Digest Number 42

[Guest guest]

___________

>

 

 

 

I think intuition

>transcends, but includes logic as its basis. What many people call

>intuition, I call either insight or feelings. Insight refers to a

>transcendant knowing that has no basis in logic, per se. Most people do

>not possess insight in my opinion, as it requires spiritual training.

>Thus, the most common usage of intuition seems to refer to feelings,

>emotions and hunches. I think this type of " intuition " is not a higher

>form of knowledge and often leads to erroneous clinical choices.

 

You are giving voice to something that I have felt for many years. I talk

with my students about this issue, although I think that many of them are

distrustful of someone who appears to be telling them not to trust

immediately their feelings. I explain to these students that in Chinese

medicine, as I understand it, intuition is not something that one is born

with, but it is something that one develops through the concordant processes

of study and practice. That is to say that within a firm grounding in

rational analysis of patterns, formulae, etc., it is very difficult for a

practitioner to develop his or her intuition in a way that does not put

patients at risk. When I supervise students in our clinic, I sometimes have

to tell them not to do something because although they may ``feel'' that it

is the right thing, it has no basis in grounded thought and considered from

my clinical perspective, it may actually harm the patient.

 

 

>Since there is no way that any modern medical system will require the

>spiritual training necessary for insight, we are left to rely on logic

>which can lead to holistic intuition. In this sense, we are almost

>lucky that logical antimystical confucianism dominated the history of

>TCM in china.

 

To be honest, I have to say that I'm pretty happy that taoism was never lost

within the cold, calculating logic of confucianism. Somehow I've just never

equated confucianism and being lucky. ;-)

 

 

I agree that with the

>addition of palpation and apprenticeship and zazen, this style no doubt

>comes alive, but such things are of no interest to me, so I prefer

>confucian style booklearning and practice, practice, practice.

 

I would also suggest that internal practices, aka nei gong, meditation,etc.,

are one of the big missing components of Asian medical practice in the West.

Now before you pounce on me, what I mean is that I think in addition to the

intellectual pursuit, a practitioner would be well advised to develop these

other aspects of development. First of all, I believe it helps one on the

road to insight and intuition. Second of all, it is perhaps the only hope of

saving the spleen---already placed on the endangered species list in my

particular part of the world. I think, this is one of the reasons that I am

attracted to the taoist elements of Chinese medicine. These practices have

always been an integral part of that tradition.

 

Oh, one last thing...while I agree that open dialogue and respectful

interaction is critical not only to the development of our field, but also

to the continued existence of human life on our planet, I do not want to

fall into the trap of relativist thinking. I believe that each of us needs

to think carefully about our ideas and beliefs, then stand behind them. Not

rigidly or dogmatically, but firmly. I don't think that every system is of

equal value and I'm not going to pretend that I believe that to be the case

simply because one of my colleagues has said that they think a particular

system is great. I believe, also that this point of view is quite common in

the history of Chinese medicine. It used to be that I thought that there was

this wild tradition in Chinese medicine of accepting all the theories and

ideas that people espoused and simply letting them coexist. I don't believe

that to be the case, although it may look that way. What happens, I believe,

is that people argue furiously, using text references and effusive quoting

of the classics, but then at the end of the day, everything gets left on the

table. It's not that the arguing and taking a firm stand doesn't happen,

it's that no definitive final answer is ever given. That, to me, is a very

different proposition than simply saying that everything is of equal value.

This rant, by the way, is not aimed at any one thing that has been said in

this discussion, it's more a way of letting you all know where I stand on

this general issue, which I imagine may come up in our conversations.

 

whew...

 

Craig

[Guest guest]

Please excuse my polemical tendencies. The confucian comment was a bit

tongue in cheek. I was most certainly drawn into TCM because of my

interest in Taoism. And I have studied qi gong and yoga for 16 years.

While I definitely believe these practices are the foundation of both my

good health and understanding of TCM, I feel the need to continually

reemphasize the intellectual tradition within our profession. I do not

believe I have or perhaps ever will progress enough in my spiritual

practice to make it the basis of my practice so I guess I have no choice

to pursue my strength.

 

While Robert is correct that basic textbook TCM is lacking in emphasis

on palpation, I actually feel the main problem among American

practitioners is a lack of intellectual study and rigor. Most people I

know rely mainly on touch and personal feelings in crafting their

treatments. With the continual unscholarly diatribes against TCM by the

likes of Mark Seem over the past decade, I am not concerned with the

lack of palpation, but the primacy it is given by many people at the

expense of other forms of examination. their are four examinations and

it is my observation that it is questioning that is sorely lacking and

of the most concern to me.

