Detoxing in TCM -- does it exist?

June 16, 2009

Yehuda asked: I was unfamiliar with Scudder's " Specific Diagnosis " but have

heard very good things about King's " American Dispensatory " and the

writings of Dr. John Uri Lloyd. Can you elaborate more about the theories

and methodologies and clinical practices of the eclectics, and how perhaps

their legacy can be reawakened?

First let me say that Kloss and Dr. Christopher where not Eclectic

physicians.

To answer your question above would take a text book and there are several,

I would recommend you get a copy of the above named book and some of the

others available. I think it is available on Michael

Moore's<http://www.swsbm.com/>website or Henriette's

Herbal Website <http://www.henriettesherbal.com/> I also am a big fan of

William Cooke's book on Physiomedicalism, which I believe is available for

free on Paul Bergner's <http://www.medherb.com> website.

<http://www.medherb.com>

I am sorry that I can't go into more detail at this time but really it is a

quite a study but they used symptom patterns along with pulse and other

signs to make diagnosis' and from there prescribe herbs and formulas. I am

not trying to say it was as well developed as Chinese medicine, but

certainly is well worth looking at, IMHO. Especially, in my work of

integrating Western herbs into the Chinese medicinal paradigm.

Enjoy,

Thomas

Beijing, China

Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide "

Check out my blog: sourcepointherbs.blogspot.com

June 16, 2009

I had to chime in as this is a favorite subject of mine. I may be incorrect, but

as I recall, Scudder, et.al.'s use of pulse, tongue, and s/s complex was focused

on identifying associated medicinals (i.e., " specific medicines " ) rather than

patterns, per se. In some ways, it is kind of like the TCM herbal tradition

prior to neoconfucian? integration with nei jing theory. Prior to that point in

time (about 900 years ago?), herbology, according to Unschuld, was practiced

without making a pattern diagnosis. The primary texts in circulation were herbal

monographs. In some respects, this is also similar in practice to kanpo or some

Chinese SHL schools of practice, wherein formula are chosen based on complexes

and little or minimal dx is done.

Personally, I am not convinced that the neoconfucian integration was necessarily

an advance. These is certainly little evidence to that effect. Success rates in

controlled research seem fairly similar whether one uses pattern dx or not. If

you ask Unschuld, and I have, the reasons this shift occurred was primarily

cultural not medical in nature. If one has not practiced these other styles of

Chinese medicine, one only has the experience of what one has done. That does

not negate the other.

,

wrote:

>

> Yehuda asked: I was unfamiliar with Scudder's " Specific Diagnosis " but have

> heard very good things about King's " American Dispensatory " and the

> writings of Dr. John Uri Lloyd. Can you elaborate more about the theories

> and methodologies and clinical practices of the eclectics, and how perhaps

> their legacy can be reawakened?

>

> First let me say that Kloss and Dr. Christopher where not Eclectic

> physicians.

>

> To answer your question above would take a text book and there are several,

> I would recommend you get a copy of the above named book and some of the

> others available. I think it is available on Michael

> Moore's<http://www.swsbm.com/>website or Henriette's

> Herbal Website <http://www.henriettesherbal.com/> I also am a big fan of

> William Cooke's book on Physiomedicalism, which I believe is available for

> free on Paul Bergner's <http://www.medherb.com> website.

> <http://www.medherb.com>

> I am sorry that I can't go into more detail at this time but really it is a

> quite a study but they used symptom patterns along with pulse and other

> signs to make diagnosis' and from there prescribe herbs and formulas. I am

> not trying to say it was as well developed as Chinese medicine, but

> certainly is well worth looking at, IMHO. Especially, in my work of

> integrating Western herbs into the Chinese medicinal paradigm.

>

> Enjoy,

> Thomas

>

> Beijing, China

> Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> Practitioners Guide "

> Check out my blog: sourcepointherbs.blogspot.com

>

June 16, 2009

Does anyone here not read? I said it in my earlier post. Thi sis not TCM,

but an earlier system of Chinese medicine...

