SHL/JGYL vs TCM

April 20, 2010

Hi Members,

For those of you who have extensive years in practice, who started with TCM type

formulation/theory and (possibly due to the recent interest and access to

teachers)then gained experience with SHL/JGYL perscriptions and theory... do you

see a differene in efficacy? I know there are a number of you (Alon, others)

that have more recently studied with Arnaud Versluys, Huang, etc. that

previously had a lot of expereince with TCM methods. So whats the verdict?

Thanks for any input.

Sincerely,

david

April 21, 2010

I had a teacher at my school who gave SHL formulas, Fire school, to the

point where he would give FU Zi to every patient. Some people got better and

some people like myself could not take fu zi because it was way too strong.

It cuased me to feel very bad and for my ears to start ringing for days.

which is a sign of kidney damage when taking pharmaceuticals or anything

toxic. so basically it was killing me.

I think we are in a new age and SHL style is out of date and in theory

sounds very nice, although one should take into account yin and yang, in the

individual person.

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:20 PM, dmvitello01 <dmvitello wrote:

>

> Hi Members,

>

> For those of you who have extensive years in practice, who started with TCM

> type formulation/theory and (possibly due to the recent interest and access

> to teachers)then gained experience with SHL/JGYL perscriptions and theory...

> do you see a differene in efficacy? I know there are a number of you (Alon,

> others) that have more recently studied with Arnaud Versluys, Huang, etc.

> that previously had a lot of expereince with TCM methods. So whats the

> verdict?

>

> Thanks for any input.

> Sincerely,

> david

>

--

David Bell L.Ac.

Portland Maine Acupuncture

(207)228-4262

205 concord st Portland Maine 04103

www.portlandmaineacupuncture.com

portlandmaineacupuncture

April 21, 2010

While my experience is only a couple of years old i do see better

results using purely SHL/JGYL. I have been using this exclusively for

about 2 years in order to both learn it better and to have some

comparison for the mix TCM methodologies i have been using for 25

year. i believe it has many advantages. I am using Arnuad's methods

which are a particular lineage so i cant speak to other classical

approaches. For those just starting i think the biggest advantage

would be the concentrated and defined perspective. Its very difficult

to learn the many varied approaches in TCM and gain enough experience

to decide which is best for which patient. I think the methodology

taught by Arnaud can be a great road map and so far i have not got

stuck with any patient using it, and please understand i am not saying

everyone got cured.

April 21, 2010

David,

Your experience reflects less on the SHL/JGYL school than of your teacher's

approach to treatment ('one size fits all') and possibly improperly processed fu

zi, which has been discussed on this list recently. I only buy fu zi from

reputable sources at this point, as toxicity, of course is an issue, and the

processing has to be correct.

Also the " Fire God School " is not the same as the Cold Damage/SHL school, it

is a much more narrow/specific approach.

Since the SHLJGYL is the core text for the practice of Chinese internal

medicine, I don't think you can say that it is 'out of date'. The majority of

modern practice is still largely influenced by this text(s).

On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:14 AM, David Bell Lic.Ac wrote:

> I had a teacher at my school who gave SHL formulas, Fire school, to the

> point where he would give FU Zi to every patient. Some people got better and

> some people like myself could not take fu zi because it was way too strong.

> It cuased me to feel very bad and for my ears to start ringing for days.

> which is a sign of kidney damage when taking pharmaceuticals or anything

> toxic. so basically it was killing me.

> I think we are in a new age and SHL style is out of date and in theory

> sounds very nice, although one should take into account yin and yang, in the

> individual person.

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

April 21, 2010

Z'ev:

Your experience reflects less on the SHL/JGYL school than of your

teacher's approach...

Also the " Fire God School " is ...a much more narrow/specific

approach.

Since the SHLJGYL is the core text for the practice of Chinese

internal medicine, I don't think you can say that it is 'out of

date'.

Stephen:

Bullseye

--

http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...

April 22, 2010

Z'ev,

I agree, no one can argue that the SHL is not important... However I do have one

clarification question. I am curious what you consider ¡°influenced¡±? For

example, warm disease theory and practice was influenced by shang han, but these

doctors IMO, are no longer practicing shang han.

Are you saying you feel that the majority (over 50%) of formulas written now (in

modern clinics) are shang han based formulas? Can you explain?

