patterns

[Guest guest]

But pulmonary anthrax is almost always fatal, so it makes sense to consider what we might do, at least for our families and friend if this happened. But to me, the larger question is why is it wrong to treat new diseases based upon symptom sign complexes they resemble?

>>>>I have no problem with experimentation. But one needs to be very clear that that is what is going on.

 

What is a disease from the TCM perspective other than its manifestations? As long as one makes correct pattern dx, one should be able to improve the patient's health.

>>>>>>>That is were the problem leis. It is a fallacy and over simplification. Finding a pattern does not always help the patient. I do not know how many of you have had the chance treating acute life threatening diseases. But when I was in China it became very clear to me that many serious disease such as acute abdominal syndromes may require a different understanding than just TCM pattern recognition, as well as, even in the best trained hands just following pattern recognition of TCM is not always safe. I have seen patients die. Even with the tremendous amount of historical information on TCM there is still much that in not understood.

Alon

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

Well put.

 

A common mistake is to give up the near to

seek the far.

 

Chinese medicine first and foremost identifies

patterns of disharmony. Disharmony of what?

Yin1 yang2 and qi4.

 

How can it be wrong to understand and treat

any condition that a patient is in by means

of these fundamentals?

 

Problems set in when there is a substantial

disconnect between the fundamentals and the

derivative theories and methods. And this

disconnect, as has been belabored here and

elsewhere, stems from the omission of linguistic

access. As long as people do not come to terms

with the meanings of the words themselves

they will have difficulties applying the

more complicated tools that are built from

the words and concepts. And those who rely

upon others' interpretations of the words

and concepts paint themselves into a corner.

 

It may be a relatively comfortable corner now...

temporarily, but when pressed for appropriate responses to

non-textbook conditions, the ill-prepared

will probably not respond capably.

 

The fact of the involvement of medical

practitioners in life-or-death situations

underscores the need for being well

prepared. And the recent attacks on

the United States, which is why we are

now talking about anthrax, have made

us all suddenly aware that things can

go substantially worse than they now are.

 

 

> So whether we are talking about the similarity

> of anthrax to wen bing or lily disease to early stage parkinsons in

some

> cases, what other process do we have than pattern differentiation?

 

I don't think it's a matter of " other " as in

something to use instead of. I think it's a

matter of additional, for example pathomechanisms.

 

Issue #4 of CAOM will have both an informative

piece on pathomechanisms by one of China's leading

scholars on the subject as well as additional

material that addresses the more fundamental

issues of how we can fortify the foundations

of the subject.

 

I know many fine doctors in China whose

discourse about what they think and

perceive and do about cases is almost

entirely limited to mention of yin1 yang2

and qi4 and blood. They refer to other theories

as needed to refine a perception or

a strategy for treatment.

 

But the theories are not intended as

a substitute for a solid grasp of what

the most basic terms mean and suggest

as to how to treat patients...no matter

what their condition.

 

 

Can you or I or anyone using Chinese

medical means and substances alone save the

life of someone infected with Anthrax?

Probably not. But people with severe

conditions are routinely saved, despite

that fact that many are not.

 

This was one of the most compelling lessons

in the subject that I learned in Chinese

clinics and hospitals, although it took

years, literally, before it sank in.

Doctors of traditional medicine there

treat everything that walks in the door

using, for the most part, only the rudiments

and in conditions that most foreigners find

frankly daunting.

 

This is what led me to consider how

enormously powerful these rudimentary

concepts are and how devastating is

the effect when they are undermined.

 

It really matters when you have a patient

dying in front of you.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Your points are very well taken here, Todd.

 

I don't have a problem with applying SHL , Wen Bing or any other immunological map to the treatment of anthrax or anything else. It was just the presentation of the material in Will's e-mail post, which may not have been intentional, which made it appear as if there was a definitive approach to this disease. Will later stated that one of his teachers provided him with the material, giving a source for his SHL discussion. I think that e-mail clarified things somewhat for me.

 

What is missing largely from the English language CM literature are any of the voluminous case history texts written throughout the history of Chinese medicine, where we may get a sense of how real Chinese physicians dealt with epidemic diseases. It doesn't concern me so much about whether we have 'permission' to treat serious infectious disease, I have treated some myself (pneumonias and the like), it concerns me that we are prepared for the job so that the patient gets better.

 

I read Bob Flaw's point as being that perhaps, as a profession, we are not always prepared to treat what we think we can. This doesn't mean we can't, just that we need to prepare as carefully as possible, and know our strengths and limitations.

 

As far as your point on using pattern differentiation on Western diseases and treating the pattern, I think this topic will be a good one for further discussion. Although this is my point of view, there are exceptions. Many acute epidemic diseases have specific treatments in the Chinese literature, because the disease evil is so powerful that differentiation according to individuals is more of a secondary concern.

 

 

On Saturday, September 22, 2001, at 01:22 PM,

 

 

> The discussion of anthrax was timely for me because I had been planning to post on one of the issues that came up during this discussion.  Alon has made it clear that he is uncomfortable with treating an illness with TCM just because we can find symptom sign complex that resembles the manifestations of the disease in a given patient.  Bob is concerned whether we should go down this road because there is no reference to anthrax in CM lit he has access to.  Z'ev has sided with Alon in the past when discussing the pattern differentiation of western diseases, such as presented in many modern TCM texts.  Yet Z'ev and Bob have also long been advocates of treating presenting patterns even if no western diagnosis is available.  We merely study chinese bing that match one or more of the chief manifestations and proceed from there.  Now, I wouldn't try and treat anthrax unless conventional therapy had no chance of success.  But pulmonary anthrax is almost always fatal, so it makes sense to consider what we might do, at least for our families and friend if this happened.  But to me, the larger question is why is it wrong to treat new diseases based upon symptom sign complexes they resemble?  I mean the use of formulas like xiao chai hu tang has been successfully expanded to treat far more than the condition originally described by zhang zhong jing (whatever it may have been).  This expansion is based upon applying the formula to the pattern it treats without regard for the named disease.  thus, it is used for mental disorders, menstrual complaints, prostate problems, hepatitis, malaria, etc.

