the accessibility of CM

knowledge. Taiwan never had " TCM, " it never had communism, it never

had government-sponsored committees sorting through the medical corpus

for things of value. However, the TCM curriculum of the PRC has

gained widespread use, acceptance, and acclaim in Taiwan. Of course,

there is far more to CM than the 5th edition TCM text series from the

PRC, but the fact that the 5th edition is popular in Taiwan and the

US in the absence of gov't endorsement is still a testimonial to its

value as a basic foundation.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Eric -

 

Thank you for your well-written and in my view, " right

on " words. UNfortunately, some schools do indeed

" rehash " the basic stuff. But, I also think that that

is in part a student perception more than a reality.

For example, after completing a year of formula study,

many schools offer a course in SHL or Wen Bing Xue

(WBX), and of course, many of the formulas that first

appear in these texts are formulas that have already

been " learned " by students, in the context of the 18

categories as presented by Bensky. So, to some, it

may seem like a re-hashing rather than an exploration

of the roots of the formula and its modifications

based on pattern differentiation as understood and

discussed in the SHL, through the lens of WBX, from

the point of view of Li Dong Yuan or Zhu Dan Xi.

 

This is not to say that it is just the student who

does not understand what is going on. In part this is

the fault of the instructor, and quite possibly, the

curriculum design. If a student can not understand

the need to go back and look at the classics in order

to better understand the clinical usage of a formula,

then several things have probably occured. At some

point earlier in their program they were not taught to

see the complexity of chinese medicine and how just

changing the dosage of one medicinal or adding or

omitting one medicinal could so radically change the

focus of a formula. As is pointed out in the intro to

the Paradigm SHL, one of the most intriguing things

about the work of Zhang Zhong Ji is his ability to

write very simple, but very focused formula that can

be modified in very concrete ways. As clinic

supervisors I think we all see students writing

formulas that are often very large and unfocused. I

think that supervisors should encourage students to

use a 'named' formula that they have studied and

modify it appropriately rather than trying to make a

formula to treat that persons every symptom. This is

missing the point - that patterns are a complex of

symptoms and if the pattern is correctly diagnosed and

correctly treated, then most of the symptoms will be

alleviated without having to treat them specifically.

 

 

To me (and I suspect to most of us) this seems so

obvious. But, like Doug, I see students searching for

" the answer " and gravitating to the esoteric with the

belief that it is more real, more true, more

effective. Unfortunately, as Eric points out, they do

this before they have really taken the time or put in

the effort to understand TCM. If a student actually

believes that they have learned all that there is to

know about TCM after graduating from school (or even

while they are still in school), then they need to

open their horizons.

 

On my second trip to China (the first one where I was

studying CM) in 1989, and on every trip since then,

one of the things that I remarked on was the constant

presence of books in practitioners hands or on their

desks when they were in clinic. If, by some fluke,

there was a free moment, they were reading and

studying CM. And, for the most part, it was not the

esoteric that they were seeking. Rather, it was

usually a book of case studies. In the west we have

not yet developed a culture of studying the case

studies of early practitioners to learn how they

practice, but, as Judy Farquhar and others have

pointed out, this is essential to the transmission of

knowledge in Chinese medicine. Reading a theory book,

or having a particular clinician write about their

practice is great, but unless one is able to examine

case studies that are related to that theory or to

that practitioners style, one cannot thoroughly

understand the treatment strategies. Even when

studying a text like the SHL, reading it first is, of

course, essential, but, as Craig has taught, and Z'ev

has said many times, it is by discussing cases and

examining the diagnostic approach and the resulting

treatment that one comes to understand. This, I

believe is where schools should be headed in the final

year(s) of the programs. More clinical interaction

yes, but also, more time to discuss clinical cases -

both their own and those of other practitioners in

relation to a particular theory.

 

To some, this may seem like a re-hash. To me it is an

opportunity to gain better understanding of a specific

treatment style. Better to be a master of one, than a

jack of all!

 

Marnae

 

--- Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

 

> ,

> " "

> wrote:

>

> > What I see are students who aquire basic knowledge

> in their 1st and

> 2nd year and then

> > basically re-hash the curriculum for 2 more years

> with slightly

> different slants on zang-fu

> > theory. Most students get bored.

