Proof is in the Pudding

[Guest guest]

I am unsure if both can be right. If one treats the

liver

(with success) I pretty much assume the problem is with the liver. It

is not

about vulnerability. It is about how to fix the problem! One can

always spin

a circular web of relationships between organs to justify involvements.

Therefore, for me, the treatment dictates the true problem. Let me

explain.

 

Of course one may say that the constraint was influencing the Kid/BL,

there

was a urination problem! But in this situation one treats the root

not the

organ effected. If one treated the kidney and things got better, I

would say

it was a kidney problem. This example clearly shows the problem with

thinking that nocturia must be a kidney problem. Because once you tell a

student it must be a kidney problem, they will treat the kidney (and

usually

every other organ they think is problematic.) In this situation,

there was

no other " kidney " signs.. Clearly it was not necessary and probably

would

have inhibited the healing process in this situation to do anything

with the

kidney. BTW- This was a chronic nocturia, as you describe above, waking

from the need to pee. So yes the kidney may be vulnerable, but you don't

name it for Dx, nor do you have to always treat it. I am sure people

have

treated cough through just opening up constraint in the liver. Etc etc.

 

I think this is a very important issue. I see students spin webs all the

time, because they do exactly what I mention above. Hence they end up

with a

laundry list for a diagnosis.

 

(Sharon) Yes, the final test for a diagnosis is in the effectiveness

of the treatment. Using the " fundamental diagnostic criteria " (FDC?

trying it on) and determining that there is Kidney involvement does

not imply that treating the Kidney would be a focus of treatment. I

am curious as to why you decided to treat Liver constraint as

primary? I imagine it was because Liver constraint was obvious and

looming as determined by signs and symptoms. But, FDC would not have

missed this. It's very likely we may have treated it in the same way

with, perhaps a slight modification to help consolidate the Kidney.

This is also following Qin Bo-wei's protocol to treat the disease

factor, location and symptom - not just the disease factor. It is

also possible that, though your patient's nocturia is gone, that the

opportunity to strengthen a weak link was missed.

 

I treat a lot of bleeding disorders in women - early menses,

spotting, miscarriage, beng lou. My teacher, Dr. Qiu, as well as

others, recommend that after the bleeding is stopped that the deeper

issues be addressed. The cause of the bleeding may be primarily say,

blood stasis. In this case it would be important to vitalize the

blood to stop bleeding as primary. After the bleeding is stopped

then it is important to look at deficiency issues (only if they are

actually there) that led to the vulnerability. Would this not be

true for your patient too?

 

I know just what you mean about students weaving webs. I call this

" the flow chart syndrome " in which the chart flows the wrong way. I

mean that often a student will determine Spleen Qi deficiency

automatically if there is dampness - or Blood Xu if there is wind

etc. Practitioners add things that are not there so it matches the

flow charts. It is exactly what FDC strives to prevent.

 

You bring up the example of cough due to Liver Qi constraint. Yes, I

have treated many a cough by opening up constraint but, again

following Qin Bo-Wei's example of considering the 1. disease factor

2. symptom and 3. location, I would not use Xiao Yao San. Xiao Yao

San would only address the disease factor of Liver constraint. I

would use a formula like the five milled drink, Wu Mo Yin. Or I

would modify something like Xiao Yao San for cough from constraint.

This treats Liver constraint but addresses the symptom and location.

So we don't " treat cough through JUST opening up constraint in the

liver. " as you say.

 

best,

 

Sharon

 

 

Sharon Weizenbaum

86 Henry Street

Amherst, MA 01002

413-549-4021

sweiz

www.whitepinehealingarts.com

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of sharon weizenbaum

 

 

(Sharon) Yes, the final test for a diagnosis is in the effectiveness

of the treatment. Using the " fundamental diagnostic criteria " (FDC?

trying it on) and determining that there is Kidney involvement does

not imply that treating the Kidney would be a focus of treatment. I

am curious as to why you decided to treat Liver constraint as

primary? I imagine it was because Liver constraint was obvious and

looming as determined by signs and symptoms. But, FDC would not have

missed this. It's very likely we may have treated it in the same way

with, perhaps a slight modification to help consolidate the Kidney.

This is also following Qin Bo-wei's protocol to treat the disease

factor, location and symptom - not just the disease factor. It is

also possible that, though your patient's nocturia is gone, that the

opportunity to strengthen a weak link was missed.

 

I treat a lot of bleeding disorders in women - early menses,

spotting, miscarriage, beng lou. My teacher, Dr. Qiu, as well as

others, recommend that after the bleeding is stopped that the deeper

issues be addressed. The cause of the bleeding may be primarily say,

blood stasis. In this case it would be important to vitalize the

blood to stop bleeding as primary. After the bleeding is stopped

then it is important to look at deficiency issues (only if they are

actually there) that led to the vulnerability. Would this not be

true for your patient too?

 

 

 

Not really. I deemed there to be no deficiency, and hence

after treatment (less than 2 weeks of herbs and acu) the problem did not

return. I disagree that all nocturia requires a diagnosis of kidney. I

therefore feel it is error to treat the kidney from just 1 sign when it is

not the problem. I also disagree that it is helpful to diagnosis the kidney

and then not treat it. Every individual is different and IMO one cannot

latch on to a saying or protocols to rigidly, meaning although I agree with

QBW's principle above, this is clearly not the case for every patient. SHL

cases support this. In this nocturia case there was deficiency signs after

the fact to warrant some tonification.

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Error: this should read " no deficiency signs "

 

 

 

Sorry,

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

In this nocturia case there was deficiency signs after

the fact to warrant some tonification.

 

-Jason