>

> What is a disease from the TCM perspective other than its manifestations?  As long as one makes correct pattern dx, one should be able to improve the patient's health.  I think a lot of this debate uses the straw man technique, in which one debates a point that no one is making and then knocks down the straw man and claims victory.  This came  up when Bob's TCM Psych book was released and will no doubt surface again when BP releases their modern western diseases book.  The straw man is the equation of diseases one to one with patterns.  We saw a lot of this during the early days of treatment of AIDS with TCM.  People laid out competing theories that claimed AIDS was a form of Cold Damage or a Hidden Warm Evil or Jing vacuity or yin vacuity or spleen vacuity, each proponent insisting that their model was correct.  Yet the actual point that is made in well done books like those from BP is that NO textbook pattern will FIT a real live patient.  Textbooks basically plot points on a continuum.  They are static.  Patients are dynamic.  We use the static info from books to guide us in creating unique formulas for our dynamic patients.  What is the difference between defining the continuum of possibilities for a western disease in a textbook by analyzing possible S/S complexes that resemble the typical manifestations or analyzing the S/S complex of a given patient and choosing herbs to match the pattern.  I don't understand how you can argue for the latter and against the former.  Or should we just not treat diseases that have not been actually researched in modern China?  The purpose of a text is to provide an easily accessed compilation of patterns that resemble a disease.  It serves no other purpose than to provide at one's fingertips what one would otherwise spend hours doing on their own each time.  So whether we are talking about the similarity of anthrax to wen bing or lily disease to early stage parkinsons in some cases, what other process do we have than pattern differentiation?

>  

>

> --

> Chinese Herbs

>

> VOICE:  (858) 946-0070

> FAX:  (858) 946-0067

>

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

Can you or I or anyone using Chinesemedical means and substances alone save thelife of someone infected with Anthrax?Probably not. But people with severeconditions are routinely saved, despitethat fact that many are not.This was one of the most compelling lessonsin the subject that I learned in Chineseclinics and hospitals, although it tookyears, literally, before it sank in.Doctors of traditional medicine there treat everything that walks in the door using, for the most part, only the rudimentsand in conditions that most foreigners findfrankly daunting.>>>>Ken have you spent much time in the critical care departments.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

Not a great deal. From 92 - 98 I apprenticed in

various wards of a few hospitals in Chengdu,

including long term cancer wards, and critical

care facilities treating a variety of conditions

such as strokes, heart attacks, traumatic

injuries, and so on. I've watched people

die despite the most valiant efforts to

save them.

 

Because of the relatively close cooperation

(compared to the situation in the States)

between the TCM docs and the modern bio-medical

docs, there are now and then situations where

patients who don't respond to one approach

are sent across the hall or across the street

to receive the other. And more often

there is a mixed or " integrated " approach

in place. The particulars depend on where

you are and who is presiding.

 

But the experiences I was referring to below

were mostly out in the countryside where rural

doctors have little in the way of modern

equipment and methods at their disposal.

They have to deal with everything that

walks in the door, and some of those

cases are pretty hairy.

 

In the city, competent doctors use any

and all available means to save patients'

lives. Just as it typically does not matter to

patients whose lives are in jeopardy whether

or not the means used to save them are

modern or traditional, a compassionate

doctor puts devotion to theory aside

when it comes to saving lives.

 

Ken

 

 

 

, <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Can you or I or anyone using Chinese

> medical means and substances alone save the

> life of someone infected with Anthrax?

> Probably not. But people with severe

> conditions are routinely saved, despite

> that fact that many are not.

>

> This was one of the most compelling lessons

> in the subject that I learned in Chinese

> clinics and hospitals, although it took

> years, literally, before it sank in.

> Doctors of traditional medicine there

> treat everything that walks in the door

> using, for the most part, only the rudiments

> and in conditions that most foreigners find

> frankly daunting.

>

> >>>>Ken have you spent much time in the critical care departments.

> Alon

[Guest guest]

Its interesting in hospital I worked there was no separate western department. There were a few mostly western trained Dr but over 95% were TCM graduates. I never spent time in the country side must have been quite an experience. Would be nice if you share a little

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

I've seen different patterns of integration

of TCM and Western medicine in different

places in China. The mixture of the two

approaches ranges from well demarcated

departments of each within one unit, to

special departments dedicated to the

integration of the two, to poorly

differentiated (not necessarily less

effective) melanges.

 

We wrote a bit about the scene in the

countryside and the differneces between

folk medicine and establishment medicine

in Who Can Ride the Dragon?

 

Most countryside clinics that I've been

in are extremely simple affairs. There is

usually a desk and two chairs. As often

as not there's an exam table, often in

another room. There's generally a little

back room where someone mixes formulas.

 

That's about it. Even in Chengdu, where

I worked for a couple of years in an

orthopedics clinic attached to the

Sichuan provincial dance academy, conditions

were pretty primitive. We used old cardboard

boxes as splints for fractured arms and legs.

Patients generally brought their old bandages

with them so they could be reused to

apply poultices.

 

In this clinic people would frequently

show up who had come in from the countryside

with fractures that were days or weeks old.

Often infections had set in and pretty

nasty wounds had to be cleaned and

disinfected. Chengdu probably has the

world's largest population of bicycles

so there's an endless stream of traumas

from accidents.

 

One thing that impressed me about the

work of countryside doctors is how often

it tended to center around an herb or two

that were locally grown. Several times, doctors

have taken me to streams or woods where they

gather a particular herb that they

rely upon in treating a host of ailments.

 

The sense of place and the power of place

is potent in Chinese culture, and I got

a definite sense of being connected to

the earth through the local folk practice

of herbal medicine in several places.

 

In the cities and towns, herb shops are

omnipresent. It's hard to walk more than

a couple of blocks in Chengdu without

passing one. There are also farmers

who sell raw herbs on the street.

There's even old folks who gather herbs

from the local parks.

 

Even people who profess no knowledge

of Chinese medicine and who would probably

tell you that they never use it often

include herbs in their diet. And hosts

at meals are often quick to point out

the therapeutic benefits of eating

this or that dish.

 

The environment is very conducive to

the study and practice of herbal medicine

as it's virtually everywhere you go.

 

Less so in the bigger cities, where the

rush towards modernity has had a bigger

impact (although the inland areas are

now rapidly accelerating in their own

headlong development). But even in Shanghai

and Beijing once you get off the main

drags and into the streets and alleys

where people live you find lots of

little herb shops.

 

It was observing the way that Chinese people

interact with Chinese herbs that started

me thinking about the importance of the

cultural context in understanding the

theories and practices of medicine.

 

Ken

 

Would be nice if you share a little

> Alon

[Guest guest]

Ken:

 

Can you say someting about the effectiveness and limitations of CM---

by itself---in dealing with infections?

