Allergic conditions and modern pharm

[Guest guest]

Most of the studies i have seen on these are on animal models,

however, wu wei zi is in xiao qing long so with other herbs there

should be no problems

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

I think xiaoqinglongtang is a much different animal. For example, it has

mahuang, xixin, and guizhi. There is not too much more one can do to

disperse than ma huang. The formula in question not only has wu wei zi but

wu mei and only has fang feng to disperse. A sample case adds xin yi hua,

cang er zi, and bai zhi for rhinitis, however I think too much astringent is

a valid concern.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Monday, June 02, 2008 10:16 PM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

 

 

 

Most of the studies i have seen on these are on animal models,

however, wu wei zi is in xiao qing long so with other herbs there

should be no problems

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) <alonmarcus%40wans.net> net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

Why does " Do we abandon basic CM principles to add a *new* western usage. " have

to be as such? why can't we simply add, without abandoning anything? Isn't that

what Chinese medicine has done for centuries/millennia? granted this might be a

little different, but why is it is contrary to Chinese medical thought?

 

I look forward to you answers!

 

Thomas

 

 

 

 

Beijing, China

 

Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide

 

 

 

www.sourcepointherbs.org

sorry this website is badly out of date but I can't up-date it from here,

because it is blocked in China!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thomas,

 

 

 

First, I am in no way saying, that we inherently are abandoning CM

principles when we add western usages. That is not the point. The point is

that it can easily happen. It can go either way, and is a matter of choice.

 

 

 

However, I think this question is best discussed in context of our current

discussion. For example, if CM says that the fundamental principle for the

treatment of acute allergies (rhinitis) is to disperse wind etc. and we

choose herbs based on unclear western pharmacology (i.e. Herb X=

" anti-allergic " ) that do not support, and actually inhibit, this dispersion,

then we are potentially abandoning a fundamental principle of CM. I think

you are incorrect to believe that CM has does this for centuries. Please

show me one example. What is happening now is much different than the

evolution of CM in the past.

 

 

 

Now this is not to say theory cannot change. If we decide that in an acute

allergic reaction it is important to add sour medicinals, then this theory

can be tested and evaluated by others. This is using CM thinking. However,

IMO it is a slippery slope to blindly add medicinals based on

pharmacological properties, and this is really my fundamental point.

 

 

 

Now this is not to say that one may not add herbs based on pharmacology. My

point is that one needs to understand more than just " anti-allergic "

" anti-inflammation " and also consider how it affects the basic principles

and dynamics of the formula. This is staying within the confines of CM.

 

 

 

Such integration either supports CM thinking or it doesn't. I have seen

formulas go both ways. Usually adding herbs to a CM formula is less risk

then starting with a western minded formula.

 

 

 

Without adhering to the fundamental 'rules' of CM, the formula just becomes

a group of herbs for the treatment of a western concept and hence not CM at

all. Merely using Chinese herbs does not correlate to using Chinese

medicine. It is the framework in which one operates that determines ones

system.

 

 

 

This thinking applies to any western disease. For example, giving 10

anti-cancer herbs to a CA patient is not CM. However, picking herbs based on

the diagnosis of disease and pattern while considering the modern

pharmacology is not only intelligent, but within the modern scope of CM.

 

 

 

So to sum up, of course one does not have to abandon anything, it is matter

of choice as to how much and if any abandonment happens.

 

 

 

This is just my perspective.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of

Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:11 AM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

 

 

 

Jason,

 

Why does " Do we abandon basic CM principles to add a *new* western usage. "

have to be as such? why can't we simply add, without abandoning anything?

Isn't that what Chinese medicine has done for centuries/millennia? granted

this might be a little different, but why is it is contrary to Chinese

medical thought?

 

I look forward to you answers!

 

Thomas

 

 

 

Beijing, China

 

Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide

 

thomas@sourcepointh <thomas%40sourcepointherbs.org> erbs.org

 

www.sourcepointherbs.org

sorry this website is badly out of date but I can't up-date it from here,

because it is blocked in China!

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree 100% with your perspective, Jason. However, as you know, it

is a difficult balance to pull off both theoretically and clinically.

That is why we see such a tendency to over-simplification of diagnosis

and treatment plans in both directions (CM/biomedical orientation).

 

 

On Jun 3, 2008, at 11:41 AM, wrote:

 

> Thomas,

>

> First, I am in no way saying, that we inherently are abandoning CM

> principles when we add western usages. That is not the point. The

> point is

> that it can easily happen. It can go either way, and is a matter of

> choice.

>

> However, I think this question is best discussed in context of our

> current

> discussion. For example, if CM says that the fundamental principle

> for the

> treatment of acute allergies (rhinitis) is to disperse wind etc. and

> we

> choose herbs based on unclear western pharmacology (i.e. Herb X=

> " anti-allergic " ) that do not support, and actually inhibit, this

> dispersion,

> then we are potentially abandoning a fundamental principle of CM. I

> think

> you are incorrect to believe that CM has does this for centuries.

