herb interactions/ was steroid withdrawal

[Guest guest]

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

Well IMO, many herb functions, ala Bensky, are

> more dependent on other herbs (in the formals) to obtain their

> functions, because many of the (single)herbs functions are taken from

> formulas hence and are dependent on those other herbs.

 

I have a different angle. I think many herbs have all their properties

listed as single herbs, but those functions are not very strong unless

 

1. the function is reinforced or attenuated in combination with other

herbs

 

2. the herb is used at such a high dosage that it is likely to cause

side effects.

 

the reason herbs seem to only exert their actions within formulas is

because they are dosed at a level well below that of drugs and thus

achieve changes in physiology through a synergism of mild effects on

multiple mechanisms, rather than an exaggerated effect on one

mechanism. processing plays a key role, too. for example, huang qi is

supposedly not much of a tonic in raw form, working more to promote

diuresis. In practice, I have not actually found this to be the case.

a way to test this is to ingest large doses of single herbs and

evaluate their effects. while I agree with Jason about single herb

functions being partially derived from their known actions in formulas,

that is not the whole story. Materia medica literature and formulary

literature, according to unschuld, were two completely different genres

of literature for a 1000 years. One did not rely on the other at all.

since all materia medicas from SNBCJ on list multiple properties of

herbs with no reference to formulas or even combinations, I do not

think it is correct to say that all known herb properties were reverse

engineered from formulas. It also makes practical sense to me that in

the earliest periods of history, herbs were tested singly by shamans

and combinations only came later. The SNBCJ seems to state that the

herbs listed were tasted singly to elucidate their properties.

 

 

> In regard to the question... a general answer: I would be more

> inclined to believe that single herbs that have functions or actions

> derived from modern research, done on single herbs, retain there action

> in a formula.

But, obviously depending on the mechanism and the other

> herbs in the formula, one could create synergistic, additive, or

> antagonistic relationships.

 

well,if an herb has been shown to lower blood sugar by itself in the

lab, then it clearly has that action, but when combined with an herb

that raises blood sugar, this function will no doubt be mitigated.

That is why I say the key point about formulas is that herbs in

combinations either antagonize, accentuate or enhance each other. But

how can you enhance something that does not exist? Of the seven herb

interactions, only one denotes new properties that did not exist

arising from the interaction. And this interaction, called mutual

incompatibility in Bensky, denotes an undesirable property. None of

these seven interactions suggests that a new desirable property that

did not exist in either of the single herbs is somehow generated.

 

What is an example in modern pharmacology of 2 drugs together producing

an effect that does not depend in some part on the known functions of

the single drugs? I have no doubt there are examples of this, but are

they the rule or the exception?

 

[Guest guest]

>

> 1

> I have a different angle. I think many herbs have all their

properties

> listed as single herbs, but those functions are not very strong unless

>

> 1. the function is reinforced or attenuated in combination with other

> herbs

>

> 2. the herb is used at such a high dosage that it is likely to cause

> side effects.

>

> the reason herbs seem to only exert their actions within formulas is

> because they are dosed at a level well below that of drugs and thus

> achieve changes in physiology through a synergism of mild effects on

> multiple mechanisms, rather than an exaggerated effect on one

> mechanism.

 

 

 

This is probably many times true, especially looking at herbs from a

pharmacological perspective. But, there are many examples of herbs that

are not going to do it's (desired) function, unless coupled with the

correct (other) herbs/ and dosages. Some examples for guizhi: 1) is it

going to do it's 1st function without baishao of - 'adjusting the ying

and wei'. This function is a reference to guizhi tang (with baishao).

Not of guizhi by itself. Increasing the dose of guizhi will not finally

harmonize the two (ying/wei) 2) [An example, I think I have mentioned

before] guizhi's nature is warm and acrid has a tendency to move

outwards. If one kept increasing the dose where is the action of the

herb going to take place? I would assume more and more on the surface.

With only mildly (in proportion) occurring in the interior. One would

probably sweat more. But when guizhi is coupled with baishao (double

the dose) what happens? Well the action of guizhi is shifted from the

exterior to the interior and its function occurs on the abdomen. Much

different effect, but similar action. 3) Finally, similar to the

previous example, lets look at medicine horsies. An herb (or herbs) can

be directed to an area through an envoy herb. Do we disregard this idea

in TCM and assume if we up the dose that the herb can go anywhere we

like it? IMO, herbs will act in different locations do to the other

herbs. Therefore one must understand single herbs not only with basic

functions, but where these functions came from and how it was initially

achieved.

 

TODD:

processing plays a key role, too. for example, huang qi is

> supposedly not much of a tonic in raw form, working more to promote

> diuresis. In practice, I have not actually found this to be the case.

