FDM system critique and question

May 17, 2007

Sharon,

Since I definitely see how the cases I brought up do not fit within the FDM

system (or TCM for that matter) maybe you could elaborate a bit. Here are

also my off-the-cuff responses and thoughts (criticisms) you asked for, from

one page of the FDM manual:

For example:

You say that you can diagnosis Kidney " FOR SURE " if you see nocturia. Yet I

gave an example where nocturia was treated without diagnosing and treating

the kidney at all. This is precisely why I see such a system limiting, when

you make statements like 'all you need is this one sign and you can know

" FOR SURE " there is (i.e.) kidney deficiency.' This is, IMO, limiting, not

expanding. Now if you said something more reasonable like " You should think

kidney when you see this sign " that would make more sense. You say you are

trying to prevent students from making a=b relationships (like night sweats

equaling yin xu, or fatigue equaling spleen qi xu), yet you set up so many

a=b relationships in your system. In my way of thinking one always puts

things in context, and never makes a dx based on one s/s. This is why the

(above) treatment worked. If one included even one herb for the kidney, IMO

it would have been inaccurate, because there was no signs of deficiency, and

in my way of thinking I do not consider 1 sign (even nocturia) to always

mean deficiency (of the kidney). But most important is that the treatment

proves the hypothesis (that there was no deficiency) by successfully

working, therefore, case closed.

You make statements like " all kidney pathologies are deficient " - well this

limits you and excludes all the doctors that say you can have excess kidney.

This is not debating if the statement is true or not, but clearly pushes out

anything outside of " your " box.

You also state that if a condition is better with steroidal medications and

you can definitely know there is a kidney deficiency. Is this serious? There

are so many different conditions that will improve with steroid use that are

not kidney related, many are excess and treated as such. Meaning that the

treatment that helps them does not treat the kidney. I think this is the

crux of the issue.

You also say that you can definitely diagnose kidney deficiency if a

condition gets better with thyroid medication. Where does this come from?

I can clearly say that I have treated many thyroid patients (that thyroid

medication has helped) without diagnosing kidney deficiency or using any

kidney medicinals. Many of these have been verified with lab tests, and many

are no longer on their medication.

Are you saying it is okay to diagnose kidney deficiency and then not even

treat the kidney? Is this what you mean by, " you can know there is kidney

deficiency for sure? " Because I contend that whatever treatment is used to

fix the problem must be an alignment with diagnosis - this is basic CM

practice. If you diagnose that there is a kidney problem than one would

expect to treat the kidney, correct? If (one does not treat the kidney) but

diagnoses the kidney, then this diagnosis is a paper tiger, and just bad

practice.

Maybe if one follows your system, then all of the above (clinical examples)

all are JUST kidney deficiency, no questions asked. This can be your point

of view. And you may always address the kidney in such situations. If so,

then this proves my point exactly. Meaning, there are not only other ways

to diagnose the problems but effective ways to treat the problems that do

not fit within this FDM system, hence outside the system's box, and my only

point!

I just have a hard time understanding these cut and dry correlations and how

this does not just put a practitioner that follow such a system in a box. I

am eager to hear your side of the story.

Maybe it is purely a semantical and wording issue that I find problems with,

but the way it reads, it really sets up a clear and black-and-white system -

I see little room for scallfolding as you describe. This obviously must be

appealing to people who are struggling with diagnosis, and may work many

times, but as my original point stands these black and white statements I

find not always accurate in the clinic. That is my personal clinical

experience and doctor's I have observed.

To make one further comment about the nose bleeding case, I still see no way

that this system would come up with gui zhi jia fu zi tang. You state that

the example is not outside the box therefore I must assume that there is

some way that you would come up with this formula from your system. Maybe

you could explain how this would work. I further state that even though you

have used gui zhi or fu zi to treat bleeding this is much different than

using the above formula for such a situation. I've also used gui zhi and fu

zi for bleeding cases within a TCM paradigm, this is not surprising because

of the other herbs in the formula, but this is a totally different situation

that IMO benefits from viewing things from a completely different

perspective, a SHL one.

Kind regards,

-

_____

On Behalf Of sharon weizenbaum

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:29 PM

Re: cold causing bleeding (SHL) 4 causes incomplete?

I must say though that from my understanding of FDM - none of the

cases you have brought up seem " out of the box " to me.

May 17, 2007

You also say that you can definitely diagnose kidney deficiency if a

condition gets better with thyroid medication. Where does this come from?

I can clearly say that I have treated many thyroid patients (that thyroid

medication has helped) without diagnosing kidney deficiency or using any

kidney medicinals. Many of these have been verified with lab tests, and many

are no longer on their medication.

>>>>

Jason

Are you saying you are treating hypothyroid pt and can correct their thyroid

levels?

-

Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:56 AM