Subhuti Dharmananda's article on Coffee

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz@m...> wrote:

 

> Brian:

>

> Interesting argument. Your's is the same argument that was used

> several millenia back during the initial introduction of the Suwen,

> when things were no longer motivated by demons and the new concept

> of qi was introduced. CM is a straw dog.

>

 

Based on what I have read from Unschuld, this is more of a terminology

issue. Demons and qi are both intangible. Demons are no longer

called the etiological factor, however, the conditions for which they

were attributed still remain, and the treatments remain. The cultures

sensibilities changed and so Demons were given another name,

coneptualized in a different, more palatable manner.

 

Brian C. Allen.

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> This would appear to be along the lines of an 'original work', a

proposal to the CM community, or an adaption of what you learned

from Jiang Jing. Since these are new ideas, I think they should be

presented as such, along with the reasoning and discovery process,

including their clinical application, before stating this

information as fact. The process would be the same as introducing

new medicinals to the Chinese pharmacoepia.

>

> I am not saying you are wrong, just, why should I accept what you

say if I cannot find it in any CM text? Is it based on your clinical

experience? >>>

 

 

Z'ev:

 

I think your assessment is a fair one from the conservative,

academic point of view. Jiang Jing taught these ideas since 1981,

and possibly his teacher, Jiao Ming, also did much earlier.

 

Admittedly, it takes time for new ideas to become mainstream. Since

he had little interest in writing or teaching, it has fallen to me.

Perhaps it will become mainstream with my students.

 

Like all of CM, you must verify everything. That it is not written

in any Chinese text isn't surprising; the classics often obscure as

much as they divulge. It doesn't bother me since it is a logical,

expanded application of basic theory that can easily be verified in

clinical practice. Even my students can do it.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

My lines are usually drawn, when someone does not have access to CM

literature and starts MSUing… But MSU + TIME + clinical results

(may) equal something useful.. I am just trying to figure out if

there is anyway to create new stuff here in the states w/o access to

literature???

> Don't know… Big topic.. But the fact is there is no 1 way…

 

 

Jason:

 

Isn't " MSU + Time + clinical results " how the classics actually came

into being?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz@m...> wrote:

 

 

> , " " wrote:

 

 

> My lines are usually drawn, when someone does not have access to CM

 

 

> literature and starts MSUing… But MSU + TIME + clinical results

 

 

> (may) equal something useful.. I am just trying to figure out if

 

 

> there is anyway to create new stuff here in the states w/o access to

 

 

> literature???

 

 

> > Don't know… Big topic.. But the fact is there is no 1 way…

 

 

>

 

 

>

 

 

> Jason:

 

 

>

 

 

> Isn't " MSU + Time + clinical results " how the classics actually came

 

 

> into being?

 

 

>

 

 

>

 

 

> Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

Jim,

 

 

 

 

You are right.. That is my point....

 

 

 

 

-JAson

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> , " Fernando Bernall "

> <fbernall> wrote:

>

> > Yes, I agree. The TCM spleen does everything we think it does. I

was

> > only asking to find out what today's tcm students are being

taught in

> > light of TCM organ understanding.

>

> We learn to keep TCM and Western separate. Combining the two makes

> one seemed confused, or at best, speculative. " Integrative

medicine "

> is part of our course of study at PCOM, however, the meaning of that

> is that we learn how to integrate our practice into a Western

medical

> setting.

 

Are you sure that this is the entire meaning of Integrative Therapy?

I see the integration a little different. For example: in cancer

treatment often the side effects of chemo can be alliviated by the

use of herbs/acupuncture. In a recent discussion with a local Chinese

practitioner in Jacksonville, Dr. Wang a TCM dr. with many years of

experience in the old country, he indicated that this was one example

of such integration. He stated that while chemo was affecting the

patients own resources, the herbal injections were supporting the

zheng qi. This integration, he said, was common practice.

 

It is not intended that we integrate the 2 theories

> ourselves. We learn basics in Western Medicine so that we can

> communicate with Western Practitioners and so that we can recognize

> when it would be best to refer our patients to Western styled

> practitioners.

