If there’s one thing we do well, it’s deal with cold and flu. Since I figured out what to do about such things, it’s a rarity for me to see an invasion in me or the mrs. last more than 24 hours because via needles or cups or herbs or whatever fits the situation it gets booted right back out as soon as I realize it’s there. I think when people start figuring out that Chinese Medicine isn’t “for pain” but rather “for frickin everything” things are going to get very interesting.

Hi Eric,

The ‘cure’ in ‘no cure for the common cold’ probably means that it will recur (because the bugs mutate).

But from the point of view of those suffering one, when we say ‘cure’ we just want the thing gone and to be healthy again.

My definition of cure is from the point of view of the sick person. Being able to restore them to health.

I am maintaining my humble contention that Zhang Zhong Jing is perhaps the single person who has exerted the greatest influence in medicine in the entire history of the world.

I think you have a point Eric.

I think that as the wider world looks at Chinese Medicine, it doesn’t see us as curing the common cold. It doesn’t mean they won’t come to us for help but from the mind of a lay person we can’t tell them exactly what to do for each cold. Each cold is looked at individually.

In the West all colds are created equal. Of course we have several diagnosis’ and then we have to take into account the patient’s constitution before we treat. Because of this our cures only work “some of the time” because each cure would not cure all the other colds (which are the same in Western thinking).

I think one important point we need to work on in saying we can cure this is by making sure we are using the same language. We need to teach our patients that all colds are not “colds” but rather each have their own characteristics that help us cure them.

Abdallah,

I know our clinic is still able to get Ma Huang in granule form through one distributor or another. Have you looked far and wide? I wish we could get it in bulk, though. That’s why I find political engagement to be so important – marshalling our voices together and wresting control of our medicine back from bureaucrats is definitely Sagely behavior.

e

Delli,

Interesting about the distinction between what would have resolved on its own versus what wouldn’t have. I think that’s a pretty slippery slope. While colds often resolve on their own, they don’t always. I think some would argue that none of them truly do – they always dive deeper into the body and do at least a little bit of damage which must be rectified with some type of treatment (interventional or otherwise).

Good points to ponder,

e

Anonymous,

You’ve described what is, actually, part of my point. It is my opinion that nearly all (if not all) of medical intervention actually relies on the patient’s immune response (however we understand immune responses). While herbs/drugs/etc may have this or that property, in the end it is what our body does with them that counts. For instance, my body tends to do opposite things with drugs that they are intended to do. Pain medications that are meant to make me drowsy do little for my pain and actually keep me awake all night!

Of course some drugs/herbs may have antiviral, etc properties. Of course this would seem to have something to do with the fact that they kill viruses, etc… But in the end, it is a stimulus on the part of the doctor that evokes some particular response on the part of the patient’s body.

So, then, what is a cure? In general – for whatever medicine. What does it mean to cure?

Eric

Hi Evan,

Yes, we must resolve the signs and symptoms to be successful, especially from the patient’s perspective. From the practitioner’s perspective, I believe we must also treat the root (cause) of the problem for it to be a success. Just dealing with the leaves and branches (signs and sx) is NOT holistic medicine. Classical Chinese medicine is meant to be holistic, and so we must not use reductionist or “cookbook” medicine like most medical systems.

-Delli

Hi Evan,

If we get in a habit of using only reductionist thinking in the clinic then we are focusing on the microscopic (material or cellular level). Classical Chinese medicine uses more of a whole systems or holistic paradigm which focuses on the macrocosm (how the various systems of the body interact) as well as the microcosm. I can recommend you read the Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot or The Self-Organizing Universe by Erich Jantsch if you are interested in learning more about this paradigm shift in thinking which is contrary to the Descartes reductionist way of thinking.

It is said in the Chinese classics that, “the high level physician grasps spirit”. The goal is to understand the essence of the person in front of you and treat the points that will correct that person on the level of shen, because shen (consciousness) creates energy (qi) and energy creates (matter). If you can treat the shen then it can fix any mental and physical imbalances because it is the creator/origin of matter. These principles are in line with the Chinese philosophy of the medical classics, and the medical sages very much understood these principles.