>

> If two years are spent re-hashing, there is

> something wrong somewhere.

> If students acquire the basic knowledge well, there

> should be little

> need to re-hash, assuming that the teachers know

> enough advanced stuff

> to continue to stimulate the students' interest.

> There is far more

> " basic " information in TCM than anyone can master in

> four years. Most

> Chinese students have 7-10 different materia medicas

> in their personal

> library, and some of these individual books which

> would fill 3500-4000

> pages in English. I have a standard gynecology text

> that would

> translate into 3000 pages in English, and a dietary

> therapy text that

> would turn into 2500 pages in English. These are

> all basic books with

> standard data, yet there is far more there than most

> practitioners

> will ever master.

>

> Mainstream TCM also includes study of the Shang Han

> Lun, Jin Gui, Nei

> Jing, Wen Bing Tiao Bian, and a variety of other

> classical texts.

> Students with an interest in pharmacology have lots

> to learn about,

> and students interested in straight CM can endlessly

> pursue any given

> specialty. There are no limitations besides lack of

> student interest,

> lack of proficient instructors, and a general idea

> that TCM is a

> simple and intuitive subject that doesn't require

> extensive pursuit of

> book knowledge. If students are getting bored,

> there is something

> wrong. If they are moving on to fringe subjects

> without sufficiently

> first mastering the basic consensus approach to

> Chinese medical care,

> there is also something wrong.

>

> The only thing that really teaches students to deal

> with complex

> clinical scenarios is clinical experience. Any

> motivated student can

> pursue endless clinical opportunities. Anyone can

> learn an Asian

> language and study for free with great doctors for

> years in integrated

> hospitals if they want more advanced clinical

> experience. Such things

> are easy to do because very few people actually do

> it.

>

> >Some just suffer through and the better ones move

> to

> > Jeffery Yuen and esoteric disciplines because they

> figure they might

> as well get something

> > out of the money and time they are putting out.

>

> I think that many students who gravitate towards the

> esoteric stuff

> after only 2 years of study do so because they are

> pursuing a

> romanticized preconception that they have in their

> minds (or they are

> just checking out the esoteric stuff for fun). Many

> people have some

> baseless fear that TCM is some simplified cover-up

> of the " real "

> Chinese medicine, and tune out before they even

> realize that TCM is

> incredibly profound, hardly simple, and hardly

> lacking in holistic

> potential.

>

> >This was borne out in a review of State

> > Board scores in our California school. The best

> students in TCM were

> also the ones doing

> > " extra " curriculum.

>

> Many of the best students will naturally select to

> go to a school that

> offers more than just preparation for the test and a

> quick and cheap

> degree. It is not the extra subjects that the

> school provides that

> makes the difference, but rather the self-selection

> that drives

> certain students to pursue what they perceive to be

> the best education

> available to them.

>

> >I would

> > await any Bob Damone book on the subject.

>

> I was very fortunate to have Bob Damone as my most

> influential teacher

> from the beginning of school till my final day in

> the school clinic.

> I have a great deal of respect for Bob and his

> approach to CM. Bob is

> an inspiration to many many students; he has a great

> understanding of

> CM, he is a very good teacher, a very warm

> practitioner, a very

> diligent scholar, and a deeply good human being. I

> never found myself

> bored in his classes nor did I ever feel like we

> were re-hashing basic

> stuff. However, what I studied with Bob was

> straight, authentic TCM.

> He emphasized solid application of the basics:

> clear TCM disease

> diagnosis, pattern identification, and clear

> treatment principles and

> medicinal application. There is nothing simple or

> limited about this

> approach. It is not some esoteric " lost secret " but

> rather just the

> application of a solid understanding of

> pathomechanisms and

> appropriate therapy. It yields good results, but

> many students never

> even know what results consensus TCM can achieve

> because they start

> running off stabbing obscure points based on dubious

> sources before

> they even master the basic principles of treatment.

>

> Incidentally, if you are looking for new books from

> Bob Damone, I

> would highly recommend you to check out the Jiao

> Shu-De formula book

> and the Golden Mirror of Orthodox Medicine (yi zong

> jin jian). Bob

> was a central figure in the creation of both of

> those books, so they

> give you the chance to see his work in both modern

> clinical and

> classical subjects. If you want more

> pathomechanisms and clinical

> strategies, you might also consider seeing him

> lecture at the Pacific

> Symposium, where he is speaking on the topic of

> men's health in CM

> (nan ke), one of his specialties.