 

Agreed that learning to communicate with WM practitioners is an

asset. And knowing when to refer out is also a sign of maturity and

integration. However, I think this view, as valid as it is, falls

short of what it's meant by integration in actual practice.

 

WM and CM theories are difficult to integrate in that their

philosophical terrains differ. It is better to think in lines of

diagnostic and therapeutic integration. As you know, there's a trend

evolving that seeks to confirm CM diagnosis methods with modern day

lab work. Naturally, there are bound to be issues that will remain

unsolved; the nature of medicine. Therapeutic integration should be

obvious to you.

 

Of course I understand when you say there's no pancreas in CM. Just

like there's no thyroid, adrenals, or thymus. Once we go a little

past the basics you referred to, we find that indeed these organs

always did exist; they just didn't articulate it or know it.

 

 

> > BTW, why do you suppose that Bob Flaws suggests the use of the

> > auricular point for the pancreas on his Treatment of Diabetes

> > Mellitus with ? Is he deviating from the basics

or is

> > he conforming to a larger understanding of modern tcm's Spleen?

>

> As you know, Bob did not invent the pancreas auricular point.

 

Yes, this is basic knowledge.

 

> The

> auricular system to which you are referring is very modern in the

> history of .

 

I find it interesting the way the term TCM is used. On the one hand,

we hear how TCM defines the standard of practice in PRC as an

integration of old and new. We see folks using Schisandra for

hepatitis irrespective of tcm pattern and so on. As soon as one is

challanged, the classics come into play. Why such dichotomy?

 

 

~fernando

[Guest guest]

, " Fernando Bernall "

<fbernall> wrote:

 

> Are you sure that this is the entire meaning of Integrative Therapy?

> I see the integration a little different. For example: in cancer

> treatment often the side effects of chemo can be alliviated by the

> use of herbs/acupuncture. In a recent discussion with a local Chinese

> practitioner in Jacksonville, Dr. Wang a TCM dr. with many years of

> experience in the old country, he indicated that this was one example

> of such integration. He stated that while chemo was affecting the

> patients own resources, the herbal injections were supporting the

> zheng qi. This integration, he said, was common practice.

 

I did not use the term Therapy. Futhermore, your example is poor. If

someone comes to me with side effects from Western meds, or if they

come to me with an acute wind-heat attack, I will treat them with

acumoxa / herbs based on Chinese principals. Treating illness is

treating illness. Calling my first example integrative does not make

it different than my second example.

 

 

> Agreed that learning to communicate with WM practitioners is an

> asset. And knowing when to refer out is also a sign of maturity and

> integration. However, I think this view, as valid as it is, falls

> short of what it's meant by integration in actual practice.

 

Unless a CM practitioner is an educated / licensed practitioner of a

WM modality, then the integration should only happen through

interaction among a CM and a WM practitioner, not by a CM practitioner

alone.

 

> I find it interesting the way the term TCM is used. On the one hand,

> we hear how TCM defines the standard of practice in PRC as an

> integration of old and new. We see folks using Schisandra for

> hepatitis irrespective of tcm pattern and so on. As soon as one is

> challanged, the classics come into play. Why such dichotomy?

>

 

I use CM to refer to the medicine as a whole, and I use TCM to refer

to a particular modern politcally / pragmatically motivated movement

within CM. I have not felt challenged at all with this discussion,

nor have I presented a dichotomy.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz@m...> wrote:

 

> Isn't " MSU + Time + clinical results " how the classics actually came

> into being?

 

I know no one here has actually come out and said this, but there has

been a slight hint of suggestion that can be concluded from these kind

of statements that if something works in the clinic, then it is

.

 

I do not believe this to be true. Jason mentioned the clinical

efficacy of using Chinese herbs based on modern Western(style)

research / physiological models. He then stated that this is a valid

approach.

 

I agree that it is a valid approach - to medicine; however, I would

not call it Chinese medicine.

 

I am all for modern research if people can benefit from it. I realize

the line may be impossible to define, but I think we can all agree

that there are things that are not CM even though they may borrow an

idea or an herb or an acupuncture point from CM.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Show me one prescription that is designed according to pharmacological

reasoning. I am not talking about pharmacological properties of

individual herbs.

 

 

 

On Jan 11, 2004, at 12:30 PM, wrote:

 

> This is not true, there is a whole (huge) sect of prescribing herbs

> based on pharmacological properties and WM. This is just as valid…

[Guest guest]

On Jan 11, 2004, at 1:10 PM, Fernando Bernall wrote:

 

> I find it interesting the way the term TCM is used. On the one hand,

> we hear how TCM defines the standard of practice in PRC as an

> integration of old and new. We see folks using Schisandra for

> hepatitis irrespective of tcm pattern and so on.

 

I didn't say that modern TCM didn't integrate these things, or that

there are different styles of practice that integrate WM. I said that,

in my opinion, Chinese ear acupuncture is confused. Period.

 

 

> As soon as one is

> challanged, the classics come into play. Why such dichotomy?

 

What are you talking about? There has to be some way for people to

tell what has been part of the Chinese tradition for centuries, and

what are new innovations, or for that matter, what innovations have

occurred throughout CM history. Otherwise, we are just indiscriminate

end-users. Why shouldn't people have a right to know?

 

 

[Guest guest]

I was not making reference to you on my post.

 

> On Jan 11, 2004, at 1:10 PM, Fernando Bernall wrote:

>

> > I find it interesting the way the term TCM is used. On the one

hand,

> > we hear how TCM defines the standard of practice in PRC as an

> > integration of old and new. We see folks using Schisandra for

> > hepatitis irrespective of tcm pattern and so on.

>

> I didn't say that modern TCM didn't integrate these things, or that

> there are different styles of practice that integrate WM. I said

that,

> in my opinion, Chinese ear acupuncture is confused. Period.

 

I was not making reference to you on my post.

 

>

>

> > As soon as one is

> > challanged, the classics come into play. Why such dichotomy?

>

> What are you talking about? There has to be some way for people

to

> tell what has been part of the Chinese tradition for centuries, and

> what are new innovations, or for that matter, what innovations have

> occurred throughout CM history. Otherwise, we are just

indiscriminate

> end-users. Why shouldn't people have a right to know?

 

Agreed. No one is disputing this. What are you talking about? Who

ever said that people have no right to know?

 

Fernando

[Guest guest]

Brian,

 

We are not getting anywhere with this. Good luck in your studies

young man.

 

Fernando Bernall

 

-- In , " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

> I did not use the term Therapy. Futhermore, your example is poor.

If

> someone comes to me with side effects from Western meds, or if they

> come to me with an acute wind-heat attack, I will treat them with

> acumoxa / herbs based on Chinese principals. Treating illness is

> treating illness. Calling my first example integrative does not

make

> it different than my second example.

>

>

> > Agreed that learning to communicate with WM practitioners is an

> > asset. And knowing when to refer out is also a sign of maturity

and

> > integration. However, I think this view, as valid as it is, falls

> > short of what it's meant by integration in actual practice.

>

> Unless a CM practitioner is an educated / licensed practitioner of a

> WM modality, then the integration should only happen through

> interaction among a CM and a WM practitioner, not by a CM

practitioner

> alone.

>

> > I find it interesting the way the term TCM is used. On the one

hand,

> > we hear how TCM defines the standard of practice in PRC as an

> > integration of old and new. We see folks using Schisandra for

> > hepatitis irrespective of tcm pattern and so on. As soon as one

is

> > challanged, the classics come into play. Why such dichotomy?

> >

>

> I use CM to refer to the medicine as a whole, and I use TCM to refer

> to a particular modern politcally / pragmatically motivated movement

> within CM. I have not felt challenged at all with this discussion,

> nor have I presented a dichotomy.

>

> Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Jim,

My assessment is not just an academic one, it is also clinical. You

are presenting a new system of pulse diagnosis and to some degree

clinical practice, and I find many of your ideas to be very

interesting. I've even had similar observations that I can concur

with. However, what concerns me is how we represent innovations and

new ideas to our fellow practitioners. I think it is largely a

question of labeling and marketing, similar to the ideas COMP developed

for original works and translations in the CM literature.