That is why we don’t have to treat locally in acupuncture, because the qi can be activated at one point travel through the channels and influence other parts of the body. The TCM lines are a way of standardizing the medicine in a way that gives it a more cookbook approach to Chinese medicine that was not intended by the ancient sages, in my opinion. In one way, it is very helpful to learn, but in another way it can easily lead us astray from the creative, artistic part of practicing this beautiful medicine. Besides, how often do the tongue and pulse actually match the signs and symptoms? It seems the picture presented in the clinic might not match one of these lines, and so we must be able to think creatively to come up with a treatment plan.
Also, from a CM point of view, the cold is not caused by a bug, but rather by the liuqi. You and I came up with different causes for the the same illness because we are working within different medical paradigms. Bug or virus, bacteria, etc. is a Western term, while CM would blame the signs and sx on wind, heat, cold, etc. They are similar ideas in some respect, but we can’t equate them. I think of the invasion occuring because of an imbalance in the body or a constitutional cause, or lack of proper care FIRST, and then as a consequence the the bug, wind, or whatever you call it can make it past the defense barriers of body (LU and Taiyang).

Hope this helps,
Delli

Interesting discussion, Delli and Evan. I agree, Evan, that watching signs and symptoms (which includes the pulse and tongue readings) indicate to us the reality of the change in the patient. If we have done a great “holistic” treatment and are very proud of ourselves, but the signs and symptoms haven’t changed a bit – we’ve failed. There will always be SOME change if the treatment is right, whether the patient feels that right away or not is another question. It may be that by treating the cause we don’t treat some of the symptoms that the patient is concerned about, which is why most of us are taught to also do something for those bothersome symptoms if we feel our main treatment won’t do anything to them quickly.

Ideally, aiming at the cause takes care of the whole variety of symptoms that the patient is aware of.

Now… I’m a little confused about this whole discussion about Western versus Chinese medicine. I’m not sure that you can say that “killing the bug” is treating the cause. I’m SURE you can say that in a Western medical paradigm. Some advanced Western doctors may look farther and say, “You’re getting these bugs a lot – let’s look at your immune system,” but they’ll often be at a loss as to what to do with that information unless a significant material pathology (ie material lack or impediment of some class of immune cell) presents itself. Even THIS would not be looking at the root cause, necessarily – at least not from a Chinese medicine perspective.

The root cause is deeper – what caused that abberation of the body? Even if Western medicine tried to delve deeper they would be looking for a MATERIAL cause of the situation. Down down down, smaller smaller smaller.

We have a functional and a TIME based perspective. We look at layers of function melded with structure (ie conformations), we look at the development of disease through time, we look at the influence of the mental, spiritual and atmospheric. We gaze into this field of interacting symbols and try to find the root of the dysfunction, and begin there.

I fail to see how the fact that Western and Eastern people both become ill is proof of anything. I also think the idea that they are both healed in the “same way” is debatable. We’re not talking about the difference between two types of people, here, we’re looking at the effectiveness of two very different paradigms of medicine. I don’t believe that anything like equation is possible, personally.

Can you trust that makes sense?

Eric

I agree that reductionism and materialism aren’t identical – I think that mistake is made a lot. Most of the time it’s just because people don’t think this through too much. Sometimes it’s a simple mistake.

What you’ve said makes more sense now that you explained it. People’s bodies around the world heal similarly, certainly. Western people definitely could describe things differently. At NCNM we are privileged to share our halls with Naturopathic students, some of which are attempting to see the body in a more holistic manner. One of our professors (he teaches naturopathic and Chinese medicine classes) is absolutely BRILLIANT and is a phenomenological physician in the tradition of Rudolf Steiner.

Regardless – the idea that Western and Chinese terms can be equated is still seriously debatable IMHO. If mainstream Western medicine were to veer SIGNIFICANTLY off of its current *entirely* materialistic trajectory – such as incorporating insights from Steiner – then we might be able to have those conversations. As things stand? Any equating of terms is going to be an intellectual exercise at best, an attempt at intellectual imperialism at worst.

But, then, I’m feeling dramatic tonight…

e

Hi Eric and Evan,

Yes, I agree with the two of you that materialism and reductionism are not the same. I would say that in terms of allopathic medicine they almost completely interchangeable, but if we are talking about CM they are not interchangeable.

I guess I would agree that in a general sense people’s body’s function similarily, otherwise how could we even describe the functions of the organs systems and attribute properties to them? Certainly though the external environment and internal environment of the body play a role in what types of problems people enounter and how they heal. People can heal/treat the same disease with different tools as well such as herbs, acupuncture, essential oils, supplements all can effectively treat a cold or external invasion. Everyone will respond differently though, so that is why we can’t assume Gui Zhi Tang is going to make any person’s signs and symptoms go away if they have a cold.