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

, yulong@m... wrote:

> Alon,

>

> I've seen different patterns of integration

> of TCM and Western medicine in different

> places in China. The mixture of the two

> approaches ranges from well demarcated

> departments of each within one unit, to

> special departments dedicated to the

> integration of the two, to poorly

> differentiated (not necessarily less

> effective) melanges.

>

> We wrote a bit about the scene in the

> countryside and the differneces between

> folk medicine and establishment medicine

> in Who Can Ride the Dragon?

>

> Most countryside clinics that I've been

> in are extremely simple affairs. There is

> usually a desk and two chairs. As often

> as not there's an exam table, often in

> another room. There's generally a little

> back room where someone mixes formulas.

>

> That's about it. Even in Chengdu, where

> I worked for a couple of years in an

> orthopedics clinic attached to the

> Sichuan provincial dance academy, conditions

> were pretty primitive. We used old cardboard

> boxes as splints for fractured arms and legs.

> Patients generally brought their old bandages

> with them so they could be reused to

> apply poultices.

>

> In this clinic people would frequently

> show up who had come in from the countryside

> with fractures that were days or weeks old.

> Often infections had set in and pretty

> nasty wounds had to be cleaned and

> disinfected. Chengdu probably has the

> world's largest population of bicycles

> so there's an endless stream of traumas

> from accidents.

>

> One thing that impressed me about the

> work of countryside doctors is how often

> it tended to center around an herb or two

> that were locally grown. Several times, doctors

> have taken me to streams or woods where they

> gather a particular herb that they

> rely upon in treating a host of ailments.

>

> The sense of place and the power of place

> is potent in Chinese culture, and I got

> a definite sense of being connected to

> the earth through the local folk practice

> of herbal medicine in several places.

>

> In the cities and towns, herb shops are

> omnipresent. It's hard to walk more than

> a couple of blocks in Chengdu without

> passing one. There are also farmers

> who sell raw herbs on the street.

> There's even old folks who gather herbs

> from the local parks.

>

> Even people who profess no knowledge

> of Chinese medicine and who would probably

> tell you that they never use it often

> include herbs in their diet. And hosts

> at meals are often quick to point out

> the therapeutic benefits of eating

> this or that dish.

>

> The environment is very conducive to

> the study and practice of herbal medicine

> as it's virtually everywhere you go.

>

> Less so in the bigger cities, where the

> rush towards modernity has had a bigger

> impact (although the inland areas are

> now rapidly accelerating in their own

> headlong development). But even in Shanghai

> and Beijing once you get off the main

> drags and into the streets and alleys

> where people live you find lots of

> little herb shops.

>

> It was observing the way that Chinese people

> interact with Chinese herbs that started

> me thinking about the importance of the

> cultural context in understanding the

> theories and practices of medicine.

>

> Ken

>

> Would be nice if you share a little

> > Alon

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> Can you say someting about the effectiveness and limitations of CM--

-

> by itself---in dealing with infections?

 

Sure. Let's narrow the target. What sort

of infections are you interested in?

 

For starters, there are some extremely

effective herbs such as san1 qi1 that

are used as disinfectants in China.

I don't know if it's currently true,

but there was a time when every soldier

in the Red Army had a little pouch of

powdered san1 qi1 in case of wounds.

 

I'd say that the greatest strength of

Chinese medicine with respect to infections

in general is that a correct diagnosis

that identifies the pattern of the

disease as well as accurately assesses

the patient's constitutional condition

can be used to treat the person in

such a way as to make him or her less

susceptible to infection. Infections

are, after all, merely signs that the

body's defenses have been weakened

allowing the infection to gain a

foothold.

 

Once again I'd put the emphasis on

treating patients before they get

sick with infections by getting them

to circulate, cultivate and otherwise

care for their qi4. What we call infections

often fall under the category of wind

in traditional terms. The influence

of a wind can be understood as a ratio

of the environmental xie2 qi4 and the

patient's zheng1 qi4. If you act correctly

to strengthen the zheng1 qi4, the xie2 qi4

blows right past. In theory, there is

no limit to this, which relates to the

great treasure of Chinese medicine, i.e.

that it defines what health is.

 

Curiously, the English word " health " contains

a similar treasure, but many modern

people do not recognize it. To heal

is to become whole. The words

" whole " and " heal " and " health " all

come from the same root. And certainly

in Chinese medicine one of our greatest

strengths is the theoretical perspective

that allows us to treat the whole person

and to help the person made less than whole

by a wide variety of factors become whole once

again.

 

 

While I'd call this the greatest potential

strength of Chinese medicine, I also recognize

that it is therefore also its greatest limitation.

How do you do it?

 

First, how do you really understand what

it means to cultivate the qi4 and make it

strong enough to be impervious to the

attack of potential infection-causing

pathogens? Given that adequate answers

obtain from this question, how do you

go about communicating this to patients

in such a way as to get them to understand...

and to then do what needs to be done.

 

As long as people rely solely upon

herbs and needles, they will remain

restrained by such limitations.

 

If you want to talk about specific

herbs for specific categories of

infections, we'll have to zero in

on those that interest you. And I

hope that others with more clinical

expertise than I will join in.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken:

 

I wasn't so much interested in hearing general theory as I was

wondering what the success rate is in China (or here) for treating

infectious diseases---such as Malaria, Measles, Anthrax, Listeria,

AIDS, etc---exclusively by CM. If anyone keeps track of the numbers

reliably?

 

And, more importantly, do you think all pathogens---especially virus

or bacteria---are adequately described by the rubric xie qi?

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

 

, yulong@m... wrote:

> Sure. Let's narrow the target. What sort

> of infections are you interested in?

>

> For starters, there are some extremely

> effective herbs such as san1 qi1 that

> are used as disinfectants in China.

> I don't know if it's currently true,

> but there was a time when every soldier

> in the Red Army had a little pouch of

> powdered san1 qi1 in case of wounds.

>

> I'd say that the greatest strength of

> Chinese medicine with respect to infections

> in general is that a correct diagnosis

> that identifies the pattern of the

> disease as well as accurately assesses

> the patient's constitutional condition

> can be used to treat the person in

> such a way as to make him or her less

> susceptible to infection. Infections

> are, after all, merely signs that the

> body's defenses have been weakened

> allowing the infection to gain a

> foothold.

>

> Once again I'd put the emphasis on

> treating patients before they get

> sick with infections by getting them

> to circulate, cultivate and otherwise

> care for their qi4. What we call infections

> often fall under the category of wind

> in traditional terms. The influence

> of a wind can be understood as a ratio

> of the environmental xie2 qi4 and the

> patient's zheng1 qi4. If you act correctly

> to strengthen the zheng1 qi4, the xie2 qi4

> blows right past. In theory, there is

> no limit to this, which relates to the

> great treasure of Chinese medicine, i.e.