> Please

> show me one example. What is happening now is much different than the

> evolution of CM in the past.

>

> Now this is not to say theory cannot change. If we decide that in an

> acute

> allergic reaction it is important to add sour medicinals, then this

> theory

> can be tested and evaluated by others. This is using CM thinking.

> However,

> IMO it is a slippery slope to blindly add medicinals based on

> pharmacological properties, and this is really my fundamental point.

>

> Now this is not to say that one may not add herbs based on

> pharmacology. My

> point is that one needs to understand more than just " anti-allergic "

> " anti-inflammation " and also consider how it affects the basic

> principles

> and dynamics of the formula. This is staying within the confines of

> CM.

>

> Such integration either supports CM thinking or it doesn't. I have

> seen

> formulas go both ways. Usually adding herbs to a CM formula is less

> risk

> then starting with a western minded formula.

>

> Without adhering to the fundamental 'rules' of CM, the formula just

> becomes

> a group of herbs for the treatment of a western concept and hence

> not CM at

> all. Merely using Chinese herbs does not correlate to using Chinese

> medicine. It is the framework in which one operates that determines

> ones

> system.

>

> This thinking applies to any western disease. For example, giving 10

> anti-cancer herbs to a CA patient is not CM. However, picking herbs

> based on

> the diagnosis of disease and pattern while considering the modern

> pharmacology is not only intelligent, but within the modern scope of

> CM.

>

> So to sum up, of course one does not have to abandon anything, it is

> matter

> of choice as to how much and if any abandonment happens.

>

> This is just my perspective.

>

> -Jason

>

> _____

>

>

> On Behalf Of Thomas

> Avery Garran

> Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:11 AM

>

> Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

>

> Jason,

>

> Why does " Do we abandon basic CM principles to add a *new* western

> usage. "

> have to be as such? why can't we simply add, without abandoning

> anything?

> Isn't that what Chinese medicine has done for centuries/millennia?

> granted

> this might be a little different, but why is it is contrary to Chinese

> medical thought?

>

> I look forward to you answers!

>

> Thomas

>

>

>

> Beijing, China

>

> Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> Practitioners Guide

>

> thomas@sourcepointh <thomas%40sourcepointherbs.org> erbs.org

>

> www.sourcepointherbs.org

> sorry this website is badly out of date but I can't up-date it from

> here,

> because it is blocked in China!

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jason

Traditional dispersion approaches have limited clinical utility in

treating allergic rhinitis, therefor i have no problem exploring other

approaches. The only question that matters does work better? I suggest

you try it and then bring back all these questions.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason and all,

 

OK, I think I was not entirely clear when I said that CM has been doing this for

centuries. What I meant was something you touched on in your post, theories

evolve and I think this may be an example. °Ù¼ÒÕùÃù (Let a hundred schools of

thought contend.) I think sums it up!

 

One might ask, which came first, the theory or the results? I would venture to

guess that is was the result in most cases. If this is the case here than how do

we use the theories of CM to understand how this works, or do we need to develop

new theory?

 

Danny mentioned the use of opposing medicinals, I think this is a good place to

start. However, I also think that in this situation there is a consolidation of

the exterior that may be playing a part. Honestly, I haven't given it much

thought, but I know it works, so I use it.

 

So, if it works then how do we justify its usage with CM? The two reasons

mentioned above are good places to start. Dui yao is an important part of CM

herbology. If I combine huangqi, fengfang, and wuweizi and to treat allergies

and get a better result than if I only use the first two, then there is

something happening in the combination. What is it? Well, we know that both

huangqi and wuweizi supplement the lung, and the connection between the lung and

skin/sinus' is well established. Therefore, if the diagnosis is lung vacuity

then the combination makes sense. Furthermore, just because wuweizi is

astringent doesn't mean that is the only way it can be used. When it is used in

the raw state it primarily is a supplementing medicine for the kidney and lung.

If there is lung vacuity, the exterior is not secure, therefore the use of these

two medicinals makes perfect sense, at least to me. If we then look at the third

ingredient, fengfang, than we have a

mild but definite dispersing action. If the pattern is of a mild quality, then

this should do it. (I'm not saying the is the be-all-end-all formula or

combination...just using it as an example.) Furthermore, from Basic Questions

" ÐÁ¸Ê·¢É¢ÎªÑô " & lt; & lt;ËØÎÊ¡¤ÖÁÕæÒª´óÂÛ & gt; & gt; & nbsp; " acrid and sweet effuse

and dissipate and belong to yang. " So, using this combination makes

sense...let's not forget that wuweizi is the " five flavor seed. "

 

And there there is the principle of securing the exterior so the pathogen will

not linger. This mainly used in wind-cold patterns, but I am not sure it I can

be sure that I can remember which I find it best for (wind-cold or

wind-heat)....Anybody?