 

 

 

On Jan 11, 2004, at 12:30 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> Z'ev:

>

> I think your assessment is a fair one from the conservative,

> academic point of view. Jiang Jing taught these ideas since 1981,

> and possibly his teacher, Jiao Ming, also did much earlier.

>

> Admittedly, it takes time for new ideas to become mainstream. Since

> he had little interest in writing or teaching, it has fallen to me.

> Perhaps it will become mainstream with my students.

>

> Like all of CM, you must verify everything. That it is not written

> in any Chinese text isn't surprising; the classics often obscure as

> much as they divulge. It doesn't bother me since it is a logical,

> expanded application of basic theory that can easily be verified in

> clinical practice. Even my students can do it.

[Guest guest]

I don't know if this is the process by how the Su Wen, Nan Jing and SHL

developed, but I think we need to be careful not to use this idea (MSU

and the classics) as a 'leveling tool' to put all speculation on the

level of what is recorded in the classical texts.

 

One of the major roles of the classical texts is to provide the

philosophical template on which we practice, and which has developed

over many centuries. I think it is very broad and flexible, and can

include many new ideas and innovations.

 

I think we are mixing empiricism, the discovery of techniques that are

useful in the clinic, with rational theory, which is the foundation on

which we think, diagnose and prescribe/treat in the clinic. If one

logically deduces one's diagnosis and treatment in biomedical terms,

one is practicing WM. If one logically deduces one's diagnosis and

treatment in yin-yang and pattern differentiation, one is practicing

CM. The actual tools, whether herbs, needles or drugs, are secondary

to the logic being used in practice.

 

 

On Jan 11, 2004, at 1:49 PM, bcataiji wrote:

 

> , " James Ramholz "

> <jramholz@m...> wrote:

>

>> Isn't " MSU + Time + clinical results " how the classics actually came

>> into being?

>

> I know no one here has actually come out and said this, but there has

> been a slight hint of suggestion that can be concluded from these kind

> of statements that if something works in the clinic, then it is

> .

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> My assessment is not just an academic one, it is also clinical.

You are presenting a new system of pulse diagnosis and to some

degree clinical practice, and I find many of your ideas to be very

interesting. I've even had similar observations that I can concur

with. However, what concerns me is how we represent innovations and

new ideas to our fellow practitioners. I think it is largely a

question of labeling and marketing, similar to the ideas COMP

developed for original works and translations in the CM literature.

>>>

 

 

Z'ev:

 

I think those catagories should be incorporated into COMP. I was

using " academic " in that sense---as Flaws had started ealier.

 

One way we can represent innovations is by writing about them and

teaching others how to use them---which is what I've done.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> I don't know if this is the process by how the Su Wen, Nan Jing

and SHL developed, but I think we need to be careful not to use this

idea (MSU and the classics) as a 'leveling tool' to put all

speculation on the level of what is recorded in the classical texts.

>

> One of the major roles of the classical texts is to provide the

> philosophical template on which we practice, and which has

developed over many centuries. I think it is very broad and

flexible, and can include many new ideas and innovations.

>

> I think we are mixing empiricism, the discovery of techniques that

are useful in the clinic, with rational theory, which is the

foundation on which we think, diagnose and prescribe/treat in the

clinic. If one logically deduces one's diagnosis and treatment in

biomedical terms, one is practicing WM. If one logically deduces

one's diagnosis and treatment in yin-yang and pattern

differentiation, one is practicing CM. The actual tools, whether

herbs, needles or drugs, are secondary to the logic being used in

practice.

 

 

 

Z'ev:

 

Many of the things considered " made up " arose as a observation,

development, or mutation of past theory. I suspect all the

descrpencies in the classics are evidence of that discussion and

testing. For example, in the Mai Jing, it says that the right

proximal is also kidney and bladder; but that there is also a

[then] " new theory " that says it is SJ.

 

Of course we want to know if something has what can be called

the " authority " of the classics. MSU seems to be the way religions

start and science begin and then get tested to see if they will

evolve and adapt. I think we're doing exactly what has happened

repeatedly in history: discussing and testing it. Unfortunately,

being Americans, you and I want to know immediately if something is

true---it's a cultural presdisposition. Luckily the Catholic Church

has its impramater, scientists have their reproduceable experiments,

and the Chinese have their committees; so we can, at least, start

with the fundamentals and wait for history to catch up to the

innovators.