 

I agree 100% that some ideas have more value than others. I think this

sort of relativism that gives equal value to all ideas is a very

pernicious influence on our whole culture right now. It has most

certainly infected TCM. Coincidentally perhaps, Mark Seem was also a

student of French postmodernist philosophy, which is the source of

current relativist thinking in American academia. The postmodernists

reject intellectual systems and are thus atttracted to phenomenological,

relativistic models of practice. Palpation based therapy lends itself

well to this mode of thinking. But I have yet to see this method

successfully applied for herbal medicine for complex chronic illnesses,

whatever efficacy it may have for acupuncture. The sho of kampo

includes palpation as a diagnostic method, but it is my impression that

primacy is still given to questioning by modern practitioners. I know

hong yen hsu did not advocate prescription based upon palpation alone

and Heiner Fruehauf points out that this was not developed much in China

itself and yet China's herbal system is considered the most developed in

Asia.

 

I have used abdominal palpation on and off for years and find it not

useful in my herbal practice.

 

 

cem

 

___________

>

 

 

 

I think intuition

>transcends, but includes logic as its basis. What many people call

>intuition, I call either insight or feelings. Insight refers to a

>transcendant knowing that has no basis in logic, per se. Most people do

>not possess insight in my opinion, as it requires spiritual training.

>Thus, the most common usage of intuition seems to refer to feelings,

>emotions and hunches. I think this type of " intuition " is not a higher

>form of knowledge and often leads to erroneous clinical choices.

 

You are giving voice to something that I have felt for many years. I talk

with my students about this issue, although I think that many of them are

distrustful of someone who appears to be telling them not to trust

immediately their feelings. I explain to these students that in Chinese

medicine, as I understand it, intuition is not something that one is born

with, but it is something that one develops through the concordant processes

of study and practice. That is to say that within a firm grounding in

rational analysis of patterns, formulae, etc., it is very difficult for a

practitioner to develop his or her intuition in a way that does not put

patients at risk. When I supervise students in our clinic, I sometimes have

to tell them not to do something because although they may ``feel'' that it

is the right thing, it has no basis in grounded thought and considered from

my clinical perspective, it may actually harm the patient.

 

 

>Since there is no way that any modern medical system will require the

>spiritual training necessary for insight, we are left to rely on logic

>which can lead to holistic intuition. In this sense, we are almost

>lucky that logical antimystical confucianism dominated the history of

>TCM in china.

 

To be honest, I have to say that I'm pretty happy that taoism was never lost

within the cold, calculating logic of confucianism. Somehow I've just never

equated confucianism and being lucky. ;-)

 

 

I agree that with the

>addition of palpation and apprenticeship and zazen, this style no doubt

>comes alive, but such things are of no interest to me, so I prefer

>confucian style booklearning and practice, practice, practice.

 

I would also suggest that internal practices, aka nei gong, meditation,etc.,

are one of the big missing components of Asian medical practice in the West.

Now before you pounce on me, what I mean is that I think in addition to the

intellectual pursuit, a practitioner would be well advised to develop these

other aspects of development. First of all, I believe it helps one on the

road to insight and intuition. Second of all, it is perhaps the only hope of

saving the spleen---already placed on the endangered species list in my

particular part of the world. I think, this is one of the reasons that I am

attracted to the taoist elements of Chinese medicine. These practices have

always been an integral part of that tradition.

 

Oh, one last thing...while I agree that open dialogue and respectful

interaction is critical not only to the development of our field, but also

to the continued existence of human life on our planet, I do not want to

fall into the trap of relativist thinking. I believe that each of us needs

to think carefully about our ideas and beliefs, then stand behind them. Not

rigidly or dogmatically, but firmly. I don't think that every system is of

equal value and I'm not going to pretend that I believe that to be the case

simply because one of my colleagues has said that they think a particular

system is great. I believe, also that this point of view is quite common in

the history of Chinese medicine. It used to be that I thought that there was

this wild tradition in Chinese medicine of accepting all the theories and

ideas that people espoused and simply letting them coexist. I don't believe

that to be the case, although it may look that way. What happens, I believe,

is that people argue furiously, using text references and effusive quoting

of the classics, but then at the end of the day, everything gets left on the

table. It's not that the arguing and taking a firm stand doesn't happen,

it's that no definitive final answer is ever given. That, to me, is a very

different proposition than simply saying that everything is of equal value.