 

Ok, well, I need to get back to studying....that's all for now, I don't this is

complete by any means, but I don't have the time to write any more at this time.

Very interesting discussion...I look forward to anyone's comments.

 

Thomas

 

 

 

Beijing, Chinase

 

Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide

 

 

 

www.sourcepointherbs.org

 

 

[Guest guest]

I completely agree, and have no question exploring other options; I just

like to have a rationale in my thinking. However, so far, the 3 people that

I tried this approach had poor results. I will try on a few more. What about

your approaches / results?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:25 PM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

 

 

 

Jason

Traditional dispersion approaches have limited clinical utility in

treating allergic rhinitis, therefor i have no problem exploring other

approaches. The only question that matters does work better? I suggest

you try it and then bring back all these questions.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) <alonmarcus%40wans.net> net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thomas,

 

Can you explain more about this? I was under the impression that this is

once the pathogen has been expelled. Can you show some examples? I cannot

think of a wind-cold or wind-heat that does this.

 

-Jason

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:48 AM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

 

And there there is the principle of securing the exterior so the pathogen

will not linger. This mainly used in wind-cold patterns, but I am not sure

it I can be sure that I can remember which I find it best for (wind-cold or

wind-heat)....Anybody?

 

 

 

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature

database 3156 (20080603) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

Alon, Thomas, and group,

 

I don't think anyone is opposed to what works. The question is when does it

work? The advantage of putting something into a CM theoretical construct

(vs. a western label of " anti-allergic " ) is that we can then predict when a

medicinal (or combination / formula) will work, meaning for what pattern. We

can already safely say that this allergy formula / approach only works

sometimes. Therefore for it to be clinically useful we must have some handle

to predict when we should add such large amounts of astringents versus a

more dispersion approach (both work). Maybe it is just about qi xu, maybe

something else.

 

Now if we need a new theory to explain this, then fine, and this still

supports my point. We still need theory. It is just not enough to just think

of these as " anti-allergy " herbs. I don't think anyone is against the

evolution of theory.

 

Furthermore, theory helps understand the ramifications of questionable

approaches. Just like a wind-cold or wind-heat may improve from overly (and

inappropriate) cold treatments, such treatments may also lead to lurking

pathogens and secondary pathogenic expressions a week or 2 weeks later. This

is a lurking pathogen created from inappropriate treatment. Therefore, one

may also worry about consolidating the exterior too much, when you should

disperse. One may get immediate results, but can this create a lurking

pathogen? These are questions that should be asked... There are many

questions to ask besides merely, " does it just get rid of the immediate

symptom. "

 

Someone mentioned (Laura?) they use yupingsan + renshen and ZGC - Does this

work for acute attacks for you? If so, for any patients? Just qi xu?

 

Thomas, when you use astringents do you pattern differentiate? What dosage

do you use? I of course have had success with astringents (in acute

allergies) in a certain population of patients, but I usually do not include

them, However I have never used such a high dose in comparison to dispersing

I am though still open, and of course am experimenting.

 

BTW- I think your neijing quote is a bit of a stretch for that example.

 

Finally, the idea of opposing medicinals (i.e. bai guo and ma huang) is to

restrain and inhibit the Lung qi. Ma huang can damage Lung qi by over

dispersing. Since fang feng does not have this fear, I don't think we can

rely on this reasoning for wuweizi, wumei, and fang feng, at least at such a

high dose (of astringents).

 

Remember this formula is recommended not just for lung qi xu people but

anyone.

 

Thanks for the convo...

 

-Jason

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:48 AM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

 

Jason and all,

 

OK, I think I was not entirely clear when I said that CM has been doing this

for centuries. What I meant was something you touched on in your post,

theories evolve and I think this may be an example. °Ù¼ÒÕùÃù (Let a hundred

schools of thought contend.) I think sums it up!

 

One might ask, which came first, the theory or the results? I would venture

to guess that is was the result in most cases. If this is the case here than

how do we use the theories of CM to understand how this works, or do we need

to develop new theory?

 

Danny mentioned the use of opposing medicinals, I think this is a good place

to start. However, I also think that in this situation there is a

consolidation of the exterior that may be playing a part. Honestly, I

haven't given it much thought, but I know it works, so I use it.