*Zhang Cong Zheng* (1156-1228ce)

Believed all diseases were caused by 'evil factors', external pathogens

being introduced into the human body. To cure; induce sweating, vomiting,

and purging. 'School of attacking and purging'.

>

--

Robert Chu, PhD, L.Ac. QME

chusauli

See my webpages at: www.chusaulei.com

June 16, 2009

Unschuld writes about the methods of exorcism that carried over into

medicine.

Flaws and Heiner Freuhauf have written articles about releasing " gu " toxins.

There are also accounts of environmental evils, such as " bad air " creating

epidemics.

Of course, if we talk about chelation therapy, what about getting zhu sha

(mercury)

out from the body?

K

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Robert Chu <chusauli wrote:

>

> Does anyone here not read? I said it in my earlier post. Thi sis not TCM,

> but an earlier system of Chinese medicine...

>

> *Zhang Cong Zheng* (1156-1228ce)

>

> Believed all diseases were caused by 'evil factors', external pathogens

> being introduced into the human body. To cure; induce sweating, vomiting,

> and purging. 'School of attacking and purging'.

>

> >

>

> --

> Robert Chu, PhD, L.Ac. QME

> chusauli <chusauli%40gmail.com>

>

> See my webpages at: www.chusaulei.com

>

June 16, 2009

of course the school of attacking and purging is tcm.

the four great masters of the jin yuan period were strong influences on all

later medicine in china.

just because the earth tonifying and yin nourishing schools are better known

schools of the time doesn't discredit zhang cong zheng's contributions.

-- In , Robert Chu <chusauli wrote:

>

> Does anyone here not read? I said it in my earlier post. Thi sis not TCM,

> but an earlier system of Chinese medicine...

>

> *Zhang Cong Zheng* (1156-1228ce)

>

> Believed all diseases were caused by 'evil factors', external pathogens

> being introduced into the human body. To cure; induce sweating, vomiting,

> and purging. 'School of attacking and purging'.

>

> >

>

> --

> Robert Chu, PhD, L.Ac. QME

> chusauli

>

> See my webpages at: www.chusaulei.com

>

June 16, 2009

When frequently it has been mentioned that the TCM Classics don't mention

detoxification, one question to ask is what is included within the acceptable

corpus of literature. By this I mean that if you examine the Daoist and to some

extant Buddhist canons, so much is written and has been passed down orally.

Like the bigu idea- fasting from grains to lighten the body. Or the idea of the

three worms (or three corpses and nine worms). What about the myriad of

yangshen- 'hygene' practices that often include fasting, seasonal regimens,

physical and breathing practices, specific diets, as well as herbal formulas.

Then finally, just study the Shen Nong Bencao Jing, and so many references to

herbal functions of detoxifying the body are there.

Yet whether TCM ever had something akin to the Ayurvedic Panchakarma or

Kayakalpa Chikitsa programs is another question. The extent to which purging,

sweating, and vomiting is referred to- even in Shang Han Lun- shows that it was

done, but was there a systematic procedure involving concentration of

accumulated toxins/wastes and expelling them through multiple treatment steps

(akin to the purvakarma and various kramas in panchakarma)?

It is true that if your medical theory is based on a humoural system, where

primary pathological process is based upon excess accumulations damaging

tissues, such as in Ayurveda, the need to detoxify is fundamental. Not that

Ayurveda doesn't acknowledge deficiencies or other imbalances (as seen by dosha

kshaya and visramsha) but the accumulation of humours is primary.

So my question to you all is this: How did these ideas and practices of

cleansing the body found in the esoteric (meaning Daoist and Buddhist)

traditions influence the use of purging within clinical Chinese medicine?

June 17, 2009

Thomas -

Thanks for this. I used the entire body of works cited here for the eclectic

tradition beginning in the early 1990s. While fascinating, I was never able to

systematically apply Scudder's thoughts on specific diagnosis. I did find his

thinking on specific medication to be similar to Jinling Wang's approach which I

encountered in 1984. Wang selected specific agents on an evidence basis and

placed them into a formula based upon diagnosis and pattern discrimination.

