Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Hi Steve As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the case now). I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). Regards manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps and > bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here > regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment > decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now as > I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal > training, its a would be a double standard. > > Regards > > Manu HI Manu, This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the double standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM without normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I expect the same respect given to TCM. I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the basic foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut the mustard IMO. Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? Best Wishes, Steve >> >> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >> Hi Manu and all, >> >> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified >> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this >> stage >> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From >> the >> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday >> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the one >> I >> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who practice >> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this way >> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese doctor >> promoting his business in the West. >> >> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >> >> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM >> practitioner? >> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM >> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >> >> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly >> educated >> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care >> systems. >> >> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice WM >> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and >> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the >> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in New >> Zealand? >> >> Best Wishes, >> >> Steve >> >> ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Hi Manu, Firstly, unless TCM is a regulated profession with a registration board and protection of title, which I think is not the case in New Zealand; anyone can claim to practice it. This includes WM doctors. I would like to see evidence of the claim that WM can't practice herbal medicine.......they can usually do what they like as long as the practice is not protected under some other legislation. For example, a WM doctor can not say he practices chiropractic unless he has a separate qualification in that field because that title is protected and this disciple has educational requirements that must be met to use this title. I think if you look deeper you will find that a WM doctor can do what he likes with TCM in New Zealand. See NZ Today page 2.... " The industry (TCM) is not regulated............the practitioners true qualifications are not authorised here in New Zealand, so the practice is shrouded in scepticism " . Not regulated does not mean illegal, it means anyone can claim to practice it as it is not a recognised profession, has no title protection or official educational requirements in NZ. Secondly, the 1 year diploma I keep mentioning is actually Dr. Lee's proposal. It is stated clearly in the article cited above. Quote " he will be starting a private training establishment this year to enable medical practitioners to undertake a one year diploma course in the combined WM/TCM approach " . That is 1 year (not 3 or more) and for general TCM, no mention of acupuncture by itself. If a doctor can't practice herbal medicine and WM by law as you say; this course has no purpose as the graduates can't do anything different after completing such study. The more I find out about all these grand claims and plans.....the more sceptical I become. This is just a unmitigated mess so far. Best Wishes, Steve On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they > cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper > training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the > one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 > years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is > lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the > case now). > > I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become > well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect > for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it > alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is > solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM > and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry > wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > > Regards > > manu > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > > On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Steve >> >> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps and >> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment >> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now as >> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal >> training, its a would be a double standard. >> >> Regards >> >> Manu > > HI Manu, > > This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM > with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the > author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year > diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the double > standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM without > normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I > expect the same respect given to TCM. > > I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the basic > foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut > the mustard IMO. > > Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; > where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > >>> >>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >>> Hi Manu and all, >>> >>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified >>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this >>> stage >>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From >>> the >>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday >>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the one >>> I >>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>> practice >>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this >>> way >>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese >>> doctor >>> promoting his business in the West. >>> >>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>> >>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM >>> practitioner? >>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM >>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>> >>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly >>> educated >>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care >>> systems. >>> >>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice WM >>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and >>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the >>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in >>> New >>> Zealand? >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 HI Manu, I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone propose that WM doctors need more training? How can the government force anyone to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to begin with? IT is simply impossible. For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any country it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to regulate what WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not regulated itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand what I mean. If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full stop. You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with TCM if TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be better to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about training WM doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that improving any educational standard in NZ. Best Wishes, Steve On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they > cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper > training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the > one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 > years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is > lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the > case now). > > I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become > well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect > for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it > alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is > solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM > and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry > wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > > Regards > > manu > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > > On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Steve >> >> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps and >> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment >> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now as >> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal >> training, its a would be a double standard. >> >> Regards >> >> Manu > > HI Manu, > > This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM > with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the > author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year > diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the double > standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM without > normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I > expect the same respect given to TCM. > > I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the basic > foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut > the mustard IMO. > > Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; > where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > >>> >>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >>> Hi Manu and all, >>> >>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified >>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this >>> stage >>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From >>> the >>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday >>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the one >>> I >>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>> practice >>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this >>> way >>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese >>> doctor >>> promoting his business in the West. >>> >>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>> >>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM >>> practitioner? >>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM >>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>> >>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly >>> educated >>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care >>> systems. >>> >>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice WM >>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and >>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the >>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in >>> New >>> Zealand? >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Steve >>> >> > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Hi Steve Regarding what you are aloud to practice, a GP in NZ is not aloud to practice anything other than WM in his practice, infact a GP penalized and lost his practicing licence because he used things outside the agreed scope. The only thing a GP can do is acupuncture here, he may be able to practice outside of his