-Jason

> ----

> <zrosenbe

The majority of modern practice is still largely influenced by this text(s).

April 22, 2010

I have to agree with Z'ev that the quality of Fu Zi is of utmost importance

regarding the so-called side effects of using Aconite. The other issue with the

Fire Spirit school's use of Fu Zi is that it is always necessary to clear any

obstacles/pathogens prior to beginning the administration of Fu Zi in this

manner, or to at least concurrently address those patterns while administering

higher doses of aconite. I refuse to use any other Fu Zi than what is available

through Classical Pearls and have not encountered these side effects at doses as

high as 30g. I rarely use it below 9g in most cases. But often giving a Fu

Zi-based formula is perceived as check-mate, while opening gambits may vary.

As for SHL/JGYL it comprises about 85% of my prescriptions, with the remainder

being formulas from Dr. Shen that I have received via Dr. Hammer, and a few

outliers like Sheng Mai San, Tian Wang Bu Xin Dan, Qian Yang Dan, and a scant

few others.

I was fortunate to study and work with a largely SHL-based family in Florida,

and my exposure to Arnaud's model has been highly instructive, especially in

terms of formula modification/combining. But far and away, my studies with

Heiner have been the greatest influence on improvements in insight, and thus,

outcomes.

Brandt

, " David Bell Lic.Ac "

<healingherbsandpoints wrote:

>

> I had a teacher at my school who gave SHL formulas, Fire school, to the

> point where he would give FU Zi to every patient. Some people got better and

> some people like myself could not take fu zi because it was way too strong.

> It cuased me to feel very bad and for my ears to start ringing for days.

> which is a sign of kidney damage when taking pharmaceuticals or anything

> toxic. so basically it was killing me.

> I think we are in a new age and SHL style is out of date and in theory

> sounds very nice, although one should take into account yin and yang, in the

> individual person.

>

> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:20 PM, dmvitello01 <dmvitello wrote:

>

> >

> > Hi Members,

> >

> > For those of you who have extensive years in practice, who started with TCM

> > type formulation/theory and (possibly due to the recent interest and access

> > to teachers)then gained experience with SHL/JGYL perscriptions and theory...

> > do you see a differene in efficacy? I know there are a number of you (Alon,

> > others) that have more recently studied with Arnaud Versluys, Huang, etc.

> > that previously had a lot of expereince with TCM methods. So whats the

> > verdict?

> >

> > Thanks for any input.

> > Sincerely,

> > david

> >

>

> --

> David Bell L.Ac.

> Portland Maine Acupuncture

> (207)228-4262

> 205 concord st Portland Maine 04103

> www.portlandmaineacupuncture.com

> portlandmaineacupuncture

>

April 22, 2010

Jason,

I look at the SHL/JGYL as the foundation stone on which the edifice of

prescriptions is built historically. Even in Wen bing xue, many of the formulas

are 'pure' SHL (bai hu tang, cheng qi tang family for qi aspect patterns) or use

similar formula constructions (modifications of wu mei wan, the underlying

structure of sang xing tang or qing dan hao qin tang). Later prescriptions

such as chai hu shu gan tang (Zhang Jing-yue) are built on si ni san. . . I can

go on and on. .

In other words, without a grasp of the SHL/JGYL, it will be difficult to

grasp other, later currents of Chinese medicine, or even practice modern TCM

properly. . . I don't know exact percentages of prescriptions, but it is pretty

high.

This would be great fuel for a more in-depth conversation, I am just writing

in a hurry right now. .

Z'ev

On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:04 AM, wrote:

> Z'ev,

>

> I agree, no one can argue that the SHL is not important... However I do have

one clarification question. I am curious what you consider “influenced”? For

example, warm disease theory and practice was influenced by shang han, but these

doctors IMO, are no longer practicing shang han.

>

> Are you saying you feel that the majority (over 50%) of formulas written now

(in modern clinics) are shang han based formulas? Can you explain?

>

> -Jason

>

> > ----

> > <zrosenbe

> The majority of modern practice is still largely influenced by this text(s).

>

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

April 22, 2010

Z'ev,

You are correct and after re-reading my post, I want to clarify, I spoke

somewhat incorrectly. I also am writing fast do to being in the midst of

traveling, so sorry for any mistaken words.

