xing and zheng

[Guest guest]

Has anyone read Volker Scheid's (various pages in chin. Med in contemp.

china) where he talks about type (xing) versus pattern (zheng). According

to his professor Zhu, typing tends to pidgeonhole the patient as either

this or that. the example he gives is for meniere's disease being either

liver yang rising, phlegm-turbidity, etc.. He considers those types if

the goal of the dr. is to match the patient to one of the s/s complexes.

He says this is prominent in some circles in modern china, but also has

been roundly criticized by many since its inception. typing is a

westernized approach designed to link discrete diagnoses to patients as

with western diseases. Zhu argues that practicing according to bian zheng

is actually a process of identifying the multiple pathomechanisms that are

involved in a case and crafting a formula that takes account of all these

facets. that does not necessarily mean treating every facet

simultaneously, but it does require their consideration.

 

Apparently many of the standard textbooks in the 70's were organized

around typing, even moreso were those designed for export. CAM is a

modern incarnation of this trend, I believe. So some have argued that TCM

is a bunch of contrived boxes. Others have argued that it is a flexible

set of guideposts. Apparently it is both and neither. If one uses

textbooks listings as types, it does seem quite limiting. But if one uses

the textbook listings as patterns, then it becomes much more flexible.

Unfortunately the omission of pathomechanisms from many internal medicine

textbooks printed in english has led to a default application of TCM as a

typing methodology. I am sure many of you have had teachers who argued

both adamantly for and against typing (without calling it that - everyone

uses the term patterns regardless of what they are actually doing, it

seems). those who would say you can only choose one pattern per case and

those who advocate treating up to a dozen patterns at once.

 

I think much of the criticism leveled at the TCM style in some circles is

dues to the fact that many of the teachers educated by these textbooks in

modern china were taught to practice bian xing, not bian zheng. I think

some americans have gravitated to bian xing for its simplicity and

straightforwardness. Others have rejected it as heartless and cold and

sterile, with no room for creativity. I would have to say that when reads

books like zhu dan xi and li dong yuan, the discussion of treatment does

seem to center on descriptions fo pathomechanisms rather than named

patterns in many case, thus supporting the interpretation of bian zheng

offered by Professor Zhu above. so for those who have rejected TCM, one

should really read Scheid (and Farquhar) and you may reconsider the

supposed limitations of this style of practice.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

There are other major areas of theory thathave been poorly represented in the Englishlanguage literature and therefore in thecurrent standards of instruction and examinationthat are used to qualify practitioners.>>Why don't the translators stop re-translating much of the same materials and do some of these different approaches. Cant you guys get together and divide some of the work

Alon

[Guest guest]

 

 

There are many approaches to traditional Chinese

medicine here in the PRC. Over the past ten years

or so I've met many doctors and educators who

disagree vehemently not only with the " standard "

packaging of TCM but with one another about how

it should be improved upon. The debate is actually

quite lively now and then, and the role of Chinese

medicine in the current SARS crisis is focusing

new light on the whole topic.

 

I agree with your assessment that the omission

of pathomechanisms is a major lacuna in the

presentation of Chinese medicine, both in

the West and here in China. Of course the

one advantage of those who can access the

Chinese language literature is that there

is a wealth of such knowledge available.

 

A series of books by one of the most prominent

diagnosticians in the country, Yan Shi Lin

from Chengdu, is currently in preparation.

I'm hoping to publish more of Dr. Yan's

materials in CAOM. His books concern the

pathomechanisms of the five zhang.

 

There are other major areas of theory that

have been poorly represented in the English

language literature and therefore in the

current standards of instruction and examination

that are used to qualify practitioners.

 

Ironically, these include some of the

most basic concepts. I believe that jing luo

theory is rather poorly represented in

much of the current Chinese medical literature

available in English, whether it be translations

or derivative texts.

 

That's another hole I'm hoping to see

filled in the not-too-distant-future.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

This section of Volker's book has been of great interest to me for some

time now. I have used it as a basis for arguing for teaching

pathomechanisms and avoiding oversimplification of complex cases at

PCOM.

 

Intuitively, I always felt this was the case, that the CAM-type books

were over-simplified and not really useful for figuring out real-time

cases. At best, they provide a ballpark or shorthand approach to at

least get you acquainted with possibilities of diagnosis and treatment.

