now blood moving plus digression/was hypothyroid...

[Guest guest]

, Stephen Bonzak <smb021169@e...>

wrote:

-

>

> Why do you say that " being an autoimmune disease, seems to respond

> best when using blood moving herbs " ? Do you feel that all autoimmune

> diseases have an element of blood stasis?

 

Perhaps not all, but I would say most. I think this is often confirmed by the

musculoskeletal pain that goes with many AI diseases like RA and SLE and a whole

range

of collagen vascular diseases. Couple this with such diseases often being the

knottiest of

chronic diseases, which by some estimates, including my own, always include

blood stasis

in the network vessels. Such an approach to such illnesses is supported by

modern

chinese authors like Jiao Shu de and Yan de xin, but also by voluminous amounts

of

research in the past 50 years. While I have concerns about chinese research,

there must

be a reason that they put so much emphasis on the use of blood movers in their

studies. I

think this is because anecdotal clinical results and lab values impressed so

many of them

over the years. I think we would show much of their work is accurate, perhaps

not as

glowingly so as they claim, but accurate nonetheless. Subhuti at itmonline.org

has been

publishing much of the modern data on theuse of blood movers for almost 20

years.

 

In the case of hashimotos, fixed nodules often appear, such masses also often

being

related in part to blood stasis. Blood moving herbs have been shown in animal

research to

decrease the number of immune antibody-antigen complexes lodged in the various

tissues that are experiencing inflammation due to autoimmunity. This ability to

dislodge

this measurable stagnation is particularly interesting to me. Joint stiffness

is also common

in Hashimotos, indicating the blood stasis affecting the exterior as it does in

so many AI

diseases. So either joint pain, fixed masses and/or other signs of blood stasis

in the

network vessels should be present to make the dx. Though Yan and Jiao sometimes

seem

to make the case that some degree of blood moving is desirable in ALL chronic

illness.

 

Which leads me to a segue back to Deke Kendall for a moment. According to

Kendall, the

channels carry blood and qi. They are the blood vessels and their associated

nerves, but

there is no separate system of conduits for qi alone. We have debated this

position by

refrence to various acupuncture classics, but have not talked much about his

ideas in

relation to herbology. Either from the perspective of how they might affect our

practice or

if there is some evidence in either modern research or classical literature to

lend or detract

support from Kendall's premise.

 

The first thing that comes to mind is the vast amount of modern chinese research

that has

elevated the role of blood moving herbs to one of primary importance in modern

practice.

They are considered vital components of strategies for treatment of diabetes,

heart

disease, stroke, high blood pressure, endometriosis, joint pain, cancer, heart

disease,

uterine fibroids, insomnia, depression, liver disease. It is not to say that

the only

component of therapy necesssary is blood moving, but that it is likely present

in any later

stage chronic illness. It may be either cause or effect. While chronic illness

leads to blood

stasis, blood stasis, according to Yan, also leads to chronic illness and is

actually the cause

of vacuity, not vice-versa. I think there is wisdom in those words.

 

Now I tend to think of herbs that move the blood as moving qi and blood. I

guess I think

this is because most such herbs are used for pain due to trauma which is, by

definition, qi

and blood stagnation. Qi movers, OTOH, are not typically used for trauma or

joint pain,

unless they also are said to move blood. So chen pi and zhi ke are not used for

joint pain,

but xiang fu is. Steve Clavey explained this as being due to xiang fu's

heaviness which

drives it to affect the blood, unlike other qi moving herbs. So there seems to

be this

inherent idea in assigning herbal attributes that qi and blood flow together in

the vessels

and this overall flow throughout the body is mainly affected by herbs classified

as blood

movers, not qi movers. Why don't most qi moving herbs have such widespread

effects on

the body. For the sake of argument here, I am differentiating between qi movers

like chen

pi and liver soothers like chai hu.

 

In fact, qi movers are very narrow in their scope in comparison to blood movers.

They

mostly are used to address fu bowel related disorders and pain in the torso.