WM practice. TCM in NZ is not regulated at all, we have only associations that people can join so yes your right anyone can practice, however WM Dr's are excluded because of the restricting law I mentioned before. I will try and find an article on this but it wont be easy because that was about a year ago. Regarding the course, yes in that instance you are correct about thew one year term. The purpose of that course to the best of my knowledge is an introduction to TCM & SM. As staed before he wants WM people to have a deeper knowledge of TCM to practice it, including knowing there limitations. That particular course centers around treating very specific and common conditions e.g. stress problems, menopause, M.E. The idea is that they have a good general knowledge so that they can identify common problems that can be referred on. The first year will focus alot on acupuncture, again only for general conditions rather than everything. As this will obviously not make professionals out of them it will still greatly increase there understanding and respect for TCM. The second and third year will go into far more detail. I hope that helped. Regards manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: Hi Manu, Firstly, unless TCM is a regulated profession with a registration board and protection of title, which I think is not the case in New Zealand; anyone can claim to practice it. This includes WM doctors. I would like to see evidence of the claim that WM can't practice herbal medicine.......they can usually do what they like as long as the practice is not protected under some other legislation. For example, a WM doctor can not say he practices chiropractic unless he has a separate qualification in that field because that title is protected and this disciple has educational requirements that must be met to use this title. I think if you look deeper you will find that a WM doctor can do what he likes with TCM in New Zealand. See NZ Today page 2.... " The industry (TCM) is not regulated............the practitioners true qualifications are not authorised here in New Zealand, so the practice is shrouded in scepticism " . Not regulated does not mean illegal, it means anyone can claim to practice it as it is not a recognised profession, has no title protection or official educational requirements in NZ. Secondly, the 1 year diploma I keep mentioning is actually Dr. Lee's proposal. It is stated clearly in the article cited above. Quote " he will be starting a private training establishment this year to enable medical practitioners to undertake a one year diploma course in the combined WM/TCM approach " . That is 1 year (not 3 or more) and for general TCM, no mention of acupuncture by itself. If a doctor can't practice herbal medicine and WM by law as you say; this course has no purpose as the graduates can't do anything different after completing such study. The more I find out about all these grand claims and plans.....the more sceptical I become. This is just a unmitigated mess so far. Best Wishes, Steve On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they > cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper > training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the > one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 > years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is > lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the > case now). > > I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become > well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect > for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it > alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is > solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM > and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry > wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > > Regards > > manu > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > > On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Steve >> >> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps and >> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment >> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now as >> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal >> training, its a would be a double standard. >> >> Regards >> >> Manu > > HI Manu, > > This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM > with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the > author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year > diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the double > standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM without > normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I > expect the same respect given to TCM. > > I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the basic > foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut > the mustard IMO. > > Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; > where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > >>> >>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >>> Hi Manu and all, >>> >>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified >>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this >>> stage >>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From >>> the >>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday >>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the one >>> I >>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>> practice >>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this >>> way >>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese >>> doctor >>> promoting his business in the West. >>> >>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>> >>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM >>> practitioner? >>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM >>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>> >>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly >>> educated >>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care >>> systems. >>> >>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice WM >>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and >>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the >>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in >>> New >>> Zealand? >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Hi Steve haha he doesnt care about referrals he does not even treat patients anymore. Yes you are right it does need to be regulated and that is what he is trying to do, as he is by far the most highly qualified person in New Zealand he has alot of credibility. The government approached him several years ago wanting him to help them create regulations as he believes they are very necessary, I heard him discuss this in detail at a conference. I believe he is setting him self up with the goverment to bring this about, his first task is to promote TCM and get it accepted as without that Unification can never happen. I am always looking out for any updates to the situation, I will let you know if anything else should pop up. Regards manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: HI Manu, I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone propose that WM doctors need more training? How can the government force anyone to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to begin with? IT is simply impossible. For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any country it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to regulate what WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not regulated itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand what I mean. If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full stop. You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with TCM if TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be better to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about training WM doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that improving any educational standard in NZ. Best Wishes, Steve On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they > cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper > training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the > one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 > years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is > lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the > case now). > > I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become > well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect > for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it > alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is > solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM > and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry > wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > > Regards > > manu > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > > On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Steve >> >> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps and >> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment >> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now as >> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal >> training, its a would be a double standard. >> >> Regards >> >> Manu > > HI Manu, > > This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM > with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the > author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year > diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the double > standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM without > normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I > expect the same respect given to TCM. > > I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the basic > foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut > the mustard IMO. > > Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; > where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > >>> >>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >>> Hi Manu and all, >>> >>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified >>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this >>> stage >>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From >>> the >>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday >>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the one >>> I >>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>> practice >>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this >>> way >>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese >>> doctor >>> promoting his business in the West. >>> >>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>> >>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM >>> practitioner? >>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM >>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>> >>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly >>> educated >>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care >>> systems. >>> >>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice WM >>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and >>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the >>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in >>> New >>> Zealand? >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Steve >>> >> > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Hi Steve I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that is responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. This is called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is apparently trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose control. But I will also say that many of there members were at a conference I was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about the idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came across as genuin. I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, they are apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM bias. I may have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial Association, will post