 

Volker's book discusses the arguments of several core architects of

modern TCM, including Qin Bo-wei, and they seem to be against the bian

xing approach.

 

I've also used some of Professor Zhu's case histories in class to

illustrate modern applications of Dongyuan theory. Professor Zhu is

obviously influenced by Zhang Xi-chun, who added ascending (of clear

yang) and descending (of turbid yin) to the ba gang/eight parameters

(principles), and this is obvious in his case histories.

 

While bian xing can point pracitioners to the ballpark, I am one of

those who finds it to be 'cold and sterile, with no room for

creativity'.

 

 

On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 12:03 PM, wrote:

 

> Has anyone read Volker Scheid's (various pages in chin. Med in

> contemp. china) where he talks about type (xing) versus pattern

> (zheng). According to his professor Zhu, typing tends to pidgeonhole

> the patient as either this or that. the example he gives is for

> meniere's disease being either liver yang rising, phlegm-turbidity,

> etc.. He considers those types if the goal of the dr. is to match the

> patient to one of the s/s complexes. He says this is prominent in

> some circles in modern china, but also has been roundly criticized by

> many since its inception. typing is a westernized approach designed

> to link discrete diagnoses to patients as with western diseases. Zhu

> argues that practicing according to bian zheng is actually a process

> of identifying the multiple pathomechanisms that are involved in a

> case and crafting a formula that takes account of all these facets.

> that does not necessarily mean treating every facet simultaneously,

> but it does require their consideration.

>

[Guest guest]

It's not only that it hampers " creativity'. Bian Zheng can be confusing to

students if the patient presents w/ s and s that exist outside the assigned

patterns. It can be an impediment to logical reasoning. If we take it to be

the truth that all menieures is caused by Liv yang to phlegm fire,, but our

patient presents differently, then the risk is that the practitioner begins

to question his/her diagnostic skills. Bian zheng can fly in the face of

common sense.

In the class that I am plannning for TAI- one ongoing branch will be " Slow

Diagnisis " or " Deconstructed Diagnosis " or " how do we know what we know? " .

I want to work with this very issue to empower students to trust their

diagnostic skills- to avoid jumping to conclusions: to think clearly and

independently. To discriminate patterns without freaking out. To go to the

next logical step of choosing an appropriate formula- and then to add and

subtract appropriately. Based on the patient- not the preassigned patterns.

Bian Zheng should be seen as a jumping off point and nothing more.

Cara

>

> While bian xing can point pracitioners to the ballpark, I am one of

> those who finds it to be 'cold and sterile, with no room for

> creativity'.

>

>

> On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 12:03 PM, wrote:

>

>> Has anyone read Volker Scheid's (various pages in chin. Med in

>> contemp. china) where he talks about type (xing) versus pattern

>> (zheng). According to his professor Zhu, typing tends to pidgeonhole

>> the patient as either this or that. the example he gives is for

>> meniere's disease being either liver yang rising, phlegm-turbidity,

>> etc.. He considers those types if the goal of the dr. is to match the

>> patient to one of the s/s complexes. He says this is prominent in

>> some circles in modern china, but also has been roundly criticized by

>> many since its inception. typing is a westernized approach designed

>> to link discrete diagnoses to patients as with western diseases. Zhu

>> argues that practicing according to bian zheng is actually a process

>> of identifying the multiple pathomechanisms that are involved in a

>> case and crafting a formula that takes account of all these facets.

>> that does not necessarily mean treating every facet simultaneously,

>> but it does require their consideration.

[Guest guest]

It's not only that it hampers " creativity'. Bian Zheng can be confusing tostudents if the patient presents w/ s and s that exist outside the assignedpatterns. It can be an impediment to logical reasoning. If we take it to bethe truth that all menieures is caused by Liv yang to phlegm fire,, but ourpatient presents differently, then the risk is that the practitioner beginsto question his/her diagnostic skills. Bian zheng can fly in the face ofcommon sense. >>>>I am confused. Don't people at the school learn to individualize all treatments? I have always spoke against the theoretical forcing of patterns especially on WM diseases. However when I was in school as early as 1982 Dr Lai for example never used to use so called text book patterns when seeing A patient. It was always a web that was weaved for any individual patient. This was the case in China as well. Am I missing something here? There was always discussion of developmental pathomechanisims, although I often found them quite speculative, and different Dr never agreed with each other. There was more agreement of the current presenting pattern. When making a diagnosis the typing symptoms were often attributed to a mechanism (often pejant holed) which often bothered me as almost any symptom can be attributed to a variety of mechanisms. The picking of symptoms to support a mechanism or another was often quite arbitrary, again something that still bothers me quite often when reading case histories, e.g., patient has back pain and cold feet showing evidence of K yang def etc.

alon

[Guest guest]

, Cara Frank <herbbabe@e...>

wrote:

Bian Zheng should be seen as a jumping off point and nothing more.