>

> Eric

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

and on the other end, one of the the most helpful classes (added in recent

years) has been

the Clinical Theatre where mid-ciriculum classes watch supervisors treat

patients and then

discuss the case. It gives the students a bridge to where this all headed to

rather than

facing the disconnect of the clinic vs. class. I can only imagine it helps them

both in the

classroom and then of course eventually in the clinic.

 

Unfortunately, as Eric points out, they do

> this before they have really taken the time or put in

> the effort to understand TCM. If a student actually

> believes that they have learned all that there is to

> know about TCM after graduating from school (or even

> while they are still in school), then they need to

> open their horizons.

>

I agree completely and I'm constantly looking for that literature that shows

students that

something else is out there.

 

doug

 

, marnae ergil <marnae@p...> wrote:

>

> Eric -

>

> Thank you for your well-written and in my view, " right

> on " words. UNfortunately, some schools do indeed

> " rehash " the basic stuff. But, I also think that that

> is in part a student perception more than a reality.

> For example, after completing a year of formula study,

> many schools offer a course in SHL or Wen Bing Xue

> (WBX), and of course, many of the formulas that first

> appear in these texts are formulas that have already

> been " learned " by students, in the context of the 18

> categories as presented by Bensky. So, to some, it

> may seem like a re-hashing rather than an exploration

> of the roots of the formula and its modifications

> based on pattern differentiation as understood and

> discussed in the SHL, through the lens of WBX, from

> the point of view of Li Dong Yuan or Zhu Dan Xi.

>

> This is not to say that it is just the student who

> does not understand what is going on. In part this is

> the fault of the instructor, and quite possibly, the

> curriculum design. If a student can not understand

> the need to go back and look at the classics in order

> to better understand the clinical usage of a formula,

> then several things have probably occured. At some

> point earlier in their program they were not taught to

> see the complexity of chinese medicine and how just

> changing the dosage of one medicinal or adding or

> omitting one medicinal could so radically change the

> focus of a formula. As is pointed out in the intro to

> the Paradigm SHL, one of the most intriguing things

> about the work of Zhang Zhong Ji is his ability to

> write very simple, but very focused formula that can

> be modified in very concrete ways. As clinic

> supervisors I think we all see students writing

> formulas that are often very large and unfocused. I

> think that supervisors should encourage students to

> use a 'named' formula that they have studied and

> modify it appropriately rather than trying to make a

> formula to treat that persons every symptom. This is

> missing the point - that patterns are a complex of

> symptoms and if the pattern is correctly diagnosed and

> correctly treated, then most of the symptoms will be

> alleviated without having to treat them specifically.

>

>

> To me (and I suspect to most of us) this seems so

> obvious. But, like Doug, I see students searching for

> " the answer " and gravitating to the esoteric with the

> belief that it is more real, more true, more

> effective. Unfortunately, as Eric points out, they do

> this before they have really taken the time or put in

> the effort to understand TCM. If a student actually

> believes that they have learned all that there is to

> know about TCM after graduating from school (or even

> while they are still in school), then they need to

> open their horizons.

>

> On my second trip to China (the first one where I was

> studying CM) in 1989, and on every trip since then,

> one of the things that I remarked on was the constant

> presence of books in practitioners hands or on their

> desks when they were in clinic. If, by some fluke,

> there was a free moment, they were reading and

> studying CM. And, for the most part, it was not the

> esoteric that they were seeking. Rather, it was

> usually a book of case studies. In the west we have

> not yet developed a culture of studying the case

> studies of early practitioners to learn how they

> practice, but, as Judy Farquhar and others have

> pointed out, this is essential to the transmission of

> knowledge in Chinese medicine. Reading a theory book,

> or having a particular clinician write about their

> practice is great, but unless one is able to examine

> case studies that are related to that theory or to

> that practitioners style, one cannot thoroughly

> understand the treatment strategies. Even when

> studying a text like the SHL, reading it first is, of

> course, essential, but, as Craig has taught, and Z'ev

> has said many times, it is by discussing cases and

> examining the diagnostic approach and the resulting

> treatment that one comes to understand. This, I

> believe is where schools should be headed in the final

> year(s) of the programs. More clinical interaction

> yes, but also, more time to discuss clinical cases -

> both their own and those of other practitioners in

> relation to a particular theory.

