rhubarb / eclectics

[Guest guest]

Todd and others,

 

 

I am actually very interested in the eclectic herbal medicine, for this is where

I started, but at the time I found it inadequate- therefore I switched to

Chinese medicine which is seemingly more superior... so let me play devils

advocate towards a couple claims below, so that I may be better educated in the

subject.

 

 

<@i...> wrote:

Every western

> herbal I have looked at now (about a dozen well respected herbals) all

> list rhubarb as having an astringent effect in low dose. Unless one is

> willing to just dismiss western herbalism, I doubt every herbalist in

> western history was wrong about this.

 

Since Western medicine is such a small circle, and there are only a few books,

Isn't it quite possible that an original claim 100 years ago could have easily

got perpetuated just by mere regurgitation. For example, when Michael Moore

(modern western herbalist) quotes indications for rhubarb he specifically quotes

Felter (classical). Also if one looks up constipation, rhubarb is indicated --

if one looks up diarrhea, rhubarb is indicated - no explanation on dose - if one

then looks up dosages and preparation in the Western materia medica - it is very

terse and says, tincture 10 to 15 drops... It is typical in western alterntive

medicine to perpetuate 'wrong' ideas - becuase of the lack of research and

amount of literature and people actually doing various modalities. an example is

the food combining theories - which physiologically do not make sense with

modern-day understanding, but almost every modern author quotes Shelton (from

the 50's)- which based his theories on physiological misunderstanding of the

time - I'm sure Chinese and every other culture have this same problem, but the

advantage that Chinese has it has a much longer history to weed out the

inconsistencies, and much more people experimenting with the ideas and methods.

 

about I would offer a more likely

> explanation. da huang is never used alone in TCM. however it is almost

> always used alone in western herbalism.

 

This is not true, I checked classical to modern references and It seems that

rhubarb is used in not only diarrhea formulas but also constipation and bowel

tonic formulas from everyone from Benjamin Colby to Michael Moore. The eclectic

medicine is full of formulas, but the deficiency in their system lies in the

inability to have an understanding (at least for what I have seen) to really

altering and customizing formulas for an individual or even an individual

pattern within a disease. I'm sure some herbalists have this ability, but I

have yet to find a documented system that teaches one actually how to do this

with any proficiency. If one looks through the various formulas in their

materia medica one finds a very simplistic and reductionist approach. For

example, 'this is a bowel tonic formula good for constipation or diarrhea...'

(note: rhubarb ticture is in this Rx at a very low dose) - So things are very

generalized, no pattern differentiation, no suggestion on modifications. This

is not to say that it is not possible, of course they are using plants just like

to Chinese do, but the documented system on how to alter formulas is obviously

much more extensive in the Chinese literature and almost nonexistent in the

Western literature. And things are very sypmtom based.

 

 

western combinations with rhubarb

> typically might add one carminative (many qi regulators have carminative

> effects) to prevent griping. What is not typically done is to combine

> other purgatives with rhubarb.

 

Here is just one from Michael Moore (for constipation):

 

" psyllium seed 3 parts "

licorice 3 parts

rhubarb root 2 parts

senna odds (crushed) 2 parts

Angelica root 2 parts "

 

Note: I have no idea what 1 part??

 

 

Is it possible that one never sees a

> constipating effect from short term use of chinese rhubarb formulas

> because they typically contain additional herbs to promote bowel movement

> (such as hou po, mang xiao, huo ma ren)?

 

I have used low dose of da huang (1 gram/day) without other purgatives and have

never seen this.

 

all that is being said about da

> huang is that in and of itself, the laxative effect is less than the

> astringent effect at small doses, thus it can treat diarrhea. However,

> this does not extend to formulas that contain other purgatives. In

> formulas, the sum total of all the purgatives in the combination may

> overwhelm the astringency of one herb like da huang, no matter how small

> the dose.

 

This whole line of reasoning is suspect because of the above information, and

also may be applied towards the eclectic medicine.

 

so to dismiss this claim about da huang because one has never

> seen this in TCM practice is not a valid test.

 

I would say it is actually much more valid when comparing it to eclectic

medicine. 2000 years of Chinese history with millions of people using herbs

every day seems much more valid than a 100-year-old very small tradition that is

almost currently extinct... one always has to ask, if something is so great and

powerful where did it go? I do not buy the Rockefeller conspiracy theory...

 

A valid test would be to

> take a 1/4 teaspoon of da huang all by itself.

 

That is true, I agree - I really think your previous point about preparation is

the key to this whole scenario...

 

 

 

>

> BTW, for those who would just dismiss eclectic herbalism as being less

> effective or less worthy of value than TCM, have you ever worked with

> someone who practices this style with high training? I had the pleasure

> in Oregon for working for many years with a naturopath who used Eclectic

> indications and european dosing methods (eclectic specific medicines are

> no longer available). He was as successful as any chinese doc I have ever

> worked with. His teachers had a direct lineage going back to Scudder and

> King. this very empiric, nondogmatic style of practice used pulse and

> tongue to select their meds, not western pathology.