it as soon as I get it. Regards Manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: HI Manu, I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone propose that WM doctors need more training? How can the government force anyone to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to begin with? IT is simply impossible. For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any country it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to regulate what WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not regulated itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand what I mean. If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full stop. You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with TCM if TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be better to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about training WM doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that improving any educational standard in NZ. Best Wishes, Steve On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they > cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper > training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the > one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 > years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is > lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the > case now). > > I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become > well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect > for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it > alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is > solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM > and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry > wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > > Regards > > manu > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > > On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Steve >> >> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps and >> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment >> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now as >> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal >> training, its a would be a double standard. >> >> Regards >> >> Manu > > HI Manu, > > This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM > with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the > author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year > diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the double > standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM without > normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I > expect the same respect given to TCM. > > I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the basic > foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut > the mustard IMO. > > Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; > where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > >>> >>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >>> Hi Manu and all, >>> >>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified >>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this >>> stage >>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From >>> the >>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday >>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the one >>> I >>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>> practice >>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this >>> way >>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese >>> doctor >>> promoting his business in the West. >>> >>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>> >>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM >>> practitioner? >>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM >>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>> >>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly >>> educated >>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care >>> systems. >>> >>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice WM >>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and >>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the >>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in >>> New >>> Zealand? >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> > > > > > > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 HI Manu, The association you mention is a professional association whose purpose is to serve their members......not the public. As such, membership is not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or other therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations perform very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. What I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM acupuncture practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible for caring for their members. Sure, these associations have requirements for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to be a member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have control over their members, not non-members. The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as are all scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two countries. In Australia, the Bill only got through due to allowing the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt from the new regulations introduced by the new bill. Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for the regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe Smoe " from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this bill must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very unlikely to happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over-riding self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the end. The only other option is if he can convince the current WM associations to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed to practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " of these associations from practising without meeting these requirements. As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can choose not to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe Smoe " is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards of education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the Bill, since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have decided to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal requirements of the board for practice. Acupuncture is a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). Best Wishes, Steve On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that is > responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. This is > called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is apparently > trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose control. > But I will also say that many of there members were at a conference I > was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about the > idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came across as > genuin. > I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, they are > apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM bias. I may > have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial Association, > will post it as soon as I get it. > > Regards > > Manu > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > HI Manu, > > I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... > > If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone propose > that WM doctors need more training? How can the government force anyone > to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to begin > with? IT is simply impossible. > > For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any country > it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to regulate what > WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not regulated > itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand what I > mean. > > If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full stop. > You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with TCM if > TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be better > to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about training WM > doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. > > So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting > referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that improving > any educational standard in NZ. > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > > On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Steve >> >> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they >> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper >> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the >> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 >> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is >> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper >> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the >> case now). >> >> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become >> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect >> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it >> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is >> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM >> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry >> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). >> >> Regards >> >> manu >> >> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >> >> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hi Steve >>> >>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps >>> and >>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment >>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now >>> as >>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal >>> training, its a would be a double standard. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Manu >> >> HI Manu, >> >> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM >> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the >> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year >> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the >> double >> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM >> without >> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I >> expect the same respect given to TCM. >> >> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the >> basic >> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut >> the mustard IMO. >> >> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; >> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? >> >> Best Wishes, >> >> Steve >> >>>> >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >>>> Hi Manu and all, >>>> >>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified >>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this >>>> stage >>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From >>>> the >>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday >>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the >>>> one >>>> I >>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>>> practice >>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this >>>> way >>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese >>>> doctor >>>> promoting his business in the West. >>>> >>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>>> >>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM >>>> practitioner? >>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM >>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>>> >>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly >>>> educated >>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care >>>> systems. >>>> >>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice >>>> WM >>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and >>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the >>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in >>>> New >>>> Zealand? >>>> >>>> Best Wishes, >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Hi Steve Thanks that was