yin fire & dx.

[Guest guest]

[Jason] How do we know the value? Theory is theory. I don't think it

is popular now anywhere, except the Flaws circle.

 

Jim:

I am not in the " Flaws circle, " and have often disagreed with him on

issues. But I do think this is an important contribution by Flaws to

our field. The reintroduction of the Pi Wei Lun in general and yin

fire in particular is important for the very reasons you bring up---

the complicated disorders going on today: increasing incidents of

stress induced disorders, cancer, autoimmune, as well as viral and

bacterial infections. The value of this theory from the Pi Wei Lun is

that it helps explain complicated disorders, not " complicate issues. "

I think you misinterpret sophistication for complication. Things may

be looked at " much simpler " but not more accurately in complicated

cases. We need new CM medical models equal to the task.

 

When correctly applied, Pi Wei Lun theory describes an etiology,

helps explain the development of the disorder, suggests a treatment

strategy that goes beyond symptomology, and helps chart a prognosis.

8-Principles, in contrast, hardly describes more than the current

symptomatic conditions. Popularity does not guarentee insight or

effectiveness, just accessibility. I practice a Korean style of

medicine; in it, we approach problems using pulse diagnosis as the

main method of examination and look at the patient from a 5-Phases/6

Energies perspective. We view this theory from that perspective; it

may be easier to understand and appreciate in 5-Phases terminology.

 

While yin fire is not universally applicable to every condition and

Flaws' Zang-fu description of it may not allow you to fully

appreciate it, I suspect it may be the most important new medical

model brought out in the last decade.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

might quite well be the best kept secret in Chinese medicine... But

we have

to ask why it now (or ever) was not used...

D) And I will once again I say: I have never seen evidence that the

Pi wei

lun was ever a monumental book, and it was only 1 out of 8 of his

books, not

even being the most important. His theory never caught hold, maybe

for a

reason?

E) I see a theory that sounds intriguing, very very very few clinical

usages (flaws admits this), can't find any popular use ever in

history,

seems to make thing much more complicated than needed (see below),

and a man

Flaws who likes to feel special. IF this is true... IS our modern

usage of

tx not working ... Has the true and tested way been failing? If so

lets do

some real research and test some of this stuff.. otherwise just

dabbling in

yin-fire and theory and formulas seems moot.

F) Why is the yin-fire theory not discussed in any theory books

throughout

history or now? I don't find it anywhere.. I have read the BP's pi

wei lun

and the translation is atrocious, who knows what is actually being

said. I

would like to find others sources besides what Bob writes on his

website.

G) I don't believe Americans need fancy complicated dx. because they

are so

complicated...

My take is it overcomplicates issues. Things can looked at much

simpler

than this current Li Dong Yuan / include-everything in the dx trend-

(i.e.

Lv qi stag with sp qi xu with damp sinking congealing turning to heat,

damaging fluids, lets not forget the heart involvement for the heat.

And

the kidney has been weakened by the damp heat and chonicity of the

problem

so we have [lv qi stag, sp qi xu, damp-heat, heat in the heart,

kidney yin

& yang xu etc. etc.])... Just an example (not a real case).. of the

type of

dx. that seems to go along with that style... I am not saying this

is wrong

but I have never seen any of my Chinese teachers dx. like this...

They dx.

even the most complicated problems with 1 or 2 syndromes- that is it.

Creating a very focused treatment, instead of 1 herb for this 1 herb

for

that 1 herb for that etc. I am currently struggling with this

difference

myself and trying to understand both sides.

There are crazy fringe theories all through the medicine in a whole

spectrum

of sources.. Why is this one so important? History does not support

it,

modern clinic does not support it? Does it appeal to our western

complicated mind? Why would I embrace a theory that doesn't fit with

the

rest- or severely complicates things? [at this point individual

western

successful application of his theory / formulas do not interest me-

for

obvious reasons] I think it sounds cooler that it actually is...

comments?

-

 

 

 

 

 

James Ramholz

Silk Road Acupuncture Center

112 E. Laurel

Fort Collins, CO 80524-3029

(970) 482-5900 Voice

(970) 482-4681 Fax

(303) 522-3348 Cell

[Guest guest]

[Jason].. I have read the BP's pi wei > lun

> and the translation is atrocious, who knows what is actually being

> said. I

> would like to find others sources besides what Bob writes on his

> website.

 

If you don't like the Blue Poppy Pi Wei Lun translation or would like to find further info on Yin-Fire, I suggest you teach yourself to read modern medical Chinese and then go directly to the sources. Anyone who looks through the Chinese journals on a regular basis can see how frequently yin-fire is discussed in the modern medical literature. Anyone who doesn't read the Chinese literature should not complain about translations. Furthermore, even in Chinese, the Pi Wei Lun (and other important books such as the Xue Zheng Lun, Yi Lin Gai Cuo... [which were written relatively recently]) are not easy to read, understand, and interpret.