>

 

This is actually somewhat fascinating, I would love to see someone work at this

level. Because in the eclectic literature modern (M. Moore) and past (Lloyd,

colby etc) I have only seen a dogmatic very symptom based style. I've never

seen any notable mention of pulse and tongue diagnosis. Western pathologies as

physiology was the only mentioned diagnostic criteria. Although because of the

time period many of the diseases are not even recognizable anymore.

So if the literature does not support such a method, yet there is a doctor who

is very successful using such a style, I'm confused with what to do with this.

Because there's one guy that is great, does this validate the whole system? If

if there is a great doctor who follows a lineage of crystal waivers, does this

validate the whole system?

One has to ask:

1) is there modern research for this system (or any system)

2) if not, is there an extensive amount of empirical history to validate it?

3) can we reproduce the methodology of such an individual, most notably are

their texts that explain what is going on and how to use such a system...

 

If you have more information I would actually be very interested...

 

Can we conclude then; Assuming If the eclectic's claims are possibly correct,

then small doses of rhubarb have an astringent effect only when using tinctures?

Therefore, back to Will's original claim, that small doses of da haung used in

Chinese formulas (decoctions, etc.) having a astringency effect is not

substantiated by eclectic claims... or for that matter probably most Western

sources - and we have yet to see this from the chinese... because of the

preparation methods one cannot seemingly compare Chinese and Western

functions/dose - or am I missing something?

 

-

[Guest guest]

rhubarb root 2 parts

>>>Are we sure that we a talking about the exact same herb. I have seen references to "chinese rhubarb". I know nothing about eclectic herbal medicine so I wander

Alon

[Guest guest]

Can we conclude then; Assuming If the eclectic's claims are possibly correct, then small doses of rhubarb have an astringent effect only when using tinctures? Therefore, back to Will's original claim, that small doses of da haung used in Chinese formulas (decoctions, etc.) having a astringency effect is not substantiated by eclectic claims... or for that matter probably most Western sources - and we have yet to see this from the chinese... because of the preparation methods one cannot seemingly compare Chinese and Western functions/dose - or am I missing something?>>>I think there is a bigger question and that is individual reaction to herbs. I have certainly seen some patients that seem to not purge on Da Huang. So can i conclude that it has other effects on BM?

We like to think we can predict effects based on patterns and herbal functions however this does not always work. So do we conceder new possible "herbal functions" or do we start looking at individual metabolism and thus differing functions in different individuals regardless of so called functions?

Is it possible that they have seen improvement in infectious diarrhea and therefore concluded astringent function instead of antibiotic? Who knows

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " <

@h...> " <@h...> wrote:

or am I missing something?

>

> -

 

I think you are missing something. Scudder's specific diagnosis is the bible of

eclectic diagnostics. the entire book is about tongue, pulse and specific

indications for remedies, not merely symptoms. I don't think you are very

familiar with this tradition if you call it 100 years old. the tradition was

mature

100 years ago and had been developing formally for the previous 100 years.

While the time period of the profession was shorter than CM, it is longer than

you think. the eclectics organized the medical knowledge of their day into a

framewok that dismissed symptomatic medicine over whatis essentially

pattern dx. they drew from greek medicine, arab medicine, native american

medicine. to dismiss their insights as too recent to have validity would be

like

dismissing the jinyuan masters of TCM because everything before them was

symptomatic (except the SHL). As for research, the germans considered the

eclectics to be the foundation of modern pharmacology and the germans

have proved many eclectic claims (saw palmetto, kava-kava, black cohosh).

 

 

Your personal experience with rhubarb is anecdotal and carries no weight.

You said you want data you can trust and then you share an anecdote as

proof? the eclectics did not normally approve of using formulas. all their

literature centers around simples. while some herbalists of that era who

affiliated with the eclectics may have used formulas, it was not standard

eclectic practice. the fact that you present an eclectic formula with two

purgatives used for constipation is kind of backwards logic. I said rhubarb

alone could be used for diarrhea. the fact that is used for constipation with

senna is meaningless. what is more important is if the chinese typically used

rhubarb WITHOUT other herbs for the bowels. they did not, thus they would

not know if it cured diarrhea in small doses by itself.

 

As for your dismissal of the eclectics based upon the idea that they just copied

what came before them, that is just false. the eclectics were notorious in

their

day for their dismissal of many ancient remedies because they did not stand

the test of clinical practice. the eclectics had journals, med schools,

conferences and even did clinical research. whether one thinks their system

is holistic enough has nothing to do with whether they were accurate in their

descriptions of medicinals. Since they were not bound by dogma and their

choices were based on actual clinical efficacy, there is arguably reason to

trust them more than ancient TCM. Ancient TCM was based on cultural

dogma and as Unschuld has pointed out, clinical efficacy had little or nothib\

ng to do with whether an idea sank or swam. Which is why everything ever

written in TCM is open to suspicion, IMO.

