Was NEW lurking pathogen; now Classics in Crisis

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> I agree, except for one thing... By changing the definition, we

are not making a more useful definition, we are doing the contrary.

The new definition gives us absolutely nothing as far as treatment

goes. . . . To change the lurking pathogen term to what you suggest,

is almost going backwards.>>>

 

Isn't this part of the process? If you discover or point out some

new phenomena [in this case virus and bacteria] that doesn't fit the

previous accepted theory [WB], then you go about testing and

revising the old theory. Either the old theory adapts to the new

phenomena or a new theory replaces it. For example, the old theory

of the atom was replaced, not refined, to fit contemporary

phenomena. Anyone still using Newtonian physics always admits a

certain amount of error.

 

 

> IT is too broad. >>>

 

IMO, it's not any broader than other accepted Chinese terms [wind,

qi, etc]. The big hinderence in people's minds seems to be that

there are only a few limited formulas to help treat and explain it.

 

Perhaps we need to describe actions on the molecular scale in CM

terms. If Broffman is already doing that, as Z'ev suggests, perhaps

it could be commonly adopted. Much of it can easily fall into 5-

Element theory, if you start with where the molecule is made and

what action it has on it's target [a yin/yang pair]. Like Li Dong

Yuan's yin fire, we're looking at a network of organ interaction as

the basic unit; not simply individual objects.

 

 

>>> If all herpes (latent virus) = latent pathogen someone needs to

show me how this helps you treat this. >>>

 

For example: for a herpes outbreak in the genitals, one useful

treatment is to bleed Sp.1. While the symptoms go away, does it kill

all the virus---no. Knowing that it is a latent pathogen allows you

to choose a different strategy for its various phases. One phase is

beyond the threshold of what one can see in the pulses since CM

deals with gross phenomena. Another phase can be detected in the

pulses as the localized damp/heat accumulates; sometimes even before

symptoms become obvious. So, one " solution " would be to give them an

herbal formula based on Tuo Li Xiao Du Yin, which supports general

immune system function and will help to minimize outbreaks. Then,

add to it as pulse signs or symptoms manifest.

 

 

>>> And how is it our job to refine it? Is it our job to refine the

`jin' pulse? Maybe Hammer has that authority, but do I? >>>

 

Of course it is. Hammer's authority rests with his being able to

discover, describe, and adapt old terminology to new clinical

phenomena; and to generate consensus. In the Dong Han system, we

have independently used the concept of the jin pulse to describe

nervous tension. One of the articles I wrote describes how the Dong

Han system takes and adapts other classical terms for contemporary

clinical use.

 

Perhaps the real issue we're facing is that the CM classics are

failing to explain contemporary medical phenomena and find

treatments for new diseases? Just thinking out loud.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/5/2003 9:01:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jramholz writes:

 

 

Broffman, if he has actually done anything in this regard, is not unique

 

Jim

This is true - Shen and Hammer have done much 'integration' of TCM and WM as has your teacher Jiang Jing. For that matter, Deke Kendall has rendered powerful arguments in that regard.

Will

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz> wrote:

 

>

> Isn't this part of the process? If you discover or point out some

> new phenomena [in this case virus and bacteria] that doesn't fit

the

> previous accepted theory [WB], then you go about testing and

> revising the old theory. Either the old theory adapts to the new

> phenomena or a new theory replaces it. For example, the old theory

> of the atom was replaced, not refined, to fit contemporary

> phenomena. Anyone still using Newtonian physics always admits a

> certain amount of error.

 

Ok... I see 2 problems - 1) this is the western approach , old theory

is always replaced by new theory... nothing is kept... this is not

the Chinese approach. 2) I assume you would agree that the new

theory of the atom is far superior to the old theory. but we can not

say that changing LP theory is superior to the old theory. The old

theory still works, and works fine, if you understand it and know

which situations to use it in. Of course it does not explain

everything. And maybe lurking viruses are best explained with 5-

element or zang-fu, why do we have to use LP theory to explain it?

just b/c of the name? The utility has not been shown … but this sure

doesn't stop many people from writing about how this theory explains

things like herpes, ms, aids, CFIDS etc. - I still haven't seen how?

 

-

 

ChineseMedicineDOc.com

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz> wrote:

 

>

> IMO, it's not any broader than other accepted Chinese terms [wind,

> qi, etc]. The big hinderence in people's minds seems to be that

> there are only a few limited formulas to help treat and explain it.

 

You are right, the new use is broad, and we have about 0 formulas for

that, correct? but classical LP is not broad has a charted path, and

has 100's of formulas and ideas, in Chinese ... Furthermore, If one

understands the idea and principles, one can just write their own

Rx... Why don't we expand from that point (wb) instead of completely

redefining it and losing what is already there?

