Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 After reading Jason's post - and then re-reading mine... well, I am not sure how to blush on an e-mail Stephen I have seen 1000s of formulas written in the basic style... there is no alternative than to eat crow and apologize I have seen 100s of formulas written in the basic style... I seem to have gotten over-enthusiastic with the zero key? hiccup? stuck key? I just blew it....sorry about that. Stephen Woodley LAc www.shanghanlunseminars.com -- http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Stephen, Ze'v, Jason and all, I agree; unless you follow a doctor outside of school for a few years, who sees a lot of patients, it IS difficult to see a lot of prescriptions. In TCM college in the U.S., we might see 4-6 patients / day, three times/ week, for 2 years. That would be somewhere in the 1000+ patient visits range and usually only half of those are written prescriptions, while the other half might be pills, so we might see around 500 total while in school. I was lucky enough to work at an herb company and see 5-10 prescriptions / day, 3 x/ week for 7 years. That would be somewhere in the 4000+ range total, but the major limitation is that you're only processing someone's order and you're not with the patient directly. So, you can ask some questions to the practitioner, but really you're in the dark trying to figure out what they're trying to do. After a while, you see patterns in practitioners formulations and a modification here and there, which could be very interesting or totally mundane and once in a while, someone who might be really famous in the TCM world could drop a faxed formula in and then a few herb nerds would pass a formula around to try to figure out what's going on... (of course everything was always confidential) What you find most is that # 1... the one's who at least try to make a custom formula know more about herbs than those who just buy pills (this might seem really obvious). # 2.. those who are really awesome probably just buy tons of bulk herbs or concentrated powders and then make the formulations in their own pharmacy, not sending them to the herb company as the middle man to do their work for them. (that is why I think that the best thing would be to follow a doctor who really knows what they're doing and is willing for you to at least be able to take the patient's pulse, while you fill the patient's formula) # 3... people are changing their styles all of the time, there are very few masters out there in the herb world and people tend to be very secretive about their formulas, especially if it's a family style or they're unwilling to teach, because the tradition is to just observe and work as a moxa slave or herb filler boy (which was just fine with me too). So, yes... we need more case studies published by the masters out there, no matter what style they use. I have a few hundred case studies typed up by people who studied under our same root teacher, since he did a few clinical rounds over the years of a week each, where the students would bring in their most difficult patients and the teacher would see around 30 patients/ day (just herbal prescriptions). That's a few hundred case studies, which are immensely helpful. I think that this is a great model for others out there to preserve the clinical knowledge of their root teachers. Hopefully, when everything is polished, the root teachers would be willing to publish this information to share with everyone else and then maybe concurrently, commentaries could be written about these formulas and the methodology that went into them as well. I'm really glad that PMPH is going in that direction.. http://www.pmph.com/en/product.aspx?ColumnId=14 There are many family styles which may sadly die with time, because the transmission is not shared correctly, just as traditional cultural knowledge and languages are becoming extinct faster than ever with the progress of modernization. It's up to us to preserve this human legacy... K On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:01 PM, stephen woodley <learntcmwrote: > > > After reading Jason's post - and then re-reading mine... > > well, I am not sure how to blush on an e-mail > > Stephen > I have seen 1000s of formulas written in the basic style... > > there is no alternative than to eat crow and apologize > > I have seen 100s of formulas written in the basic style... > > I seem to have gotten over-enthusiastic with the zero key? > hiccup? stuck key? > > I just blew it....sorry about that. > > Stephen Woodley LAc > www.shanghanlunseminars.com > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 In my case, I'd like to acknowledge Yo-san University where for a couple of years I was filling prescriptions for the private clinic for the teachers there (as well as their formulas for the student's patients). Dr's. Zhang, Wen, a couple of Li's and Biao all put up with my questions, (as well as had to write in pinyin!). My boss, Yuhong Chen went on to become a great herbalist and supervisor at Yosan and Emperors (I was able to repay her, perhaps.) Doug , <johnkokko