Not to

minimize the importance of addressing the GI and torso, but herbs like chen pi

do not

receive the accolades reserved for the likes of dan shen and hong hua and chuan

xiong.

Several of the other important herbs for soothing the liver are actually blood

movers as

well (he huan pi, he huan hua, mei gui hua, yu jin). Chai hu really stands out

as an herb

only attributed qi moving and not blood moving effects, yet being so far

reaching. I think

this because qi moving and liver soothing overlap, but the latter does indeed

have far

reaching effects via the liver zang, while the former is largely a branch

matter. That is

another point. Qi stagnation in herbology is typically considered a branch of

something

else, not a cause. But blood stasis, as indicated above is becoming regarded as

cause. It

seems almost implicit in Chinese herbology that qi and blood flow together in

the vessels,

while the category of qi moving herbs really does not refer to any form of

circulation at all.

 

While blood moving herbs are really thought to make blood move, the chinese term

that I

have loosely been translating move qi is really rectify or regulate qi. I

believe this use of qi

refers to qi as function, not as a flowing substance and the latter terms convey

this more

effectively. To quote Bensky from the chapter on regulating qi, " from a

modern..perspective, qi may be regarded as an expression of the physiological

activity of

the tissues....stagnant qi is a ... malfunction in the activity of the tissues. "

Here we see

words like activity and function, but not circulation. OTOH, the blood

invigorating chapter

emphasizes circulation in its discussion. Arguably, even when using terms like

directing

qi down or ascending qi, the nature of this usage from the chinese perspective

is

functional rather than circulatory. For example, when considering that chai hu

raises the

yang qi of the spleen, it is not necessary to postulate a pathway of channels

and collaterals

by which this ascent takes place. It is enough to know that chai hu stimulates

that

function of the spleen. This ascent can thus be conceived as a description of

function, not

movement of a substance. Qi only seems to really move in the vessels with the

blood.

Some other assumed examples of movement may actually be descriptions of

functions.

 

The dominace of acupuncture in the US has framed much of the debate and

understanding

on these matters. Since acupuncture, ala soulie de morant, was presented as a

model of

energy circulation in the channels, many commentators in the non-scholarly

english

literature have mistakenly assumed all use of this term refer to a substance or

energy

circulating through channels. I think one of Kendall's most important points in

his book is

that qi can be a substance or function or refer to general vitality. One must

carefully

discern which use is correct in any case. Kendall also argues and I believe he

must be

correct that the chinese are not necessarily better at making this determination

than we

are. It also requires careful consideration on their parts. I think qi often

refers to

function, esp. in herb texts as descibed above, and if considered in that way

makes sense

in terms of both TCM and western medicine. I believe the use of this term, esp.

in herb

texts, is less likely to refer to a invisible circulating substance. Since we

know herbalists

were the pragmatists and scientists of ancient china and that acupuncture became

bound

up with cults and mysticism over the centuries, I think we should pay some heed

(perhaps

even more heed) to the way the terms qi and blood are used in herbal texts in

sorting out

this issue.

 

[Guest guest]

In fact, qi movers are very narrow in their scope in comparison to blood

movers. They

mostly are used to address fu bowel related disorders and pain in the torso.

Not to

minimize the importance of addressing the GI and torso, but herbs like chen

pi do not

receive the accolades reserved for the likes of dan shen and hong hua and

chuan xiong.

Several of the other important herbs for soothing the liver are actually

blood movers as

well (he huan pi, he huan hua, mei gui hua, yu jin). Chai hu really stands

out as an herb

only attributed qi moving and not blood moving effects, yet being so far

reaching. I think

this because qi moving and liver soothing overlap, but the latter does

indeed have far

reaching effects via the liver zang, while the former is largely a branch

matter. That is

another point. Qi stagnation in herbology is typically considered a branch

of something

else, not a cause. But blood stasis, as indicated above is becoming

regarded as cause. It

seems almost implicit in Chinese herbology that qi and blood flow together

in the vessels,

while the category of qi moving herbs really does not refer to any form of

circulation at all.