really informative and certainly got me thinking. You are right about having to change the law and how differcult that would be. I believe the only way we can change the laws is through public pressure, this can only come about through educating the public(yes that is a big job). But I also believe if you can get some WM trained acupuncturists to do the course it could change there mindset and start a chain reaction. The problem is WM Dr's believe acupuncture is simple according to their training, through proper education I believe they will relise there limitations and that of other WM doctors. At present they dont believe they need more training, I believe the more you learn the more you realize how little you know. Once a few learn they will encourage others due to there improved understanding and results, this will take time but in time if enough Dr's demand it we can bring about change.The fact we have an interpratation that does not conflict is very good attraction to WM. And yes you are right about the limits of what an association can do, but an association is just a base to organize a groups efforts, to my knowledge they are non profit. Dr Lee is going above WM's head by going straight to the goverments minister of health, where it gets him we will have to wait and see. The association is not just for TCM it is for WM and all other effective medicines too, we need to bring everyone together to consolidate our strength, I think his idea has some real advantages that could help tip the scales our way. What ever happens it will take along time but I am passionate about getting it started. I tell you Steve some might think I am running out of subjects, they are wrong that book has brought up many many more interesting arguments I havent mentioned yet so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks heaps Regards Manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: HI Manu, The association you mention is a professional association whose purpose is to serve their members......not the public. As such, membership is not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or other therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations perform very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. What I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM acupuncture practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible for caring for their members. Sure, these associations have requirements for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to be a member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have control over their members, not non-members. The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as are all scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two countries. In Australia, the Bill only got through due to allowing the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt from the new regulations introduced by the new bill. Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for the regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe Smoe " from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this bill must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very unlikely to happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over-riding self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the end. The only other option is if he can convince the current WM associations to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed to practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " of these associations from practising without meeting these requirements. As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can choose not to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe Smoe " is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards of education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the Bill, since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have decided to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal requirements of the board for practice. Acupuncture is a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). Best Wishes, Steve On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Steve > > I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that is > responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. This is > called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is apparently > trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose control. > But I will also say that many of there members were at a conference I > was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about the > idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came across as > genuin. > I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, they are > apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM bias. I may > have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial Association, > will post it as soon as I get it. > > Regards > > Manu > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > HI Manu, > > I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... > > If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone propose > that WM doctors need more training? How can the government force anyone > to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to begin > with? IT is simply impossible. > > For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any country > it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to regulate what > WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not regulated > itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand what I > mean. > > If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full stop. > You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with TCM if > TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be better > to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about training WM > doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. > > So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting > referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that improving > any educational standard in NZ. > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > > On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Steve >> >> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they >> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper >> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the >> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 >> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is >> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper >> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the >> case now). >> >> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become >> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect >> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it >> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is >> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM >> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry >> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). >> >> Regards >> >> manu >> >> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >> >> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hi Steve >>> >>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps >>> and >>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment >>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now >>> as >>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal >>> training, its a would be a double standard. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Manu >> >> HI Manu, >> >> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM >> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the >> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year >> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the >> double >> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM >> without >> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I >> expect the same respect given to TCM. >> >> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the >> basic >> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut >> the mustard IMO. >> >> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; >> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? >> >> Best Wishes, >> >> Steve >> >>>> >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: >>>> Hi Manu and all, >>>> >>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified >>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this >>>> stage >>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From >>>> the >>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday >>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the >>>> one >>>> I >>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>>> practice >>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this >>>> way >>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese >>>> doctor >>>> promoting his business in the West. >>>> >>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>>> >>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM >>>> practitioner? >>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM >>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>>> >>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly >>>> educated >>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care >>>> systems. >>>> >>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice >>>> WM >>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and >>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the >>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in >>>> New >>>> Zealand? >>>> >>>> Best Wishes, >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Hi Manu I have been following this thread about combining medicines so I recently got the book to see what all the fuss is about. I have only read the first few chapters but I will say from what I have read so far it has been very impressive. I have still got about 300 pages to go so will leave my judgement to I am finished. You seem so keen to discuss this so I will be happy to do so, I must say from what I have read you have not explained many of the points very clearly some of your points seem quite misleading from what the author is actually trying to say. Should be finished over the weekend will let you know. Cheers Kenneth Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin <manuhamlin> wrote: > > Hi Steve > > Thanks that was really informative and certainly got me thinking. You are right about having to change the law and how differcult that would be. I believe the only way we can change the laws is through public pressure, this can only come about through educating the public (yes that is a big job). But I also believe if you can get some WM trained acupuncturists to do the course it could change there mindset and start a chain reaction. The problem is WM Dr's believe acupuncture is simple according to their training, through proper education I believe they will relise there limitations and that of other WM doctors. At present they dont believe they need more training, I believe the more you learn the more you realize how little you know. Once a few learn they will encourage others due to there improved understanding and results, this will take time but in time if enough Dr's demand it we can bring about change.The fact we have an interpratation that does not conflict is very good > attraction to WM. And yes you are right about the limits of what an association can do, but an association is just a base to organize a groups efforts, to my knowledge they are non profit. Dr Lee is going above WM's head by going straight to the goverments minister of health, where it gets him we will have to wait and see. The association is not just for TCM it is for WM and all other effective medicines too, we need to bring everyone together to consolidate our strength, I think his idea has some real advantages that could help tip the scales our way. What ever happens it will take along time but I am passionate about getting it started. I tell you Steve some might think I am running out of subjects, they are wrong that book