 

Some things in the Dong Han system took me years to understand and,

then, more to be able to do clinically. I hope my students won't

take as long; but some things take time to learn. Thankfully,

subsequent generations always seem to catch on faster.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Agreed.

 

 

On Jan 11, 2004, at 3:55 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> Z'ev:

>

> I think those catagories should be incorporated into COMP. I was

> using " academic " in that sense---as Flaws had started ealier.

>

> One way we can represent innovations is by writing about them and

> teaching others how to use them---which is what I've done.

>

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> I don't know if this is the process by how the Su Wen, Nan Jing and SHL

> developed, but I think we need to be careful not to use this idea (MSU

> and the classics) as a 'leveling tool' to put all speculation on the

> level of what is recorded in the classical texts.

 

 

Jim actually said MSU + time + clinical results = classics. I tend to agree.

However

there are really only a few fundamental classiccs (nei jing, SHL, shen nong, nan

jing).

Everything else is derivative, right. New ideas are supposed to be rooted in

the core

classics or other texts that are generally considered derived therefrom (even if

not

always mainstream), including pi wei lun, wen bing xue and dan xi xin fa.

However,

and here's the rub, theory need not precede practice. In all likelihood

practice has

always preceded theory, at least in the formative stages of new ideas or

systems.

there is no way the chinese wrote the nei jing first and then developed

acupuncture

afterwards.

 

So in order for a new idea to incorporated into the general practice of

CM, it can most certainly begin as an empirical practice (and I don't think z'ev

is

saying otherwise). It only needs to be explained according to CM theory in

order to

qualify as CM. that is how we add new materia medica, which may have only been

known empirically until a TCM doc took a look. So I agree with Z'ev that any

use of

needles and ch. herbs is not CM, per se. However it still may be holistic

medicine, ala

naturopathy, for example. CHA is interested in both the system of CM and the

herbs

that grow in china, regardless of how they are used. So we can discuss non CM

uses

of chinese herbs here (in that the uses rely on modern concepts). However the

empirical use of herbs is also chinese medicine as Bob Felt has reminded us.

And

perhaps allopathic herbology is just another variation on this. Keep in mind

that

allopaths think we are the ones who treat symptoms and they are the ones who

treat

the cause of disease.

 

It is obviously too premature to close out the discussion of what CM is and only

include data that fits that one definition. We will collect data and see where

it all fits

over time. I personally consider it equally experimental to base one's practice

on a

personal interpetation of the classics as on modern science. However both or

either

may prevail. In the meantime, we have the collegial consensus to guide us.

 

[Guest guest]

From memory, I believe both WM and Ma Huang act by either stimulating the

supply of or supplying anti-inflammatory corticosteroids.

>>>That is not the main mode of action in asthma, it is a bronchial dilator. If

by stimulating the alpha androgenic receptors that then stimulate cortisol and

stress you mean antiinflammatory you are right. It does not stimulate the

parasympathetic system, only the sympathetic

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes the TCM Spleen does all that it proports to do.

>>>No its not its Pi (and the translation may have been wrong)

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

CM didn't end in the 19th century; or, perhaps it did for many. Many

ideas from WM can be incorporated into CM; it doesn't have to stand

still. Some CM needs to be updated and corrected in light of new

knowledge.

>>>>I am with you Jim but must be done critically

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

While I personally lean more towards including recent developments under the

moniker " " , I think Z'ev has a point. To me CM is more

about the why than the how.

 

Incidentally, IMO trying to differentiate whether something qualifies for

the label " " is impossible. CM means different things to

different people. For some, it isn't CM if it doesn't have an established

tradition. For some it is CM if it is an extension of existing theory (dong

han pulse system for example). For others, it's CM if TCM docs do it in

China. I think the most important thing is that we identify when we stray

from the mainstream so we know what " box " to put new information in. If the

paradigm & contexts are clear then we should be able to minimize confusion &

expand our perspectives. To that end, COMP provides some pretty handy

guidelines.