 

While blood moving herbs are really thought to make blood move, the chinese

term that I

have loosely been translating move qi is really rectify or regulate qi. I

believe this use of qi

refers to qi as function, not as a flowing substance and the latter terms

convey this more

effectively. To quote Bensky from the chapter on regulating qi, " from a

modern..perspective, qi may be regarded as an expression of the

physiological activity of

the tissues....stagnant qi is a ... malfunction in the activity of the

tissues. " Here we see

words like activity and function, but not circulation. OTOH, the blood

invigorating chapter

emphasizes circulation in its discussion. Arguably, even when using terms

like directing

qi down or ascending qi, the nature of this usage from the chinese

perspective is

functional rather than circulatory. For example, when considering that chai

hu raises the

yang qi of the spleen, it is not necessary to postulate a pathway of

channels and collaterals

by which this ascent takes place. It is enough to know that chai hu

stimulates that

function of the spleen. This ascent can thus be conceived as a description

of function, not

movement of a substance. Qi only seems to really move in the vessels with

the blood.

Some other assumed examples of movement may actually be descriptions of

functions.

 

 

 

[Jason]

 

I think because of this (above), which I agree, saying that herbs that move

the blood also move the qi may be misleading and untrue. Just because a

blood mover stops pain I would not say that it inherently moves the qi.

Saying so may confuse the issue about what you point out about qi mover's

attributes on function & activity. Although some blood movers like chuan

xiong are said to move the qi and the blood, but most are said to just move

the blood. Why? This all makes sense if we look at qi as function or

activity. But this still does not answer the question about 'qi in the

channels'.

 

You make the point that trauma is by definition qi and blood stasis. It

also seems like almost every intern when diagnosing musculoskeletal issues

says there is just 'qi and blood stasis.' IS this so? I remember

discussing this issue with you some time ago and can't remember how it all

paned out but let us rehash a bit.

 

First of all one has to ask what is the use of all the qi & blood

differentiating we are taught in theory 101. Is this just for pain that is

in the torso? I do not have any bi syndrome books in front of me, but don't

they also differentiate between qi and blood stasis? So, I think there

might be another way to view this. Looking at bi syndromes, the basic dx is

w-c-d. Through 'theory 101' one can decide if there is blood stasis or NOT.

If not then one may choose not to include blood movers, but instead use

w-c-d herbs. I postulate that these herbs are working on the qi level not

the blood level) indirectly opening the flow of qi in the channels. And I

agree that 'qi movers' in general are not used to treat these disorders.

 

The usefulness may be by eliminating blood stasis from the diagnosis, not

necessarily including qi movers. Just an idea. Comments?

 

 

 

Just found a book from shanghai, which definitely sheds some like and makes

things slightly more confusing. IS see chai hu is used for acute trauma of

the limbs. You pointed out that xiang fu also is. Maybe herbs that move

the liver are useful where herbs like chen pi that work more on the GI are

not? But maybe not. i.e. one does see mu xiang in such formulas (i.e. broken

bones) one may or may not assume that it is just to help digestion. It

seems many times these type of formulas pay little attention to digestion

and assume the practitioner will adjust for such an issue.

 

 

 

Although, the Decoction for promoting qi and blood circulation (fracture of

the vertebral body - early stage) has zi su ye, hou po, xiang fu, mu xiang,

sha ren (no chai hu or xiang fu) - the others include dang gui, su mu, chi

shao, tao ren, hong hua. Things are not as cut and dry and proboboly just

depends on the authors take on things.

 

 

 

Also it seems even less important about differentiating between qi and blood

stasis (w/ musculoskeletal issues) when it comes to acupuncture. One just

'open's the flow'.

 

 

 

Also to rectify qi (li3 qi4) means a correction of any morbidity of qi4;

this included not only qi stag but also qi vacuity. I think just moving the

qi (xing qi) is best. Also rectifying the blood also refers to

supplementing the blood (as well as quickening etc.)