 

So, if it works then how do we justify its usage with CM? The two reasons

mentioned above are good places to start. Dui yao is an important part of CM

herbology. If I combine huangqi, fengfang, and wuweizi and to treat

allergies and get a better result than if I only use the first two, then

there is something happening in the combination. What is it? Well, we know

that both huangqi and wuweizi supplement the lung, and the connection

between the lung and skin/sinus' is well established. Therefore, if the

diagnosis is lung vacuity then the combination makes sense. Furthermore,

just because wuweizi is astringent doesn't mean that is the only way it can

be used. When it is used in the raw state it primarily is a supplementing

medicine for the kidney and lung. If there is lung vacuity, the exterior is

not secure, therefore the use of these two medicinals makes perfect sense,

at least to me. If we then look at the third ingredient, fengfang, than we

have a

mild but definite dispersing action. If the pattern is of a mild quality,

then this should do it. (I'm not saying the is the be-all-end-all formula or

combination...just using it as an example.) Furthermore, from Basic

Questions " ÐÁ¸Ê·¢É¢ÎªÑô " & lt; & lt;ËØÎÊ¡¤ÖÁÕæÒª´óÂÛ & gt; & gt; & nbsp; " acrid and

sweet effuse and dissipate and belong to yang. " So, using this combination

makes sense...let's not forget that wuweizi is the " five flavor seed. "

 

And there there is the principle of securing the exterior so the pathogen

will not linger. This mainly used in wind-cold patterns, but I am not sure

it I can be sure that I can remember which I find it best for (wind-cold or

wind-heat)....Anybody?

 

Ok, well, I need to get back to studying....that's all for now, I don't this

is complete by any means, but I don't have the time to write any more at

this time. Very interesting discussion...I look forward to anyone's

comments.

 

Thomas

 

 

 

Beijing, Chinase

 

Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide

 

 

 

www.sourcepointherbs.org

 

 

[Guest guest]

My teachers taught that

Fang feng is in Yu ping feng san to keep a window open for pathogens to

leave.

Can someone explain why we would want to shut the door for lingering

pathogens?

 

Will Maclean is doing a talk in Oakland this autumn on lingering pathogens;

do others have experience on this?

 

Thanks,

K.

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:24 AM, <

> wrote:

 

> Alon, Thomas, and group,

>

> I don't think anyone is opposed to what works. The question is when does it

> work? The advantage of putting something into a CM theoretical construct

> (vs. a western label of " anti-allergic " ) is that we can then predict when a

> medicinal (or combination / formula) will work, meaning for what pattern.

> We

> can already safely say that this allergy formula / approach only works

> sometimes. Therefore for it to be clinically useful we must have some

> handle

> to predict when we should add such large amounts of astringents versus a

> more dispersion approach (both work). Maybe it is just about qi xu, maybe

> something else.

>

> Now if we need a new theory to explain this, then fine, and this still

> supports my point. We still need theory. It is just not enough to just

> think

> of these as " anti-allergy " herbs. I don't think anyone is against the

> evolution of theory.

>

> Furthermore, theory helps understand the ramifications of questionable

> approaches. Just like a wind-cold or wind-heat may improve from overly (and

> inappropriate) cold treatments, such treatments may also lead to lurking

> pathogens and secondary pathogenic expressions a week or 2 weeks later.

> This

> is a lurking pathogen created from inappropriate treatment. Therefore, one

> may also worry about consolidating the exterior too much, when you should

> disperse. One may get immediate results, but can this create a lurking

> pathogen? These are questions that should be asked... There are many

> questions to ask besides merely, " does it just get rid of the immediate

> symptom. "

>

> Someone mentioned (Laura?) they use yupingsan + renshen and ZGC - Does this

> work for acute attacks for you? If so, for any patients? Just qi xu?

>

> Thomas, when you use astringents do you pattern differentiate? What dosage

> do you use? I of course have had success with astringents (in acute

> allergies) in a certain population of patients, but I usually do not

> include

> them, However I have never used such a high dose in comparison to

> dispersing

> I am though still open, and of course am experimenting.

>

> BTW- I think your neijing quote is a bit of a stretch for that example.

>

> Finally, the idea of opposing medicinals (i.e. bai guo and ma huang) is to

> restrain and inhibit the Lung qi. Ma huang can damage Lung qi by over

> dispersing. Since fang feng does not have this fear, I don't think we can

> rely on this reasoning for wuweizi, wumei, and fang feng, at least at such

> a

> high dose (of astringents).

>

> Remember this formula is recommended not just for lung qi xu people but

> anyone.

>

> Thanks for the convo...

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

> <%40>

>

[ <%40>\

]

> On Behalf Of

> Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:48 AM

> <%40>

> Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

>

> Jason and all,

>

> OK, I think I was not entirely clear when I said that CM has been doing

> this

> for centuries. What I meant was something you touched on in your post,

> theories evolve and I think this may be an example. °Ù¼ÒÕùÃù (Let a hundred

> schools of thought contend.) I think sums it up!

>

> One might ask, which came first, the theory or the results? I would venture

> to guess that is was the result in most cases. If this is the case here

> than

> how do we use the theories of CM to understand how this works, or do we

> need

> to develop new theory?

>

> Danny mentioned the use of opposing medicinals, I think this is a good

> place

> to start. However, I also think that in this situation there is a

> consolidation of the exterior that may be playing a part. Honestly, I

> haven't given it much thought, but I know it works, so I use it.