" Warm disease " doctors certainly used shang han " style " formulas. However in

practice, very rarely did doctors of that time, or even before (song dynasty and

onward), give shang han formulas unmodified. These warm disease doctors modified

them to accommodate what they felt was a better match for the diseases present

at that time period. For example, da cheng qi tang is transformed into zeng ye

cheng qi tang to a match their desire to protect the yin. So I do not consider

this a " pure " SHL approach. Actually most formulas are modified and one will

find very few " pure " (unmodified) SHL formulas in such texts. For example, some

experts say that straight cheng qi tang formulas are contraindicated for qi

level problems.

So yes, I agree with you that many later formulas are built on the prescriptions

of the SHL/JGYL. Also, one should certainly study this text(s) to fully

understand what has come afterwards. But I think the fact remains that many

doctors also improved upon many of these " basic " SHL/JGYL ideas, especially in

relation to modern day disease.

Consequently, I do feel it is error to think that one can solve all or even the

vast majority of cases with just SHL / JGYL formulas. I understand people like

to try, but I feel this is out of some aesthetic appreciation or semi-religious

following than coming from a practical (what is best for the patient) approach.

I never quite understood why SHL practitioners (especially in the West) are so

adamant (and proud) of just using SHL formulas. Interestingly I studied with SHL

" specialist " in China that gave about 20% SHL/JGYL formulas. I thought that was

very odd...

In addition, we see this idea of using only formulas straight from the text as

somehow superior to adding, a for example, qing dynasty herb. Again this seems

more to do with a belief system then looking at what is best Chinese medicine

approach for one's patient. Of note, even the first SHL doctors (song dynasty)

were modifying these formulas to fit their needs. Of note, this practice has

very little classical historical precedence. I am curious if anyone knows when

the first record of doctors using SHL formulas unmodified is? Kampo?

But I agree looking a " strict " SHL approach is useful in understanding how ZZJ

thought, but at a certain point one must break away and look at the big picture.

Why did all these other formulas evolve? What are their strengths? etc... I

guess I am speaking to where I am currently at in my evolution and don't mean to

say anything about other's approaches.

So to summarize, I agree that a large percentage of formulas can trace their

roots to the early herblaism of the SHL/JGYL. But IMO, these later developments

(formulas), at a certain point, are no longer following strict SHL theory or its

thought process. They are acknowledging different key principles such as

protecting yin.

But in the end it is all Chinese medicine, and I guess where that line is drawn

(what is an influence vs. innovation) matters very little. Maybe we just leave

it at; one should study the SHL/JGYL, and study it well!

Thoughts?

-

> ----

> <zrosenbe

>

> Re: SHL/JGYL vs TCM

> 22 Apr '10 16:48

>

> Jason,

> 0„20„2 I look at the SHL/JGYL as the foundation stone on which the edifice

of prescriptions is built historically.0„20„2Even in Wen bing xue, many of the

formulas are 'pure' SHL (bai hu tang, cheng qi tang family for qi aspect

patterns) or use similar formula constructions (modifications of wu mei wan, the

underlying structure of sang xing tang or qing dan hao qin tang).0„20„2 Later

prescriptions such as chai hu shu gan tang (Zhang Jing-yue) are built on si ni

san. . . I can go on and on. .

>

> 0„20„2 In other words, without a grasp of the SHL/JGYL, it will be

difficult to grasp other, later currents of Chinese medicine, or even practice

modern TCM properly. . . I don't know exact percentages of prescriptions, but it

is pretty high.

>

> 0„20„2 This would be great fuel for a more in-depth conversation, I am just

writing in a hurry right now. .

>

> Z'ev

> On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:04 AM, wrote:

>

> > Z'ev,

April 22, 2010

The best thing about learning Zhang Zhong Jing's formulas is that most of

the formulas revolve around about 50 herbs, so there's an elegant complexity

in understanding the relationships of these core herbs to each other and

seeing how important dosage is in influencing action....

for instance.... Huang qi wu wu tang vs Huang qi jian zhong tang...

similar formulas with just slightly different herbs and dosing, but with

very different presentations.

Huang Huang also writes about this in the 10 Key Formulas book under the

Astragalus chapter.

Arnaud teaches formula families in his 9 weekend SHL and 5 weekend JGYL

course.