> Cara

 

I think scheid's point (and I agree) is that the true proces of bian zheng has

been subsumed in american minds by the process of bian xing. The style of

practice so many descry as cold, sterile and confusing is not even bian zheng

at all. In case it was not clear, since it rarely is, I am against bian xing

and for

true bian zheng. I am teaching a class this semester very similar to the one

you have described. while the course is organized by resp and GI diseases,

the purpose of the class is to use these diseases that patients present with as

jumping off points for reframing and crafting complex formulas based on

zheng, not xing (or bing).

 

In reply to Ken on what is missing from englsih language literature visa ve

pathomechanisms, let me also clarify. Most core required books have

ommitted this info. Bensky includes pathomechanisms with every major

formula entry inhis books, to his credit. In fact, the arrival of his formulas

book

on the scene changed my understanding of TCM because of this (thank god it

was published before I even started OCOM). BP and paradigm books always

include PM's and if these books replaced the current ones as basic reference

texts, the profession would make a quantum leap forward. At PCOM, we use

paradigm and BP books all the way through the program and the issue of

pathomechanisms is stressed by several teachers, myself, Bob Damone, Z'ev.

However this issue does need to be taken up with entire faculty because

some teachers do seem to practice bian bing or bian xing and they may

erroneously convey this to students as bian zheng.

 

Now having said all that , we need to keep in mind that a huge body of

chinese research has been based upon bian bing or bian xing, not bian

zheng. Yet it still appears to work. We might argue that 60% cure rates could

improve to 90% with bian zheng, but we haven't proved it yet.

 

Based upon my discussion with those who read chinese, my own

understanding of basic theory seems to be fairly good. I constantly check my

understanding with colleagues and online to make sure of his whenever I

have any doubt. I take this care because this is not solely an academic

undertaking, but it involves people's lives. As I have stated before, all I

ultimately care about is what works. and if I failed to meet this ethical

obligation to my patients, I would retire tomorrow. Others believe we must

preserve the pure medicine or explore texts continuously. that is not what

motivates me or gets my patients well, so for my needs, I definitely think the

core information is there, one just must be very careful in choosing sources to

follow. I would be curious as to what other important clinically relevant

points

of basic theory are missing from english language texts.

 

[Guest guest]

based on zheng, not xing (or bing).>>>Todd are you referring to xing as in body? ie signs?

alon

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> >>>>I am confused. Don't people at the school learn to individualize all

treatments? I have always spoke against the theoretical forcing of patterns

especially on WM diseases. However when I was in school as early as 1982

Dr Lai for example never used to use so called text book patterns when

seeing A patient. It was always a web that was weaved for any individual

patient.

 

didn't you go to ACTCM?

 

I think if you were trained by a bian zheng guy, you got this (my main teacher

Li Wei was bian zheng all the way). But if you learned from a bian xing guy,

you got something quite different. I have to say that the majority of chinese

doctors I have encountered seem to practice bian xing. In fact, when I first

met

Heiner Fruehauf after he had spent a decade in china, he would constantly

rail that younger physicians treated diseases and types and no one

understood patterns anymore.

 

[Guest guest]

This sounds quite interesting.

 

There is no doubt that in the schools we need to work a lot with the

students on diagnosis.

 

As I said earlier, if we can use bian xing as simply a ballpark

measuring tool, and go beyond it, students should be ok.

 

 

On Sunday, April 27, 2003, at 04:07 AM, Cara Frank wrote:

 

> In the class that I am plannning for TAI- one ongoing branch will be

> " Slow

> Diagnisis " or " Deconstructed Diagnosis " or " how do we know what we

> know? " .