wrote: > > Stephen, Ze'v, Jason and all, > I agree; unless you follow a doctor outside of school for a few years, who > sees a lot of patients, > it IS difficult to see a lot of prescriptions. > > In TCM college in the U.S., we might see 4-6 patients / day, three times/ > week, for 2 years. > That would be somewhere in the 1000+ patient visits range > and usually only half of those are written prescriptions, while the other > half might be pills, > so we might see around 500 total while in school. > > I w > K > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 John I agree it is very hard to figure it out with our current educational system! However most students don't see anywhere near 1000 patients during school, and many schools do not even do herbs for a good half of the clinic shifts (meaning acupuncture only). Many times the same patient is seen over and over and the formula is not changed. Also, since pain is a big reason people come in, the number of formulas for these patients is minimal. Consequently, the number of actual written formulas in most schools is almost nil. I would be surprised if a student graduated and wrote more than 25-50 formulas. I'm curious what the current requirement is for a number of patients seen to graduate? One must really find a mentor after one graduates to really understand clinical Chinese herbalism. For example, in one morning in China, one can see 50-60 formulas written by a single doctor. Second best thing is of course studying case records, as we have been talking about. The majority of the time, one can study many more famous doctors in books than they can actual people. Obviously though the former is best. However, one can learn quite a bit from case records. Here is a quick little essay that I wrote for understanding case records. This is essentially my observations while studying Ye Tian-Shi's cases which are probably obvious for most people. However some people may find some benefit. Chinese Medicine/case-studies/understanding-case-records-pt -1/ One reason many practitioners and students are stuck with stock formulas is that they have no mentor to watch and learn from. Furthermore, there are no real classes in learning to write your own prescriptions. Although I will never argue with someone's choice to stick to formulas and the standard modifications, I do believe that this is only an entry point. What are other's thoughts? - On Behalf Of Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:01 AM Re: Shang Han formula? - whoops Stephen, Ze'v, Jason and all, I agree; unless you follow a doctor outside of school for a few years, who sees a lot of patients, it IS difficult to see a lot of prescriptions. In TCM college in the U.S., we might see 4-6 patients / day, three times/ week, for 2 years. That would be somewhere in the 1000+ patient visits range and usually only half of those are written prescriptions, while the other half might be pills, so we might see around 500 total while in school. I was lucky enough to work at an herb company and see 5-10 prescriptions / day, 3 x/ week for 7 years. That would be somewhere in the 4000+ range total, but the major limitation is that you're only processing someone's order and you're not with the patient directly. So, you can ask some questions to the practitioner, but really you're in the dark trying to figure out what they're trying to do. After a while, you see patterns in practitioners formulations and a modification here and there, which could be very interesting or totally mundane and once in a while, someone who might be really famous in the TCM world could drop a faxed formula in and then a few herb nerds would pass a formula around to try to figure out what's going on... (of course everything was always confidential) What you find most is that # 1... the one's who at least try to make a custom formula know more about herbs than those who just buy pills (this might seem really obvious). # 2.. those who are really awesome probably just buy tons of bulk herbs or concentrated powders and then make the formulations in their own pharmacy, not sending them to the herb company as the middle man to do their work for them. (that is why I think that the best thing would be to follow a doctor who really knows what they're doing and is willing for you to at least be able to take the patient's pulse, while you fill the patient's formula) # 3... people are changing their styles all of the time, there are very few masters out there in the herb world and people tend to be very secretive about their formulas, especially if it's a family style or they're unwilling to teach, because the tradition is to just observe and work as a moxa slave or herb filler boy (which was just fine with me too). So, yes... we need more case studies published by the masters out there, no matter what style they use. I have a few hundred case studies typed up by people who studied under our same root teacher, since he did a few clinical rounds over the years of a week each, where the students would bring in their most difficult patients and the teacher would see around 30 patients/ day (just herbal prescriptions). That's a few hundred case studies, which are immensely helpful. I think that this is a great model for others out there to preserve the clinical knowledge of their root teachers. Hopefully, when everything is polished, the root teachers would be willing to publish this information to share with everyone else and then maybe concurrently, commentaries could be written about these formulas and the methodology that went into them as well. I'm really glad that PMPH is going in that direction.. http://www.pmph.com/en/product.aspx?ColumnId=14 There are many family styles which may sadly die with time, because the transmission is not shared correctly, just as traditional cultural knowledge and languages are becoming extinct faster than ever with the progress of modernization. It's up to us to preserve this human legacy... K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Jason- So you say: " One reason many practitioners and students are stuck with stock formulas is that they have no mentor to watch and learn from. Furthermore, there are no real classes in learning to write your own prescriptions. " I agree with this statement, but only partially. I do agree that students use basic formulas that they learn in school with only minor modifications. I think, however, that they " should " use them, not that they are " stuck " with them. I think that there are students who actually try to write prescriptions like DGR or YTS or based on a theoretical understanding of pathomechanisms, but these formulas often fail in clinic because the students or newly minted practitioners do not have the basic experience that these masters had in the classics. This is actually more dangerous than just using " stock formulas. " Furthermore, the stock formulas can be quite flexible to use in clinic when you learn, for instance, how ZZJ modified them. How many people when they graduate know the " stock " modifications of xiao chaihu tang, sini san, lizhong wan, or zhenwu tang and why they are what they are? I would bet that not many. If they do not know the " stock " modifications and how they work, then how can they know if they need to use other modification? In lieu of a mentor, which would greatly speed the process, students need to work with the basic formulas and the standard modifications to develop their own clinical experience to know whether they work or not and for what types of cases. Only when they have developed enough experience with them would they be able to know if they need other modifications. -Steve Stephen Bonzak, L.Ac., Dipl. O.M. http://www.health-traditions.com sbonzak 773-470-6994 On Mar 23, 2010, at 3:04 PM, wrote: > One reason many practitioners and students are stuck with stock > formulas is > that they have no mentor to watch and learn from. Furthermore, > there are no > real classes in learning to write your own prescriptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Stephan, I agree 100% with your post, thanks for clarifying and expanding upon mine. I in no way meant to suggest that students should jump straight into writing formulas from scratch in some Ye Tian-Shi style. Clearly one needs to have the basics down before this. My point was simply, when ready, it is quite difficult to learn how to write individualized formulas with our current educational system and lack of mentorship. I hope this changes in the future... -Jason On Behalf Of Stephen Bonzak Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:29 PM Re: Shang Han formula? - whoops Jason- So you say: " One reason many practitioners and students are stuck with stock formulas is that they have no mentor to watch and learn from. Furthermore, there are no real classes in learning to write your own prescriptions. " I agree with this statement, but only partially. I do agree that students use basic formulas that they learn in school with only minor modifications. I think, however, that they " should " use them, not that they are " stuck " with them. I think that there are students who actually try to write prescriptions like DGR or YTS or based on a theoretical understanding of pathomechanisms, but these formulas often fail in clinic because the students or newly minted practitioners do not have the basic experience that these masters had in the classics. This is actually more dangerous than just using " stock formulas. " Furthermore, the stock formulas can be quite flexible to use in clinic when you learn, for instance, how ZZJ modified them. How many people when they graduate know the " stock " modifications of xiao chaihu tang, sini san, lizhong wan, or zhenwu tang and why they are what they are? I would bet that not many. If they do not know the " stock " modifications and how they work, then how can they know if they need to use other modification? In lieu of a mentor, which would greatly speed the process, students need to work with the basic formulas and the standard modifications to develop their own clinical experience to know whether they work or not and for what types of cases. Only when they have developed enough experience with them