has brought up many many more interesting arguments I havent mentioned yet so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks heaps > > Regards > Manu > > > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > HI Manu, > > The association you mention is a professional association whose purpose > is to serve their members......not the public. As such, membership is > not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or other > therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations perform > very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. What > I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM acupuncture > practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible for > caring for their members. Sure, these associations have requirements > for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to be a > member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have control > over their members, not non-members. > > The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture > practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as are all > scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two countries. In > Australia, the Bill only got through due to allowing > the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt from the > new regulations introduced by the new bill. > > Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for the > regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe Smoe " > from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this bill > must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very unlikely to > happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over-riding > self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the end. > > The only other option is if he can convince the current WM associations > to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed to > practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " of > these associations from practising without meeting these requirements. > As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can choose not > to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe Smoe " > is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. > > As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards of > education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the Bill, > since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have decided > to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal > requirements of the board for practice. Acupuncture is > a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn > acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). > > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > > > On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Steve > > > > I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that is > > responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. This is > > called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is apparently > > trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose control. > > But I will also say that many of there members were at a conference I > > was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about the > > idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came across as > > genuin. > > I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, they are > > apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM bias. I may > > have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial Association, > > will post it as soon as I get it. > > > > Regards > > > > Manu > > > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > > HI Manu, > > > > I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... > > > > If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone propose > > that WM doctors need more training? How can the government force anyone > > to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to begin > > with? IT is simply impossible. > > > > For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any country > > it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to regulate what > > WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not regulated > > itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand what I > > mean. > > > > If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full stop. > > You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with TCM if > > TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be better > > to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about training WM > > doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. > > > > So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting > > referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that improving > > any educational standard in NZ. > > > > Best Wishes, > > > > Steve > > > > On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Hi Steve > >> > >> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they > >> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper > >> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the > >> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 > >> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is > >> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > >> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the > >> case now). > >> > >> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become > >> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect > >> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it > >> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is > >> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM > >> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry > >> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> manu > >> > >> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >> > >> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Steve > >>> > >>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps > >>> and > >>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here > >>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment > >>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now > >>> as > >>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal > >>> training, its a would be a double standard. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Manu > >> > >> HI Manu, > >> > >> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM > >> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the > >> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year > >> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the > >> double > >> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM > >> without > >> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I > >> expect the same respect given to TCM. > >> > >> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the > >> basic > >> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut > >> the mustard IMO. > >> > >> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; > >> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? > >> > >> Best Wishes, > >> > >> Steve > >> > >>>> > >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >>>> Hi Manu and all, > >>>> > >>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified > >>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this > >>>> stage > >>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From > >>>> the > >>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday > >>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the > >>>> one > >>>> I > >>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who > >>>> practice > >>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this > >>>> way > >>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese > >>>> doctor > >>>> promoting his business in the West. > >>>> > >>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... > >>>> > >>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM > >>>> practitioner? > >>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM > >>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. > >>>> > >>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly > >>>> educated > >>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care > >>>> systems. > >>>> > >>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice > >>>> WM > >>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and > >>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the > >>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in > >>>> New > >>>> Zealand? > >>>> > >>>> Best Wishes, > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>> > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 Hi Kenneth Fantastic have been dieing to discuss this with someone who has read the book and yes your right my explanations are often not very clear but im working on that. I look forward to your reply. Regards manu traviskenneth <traviskenneth wrote: Hi Manu I have been following this thread about combining medicines so I recently got the book to see what all the fuss is about. I have only read the first few chapters but I will say from what I have read so far it has been very impressive. I have still got about 300 pages to go so will leave my judgement to I am finished. You seem so keen to discuss this so I will be happy to do so, I must say from what I have read you have not explained many of the points very clearly some of your points seem quite misleading from what the author is actually trying to say. Should be finished over the weekend will let you know. Cheers Kenneth Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin <manuhamlin> wrote: > > Hi Steve > > Thanks that was really informative and certainly got me thinking. You are right about having to change the law and how differcult that would be. I believe the only way we can change the laws is through public pressure, this can only come about through educating the public (yes that is a big job). But I also believe if you can get some WM trained acupuncturists to do the course it could change there mindset and start a chain reaction. The problem is WM Dr's believe acupuncture is simple according to their training, through proper education I believe they will relise there limitations and that of other WM doctors. At present they dont believe they need more training, I believe the more you learn the more you realize how little you know. Once a few learn they will encourage others due to there improved understanding and results, this will take time but in time if enough Dr's demand it we can bring about change.The fact we have an interpratation that does not conflict is very good > attraction to WM. And yes you are right about the limits of what an association can do, but an association is just a base to organize a groups efforts, to my knowledge they are non profit. Dr Lee is going above WM's head by going straight to the goverments minister of health, where it gets him we will have to wait and see. The association is not just for TCM it is for WM and all other effective medicines too, we need to bring everyone together to consolidate our strength, I think his idea has some real advantages that could help tip the scales our way. What ever happens it will take along time but I am passionate about getting it started. I tell you Steve some might think I am running out of subjects, they are wrong that book has brought up many many more interesting arguments I havent mentioned yet so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks heaps > > Regards > Manu > > > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > HI Manu, > > The association you mention is a professional association whose purpose > is to serve their members......not the public. As such, membership is > not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or other > therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations perform > very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. What > I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM acupuncture > practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible for > caring for their members. Sure, these associations have