> a way to test this is to ingest large doses of single herbs and

> evaluate their effects. while I agree with Jason about single herb

> functions being partially derived from their known actions in

formulas,

> that is not the whole story. Materia medica literature and formulary

> literature, according to unschuld, were two completely different

genres

> of literature for a 1000 years. One did not rely on the other at all.

> since all materia medicas from SNBCJ on list multiple properties of

> herbs with no reference to formulas or even combinations, I do not

> think it is correct to say that all known herb properties were reverse

> engineered from formulas. It also makes practical sense to me that in

> the earliest periods of history, herbs were tested singly by shamans

> and combinations only came later. The SNBCJ seems to state that the

> herbs listed were tasted singly to elucidate their properties.

 

 

 

This I cannot argue with... and by no means was I saying that the only

way single herbs are understood are from formulas. But, I propose that

many of the modern functions are taken from this reverse logic. What

would be interesting is compare the pre-modern texts (before formulas)

that just discuss single herbs and note the differences that exist in

today's i.e. Bensky. Bensky is a modern way of understanding single

herbs that takes into account formulas, and the two seem totally

intermingled. I cannot image that anyone could have come up with all

the modern functions without looking at formulas.

 

-

[Guest guest]

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

 

Some examples for guizhi: 1) is it

> going to do it's 1st function without baishao of - 'adjusting the ying

> and wei'.

 

I totally agree with that and I think the problem there is that gui zhi

does not have that function of harmonizing ying and wei by itself.

Note that this function is not listed in wiseman.

 

[An example, I think I have mentioned

> before] guizhi's nature is warm and acrid has a tendency to move

> outwards. If one kept increasing the dose where is the action of the

> herb going to take place? I would assume more and more on the surface.

 

I am not sure. Gui zhi acts internally in formulas that don't contain

bai shao. but when combined with another surface herb like ma huang,

it definitely serves to mutually accentuate sweating. Would it move

blood in gyn dz by itself? that's a good question.

 

3) Finally, similar to the

> previous example, lets look at medicine horsies. An herb (or herbs) can

> be directed to an area through an envoy herb. Do we disregard this idea

> in TCM and assume if we up the dose that the herb can go anywhere we

> like it?

 

location may vary, but perhaps not function, per se. In addition, the

idea of channel guiding is controversial in some circles. some believe

all herbs go everywhere the blood goes.

 

 

I cannot image that anyone could have come up with all

> the modern functions without looking at formulas.

 

I agree, and your exercise would be useful.

 

 

[Guest guest]

An herb (or herbs) canbe directed to an area through an envoy herb. Do we disregard this ideain TCM and assume if we up the dose that the herb can go anywhere welike it?

>>>>This is a question I have struggled with for a long time. It is difficult to believe that a systemically absorbed herb can do this

Alon

 

-

 

Sunday, February 03, 2002 2:52 PM

RE: Re: herb interactions/ was steroid withdrawal

> > 1 > I have a different angle. I think many herbs have all theirproperties> listed as single herbs, but those functions are not very strong unless> > 1. the function is reinforced or attenuated in combination with other> herbs> > 2. the herb is used at such a high dosage that it is likely to cause> side effects.> > the reason herbs seem to only exert their actions within formulas is> because they are dosed at a level well below that of drugs and thus> achieve changes in physiology through a synergism of mild effects on> multiple mechanisms, rather than an exaggerated effect on one> mechanism. This is probably many times true, especially looking at herbs from apharmacological perspective. But, there are many examples of herbs thatare not going to do it's (desired) function, unless coupled with thecorrect (other) herbs/ and dosages. Some examples for guizhi: 1) is itgoing to do it's 1st function without baishao of - 'adjusting the yingand wei'. This function is a reference to guizhi tang (with baishao).Not of guizhi by itself. Increasing the dose of guizhi will not finallyharmonize the two (ying/wei) 2) [An example, I think I have mentionedbefore] guizhi's nature is warm and acrid has a tendency to moveoutwards. If one kept increasing the dose where is the action of theherb going to take place? I would assume more and more on the surface.With only mildly (in proportion) occurring in the interior. One wouldprobably sweat more. But when guizhi is coupled with baishao (doublethe dose) what happens? Well the action of guizhi is shifted from theexterior to the interior and its function occurs on the abdomen. Muchdifferent effect, but similar action. 3) Finally, similar to theprevious example, lets look at medicine horsies. An herb (or herbs) canbe directed to an area through an envoy herb. Do we disregard this ideain TCM and assume if we up the dose that the herb can go anywhere welike it? IMO, herbs will act in different locations do to the otherherbs. Therefore one must understand single herbs not only with basicfunctions, but where these functions came from and how it was initiallyachieved.TODD:processing plays a key role, too. for example, huang qi is> supposedly not much of a tonic in raw form, working more to promote> diuresis. In practice, I have not actually found this to be the case.> a way to test this is to ingest large doses of single herbs and> evaluate their effects. while I agree with Jason about single herb> functions being partially derived from their known actions informulas,> that is not the whole story. Materia medica literature and formulary> literature, according to unschuld, were two completely differentgenres> of literature for a 1000 years. One did not rely on the other at all.> since all materia medicas from SNBCJ on list multiple properties of> herbs with no reference to formulas or even combinations, I do not> think it is correct to say that all known herb properties were reverse> engineered from formulas. It also makes practical sense to me that in> the earliest periods of history, herbs were tested singly by shamans> and combinations only came later. The SNBCJ seems to state that the> herbs listed were tasted singly to elucidate their properties. This I cannot argue with... and by no means was I saying that the onlyway single herbs are understood are from formulas. But, I propose thatmany of the modern functions are taken from this reverse logic. Whatwould be interesting is compare the pre-modern texts (before formulas)that just discuss single herbs and note the differences that exist intoday's i.e. Bensky. Bensky is a modern way of understanding singleherbs that takes into account formulas, and the two seem totallyintermingled. I cannot image that anyone could have come up with allthe modern functions without looking at formulas.-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]