 

Simon Becker

[Guest guest]

 

jramholz [jramholz]

Monday, July 16, 2001 11:05 AM

 

Re: yin fire & dx.

 

[Jason] How do we know the value? Theory is theory. I don't think it

is popular now anywhere, except the Flaws circle.

 

Jim:

I am not in the " Flaws circle, " and have often disagreed with him on

issues. But I do think this is an important contribution by Flaws to

our field. The reintroduction of the Pi Wei Lun in general and yin

fire in particular is important for the very reasons you bring up---

the complicated disorders going on today: increasing incidents of

stress induced disorders, cancer, autoimmune, as well as viral and

bacterial infections. The value of this theory from the Pi Wei Lun is

that it helps explain complicated disorders, not " complicate issues. "

I think you misinterpret sophistication for complication.

This may very well be true... I personally just don't trust Flaws's

interpretation or the BP translation. I just don't know...

Things may

be looked at " much simpler " but not more accurately in complicated

cases. We need new CM medical models equal to the task.

 

(Jason) This is one of the main question's I am struggling with... Are we

really much more complicated and do we require new models? I believe we

should be open to new models, but am unsure of how we test these new models.

Why do asian practitioners (my experience) that see American 'complex'

patients still dx within 1 or 2 patterns...? They do not complain of the

complexity... A mentor of mine would say, " everyone has all patterns

simultaneously, and all the organs dysfunction in a predictable way (i.e.

when the Sp becomes weak damp may gather), what one needs to do is find the

one spot that when given a push will bring the patient back into harmony. "

It is easy for me to look at 90% of patients and see at least 4 organs

involved, qi and xue stag etc.. this is easy.. finding the one place within

that patient that needs a push is hard. The struggle is - DO we tx

everything we see or the ROOT/ place of best influence.

 

 

 

When correctly applied, Pi Wei Lun theory describes an etiology,

helps explain the development of the disorder, suggests a treatment

strategy that goes beyond symptomology, and helps chart a prognosis.

 

(Jason) How?

 

8-Principles, in contrast, hardly describes more than the current

symptomatic conditions.

 

(Jason) But TCM is based on much more that 8-principles...

 

Popularity does not guarentee insight or

effectiveness, just accessibility.

 

(Jason) But one of the reasons why our medicine has merit is because of

1000's of years of history.. Things stick around that work, things that

don't, fall behind.. At this point I will trust the popular vs. the fringe.

And yes the fringe might be more effective, but until that is proven why

would I invest my time in it.

 

 

While yin fire is not universally applicable to every condition and

Flaws' Zang-fu description of it may not allow you to fully

appreciate it, I suspect it may be the most important new medical

model brought out in the last decade.

 

 

(Jason) I agree, but what is applicable to every situation? Why do you

think it is the " most important new medical model? "

Is it years of research, years of historical precedence, or sounds good on

paper? I would like to appreciate it more, does someone have information

for me?

-

[Guest guest]

 

-----Original

Message-----

Simon Becker

[simonbecker]

Monday, July 16, 2001 12:16

PM

To:

 

Re:

Re: yin fire & dx.

 

[Jason].. I

have read the BP's pi wei

> lun

> and the

translation is atrocious, who knows what is actually being

>

said. I

> would

like to find others sources besides what Bob writes on his

> website.

 

If you don't

like the Blue Poppy Pi Wei Lun translation or would like to find further info

on Yin-Fire, I suggest you teach yourself to read modern medical Chinese and

then go directly to the sources.

 

 

Where are

the other sources, what texts?

 

 

Anyone who

looks through the Chinese journals on a regular basis can see how frequently

yin-fire is discussed in the modern medical literature.

 

I just

don’t agree with this… Yin-fire is

fringe… how can anyone say otherwise?

This is not to mean it is not important, but it is what it is… I believe it has its place..

 

Anyone who doesn't

read the Chinese literature should not complain about translations.

 

Why not?

Why would I have to read Chinese (be able) to complain about the translations

that our profession is using to treat peoples lives? I know what I like what I think is good/ bad and I have the

right to express that. I will

complain about bad translations that I feel might be misleading or unclear.

Why? to further raise the standard and rigor behind the quality of these translations

to help us be better doctors in the west.

Personally I find your above tone/attitude slightly disrespectable /

elitist. We don’t all have to read

Chinese to understand the medicine, read a classic text, make a judgment about

it, or use the information in it.. Reading Chinese obviously helps.. and by the

way I spend everyday teaching myself Chinese (both spoken and written) and have

been for some time, but that is besides the point…

 

 

Furthermore,

even in Chinese, the Pi Wei Lun (and other important books such as the Xue

Zheng Lun, Yi Lin Gai Cuo... [which were written relatively

recently]) are not easy to read, understand, and interpret.

