single herb functions vs. formulas

[Guest guest]

When I studied single herbs at PCOM, it was not apparent that the

functions listed by Bensky in his MM were meant to be representative

of those herbs only in combination or in formulas. This concept is

not spelled out in Bensky's MM and it was not taught to us by the

teachers. This has since been changed at PCOM, as I have noticed that

students studying single herbs presently are familiar with this

concept, and a different group of teachers are teaching those classes

than when I studied singled herbs.

 

A good feature of Bob Flaw's MM and the new Chen MM is that after each

function, a combo or formula is listed as a representative of that

herb's function in a combo / formula.

 

I still have 2 questions about this though:

 

1. I currently cannot remember which formulas this applies to, but I

remembering seeing it twice in the the Bensky F & S book. When

explaining the functions and relationships among the herbs in a

formula, he mentions that a particular herb is being used in way based

on an ancient, no longer used, function of the herb. These were not

obscure formulas, being from the list that we study at PCOM. If the

herb is no longer used that way, then why is that use still valid in

the formula? And, if that use is still valid in the formula, then why

is it no longer used that way? I am sorry that I cannot remember the

herb / formulas.

 

2. What came first, the single function or the function in combo /

formula. For instance, the Sheng Nong Bencao Jing is pretty old. We

all know the story of Sheng Nong tasting " the hundred herbs " , but

where did the herb functions really come from? Were they derived from

the formulas / combos of that time period? If so, that begs another

question / idea. At some point, somebody had to use an herb in a

particular combination or create a new formula for the first time. At

that point, the function of that herb in the combination / formula was

not known, so why was the herb picked? It would seem that if

functions of herbs as solo entities were known, it would solve the

mystery, but we are taught that it is not this way. Can anyone shed

light on this topic without too much speculating (for example,

ancients using qigong or meditation to intuit the function). I am

interested in something tangible and hopefully sourced.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

>

> I still have 2 questions about this though:

>

 

 

It has been a little over 1 weeks since I posed these 2 questions. I

guess no one here has anything on this?

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

 

>

> 1. I currently cannot remember which formulas this applies to,

 

hard to answer this one without specifics. But just because someone does not

use a

formula this way anymore does not mean no one does. I see that all the time

with

SHL experts using formulas very different from those who do mainly zang fu

style.

 

 

>

> 2. What came first, the single function or the function in combo /

> formula

 

can we know the answer to this? and what is the clinical significance? not

that this

does not interest me out of historical curiosity. but have you considered a

pragmatic

reason to know this.

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> > 2. What came first, the single function or the function in combo /

> > formula

>

> can we know the answer to this? and what is the clinical

significance? not that this

> does not interest me out of historical curiosity. but have you

considered a pragmatic

> reason to know this.

>

 

 

We are taught in school not just to throw herbs together based on

their functions, that we should instead, use already existent combos

and / or formulas.

 

However, the original combo had to come from some idea of what the

single herbs do. So, why cannot new combos and so-called hodgepodge

formulas be constructed based on single herb functions alone and be

clincially efficacious. Single herb functions have to exist apart

from their use in combos / formulas, otherwise combos / formulas would

never have come to be.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

However, the original combo had to come from some idea of what the

single herbs do. So, why cannot new combos and so-called hodgepodge

formulas be constructed based on single herb functions alone and be

clinically efficacious. Single herb functions have to exist apart

from their use in combos / formulas, otherwise combos / formulas would

never have come to be.

 

>>>>This a question of style. Dr Lai does this for example

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

> So, why cannot new combos and so-called hodgepodge formulas be constructed

based on single herb functions alone and be

clinically efficacious.

 

I believe PC-SPES was such a " hodgepodge formula " . It mimicked estrogen

treatment for prostate cancer: its short term (5year) effect was to reduce

PSA and objective symptoms; its longer term effect seems to be the same as

other estrogen treatments: PSA continues to be suppressed in some cases, but

metastases return. In addition PC-SPES has estrogenic side effects:

gynecomastia, leg edema, blood clotting. Isn't the point of a 'formula' to

reduce side effects such as these and restore balance, not tip the balance

into an extreme state ? [Rhetorical question].

 

Sammy.

 

 

 

 

ALON MARCUS [alonmarcus]

29 December 2003 22:38

 

Re: Re: single herb functions vs. formulas

 

 

However, the original combo had to come from some idea of what the

single herbs do. So, why cannot new combos and so-called hodgepodge

formulas be constructed based on single herb functions alone and be

clinically efficacious. Single herb functions have to exist apart

from their use in combos / formulas, otherwise combos / formulas would

never have come to be.

