irritation/ was ghosts into hygiene

[Guest guest]

, pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

>

> Recently, a Blue Poppy customer complained about one of the

> ingredients in our shampoo (sodium lauryl sulphate or some other such

> thing, a pretty standard ingredient in commercial shampoos). She said

> that this ingredient is a " know irritant. " Therefore, she did not want

> to buy any shampoo with this ingredient in it.

 

SLS is commonly regarded as an irritant with no therapeutic value. It

merely provides foaming action. Many companies exclude it from their

toothpaste and shampoos. However, whether it is actually dangerous is

quite controversial. Some people claim it promotes hair loss or even

cancer. There is little evidence that this is true. I personally

avoid it just to err on the side of caution.

 

I do however agree that in a general way many herbs and therapeutic

techniques in CM are irritants in the way you describe. However, when

used towards a particular goal and balanced with other ingredients in

proper dosage, I find most people do not perceive the stimulation you

describe as irritating. In fact, when they describe a formula as

irritating, I assume something is not right in my choice and dosage.

 

As for the external techniques you mention, they are decidedly

irritating. I have used alpha hydroxy acids and loofahs on my skin and

find them very stinging and chafing, but in the end result, they are

beneficial. Same with gua sha which is quite bruising. Now this makes

me wonder whether a little perceived internal irritation from herbs

might actually be beneficial, too. No pain, no gain. It kindof

revives the debate about whether one should induce a " healing crisis "

ala naturopathy when using chinese herbs. I always thought no, except

perhaps the herxheimer's rxn in candida. But maybe this should be

reconsidered. I also often thought that healing crises occurred when

using strong attacking measures in weak patients or when the mutually

engendering patterns were not all simultaneously addressed. Perhaps

that is why the layer removing approach of homeopathy and naturopathy

is inherently " irritating " . But again,is this bad or desirable?

 

While Mark Seem has his opinion on needling technique, others support

light needling, often erroneously called japanese style. I have seen

some of my best results using light nonirritating techniques.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

With " irritation " we've got a word that

trespasses on the highly subjective territory

of pain. I think the governing principles in

dealing with the issues you raise should be:

 

1.

different patient

different place

different time

different treatment

 

and

 

2.

always operate within the tolerance of

the patient.

 

 

 

It kindof

> revives the debate about whether one should induce a " healing

crisis "

> ala naturopathy when using chinese herbs. I always thought no,

except

> perhaps the herxheimer's rxn in candida. But maybe this should be

> reconsidered.

 

According to the principles I suggest above,

it should be reconsidered with every patient.

Nor would I encourage an approach to scholarship,

research, or practice which sought to devise

one approach that should be applied to all or

even the bulk of patients.

 

Obviously, individual practitioners tend to

succeed doing some things more frequently than

others and, in time, naturally tend to repeat

those procedures which they find workable.

 

But the patient-centered approach, I believe,

should retain its position of primary importance.

 

I also often thought that healing crises occurred when

> using strong attacking measures in weak patients or when the

mutually

> engendering patterns were not all simultaneously addressed.

Perhaps

> that is why the layer removing approach of homeopathy and

naturopathy

> is inherently " irritating " . But again,is this bad or desirable?

 

Chinese medicine certainly includes this sort of

induction of a crisis in order to effect a cure.

The story of the famous physician of the Han

dynasty, Hua Tuo, illustrates this principle.

He cured an official of a disease he diagnosed correctly

as blood stasis due to emotional disorder and treated

it by inducing a state of anger in his patient that

served to expel the accumulated blood.

 

The reason we remember the story is not that it

contains a technique that we're going to want to

widely apply to patients. How many practitioners

would or have intentionally gotten their patients

raging mad in order to treat emotional disorders

that result in blood stasis? The story has survived

because it memorializes the proper attitude of

a physician in being able to respond actively

to whatever the patient presents. The sage,

says Lao Zi, has no fixed mind. And Hua

Tuo demonstrated sage-like capacities in

this story, not by knowing that it's good or

bad to irritate people, but by knowing that

that patient needed to be irritated at that time

in order to summons the body's forces and bring about

the elimination of the static blood. To act

accordingly, despite the risk to himself

Hua Tuo demonstrated another of the physician's

required traits of charcter: courage.

 

One has to know when to do what and

then have the courage to do it. A prerequisite

to both is the maintenance of a changeable

idea that can be adjusted to match the

requirements of individual situations.

 

> While Mark Seem has his opinion on needling technique, others

support

> light needling, often erroneously called japanese style. I have

seen

> some of my best results using light nonirritating techniques.