 

 

 

Nice post,

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

The dominace of acupuncture in the US has framed much of the debate and

understanding

on these matters. Since acupuncture, ala soulie de morant, was presented as

a model of

energy circulation in the channels, many commentators in the non-scholarly

english

literature have mistakenly assumed all use of this term refer to a substance

or energy

circulating through channels. I think one of Kendall's most important

points in his book is

that qi can be a substance or function or refer to general vitality. One

must carefully

discern which use is correct in any case. Kendall also argues and I believe

he must be

correct that the chinese are not necessarily better at making this

determination than we

are. It also requires careful consideration on their parts. I think qi

often refers to

function, esp. in herb texts as descibed above, and if considered in that

way makes sense

in terms of both TCM and western medicine. I believe the use of this term,

esp. in herb

texts, is less likely to refer to a invisible circulating substance. Since

we know herbalists

were the pragmatists and scientists of ancient china and that acupuncture

became bound

up with cults and mysticism over the centuries, I think we should pay some

heed (perhaps

even more heed) to the way the terms qi and blood are used in herbal texts

in sorting out

this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <@c...>

wrote:

 

 

>

> I think because of this (above), which I agree, saying that herbs that move

> the blood also move the qi may be misleading and untrue. Just because a

> blood mover stops pain I would not say that it inherently moves the qi.

> Saying so may confuse the issue about what you point out about qi mover's

> attributes on function & activity. Although some blood movers like chuan

> xiong are said to move the qi and the blood, but most are said to just move

> the blood. Why? This all makes sense if we look at qi as function or

> activity. But this still does not answer the question about 'qi in the

> channels'.

 

 

As to whether it is correct to say blood movers move qi and blood, I don't see

why not

unless you would argue that there is no qi in blood. If you move the blood,

(ying) qi must

then move with it. But we also say that qi moves the blood. In this case, I

believe qi is

function, not another system of circulation that influences the vascular system.

It is not

like qi moving through the channels somehow propels the blood along in its

parallel

channels. Did any one ever think how that works? I can't see how the supposed

movement of qi in supposed channels could have any effect on the blood vessels

at all. I

can see how the qi (function) of the heart and lungs is responsible for moving

the blood,

though.

 

 

 

>

> You make the point that trauma is by definition qi and blood stasis. It

> also seems like almost every intern when diagnosing musculoskeletal issues

> says there is just 'qi and blood stasis.'

 

 

I was only using trauma induced pain for my example here. I consider bi

syndrome to be

caused by other than trauma. However you do bring up good points about WCD herbs

affecting the movement of qi in the channels ( as opposed to movement of the

blood in

the vessels). I will address that below. But lets keep in mind the whole time

whether

herbs that supposedly move qi in the channels also have far reaching effects

throughout

the body. I will state at the outset that while there are a number of herbs in

the WCD and

ext. releasing categories that may have far reaching effects on the body by

their ability to

also ascend sinking qi, I have already considered this a functional rather than

circulatory

issue.

 

>

> First of all one has to ask what is the use of all the qi & blood

> differentiating we are taught in theory 101. Is this just for pain that is

> in the torso? I do not have any bi syndrome books in front of me, but don't

> they also differentiate between qi and blood stasis?

 

good questions. In bi syndrome books I have seen, the quality of pain is due

mainly to the

nature of the pathogen and the presence or not of blood stasis. However,

arguably, the

pain of bi is due to a pathogen blocking the qi alone when it is only achy and

the blood

becomes involved only if the pain becomes sharp. I think this is an artifical

distinction

that does not pan out in practice and is not supported in all texts. for

example, in my

post on Hashimoto's, I note that stiff muscles are attributed to qi and blood

stagnation.

No sharp pain

 

So, I think there

> might be another way to view this. Looking at bi syndromes, the basic dx is

> w-c-d. Through 'theory 101' one can decide if there is blood stasis or NOT.

> If not then one may choose not to include blood movers, but instead use

> w-c-d herbs.

 

 

And I typically emphasize WCD in treating musculo complaints. We have talked

about this

and I hate the knee jerk assignation of all pain to merely qi and blood stag.

However this

is true for trauma, I believe. However all pain is lack of free flow. But if

the qi and blood

are not flowing due to an obstruction or weakness, that also must be rectified

or the pain

will return if one merely applies qi and blood moving herbs.