> I want to work with this very issue to empower students to trust their

> diagnostic skills- to avoid jumping to conclusions: to think clearly

> and

> independently. To discriminate patterns without freaking out. To go

> to the

> next logical step of choosing an appropriate formula- and then to add

> and

> subtract appropriately. Based on the patient- not the preassigned

> patterns.

> Bian Zheng should be seen as a jumping off point and nothing more.

> Cara

[Guest guest]

Zhu argues that practicing according to bian zheng is actually a process of identifying the multiple pathomechanisms that are involved in a case and crafting a formula that takes account of all these facets. that does not necessarily mean treating every facet simultaneously, but it does require their consideration. >>>Todd some of the teachers i respect the most have emphasized that is often more about what to ignore and not include in a formula, although i think its a much more difficult way to practice. Its much easier to cover most of what you see and think you can categorize as so called complex

alon

[Guest guest]

Teaching Individualization of patterns and treatments is classroom, not

particularly textbook stuff. Most of the english textbooks

oversimplify the patterns, and many students still take the textbooks

as gospel. Some of the textbooks are presented in a way that makes it

appear that they are 'complete'.

 

Ken Rose gave me two books of yin xu and yang xu pattern

differentiation ('yin xu zheng zhi', 'yang xu zheng zhi') in Chinese

that go into much more depth on patterns than anything in the English

language.

 

 

On Sunday, April 27, 2003, at 09:10 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> >>>>I am confused. Don't people at the school learn to individualize

> all treatments? I have always spoke against the theoretical forcing of

> patterns especially on WM diseases. However when I was in school as

> early as 1982 Dr Lai for example never used to use so called text book

> patterns when seeing A patient. It was always a web that was weaved

> for any individual patient. This was the case in China as well. Am I

> missing something here? There was always discussion of developmental

> pathomechanisims, although I often found them quite speculative, and

> different Dr never agreed with each other. There was more agreement of

> the current presenting pattern. When making a diagnosis the typing

> symptoms were often attributed to a mechanism (often pejant holed)

> which often bothered me as almost any symptom can be attributed to a

> variety of mechanisms. The picking of symptoms to support a mechanism

> or another was often quite arbitrary, again something that still

> bothers me quite often when reading case histories, e.g., patient has

> back pain and cold feet showing evidence of K yang def etc.

> alon

[Guest guest]

My experience before I read about it in the Scheid book was only

intuitive, I couldn't put into words what made one book or teacher

exciting or interesting, and another dull and boring when discussing

pattern diagnosis. So now we know.

 

It also concerns me that much of the integrated Chinese-Western

medicine zhong xi yi jie he is really bian xing based. Volker Scheid

points out in his book that the bian xing was designed largely to

appeal to (Chinese) Western doctors in their CM training.

 

Now you know why I've been so stubborn about this issue (in relation to

integrative medicine classes) at department and faculty meetings

 

 

On Sunday, April 27, 2003, at 11:55 AM, wrote:

 

> I think if you were trained by a bian zheng guy, you got this (my main

> teacher

> Li Wei was bian zheng all the way). But if you learned from a bian

> xing guy,

> you got something quite different. I have to say that the majority of

> chinese

> doctors I have encountered seem to practice bian xing. In fact, when

> I first met

> Heiner Fruehauf after he had spent a decade in china, he would

> constantly

> rail that younger physicians treated diseases and types and no one

> understood patterns anymore.

>

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> Ken Rose gave me two books of yin xu and yang xu pattern

> differentiation ('yin xu zheng zhi', 'yang xu zheng zhi') in

Chinese that go into much more depth on patterns than anything in

the English language. >>>

 

 

Z'ev:

 

Can you give us several examples from the books?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I think if you were trained by a bian zheng guy, you got this (my main teacher Li Wei was bian zheng all the way). But if you learned from a bian xing guy, you got something quite different. I have to say that the majority of chinese doctors I have encountered seem to practice bian xing.