requirements > for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to be a > member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have control > over their members, not non-members. > > The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture > practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as are all > scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two countries. In > Australia, the Bill only got through due to allowing > the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt from the > new regulations introduced by the new bill. > > Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for the > regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe Smoe " > from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this bill > must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very unlikely to > happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over-riding > self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the end. > > The only other option is if he can convince the current WM associations > to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed to > practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " of > these associations from practising without meeting these requirements. > As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can choose not > to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe Smoe " > is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. > > As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards of > education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the Bill, > since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have decided > to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal > requirements of the board for practice. Acupuncture is > a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn > acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). > > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > > > On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Steve > > > > I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that is > > responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. This is > > called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is apparently > > trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose control. > > But I will also say that many of there members were at a conference I > > was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about the > > idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came across as > > genuin. > > I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, they are > > apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM bias. I may > > have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial Association, > > will post it as soon as I get it. > > > > Regards > > > > Manu > > > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > > HI Manu, > > > > I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... > > > > If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone propose > > that WM doctors need more training? How can the government force anyone > > to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to begin > > with? IT is simply impossible. > > > > For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any country > > it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to regulate what > > WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not regulated > > itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand what I > > mean. > > > > If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full stop. > > You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with TCM if > > TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be better > > to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about training WM > > doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. > > > > So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting > > referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that improving > > any educational standard in NZ. > > > > Best Wishes, > > > > Steve > > > > On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Hi Steve > >> > >> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they > >> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper > >> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the > >> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 > >> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is > >> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > >> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the > >> case now). > >> > >> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become > >> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect > >> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it > >> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is > >> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM > >> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry > >> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> manu > >> > >> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >> > >> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Steve > >>> > >>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps > >>> and > >>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here > >>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment > >>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now > >>> as > >>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal > >>> training, its a would be a double standard. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Manu > >> > >> HI Manu, > >> > >> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM > >> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the > >> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year > >> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the > >> double > >> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM > >> without > >> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I > >> expect the same respect given to TCM. > >> > >> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the > >> basic > >> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut > >> the mustard IMO. > >> > >> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; > >> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? > >> > >> Best Wishes, > >> > >> Steve > >> > >>>> > >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >>>> Hi Manu and all, > >>>> > >>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified > >>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this > >>>> stage > >>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From > >>>> the > >>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday > >>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the > >>>> one > >>>> I > >>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who > >>>> practice > >>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this > >>>> way > >>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese > >>>> doctor > >>>> promoting his business in the West. > >>>> > >>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... > >>>> > >>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM > >>>> practitioner? > >>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM > >>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. > >>>> > >>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly > >>>> educated > >>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care > >>>> systems. > >>>> > >>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice > >>>> WM > >>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and > >>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the > >>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in > >>>> New > >>>> Zealand? > >>>> > >>>> Best Wishes, > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> > > > > > > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Hi Manu I have now read the whole book and I have to say its bloody brilliant, the thing that blows me away is how simple some of the ideas are but they really work. I think the thing Dr Lee has over most other people is plain and simply common sense. I have to say my biggest concern was that CM would get watered down as I have seen too many times, but he has not done that. One of the things you have been misleading about tho is regarding these new laws and the terminology. You say he has changed the terminology to not conflict with WM but thats not totally true. The reason he made changes was because of the new laws which govern how the two medicines can work together, infact he said its not even absolutely neccessary to change the terms, its just to make things more clear. From your writing I was mislead, however I have only read the book once so I may have missed a few points. I also wanted to make clear his main purpose is really how to make it possible for the two medicines to work together rather than creating a whole new medicine, however the two could eventually mold together. All in all I would have to say that I agree the book is brilliant, I would even say it should be compulsory reading as that book will do more for getting CM accepted than anything I have seen. So let me know what aspects you wish to discuss. Cheers Ken manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote: Hi Kenneth Fantastic have been dieing to discuss this with someone who has read the book and yes your right my explanations are often not very clear but im working on that. I look forward to your reply. Regards manu traviskenneth <traviskenneth wrote: Hi Manu I have been following this thread about combining medicines so I recently got the book to see what all the fuss is about. I have only read the first few chapters but I will say from what I have read so far it has been very impressive. I have still got about 300 pages to go so will leave my judgement to I am finished. You seem so keen to discuss this so I will be happy to do so, I must say from what I have read you have not explained many of the points very clearly some of your points seem quite misleading from what the author is actually trying to say. Should be finished over the weekend will let you know. Cheers Kenneth Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin <manuhamlin> wrote: > > Hi Steve > > Thanks that was really informative and certainly got me thinking. You are right about having to change the law and how differcult that would be. I believe the only way we can change the laws is through public pressure, this can only come about through educating the public (yes that is a big job). But I also believe if you can get some WM trained acupuncturists to do the course it could change there mindset and start a chain reaction. The problem is WM Dr's believe acupuncture is simple according to their training, through proper education I believe they will relise there limitations and that of other WM doctors. At present they dont believe they need more training, I believe the more you learn the more you realize how little you know. Once a few learn they will encourage others due to there improved understanding and results, this will take time but in time if enough Dr's demand it we can bring about change.The fact we have an interpratation that does not conflict is very good > attraction to WM. And yes you are right about the limits of what an association can do, but an association is just a base to organize a groups efforts, to my knowledge they are non profit. Dr Lee is going above WM's head by going straight to the goverments minister of health, where it gets him we will have to wait and see. The association is not just for TCM it is for WM and all other effective medicines too, we need to bring everyone together to consolidate our strength, I think his idea has some real advantages that could help tip the scales our way. What ever happens it will take along time but I am passionate about getting it started. I tell you Steve some might think I am running out of subjects, they are wrong that book has brought up many many more interesting arguments I havent mentioned yet so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks heaps > > Regards > Manu > > > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > HI Manu, > > The association you mention is a professional association whose purpose > is to serve their members......not the public. As such, membership is > not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or other > therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations perform > very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. What > I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM acupuncture > practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible for > caring for their members. Sure, these associations have requirements > for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to be a > member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have control > over their members, not non-members. > > The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture > practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as are all > scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two countries. In > Australia, the Bill only got through due to allowing > the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt from the > new regulations introduced by the new bill. > > Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for the > regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe Smoe " > from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this bill > must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very unlikely to > happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over-riding > self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the end. > > The only other option is if he can convince the current WM associations > to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed to > practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " of > these associations from practising without meeting these requirements. > As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can choose not > to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe Smoe " > is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. > > As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards of > education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the Bill, > since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have decided > to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal > requirements of the board for practice. Acupuncture is > a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn > acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). > > > Best Wishes, > > Steve > > > On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Steve > > > > I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that is > > responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. This is > > called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is apparently > > trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose control. > > But I will also say that many of there members were at a conference I > > was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about the > > idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came across as > > genuin. > > I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, they are > > apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM bias. I may > > have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial Association, > > will post it as soon as I get it. > > > > Regards > > > > Manu > > > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > > HI Manu, > > > > I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... > > > > If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone propose > > that WM doctors need more training? How can the government force anyone > > to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to begin > > with? IT is simply impossible. > > > > For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any country > > it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to regulate what > > WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not regulated > > itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand what I > > mean. > > > > If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full stop. > > You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with TCM if > > TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be better > > to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about training WM > > doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. > > > > So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting > > referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that improving > > any educational standard in NZ. > > > > Best Wishes, > > > > Steve > > > > On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Hi Steve > >> > >> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but they > >> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have proper > >> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got the > >> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really need 3 > >> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The doctor is > >> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > >> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not the > >> case now). > >> > >> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will become > >> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more respect > >> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make it > >> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi stance is > >> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who practices TCM > >> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont worry > >> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> manu > >> > >> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >> > >> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Steve > >>> > >>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are leeps > >>> and > >>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here > >>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end theyGovernment > >>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for now > >>> as > >>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with minimal > >>> training, its a would be a double standard. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Manu > >> > >> HI Manu, > >> > >> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising TCM > >> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal of the > >> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 year > >> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the > >> double > >> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM > >> without > >> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I > >> expect the same respect given to TCM. > >> > >> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have the > >> basic > >> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years won't cut > >> the mustard IMO. > >> > >> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New Zealand; > >> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's course? > >> > >> Best Wishes, > >> > >> Steve > >> > >>>> > >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >>>> Hi Manu and all, > >>>> > >>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified > >>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it this > >>>> stage > >>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. From > >>>> the > >>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the everyday > >>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least the > >>>> one > >>>> I > >>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who > >>>> practice > >>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated this > >>>> way > >>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese > >>>> doctor > >>>> promoting his business in the West. > >>>> > >>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... > >>>> > >>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a TCM > >>>> practitioner? > >>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow WM > >>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. > >>>> > >>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly > >>>> educated > >>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care > >>>> systems. > >>>> > >>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to practice > >>>> WM > >>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including masters and > >>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in the > >>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM practitioner in > >>>> New > >>>> Zealand? > >>>> > >>>> Best Wishes, > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Sorry, could you post again the title and author's name of that book. Can't seam to find it. Thanks May On 1/11/04 4:14 am, " Kenneth Travis " <traviskenneth wrote: > > > Hi Manu > > I have now read the whole book and I have to say its bloody brilliant, the > thing that blows me away is how simple some of the ideas are but they really > work. I think the thing Dr Lee has over most other people is plain and simply > common sense. I have to say my biggest concern was that CM would get watered > down as I have seen too many times, but he has not done that. One of the > things you have been misleading about tho is regarding these new laws and the > terminology. > > You say he has changed the terminology to not conflict with WM but thats not > totally true. The reason he made changes was because of the new laws which > govern how the two medicines can work together, infact he said its not even > absolutely neccessary to change the terms, its just to make things more clear. > From your writing I was mislead, however I have only read the book once so I > may have missed a few points. I also wanted to make clear his main purpose is > really how to make it possible for the two medicines to work together rather > than creating a whole new medicine, however the two could eventually mold > together. > > All in all I would have to say that I agree the book is brilliant, I would > even say it should be compulsory reading as that book will do more for getting > CM accepted than anything I have seen. So let me know what aspects you wish to > discuss. > > Cheers Ken > > manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Hi Kenneth I knew this would happen as soon someone else read it I would get caught out on all my mistakes. You say he just wants the the two medicines two work together, however even if they work together as seperate entities you can still view the two medicines as a singular collective system with two unique parts. As for terminology yes it is true that he said you would not have to use his examples for it to work however dont you agree that it makes things a hell of alot more clear.He has explained his decisions very clearly wouldnt you agree, looking forward to your response. Regards Manu Chinese Medicine , Kenneth Travis <traviskenneth> wrote: > > Hi Manu > > I have now read the whole book and I have to say its bloody brilliant, the thing that blows me away is how simple some of the ideas are but they really work. I think the thing Dr Lee has over most other people is plain and simply common sense. I have to say my biggest concern was that CM would get watered down as I have seen too many times, but he has not done that. One of the things you have been misleading about tho is regarding these new laws and the terminology. > > You say he has changed the terminology to not conflict with WM but thats not totally true. The reason he made changes was because of the new laws which govern how the two medicines can work together, infact he said its not even absolutely neccessary to change the terms, its just to make things more clear. From your writing I was mislead, however I have only read the book once so I may have missed a few points. I also wanted to make clear his main purpose is really how to make it possible for the two medicines to work together rather than creating a whole new medicine, however the two could eventually mold together. > > All in all I would have to say that