 

PS - I suppose one of us should have changed this subject line long ago.

The only tie-in to coffee is the fact that I'm drinking a cup right now.

 

Tim Sharpe

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday, January 11, 2004 4:49 PM

 

Re: Re: Subhuti Dharmananda's article on Coffee

 

I don't know if this is the process by how the Su Wen, Nan Jing and SHL

developed, but I think we need to be careful not to use this idea (MSU and

the classics) as a 'leveling tool' to put all speculation on the level of

what is recorded in the classical texts.

 

One of the major roles of the classical texts is to provide the

philosophical template on which we practice, and which has developed over

many centuries. I think it is very broad and flexible, and can include many

new ideas and innovations.

 

I think we are mixing empiricism, the discovery of techniques that are

useful in the clinic, with rational theory, which is the foundation on which

we think, diagnose and prescribe/treat in the clinic. If one logically

deduces one's diagnosis and treatment in biomedical terms, one is practicing

WM. If one logically deduces one's diagnosis and treatment in yin-yang and

pattern differentiation, one is practicing CM. The actual tools, whether

herbs, needles or drugs, are secondary to the logic being used in practice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

sympathomimetic and adrenergic

>>>This makes the adrenals secret cortisol which is a double edge. It is

necessary to life, in excess it can destroy muscles, bones, nerves, and when

constantly stimulated may lead to so-called adrenal fatigue.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Interesting argument. Your's is the same argument that was used

several millenia back during the initial introduction of the Suwen,

when things were no longer motivated by demons and the new concept

of qi was introduced. CM is a straw dog.

 

>>>>Nothing new under the sun especially as it has to do with human behavior

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> , " James Ramholz "

> <jramholz@m...> wrote:

>

> > Isn't " MSU + Time + clinical results " how the classics actually

came

> > into being?

>

> I know no one here has actually come out and said this, but there

has

> been a slight hint of suggestion that can be concluded from these

kind

> of statements that if something works in the clinic, then it is

> .

 

I am not saying that. That is for sure.

 

>

> I do not believe this to be true. Jason mentioned the clinical

> efficacy of using Chinese herbs based on modern Western(style)

> research / physiological models. He then stated that this is a

valid

> approach.

 

Yes it is.

 

>

> I agree that it is a valid approach - to medicine; however, I would

> not call it Chinese medicine.

 

Who are you to decide? I can see an integration of ideas still CM…

furthermore, tell that to all the Chinese doctors in the hospitals

that say otherwise. I am actually sure there are some Chinese

teachers at PCOM that you can start with. Tell them their

integration of pharmacological properties or western research isn't

CM. I think that is absurd. What do you think John Chen says about

that… Bensky's new book is going to have tons of WM integration of

herbs in it… Many toxicity issues are based on WM understanding…

 

It is as valid as anything else. It can work just as well (in

certain instances)… I just am unsure why you think you can draw the

line? What is your decision based on?

 

>

> I am all for modern research if people can benefit from it. I

realize

> the line may be impossible to define, but I think we can all agree

> that there are things that are not CM even though they may borrow

an

> idea or an herb or an acupuncture point from CM.

 

I would like to hear it? Because the way you are talking now I am

sure I can find famous doctors to say that it is CM (on some level)

maybe not classical, but many consider integrating these ideas valid

and modern CM.

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Show me one prescription that is designed according to

pharmacological

> reasoning. I am not talking about pharmacological properties of

> individual herbs.

>

>

Z'ev

 

Why does it have to be a whole prescription...? If I choose the base

formula of xiao yao san and add 4 herbs to it based on

pharmacloligal proiperties or WM research, then this is a VERY new

and different way of prescribing herbs… This is very common, and I

actually learned this sort of stuff at PCOM. To me this is

integration, and modern and new.

 

As far as full formulas, it is well known it was very popular for

sometime to just put all the antiviral herbs in a formula for Wind

attacks that were virus. I am not advocating this, but that is an

example.

 

-

 

>

> On Jan 11, 2004, at 12:30 PM, wrote:

>

> > This is not true, there is a whole (huge) sect of prescribing

herbs

> > based on pharmacological properties and WM. This is just as

valid…