> that it defines what health is.

>

> Curiously, the English word " health " contains

> a similar treasure, but many modern

> people do not recognize it. To heal

> is to become whole. The words

> " whole " and " heal " and " health " all

> come from the same root. And certainly

> in Chinese medicine one of our greatest

> strengths is the theoretical perspective

> that allows us to treat the whole person

> and to help the person made less than whole

> by a wide variety of factors become whole once

> again.

>

>

> While I'd call this the greatest potential

> strength of Chinese medicine, I also recognize

> that it is therefore also its greatest limitation.

> How do you do it?

>

> First, how do you really understand what

> it means to cultivate the qi4 and make it

> strong enough to be impervious to the

> attack of potential infection-causing

> pathogens? Given that adequate answers

> obtain from this question, how do you

> go about communicating this to patients

> in such a way as to get them to understand...

> and to then do what needs to be done.

>

> As long as people rely solely upon

> herbs and needles, they will remain

> restrained by such limitations.

>

> If you want to talk about specific

> herbs for specific categories of

> infections, we'll have to zero in

> on those that interest you. And I

> hope that others with more clinical

> expertise than I will join in.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Jean wrote *S*

>

> So,No matter any races people would like to study TCM

> very well,you have to learn chinese very well,and

> understand how chinese people think.put it in your

> piority,otherwise you can't never reach the top of

> TCM because it is our culture.

 

Teresa:

So I am curious were people fit in who have been Chinese in a former life?!

Or Visa versa...

 

Just like while we plan

> to study in USA,We have to pass TOFEL 550 and

> GRE,which is your culture and language.

>

[Guest guest]

 

 

I'm not objecting to the methodology suggested by Will. Conceptually,

I think it is an accurate representation of CM methodology. I'm just

skeptical about the realities of treating a terrorist-initiated

epidemic of anthrax here in the U.S. with Chinese medicine. I'm

concerned over the meta issues behind this discussion.

 

Bob

 

, wrote:

> The discussion of anthrax was timely for me because I had been

planning

> to post on one of the issues that came up during this discussion.

Alon

> has made it clear that he is uncomfortable with treating an illness

with

> TCM just because we can find symptom sign complex that resembles the

> manifestations of the disease in a given patient. Bob is concerned

> whether we should go down this road because there is no reference to

> anthrax in CM lit he has access to. Z'ev has sided with Alon in the

> past when discussing the pattern differentiation of western

diseases,

> such as presented in many modern TCM texts. Yet Z'ev and Bob have

also

> long been advocates of treating presenting patterns even if no

western

> diagnosis is available. We merely study chinese bing that match one

or

> more of the chief manifestations and proceed from there. Now, I

> wouldn't try and treat anthrax unless conventional therapy had no

chance

> of success. But pulmonary anthrax is almost always fatal, so it

makes

> sense to consider what we might do, at least for our families and

friend

> if this happened. But to me, the larger question is why is it wrong

to

> treat new diseases based upon symptom sign complexes they resemble?

I

> mean the use of formulas like xiao chai hu tang has been

successfully

> expanded to treat far more than the condition originally described

by

> zhang zhong jing (whatever it may have been). This expansion is

based

> upon applying the formula to the pattern it treats without regard

for

> the named disease. thus, it is used for mental disorders, menstrual

> complaints, prostate problems, hepatitis, malaria, etc.

>

> What is a disease from the TCM perspective other than its

> manifestations? As long as one makes correct pattern dx, one should

be

> able to improve the patient's health. I think a lot of this debate

uses

> the straw man technique, in which one debates a point that no one is

> making and then knocks down the straw man and claims victory. This

> came up when Bob's TCM Psych book was released and will no doubt

> surface again when BP releases their modern western diseases book.

The

> straw man is the equation of diseases one to one with patterns. We

saw

> a lot of this during the early days of treatment of AIDS with TCM.

> People laid out competing theories that claimed AIDS was a form of

Cold

> Damage or a Hidden Warm Evil or Jing vacuity or yin vacuity or

spleen

> vacuity, each proponent insisting that their model was correct. Yet

the

> actual point that is made in well done books like those from BP is

that

> NO textbook pattern will FIT a real live patient. Textbooks

basically

> plot points on a continuum. They are static. Patients are dynamic.

We

> use the static info from books to guide us in creating unique

formulas

> for our dynamic patients. What is the difference between defining

the

> continuum of possibilities for a western disease in a textbook by

> analyzing possible S/S complexes that resemble the typical

> manifestations or analyzing the S/S complex of a given patient and

> choosing herbs to match the pattern. I don't understand how you can

> argue for the latter and against the former. Or should we just not

> treat diseases that have not been actually researched in modern

China?

> The purpose of a text is to provide an easily accessed compilation

of

> patterns that resemble a disease. It serves no other purpose than

to

> provide at one's fingertips what one would otherwise spend hours

doing

> on their own each time. So whether we are talking about the

similarity

> of anthrax to wen bing or lily disease to early stage parkinsons in

some

> cases, what other process do we have than pattern differentiation?

>

>

> --

> Chinese Herbs

>

> VOICE: (858) 946-0070

> FAX: (858) 946-0067

[Guest guest]

, pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

I'm just

> skeptical about the realities of treating a terrorist-initiated

> epidemic of anthrax here in the U.S. with Chinese medicine.

 

 

No argument there. CM certainly wouldn't be my first choice in this

scenario, but as a fall back option if all else was failing, perhaps

....

 

 

[Guest guest]

The teachings I received from Yang Maiqing included many case studies and observation with successful management of sepsis and other life threatening diseases using the Shang Han Lun model. He first turned to SHL over 50 years ago when children dying in an epidemic didn't respond to the available antibiotics. SHL saved their lives. He has specialized in SHL ever since and I trust his experience and knowledge. My analysis of anthrax is clearly influenced by him....Not that it would work - it is a place to start. A method can have value even if groups of people don’t use it. That ‘such and such a group of people doesn't use a method therefore it has no value’ is a rational encountered when discussing academic procedure with Chinese colleagues. Many of the breakthroughs I have experienced in this medicine would not be possible were I to adopt this point of view.

I don't think this type of inquiry puts our profession at risk. On the contrary, it is vital. And I think we need to examine it whether it exists in Chinese texts or not. However, each symptom laid out by Karen clearly falls into a section of SHL analysis. And... I agree 100% with Karen regarding supply chains. I think we need to be ready to deal with changes and it may not be possible to do with standard health care delivery systems.