Neiqiang Gu, who is in the LA basin and still at Emperor's I believe, focuses

heavily on relieving toxins. His specialty is external diseases. Jiangfu Jiang,

who is semiretired now, if not completely, say that herbs are actually very

simple. We are either benefiting the righteous or eliminating evil.

It seems to me that every school of herbalism has a puke and purge cult. Ah, I

long for the good ol' days.

Warmly,

Will

,

wrote:

>

> Yehuda asked: I was unfamiliar with Scudder's " Specific Diagnosis " but have

> heard very good things about King's " American Dispensatory " and the

> writings of Dr. John Uri Lloyd. Can you elaborate more about the theories

> and methodologies and clinical practices of the eclectics, and how perhaps

> their legacy can be reawakened?

>

> First let me say that Kloss and Dr. Christopher where not Eclectic

> physicians.

>

> To answer your question above would take a text book and there are several,

> I would recommend you get a copy of the above named book and some of the

> others available. I think it is available on Michael

> Moore's<http://www.swsbm.com/>website or Henriette's

> Herbal Website <http://www.henriettesherbal.com/> I also am a big fan of

> William Cooke's book on Physiomedicalism, which I believe is available for

> free on Paul Bergner's <http://www.medherb.com> website.

> <http://www.medherb.com>

> I am sorry that I can't go into more detail at this time but really it is a

> quite a study but they used symptom patterns along with pulse and other

> signs to make diagnosis' and from there prescribe herbs and formulas. I am

> not trying to say it was as well developed as Chinese medicine, but

> certainly is well worth looking at, IMHO. Especially, in my work of

> integrating Western herbs into the Chinese medicinal paradigm.

>

> Enjoy,

> Thomas

>

> Beijing, China

> Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> Practitioners Guide "

> Check out my blog: sourcepointherbs.blogspot.com

>

June 17, 2009

Gong xie pai/attacking and precipitation current does not use the same

methodology or have the same goals as naturopathic cleansing

methods. Zhang Zhi-he's (Cong-zheng) methods were designed to

eliminate specific evil qi from specific visceral systems. There

wasn't a 'one size fits all' approach, and no one would ever take Dr.

Zhang's prescriptions as a general 'cleanse'. They were designed to

treat specific disease patterns.

On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:21 PM, adividya wrote:

>

> of course the school of attacking and purging is tcm.

>

> the four great masters of the jin yuan period were strong influences

> on all later medicine in china.

>

> just because the earth tonifying and yin nourishing schools are

> better known schools of the time doesn't discredit zhang cong

> zheng's contributions.

>

> -- In , Robert Chu <chusauli

> wrote:

> >

> > Does anyone here not read? I said it in my earlier post. Thi sis

> not TCM,

> > but an earlier system of Chinese medicine...

> >

> > *Zhang Cong Zheng* (1156-1228ce)

> >

> > Believed all diseases were caused by 'evil factors', external

> pathogens

> > being introduced into the human body. To cure; induce sweating,

> vomiting,

> > and purging. 'School of attacking and purging'.

> >

> > >

> >

> > --

> > Robert Chu, PhD, L.Ac. QME

> > chusauli

> >

> > See my webpages at: www.chusaulei.com

> >

June 17, 2009

Will,

I don't know why I am not getting my point across, but eliminating

evil, purgation/precipitation and gong xie/attacking evil are not the

same as 'liver detox' or 'bowel cleansing' by a long shot.

1) Formulas for precipitation in the da huang family (cheng qi tang)

in the Shang Han Lun are used under very restrictive conditions, only

in one or two doses (see the yang ming chapter), and only in replete

conditions with heat, strong pulses, tense abdomens, etc.

2) The gong xia pai/attack and precipitate school historically has

remained a minority school, as the mainstream of Chinese medicine

tends to embrace a more moderate approach to treatment.