Chinese and English language are so different that it is hard to equate them. Think of how vastly different all the translations are of any ancient Chinese you have read. Orginally, they used pictographs and characters only, so no pinyin existed. Although words and characters are both symbols, I feel that the Chinese characters are much more powerful, meaningful, and “alive”. The way the character is written tells you something about its energetic nature that gets lost in translation because the characters are so deep and multi-layered. One character often must be described with a couple sentences instead of a single word. This leaves a lot of room for interpretation and error, so it is best to study the characters from the classics to derive your own meaning to give you a clear understanding. Sometimes this is very helpful.

Lastly, to each his own. I do not think your wrong Evan, I just think you have a much different mindset on medicine. I guess every system has its strengths and weaknesses, but in the end you need to follow your heart and practice the medicine the way you know best. The one thing I will never forget from first year of school at NCNM was when Heiner Freuhauf would constantly remind us, “you need to make the medicine your own”. This is what I truely believe makes a good practitioner.

Goodnight,
Delli

Hi Evan,

I don’t know what your mindset is at all, because I am not a mind reader. However, because I choose to make the medicine my own I envision my practice as being unique in that it won’t look like the standard Chinese Medicine practice. So I just presume no matter if you practice allopathic, TCM, CCM, or any other kind of medicine you must have a slightly varying philosopy, methodology, and vision then me. That is all I meant.

Goodnight,
Delli

Thanks Michael. Beautifully put.

There is much to respond to here and I need to go out now. Back in a few hours.

Evan

Back again.

Totally complete probably isn’t possible. I’d say good enough to get the reliable results required.

I completely agree we need a way of understanding.

For me wholism embraces not only the parts of the individual and their complex interaction. It also has to do with the context in which the individual lives.

I think external intervention has a place eg drinking a herbal decoction. But it is best if this treatment does not have side effects (which herbs properly prescribed don’t and western drugs usually do).

For me CM has a much more wholistic view of what happens within the individual. But it needs to be supplemented by understanding the context. (For all the propaganda about the West being more individualistic it was the West that came up with public health. This is entirely foreign to CM – though with it’s genius for absorption I don’t think it need stay foreign.

I think the role of the healer is central. I like to think that in acupuncture the healer can be a collaborator rather than a distant expert – though they do have detailed knowledge to be used for the benefit of the person being healed.

This is a very rich, complex and important discussion I think. Heartfelt thanks to all contributors.

Hi all,
What a fascinating subject! It seems to me that each of us will be working on (or perhaps should be working on) our role as healer throughout our years in practice, for essentially it is self-work. To meet each patient as a divine spiritual being seems to me to be the best approach we could have, but to assume that we are spiritually superior due to our knowledge and experience does not seem to me to be such a good idea. I do like the notion of a “spirit guide”, yet our patients are our “spirit guides” just as much.

It also seems to me that it is our obligation to cultivate ourselves academically, physically, mentally, emotionally and especially spiritually, so that we are receptive to knowing how to best be with each patient and provide the best care possible. The beauty of practicing medicine in this way is that it is individual; in this way, I am in awe everything that each practitioner could bring to his or her patients.

That being so, I still wish to clarify my concept of a “systematic” and “complete” medicine. I believe that it is very important for us to have a fundamental understanding of the medicine we are practicing. The reason for this is not just to stay true to our medicine, for I think we can explore new possibilities (like using essential oils on points, etc…) but only from a stable holistic foundation. The reason is because of the most fundamental code of medicine, which is one of the Naturopathic principles, and is from the Hippocratic oath: First do no harm. So, as Delli asked, what does this really mean and isn’t any intervention a form of harm?

To me, “First Do No Harm” can only be understood if one understands the basis for life and the foundation of spirit (since spiritual concepts have been brought into this discussion). What one must not harm is not the ego, not the skin, not the gut mucosa even, but the source and physiological basis for life. One must not harm the body’s Yang or Shen. This means that one must not interfere with the body’s ability to manifest its own processes. In fact, this means that one should not focus on killing bacteria or viruses or parasites even, but simply re-establish the body’s harmonious process of preserving and maintaining life, and all will be well. Parasites, bacteria and viruses will live and die as the body maintains its own integrity, but if Cold has damaged the body’s Yang, then regardless if you’ve eradicated the viruses in the body or not, there has been harm; if the body’s Yang has been damaged in the process of eradicating pathogens, then there has been harm.