This rant, by the way, is not aimed at any one thing that has been said in

this discussion, it's more a way of letting you all know where I stand on

this general issue, which I imagine may come up in our conversations.

 

whew...

 

Craig

 

Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

--- <TLuger wrote:

>

> While Robert is correct that basic textbook TCM is

> lacking in emphasis

> on palpation, I actually feel the main problem among

> American

> practitioners is a lack of intellectual study and

> rigor. Most people I

> know rely mainly on touch and personal feelings in

> crafting their

> treatments.

 

I agree that the intellectual standard is fairly

mediocre among the majority of people practicing in

this country. However, there is a BIG difference in

skilled vs unskilled palpation. This is why in Japan

practitioners tend to form study groups, to keep

palpatory and other diagnostic findings as objective

as possible. This has not really happened in this

country.

 

>their are

> four examinations and

> it is my observation that it is questioning that is

> sorely lacking and

> of the most concern to me.

 

I will defer to your longer experience, though this

has not been my experience. I think people lack focus

in diagnosis and don't know what to do with the data,

rather than not asking enough questions.

 

>

> Palpation based

> therapy lends itself

> well to this mode of thinking. But I have yet to

> see this method

> successfully applied for herbal medicine for complex

> chronic illnesses,

> whatever efficacy it may have for acupuncture. The

> sho of kampo

> includes palpation as a diagnostic method, but it is

> my impression that

> primacy is still given to questioning by modern

> practitioners.

 

Well, the four examinations. it is the conformation

(sho- = zheng, pattern, evidence) that is important,

in its totality, not any single examination.

 

>I know

> hong yen hsu did not advocate prescription based

> upon palpation alone

> and Heiner Fruehauf points out that this was not

> developed much in China

> itself and yet China's herbal system is considered

> the most developed in

> Asia.

 

I don't think you'll find many experienced

practitioners who advocate prescribing anything on one

sign alone.

 

>

> I have used abdominal palpation on and off for years

> and find it not

> useful in my herbal practice.

 

Fine, but some do, and a fairly large body of work

exists on the subject, IMHO it bears some study. Call

me anti-intellectual or whatever. To me, I study TCM,

teach the Wiseman-Ellis chapter & verse, but something

is definitely missing.

 

I'll shut up now.

 

 

 

=====

regards,

Robert Hayden, Dipl. Ac.

kampo36

[Guest guest]

I agree wholeheartedly with Todd.

The main weakness in American practitioners is a lack of intellectual

rigor, a laziness that relies on cookbook selections of herbs and points

and a lot of 'feel'. Even acupuncture traditionally was based on a

rigorous study of the Nei jing, Lei jing and Jia yi jing, and a deep

understanding of Chinese medical theory. If we look at great Japanese

acupuncturists like Dr. Yoshio Manaka, we see that they are intellectually

rigorous in their work.

There was a school of Kampo, originating with Yoshimasu Todo, that

abandoned all theory as 'speculative', relying solely on abdominal

palpation and SHL prescriptions. It severely limited clinical practice to

a hands-on but dogmatic approach without intellectual flexibility.

 

This discussion reminds me of the ongoing debate in the history of medicine

in the West, recorded by Harris Coulter in his " Divided Legacy " , vol. 1,

where he discusses the contrast between empiricism and rational therapy,

the first based on experience, the second on deep study and inquiry.

Interesting stuff.

 

Finally, as a teacher of CM for the last 10 years, I have seen that there

are also 2 types of students. . . .those that enter CM study through a

previous background in massage, and those who are looking to learn a form

of medicine as an intellectual discipline

 

 

 

 

 

>Please excuse my polemical tendencies. The confucian comment was a bit

>tongue in cheek. I was most certainly drawn into TCM because of my

>interest in Taoism. And I have studied qi gong and yoga for 16 years.

>While I definitely believe these practices are the foundation of both my

>good health and understanding of TCM, I feel the need to continually

>reemphasize the intellectual tradition within our profession. I do not

>believe I have or perhaps ever will progress enough in my spiritual

>practice to make it the basis of my practice so I guess I have no choice

>to pursue my strength.