>>>Yes i did go to ACTCM, I may be missing something can you explain a little more the difference between the two

thanks

alon

[Guest guest]

Teaching Individualization of patterns and treatments is classroom, not particularly textbook stuff. Most of the english textbooks oversimplify the patterns, and many students still take the textbooks as gospel. Some of the textbooks are presented in a way that makes it appear that they are 'complete'.>>>I would think they get over this the first day of clinic, dont they?

alon

[Guest guest]

Can you give us several examples from the books?>>>Yes please do

thanks alon

[Guest guest]

, Cara Frank wrote:

Bian Zheng can be confusing to students if the patient presents w/s

and s that exist outside the assigned patterns. It can be an

impediment to logical reasoning. Bian zheng can fly in the face of

common sense. >>>

 

 

Cara:

 

I think your conclusion is correct, but for different reasons. I

don't think students are very well trained in diagnosic skills, and

bian zheng is never fully developed.

 

For example, when I do a seminar, I always ask about the other pulse

diagnosis training they have received in school or in other

seminars. But for a few exceptions, hardly anyone receives more than

a few hours or days of preparation before they go into clinic. The

Chinese neglected it, their American teachers weren't taught, and

now they miss out.

 

If we look at the Fang Yaozhong system of pattern differentiation

(bian zheng) in Sheid's book, it includes a fairly comprehensive and

detailed approach in seven step: (1) determine the location of the

illness in the visceral system or channel; (2) determine the nature

of the illness in terms of yin/yang, qi, blood, etc; (3) determine

the location and character of the liiness process; (4) give priority

in terms of 5-phases types of overcoming (what I have earlier

discussed as the Revenge Cycle); (5) align therapeutic strategies

with previous processes; (6) seek the root; (7) develop treatment

ahead of the dynamics of the disorder. Conspicuous among the methods

he utilizes is five-phases---another subject besides pulses that is

hardly discussed in most TCM schools.

 

Yang is innovative (Scheid's term) not due to originality (the

information about these methods is widely available) but because he

is more comprehensive than others.

 

The issue is not about access to resources, but about the basic

training---detailed information for all these methods is available

in English.

 

The only real problem I find with using his system is that many

illnesses have their root in genetics and other molecular processes--

-something which TCM cannot deal with on its own. But it is a

limitation of TCM itself and not Yang.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I teach the 'Fang Yaozhong algorithms' to students at PCOM as part of

the internal medicine series. I also appreciate the five phase

application as well as 'treating ahead of the dynamics of the

disorder'. This is fairly sophisticated stuff. . . .the interlocking

relationships of visceral systems, and heading off the development of

disease patterns before they progress.

 

 

On Sunday, April 27, 2003, at 08:39 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> If we look at the Fang Yaozhong system of pattern differentiation

> (bian zheng) in Sheid's book, it includes a fairly comprehensive and

> detailed approach in seven step: (1) determine the location of the

> illness in the visceral system or channel; (2) determine the nature

> of the illness in terms of yin/yang, qi, blood, etc; (3) determine

> the location and character of the liiness process; (4) give priority

> in terms of 5-phases types of overcoming (what I have earlier

> discussed as the Revenge Cycle); (5) align therapeutic strategies

> with previous processes; (6) seek the root; (7) develop treatment

> ahead of the dynamics of the disorder. Conspicuous among the methods

> he utilizes is five-phases---another subject besides pulses that is

> hardly discussed in most TCM schools.

[Guest guest]

Here are a few chapter headings, I don't have time to translate more

right now. Over time, I hope to translate some of this material.

 

The descriptions of the patterns are very complete, with a lot of new

information I've never seen in English (from what I've examined so far).

 

The ISBN numbers are ISBN 7-5390-0995-0 and ISBN 7-5390-1018-5.

 

xu han shan qi/vacuity cold shan qi

 

yang xu wei tong/yang vacuity stomach pain

 

gan yang xu zheng/liver yang vacuity pattern

 

yang xu tou tong/yang vacuity head pain

 

yin xu zhong shu/yin vacuity center (burner) summerheat

 

xin shen bu jiao/heart and kidney not interacting

 

xue jing/blood in the semen

 

xu huo xie tong/vacuity fire evil pain

 

 

On Sunday, April 27, 2003, at 03:06 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> , " " wrote:

>> Ken Rose gave me two books of yin xu and yang xu pattern

>> differentiation ('yin xu zheng zhi', 'yang xu zheng zhi') in

> Chinese that go into much more depth on patterns than anything in

> the English language. >>>

>

>

> Z'ev:

>

> Can you give us several examples from the books?