>

> So, if it works then how do we justify its usage with CM? The two reasons

> mentioned above are good places to start. Dui yao is an important part of

> CM

> herbology. If I combine huangqi, fengfang, and wuweizi and to treat

> allergies and get a better result than if I only use the first two, then

> there is something happening in the combination. What is it? Well, we know

> that both huangqi and wuweizi supplement the lung, and the connection

> between the lung and skin/sinus' is well established. Therefore, if the

> diagnosis is lung vacuity then the combination makes sense. Furthermore,

> just because wuweizi is astringent doesn't mean that is the only way it can

> be used. When it is used in the raw state it primarily is a supplementing

> medicine for the kidney and lung. If there is lung vacuity, the exterior is

> not secure, therefore the use of these two medicinals makes perfect sense,

> at least to me. If we then look at the third ingredient, fengfang, than we

> have a

> mild but definite dispersing action. If the pattern is of a mild quality,

> then this should do it. (I'm not saying the is the be-all-end-all formula

> or

> combination...just using it as an example.) Furthermore, from Basic

> Questions " ÐÁ¸Ê·¢É¢ÎªÑô " & lt; & lt;ËØÎÊ¡¤ÖÁÕæÒª´óÂÛ & gt; & gt; & nbsp; " acrid and

> sweet effuse and dissipate and belong to yang. " So, using this combination

> makes sense...let's not forget that wuweizi is the " five flavor seed. "

>

> And there there is the principle of securing the exterior so the pathogen

> will not linger. This mainly used in wind-cold patterns, but I am not sure

> it I can be sure that I can remember which I find it best for (wind-cold or

> wind-heat)....Anybody?

>

> Ok, well, I need to get back to studying....that's all for now, I don't

> this

> is complete by any means, but I don't have the time to write any more at

> this time. Very interesting discussion...I look forward to anyone's

> comments.

>

> Thomas

>

>

>

> Beijing, Chinase

>

> Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> Practitioners Guide

>

> <thomas%40sourcepointherbs.org>

>

> www.sourcepointherbs.org

>

>

[Guest guest]

John,

 

 

 

I have much experience in reading the Chinese literature on Lurking

pathogens and well as using the strategies in clinical practice. (you may

check out some article I have written at www.Chinese Medicine

<Chinese Medicine/> ) .

 

 

 

I can¡¯t remember ever seeing material that suggests we should shut the door

for lurking pathogens. It is always emphasized that we should get them out,

via the skin, bowels, urine etc. This is why this whole astringent thing is

a bit suspect. High doses of astringent can lock pathogens in, creating

lurking pathogens. This point of view is well documented in Chinese

literature and, as expressed in my previous message, witnessed in our modern

day clinic.

 

 

 

However, I would love to hear some counter points to this from Thomas or

others. There are always interesting views in CM.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of

Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:39 AM

 

Re: Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

 

 

 

My teachers taught that

Fang feng is in Yu ping feng san to keep a window open for pathogens to

leave.

Can someone explain why we would want to shut the door for lingering

pathogens?

 

Will Maclean is doing a talk in Oakland this autumn on lingering pathogens;

do others have experience on this?

 

Thanks,

K.

 

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:24 AM, <

@chinesemed <%40Chinese Medicine> icinedoc.com>

wrote:

 

> Alon, Thomas, and group,

>

> I don't think anyone is opposed to what works. The question is when does

it

> work? The advantage of putting something into a CM theoretical construct

> (vs. a western label of " anti-allergic " ) is that we can then predict when

a

> medicinal (or combination / formula) will work, meaning for what pattern.

> We

> can already safely say that this allergy formula / approach only works

> sometimes. Therefore for it to be clinically useful we must have some

> handle

> to predict when we should add such large amounts of astringents versus a

> more dispersion approach (both work). Maybe it is just about qi xu, maybe

> something else.

>

> Now if we need a new theory to explain this, then fine, and this still

> supports my point. We still need theory. It is just not enough to just

> think

> of these as " anti-allergy " herbs. I don't think anyone is against the

> evolution of theory.

>

> Furthermore, theory helps understand the ramifications of questionable

> approaches. Just like a wind-cold or wind-heat may improve from overly

(and

> inappropriate) cold treatments, such treatments may also lead to lurking

> pathogens and secondary pathogenic expressions a week or 2 weeks later.

> This

> is a lurking pathogen created from inappropriate treatment. Therefore, one

> may also worry about consolidating the exterior too much, when you should

> disperse. One may get immediate results, but can this create a lurking

> pathogen? These are questions that should be asked... There are many

> questions to ask besides merely, " does it just get rid of the immediate

> symptom. "

>

> Someone mentioned (Laura?) they use yupingsan + renshen and ZGC - Does

this

> work for acute attacks for you? If so, for any patients? Just qi xu?

>

> Thomas, when you use astringents do you pattern differentiate? What dosage

> do you use? I of course have had success with astringents (in acute

> allergies) in a certain population of patients, but I usually do not

> include

> them, However I have never used such a high dose in comparison to

> dispersing

> I am though still open, and of course am experimenting.

>

> BTW- I think your neijing quote is a bit of a stretch for that example.

>

> Finally, the idea of opposing medicinals (i.e. bai guo and ma huang) is to

> restrain and inhibit the Lung qi. Ma huang can damage Lung qi by over

> dispersing. Since fang feng does not have this fear, I don't think we can

> rely on this reasoning for wuweizi, wumei, and fang feng, at least at such

> a

> high dose (of astringents).

>

> Remember this formula is recommended not just for lung qi xu people but

> anyone.

>

> Thanks for the convo...

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

> @ <%40>

<%40>

> [@ <%40>

<%40>]

> On Behalf Of

> Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:48 AM

> @ <%40>

<%40>

> Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

>

> Jason and all,

>

> OK, I think I was not entirely clear when I said that CM has been doing

> this

> for centuries. What I meant was something you touched on in your post,

> theories evolve and I think this may be an example. °Ù¼ÒÕùÃù (Let a

hundred

> schools of thought contend.) I think sums it up!

>

> One might ask, which came first, the theory or the results? I would

venture

> to guess that is was the result in most cases. If this is the case here

> than

> how do we use the theories of CM to understand how this works, or do we

> need

> to develop new theory?

>

> Danny mentioned the use of opposing medicinals, I think this is a good

> place

> to start. However, I also think that in this situation there is a

> consolidation of the exterior that may be playing a part. Honestly, I

> haven't given it much thought, but I know it works, so I use it.

>

> So, if it works then how do we justify its usage with CM? The two reasons

> mentioned above are good places to start. Dui yao is an important part of

> CM

> herbology. If I combine huangqi, fengfang, and wuweizi and to treat

> allergies and get a better result than if I only use the first two, then

> there is something happening in the combination. What is it? Well, we know

> that both huangqi and wuweizi supplement the lung, and the connection

> between the lung and skin/sinus' is well established. Therefore, if the

> diagnosis is lung vacuity then the combination makes sense. Furthermore,

> just because wuweizi is astringent doesn't mean that is the only way it

can

> be used. When it is used in the raw state it primarily is a supplementing

> medicine for the kidney and lung. If there is lung vacuity, the exterior

is

> not secure, therefore the use of these two medicinals makes perfect sense,

> at least to me. If we then look at the third ingredient, fengfang, than we

> have a

> mild but definite dispersing action. If the pattern is of a mild quality,

> then this should do it. (I'm not saying the is the be-all-end-all formula

> or

> combination...just using it as an example.) Furthermore, from Basic

> Questions " ÐÁ¸Ê·¢É¢ÎªÑô " & lt; & lt;ËØÎÊ¡¤ÖÁÕæÒª´óÂÛ & gt; & gt; & nbsp; " acrid and

> sweet effuse and dissipate and belong to yang. " So, using this combination

> makes sense...let's not forget that wuweizi is the " five flavor seed. "

>

> And there there is the principle of securing the exterior so the pathogen

> will not linger. This mainly used in wind-cold patterns, but I am not sure

> it I can be sure that I can remember which I find it best for (wind-cold

or

> wind-heat)....Anybody?

>

> Ok, well, I need to get back to studying....that's all for now, I don't

> this

> is complete by any means, but I don't have the time to write any more at

> this time. Very interesting discussion...I look forward to anyone's

> comments.

>

> Thomas

>

>

>

> Beijing, Chinase

>

> Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> Practitioners Guide

>

> thomas@sourcepointh <thomas%40sourcepointherbs.org> erbs.org

<thomas%40sourcepointherbs.org>

>

> www.sourcepointherbs.org

>

>

[Guest guest]

I thought it kept pathogens out as in: " defend against the Wind " . On a

western level I've heard people describe fang feng as having

anti-histamine qualities.

Doug

 

 

 

 

, " "

<johnkokko wrote:

>

> My teachers taught that

> Fang feng is in Yu ping feng san to keep a window open for pathogens to

> leave.

> Can someone explain why we would want to shut the door for lingering

> pathogens?

>

> Will Maclean is doing a talk in Oakland this autumn on lingering

pathogens;

> do others have experience on this?

>

> Thanks,

> K.

>

>

>

>

> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:24 AM, <

> > wrote:

>

> > Alon, Thomas, and group,

> >

> > I don't think anyone is opposed to what works. The question is

when does it

> > work? The advantage of putting something into a CM theoretical

construct

> > (vs. a western label of " anti-allergic " ) is that we can then

predict when a

> > medicinal (or combination / formula) will work, meaning for what

pattern.

> > We

> > can already safely say that this allergy formula / approach only works

> > sometimes. Therefore for it to be clinically useful we must have some

> > handle

> > to predict when we should add such large amounts of astringents

versus a

> > more dispersion approach (both work). Maybe it is just about qi

xu, maybe

> > something else.

> >

> > Now if we need a new theory to explain this, then fine, and this still

> > supports my point. We still need theory. It is just not enough to just

> > think

> > of these as " anti-allergy " herbs. I don't think anyone is against the

> > evolution of theory.

> >

> > Furthermore, theory helps understand the ramifications of questionable

> > approaches. Just like a wind-cold or wind-heat may improve from

overly (and

> > inappropriate) cold treatments, such treatments may also lead to

lurking

> > pathogens and secondary pathogenic expressions a week or 2 weeks

later.

> > This

> > is a lurking pathogen created from inappropriate treatment.

Therefore, one

> > may also worry about consolidating the exterior too much, when you

should

> > disperse. One may get immediate results, but can this create a lurking

> > pathogen? These are questions that should be asked... There are many

> > questions to ask besides merely, " does it just get rid of the

immediate

> > symptom. "

> >

> > Someone mentioned (Laura?) they use yupingsan + renshen and ZGC -

Does this

> > work for acute attacks for you? If so, for any patients? Just qi xu?

> >

> > Thomas, when you use astringents do you pattern differentiate?

What dosage

> > do you use? I of course have had success with astringents (in acute

> > allergies) in a certain population of patients, but I usually do not

> > include

> > them, However I have never used such a high dose in comparison to

> > dispersing

> > I am though still open, and of course am experimenting.

> >

> > BTW- I think your neijing quote is a bit of a stretch for that

example.

> >

> > Finally, the idea of opposing medicinals (i.e. bai guo and ma

huang) is to

> > restrain and inhibit the Lung qi. Ma huang can damage Lung qi by over

> > dispersing. Since fang feng does not have this fear, I don't think

we can

> > rely on this reasoning for wuweizi, wumei, and fang feng, at least

at such

> > a

> > high dose (of astringents).

> >

> > Remember this formula is recommended not just for lung qi xu

people but

> > anyone.

> >

> > Thanks for the convo...

> >

> >

> > -Jason

> >

> >

> >

<%40>

> >

[ <%40>\

]

> > On Behalf Of

> > Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:48 AM

> > To:

<%40>

> > Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

> >

> > Jason and all,

> >

> > OK, I think I was not entirely clear when I said that CM has been

doing

> > this

> > for centuries. What I meant was something you touched on in your post,

> > theories evolve and I think this may be an example. °Ù¼ÒÕùÃù (Let

a hundred

> > schools of thought contend.) I think sums it up!

> >

> > One might ask, which came first, the theory or the results? I

would venture

> > to guess that is was the result in most cases. If this is the case

here

> > than

> > how do we use the theories of CM to understand how this works, or

do we

> > need

> > to develop new theory?

> >

> > Danny mentioned the use of opposing medicinals, I think this is a good

> > place

> > to start. However, I also think that in this situation there is a

> > consolidation of the exterior that may be playing a part. Honestly, I

> > haven't given it much thought, but I know it works, so I use it.

> >

> > So, if it works then how do we justify its usage with CM? The two

reasons

> > mentioned above are good places to start. Dui yao is an important

part of

> > CM

> > herbology. If I combine huangqi, fengfang, and wuweizi and to treat

> > allergies and get a better result than if I only use the first

two, then

> > there is something happening in the combination. What is it? Well,

we know

> > that both huangqi and wuweizi supplement the lung, and the connection

> > between the lung and skin/sinus' is well established. Therefore,

if the

> > diagnosis is lung vacuity then the combination makes sense.

Furthermore,

> > just because wuweizi is astringent doesn't mean that is the only

way it can

> > be used. When it is used in the raw state it primarily is a

supplementing

> > medicine for the kidney and lung. If there is lung vacuity, the

exterior is

> > not secure, therefore the use of these two medicinals makes

perfect sense,

> > at least to me. If we then look at the third ingredient, fengfang,

than we

> > have a

> > mild but definite dispersing action. If the pattern is of a mild

quality,

> > then this should do it. (I'm not saying the is the be-all-end-all

formula

> > or

> > combination...just using it as an example.) Furthermore, from Basic

> > Questions " ÐÁ¸Ê·¢É¢ÎªÑô " & lt; & lt;ËØÎÊ¡¤ÖÁÕæÒª´óÂÛ & gt; & gt; & nbsp;

" acrid and

> > sweet effuse and dissipate and belong to yang. " So, using this

combination

> > makes sense...let's not forget that wuweizi is the " five flavor seed. "

> >

> > And there there is the principle of securing the exterior so the

pathogen

> > will not linger. This mainly used in wind-cold patterns, but I am

not sure

> > it I can be sure that I can remember which I find it best for

(wind-cold or

> > wind-heat)....Anybody?

> >

> > Ok, well, I need to get back to studying....that's all for now, I

don't

> > this

> > is complete by any means, but I don't have the time to write any

more at

> > this time. Very interesting discussion...I look forward to anyone's

> > comments.

