Guest guest Posted November 4, 1999 Report Share Posted November 4, 1999 --- <zrosenberg wrote: > " " <zrosenberg > > 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). > > > Sorry if I sounded reactionary, Prof. Rosenberg. As might put it, some chords have been struck in me as well; I find myself having to defend my decisions to augment, supplement and (in the case of acumoxa) supplant my TCM training with other methods, particularly those from Japan. So my hackles get raised on a fairly regular basis, especially here in the Midwest. It is interesting to hear you and Todd point out academic trends and trends in enrollment, though the picture would seem to be a bit different in my neck of the woods. Students here seem to come less from a massage therapy background than from a nursing or other allied health background, as well as martial arts or qigong, or those with a background in humanities (including nutty people like myself). So palpatory skills and knowledge of surface anatomy are almost nil for most of my point location students, and the big challenge seems to be getting them OFF the biomedical thought track and on the TCM one. For example, in my diagnosis class last quarter I had two student volunteers act as doctor and patient and conduct an examination in front of the class. The student who acted as the doctor did a very good job, though she started to go off track in the questioning examination a little. When I opened it up to the class, asking if there was anything that she missed, any questions people wanted to ask, the whole thing went off the rails pretty quickly into other holistic modalities that people knew more about... I had to cut it off, saying that these questions were fine and all if you want to ask them in your own practice, but they have little value in establishing and eight-parameter pattern diagnosis. To me, getting people to shut off the inflow of other unrelated health paradigms and concentrate on yin-yang, qi-blood-fluids, zang-fu, etc is a much more vexing problem than whether or not to allow more or less palpation in the four exams. As I say, it seems that we should stop fighting each other over classical interpretation or how extensively we modify formulae or don't, and hold the line against the profusion of brand-name pseudo-OM therapies coming out of the woodwork... NAET springs most readily to mind... ===== regards, Robert Hayden, Dipl. Ac. kampo36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 1999 Report Share Posted November 4, 1999 Dear Robert, I can understand your frustration, certainly. Funny you should mention NAET. Students and graduates here are ga-ga about it. . . .claim it 'works' for everything. Really, it is glorified trigger-point kinesiology therapy. and Robert, what is your experience and opinion of this method? >r hayden <kampo36 > >--- <zrosenberg wrote: >> " " <zrosenberg >> >> 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). >> >> >> > >Sorry if I sounded reactionary, Prof. Rosenberg. As >Todd might put it, some chords have been struck in me >as well; I find myself having to defend my decisions >to augment, supplement and (in the case of acumoxa) >supplant my TCM training with other methods, >particularly those from Japan. So my hackles get >raised on a fairly regular basis, especially here in >the Midwest. It is interesting to hear you and Todd >point out academic trends and trends in enrollment, >though the picture would seem to be a bit different in >my neck of the woods. > >Students here seem to come less from a massage therapy >background than from a nursing or other allied health >background, as well as martial arts or qigong, or >those with a background in humanities (including nutty >people like myself). So palpatory skills and >knowledge of surface anatomy are almost nil for most >of my point location students, and the big challenge >seems to be getting them OFF the biomedical thought >track and on the TCM one. > >For example, in my diagnosis class last quarter I had >two student volunteers act as doctor and patient and >conduct an examination in front of the class. The >student who acted as the doctor did a very good job, >though she started to go off track in the questioning >examination a little. When I opened it up to the >class, asking if there was anything that she missed, >any questions people wanted to ask, the whole thing >went off the rails pretty quickly into other holistic >modalities that people knew more about... I had to cut >it off, saying that these questions were fine and all >if you want to ask them in your own practice, but they >have little value in establishing and eight-parameter >pattern diagnosis. To me, getting people to shut off >the inflow of other unrelated health paradigms and >concentrate on yin-yang, qi-blood-fluids, zang-fu, etc >is a much more vexing problem than whether or not to >allow more or less palpation in the four exams. > >As I say, it seems that we should stop fighting each >other over classical interpretation or how extensively >we modify formulae or don't, and hold the line against >the profusion of brand-name pseudo-OM therapies coming >out of the woodwork... NAET springs most readily to >mind... > > > > >===== >regards, >Robert Hayden, Dipl. Ac. >kampo36 >>Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 1999 Report Share Posted November 4, 1999 I think we all agree with your priorities and glad to hear about the type of students you have. Despite your concerns, I think the students you mention will make good practittioners someday. While you may be frustrated that they are so in their heads, the herbal traditions really demand this. Whether palpation can add something to herbology is an open point. While I do not find my practice lacking without hara dx, I have local colleagues who use it. I hear MIki Shima has a video on hara based kampo. But we all agree that intellect is necessary whatever tradition you practice and if that is lacking in a student, they will never learn it. I also think we should continue to debate the points you mention, however. They are not merely about repecting diverse positions. I am sure that this debate has gone on in japan and remains unresolved. It would shortsighted of us to just accept the differences. We are in a position not only to receive various traditions, but debate their methodology. I also am very concerned about the healthfood store style of practice many acupuncturists gravitate to. Homeopathy, tinctures and the like (please note most l.ac. are NOT trained in homeopathy lik ein California). But just