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> Ok... I see 2 problems - 1) this is the western approach , old

theory is always replaced by new theory... nothing is kept... this

is not the Chinese approach. >>>

 

I also said that the old theory can be adapted to new phenomena. We

are Westerners who are trying to incorporate details from Western

medicine into CM. Many details from Western medicine are

incorporated into the framework of CM in the Dong Han system. For

example, you can read my article " Organs and Their Associated

Pulses. "

 

You can also go to Al Stone's Blog

[http://gancao.net/weblogs/acublog/] to read how other people put

details of WM into the Chinese framework. Broffman, if he has

actually done anything in this regard, is not unique.

 

 

>>> The old theory still works, and works fine, if you understand it

and know which situations to use it in. Of course it does not

explain everything. >>>

 

This was the point I originally made. People have no trouble

discussing the historical notion of the atom with the quantum

mechanical version. Old atomic theory gives only approximations. As

long as you don't mind including that margin of error and you're

only talking about phenomena on a gross scale, Newtonian mechanics

will serve.

 

 

>>> And maybe lurking viruses are best explained with 5-element or

zang-fu, why do we have to use LP theory to explain it? >>>

 

We don't. But isn't that what we're trying to figure out? Modern

Chinese literature has associated the two, and now we're in the

process of debating if that actually works effectively.

 

We have the luxury of history's persective when looking at the

Chinese literature. Keep in mind that these arguments can take

decades or longer.

 

How do you propose we discuss virus and bacteria in CM terms?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> You are right, the new use is broad, and we have about 0 formulas

for that, correct? but classical LP is not broad has a charted path,

and has 100's of formulas and ideas, in Chinese ... Furthermore, If

one understands the idea and principles, one can just write their

own Rx... Why don't we expand from that point (wb) instead of

completely redefining it and losing what is already there? >>>

 

 

Jason:

 

Sounds like a plan. I have already suggested that we have a number

of successful ways of dealing with virus and bacteria in colds/flu,

simple infections, etc., where SHL, WB, and 5-Element Revenge Cycle

work fine.

 

The hang up in this discussion, and where WB breaks down, is that

some viruses like HIV, SARS, etc., seem to have a different

pathomechanisms and we haven't successfully dealt with them yet. WB

doesn't predict an effective treatment.

 

New phenomena, old theory---how do you propose fixing it?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz` "

<jramholz> wrote:

 

>

> >>> And maybe lurking viruses are best explained with 5-element or

> zang-fu, why do we have to use LP theory to explain it? >>>

>

> We don't. But isn't that what we're trying to figure out? Modern

> Chinese literature has associated the two, and now we're in the

> process of debating if that actually works effectively.

 

Yes.,.. but I have yet to see any clinical relevance to the

association. I.e. I have yet to see any literature that actually

uses the LP theory, versus talk about from a western ideological

perspective... I am just asking for some evidence. I.e. it was when

AIDS was fairly new that it was mentioned as having a LP component..

But this has not panned out so... let's move on...

 

>

> We have the luxury of history's persective when looking at the

> Chinese literature. Keep in mind that these arguments can take

> decades or longer.

>

> How do you propose we discuss virus and bacteria in CM terms?

 

I propose that we ignore them, I personally have never found a need

to address them.,.. I address the patient, I don't prescribe herbs

for their anti-viral properties.., I.e. giving Banlangen for colds..

This is said to create lurking pathogens....

 

-

 

ChineseMedicineDoc.com

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz> wrote:

> , " " wrote:

> > You are right, the new use is broad, and we have about 0 formulas

> for that, correct? but classical LP is not broad has a charted

path,

> and has 100's of formulas and ideas, in Chinese ... Furthermore,

If

> one understands the idea and principles, one can just write their

> own Rx... Why don't we expand from that point (wb) instead of

> completely redefining it and losing what is already there? >>>

>

>

> Jason:

>

> Sounds like a plan. I have already suggested that we have a number

> of successful ways of dealing with virus and bacteria in colds/flu,

> simple infections, etc., where SHL, WB, and 5-Element Revenge Cycle

> work fine.

>

> The hang up in this discussion, and where WB breaks down, is that

> some viruses like HIV, SARS, etc., seem to have a different

> pathomechanisms and we haven't successfully dealt with them yet. WB

> doesn't predict an effective treatment.

>

> New phenomena, old theory---how do you propose fixing it?

>

 

I am all for a new theory... let's move on.. if LP doesn't work, why

keep mentioning it? But if we rename a new thoery LP, then we can

easily lose the old (very useful theory for other things). Just use

a new term

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

Like Michael Broffman, however, Jiang Jing has little public expression

to draw on.

 

 

On Saturday, July 5, 2003, at 09:18 AM, WMorris116 wrote:

 

> In a message dated 7/5/2003 9:01:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> jramholz writes:

>

>

> Broffman, if he has

> actually done anything in this regard, is not unique

>

>

>

> Jim

> This is true - Shen and Hammer have done much 'integration' of TCM and

> WM as has your teacher Jiang Jing. For that matter, Deke Kendall has

> rendered powerful arguments in that regard.

>