 

>>>>This a question of style. Dr Lai does this for example

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

While I agree with you about such 'hodgepodge formulas', the problem

with PC-SPES wasn't the herbs, it was the drug additives such as zanax,

coumadin, DES and various antiinflammatories that caused the problems

you mention below (these were revealed in lab testing). The side

effects you mention are true, but couldn't be caused by the small

amount of herbs in the formula at the dosages recommended.

 

 

 

 

On Dec 30, 2003, at 1:52 AM, ga.bates wrote:

 

>

>> So, why cannot new combos and so-called hodgepodge formulas be

>> constructed

> based on single herb functions alone and be

> clinically efficacious.

>

> I believe PC-SPES was such a " hodgepodge formula " . It mimicked estrogen

> treatment for prostate cancer: its short term (5year) effect was to

> reduce

> PSA and objective symptoms; its longer term effect seems to be the

> same as

> other estrogen treatments: PSA continues to be suppressed in some

> cases, but

> metastases return. In addition PC-SPES has estrogenic side effects:

> gynecomastia, leg edema, blood clotting. Isn't the point of a

> 'formula' to

> reduce side effects such as these and restore balance, not tip the

> balance

> into an extreme state ? [Rhetorical question].

>

> Sammy.

>

>

>

>

> ALON MARCUS [alonmarcus]

> 29 December 2003 22:38

>

> Re: Re: single herb functions vs. formulas

>

>

> However, the original combo had to come from some idea of what the

> single herbs do. So, why cannot new combos and so-called hodgepodge

> formulas be constructed based on single herb functions alone and be

> clinically efficacious. Single herb functions have to exist apart

> from their use in combos / formulas, otherwise combos / formulas would

> never have come to be.

>

>>>>> This a question of style. Dr Lai does this for example

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

, <ga.bates@v...> wrote:

>

> > So, why cannot new combos and so-called hodgepodge formulas be

constructed

> based on single herb functions alone and be

> clinically efficacious.

>

 

> metastases return. In addition PC-SPES has estrogenic side effects:

> gynecomastia, leg edema, blood clotting. Isn't the point of a

'formula' to

> reduce side effects such as these and restore balance, not tip the

balance

> into an extreme state ? [Rhetorical question].

>

> Sammy.

 

I see no reason why a " new " formula would have to be unbalanced such

as the one that you describe.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Brian,

I don't think there are any problems with 'new' prescriptions, as

long as they adhere to the principles of dui yao/medicinal combinations

that have been used in Chinese medicine for millenia. New prescriptions

consistently appear in China, but they are based on older prescriptions

or the principles of dui yao. I think randomly combining medicinals

based on their individual properties can potentially lead to unpleasant

interactions and side effects.

I once had a patient who came to me for years for acupuncture, while

she was treated by another 'Chinese' herbalist who used muscle and

" O-ring " testing to choose prescriptions. According to this herbalist,

most problems were caused by undiagnosed parasites, and this individual

chose strong anti-parasitic medicinals primarily with precipitating

medicinals, based on their individual and pharmacological properties,

often 'shotgun' style. This means combining several medicinals with

similar primary actions.

The patient, who supposedly was suffering from parasites causing a

'chronic fatigue' and 'fibromyalgia' condition, was a true believer in

this practitioner. However, at a certain point, she developed chronic,

severe diarrhea and bloating. I checked the prescription and found

several strong precipitating medicinals and bitter cold medicinals,

given to a patient with a very swollen, pale tongue, weak, soggy pulse

and a generally spleen/kidney yang xu condition. When I gently

suggested that perhaps the prescription was causing diarrhea and

bloating, and contacted the herbalist to discuss this, the patient

became wide-eyed, and I never saw her again.

 

 

 

 

On Dec 30, 2003, at 9:27 AM, bcataiji wrote:

 

> I see no reason why a " new " formula would have to be unbalanced such

> as the one that you describe.

>

> Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Brian,

> I don't think there are any problems with 'new' prescriptions, as

> long as they adhere to the principles of dui yao/medicinal combinations

> that have been used in Chinese medicine for millenia. New prescriptions

 

Thanks for the feedback Z'ev. I am not questioning current practices

or how formula writing is taught at PCOM. In fact, CHIM 1 with Todd

Luger was one of the better classes I have had. I have also had a

chance to work with Todd in the clinic and I admire his skills and

aspire to them.