My point is that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to liver

detoxification and bowel cleansing is not a part of Chinese medicine,

and couldn't be. Certainly there may be systematic approaches to

cleansing in yang sheng/nourishing life practices, and certainly

Ayurvedic medicine has sophisticated panchakarma regimes, but they are

based on constitutional protocols that are carefully developed.

On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Will Morris wrote:

>

> Thomas -

>

> Thanks for this. I used the entire body of works cited here for the

> eclectic tradition beginning in the early 1990s. While fascinating,

> I was never able to systematically apply Scudder's thoughts on

> specific diagnosis. I did find his thinking on specific medication

> to be similar to Jinling Wang's approach which I encountered in

> 1984. Wang selected specific agents on an evidence basis and placed

> them into a formula based upon diagnosis and pattern discrimination.

>

> Neiqiang Gu, who is in the LA basin and still at Emperor's I

> believe, focuses heavily on relieving toxins. His specialty is

> external diseases. Jiangfu Jiang, who is semiretired now, if not

> completely, say that herbs are actually very simple. We are either

> benefiting the righteous or eliminating evil.

>

> It seems to me that every school of herbalism has a puke and purge

> cult. Ah, I long for the good ol' days.

>

> Warmly,

>

> Will

>

> ,

> wrote:

> >

> > Yehuda asked: I was unfamiliar with Scudder's " Specific Diagnosis "

> but have

> > heard very good things about King's " American Dispensatory " and the

> > writings of Dr. John Uri Lloyd. Can you elaborate more about the

> theories

> > and methodologies and clinical practices of the eclectics, and how

> perhaps

> > their legacy can be reawakened?

> >

> > First let me say that Kloss and Dr. Christopher where not Eclectic

> > physicians.

> >

> > To answer your question above would take a text book and there are

> several,

> > I would recommend you get a copy of the above named book and some

> of the

> > others available. I think it is available on Michael

> > Moore's<http://www.swsbm.com/>website or Henriette's

> > Herbal Website <http://www.henriettesherbal.com/> I also am a big

> fan of

> > William Cooke's book on Physiomedicalism, which I believe is

> available for

> > free on Paul Bergner's <http://www.medherb.com> website.

> > <http://www.medherb.com>

> > I am sorry that I can't go into more detail at this time but

> really it is a

> > quite a study but they used symptom patterns along with pulse and

> other

> > signs to make diagnosis' and from there prescribe herbs and

> formulas. I am

> > not trying to say it was as well developed as Chinese medicine, but

> > certainly is well worth looking at, IMHO. Especially, in my work of

> > integrating Western herbs into the Chinese medicinal paradigm.

> >

> > Enjoy,

> > Thomas

> >

> > Beijing, China

> > Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional Chinese

> Medicine: A

> > Practitioners Guide "

> > Check out my blog: sourcepointherbs.blogspot.com

> >

June 18, 2009

Z'ev,

Respectfully....I think you have made your point, but I also think that ND's

are not taught a " one-size-fits-all " approach. I believe that there are a

number of ND's out there who have become attached to this approach in a

similar way that physicians have around the world. This is likely because

humans are basically excessive in nature, we collectively eat too much,

drink too much, sleep too much, etc and thus a good puck and purge can do

many people a heck of a lot of good. To suggest that Chinese medicine has

never had such an approach is, IMHO, incorrect. Sorry I don't have the

references, but I think Will's and I believe there have been others pretty

clearly point this out. It does not make it right or wrong, it is simply one

approach....of which there are basically an infinite amount within Chinese

medicine.

Dogma is poison, no matter where it comes from.

Thomas

Beijing, China

Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide "

Check out my blog: sourcepointherbs.blogspot.com

June 18, 2009

Z'ev,

You are right, I did not get your point. I just saw it in a previous post and

must have missed your earlier thoughts on the matter. I do not propose however,

that once I understand the point, that I will agree in whole or in part. In this

case, I do in part.

It appears that you have an assumption that the European and Native American

traditions - from which these early eclectics find roots - have no specificity.

Further, I have seen Chinese be specific and general in their practice of

eliminating evil. It depends on how well they localize the pathogen, if the

pathogen is not systemic.