>

> To some, this may seem like a re-hash. To me it is an

> opportunity to gain better understanding of a specific

> treatment style. Better to be a master of one, than a

> jack of all!

>

> Marnae

>

[Guest guest]

On Oct 19, 2005, at 6:34 AM, rw2 wrote:

 

> If one limits TCM Tx to herbal formulas, then I would definitely

> agree that

> this does not often permanently change constitutional factors and

> is most

> likely to result in only symptom palliation. However, if one uses this

> information as the basis for correction of dietary imbalances and

> educates

> clients on environmental factors that may aggravate their condition,

> including resolving any heavy metal toxicity that may be present, I've

> observed that it **is** possible to achieve significant shifts in

> health.

> I've frequently seen people with toothmarked (scalloped) tongues that

> permanently change with shifts in diet. Herbal formulas alone will

> often

> not work, as proper Middle Burner function is dependent on giving

> up a lot

> of the crap that most Americans eat. Even the timing of meals can

> have a

> major impact on Middle Burner and sleep patterns.

 

I would add that acupuncture and moxa treatment, has, in my

experience, opened up patients to accept changes in diet and take

herbal medicine appropriately. Acupuncture/moxa seems to increase a

patient's awareness of their own body, and works much faster than

diet to change their condition. Every treatment modality has its

differing speed, depth and longevity of effect, and dietary changes

can often be slow to change a patient's condition (unless you are

talking about fasting, rice diets, or raw food cleansing regimens).

>

> For example, a typical work day in the life of an urban middle

> class worker:

> Rush to work with no breakfast except coffee. Then more coffee and

> donuts

> in early morning, perhaps nibbling on candy and junk food

> throughout the

> day. A business lunch eaten in overstressed and frantic conditions.

> Then

> work late and eat gut-bursting quantities of restaurant food (mostly

> microwaved at that) high in hydrogenated and poor quality oils

> (canola,

> etc.) at 9pm or even later, leading to nights of indigestion, restless

> sleep, and flatulence. I know plenty of urban acupuncturists who

> follow

> this timing pattern to accommodate their clients. Every time I visit a

> city, I have to deal with this nonsense, so that I dread such

> trips. No

> amount of Chinese herbal formulas can ever undo the damage this

> does. Rural

> folk generally have saner patterns of living.

 

Acupuncture and moxa change the patient's perceptions of time. It

allows them to enter a 'safe space' where they do not have to rush

and push their bodies to exhaustion.

 

 

>

> Roger

>

>

>

>> " " <

>> Re: Research Showing Differences Between Chinese & Germans

>>

>> It also raises the issue of genetic differences being a prominent

>> factor

>> in presentation.

>> Some of the attributes you describe also do not change very much

>> during

>> treatment. And I

>> am not just talking about my patients, but also my frequent

>> observation of

>> hundreds of

>> other patients who were treated by other supposedly expert px in

>> school

>> clinics in 3

>> different schools over a 19 year period. Patients who have

>> toothmarked

>> tongues typically

>> will always have toothmarked tongues. Same with wiry pulses. These

>> parameters may

>> lessen a bit during treatment and exacerbate with certain

>> behaviors, but

>> they never

>> disappear. This observation is one more piece of evidence that

>> chinese

>> herbology has

>> most of its effects on symptoms, not underlying pathology. The

>> value of

>> pattern

>> differentiation is not that it leads to cure of organic illnesses,

>> but

>> that if done properly,

>> allows the treatment of a wide range of presentations without causing

>> iatrogenesis. The

>> primary longterm benefits of TCM are not the rectification of

>> mysterious

>> patterns of

>> imbalance, but rather something much more mundane. Many chinese

>> formulas

>> used for

>> longterm use contain herbs that promote digestion and relaxation

>> (such as

>> ginger, jujube

>> and licorice). Arguably most of the benefit of chinese herbs beyond

>> symptoms relief is

>> due to improved nutrition and sleep as a result.

>>

>

>>

>>

>

> ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

> contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

> Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

> Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

>

>

>

>

>