 

I postulate that these herbs are working on the qi level not

> the blood level) indirectly opening the flow of qi in the channels.

 

You say indirectly because they do so by removing the obstruction, right? The

question is

do they merely free the qi or also the blood? I am not sure there is any

separation when it

comes to circulation issues. So it really comes back to whether there are

conduits through

which just qi flows or not. And whether the qi flow in those conduits is main

control and

balance system for the body. I do not think this is the case.

 

 

> Although, the Decoction for promoting qi and blood circulation (fracture of

> the vertebral body - early stage) has zi su ye, hou po, xiang fu, mu xiang,

> sha ren (no chai hu or xiang fu) - the others include dang gui, su mu, chi

> shao, tao ren, hong hua. Things are not as cut and dry and proboboly just

> depends on the authors take on things.

 

those herbs do affect the torso which could be affected in a vertebral fracture

with

radiating distension and achiness, unlike in knee pain, for example.

 

 

> Also it seems even less important about differentiating between qi and blood

> stasis (w/ musculoskeletal issues) when it comes to acupuncture. One just

> 'open's the flow'.

 

perhaps because they are not actually separate things.

 

 

> Also to rectify qi (li3 qi4) means a correction of any morbidity of qi4;

> this included not only qi stag but also qi vacuity. I think just moving the

> qi (xing qi) is best.

 

 

I just looked at the terms li qi and xing qi and will agree with you. However

the question

in my mind is whether the stagnation one is dissipating when moving qi is a

depressed

circulation of an energy or substance or a depressed function of a tissue. And

I do not

believe it must necessarily be both. Wiseman also writes for qi stagnation:

" Decrease in

the normal activity of qi " . He does not say circulation. My interest is

whether

premodern herbal texts tended to support, detract or ignore the issue of qi in

the

channels as a separate phenomena from blood circulation.

 

[Guest guest]

_____

 

 

Sunday, August 29, 2004 12:25 PM

 

Re: now blood moving plus digression/was hypothyroid...

 

 

 

, " " <@c...>

wrote:

 

 

>

> I think because of this (above), which I agree, saying that herbs that

move

> the blood also move the qi may be misleading and untrue. Just because a

> blood mover stops pain I would not say that it inherently moves the qi.

> Saying so may confuse the issue about what you point out about qi mover's

> attributes on function & activity. Although some blood movers like chuan

> xiong are said to move the qi and the blood, but most are said to just

move

> the blood. Why? This all makes sense if we look at qi as function or

> activity. But this still does not answer the question about 'qi in the

> channels'.

 

 

As to whether it is correct to say blood movers move qi and blood, I don't

see why not

unless you would argue that there is no qi in blood. If you move the blood,

(ying) qi must

then move with it. But we also say that qi moves the blood. In this case,

I believe qi is

function, not another system of circulation that influences the vascular

system. It is not

like qi moving through the channels somehow propels the blood along in its

parallel

channels. Did any one ever think how that works? I can't see how the

supposed

movement of qi in supposed channels could have any effect on the blood

vessels at all.

 

[Jason]

 

I agree.

 

I

can see how the qi (function) of the heart and lungs is responsible for

moving the blood,

though.

 

[Jason]

 

 

 

Can you give some examples. I.e. does huang qi (increasing lung function)

stop blood stagnation pain in the channels?

 

 

 

 

 

Okay let's start with some generalizations:

 

1) There is qi and blood channels.

 

2) Qi movers, in general, do not affect either one of these. Or one

can say that moving qi does not rectify problems that are in the limbs (i.e.

pain - even if they are qi type of pain)

 

3) Blood movers are used when blood stasis is suspected. When the

blood moves the qi moves, but this type of therapy when other pathogens are

involved (i.e. w-d) without blood stasis are not beneficial.

 

 

 

Questions:

 

 

 

1) why are some blood movers said to move the qi and the blood and others

said to only move the blood? There must be a difference.