Will

[Guest guest]

Will,

I think your SHL analysis was very well done, and quite interesting. And I don't doubt that Dr. Yang's case management was excellent. I certainly agree with this approach, especially in the age of antibiotic resistance.

 

My problem is with the general level of education in the TCM community, that there is a tendency to grasp for 'ready-made' protocols in treatment, without thinking through cases according to symptom, sign and pattern differentiation. Not that I expect anyone to rush out and treat anthrax, but that we are sometimes desperate for new information in Chinese medicine, and don't apply this information appropriately.

 

It is entirely possible that situations could arise where we are on the front lines of health care in all types of epidemics in the near future. We need to be prepared. In many ways, we are already dealing with epidemics of chronic auto-immune disease, and we need to study and master those tools, such as yin fire theory, that can help. Dealing with epidemics is a new category for most CM practitioners, and the necessary materials in Chinese are not accessible to a majority of practitioners.

 

We have a lot of work to do. Thanks, Will, for your contribution. I hope it will contribute to further study, discussion, translation and practice.

 

 

On Monday, September 24, 2001, at 10:25 PM, WMorris116 (AT) AOL (DOT) COM wrote:

 

 

>

> The teachings I received from Yang Maiqing included many case studies and observation with successful management of sepsis and other life threatening diseases using the Shang Han Lun model. He first turned to SHL over 50 years ago when children dying in an epidemic didn't respond to the available antibiotics. SHL saved their lives. He has specialized in SHL ever since and I trust his experience and knowledge. My analysis of anthrax is clearly influenced by him....Not that it would work - it is a place to start.

>

> A method can have value even if groups of people don’t use it. That ‘such and such a group of people doesn't use a method therefore it has no value’ is a rational encountered when discussing academic procedure with Chinese colleagues. Many of the breakthroughs I have experienced in this medicine would not be possible were I to adopt this point of view.

>

> I don't think this type of inquiry puts our profession at risk. On the contrary, it is vital. And I think we need to examine it whether it exists in Chinese texts or not. However, each symptom laid out by Karen clearly falls into a section of SHL analysis. And... I agree 100% with Karen regarding supply chains. I think we need to be ready to deal with changes and it may not be possible to do with standard health care delivery systems.   

>

> Will

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

> I wasn't so much interested in hearing general theory...

 

> The herbal formulas must have something in them to

> destroy the bacteria or stimulate the immune system to do so.

 

When I look at these statement it dawns on me that there is

actually a conversation about basic theory that

we should have. It's a little complex I think and

may take a little while to sort out. But I hope that

you can see a value in it.

 

Your remark above suggests that there is a one-to-one

correspondence between Chinese medical concepts

and modern biomedical understanding. If

Chinese herbal formulas demonstrate some efficacy

in treating a disease that is associated with some

strain of bacteria this must be due to an action that

can be understood and described in biomedical

terms and concepts.

 

But is that true?

 

What this has to do with basic theory is this. Maybe

what the herbal formula does has nothing directly to

do with bacteria or even the immune system per se.

Maybe the diminishing of bacterial counts is simply

the result of whatever it is that the herbal formula does.

 

The herbal formula functions according to the basic

theories that were used in concocting it. It does things

like drain, boost, course, and so on. It is intended not

to kill bacteria or to kill anything but to restore the

balance and the harmony of life, specifically the life

of the patient under treatment.

 

But basic theory certainly accounts for that individual's

connectivity to the whole of life, and it is, in the end

this connectivity that determines the whole and well

being of individuals. The Chinese referred to this

connectivity, whether within the body or between

the body and the environment as qi4.

 

Maybe the understanding of how the herbal formulas

work is not to be found in biomedical terms. This does

not mean that we should not perfect a language for discussing

the activities of herbal formulas in biomedical terms.

But it suggests that the ultimate understanding, explanation

and exegesis of the mechanisms by which herbal medicine

works can be more reasonably anticipated to develop from

the language and culture of its origins.

 

Nor does any of this actually suggest that as Westerners

we cannot have a vital role to play in the development of

such understanding. It simply means that as serious

students of the subject we should seek first to exhaust

the rationale that has come down to us along with the

medical methods and substances and use this exhaustive

understanding (and I mean that in the precise dictionary

definition of the word, i.e. " treating all parts or aspects

without omission; thorough " ) as the basis for formulating

the terms and methods of the exchange between the

growing numbers of biomedical personnel who are

becoming interested in Chinese medicine and those

of us who have been studying it for some time.

 

In short, I am suggesting that we cannot proceed

to competent transliteration of Chinese medical

ideas without first compiling an adequate foundation

of basic theory so that the particulars of, in this

instance, formuals that are used to treat infectious

diseases, can be properly understood in the context

in which they were formulated.

 

So what I'm saying about your search for efficacy of

herbal medicine is that is should be guided by the

basic theories on which it is based, as well as by

an awareness of the types of communications will

be necessary eventually to explain a thorough

understanding of their mechanisms and effects

to biomedical personnel. I don't think it's correct

to assume that

 

" The herbal formulas must have something in them to

destroy the bacteria or stimulate the immune system to do so. "

 

I believe that this assumption is not just unwarranted but

incorrect. There are many strategies for treating people

with virulent infectious diseases, and a doctor thoroughly versed in

the range of basic theories knows when to follow a

particular approach. If the body is severly disordered

it cannot respond to the insults and attacks of external

pathogens. An herbal formula that accurately targets

the foci of disharmony and effectively restores them

to their normal physiological functioning can successfully

treat an infectious condition without a single ingredient

that has or can be identified as having an anti-bacterial effect.

At least in theory.

 

The greatest doctors that I have ever met focus almost

exclusively on the most basic theories in explaining

what they see and what they are doing about cases.

 

Let's not push it aside in favor of more important things,

because there are no more important things.

 

Regarding statistics in mainland China, I believe that

the first to caution against putting too much faith in

them are the folks who run the various Chinese statistical

bureaus themselves, although maybe not publically, as it is

not the character of bureaucrats to self-criticize. But the

statistics industry in China is still in its formative

phase, and I don't think you could use public health

stats to make much in the way of determinations about

the efficacy of something as broadly defined

as TCM in the treatement of infectious diseases.

 

I could be wrong about this, and will be happy if

someone can produce any such reliable picture.

I know I couldn't and wouldn't even try without

adequate resources.

 

> And, more importantly, do you think all pathogens---especially

virus

> or bacteria---are adequately described by the rubric xie qi?