would they be able to know if they need other modifications. -Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Jason, I agree. However, at PCOM, we are working to focus in the future on all aspects of formula writing, from different schools of thought. I am hoping to produce a pamphlet or article on this issue in the near future. . On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:09 PM, wrote: > Stephan, > > I agree 100% with your post, thanks for clarifying and expanding upon mine. > I in no way meant to suggest that students should jump straight into writing > formulas from scratch in some Ye Tian-Shi style. Clearly one needs to have > the basics down before this. My point was simply, when ready, it is quite > difficult to learn how to write individualized formulas with our current > educational system and lack of mentorship. I hope this changes in the > future... > > -Jason > > > > > On Behalf Of Stephen Bonzak > Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:29 PM > > Re: Shang Han formula? - whoops > > Jason- > > So you say: > " One reason many practitioners and students are stuck with stock > formulas is that they have no mentor to watch and learn from. > Furthermore, there are no real classes in learning to write your own > prescriptions. " > > I agree with this statement, but only partially. I do agree that > students use basic formulas that they learn in school with only minor > modifications. I think, however, that they " should " use them, not > that they are " stuck " with them. I think that there are students who > actually try to write prescriptions like DGR or YTS or based on a > theoretical understanding of pathomechanisms, but these formulas > often fail in clinic because the students or newly minted > practitioners do not have the basic experience that these masters had > in the classics. This is actually more dangerous than just using > " stock formulas. " > > Furthermore, the stock formulas can be quite flexible to use in > clinic when you learn, for instance, how ZZJ modified them. How many > people when they graduate know the " stock " modifications of xiao > chaihu tang, sini san, lizhong wan, or zhenwu tang and why they are > what they are? I would bet that not many. If they do not know the > " stock " modifications and how they work, then how can they know if > they need to use other modification? > > In lieu of a mentor, which would greatly speed the process, students > need to work with the basic formulas and the standard modifications > to develop their own clinical experience to know whether they work or > not and for what types of cases. Only when they have developed > enough experience with them would they be able to know if they need > other modifications. > > -Steve > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Zev, I would be really interested in this. This sounds like a terrific didactic exercise. Cara On Mar 24, 2010, at 1:50 AM, wrote: > Jason, > I agree. However, at PCOM, we are working to focus in the future on all aspects of formula writing, from different schools of thought. I am hoping to produce a pamphlet or article on this issue in the near future. . > > > On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:09 PM, wrote: > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Nice.. Keep us posted! -Jason On Behalf Of Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:50 PM Re: Shang Han formula? - whoops Jason, I agree. However, at PCOM, we are working to focus in the future on all aspects of formula writing, from different schools of thought. I am hoping to produce a pamphlet or article on this issue in the near future. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Jason, et al I'm curious as to what anyone thinks about this site and the info on it? http://www.acupuncture123.ca/E12%20TCM%20advanced%20class.html Patrick --- On Wed, 3/24/10, wrote: RE: Shang Han formula? - whoops Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 5:12 AM Â Nice.. Keep us posted! -Jason [] On Behalf Of Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:50 PM Re: Shang Han formula? - whoops Jason, I agree. However, at PCOM, we are working to focus in the future on all aspects of formula writing, from different schools of thought. I am hoping to produce a pamphlet or article on this issue in the near future. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Patrick, I assume you are referring to the SHL / JGYL translations. I think there is limited commentary, their translations are a little odd, e.g. Firexie, and their English is not great, therefore their terminology is a little strange. But if it works for you then it will get you in the ballpark. However if you like Shang Han, I would just buy Mitchell, Ye, and Wiseman’s, which actually has commentary. -Jason On Behalf Of Patrick Edgmon Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:41 PM RE: Shang Han formula? - whoops Jason, et al I'm curious as to what anyone thinks about this site and the info on it? http://www.acupuncture123.ca/E12%20TCM%20advanced%20class.html Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.