 

Even more

reason to examine the translation, what BOB has said about it, and compare this

to other sources (theory) on the topic, which I currently cannot find…

 

-Jason

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Simon Becker " <simonbecker@e...>

wrote:

 

Anyone who looks

> through the Chinese journals on a regular basis can see how frequently

yin-fire

> is discussed in the modern medical literature. Furthermore,

> even in Chinese, the Pi Wei Lun (and other important books such as the Xue

Zheng

> Lun, Yi Lin Gai Cuo... [which were written relatively

> recently]) are not easy to read, understand, and interpret.

 

Simon

 

thanks for an independant verification of the importance accorded this

theory in the latest medical journals. People need to remember that

many of our esteemed teachers from China were trained during a very

politically and philosophically restrictive period in chinese history.

If they have not kept up with the latest trends, they are bound to be

biased. It is for the same reason that medical doctors cannot accept

alternative medicine. they are invested in the models they have

trained in and to abandon them is to lose face. It takes a strong, yet

humble, ego to admit that you don't know everything and expand one's

horizons. As for Jason's impression that his Chinese teachers treat

complex diseases by addressing only one or two patterns, I can only

reiterate that my teacher did the opposite and her results were

impressive.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <@o...> wrote:

>

 

>

>

> Anyone who looks through the Chinese journals on a regular basis can see how

> frequently yin-fire is discussed in the modern medical literature.

>

> I just don't agree with this. Yin-fire is fringe. how can anyone say

> otherwise?

 

Jason

 

Simon actually reads the journals regularly. Do you? What is your

basis for disagreeing? If someone has led you to this bias, why not

ask that person to prove his or her position? I am sure Simon would be

glad to provide you with a few references and Bob has posted several in

his recent BP online journals.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <@o...> wrote:

>

Why do asian practitioners (my experience) that see American 'complex'

> patients still dx within 1 or 2 patterns...? They do not complain of the

> complexity... A mentor of mine would say, " everyone has all patterns

> simultaneously, and all the organs dysfunction in a predictable way (i.e.

> when the Sp becomes weak damp may gather), what one needs to do is find the

> one spot that when given a push will bring the patient back into harmony. "

 

Jason

 

I just do not think what you say is correct of chinese docs at PCOM. I

only know one teacher who uses the method you suggest in clinical

practice and the rest treat multiple patterns in complex chronic

diseases. And yes, our illnesses are more complex than those in china

up until recently because of our lifestyle and diet, etc. It is not

surprising that yin fire theory is more prominent in china as they

westernize and begin to have diseases more like our own. For instance

type 2 diabetes was rarely seen in china when I wrote a paper on it in

the early nineties. Now it is escalating rapidly.

 

the idea of pushing in one spot to restore harmony sounds appealing but

how do you reconcile that with the fact the many tx approaches easily

exacerbate coexisting patterns? Spleen tonics aggravate heat and qi

stag. Bitter cooling agents weaken the spleen. Yin tonics cause

dampness and qi regulators burn the yin. Many of us spent years using

the approach you advocate and found it a futile circle of endless

symptom chasing. And those same ones of us have found yin fire theory

to provide solutions to very recalcitrant illnesses. Even if yin xu is

the core of a dx, lets say hypothetically, I have never seen a case

successfully treated by merely using yin tonics when spleen xu, qi stag

and phlegm also coexist.

 

[Guest guest]

On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 03:00 PM, (AT) inetarena (DOT) com wrote:

 

 

>

>

>

>

> the idea of pushing in one spot to restore harmony sounds appealing but

> how do you reconcile that with the fact the many tx approaches easily

> exacerbate coexisting patterns?  Spleen tonics aggravate heat and qi

> stag.  Bitter cooling agents weaken the spleen.  Yin tonics cause

> dampness and qi regulators burn the yin.  Many of us spent years using

> the approach you advocate and found it a futile circle of endless

> symptom chasing.  And those same ones of us have found yin fire theory

> to provide solutions to very recalcitrant illnesses.  Even if yin xu is

> the core of a dx, lets say hypothetically, I have never seen a case

> successfully treated by merely using yin tonics when spleen xu, qi stag

> and phlegm also coexist.

>

 

>

is correct. I also found using the approach Jason describes to be useless in treating chronic disease, basically chasing symptoms.

 

 

 

>

>

>

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

C) I don't think it is popular now anywhere, except the Flaws circle... Itmight quite well be the best kept secret in Chinese medicine... But we haveto ask why it now (or ever) was not used...>>>Some of my teachers rediculted it as a theory for Dr that cant make a diagnosis.