The gong xia pai/attack and precipitate school does remain marginalized. We

teach it as the core methods in formulary - but then we don't use the methods

clinically. Puking and purging has a place - no matter how small.

I do howver, agree with you, however, about the indiscriminate use of bowel and

liver cleanses. I have treated people who have been harmed by such approaches.

Warmly,

Will

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Will,

> I don't know why I am not getting my point across, but eliminating

> evil, purgation/precipitation and gong xie/attacking evil are not the

> same as 'liver detox' or 'bowel cleansing' by a long shot.

>

> 1) Formulas for precipitation in the da huang family (cheng qi tang)

> in the Shang Han Lun are used under very restrictive conditions, only

> in one or two doses (see the yang ming chapter), and only in replete

> conditions with heat, strong pulses, tense abdomens, etc.

>

> 2) The gong xia pai/attack and precipitate school historically has

> remained a minority school, as the mainstream of Chinese medicine

> tends to embrace a more moderate approach to treatment.

>

> My point is that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to liver

> detoxification and bowel cleansing is not a part of Chinese medicine,

> and couldn't be. Certainly there may be systematic approaches to

> cleansing in yang sheng/nourishing life practices, and certainly

> Ayurvedic medicine has sophisticated panchakarma regimes, but they are

> based on constitutional protocols that are carefully developed.

>

June 18, 2009

Thomas,

Find me one source in Chinese medicine that suggests bowel

cleansing, sweating, or disinhibiting urination as a health

maintenance measure. . .

Certainly there is value to cleansing regimens, especially

panchakarma techniques. But I've seen too many health professionals

who routinely try to sell 'spring cleanses' to everyone who walks in

their office (we recently had a discussion about this on the PCOM

alumni list), multi-marketing concerns selling 'cleansing programs',

and CM practitioners who ask all the time about doing 'liver detoxes',

etc.

On Jun 18, 2009, at 1:38 AM, wrote:

>

> Z'ev,

>

> Respectfully....I think you have made your point, but I also think

> that ND's

> are not taught a " one-size-fits-all " approach. I believe that there

> are a

> number of ND's out there who have become attached to this approach

> in a

> similar way that physicians have around the world. This is likely

> because

> humans are basically excessive in nature, we collectively eat too

> much,

> drink too much, sleep too much, etc and thus a good puck and purge

> can do

> many people a heck of a lot of good. To suggest that Chinese

> medicine has

> never had such an approach is, IMHO, incorrect. Sorry I don't have the

> references, but I think Will's and I believe there have been others

> pretty

> clearly point this out. It does not make it right or wrong, it is

> simply one

> approach....of which there are basically an infinite amount within

> Chinese

> medicine.

>

> Dogma is poison, no matter where it comes from.

>

> Thomas

>

> Beijing, China

> Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> Practitioners Guide "

> Check out my blog: sourcepointherbs.blogspot.com

>

June 18, 2009

Zhang Zi-he's attacking and precipitating school quickly fell out of favor in

China. Although Zhang is listed as one of the Four Great Masters (si da jia) of

the Jin-Yuan, by the late Ming and Qing dynasties, many Chinese doctors were not

sure which Zhang was referred to by this grouping. As is well-known in what has

become standard professionl Chinese medicine, all disease is not due to the

presence of some evil qi, and, therefore, attacking and draining is not right in

all situations.

(As an aside, it is interesting that Zhang came up with his approach at a time

when [indian] Buddhism and, therefore, possibly Ayurvedic medicine were having a

marked effect in China. Certainly Ayurveda affected Sun Si-miao's thought in the

preceding dynasty. Interestingly, those aspects of Sun's thought based on

Ayurveda also did not successfully take root in China.)

Further and more importantly, if one treats based on pattern identification and

successfully eliminates the patient's presenting symptoms, one will have de

facto achieved the same effects as naturopathic detoxification if that

detoxification is/was/would have been able to eliminate those same symptoms.