 

2) When someone has qistag type pain in the torso blood movers are not

generally used, and considered not effective. Therefore one can assume that

moving the blood (in the torso at least) does not affect the qi. I consider

2 types of pain in the torso (qi and blood), even though qi and blood are

intermingled, I get the sense that herbally they are treated quite

differently. I feel the same is true from herbs that act on (i.e. clear

heat) from the qi and or blood levels. Therefore one can ask why would the

channels in the torso be different than the channels in the limbs?

 

 

>

> First of all one has to ask what is the use of all the qi & blood

> differentiating we are taught in theory 101. Is this just for pain that

is

> in the torso? I do not have any bi syndrome books in front of me, but

don't

> they also differentiate between qi and blood stasis?

 

good questions. In bi syndrome books I have seen, the quality of pain is

due mainly to the

nature of the pathogen and the presence or not of blood stasis. However,

arguably, the

pain of bi is due to a pathogen blocking the qi alone when it is only achy

and the blood

becomes involved only if the pain becomes sharp. I think this is an

artifical distinction

that does not pan out in practice and is not supported in all texts. for

example, in my

post on Hashimoto's, I note that stiff muscles are attributed to qi and

blood stagnation.

No sharp pain

 

 

 

[Jason]

 

Would you agree that blood stagnation is a more advanced level of

stagnation?

 

 

 

So, I think there

> might be another way to view this. Looking at bi syndromes, the basic dx

is

> w-c-d. Through 'theory 101' one can decide if there is blood stasis or

NOT.

> If not then one may choose not to include blood movers, but instead use

> w-c-d herbs.

 

 

And I typically emphasize WCD in treating musculo complaints. We have

talked about this

and I hate the knee jerk assignation of all pain to merely qi and blood

stag. However this

is true for trauma, I believe. However all pain is lack of free flow. But

if the qi and blood

are not flowing due to an obstruction or weakness, that also must be

rectified or the pain

will return if one merely applies qi and blood moving herbs.

 

I postulate that these herbs are working on the qi level not

> the blood level) indirectly opening the flow of qi in the channels.

 

You say indirectly because they do so by removing the obstruction, right?

 

[Jason]

 

Correct

 

 

 

The question is

do they merely free the qi or also the blood?

 

[Jason]

 

This is a good question, maybe there is no problem with the blood only a

problem with the qi (meaning that the problem has not reached that deeper

level.)

 

 

 

I am not sure there is any separation when it

comes to circulation issues. So it really comes back to whether there are

conduits through

which just qi flows or not. And whether the qi flow in those conduits is

main control and

balance system for the body. I do not think this is the case.

 

[Jason]

 

I will have to think more about this, I am unsure also. Can you elaborate

why you don't think so.

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <@h...>

wrote:

 

>

>

> Can you give some examples. I.e. does huang qi (increasing lung function)

> stop blood stagnation pain in the channels?

 

I use it chronic pain complaints with qi xu a lot. It seems to help with long

term success

more thanjust mvoing blood in chronic cases

 

 

> 3) Blood movers are used when blood stasis is suspected. When the

> blood moves the qi moves, but this type of therapy when other pathogens are

> involved (i.e. w-d) without blood stasis are not beneficial.

 

 

in the long term, but give relief in the short term

 

 

>

> 1) why are some blood movers said to move the qi and the blood and others

> said to only move the blood? There must be a difference.

 

good question

 

 

>

> 2) When someone has qistag type pain in the torso blood movers are not

> generally used, and considered not effective. Therefore one can assume that

> moving the blood (in the torso at least) does not affect the qi. I consider

> 2 types of pain in the torso (qi and blood), even though qi and blood are

> intermingled, I get the sense that herbally they are treated quite

> differently.

 

 

Is that actually true? Subjectively and anecdotally, I have found that blood

moving herbs

temporarily relieve all pain, whether due to qi stag or bi. Thus, the

prominance of such

herbs in external apps for both complaints. I think blood moving herbs are too

strong for

use in torso conditions with only distending or aching pain and that is why they

are C/Ced,

not because they don't move the qi also. they move it too strongly. As for the

limbs, we

really don't have an option to choose herbs that move qi in the limbs directly,

only blood.