Alon

[Guest guest]

I think were Yin fire is helpful is in giving permission to mix patterns when it is difficult to be a truly skilful Dr (which is often easier said than done)

Alon

[Guest guest]

 

 

Monday, July 16, 2001 2:50 PM

 

Re: yin fire & dx.

 

 

 

Jason

 

Simon actually reads the journals regularly. Do you? What is your

basis for disagreeing?

I do regularly read journals (although in English) and have never seen a

yin-fire article. Granted I do not read as much as probably Simon... But

some of my Chinese teachers do read current Chinese journals- and they also

agree of the obscurity- this is my basis.

If someone has led you to this bias, why not

ask that person to prove his or her position?

Why should I (or them) have to prove something we don't see, more realistic

is for you (or Simon) to prove something 'you see'. We don't see the

references

I am sure Simon would be

glad to provide you with a few references

 

Gladly, that is what I am asking..

and Bob has posted several in

his recent BP online journals.

Bob even mentions that the references are few and far between, correct? My

point is not that there are ANY references to yin-fire.. there is... but

that there are very few.... Meaning that it is not used very frequently.

That is it. I would like to read more, and not from Flaws's website.

 

-

[Guest guest]

 

 

Monday, July 16, 2001 2:50 PM

 

Re: yin fire & dx.

 

 

 

Jason

 

Simon actually reads the journals regularly. Do you? What is your

basis for disagreeing?

 

 

(Jason) I do regularly read journals (although in English) and have never

seen a yin-fire article. Granted I do not read as much as probably Simon...

But some of my Chinese teachers do read current Chinese journals- and they

also agree of the obscurity- this is my basis.

 

 

If someone has led you to this bias, why not

ask that person to prove his or her position?

 

 

(Jason) Why should I (or them) have to prove something we don't see, more

realistic is for you (or Simon) to prove something 'you see'. We don't see

the references

 

 

I am sure Simon would be

glad to provide you with a few references

 

(Jason) Gladly, that is what I am asking..

and Bob has posted several in

his recent BP online journals.

 

 

(Jason) Bob even mentions that the references are few and far between,

correct? My point is not that there are ANY references to yin-fire.. there

is... but that there are very few.... Meaning that it is not used very

frequently. That is it. I would like to read more, and not from Flaws's

website.

 

-

[Guest guest]

>>>>>Why not? Why would I have to read Chinese (be able) to complain about the translations that our profession is using to treat peoples lives? I know what I like what I think is good/ bad and I have the right to express that. I will complain about bad translations that I feel might be misleading or unclear. Why? to further raise the standard and rigor behind the quality of these translations to help us be better doctors in the west. Personally I find your above tone/attitude slightly disrespectable / elitist. We dont all have to read Chinese to understand the medicine, read a classic text, make a judgment about it, or use the in!

formation in it.. Reading Chinese obviously helps.. and by the way I spend everyday teaching myself Chinese (both spoken and written) and have been for some time, but that is besides the point<<<<<

 

Jason,

 

I feel that if you don't read the Chinese literature, then you cannot really judge if something is a good or bad translation. I read the literature and I, for one, find most of Blue Poppy's material excellent translations. This does not mean it is easy to read - because the Chinese source texts are not easy to read either.

 

As for the fact the yin fire is a fringe theory, I could readily list several articles which discuss yin fire or its treatment principles which have appeared in the few journals I get; there are probably about 30 or 40 of these journals published monthly or bi-monthly in China.

 

I agree with Jason that the Chinese may only diagnose the patient with one or two patterns - but then look at their formulas. These formulas account for the other 3 or 4 complicating patterns. And here I have to aggree with Todd: judge a practitioner's thinking not by what he or she says but rather by what type of formulas he or she prescribes. And you will find the principles inherent in the application of prescription according to the yin-fire theory over and over again. And that's what Bob has been saying also. He looks at different theories which treat complicated diseases (Gu theory developed in the English language by H. Fruehhauf, for example) and tries to show how they also use these same principles of medicinal prescriptions. Although I am not yet sure if I agree on each!

of these comparisons, I think that the clinical applicability of the yin fire principles are greatly important and simply neccessary for good results in the treatment of most chronic disorders.

 

To address your concern why this theory is not addressed in any textbook, I have to ask which texts you looking in? Yin fire has not been around in the English language for very long. For example, newer textbooks, such as Flaws and Lake's Psychiatry text, address it. Remember, Chinese medicine has only been around in this country for roughly 30 years; herbal medicine much less than that. Translation of material is slow.

 

Also, even though it has been Bob who has expanded on the yin fire theory and made it available to the non-Chinese readers, it is not necesarily him who found it. The treatment principles inherent in this theory were first recognized and discussed as such by Chip Chace.

 

As for my tone, I didn't find your initial e-mail exactly humble either.

 

Simon Becker

[Guest guest]

Alon,

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that Yin huo

theory is just a mix of patterns used as default if one is not skilled

enough for the case? If so, please explain.