There is only one body. These methodologies are simply conceptual notions about

what we are doing. If these different approaches achieve the same outcome, then

one school does not have to add the concepts or map of the other school. Nor is

there any reason to worry about something lacking in one system or the other.

The issue is if one system is able, based on its conceptual methodology, to

eliminate symptoms or conditions that the other system cannot. In that case,

expanding or improving one's system would logically be called for.

For example, take a patient who is told by an ND that, because of the symptoms

they are presenting, they need a liver flush. (Here I'm assuming that the ND

does have a standard set of signs and symptoms to indicate this diagnosis and

therefore this treatment. If, in fact, there is no standard set of signs and

symptoms indicating the need for a liver flush, then the whole thing is

questionable. In that case, we are not talking about a rational medicine tied to

empirical evidence.) In any case, the patient does the liver flush and the

symptoms all go away. So the ND says, " See, they really did need detoxification

and the detoxification worked as I thought it would. " Great. The outcome is the

important thing. So we can all be happy the patient recovered. However, if that

same patient was treated by CM pattern discrimination, and say their presenting

pattern was kidney-liver yin vacuity, if nourishing and enriching the liver and

kidneys also resulted in the elimination of the patient's signs and symptoms,

then viola, the ultimate goal of treatment was achieved and all the rest is

semantics. In that case, CM is lacking nothing and there is no need to add the

concept of detoxification to our system.

As a profession, I believe we need to get clear that the map is not the terrain.

All our (and NDs', MDs', and DCs') theories are only conceptual artifacts to get

a particular job done. We're not talking deontology here; we're talking

pragmatics (meaning the American philosopher John Dewey's pragmatics). We need

to understand our system as a system OF THOUGHT.

June 18, 2009

Well said Bob.

, " Bob Flaws " <bob wrote:

>

> Zhang Zi-he's attacking and precipitating school quickly fell out of favor in

China. Although Zhang is listed as one of the Four Great Masters (si da jia) of

the Jin-Yuan, by the late Ming and Qing dynasties, many Chinese doctors were not

sure which Zhang was referred to by this grouping. As is well-known in what has

become standard professionl Chinese medicine, all disease is not due to the

presence of some evil qi, and, therefore, attacking and draining is not right in

all situations.

>

> (As an aside, it is interesting that Zhang came up with his approach at a time

when [indian] Buddhism and, therefore, possibly Ayurvedic medicine were having a

marked effect in China. Certainly Ayurveda affected Sun Si-miao's thought in the

preceding dynasty. Interestingly, those aspects of Sun's thought based on

Ayurveda also did not successfully take root in China.)

>

June 18, 2009

Will,

Your assumption is incorrect. There was another thread where

Eclectic medicine was discussed in terms of pattern differentiation,

and my appraisal was mainly positive.

My original training was at a small naturopathic school (Dr. Jay

Scherer) in Santa Fe in the early 70's, with teachers such as Michael

Moore, the great herbalist, and both in school and out of school I

researched the Eclectic and Native American/Southwestern traditions of

herbal medicine, including Curanderismo, Zuni, Navajo (Yeibechei) and

Hopi traditions of healing. There were various diagnostic and

treatment approaches used (hot and cold herbs, hot and cold, weak and

strong constitutions, etc.). Sadly, in the case of the apprentice-

based systems of Native America and Mexico, much of this wisdom was

lost.

This is one of the advantages of Chinese, Tibetan and Ayurvedic

medicine(s). They are literate rational systems, recorded in

centuries of texts, with a continuation of teaching the essential

materials. The West largely abandoned the literate/rational system of

Galenic/Hippocratic medicine, and what we call 'European medicine'

today is largely folk medicine-based, without the rational structure.

Even in China, we need to distinguish between the rational Chinese

medical system and folk medicine approaches. There have always been

professional and lay levels of practice in medicine and healing, and

the same applies to the topic at hand. Multi-level marketing of bowel

and liver cleansing regimes is largely folk medicine at best, and has

more consequences if promoted without discrimination.