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I teach the 'Fang Yaozhong algorithms' to students at PCOM as part of the internal medicine series. I also appreciate the five phase application as well as 'treating ahead of the dynamics of the disorder'. This is fairly sophisticated stuff. . . .the interlocking relationships of visceral systems, and heading off the development of disease patterns before they progress

>>>From what i have understood about these it is about the application of the five phases relationships which is not really that difficult, just a little plotting in the control or other cycles. However, to me it vary speculative and difficult to prove beyond dogmatic belief. A huge study (ie very large number of patients) would have to be done to take this out the mathematical game of patterns of correspondences

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " " <

zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

 

> It also concerns me that much of the integrated Chinese-Western

> medicine zhong xi yi jie he is really bian xing based.

>

> Now you know why I've been so stubborn about this issue (in relation to

> integrative medicine classes) at department and faculty meetings

 

Z''ev,

 

It is a risky proposition, no doubt. Teaching classes organized around

textbook disease types without regard to the actual complexity of clinic would

undoubtedly lead to a reductionistic style of practice. On the other hand, one

needs some guideposts to light the way. so typing can serve this purpose as

long as one focuses the class on how one treats actual patients, not just

merely memorizing types. And this again boils down to emphasizing

pathomechanisms as the key tool to unraveling cases and constructing

formulas. Dui yao pairs address pathomechanisms and only by

understanding the pathomechanisms at play can one combine the

appropriate dui yao to craft individualized formulae.

 

[Guest guest]

I'm wondering: among the list members that write their own formulas: how

many write herb formulas NOT based on a traditional formula, but based on

the actions of herbs/dui yao mechanisms? Written from scratch?

 

Cara

 

 

 

Dui yao pairs address pathomechanisms and only by

> understanding the pathomechanisms at play can one combine the

> appropriate dui yao to craft individualized formulae.

>

 

>

>

>

> 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]

, Cara Frank <herbbabe@e...>

wrote:

> I'm wondering: among the list members that write their own formulas: how

> many write herb formulas NOT based on a traditional formula, but based on

> the actions of herbs/dui yao mechanisms? Written from scratch?

>

> Cara

 

I can't help but have the traditional structures of formulas in the back of my

mind whenever I prescribe. I find that when my formulas do not bear any

resemblance to classical formulas at all, they do not work as well and they are

perceived as sloppy by my chinese peers. the structure of classical formulas

is a key factor in crafting unique formulas from dui yao pairs. It is not just

whether the herbs WITHIN a dui yao pair belong together, but also whether

there is historical precedent for the actions one assumes will occur BETWEEN

dui yao pairs. It is the structure of classical formulas that guides one in

combining dui yao pairs. so a formula may look like its from scratch and I

might not be consciously thinking about antecedent formulas, but the

underlying structure can always be dissected after the fact to reveal the

influences on my thought process.

 

I am sure most of us do the same thing and just take it for granted. However it

is quite dangerous for a novice who is NOT thoroughly familiar with classical

formulas to just wing it like this. Because they have no foundation from which

to improvise, the formula ends up being just so much herbal noise. so in my

upcoming formulation class, consideration of guiding formulas is always a

concern, even if what one ultimately does is just combine a bit from here and

a bit from there. according to qin bo wei, one must always consider the idea

behind a classical formula when prescribing even if one does not actually

prescribe the same herbs to get the desired effect. I mean even when one

cooks from scratch, there are still some rules. If you don't whip the egg

whites

long enough, you'll never get meringue. Flour and water make bread or

paste, depending.

 

this also reminded me that I really want to encourage any herb teachers who

can make it to the CHA conference to try and attend the Chinese Herbology

Teachers Association meeting. I think it would be nice to have a face to face

discussion about teaching methodlogies. What we think are problems. What

techniques work. How to implement them and most importantly, how to

assess outcomes. How does one measure whether one's style of education

has really resulted in graduates who can perform clinically? At PCOM, we

have all kinds of measuring instruments for his purpose, however controls are

loose and statistics from these evaluations are thus inaccurate. An auditor

would actually need to go through files and do followups with patients to see

who really got well. Schools with different teaching methods could do similar

audits and compare results.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> based on

> zheng, not xing (or bing).

> >>>Todd are you referring to xing as in body? ie signs?

> alon

 

I noted in the first post of this threads that scheid calls bian xing

differentiation

of types. you can look up types in his index to read the passages about this

topic.