pathomechanisms and standard methods

[Guest guest]

I am reviewing the Craig Mitchell DVD from the CHA conference (all

mailings go out tomorrow, BTW) and two important points have surfaced.

 

1. pathomechanisms - in order to select SHL rx for unusual cases, a

deep understanding of the pathomechanisms at play is essential.

Mitchell's SHL provides such detail for the interested reader. For

example, no text will list ma huang tang for dysmenorrhea. One must

understand how cold in the tai yang bladder channel can cause blood

stasis. Also, as Craig admitted, successful tx could have occurred

with shao fu zhu yu tang (or wen jing tang or dang gui si ni tang).

Most of the cases he presented had elements of obvious cold that were

left unaddressed by the zang fu rx. When a warming SHL rx was used,

presto. But another warming rx could also have succeeded. And these

cases do not prove, in Craig's mind or mine, that the SHL approach is

the sole effective one.

 

2. standard methods - Craig and Bob Damone and several others

confirmed that even so-called SHL experts typically use standard zang

fu methods as the first recourse. Why? because they usually work.

Only failing that approach or when SHL patterns are obvious is it the

first recourse. This would seem to advise caution in those who tend to

use SHL and wen bing as their primary rubrics. Having worked closely

with Guohui Liu, I know he feels the same way. So study the SHL, but

study your zang fu books first. This position lends more support to

the idea that practical apps of the SHL are advanced, not basic

studies. Liu used to say to me that CM is the ocean, while TCM is the

surface. If you dive deep without learning to float, you will easily

get lost and drown. Many are drawn to anything outside of TCM. But

TCM is the direct cultural descendant of the mainstream zang fu herbal

tradition. To reject these methods out of hand for something more

ancient and seductive is careless, to say the least.

 

As one listens to Craig's cases, one cannot help but get the idea that

a less rigorous person could be easily drawn to this style. Since it

appears to allow one to use one's own interpretation of pathomechanisms

to assess a case, even if there is no precedent for the strategy. This

is fine if one is actually deeply learned in the subject, but it also

can provide an excuse not to study and just make stuff up (MSU). I

think Craig made it very clear that this style is not for the

fainthearted or weak of intellect.

 

It occurred to me that linking a computer database for formulas to a

pathomechanisms field instead of patterns and s/s would enable one to

identify the novel use of SHL formulas based upon mechanisms rather

than just generally accepted indications.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX: