1) Reading these case studies takes a certain amount of patience and the development of a skill. Certainly, things are not spelled out in significant detail and consequently one must essentially learn “how to read” these case studies. I’m currently working on a formal essay detailing how to do this with specific examples etc.; it should be ready for publication soon.

But essentially it is like a code, once one knows how to decipher it, then things become much clearer. However, if you have never spent time with such case studies then at first it may be very difficult to use. It takes work and contemplation. Please feel free to ask any specific questions about any case and we can try to decipher things together. One useful strategy is to compare similar case studies. For example, I have posted 15 Ye Tian-Shi case studies on constraint.

FTR, most pre-modern / classical case studies were written in this terse fashion and a) they first required the reader to have a certain level of proficiency, and b) required the reader to figure things out for themselves. Although this is not easy, there is great reward in struggling through this process. When one contemplates complex issues one gains an understanding that is much deeper than if the answers were just given to them. This seems to be a common theme in Chinese medicine literature. But in the end, yes (you are right) there is no explanation.

However, we know that Chinese doctors have been successfully using Ye Tian-Shi’s cases for hundreds of years now. Many famous doctors have written about them, designed formulas around them, and base their style around them. For example, as you may all know, Wu Ju-Tong created formulas such as yin qiao san and sang ju yin from Ye’s cases. So we know that these cases, even though terse, can be successfully applied by clinicians today.

For the record, I’ve been applying Ye’s ideas successfully for some time now. For example, two out of the four of my case studies that I recently posted have formulas that were taken directly from ideas from Ye’s case studies. They were only in my mind because I had been studying and thinking about them. (1-10, 5-26).

The more one reads the more one can start to think in this “direct” manner. There is unfortunately very little published by Ye in English, hence why I have decided to start putting them on my website. To date I have translated hundreds of his case studies and plan to put them up one at a time. This idea of posting them slowly is so that people can digest them. So if you would like to follow along on the ride we all can try to learn together. Here is a list of all the current Ye Tian-Shi case studies.

2) To address your second question: It is my opinion that the actual “result” is really not the issue. The issue is how to learn to think like Ye. Unless Ye has duped hundreds of thousands of Chinese medical doctors (for 100s of years) we can be fairly certain that his methods (way of thinking) are effective. They work for me!

We also know that he was not some elitist doctor. He was in the trenches seeing patients and many believe he didn’t write a single book or essay etc. because of this fact. His case studies were recorded by his students and then later published. Many famous *clinicians* have emulated him and we find this in their case studies and writings. Therefore, one of the major points of studying someone like Ye is that he is extremely practical and not overburdened with excess theory, although it is clear that he is very well educated. But I do agree with you, that there are many examples of Chinese medical books and theory that are more from the hands of elitists than the actual doctors, but I do not think this is one of those cases.

For further reading check out my previous post, Understanding Ye Tian Shi’s Cases.

If I missed something, something was not clear, or you just disagree, please let me know…

For me no. 1 explains why Ye’s cases are terse not whether the terseness points to anything that can be emulated by clinicians today.

Of course it is true that “Therefore, when a case record does not say something it means very little, yet when it does it is very significant.” — but not having read any of Ye’s cases (where are these available in English), does he only describe the symptom i.e. named TCM disease? I can’t see how it can be very practically useful if there is no explanation why a particular pattern or symptomology is observed or notable.

As to no 2 — it gives a lot to say that one prescribes a treatment protocol but does not follow up with the results.

On the face of it I maintain a more questioning (I don’t know that I mean skeptical) attitude towards theory. The history of medicine is rife with elitist doctors who sequester themselves in chambers to discuss the application of their theories usually on selected cases often at the expense of attending to the trenches of relieving the suffering of patients.

Medicine during the European renaissance was famous for this. Doctors spoke in Latin not only because it was a common professional language but also to keep the knowledge of healing an elitist art, and to keep common approaches, plants and substances used away from the masses — in other words — to protect their profession. I suspect that this tendency is true in the case of the use of TCM jargon and Ayurvedic jargon. What’s at risk is that just as common phrases and words are capable of misunderstanding — uncommon phrases, terms and jargon is even more capable of misunderstanding. I think this is why TCM process stresses giving a treatment principle — it’s at least partially to clarify what is intended by the diagnosis.

I’m very interested in your own and other’s thoughts on this.