 

Xie2 qi4 is not a description of pathogens, per se.

It is a qualitative term that describes not viruses

and baceria but the process whereby normal processes

of physiology and envionmental interactions shift

over and become pathological. It can certainly be

used to describe the pathological processes associated

with viruses or bacteria, but it was never intended

as an equivalent to these terms, obviously, as it

was coined thousands of years before knowledge of

such phenomena existed.

 

The word xie2 probably first meant something like

" twisty " and was used to describe twisty mountain

paths. This metaphor evolved in the development

of the ancient language and came to mean " perverse "

i.e. not straight forward and was adopted by medical people

probably because the image of a twisty path stands

in opposition to the thoroughfare notion of the channels

and network vessels through which the normal, healthy

qi4 courses.

 

As to the meaning of qi4, all I can say is that

we've written a whole book about it which will

be out in a couple of months.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

The teachings I received from Yang Maiqing included many case studies and observation with successful management of sepsis

>>>That is interesting as I have personally seen about 100 cases of sepsis non of which was successfully controlled with TCM alone. One of the physicians in the department was a SHL devotee and used it over 90% of all of his cases

Alon

[Guest guest]

Regarding statistics in mainland China, I believe thatthe first to caution against putting too much faith inthem are the folks who run the various Chinese statisticalbureaus themselves, although maybe not publically, as it is not the character of bureaucrats to self-criticize.

>>>>>Well ken I think you blow your top when I basically said the same thing, although less diplomatically

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

I don't recall the earlier exchange

exactly, but whatever I said does

it really warrant you calling me

diplomatic?

 

I suppose that now I will have to

sign myself,

 

The Orientalist Diplomat

 

, <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Regarding statistics in mainland China, I believe that

> the first to caution against putting too much faith in

> them are the folks who run the various Chinese statistical

> bureaus themselves, although maybe not publically, as it is

> not the character of bureaucrats to self-criticize.

> >>>>>Well ken I think you blow your top when I basically said the

same thing, although less diplomatically

> Alon

[Guest guest]

> Maybe what the herbal formula does has nothing directly to

>do with bacteria or even the immune system per se.

>Maybe the diminishing of bacterial counts is simply

>the result of whatever it is that the herbal formula does.

 

Ken,

You may be quite right. And yet I believe the presence of organisms such as

viruses represent an element of reality that reflects the nature and

existence of qi, xue, yin and yang. I don't think you can separate the

presence or overgrowth of a particular virus and our understanding of it as

a patho-mechanism, from the concurrent and inter-related patterns of

differentially diagnosed syndromes in TCM language. That seems akin to

saying that sputum is not directly treated when using herbs to treat spleen

damp. The discrepancies in terminology do not alter the presence of the

pathology, it only describes it from different contexts and perspectives. A

person with pyogenic streptococcus infection will likely have a pattern

describable in TCM terminology. And if that TCM pattern is eliminated, and

the pyogenic streptococcus is not, the results may have been better by using

an herb that is known to eliminate the PS infection. However in most cases,

success with the TCM pattern will eliminate the presence of the pathogenic

organism. The herbal mechanism of action in eliminating the PS may not be

known but its ability to eliminate PS would be helpful to consider when

another similar case appears. Certainly there are numerous choices when

treating acute lung heat/fire that manifests as a sore throat. If I know

that a certain herb has been effective in eliminating PS in the past I would

more strongly consider it over other choices when confronting it again. I

see symbiotic organisms such as bacteria, parasites, and viruses that

co-exist both in health and diseased states, provide a useful reflection of

the balance of qi/xue/yin/yang. Also, from a practical standpoint, if a

one to one correlation between the patient's symptom pattern and the level

of viral titer can be established, then monitoring that titer might be

useful in monitoring the value of alternative treatment approaches in

research. In general I greatly appreciate and agree with your very

well-articulated perspectives although I think they strongly reflect unique

personal biases. Since I live in the land of.. I'll paraphrase Kristnamurti

in saying that infinite pathways lead to the truth.

Stephen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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]

In a message dated 9/25/01 12:29:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, alonmarcus writes:

 

 

That is interesting as I have personally seen about 100 cases of sepsis non of which was successfully controlled with TCM alone. One of the physicians in the department was a SHL devotee and used it over 90% of all of his cases

 

Yes...it is difficult. If it is still in the Shao Yin stage, it is possible to manage. He has no problem integrating bio-tcm styles. I just cite his experience.

 

Will

[Guest guest]

Stephen,

 

Quite right. My statements reflect a strong

personal bias...mine. In fact my understanding

of traditional Chinese arts and sciences suggests

to me that in the end, one's own personal bias

is all that really matters. What's written

in books, even what is taught orally by

teachers can only serve as principles for

self cultivation. We do what

we are good at, and we tend to become

good at this or that by repetition.

In the end, we are our habits.

 

In Chinese terms this falls under the heading

of gong1 fu1.

 

I also agree with what you said about the

efficacy of monitoring patients in terms

of the various data available in biomedical

terms. I have expressed this in the past,

and it is something that I didn't really

appreciate until I'd spent some time in

traditional Chinese clinics and seen the

various attempts at integration of traditional

and modern biomedical means.

 

What matters is the patient. I know there

are some very traditional doctors in China

who insist that only traditional means will

serve the patient and refuse to get involved

in ordering modern medical tests and procedures.

But this describes a small fraction of the

doctors that I've known and studied with there.

Most will do whatever is possible to effectively

address a patient's condition. And the general

pattern is to use traditional means alone

whenever possible and to supplement them

with biomedical procedures when either a) necessary

or b) the patient requests it.

 

One of the curious differneces about clinical medicine

in general in China is the relatively high degree

of patient involvement in the details of medical

care, including both the medical procedures and

administration. Patients tend to keep possession

of their own medical records, for example as well

as x-rays, MRIs, etc. I'm speaking of the actual

films. They also tend to actually look at their

films with the doctors and radiologists and to

have a generally much higher familiarity with

what is going on in medical terms and situations

than their American counterparts. This certainly

is exemplified in the spectacle of the diagnostic

interview in a typical Chinese hospital's outpatient

wards. I think you're quite familiar with this

scene in which sometimes dozens of people crowd around

doctor and patient chatting and gosspiping and even

throwing in their two cents worth as to the

particulars of events and even the accuracy of

the doctor's diagnosis. I've seen docs who had

to literally clear the room in order to have

enough peace and quiet to continue to interview

the patient. Patients choose TCM or biomedicine

or both, to a great extent and the main difference

I've observed between the Chinese health care

environment and ours in the States is that

such choices are both better understood and

more easily available to a greater segment

of the population, except of course to that

mass of Chinese peasants to whom little if

any health care is available.