>

>While Robert is correct that basic textbook TCM is lacking in emphasis

>on palpation, I actually feel the main problem among American

>practitioners is a lack of intellectual study and rigor. Most people I

>know rely mainly on touch and personal feelings in crafting their

>treatments. With the continual unscholarly diatribes against TCM by the

>likes of Mark Seem over the past decade, I am not concerned with the

>lack of palpation, but the primacy it is given by many people at the

>expense of other forms of examination. their are four examinations and

>it is my observation that it is questioning that is sorely lacking and

>of the most concern to me.

>

>I agree 100% that some ideas have more value than others. I think this

>sort of relativism that gives equal value to all ideas is a very

>pernicious influence on our whole culture right now. It has most

>certainly infected TCM. Coincidentally perhaps, Mark Seem was also a

>student of French postmodernist philosophy, which is the source of

>current relativist thinking in American academia. The postmodernists

>reject intellectual systems and are thus atttracted to phenomenological,

>relativistic models of practice. Palpation based therapy lends itself

>well to this mode of thinking. But I have yet to see this method

>successfully applied for herbal medicine for complex chronic illnesses,

>whatever efficacy it may have for acupuncture. The sho of kampo

>includes palpation as a diagnostic method, but it is my impression that

>primacy is still given to questioning by modern practitioners. I know

>hong yen hsu did not advocate prescription based upon palpation alone

>and Heiner Fruehauf points out that this was not developed much in China

>itself and yet China's herbal system is considered the most developed in

>Asia.

>

>I have used abdominal palpation on and off for years and find it not

>useful in my herbal practice.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Robert,

 

You hardly reveal an anti-intellectual bias in your posts. Quite the

contrary. However, you have definitely struck a chord with those of us

who are concerned about people who blindly trash TCM and advocate

palpation as the highest and best form of TCM. I have not seen you do

either of these things. So please do not " shut up " . It is common on

this list for someone's specific comments to spur a more general

discussion of a subject. I feel we need vigorous discussion of ideas in

order to understand TCM, not just private musings, which is why I

started this list. So as long as debates remain topical and not

personal, onwards, please.

 

note: by personal, I do not include critiquing authors and teachers who

have dominated certain public discussions for years. they have strongly

made their views public and have to be ready to take fire for them. so

while Mark Seem is a smart man and a good clinician who definitely helps

a lot of people, most of what he writes is philosophically anathema to

me, but that is his right. nothing personal is meant. however I do see

the correlations between mark's study of french philosophy, his personal

antiintellectualism and his emphasis on phenomenonology. He wouldn't

dispute this and is in fact proud of both being unscholarly and writing

in diatribes. I see nothing wrong with criticizing a public position

such as this and we all must feel similarly free. Everyone should not

restrain themselves when debating ideas, just be nice to each other.

[Guest guest]

--- <zrosenberg wrote:

 

> There was a school of Kampo, originating with

> Yoshimasu Todo, that

> abandoned all theory as 'speculative', relying

> solely on abdominal

> palpation and SHL prescriptions. It severely

> limited clinical practice to

> a hands-on but dogmatic approach without

> intellectual flexibility.

>

 

This would be Koho-, which was started mainly by Goto

Gonzan but reached a sort of philosophical zenith (or

nadir if you prefer) with Yoshimasu To-do-. Again,

whatever your perceptions, I submit for your approval

no less than SEVEN commentaries on the classics by

Ikeda Masakazu sitting on my bookshelf. This is maybe

just over half of his total output. So much for the

stereotype of non-intellectual Kampo practitioners.

 

Again, no disrespect, but I had to say it.

 

rh

[Guest guest]

Robert,

 

Thank you. It appears that the lack of good kanpo sources in english

has clouded this discussion. Could you give us an idea of what masakazu

comments upon?

 

 

r hayden <kampo36

 

--- <zrosenberg wrote:

 

> There was a school of Kampo, originating with

> Yoshimasu Todo, that

> abandoned all theory as 'speculative', relying

> solely on abdominal

> palpation and SHL prescriptions. It severely

> limited clinical practice to

> a hands-on but dogmatic approach without

> intellectual flexibility.

>

 

This would be Koho-, which was started mainly by Goto

Gonzan but reached a sort of philosophical zenith (or

nadir if you prefer) with Yoshimasu To-do-. Again,

whatever your perceptions, I submit for your approval

no less than SEVEN commentaries on the classics by

Ikeda Masakazu sitting on my bookshelf. This is maybe

just over half of his total output. So much for the

stereotype of non-intellectual Kampo practitioners.