>

> 1

> I am not sure. Gui zhi acts internally in formulas that don't contain

> bai shao. but when combined with another surface herb like ma huang,

> it definitely serves to mutually accentuate sweating. Would it move

> blood in gyn dz by itself? that's a good question.

 

 

Yes.. but maybe there are others that 'weigh' it down? Maybe in

guizhitang- with shengjiang and nothing really heavy it does what it

does... So a question would be does it move blood in gyn dz in

guizhitang? I really find it hard to measure such ideas...? but (in

theory) doubling the baishao does something- biochemically or

energetically... I personally have never taken the rx or prescribed it,

it would be interesting if a person still sweats with the extra 9g of

baishao. It would probably be somewhat easy to test, give the a person

guizhitang 1st make them sweat, find the dose, then change the rx and

see what happens.. If they don't sweat the 2nd time I would say the

theory holds. What do you think this says?

Bensky's hit is that the guizhi does there various functions(

which really are all the same, but in different locations) depending on

the other herbs, i.e. release the exterior, work on the middle, or gyn

blood stasis. I think these are interesting ideas to pursue... I have

a feeling both ideas (this and what mentioned about the synergy/additive

relationships created with other herbs) are correct in different

situations.

 

> 3) Finally, similar to the

> > previous example, lets look at medicine horsies. An herb (or herbs)

can

> > be directed to an area through an envoy herb. Do we disregard this

idea

> > in TCM and assume if we up the dose that the herb can go anywhere we

> > like it?

>

> location may vary, but perhaps not function, per se. In addition, the

> idea of channel guiding is controversial in some circles. some

believe

> all herbs go everywhere the blood goes.

>

>

 

 

I have read this theory, but I assume it is a obscure belief - not the

channel part, but the idea that a medicinal goes everywhere? DO these

people that advocate this theory completely disregard the concept of

medicine horses? and do these same people believe there are no

directions of herbs? I personally have never seen anyone practice like

this and would think the majority of prescriptions we use would have to

explained in a different way. For when I write a Rx I always think

direction etc... Do others on the list hold this 'everywhere' belief?

 

-JAson

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

Alon Marcus

[alonmarcus]

Sunday,

February 03, 2002 6:14 PM

To:

 

Re:

Re: herb interactions/ was steroid withdrawal

 

 

An herb (or herbs) can

be directed to an area through an envoy herb. Do we disregard this idea

in TCM and assume if we up the dose that the herb can go anywhere we

like it?

 

 

>>>>This is a question I have struggled

with for a long time. It is difficult to believe that a systemically absorbed

herb can do this

 

 

Alon

 

 

 

Why is this hard to believe? Are there not many p-drugs and

even nutrients that have special affinity for a given type of tissue? I.e.

Iodine?

 

-Jason

 

[Guest guest]

Not many and iodine does but also goes to other tissues. Thyroid is a special tissue, the lower or upper extremities for example do not

Alon

 

-

 

Monday, February 04, 2002 8:08 AM

RE: Re: herb interactions/ was steroid withdrawal

 

 

 

 

 

Alon Marcus [alonmarcus] Sunday, February 03, 2002 6:14 PM Subject: Re: Re: herb interactions/ was steroid withdrawal

 

 

An herb (or herbs) canbe directed to an area through an envoy herb. Do we disregard this ideain TCM and assume if we up the dose that the herb can go anywhere welike it?

 

>>>>This is a question I have struggled with for a long time. It is difficult to believe that a systemically absorbed herb can do this

 

Alon

 

 

Why is this hard to believe? Are there not many p-drugs and even nutrients that have special affinity for a given type of tissue? I.e. Iodine?

 

-Jason

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.