Kip Roseman

 

 

> [Original Message]

> <alonmarcus

>

> 7/16/01 8:54:55 PM

> Re: Re: yin fire & dx.

>

> I think were Yin fire is helpful is in giving permission to mix patterns

when it is difficult to be a truly skilful Dr (which is often easier said

than done)

> Alon

>

 

 

 

--- Joseph Roseman

--- kipr0823

--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.

[Guest guest]

, <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I think were Yin fire is helpful is in giving permission to mix patterns when

it is difficult to be a truly skilful Dr (which is often easier said than done)

> Alon

 

I think it takes incredible skill to prioritize the patterns and

appropriately balance the formula to address the myriad patterns. If

one just throws in herbs for every pattern one sees, then results will

be poor. It is the weighing of the treatment priciples that takes

skill. I underscore Simon. Look at the formulas, not the diagnoses

and you will generally see mutiple patterns treated at once by almost

all Chinese docs I have worked with (and this would be about 15 fairly

closely over the years). As for the way chinese doctors disparage each

others methods, I don't even want to tackle that one except to say that

we should not go down this path.

 

[Guest guest]

Good point, Todd.

-Kip

 

 

> [Original Message]

> <

>

> 7/16/01 10:18:48 PM

> Re: yin fire & dx.

>

> , <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > I think were Yin fire is helpful is in giving permission to mix

patterns when it is difficult to be a truly skilful Dr (which is often

easier said than done)

> > Alon

>

> I think it takes incredible skill to prioritize the patterns and

> appropriately balance the formula to address the myriad patterns. If

> one just throws in herbs for every pattern one sees, then results will

> be poor. It is the weighing of the treatment priciples that takes

> skill. I underscore Simon. Look at the formulas, not the diagnoses

> and you will generally see mutiple patterns treated at once by almost

> all Chinese docs I have worked with (and this would be about 15 fairly

> closely over the years). As for the way chinese doctors disparage each

> others methods, I don't even want to tackle that one except to say that

> we should not go down this path.

>

 

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare

practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics

specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional

services, including board approved online continuing education.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

[Jason] I believe we should be open to new models, but am unsure of

how we test these new models.

 

[Jim] Chinese medicine is not complete, so testing new models

requires understanding their application and using them. Just like in

any other area of study, when new theories are proposed or new

insights are found, new case studies are tried and discussion should

follow. It should be reproducible. Even though nothing I teach in

pulses or in theory is easily understood or utilized, I expect my

students to be able to learn it and do it.

 

[Jason] Why do Asian practitioners (my experience) that see

American 'complex' patients still dx within 1 or 2 patterns...?

They do not complain of the complexity... A mentor of mine would

say, " everyone has all patterns

simultaneously, and all the organs dysfunction in a predictable way

(i.e. when the Sp becomes weak damp may gather), what one needs to do

is find the one spot that when given a push will bring the patient

back into harmony. " It is easy for me to look at 90% of patients and

see at least 4 organs involved, qi and xue stag etc.. this is easy..

finding the one place within that patient that needs a push is

hard. The struggle is - DO we tx everything we see or the ROOT/

place of best influence.

 

[Jim] What else are they prepared to do? We can't fault them----or

even MDs for that matter----for being trained in a methodology and

expect them not to use it. The " one spot " method works because the

patient's immune system and other regulatory systems are actually

doing the work. The more interesting question is " If it doesn't work,

what is happening in and to the body? " How do we explain it, how do

we try something else? Why would there be a struggle between deciding

to treat the Root or branch? Do both.

 

[Jason] You say " When correctly applied, Pi Wei Lun theory describes

an etiology, helps explain the development of the disorder, suggests

a treatment strategy that goes beyond symptomology, and helps chart

a prognosis. " How?

 

[Jim] Actually it's by using 5-Phases that we can calculate

predictions in CM. It is the best model for calculating time. In some

of the classic literature, like the Mai Jing, some example

predictions are made (unfortunately, most of them are death

predictions).

 

[Jason] But one of the reasons why our medicine has merit is because

of 1000's of years of history. Things stick around that work, things

that don't, fall behind.. At this point I will trust the popular vs.

the fringe. And yes the fringe might be more effective, but until

that is proven why would I invest my time in it.

 

[Jim] " Fringe " is a charged word, emotionally; you can also say yin

fire is " cutting edge " (except for the fact its a few hundred years

old), or its time has come again. Things may fall behind for a

variety of reasons. Any new or under utilized theory may expand on

our current knowledge base and account for ideas, phenomena, or

information not previously expressed or accounted for.