 

While you had access to the Lloyd Libray, I had access to one almost as good

at NCNM. At NCNM, the tradition of ecleticism was alive all through the 20th

century and rather than one doctor, I know many of this lineage. I only worked

with this one. Eclectic institute in portland was founded because this

tradition

was alive and they actually own a lloyd extractor and make a few specific

medicines.

 

[Guest guest]

>

> I think you are missing something. Scudder's specific diagnosis is the b=

ible of

> eclectic diagnostics. the entire book is about tongue, pulse and specifi=

c

> indications for remedies, not merely symptoms.

 

I have personally not read this book, could you could give us some example=

s of how profound there system is with pulse tongue and pattern dx... Agai=

n, TO date all of the books I have seen dealing with western herbalism, do n=

ot make use of patterns and are either disease based or symptom based. I al=

so just d/l `the eclectic practice of medicine' 1907 (scudder brothers) – a)=

I see no tongue and pulse b) I see a very western dx approach, 3) I see for=

mulas (multiple herbs given) d) I see no patterns, because dx is based on mo=

dern-day 1907 western Dx. Which we know was not very sophisticated.

 

I don't think you are very

> familiar with this tradition if you call it 100 years old. the tradition=

was mature

> 100 years ago and had been developing formally for the previous 100 years=

..

 

Well, formally, eclectic medicine started in 1845 and ended in 1939, so act=

ually it is less than 100 years of tradition. and in 1920 due partly to " a g=

eneral lack of research and progress in the overall field of eclectic medici=

ne. " the AMA enforced uniform requirements, which led to low attendance and=

accreditation problems. The fact is clear anyway you look at it, it DIED ou=

t... One has to wonder, If it was so great why did it DIE? I say that " its =

efficacy was not proving sufficient " ...

 

Here is a quote from an eclectic journal/ institute,

 

" The present year has been one of unusual prosperity, the class numbering 1=

44 up to this time, with a graduating class of 43. This is well—for us—but i=

s not one-half as well as our Old-School or Homoeopathic neighbors would do =

with our facilities. If our physicians expect to thrive they must work; if t=

hey expect Eclecticism to thrive they must do more than talk about " the caus=

e " —they must educate students. We want men, and want them badly. There are h=

undreds of localities where physicians of our School would meet a hearty rec=

eption and good success, but we have to reply to such inquiries— " we have no =

men. " "

 

They had no men... They had no graduates 1929-33/ without men how we can tr=

ust there supposed findings...

 

Here is another quote from 1873 addressing scudder, " I admire your independ=

ent way of writing, and your desire to advance the science of medicine, but =

I have some objections to your style of writing. One is, I think you extol n=

ew remedies too highly, and claim more for them than they merit. And then ag=

ain, after using the remedy for some time you drop it altogether; as for ins=

tance, the hypodermic injection of Morphine. A few years ago you claimed it =

would cure rheumatism, neuralgia, pleurisy, and even pneumonia. Now I think =

you claimed entirely too much for it, but now you drop it altogether, and cl=

aim not to use it at all, and I find the same objection to nearly all the ne=

w remedies you bring up; not so great in most of them as in Morphine. "

 

Sounds like modern alternative medicine…

 

 

> While the time period of the profession was shorter than CM, it is longer=

than

> you think. the eclectics organized the medical knowledge of their day in=

to a

> framewok that dismissed symptomatic medicine over whatis essentially

> pattern dx. they drew from greek medicine, arab medicine, native american=

 

> medicine.

 

Of course they used past information, hence the name eclectic's, but they d=

id start there own tradition and philosophy. ANd at the time, they and othe=

rs were not too fond of the past, for example here is a quote from 1846, " th=

at the science of medicine...as practiced from the time of Paracelsus until =

the present, was a series of blind experiments with the most deadly poisons " =

, later says, that all previous systems are " not based on scientific princip=

les... "

 

to dismiss their insights as too recent to have validity would be like

> dismissing the jinyuan masters of TCM because everything before them was =

 

> symptomatic (except the SHL).

 

Again I say China had millions of people practicing the medicine, the eclec=

tics `needed men'… Also if there insights are so profound, where are they? W=

hy isn't someone bringing their Cancer cure (BACK) to the modern day, or the=

ir single asthma cure… As much conspiracy as one might cry about the past, w=

e are pretty open-minded today, so with these great books of extensive kick-=

ass remedies out there what are we waiting for… Let's go get it and cure… On=

e major difference about Chinese medicine's past is that people actually use=

(today) the formula's from the past (1800's) [eclectic's time] all the way =

back to the SHL and they do kick-ass and work and we all know it. If there =

remedies are so great the next time someone walks through your door with ast=

hma or high blood pressure give them john lloyd's tincture of 8 herbs – BTW =

he offers no differential Dx for any of the diseases.