You already agreed that WCD herbs move qi indirectly by removing obstruction.

The

questionis do they move blood as well (see below). I also think the use of blood

movers in

limb conditions is not restricted to cases of sharp pain only. In fact, I

learned from several

teachers that blood stasis in the limbs can result in numbness, tingling, pain,

weakness,

spasticity, stiffness and aching.

 

 

I feel the same is true from herbs that act on (i.e. clear

> heat) from the qi and or blood levels. Therefore one can ask why would the

> channels in the torso be different than the channels in the limbs?

 

 

I don't think the concepts of qi and blood levels has to do with qi channels

versus blood

vessels, does it? I thought the terms were beingused in a different context

here.

 

 

> [Jason]

>

> Would you agree that blood stagnation is a more advanced level of

> stagnation?

 

I think that is true in the torso, but it might be better to think that it

represents a change

from functional (qi transformations) to structural (blood in vessels) rather

than just varying

degrees of a circulatory disturbance. But perhaps in the limbs, there are just

degrees of

combined qi stagnation and blood stasis because the limbs do not play a major

functional

role. What I mean by this apparently ludicrous statement is that in TCM the

limbs do not

have any of the organs that make up the body's feedback and control systems.

The limbs

depend on proper function of the organs to have qi and blood circulated to them.

The

limbs do not produce and circulate qi and blood themselves. Thus problems in

the limbs

are typically not local functional ones but either local circulatory issues OR a

result of

functional problems in the zang fu organs. Thus, there is no role for herbs to

address

purely local functional problems in the limbs.

 

So I don't differentiate qi and blood in the limbs in herbology and I don't

think there is

one. Trauma is severe and always necessitates blood movers. the pain is sharp,

so it is

moot whether qi is affected or not here. chronic pain is often achy and the

herbs called

for may typically be those for WCD. I don't necessarily think blood movers are

indicated

here because they are too strong for mild pain. But I do think that WCD herbs

restore the

free flow of both qi AND blood in the limbs because I do not think one can think

of them

separately when it come to circulatory issues, only when the distinction is

functional

versus structural (blood in vessels).

 

> I am not sure there is any separation when it

> comes to circulation issues. So it really comes back to whether there are

> conduits through

> which just qi flows or not. And whether the qi flow in those conduits is

> main control and

> balance system for the body. I do not think this is the case.

>

> [Jason]

>

> I will have to think more about this, I am unsure also. Can you elaborate

> why you don't think so.

 

 

Not really. Just that the evidence I have seen plus my predilections for

interpreting such

evidence have led me to this conclusion. But it really is the culmination of

much else I

have written here over the years. Not that I buy Kendall hook, line and sinker,

but he has

raised some major questions about the reality of separate qi conduits, IMO and

no one has

jumped in to adequately rebut him yet. Unschuld had already raised serious

issues about

whether channels had any reality or were merely social constructs as far back as

the mid

80's. Kendall and Unschuld do agree that the channels as they are conceived by

many in

the field do not exist and there is no evidence that they do. Unschuld believes

they do not

exist at all, while Kendall believes they are partial descriptions of anatomy

with an

emphasis on connections and function, but anatomy nevertheless. I thus think is

there is

any reality to a flowing form of qi as substance, it must be in the blood

vessels or not at

all. The fact that leaving a so-called " channel " intact while severing nerves

or blocking

blood flow interferes with point function is pretty strong evidence to me.

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> >

> > 2) When someone has qistag type pain in the torso blood movers

are not

> > generally used, and considered not effective. Therefore one can

assume that

> > moving the blood (in the torso at least) does not affect the qi.

I consider

> > 2 types of pain in the torso (qi and blood), even though qi and

blood are

> > intermingled, I get the sense that herbally they are treated quite

> > differently.