 

And even in teaching students massage therapy I always

stress that you have to know your basic

material so well that when you confront

the patient you are not thinking about

theory but simply letting the second nature

that you've cultivated in your study

guide you through the patient's puzzles

according to the correct theory at the

correct time, concentrating on the

patient and not on your own mental

processes.

 

That was really the point that I was

trying to make to Jim in response to

the statement that if a formula shows

a particular result measured in terms

of a viral load or bacteria count (or

any of a number of other markers that

biomedical doctors monitor) then that

means that that formula must have some

correlate to the functions known in

western medical science to result in

those numbers. Despite the fact that

both systems of descriptions describe

the same processes, they do so in

significantly different ways.

 

Your point is very well taken that

whether or not you describe the body

in Chinese or English, ancient or modern

terms, it is still the body. But the

character and the quality of those descriptions

does have an enormous impact on the

thought processes that go into dealing

with that body. And they are fundamentally

different: not the organic processes that

are described but the linguistic methods

used to establish meaning and generate

the descriptions. And that is the reason

that I devote so much attention to

questions related to how the Chinese

thought and talked about themselves

and the world in which they lived.

 

These considerations and expressions inform

the most fundamental aspects of the subject

we call Chinese medicine. I talk about

these issues because generally I find

that they are greatly underrepresented

in the education of practitioners here.

 

I realize this is no secret, but I just

wanted to acknowledge that we are talking

about several questions that are all

closely related, and concern not only

clinical practice but language,

knowledge and the successful application

of very old ideas by very modern people.

 

It's not an ethnic matter. It's not a

national matter. It's a matter

of time and circumstance. And to me it's

a matter of the care that we ought to take

in preserving the traditions that have

delivered to our use...and our care

the wonders of traditional Chinese medicine.

 

The only reason for challenging statements

and ideas is to participate in the group

activity that necessarily must develop

in order to accomplish that. So I'm

delighted to have these opportunities

to exchange with everyone.

 

As for Krishnamurti and the truth, I have

to admit that I know absolutely nothing.

 

Thanks,

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

[Ken] Your remark suggests that there is a one-to-one correspondence

between Chinese medical concepts and modern biomedical understanding.

 

[Jim] No, I don't mean to suggest that at all. If you recall, I also

don't believein the conceit that there need be a necessary one-to-one

correspondence in translationterms and concepts. But there is some

very useful overlap in Eastern and Western theories. In Korean pulse

diagnosis,we can identify and trace the activity of the body's

systems from both an Easternand Western perspectives---for example,

nervous system, endocrine system, immune system, etc.

 

[Ken] If Chinese herbal formulas demonstrate some efficacy in

treating a disease that is associated with some strain of bacteria

this must be due to an action that can be understood and described in

biomedical terms and concepts. But is that true?

 

[Jim] Why are you dismissing the value of biomedical terms and

concepts; especially when they can sometimes be helpful?It is the

equivalent of denying that herbs have biomedical affects.Neither

models of medicine are complete; but they can both offer their a

useful perspective.

 

[Ken] What this has to do with basic theory is this.

 

[Jim] Why do we need to limit the discussion to basic Chinese theory?

No one is opposingthe use of basic theory, just the fundamentalist

restriction to it.

 

[Ken] But basic theory certainly accounts for that individual's

connectivity to the whole of life, and it is, in the end this

connectivity that determines the whole and well being of individuals.

The Chinese referred to this connectivity, whether within the body or

between the body and the environment as qi4.

 

[Jim] Western science, especially complexity theory and information

theory,can do so as well---if not sometimes better. 5-Phases and

Yunqi Theory (Suwen chapters 66-76)are fairly prototypical of

complexity theory because they try to describe dynamic, living

systems.

 

[Ken] But it suggests that the ultimate understanding, explanation

and exegesis of the mechanisms by which herbal medicine

works can be more reasonably anticipated to develop from

the language and culture of its origins.

 

[Jim] Your " ultimate understanding, explation and exegesis " sounds

like metaphysics or a personal conceit.If it is a personal conceit, I

could accept that as a implied perspective of your personal style of

thinking and writing.

 

[Ken] In short, I am suggesting that we cannot proceed to competent

transliteration of Chinese medical ideas without first compiling an

adequate foundation of basic theory so that the particulars of, in

this instance, formulas that are used to treat infectious diseases,

can be properly understood in the context in which they were

formulated.

 

[Jim] What is the timetable for this 'proper understanding'?

Is it too late to think " we cannot proceed " now---I think we must.

Have you made a personal choice to hold back treating people until it

is accomplished?

 

[Ken] I don't think it's correct to assume that " The herbal formulas

must have something in them to destroy the bacteria or stimulate the

immune system to do so. " I believe that this assumption is not just

unwarranted but incorrect.

 

[Jim] Assumptions are meant to be tested. Perhaps I can further

clarify my statement. In our Korean acupuncture system, when speaking

about the immune system---admittedly a Western term---we understand

the concept to mean the combined functions of the earth phase and

metal phase, supported by jing and marrow. Another aspect of the

immune system is the Revenge Cycle in 5-Phases. While there is no one-

to-one correspondence, you can interpret or distinguish many (but not

all) concepts in this way.

 

For example, although CM cannot observe what goes on at the molecular

level, we can extend its theories to this level to begin useful

discussions. In diseases such as AIDS and Anthrax, where the disease

process may go on for days or years without any s/s, one thing seems

to be common to both. In each case, they sabotage or interfere with

the 5-Phase Revenge Cycle, destroying the body's self-organizing

capability. Hence the difficulty in treating them.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Will:

 

If the formulas and treatment strategies are that effective, can you

share them with us?

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/25/01 12:29:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> alonmarcus@w... writes:

>

>

> > That is interesting as I have personally seen about 100 cases of

sepsis non

> > of which was successfully controlled with TCM alone. One of the

physicians

> > in the department was a SHL devotee and used it over 90% of all

of his cases

> >

>

> Yes...it is difficult. If it is still in the Shao Yin stage, it is

possible

> to manage. He has no problem integrating bio-tcm styles. I just

cite his

> experience.

>

> Will

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

> [Jim] No, I don't mean to suggest that at all.

 

When you said that the herbal formulas must have something in them to

destroy the bacteria or stimulate the immune system to do so, I

thought you meant the herbal formulas must have something in them to

destroy the bacteria or stimulate the immune system to do so.