 

Again, no disrespect, but I had to say it.

 

rh

 

Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

--- <TLuger wrote:

> Robert,

>

> Thank you. It appears that the lack of good kanpo

> sources in english

> has clouded this discussion. Could you give us an

> idea of what masakazu

> comments upon?

>

>

 

Ikeda has individual volumes commenting on Su Wen,

Ling Shu, Nan Jing, Shang Han Lun, and Jing Gui Yao

Lue. He translated Mai Jing into Japanese, and has

written several books on classical study. He also

co-wrote a large two-volume set on abdominal diagnosis

in kampo and acupuncture. His latest is Traditional

Acupuncture & Moxibustion Treatment (Dento- Shinkyu-

Chiryo-ho-) which is a great clinical manual,

practical treatments which are based on his patterns.

He has a study group in Japan, Kampo Inyokai (Kampo

Yin-Yang Association), and teaches for the Meridian

Therapy association.

 

Ted Kaptchuk has pointed out (in his introduction to

the Fundamentals, first edition) that TCM as laid out

in the Fundamentals is one way of putting together a

diagnostic and treatment system based on the classics

of Chinese medicine. To me, Ikeda represents another,

no less rigorous, way of thinking different from Qin

Bowei and Cheng Danan. I am not suggesting anyone

abandon their methodology and follow his, but just to

be aware that there are other interpretations of

classical material coming from East Asia.

Relativistic as it may be, if the methodology is

sound, it deserves a nod of respect.

 

His system will not replace TCM, of course, as it is

fairly abstruse and requires not only intellectual

muscle but palpatory skill. TCM is difficult enough to

learn without going into a different interpretation of

the same material (TCM is more complex in terms of

numbers of patterns, actually though Ikeda has evolved

and keeps adding stuff over the years).

 

Really, I think we are agreed on the fact that most

people find it easier to jab LI4/LV3 and give a bottle

of Xiao Yao. So I think we're on the same side in

terms of deploring lazy scholarship.

 

A personal note: when I introduced Ikeda at the Hawaii

seminar this year, I compared him to the

scholar-physicians of the Song-Jin-Yuan; a little

smile crossed his lips, I think he liked that....

 

rh

[Guest guest]

As I mentioned earlier in the same post, mr. hayden, many Japanese

practitioners were scholars. And, if we look at commentaries on the Nan

Jing, a good percentage are Japanese (see the bibliography in Unschuld's

version).

 

 

 

 

 

 

>r hayden <kampo36

>

>--- <zrosenberg wrote:

>

>> There was a school of Kampo, originating with

>> Yoshimasu Todo, that

>> abandoned all theory as 'speculative', relying

>> solely on abdominal

>> palpation and SHL prescriptions. It severely

>> limited clinical practice to

>> a hands-on but dogmatic approach without

>> intellectual flexibility.

>>

>

>This would be Koho-, which was started mainly by Goto

>Gonzan but reached a sort of philosophical zenith (or

>nadir if you prefer) with Yoshimasu To-do-. Again,

>whatever your perceptions, I submit for your approval

>no less than SEVEN commentaries on the classics by

>Ikeda Masakazu sitting on my bookshelf. This is maybe

>just over half of his total output. So much for the

>stereotype of non-intellectual Kampo practitioners.

>

>Again, no disrespect, but I had to say it.

>

>rh

>

>>Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

It certainly seems that tradition of which you speak is a very scholarly

one, indeed. Am I correct in thinking that the original koho masters

would have not gone in for such speculation? That is my impression and

it is the tradition I criticize. I would imagine that a purely

phenomenonological approach would have been found to be lacking

clinically (unless one was a zen adept, perhaps) and the human mind

could not help but begin to organize the phenomena into theories. that

seems to be the case, here. Perhaps one of the distinctions between TCM

and kanpo is like you said, how they organized the material and which

influences were emphasized. Xu da chun, who unchuld translates was a

17th century chinese reactionary who hated the song jin yuan and

advocated a return to the classics, so the chinese have had this trend,

as well.

 

Modern TCM owes a lot to the song jin yuan masters and much of the

modern development has occurrred in that context. However, some kampo

schools have obviously developed other aspects of the classics. In the

case of koho, they downplayed the newer stuff like li and zhu yet

developed certain aspects of the classics that were not so in china,

like abd. palpation.