I also see the value of Jin-Yuan-Ming-Qing dynasty formulas and the herbs

that have traditionally been used by southern provinces...family formulas

and specialty herbs passed down by generations of villages. These herbs are

still being used because they're effective, just as ZZJ's formulas are still

around for the same reason.

So, the question is how much free-reign do we have to modify ZZJ's formulas

with these " other " herbs and still preserve the efficacy of the formula?

Can we make the formula even more effective?

K

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:34 PM, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> David,

> Your experience reflects less on the SHL/JGYL school than of your teacher's

> approach to treatment ('one size fits all') and possibly improperly

> processed fu zi, which has been discussed on this list recently. I only buy

> fu zi from reputable sources at this point, as toxicity, of course is an

> issue, and the processing has to be correct.

>

> Also the " Fire God School " is not the same as the Cold Damage/SHL school,

> it is a much more narrow/specific approach.

>

> Since the SHLJGYL is the core text for the practice of Chinese internal

> medicine, I don't think you can say that it is 'out of date'. The majority

> of modern practice is still largely influenced by this text(s).

>

> On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:14 AM, David Bell Lic.Ac wrote:

>

> > I had a teacher at my school who gave SHL formulas, Fire school, to the

> > point where he would give FU Zi to every patient. Some people got better

> and

> > some people like myself could not take fu zi because it was way too

> strong.

> > It cuased me to feel very bad and for my ears to start ringing for days.

> > which is a sign of kidney damage when taking pharmaceuticals or anything

> > toxic. so basically it was killing me.

> > I think we are in a new age and SHL style is out of date and in theory

> > sounds very nice, although one should take into account yin and yang, in

> the

> > individual person.

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

>

April 22, 2010

In the past, I would treat about a dozen cases per semester of adverse reactions

caused by the SHL practitioner mentioned by David. The most severe reactions

included symptoms of fainting, mania, severe agitation, insomnia, acne, and

headaches. A few cases were on their way to the emergency room when I saw them.

The severe cases responded well to Tian Wang Bu Xin San with Tian Ma Gou Teng

Yin, when those were indicated. Acupuncture treatments included Kidney 1. Milder

reactions often included exacerbation of an existing heat condition. I haven't

been seeing these sort of patients recently, but I have heard that he has

moderated his treatment methods.

This was the main reason I began taking SHL classes with Arnaud; to get some

insight into a more logical way of using SHL and JGYL formulas. I have no

intention of exclusively using SHL formulas, as I often get great results with

standard TCM herbal medicine. However, in certain patterns, SHL formulas are the

way to go.

In an academic environment, students try a lot of different practitioners.

Sometimes, I get good results when a SHL practitioner didn't have success. I

have also been fortunate to see cases where I was getting average results, and a

SHL practitioner got great results. As long as I can keep my ego in check, I

learn a lot from these experiences.

- Bill

, " stephen woodley " <learntcm

wrote:

>

> Z'ev:

> Your experience reflects less on the SHL/JGYL school than of your

> teacher's approach...

> Also the " Fire God School " is ...a much more narrow/specific

> approach.

> Since the SHLJGYL is the core text for the practice of Chinese

> internal medicine, I don't think you can say that it is 'out of

> date'.

>

> Stephen:

> Bullseye

>

> --

> http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...

>

April 23, 2010

Jason,

What I've enjoyed about my SHL/JG studies over the years is that the text is

really speaking about the 'mathematical' relationship of formulas to each other.

There is an organic relationship between prescriptions, beginning with the gui

zhi tang family, through six channels of disease pattern transformation, all the

way through to wu mei wan at jue yin (which contains gui zhi!). I find it a

much better way to learn (and teach) formulas by designer/physician (from Zhang

Ji to Wang Qing-ren, from Han to Qing) and their formula families, then just

running through categories (wind/cold, food accumulation, open orifice, etc.).

Another point is the relationship of flavors and qualities vis a vis five

phase theory that Arnaud teaches. I haven't seen this material discussed

elsewhere in English, but it is very interesting to see how the combination of

qi and flavor potentially drives the architecture of herb prescriptions.

On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:31 AM, wrote:

> Z'ev,

>

> You are correct and after re-reading my post, I want to clarify, I spoke

somewhat incorrectly. I also am writing fast do to being in the midst of

traveling, so sorry for any mistaken words.

> " Warm disease " doctors certainly used shang han " style " formulas. However in