 

My issue was that those original combos had to come from somewhere,

probably from someone who had a sense of a medicinal as a single

entity. How does one arrive at this type of knowledge? In other

words, if I continue studying herbology based on the instruction that

I have received, I am not sure that I will get a " deeper "

understanding of the herbs / formulas, but rather an additive

understanding of more combos / formulas / and modifications as I go

along. I will always just be rearranging someone elses work. I do

not mind doing this, as it is quite effective and a safe way to

practice. I am just wondering if there is something more? something

beyond? Maybe it is too romantic of a notion?

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Dear Brian,

There is definitely 'something more'. If you examine such texts as

the " Divine Farmer's Materia Medica " (Shen nong ben cao jing), or the

Unschuld translated " Forgotten Traditions of Ancient "

by Xu Dachun, you will find more inspirational material from Chinese

medical history. There are certainly creative possibilities for

Chinese herbal practice, but one has to be aware of what is established

criteria for treating patients, and what is experimentation.

 

Growth in medicine occurs through experimentation, but one's

experiments need to be on oneself or willing subjects, not day to day

patients. I, for one, remain quite interested in using native North

American medicinals in 'Chinese' prescriptions, with a focus on local

equivalents to Chinese herbs, and will try to do some experimentation

next summer at my five day workshop in Taos, New Mexico. Details will

follow soon.

 

I think that inspiration in herbal medicine comes from a combination of

studying medical texts and field work. Field work includes growing,

harvesting, wildcrafting and processing herbal medicinals. It also

involves being aware of habitat, season, and the influence of

environment on medical qualities. We are sorely lacking as a

profession in the field work end. I hope to address this in some small

way next summer.

 

 

On Dec 30, 2003, at 9:59 AM, bcataiji wrote:

 

>

> My issue was that those original combos had to come from somewhere,

> probably from someone who had a sense of a medicinal as a single

> entity. How does one arrive at this type of knowledge? In other

> words, if I continue studying herbology based on the instruction that

> I have received, I am not sure that I will get a " deeper "

> understanding of the herbs / formulas, but rather an additive

> understanding of more combos / formulas / and modifications as I go

> along. I will always just be rearranging someone elses work. I do

> not mind doing this, as it is quite effective and a safe way to

> practice. I am just wondering if there is something more? something

> beyond? Maybe it is too romantic of a notion?

>

> Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " wrote:

I do not mind doing this, as it is quite effective and a safe way to

> practice. I am just wondering if there is something more?

something beyond? Maybe it is too romantic of a notion? >>>>

 

 

 

Brian:

 

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. You can always learn some

Chinese language to see a much wider variety of herbal formulas.

There are literally 10s of thousands of formulas in Chinese in some

collections. As I mentioned earlier to Yehuda, in one book I found

174 that were named Bai zhu san. And you can also study pulses to

watch how the herbs change both channels and organs.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Dear Brian,

> There is definitely 'something more'. If you examine such texts as

> the " Divine Farmer's Materia Medica " (Shen nong ben cao jing), or the

> Unschuld translated " Forgotten Traditions of Ancient "

> by Xu Dachun, you will find more inspirational material from Chinese

> medical history. There are certainly creative possibilities for

> Chinese herbal practice, but one has to be aware of what is established

> criteria for treating patients, and what is experimentation.

 

I have both books and have already read Forgotten Traditions. I have

only glanced at the DFMM, but intend on reading it at some point. I

know I am still studying, and so this thread is a jump ahead for me,

but I still like to think of how I might be able to practice in the

future.

 

 

> I think that inspiration in herbal medicine comes from a combination of

> studying medical texts and field work. Field work includes growing,

> harvesting, wildcrafting and processing herbal medicinals. It also

> involves being aware of habitat, season, and the influence of

> environment on medical qualities. We are sorely lacking as a

> profession in the field work end. I hope to address this in some small

> way next summer.

 

It sounds like you have some interesting work ahead of you.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz@m...> wrote:

 

> There's no need to reinvent the wheel. You can always learn some

> Chinese language to see a much wider variety of herbal formulas.

> There are literally 10s of thousands of formulas in Chinese in some

> collections. As I mentioned earlier to Yehuda, in one book I found

> 174 that were named Bai zhu san. And you can also study pulses to

> watch how the herbs change both channels and organs.

 

I am not looking to reinvent the wheel, but I certainly enjoy creative

thinking and problem solving. I do get your point about there being a

fast amount of literature on Chinese medicinals / formulas in Chinese

language. I did take Chinese language in college as my language

choice, but that was some time ago and I forget more than I remember

because I did not keep practicing over the years. I have only

recently begun to teach myself medical Chinese language which is a

whole different vocabulary than conversational chinese, and of course

it is more classical in style rather than the modern structure.

 

Brian C. Allen