 

My interpretation was based on the idea that if

the statement you made is true then there is

a reason why it is true, and the only reason

I could think of is that there must be a

one-to-one correspondence between the two.

 

So what did you mean?

 

 

If you recall, I also

> don't believein the conceit that there need be a necessary one-to-

one

> correspondence in translationterms and concepts. But there is some

> very useful overlap in Eastern and Western theories. In Korean

pulse

> diagnosis,we can identify and trace the activity of the body's

> systems from both an Easternand Western perspectives---for example,

> nervous system, endocrine system, immune system, etc.

 

Very interesting. I am completely unfamiliar

with your system.

 

>

> [Jim] Why are you dismissing the value of biomedical terms and

> concepts; especially when they can sometimes be helpful?

 

I don't believe that I ever have dismissed the

value of biomedical terms and concepts. I find

them to be highly valuable. I also do not

dismiss biomedical procedures, as some of

my closest friends and relatives are alive

today because of such procedures.

 

But I recognize that the terms, concepts

and procedures alike have limits. They

were evolved to do certain things and

they do those things quite well, with

well discussed exceptions. One of the

things that biomedical terms do not do

well is translate Chinese medical terms

and concepts. This statement does not

dismiss their value. In fact, this statement

respects and preserves their value as

it is made in order to prevent their misuse,

which is one of the key ways in which

terms and concepts do lose their value.

 

It is the

> equivalent of denying that herbs have biomedical affects.

 

I addressed this in my response to Stephen.

 

Neither

> models of medicine are complete; but they can both offer their a

> useful perspective.

 

Agreed. But neither is worth anything unless it is

thoroughly understood.

>

> [Jim] Why do we need to limit the discussion to basic Chinese

theory?

 

I never said we did. I don't believe we do.

 

> No one is opposingthe use of basic theory,

 

That is not exactly true. If you compare the

amount of time spent on learning the basic

materials of the subject in the States, for example,

to the amount of time that is spent on learning those same

materials in China, you will find that far

less time is spent in the States than in China. This is

on top of the fact that Chinese students

arrive for their basic study with a working

knowledge of the Chinese language and therefore

a bit of a headstart at estabilshing their

personal foundations. I also believe that

the basics are under-studied in many of

the Chinese schools and I have been talking

about this with Chinese colleagues for

years. As I said to Stephen, it's not an

ethnic matter or a national matter. It's

a matter of time and circumstance.

 

The failure to emphasize the education and

training in the basics stands in direct

opposition to them. Since we all live

and work in this educational environment

we have to come to terms with this.

 

Is it your understanding that students in

this country do, indeed, receive an

adequate education in the fundamentals?

 

just the fundamentalist

> restriction to it.

 

We are only restricted fundamentally when

we lack fundamentals.

 

>

> [Jim] Western science, especially complexity theory and information

> theory,can do so as well---if not sometimes better. 5-Phases and

> Yunqi Theory (Suwen chapters 66-76)are fairly prototypical of

> complexity theory because they try to describe dynamic, living

> systems.

 

I quite agree, which is why I've gotten involved

in the Complexity and Research

Center in the China Academy of TCM. I strongly

believe in and support the effort to fashion a

bilingual, bi-contextual basis for understanding

Chinese medicine as well as making the theories

and resources of Chinese medicine more accessible

and available to contemporary researchers in

other disciplines who find them so insightful

and useful. I believe that one of the reasons

why individuals like Niels Bohr and John Holland

are so fascinated by traditional Chinese language

and thought is not that it simply restates their

own insights but opens their conceptual field

to entirely new ones. My point is that in order to

do so, we have to recognize that the terms of

one set may or may not have one-to-one equivalence

with the terms of the other. This, in and of

itself is a complex issue. Chinese medicine is

a complex adaptive system.

 

>

> [Jim] Your " ultimate understanding, explation and exegesis " sounds

> like metaphysics or a personal conceit.If it is a personal conceit,

I

> could accept that as a implied perspective of your personal style

of

> thinking and writing.

 

It is metaphysics. It is not a personal conceit.

And I really don't see how statements I make

could be construed as anything other than implied...

in fact explicit perspectives of my personal

style and writing.

>

>

> [Jim] What is the timetable for this 'proper understanding'?

 

Now would be a good time.

 

> Is it too late to think " we cannot proceed " now---I think we must.

> Have you made a personal choice to hold back treating people until

it

> is accomplished?

 

The important thing about timing is not

simply pressing ahead, it's knowing when

to act and knowing when to be still. Correct

timing means acting in harmony with the

circumstances.

 

I made a personal choice several years ago

to actually follow the advice contained

in the Treatise on the Harmony with the

Four Seasons in Plain Questions and

not concentrate on dealing with sickness

but undertake to treat people before they

get sick. I found a good example in contemporary

Chinese history in the life story of Lu Xun,

the famous Chinese writer who while studying

to be a doctor in Japan came to realize that

the sickness afflicting Chinese people

in those days (this was c. 1920s) was

a spiritual disease and that the most

effective way to treat it was through

their hearts and minds.

 

I do not refrain from treating people

around me who are sick or injured or

need help if I can give it. But it's not

my profession.

>

> [Jim] Assumptions are meant to be tested. Perhaps I can further

> clarify my statement. In our Korean acupuncture system, when

speaking

> about the immune system---admittedly a Western term---we understand

> the concept to mean the combined functions of the earth phase and

> metal phase, supported by jing and marrow. Another aspect of the

> immune system is the Revenge Cycle in 5-Phases. While there is no

one-

> to-one correspondence, you can interpret or distinguish many (but

not

> all) concepts in this way.

 

Well clearly I don't disagree with the

general effort to understand phenomena

in terms that are comprehensible to

both Western and Eastern perspectives.

I just think that we need to be alert

when postulating equivalencies.

 

> For example, although CM cannot observe what goes on at the

molecular

> level, we can extend its theories to this level to begin useful

> discussions.

 

Agreed. However, it seems to me that when

you look through a microscope or use any

other imaging device...even the human eye,

all you're doing is grabbing data and

stuffing it into some pattern of mental

processes. In fact, CM looks far deeper

than merely molecules, beginning its

arrangement of data at a cosmological

level, i.e. yin1 and yang2. It loooks at

the constituent elements of the body in

terms that are, well, fundamental.

 

But I couldn't agree more that we can

use these fundamental terms to inform

such research and investigations, which

is exactly why I bother to be vigilant

about them.

 

Ken