What justifies your trust not only in our system but any system

of medicine is its coherence, what Western scientists consider " an

intellectual coherence that includes consistency with all the

experiences and expectations founded on it, the fulfillment of

precise, far-reaching predictions implied by it, and the functioning

of all the technology built on its basis. " The quote is from Roger

Newton in his book, " Thinking About Physics " (Princeton University

Press, 2000), but is equally applicable to how we should think about

what we're doing. The cultural boundaries between Chinese and Western

are no longer clearly defined---here or in China. The notions that

Chinese medicine can be " explained " by Western science or that

Chinese medical analogies used in place of theories are somehow a

deeper understanding of reality, are both fallacious.

 

[Jason] I agree, but what is applicable to every situation? Why do

you think it is the " most important new medical model? "

 

[Jim] I think it's the most important model for TCM (which I identify

with 8-Principles and Zang-fu theory), the predominant style of CM

taught in America. It opens up the discussion for other classical

theories like 5-Phases which is far less utilized. I'm not sure any

one theory is applicable to " every situation " ---possibly 5-Phases

because it comes closest to my interest in incorporating contemporary

scientific models based on dynamic self-organization systems far from

equilibrium.

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Thanx for your clear response…

 

Simon, since you have access to much greater material then I, could you

(or others) help me with this one…

I have read pi wei lun (yin fire) discussions… I have read Bob’s spin on it. Although Bob uses many of the same words, his articles (to

me) do not sound like Dr. Li’s understanding. Is this just his interpretation? or my misunderstanding of the pi wei lun, or a difficult

translation…Or is Bob getting other outside ideas… this is what I am looking

for…

And this is my core problem with the theory…Not the actual theory…but It’s

western application seems to be solely based on Bob’s interpretation. I can not trust him enough, and when I

read the pi weil lun I get something different… I do not have the Chinese

characters… can anyone help?

 

-Jason

 

-----Original

Message-----

Simon Becker

[simonbecker]

Monday, July 16, 2001 8:50

PM

To:

 

RE:

Re: yin fire & dx.

 

>>>>>Why not? Why would I have to read

Chinese (be able) to complain about the translations that our profession is

using to treat peoples lives? I

know what I like what I think is good/ bad and I have the right to express

that. I will complain about bad

translations that I feel might be misleading or unclear. Why? to further raise

the standard and rigor behind the quality of these translations to help us be

better doctors in the west.

Personally I find your above tone/attitude slightly disrespectable /

elitist. We dont all have to read

Chinese to understand the medicine, read a classic text, make a judgment about

it, or use the in! formation in it.. Reading Chinese obviously helps.. and by

the way I spend everyday teaching myself Chinese (both spoken and written) and

have been for some time, but that is besides the point<<<<<

 

Jason,

 

I feel that if you don't read the Chinese

literature, then you cannot really judge if something is a good or bad

translation. I read the literature and I, for one, find most of Blue

Poppy's material excellent translations. This does not mean it is easy to

read - because the Chinese source texts are not easy to read either.

 

As for the fact the yin fire is a fringe

theory, I could readily list several articles which discuss yin fire or its

treatment principles which have appeared in the few journals I get; there are

probably about 30 or 40 of these journals published monthly or bi-monthly

in China.

 

I agree with Jason that the Chinese may

only diagnose the patient with one or two patterns - but then look at their

formulas. These formulas account for the other 3 or 4 complicating

patterns. And here I have to aggree with Todd: judge a

practitioner's thinking not by what he or she says but rather by what type of

formulas he or she prescribes. And you will find the principles inherent

in the application of prescription according to the yin-fire theory over and

over again. And that's what Bob has been saying also. He looks at

different theories which treat complicated diseases (Gu theory developed in the

English language by H. Fruehhauf, for example) and tries to show how they also

use these same principles of medicinal prescriptions. Although I am not

yet sure if I agree on each! of these comparisons, I think that the clinical

applicability of the yin fire principles are greatly important and simply

neccessary for good results in the treatment of most chronic disorders.

 

To address your concern why this theory

is not addressed in any textbook, I have to ask which texts you looking

in? Yin fire has not been around in the English language for very

long. For example, newer textbooks, such as Flaws and Lake's Psychiatry

text, address it. Remember, Chinese medicine has only been around in this

country for roughly 30 years; herbal medicine much less than that.

Translation of material is slow.

 

Also, even though it has been Bob who has

expanded on the yin fire theory and made it available to the non-Chinese

readers, it is not necesarily him who found it. The treatment principles

inherent in this theory were first recognized and discussed as such by Chip

Chace.

 

As for my tone, I didn't find your

initial e-mail exactly humble either.

 

Simon Becker

 

The Chinese Herb

Academy, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners,

matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal

Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved

online continuing education.

 

 

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

 

-----Original

Message-----

Simon Becker

[simonbecker]

Monday, July 16, 2001 8:50

PM

To:

 

RE:

Re: yin fire & dx.