> >

> > Thomas

> >

> >

> >

> > Beijing, Chinase

> >

> > Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> > Practitioners Guide

> >

> > <thomas%40sourcepointherbs.org>

> >

> > www.sourcepointherbs.org

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I have always added these herbs to more traditional approach. I cant

say that the results have been great some symptomatic relief most of

the time.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

Do you think people eating several umeboshi per day are for some

reason retaining pathogens or are unhealthy is any way? Many japanese

increase the amount they eat when fighting a cold

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

I have no idea. However, I think your question revolves around the different

effects from drinking cooked (dried) herbs and eating fresh ones. However,

too much of anything can cause problems. Sour in moderation can soften

hardness and promote flexibility, however, too much sour can damage the

tendons (suwen ch. 5) causing weakness and inability to contract and

stretch.

 

 

 

This dilemma is similar to Vitamin C. Most people agree that increasing vit

c during a cold can help, although too much can lead to diarrhea and bring

the pathogen deeper in.

 

 

 

The equation becomes more complex when we are discussing how excessive sour

effects the action of a full prescription. One cannot just look at one

ingredient individually.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Thursday, June 05, 2008 12:40 PM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

 

 

 

Jason

Do you think people eating several umeboshi per day are for some

reason retaining pathogens or are unhealthy is any way? Many japanese

increase the amount they eat when fighting a cold

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) <alonmarcus%40wans.net> net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

you wrote, " Traditional dispersion approaches have limited clinical

utility in treating allergic rhinitis " . Has this really been your

experience?

 

Since returning from england last jan after studying the tx of

allergies and autoimmune disease with Mazin, I have treated many

cases of allergic rhinnitis with dispersion techniques and have been

quite succesfull.

 

I was taught to use Cang Er Zi San as a base, which is then modified

according to the patient. Usually this means deciding whether there

is heat or not.

With no heat signs then the addition of Fang Feng, jing jie, xi xin,

ect.

With heat then large doses of mu dan pi 24g, lu lu tong 24g, huang

qin, lian qiao, ect.

So far everyone treated this spring has had good relief.

 

I actually find that the properly used aprroach to resolving the

exterior works very well. I have seen many people this spring tell me

they have had the best relief of their lives, and without all the

usual fogginess and puffiness of the western anti-histimines. It has

been the treatment of their allergic rhinnitis that has won over

their confidence that CM works :-)

 

Trevor

, alon marcus

<alonmarcus wrote:

>

> Jason

> Traditional dispersion approaches have limited clinical utility in

> treating allergic rhinitis, therefor i have no problem exploring

other

> approaches. The only question that matters does work better? I

suggest

> you try it and then bring back all these questions.

>

>

>

> 400 29th St. Suite 419

> Oakland Ca 94609

>

>

>

> alonmarcus

>

 

[Guest guest]

" sour can damage the

tendons (suwen ch. 5) causing weakness and inability to contract and

stretch. "

 

Than do people that eat a lot of " pickled " veggies (in vinegar), like

many Japanese have damaged tendons? Do people taking some 10-20g of

vit c per day have damaged tendons. I do not think so

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

The word is " can " . It does not mean every person. Clearly people that eat

excessive amount of any flavor can develop all sorts of problems, that is

the point.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Friday, June 06, 2008 8:04 AM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

 

 

 

" sour can damage the

tendons (suwen ch. 5) causing weakness and inability to contract and

stretch. "

 

Than do people that eat a lot of " pickled " veggies (in vinegar), like

many Japanese have damaged tendons? Do people taking some 10-20g of

vit c per day have damaged tendons. I do not think so

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) <alonmarcus%40wans.net> net

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Than do people that eat a lot of " pickled " veggies (in vinegar), like

> many Japanese have damaged tendons? Do people taking some 10-20g of

> vit c per day have damaged tendons. I do not think so

 

I wonder if the Japanese, or any culture that regularly eats veggies

pickled in vinegar, can be said to eat " a lot " of sour. Most Japanese

meals include pickled veggies, but it's a tiny little portion in

comparison to the rest of the meal. Personally, I love eating

umeboshi, but two at a meal is pretty much my max.

 

If you want to know if a lot of sour can really damage the tendons,

eat 30 umeboshi a day for a month or two and tell me what happens :-)

 

Carl

[Guest guest]

Trevor

while i have not used lu lu tong i have used all the other herbs and

more and i do get symptomatic relief for patients as long as they take

the herbs, but that is all i have been able to get in most patients.

Again, i guess its all about how one assesses outcome

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I know of people that eat 30 oranges a day and have not such issues.

But who knows maybe

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- 30 oranges a day? What is the intention behind this? They've

probably got other issues!

Turiya Hill, L.Ac.

[Guest guest]

No the few i know just love the fruit

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

Are these people your patients and in perfect health?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Sunday, June 08, 2008 2:50 PM

 

Re: Allergic conditions and modern pharm

 

 

 

No the few i know just love the fruit

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) <alonmarcus%40wans.net> net