 

As for research, the germans considered the

> eclectics to be the foundation of modern pharmacology and the germans

> have proved many eclectic claims (saw palmetto, kava-kava, black cohosh).=

 

 

What does this really mean?.. SO they had a couple of things that are now `=

proven' great, this in no way validates everything they did….One just can gl=

ance through some of there old books and find laughable treatments for many =

diseases… Question ; are the German's practicing `eclectic medicine' or mode=

rn pharmacology. A foundation is one thing, but people change things for a r=

eason.

 

>

>

> Your personal experience with rhubarb is anecdotal and carries no weight.=

 

> You said you want data you can trust and then you share an anecdote as

> proof?

 

This was Not as PROOF… I was merely saying I have tried a small dose (da ha=

ung) and have only seen it help with constipation not hinder it, supporting =

the 1000's of years of Chinese thought… And if one cannot trust one's own ex=

perience, testing the theories of the past and present, then what are we doi=

ng?? This anecdote is not to convince you ot others.. Just that I have trie=

d what people have said and those are my results, do what you want with it. =

Since we have no formal study, what do you think the next best thing is?

 

the eclectics did not normally approve of using formulas. all their

> literature centers around simples.

 

All their literature..? NO. I have 2 books right in front of me, as well a=

s the eclectic manual I d/l and there are clearly formulas (primarily used)…=

 

 

while some herbalists of that era who

> affiliated with the eclectics may have used formulas, it was not standard=

 

> eclectic practice. the fact that you present an eclectic formula with tw=

o

> purgatives used for constipation is kind of backwards logic. I said rhub=

arb

> alone could be used for diarrhea.

 

No , please re-read your post, you were referring to how what is not typica=

lly done is to combine other purgatives with rhubarb. Your statement starts=

with " western combinations with rhubarb… " This, as far as my English langua=

ge skills extend, refers not to a single use of rhubarb, but a Rx.

 

the fact that is used for constipation with

> senna is meaningless.

 

No you said that it is not used with other purgative herbs (in western medi=

cine) – so I showed you where it is.. Actually the only laxative tea mention=

ed.

 

what is more important is if the chinese typically used

> rhubarb WITHOUT other herbs for the bowels. they did not, thus they woul=

d

> not know if it cured diarrhea in small doses by itself.

 

Maybe.. or maybe not.. Originally the roots, as far as I know, of Chinese h=

erbal prescribing started with singles. – and this is documented, correct?

I think the questions should be centered around preparation.

 

>

> As for your dismissal of the eclectics based upon the idea that they just=

copied

> what came before them, that is just false. the eclectics were notorious =

in their

> day for their dismissal of many ancient remedies because they did not sta=

nd

> the test of clinical practice.

 

Yes, you may be right, I was not saying this was a fact, just an idea, beca=

use I see how MM was quoting Felter, for rhubarb.

 

the eclectics had journals, med schools,

> conferences and even did clinical research.

 

As we see above, and as history dictates, not much though…

 

whether one thinks their system

> is holistic enough has nothing to do with whether they were accurate in t=

heir

> descriptions of medicinals.

 

Show us the money…

 

 

-JAson

[Guest guest]

n= ot make use of patterns and are either disease

>>>A disease is a pattern.Just a different type of pattern

Alon

[Guest guest]

Michael Moore mentions CHinese or turkey rhubarb as the 'rhubarb' - but I do not

know previous to that?

 

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> rhubarb root 2 parts

> >>>Are we sure that we a talking about the exact same herb. I have seen

references to " chinese rhubarb " . I know nothing about eclectic herbal medicine

so I wander

> Alon

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> n=

> ot make use of patterns and are either disease

> >>>A disease is a pattern.Just a different type of pattern

> Alon

 

With that definition thing can get very blurry... You are somewhat right though,

but I wan not using the term like that, were you Todd? I personally think of the

TCM way of differentiation.. I.e. Asthma is a disease - this is general... and

TCM and modern medicine then further differentiates this into patterns... gives

us more individualized treatments... correct? I don't really see this in these

past medicines...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

Asthma

>>Asthma is also further differentiated in western med to several types that should be treated differently (although because of poor practice do not always). For example, if do to allergic relation to milk, nothing works better than eliminating milk. Exceptional asthma is treated with different drugs than infectious secondary asthma, and so on. By definition a true western disease has a cause and if identified, at times, can be treated specifically and often very successfully.

Do you know if asthma is considered a "disease" in WM? i am not sure.

Alon