So, we must intervene, but must not harm what is most essential. It is not our job to take away a spiritual, psychological or emotional process that a patient may need to go through; it is our job to support life and to encourage growth and transformation. To do this, I believe we need a sound understanding of the essential processes of life and as deep of a relationship to spirit as we can – not to super-impose our spiritual beliefs, but to have an awareness of our patients as divine beings. Also, this brings in the important role of higher spiritual faculties, such as inspiration and intuition, for I think these can lead us to more effective and supportive therapies. Nonetheless, without a firm root in a system of medicine, I think following our inspiration and intuition could lead to a chaotic and ego-centered treatment, which would lead to harm.

Due to this belief of mine, I do not think that an eclectic, or barefoot doctor or even an integrative approach is such a good idea, for I think that a specific point of view is essential; this is my call for a systematic medicine that is based on classical principles. Systematic medicine does not mean that all practitioners will look the same, not at all in fact; it means that the medicine, in whatever form it takes, is always based on a specific system of fundamental principles of life. Without this, we have to trust that the practitioner has super-spiritual abilities, which at this point of human evolution still seems pretty rare.

My apologies for such a lengthy comment…

Michael

Thanks Michael, eloquently put and with much depth and wisdom.

My only disagreement is about the foundation of the medicine. As it grows it will grow through a stage of eclecticism – incorporating the new material, concept, diagnostic modality, whatever – this is the only way I can see for growth to occur.

I think the principles need to be tested too – not just their application.

I do however think it is best to be solidly founded in a tradition before we seek to change it. Grabbing a bit of this and that is just shoddy and usually a cover for superficiality of understanding. There is a place for those who show a remarkable penetration and ask questions of a fundamental nature – these people are vital to the development of any modality. That they may come from ‘outside’ the field is not a problem for me. If their questioning shows understanding they are to be welcomed with open arms in my view. But these are rare beings – and so we should always be willing to check out whether someone is one of them.

I think we agree on fundamentals. But I do want to insert into the discussion the proces of growth.

Delli,
Thanks for the response. I feel that I may have not explained myself as clearly as I’d have liked, because I find myself agreeing completely with you about branching out and never intended to not include that. I am extremely excited about seeing what we all do with this amazing medicine and with our healing practices. I look forward to seeing you branching out. Right now, it’s the roots I’m concerned with.

Is the nature of the Dao paradox? Maybe Eric needs to write an article for us on the nature of the Dao! Perhaps we’ll find the discussion to be paradoxical, but what of the Dao?…

Thanks again Delli!
Michael

Hi Michael,

I think that sounds like a great idea for a future discussion! Perhaps I should have left out the word paradox and just had the ?. Maybe a symbol better describes the Dao rather than a word. The Dao is mysterious, but maybe my personal experience, or personal dao, has been a story of paradox. Afterall, I live in the US and study Chinese medicine. These kind of paradoxical themes come up in my life often, so that is why I said that orginally.

May the Dao be with you,

Delli

-Delli

it strike me as more of a cure than western medicine that just attempted to cover up the problem.

I personally the term cure has been semantically abused by the allopathic medical establishments to create a reality that believes any valid medical intervention is expected to
a) not permanently fix the problem
b) have numerous side effects.
(both of which are often true for pharmacutical drugs but not many alternative health treatments).
One of the best alternative doctors I talked to summed the situation up fairly well. “The whole problem with our current round of health care reform is that most people don’t understand the actual cause of chronic disease.”
The genius of Chinese Medicine is that since the Taoists spent millenia studying how the body worked (physically and energetically) they put together a much more comprehensive model, and not surprisingly also noted that to actually solve (aka. cure) a lot of conditions it was often necessary to fix an existing energetic problem within the patient.
One thing I would like to add to your discussion or point, is that beyond acupuncture there are a variety of medical qigong systems which have been developed to help cure disease (including cancer), and I recently saw an article of one of the best ones out there;
(it happens to be good for all sorts of things like connecting with and strengthening the wei chi). I’ve personally found it to be one of the best compliments of accupuncture.
http://www.taichimaster.com/dragon-tiger-qigong/source-of-dragon-tiger-qigong/

I definitely like your blog and if it’s possible for me to I really want to attend NCNM ^^ (I have the prereqs but not the funds :/).

Absolutely brilliant article and I couldn’t have said it better myself! I shall reference this to my readers who have lost the belief to heal themselves!

Thank you for your brilliant insight!