 

Having read some qin bo wei and cheng dan an, I definitely consider them

to have remained true to tradition in developing TCM. While TCM is

often faulted for what is left out, TCM is definitely the inheritor of

zhu dan xi and fu qing zhu, etc. It is not just some modern

bastardization. However, there are obviously other valid approaches to

explore. When I explore these other approaches, TCM is usually

vindicated in at least one way. TCM foundations give one the tools to

explore the whole range of asian medicine. I have not found the reverse

to be true (eg. study koryo hand acu , then go into TCM).

 

One of my japanese teachers was not surprised at this observation. He

said china was so vast that they considered everything under the sun, at

least once. Japan was so much smaller, closed and isolated that they

were not as motivated to go off on wild tangents. They were more

conservative than china in many ways because of this isolation. The

more open a society, the more information it processes and debates. And

don't mistake conservatism for prudishness, just because they go hand in

hand in modern times. The japanese were more comfortable with touch

than the chinese confucians, so that may make them seem a very

progressive society. Yet china had plenty of bodyworkers, just outside

mainstream medicine, so perhaps the distinction is only true in the

court. The japanese were not progressives, though. If anything, they

have been more staid than the chinese, I think.

 

 

r hayden <kampo36

 

--- <TLuger wrote:

> Robert,

>

> Thank you. It appears that the lack of good kanpo

> sources in english

> has clouded this discussion. Could you give us an

> idea of what masakazu

> comments upon?

>

>

 

Ikeda has individual volumes commenting on Su Wen,

Ling Shu, Nan Jing, Shang Han Lun, and Jing Gui Yao

Lue. He translated Mai Jing into Japanese, and has

written several books on classical study. He also

co-wrote a large two-volume set on abdominal diagnosis

in kampo and acupuncture. His latest is Traditional

Acupuncture & Moxibustion Treatment (Dento- Shinkyu-

Chiryo-ho-) which is a great clinical manual,

practical treatments which are based on his patterns.

He has a study group in Japan, Kampo Inyokai (Kampo

Yin-Yang Association), and teaches for the Meridian

Therapy association.

 

Ted Kaptchuk has pointed out (in his introduction to

the Fundamentals, first edition) that TCM as laid out

in the Fundamentals is one way of putting together a

diagnostic and treatment system based on the classics

of Chinese medicine. To me, Ikeda represents another,

no less rigorous, way of thinking different from Qin

Bowei and Cheng Danan. I am not suggesting anyone

abandon their methodology and follow his, but just to

be aware that there are other interpretations of

classical material coming from East Asia.

Relativistic as it may be, if the methodology is

sound, it deserves a nod of respect.

 

His system will not replace TCM, of course, as it is

fairly abstruse and requires not only intellectual

muscle but palpatory skill. TCM is difficult enough to

learn without going into a different interpretation of

the same material (TCM is more complex in terms of

numbers of patterns, actually though Ikeda has evolved

and keeps adding stuff over the years).

 

Really, I think we are agreed on the fact that most

people find it easier to jab LI4/LV3 and give a bottle

of Xiao Yao. So I think we're on the same side in

terms of deploring lazy scholarship.

 

A personal note: when I introduced Ikeda at the Hawaii

seminar this year, I compared him to the

scholar-physicians of the Song-Jin-Yuan; a little

smile crossed his lips, I think he liked that....

 

rh

 

Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

Benefits of Kombucha:

 

Kombucha tea is mainly an immune system booster. There have been reports

of it helping lower cholesterol, blood pressure, increasing energy,

relieving symptoms of fibromyalgia, improving colitus, ridding the body of

yeast-candida, improving skin conditions ect. the list goes on and on, of

course with all natural products this takes TIME your not going to get an

immediate result.

These changes reported are from people who have been drinking it, for

someof them for years. I myself have been drinking it for about 3 months.

I have started to notice some increased energy the 1st thing I noticed

was my bowels started working better. The tea is considered to be a food.

It also is stated that if you have a problem such as candida it may well

be exasperated at first before it gets better, but to just hang in there

as this will pass. It is important to not drink too much at first 2-4

ounces and gradually build up to maybe 8-10 ounces a day over a long

period of time. Also make sure you are drinking PLENTY of water.

Regards Robin in Michigan....another newbie to the list Hi all

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.