 

 

 

To address your concern why this theory

is not addressed in any textbook, I have to ask which texts you looking

in? Yin fire has not been around in the English language for very

long. For example, newer textbooks, such as Flaws and Lake's Psychiatry

text, address it. Remember, Chinese medicine has only been around in this

country for roughly 30 years; herbal medicine much less than that.

Translation of material is slow.

 

 

The text books I am referring to are of course English books (I feel

flaws’s doesn’t count).. and I numerous of those translations of Chinese text

books from shaghai etc. (both characters and English included) that are used in

the schools. So are you saying

that the newer Chinese textbooks contain this theory? Are they now teaching it in the universities in China?

 

-

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

First off, let me say that I don't quite understand why you don't trust Bob's translation on this. Many of his articles on Yin fire are merely direct translations from Chinese journal articles - Bob in these cases is only the messenger. Furthermore, he is certainly one of the greatest Western scholars of Chinese medicine, regardless if you like his style of teaching/personality or not. Let this not confuse the issue.

The yin fire theory exists in the Chinese language as Bob presents it in his articles. Proof of this are not only direct article translations but also the many formulas Li Dong-yuan prescribed throughout all of his books, not only the Pi Wei Lun. An analysis of these formulas reveals the treatment principles used and therefore give the template for the theory. Again, I have to say that it was not Bob who first identified these treatment principles (the five treatment principles necessary for yin fire patterns). Rather, it was Chip Chace who first listed them in English during research for his Breathless seminar, I believe. So trust Bob or not, he did not initially introduce this theory.

But he expanded on it. And he did this based on clinical experience (yin fire formulas really do work in practice, try it) and research in the Chinese literature. Reading the Pi Wei Lun and understanding its meaning is a very difficult task. And as I have stated in the last post, these books are very difficult to read even for Chinese scholars. So, there has to be some type of interpretations of certain ideas put forth by Li Dong-yuan.

Personally, I am open to all interpretations as long as they are soundly rooted in the Chinese literature and seem to work or have some practicality in clinical practice. Yin fire is a theory widely (or fairly widely) discussed in the Chinese literature, Bob's interpretations are not his own spin off but rather soundly rooted in many translations on the subject, and the theory is clinically no doubt of great importance and great practicality.

I would further like to point out that the yin fire theory was not only a quick Li Dong-yuan idea which then died. Zhu Dan-xi used most of Li Dong-yuan's ideas and added yin supplementing medicinals. This style of medicine is called Li-Zhu medicine. To underscore how important even the Chinese think this style is, consider that there exist at least 2 anthologies of Li-Zhu medicine in China. An analysis of most formulas of Li-Zhu medicine reveals the use of yin fire theory, even if that is not always explicitly stated.

 

Simon Becker

 

 

 

7/17/2001 11:09:53 AM

RE: Re: yin fire & dx.

 

 

Thanx for your clear response…

 

Simon, since you have access to much greater material then I, could you (or others) help me with this one…

I have read pi wei lun (yin fire) discussions… I have read Bob’s spin on it. Although Bob uses many of the same words, his articles (to me) do not sound like Dr. Li’s understanding. Is this just his interpretation? or my misunderstanding of the pi wei lun, or a difficult translation…Or is Bob getting other outside ideas… this is what I am looking for…

And this is my core problem with the theory…Not the actual theory…but It’s western application seems to be solely based on Bob’s interpretation. I can not trust him enough, and when I read the pi weil lun I get something different… I do not have the Chinese characters… can anyone help?

 

-Jason

 

Simon Becker [simonbecker]Monday, July 16, 2001 8:50 PM Subject: RE: Re: yin fire & dx.

 

>>>>>Why not? Why would I have to read Chinese (be able) to complain about the translations that our profession is using to treat peoples lives? I know what I like what I think is good/ bad and I have the right to express that. I will complain about bad translations that I feel might be misleading or unclear. Why? to further raise the standard and rigor behind the quality of these translations to help us be better doctors in the west. Personally I find your above tone/attitude slightly disrespectable / elitist. We dont all have to read Chinese to understand the medicine, read a classic text, make a judgm!

ent about it, or use the in! formation in it.. Reading Chinese obviously helps.. and by the way I spend everyday teaching myself Chinese (both spoken and written) and have been for some time, but that is besides the point<<<<<

 

Jason,

 

I feel that if you don't read the Chinese literature, then you cannot really judge if something is a good or bad translation. I read the literature and I, for one, find most of Blue Poppy's material excellent translations. This does not mean it is easy to read - because the Chinese source texts are not easy to read either.

 

As for the fact the yin fire is a fringe theory, I could readily list several articles which discuss yin fire or its treatment principles which have appeared in the few journals I get; there are probably about 30 or 40 of these journals published monthly or bi-monthly in China.