because one style of kampo does not modify classical formulae is a basis for debate to me, not acceptance. As craig mentioned, these points have always been vigorously debated, yet never resolved for the whole profession. Yet individuals definitely had positions on these matters and hearing them benefited everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 1999 Report Share Posted November 4, 1999 NAET, like all kinesiology, is utter crap and I can't even look people in the face if they practice it and call themselves doing chinese medicine. Kinesiological methods have been scientifically shown to be completely unreproducible. The same practitioner is unable to get the same results on the same patient even when the method is used minutes apart. Sorry, don't have the reference for this study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 1999 Report Share Posted November 4, 1999 --- <TLuger wrote: > TLuger () > > I think we all agree with your priorities and glad > to hear about the > type of students you have. Despite your concerns, I > think the students > you mention will make good practittioners someday. They are a good bunch, and they are hungry to learn. > While you may be > frustrated that they are so in their heads, the > herbal traditions really > demand this. Agreed, I think the challenge is how to get them to focus on what is germane to diagnosing and treating according to the principles of Chinese medicine, and leaving the fad-biomedical diagnoses out of it. I won't argue with your call for debate, it is a healthy thing. While Yoshimasu To-Do- was an extremist, what he did is after all not without precedent in Chinese medicine. Basically he tried to re-invent the methodology, and it was his son and followers who redefined it in terms of qi-blood-fluids. The four examinations, repletion/vacuity, heat and cold, blood stasis, blood deficiency, tan yin and other fluid pathology, all of these are a part of contemporary Koho-. Whether the practitioners use them is another matter... I'm sure if you took a random survey of American practitioners you would walk away with the impression of a kind of " dumbed-down " TCM, no matter how learned teachers such as yourself and Profs Rosenberg and Mitchell are. Another thing that is certainly striking in Kampo is the dosage used, about one-half to one-third what is found in TCM. As I have said, Kampo is very popular in Japan, and the Japanese are rather pragmatic people (pokemon etc notwithstanding), the method must have some merit in terms of results at these dosages and with these methods. One last observation is that in looking through Shibata's book as well as Hsu book on treating cancer, it is apparent that there are some practitioners that do modify, albeit usually in an additive manner (eg Minor Bupleurum with platycodon,fritillaria, oyster shell and prunella added) or combining with another formula (eg combining Minor Bupleurum with Cinnamon and Poria). Again, while this is not as sophisticated as TCM formula modifications (I don't think anyone using Kampo would reasonably make such an assumption), it is not quite so etched in stone as one might believe. And, of course, while we debate this here, TCM is being more widely studied in Japan... and I'm very interested in what the syncretistic Japanese make from this influence. ===== regards, Robert Hayden, Dipl. Ac. kampo36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 1999 Report Share Posted November 4, 1999 --- <TLuger wrote: > TLuger () > > I think we all agree with your priorities and glad > to hear about the > type of students you have. Despite your concerns, I > think the students > you mention will make good practittioners someday. They are a good bunch, and they are hungry to learn. > While you may be > frustrated that they are so in their heads, the > herbal traditions really > demand this. Agreed, I think the challenge is how to get them to focus on what is germane to diagnosing and treating according to the principles of Chinese medicine, and leaving the fad-biomedical diagnoses out of it. I won't argue with your call for debate, it is a healthy thing. While Yoshimasu To-Do- was an extremist, what he did is after all not without precedent in Chinese medicine. Basically he tried to re-invent the methodology, and it was his son and followers who redefined it in terms of qi-blood-fluids. The four examinations, repletion/vacuity, heat and cold, blood stasis, blood deficiency, tan yin and other fluid pathology, all of these are a part of contemporary Koho-. Whether the practitioners use them is another matter... I'm sure if you took a random survey of American practitioners you would walk away with the impression of a kind of " dumbed-down " TCM, no matter how learned teachers such as yourself and Profs Rosenberg and Mitchell are. Another thing that is certainly striking in Kampo is the dosage used, about one-half to one-third what is found in TCM. As I have said, Kampo is very popular in Japan, and the Japanese are rather pragmatic people (pokemon etc notwithstanding), the method must have some merit in terms of results at these dosages and with these methods. One last observation is that in looking through Shibata's book as well as Hsu book on treating cancer, it is apparent that there are some practitioners that do modify, albeit usually in an additive manner (eg Minor Bupleurum with platycodon,fritillaria, oyster shell and prunella added) or combining with another formula (eg combining Minor Bupleurum with Cinnamon and Poria). Again, while this is not as sophisticated as TCM formula modifications (I don't think anyone using Kampo would reasonably make such an assumption), it is not quite so etched in stone as one might believe. And, of course, while we debate this here, TCM is being more widely studied in Japan... and I'm very interested in what the syncretistic Japanese make from this influence. ===== regards, Robert Hayden, Dipl. Ac. kampo36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 1999 Report Share Posted November 4, 1999 In a message dated 99-11-04 10:47:22 EST, you write: << (please note most l.ac. are NOT trained in homeopathy lik ein California). >> Most California schools do not teach homeopathy as it is not included in the scope of practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 1999 Report Share Posted November 4, 1999 Subhuti Dharmananda has pointed out that the clinical results from japan are not as impressive as from china and this may be partially dosage related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.