KristinWisgirda: December 23, 2020, 10:41pm
Here is an exchange between Toby and I. My words are bracketed <> and Toby’s responses are bold italic
<There are kinds of toxic effects, such as chemo induced a-fib, that LI+ doesn’t seem appropriate to treat.>
Agreed
<My newbie Saam guess is that it is more important to evaluate the body’s reaction to the toxic substance rather
than focus on the so-called toxicity of the substance. Instead, is it right to say that LI+ treats a specific kind of toxic
harm, namely a breakdown of tissues resulting in a presentation of rotting or putrefaction? Sharon W’s for sure
toxin signs include pus, foul smells, brown or yellow exudate/crusts. These kinds of rotting signs and symptoms
make sense to me as an extreme of double damp, even if the prime etiology is another factor such as heat or blood
stasis.>
These fit perfectly with the damp warmth of Sp excess.
<Two final questions about LI+ for toxicity: have you ever seen cases, either your own or your teacher’s, which
involved toxicity where LI+ helped but there were no Spleen excess signs/symptoms?>
I can’t think of any right now.
<If not, is the best working hypothesis that the toxins LI+ treats are an extreme of damp warmth and that we should
look for such signs as I mentioned above?>
That’s how I think of it – in the webinar I used oozy red poison oak rash responding well to LI+
sweiz: December 24, 2020, 11:31am
Thanks so much Kristin, it is really great to get clear on this idea.
Daniel: December 24, 2020, 9:22pm
Excellent. Thank you so much!! as always, its not some theoretical notion here but real, live evidence that we need
to prioritise every time.