>

I'll refrain from commenting on the question

of needling techniques primarily to avoid

getting this list embroiled in an off topic

debate. But I will say that the principles

cited above apply in this domain as well.

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

 

 

What I was attempting to say was, whether or not a therapy is

" irritating " or " stimulating " is a subjective assessment on the part

of the patient or user. The underlying mechanism may be one, but it is

the subjective experiencer who labels their experience of the

mechanism as irritating, stimulating, or maybe even both. What I was

trying to get at is that I think we have to be careful not to take a

qualitatively loaded word like " irritating " and immediately have an

unexamined knee-jerk reaction to it when it comes to Chinese medical

theory and practice.

 

Secondly, since acupuncture is a multifactorial experience between the

patient and practitioner, saying that you have gotten some of your

best results from painless needling does not address the comparative

issue of whether, in a large, randomly assigned, and controlled

sample, strong or light stimulation achieves better results. In order

to determine this, one would have to somehow control not only for

significant differences in sex, age, disease condition, duration, and,

possibly, CM pattern, but also for any factors which might account for

differences in placebo effect.

 

In reality, this may not be possible. Having been involved in

comparative acupuncture research, I am fully aware of the

limitations of such attempted endeavors. But until one does such kinds

of controlled comparative studies, any assertions about the

effectiveness of this or that style of acupuncture are scientifically

(or at least experimentally) baseless. Your experiences are

fine and interesting anecdotes. However, they may have very little to

do with the presence, absence, or amount of stimulation/irritation.

They may have to do almost entirely with placebo. By placebo, I mean

ALL those co-factors that affect outcome besides CM theory and

technique and which are subumed under the will to treat on the part of

the practitioner and the will to respond to treatment on the part of

the patient, i.e., I will please/I will be pleased. Hopefully, readers

will understand that, in saying the above, I am neither belittling

your experience nor acupuncture. I am simply again raising

semantic, ontological/epistemological issues based on the words of

your response.

 

In terms of acupuncture, maybe we will never actually know/learn these

things. At this point in time, I cannot realistically foresee doing

the kind of objective(-as-possible) research to determine such things.

Maybe we also don't need to know/learn these things. However, I

thnik we at least should remember from time to time that we don't know

these things. In my experience, that takes some of the edge out of

what often are hard-edged statements of belief and makes them less

likely to be used in a doctrinaire and aggressive way.

 

Bob

 

, @i... wrote:

> , pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> >

> > Recently, a Blue Poppy customer complained about one of the

> > ingredients in our shampoo (sodium lauryl sulphate or some other

such

> > thing, a pretty standard ingredient in commercial shampoos). She

said

> > that this ingredient is a " know irritant. " Therefore, she did not

want

> > to buy any shampoo with this ingredient in it.

>

> SLS is commonly regarded as an irritant with no therapeutic value.

It

> merely provides foaming action. Many companies exclude it from

their

> toothpaste and shampoos. However, whether it is actually dangerous

is

> quite controversial. Some people claim it promotes hair loss or

even

> cancer. There is little evidence that this is true. I personally

> avoid it just to err on the side of caution.

>

> I do however agree that in a general way many herbs and therapeutic

> techniques in CM are irritants in the way you describe. However,

when

> used towards a particular goal and balanced with other ingredients

in

> proper dosage, I find most people do not perceive the stimulation

you

> describe as irritating. In fact, when they describe a formula as

> irritating, I assume something is not right in my choice and dosage.

>

> As for the external techniques you mention, they are decidedly

> irritating. I have used alpha hydroxy acids and loofahs on my skin

and

> find them very stinging and chafing, but in the end result, they are

> beneficial. Same with gua sha which is quite bruising. Now this

makes

> me wonder whether a little perceived internal irritation from herbs

> might actually be beneficial, too. No pain, no gain. It kindof

> revives the debate about whether one should induce a " healing

crisis "

> ala naturopathy when using chinese herbs. I always thought no,

except

> perhaps the herxheimer's rxn in candida. But maybe this should be

> reconsidered. I also often thought that healing crises occurred

when

> using strong attacking measures in weak patients or when the

mutually

> engendering patterns were not all simultaneously addressed. Perhaps

> that is why the layer removing approach of homeopathy and

naturopathy

> is inherently " irritating " . But again,is this bad or desirable?

>

> While Mark Seem has his opinion on needling technique, others

support

> light needling, often erroneously called japanese style. I have

seen

> some of my best results using light nonirritating techniques.

>