 

I agree with Jason that the Chinese may only diagnose the patient with one or two patterns - but then look at their formulas. These formulas account for the other 3 or 4 complicating patterns. And here I have to aggree with Todd: judge a practitioner's thinking not by what he or she says but rather by what type of formulas he or she prescribes. And you will find the principles inherent in the application of prescription according to the yin-fire theory over and over again. And that's what Bob has been saying also. He looks at different theories which treat complicated diseases (Gu theory developed in the English language by H. Fruehhauf, for example) and tries to show how they also use these same principles of medicinal prescriptions. Althou!

gh I am not yet sure if I agree on each! of these comparisons, I think that the clinical applicability of the yin fire principles are greatly important and simply neccessary for good results in the treatment of most chronic disorders.

 

To address your concern why this theory is not addressed in any textbook, I have to ask which texts you looking in? Yin fire has not been around in the English language for very long. For example, newer textbooks, such as Flaws and Lake's Psychiatry text, address it. Remember, Chinese medicine has only been around in this country for roughly 30 years; herbal medicine much less than that. Translation of material is slow.

 

Also, even though it has been Bob who has expanded on the yin fire theory and made it available to the non-Chinese readers, it is not necesarily him who found it. The treatment principles inherent in this theory were first recognized and discussed as such by Chip Chace.

 

As for my tone, I didn't find your initial e-mail exactly humble either.

 

Simon Becker

Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

>>>>The text books I am referring to are of course English books (I feel flaws’s doesn’t count).. and I numerous of those translations of Chinese text books from shaghai etc. (both characters and English included) that are used in the schools. So are you saying that the newer Chinese textbooks contain this theory? Are they now teaching it in the universities in China?

 

-<<<<<

 

Yin fire theory is not taught at an undergraduate level and so it does not appear in any undergraduate textbooks. However, these theories are discussed in anthologies and commentaries on Li Zhu medicine which are studied by graduate students specializing in such subjects. (See earlier post for further explanations). And why does Bob and James's book not count? It is one of the best texts I have ever seen.

 

Simon Becker

 

[Guest guest]

, " Simon Becker " <simonbecker@e...>

wrote:

>

Bob in these

> cases is only the messenger. Furthermore, he is certainly one of the

> greatest Western scholars of Chinese medicine, regardless if you like his

style

> of teaching/personality or not. Let this not confuse the

> issue.

 

And this is the crux. Many people dismiss Bob's words because they

don't like his style or personality. this is very shortsighted.

Others dismiss him because he is not chinese and they are being

territorial. It really comes down to formula analysis. If you study

the formulas, you see the patterns of prescriptions. therein , the

truth is revealed.

 

I have been analyzing the prescriptions of 3 chinese docs at PCOM all

day and also querying students about docs who I am less familiar with.

I revise my earlier statement. Every chinese doc at PCOM writes

formulas that address 4-5 tx principles per case. regardless of

diagnosis, which indeed is often just two patterns, this multiple

pattern prescribing holds true in 100% of about 50 random files I have

checked. So again, to prove me wrong, show me chronic cases where this

is not the case.

 

todd

[Guest guest]

Simon says..... " . And he did this based on clinical experience (yin

fire formulas really do work in practice, try it) "

 

Simon,

Is there any chance you could submit a yin fire case history for the

journal over here?

 

Heiko

[Guest guest]

>

> I think it takes incredible skill to prioritize the patterns and

> appropriately balance the formula to address the myriad patterns.

 

>

>

 

before you get completely lost in the muck, always remember to prioritize

the chief complaint!!

Cara

[Guest guest]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that Yin huotheory is just a mix of patterns used as default if one is not skilledenough for the case? If so, please explain

>>>>>My SH teachers used to say that if one grasps the main principle (formula) than no additions to the classical formula is needed and they often used small formulas and made fun of practitioners using large, multiple pricple formulas. However the so called grasping the main disease principal is easier said than done. Having major TCM thinkers (Li Dong) using a system that often use so many complex and conflicting herbs such as cold and hot, drying and moistening etc makes it easyer to write such formulas (ie makes it more expectable).

But again, some of my teachers especially the SH said that most of the time if one treats the patient true condition than all the so called other manifestations such as Yin fire (or Yang within Yin) would take care of themselves

Alon

 

-

Joseph Roseman

Monday, July 16, 2001 9:58 PM

Re: Re: yin fire & dx.

Alon, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that Yin huotheory is just a mix of patterns used as default if one is not skilledenough for the case? If so, please explain. Kip Roseman> [Original Message]> <alonmarcus> > 7/16/01 8:54:55 PM> Re: Re: yin fire & dx.>> I think were Yin fire is helpful is in giving permission to mix patternswhen it is difficult to be a truly skilful Dr (which is often easier saidthan done)> Alon> --- Joseph Roseman--- kipr0823--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.