I had a patient last year who I was treating largely for anxiety

based issues ( I don't have her chart handy, so I can't give all the

diagnostic data I collected). I asked her for all medications and

treatments she had taken recently. I gave her a Chinese herb formula.

After a month or so, she developed sharp stomach pains, went to the

hospital and was diagnosed with mild pancreatitis. I had a strong

feeling that it wasn't the herb formula I prescribed, so I asked her

again if she was taking anything else. As it turns out, she was using

a strong bowel cleanser daily for months that she bought on-line from

a web site daily, with rhubarb as a main ingredient. Combining with

other herbs was as bad an idea as taking the bowel formula in the

first place. . .

On Jun 18, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Will Morris wrote:

> It appears that you have an assumption that the European and Native

> American traditions - from which these early eclectics find roots -

> have no specificity. Further, I have seen Chinese be specific and

> general in their practice of eliminating evil. It depends on how

> well they localize the pathogen, if the pathogen is not systemic.

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

June 18, 2009

Isn't half of the Shang han lun about reversing the malpractice of someone

purging a pathogen deeper into the body...

was there a detox-type school or public practice that inspired Zhang

Zhong-Jing to deduce the six conformations?

K

June 18, 2009

Again, we can't get over what is meant by " detox " . For the Western patient, and

perhaps the naturapath etc.., it means one thing and for us " toxins " are a

specific term. I'll take a stab defining it as usually meaning having a red and

heat component, almost always manifesting in extreme ways on the surface.

Wiseman uses the word virulent...

" Our " liver isn't especially toxic unless there is this heat component and yes

this could be the result of improper purging (usually). However as I understand

the naturapath it means a broader range of " toxic " materials.

I'll quote from a random web site to see if we can reach an understanding

here....

http://www.ombelievablewellness.com/toxic-liver-and-weight-gain/

When the liver is overloaded (toxic), every organ in a person's body is affected

and weight loss efforts are blocked. Among the signs of a toxic liver are weight

gain, cellulite, abdominal bloating, indigestion, high blood pressure, elevated

cholesterol, fatigue, mood swings, depression and skin rashes. Some of the

stressors of the liver are caffeine, alcohol, sugar, trans fats, medications

(prescription and over the counter) and inadequate fiber.

______________________

These then are signs of Spleen deficiency with arguably a Liver constraint

component....

Doug

, <johnkokko wrote:

>

> Isn't half of the Shang han lun about reversing the malpractice of someone

> purging a pathogen deeper into the body...

> was there a detox-type school or public practice that inspired Zhang

> Zhong-Jing to deduce the six conformations?

>

> K

>

June 18, 2009

Let us not forget that there are many kinds of toxins in CM. For example in

the suwen it says there is cold toxins, damp toxins, heat toxins, clear

toxins, fire toxins, and dry toxins. In the jin gui there is yin toxin and

yang toxins. There also things like summer heat toxin, phlegm toxin, water

toxin, parasite toxin etc.. All these ideas are still in use in the modern

day clinic by doctors who favor such theory.

Such doctors that I have studied with will often use the term toxin and talk

about detoxifying. Therefore detoxification is alive and well in the modern

Chinese clinics, however as others have pointed out Chinese medicine has a

very specific approach for which toxin it is treating, as well as the

specific location. Consequently, a toxin should not be just a thought of as

just having a red and heat component, manifesting in the surface of the

body.

But in defense of Western alternative medicine, especially functional

medicine, they also have a very specific criteria for detoxification. They

will target the liver, lymph, skin, kidneys etc. based on various

symptomatology. To further differentiate , for example, one can target very

specific detoxification pathways of the liver depending upon symptomatology

or diagnostic testing. The willy-nilly gall bladder flushes, or one size

fits all liver cleanses, are not what I consider 'real' Western alternative

medicine and are IMHO simply just folk remedies, and usually used by

mediocre practitioners or layman. Thus these protocols should not be

confused with the higher level (educated) practitioners that really know

what they're doing when it comes to detoxification.

So of course there are differences in the two systems. However, both systems