>

>

> Is that actually true? Subjectively and anecdotally, I have found

that blood moving herbs

> temporarily relieve all pain, whether due to qi stag or bi. Thus,

the prominance of such

> herbs in external apps for both complaints. I think blood moving

herbs are too strong for

> use in torso conditions with only distending or aching pain and

that is why they are C/Ced,

> not because they don't move the qi also. they move it too strongly.

 

Ok.. this is worth exploring and looking into some sources etc… 1st –

we should expand this topic to problems beyond pain, yet remained

focused on the torso or internal problems. I would agree that many

blood movers will stop pain no matter what, hell look at yan hu suo

it has opiates in it – [i would agree with on that.] But also one can

notice that xu li says that it is indicated for qi and blood

stagnation (all types of pain). But for problems in the interior

would you agree that there are separate issues between qi and blood

stag? I currently believe that moving blood in many nterior problems

that are purely qi stag problems will not bring about the desired

result, and it not because the blood moving is too strong, that it

just operates on a different level.

I think in Flaws's GYN book there is an interesting few sentences in

the blocked menstruation section (Sorry I don't have the book, and

haven't seen it in a while), but, we know blocked menstruation is

going on for some time 3+ months, and I think under the stag section

there is a formula that moves a lot of blood, but it says underneath,

if you see qi stag signs, you should delete the blood movers and add

qi movers. There are no deficiencies mentioned, so why in such a

situation, where you really want to move blood (literally) would you

opt for qi movers…?

Also one can look at ways of dealing with phlegm and dampness. AS

we know these can be very stubborn situations, why do we mostly see

qi movers vs. blood movers…

If the latter part of above is correct, then I can only guess that

strictly qi stagnation pain operates on a different level and one

should correctly prescribe qi movers instead of blood movers. Most

of the time there is no vacuity, especially in the short term so why

worry about blood movers being to strong? But I haven't given just

blood movers to (actually) any patient's that just have qi stag, so I

don't have any personal experience on this on.. Other things to

consider:

 

A) Xu li under blood stasis category says: IF there is extreme pain

one should combine the blood movers with qi movers? Why would I need

this if blood movers are just superior herbs and automatically move

the qi…?

B) also interestingly qi stag herbs (in general) always give the

warning; caution in cases of qi and yin xu (b/c they can damage)… but

blood movers do not. This further suggests that blood movers do not

just more strongly move the qi otherwise don't you think the same

warning would apply?

 

C) I think this is even seen in blood moving herbs by themselves…

Obviously certain one's are stronger and work on different levels

then the others…

 

As for the limbs, we

> really don't have an option to choose herbs that move qi in the

limbs directly, only blood.

> You already agreed that WCD herbs move qi indirectly by removing

obstruction. The

> questionis do they move blood as well (see below). I also think the

use of blood movers in

> limb conditions is not restricted to cases of sharp pain only. In

fact, I learned from several

> teachers that blood stasis in the limbs can result in numbness,

tingling, pain, weakness,

> spasticity, stiffness and aching.

 

I agree… me too…

 

>

>

> I feel the same is true from herbs that act on (i.e. clear

> > heat) from the qi and or blood levels. Therefore one can ask why

would the

> > channels in the torso be different than the channels in the limbs?

>

>

> I don't think the concepts of qi and blood levels has to do with qi

channels versus blood

> vessels, does it? I thought the terms were beingused in a

different context here.

 

You are right, I was just stating an analogue from CM… CM likes to

operate on levels, meaning clearly heat from the qi level doesn't

clear from the blood level (generally) and visa versa. Also vacuity

heat and excess heat (same thing)… But you are right let us stick to

the stagnation issue…

 

So I ask what do you mean by; The blood movers are too strong….?

 

Also I think the example of dampness supports that qi movers are not

just acting on functionality of organs (I think that is what you are

saying) _ In this situation it is about moving the qi (nothing to do

with the organs directly) to bust up the dampness… IS this correct to

you? (But of course i.e. many of those herbs will work on the

functionality to increase the qi hua (fx) and eliminate the root

cause of the damp (also)…

 

But at the moment I tend to agree with you on all the limb stuff (to

a certain extant) so while I think about that some more, feel free to

comment on the above…

 

-