I agree the book is brilliant, I would even say it should be compulsory reading as that book will do more for getting CM accepted than anything I have seen. So let me know what aspects you wish to discuss. > > Cheers Ken > > manu hamlin <manuhamlin> wrote: > > Hi Kenneth > > Fantastic have been dieing to discuss this with someone who has read the book and yes your right my explanations are often not very clear but im working on that. I look forward to your reply. > > Regards > > manu > > traviskenneth <traviskenneth> wrote: > > Hi Manu > > I have been following this thread about combining medicines so I > recently got the book to see what all the fuss is about. I have only > read the first few chapters but I will say from what I have read so > far it has been very impressive. I have still got about 300 pages to > go so will leave my judgement to I am finished. You seem so keen to > discuss this so I will be happy to do so, I must say from what I have > read you have not explained many of the points very clearly some of > your points seem quite misleading from what the author is actually > trying to say. Should be finished over the weekend will let you know. > > Cheers > > Kenneth > Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin > <manuhamlin> wrote: > > > > Hi Steve > > > > Thanks that was really informative and certainly got me thinking. > You are right about having to change the law and how differcult that > would be. I believe the only way we can change the laws is through > public pressure, this can only come about through educating the public > (yes that is a big job). But I also believe if you can get some WM > trained acupuncturists to do the course it could change there mindset > and start a chain reaction. The problem is WM Dr's believe > acupuncture is simple according to their training, through proper > education I believe they will relise there limitations and that of > other WM doctors. At present they dont believe they need more > training, I believe the more you learn the more you realize how > little you know. Once a few learn they will encourage others due to > there improved understanding and results, this will take time but in > time if enough Dr's demand it we can bring about change.The fact we > have an interpratation that does not conflict is very good > > attraction to WM. And yes you are right about the limits of what > an association can do, but an association is just a base to organize > a groups efforts, to my knowledge they are non profit. Dr Lee is > going above WM's head by going straight to the goverments minister of > health, where it gets him we will have to wait and see. The > association is not just for TCM it is for WM and all other effective > medicines too, we need to bring everyone together to consolidate our > strength, I think his idea has some real advantages that could help > tip the scales our way. What ever happens it will take along time but > I am passionate about getting it started. I tell you Steve some might > think I am running out of subjects, they are wrong that book has > brought up many many more interesting arguments I havent mentioned > yet so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks heaps > > > > Regards > > Manu > > > > > > > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > > HI Manu, > > > > The association you mention is a professional association whose > purpose > > is to serve their members......not the public. As such, membership > is > > not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or > other > > therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations > perform > > very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. > What > > I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM > acupuncture > > practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible for > > caring for their members. Sure, these associations have > requirements > > for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to > be a > > member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have > control > > over their members, not non-members. > > > > The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture > > practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as are > all > > scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two > countries. In > > Australia, the Bill only got through due to > allowing > > the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt from > the > > new regulations introduced by the new bill. > > > > Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for the > > regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe > Smoe " > > from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this > bill > > must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very unlikely > to > > happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over- riding > > self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the > end. > > > > The only other option is if he can convince the current WM > associations > > to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed > to > > practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " > of > > these associations from practising without meeting these > requirements. > > As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can choose > not > > to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe > Smoe " > > is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. > > > > As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards > of > > education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the Bill, > > since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have > decided > > to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal > > requirements of the board for practice. > Acupuncture is > > a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn > > acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). > > > > > > Best Wishes, > > > > Steve > > > > > > On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Steve > > > > > > I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that > is > > > responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. This > is > > > called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is > apparently > > > trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose > control. > > > But I will also say that many of there members were at a > conference I > > > was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about the > > > idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came across > as > > > genuin. > > > I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, they > are > > > apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM bias. > I may > > > have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial > Association, > > > will post it as soon as I get it. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Manu > > > > > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > > > HI Manu, > > > > > > I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... > > > > > > If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone > propose > > > that WM doctors need more training? How can the government force > anyone > > > to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to begin > > > with? IT is simply impossible. > > > > > > For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any > country > > > it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to regulate > what > > > WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not > regulated > > > itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand > what I > > > mean. > > > > > > If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full > stop. > > > You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with > TCM if > > > TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be > better > > > to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about > training WM > > > doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. > > > > > > So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting > > > referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that > improving > > > any educational standard in NZ. > > > > > > Best Wishes, > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Steve > > >> > > >> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture but > they > > >> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have > proper > > >> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you got > the > > >> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you really > need 3 > > >> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The > doctor is > > >> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > > >> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not > the > > >> case now). > > >> > > >> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will > become > > >> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more > respect > > >> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will make > it > > >> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi > stance is > > >> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who > practices TCM > > >> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont > worry > > >> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> > > >> manu > > >> > > >> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Hi Steve > > >>> > > >>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are > leeps > > >>> and > > >>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here > > >>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end > theyGovernment > > >>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing for > now > > >>> as > > >>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with > minimal > > >>> training, its a would be a double standard. > > >>> > > >>> Regards > > >>> > > >>> Manu > > >> > > >> HI Manu, > > >> > > >> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy practising > TCM > > >> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal > of the > > >> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a 1 > year > > >> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is the > > >> double > > >> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice WM > > >> without > > >> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair and I > > >> expect the same respect given to TCM. > > >> > > >> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have > the > > >> basic > > >> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years > won't cut > > >> the mustard IMO. > > >> > > >> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New > Zealand; > > >> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's > course? > > >> > > >> Best Wishes, > > >> > > >> Steve > > >> > > >>>> > > >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > > >>>> Hi Manu and all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " unified > > >>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it > this > > >>>> stage > > >>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have read. > From > > >>>> the > > >>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the > everyday > > >>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at least > the > > >>>> one > > >>>> I > > >>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who > > >>>> practice > > >>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been integrated > this > > >>>> way > > >>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial Chinese > > >>>> doctor > > >>>> promoting his business in the West. > > >>>> > > >>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... > > >>>> > > >>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as a > TCM > > >>>> practitioner? > > >>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to allow > WM > > >>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. > > >>>> > > >>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be poorly > > >>>> educated > > >>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health care > > >>>> systems. > > >>>> > > >>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to > practice > > >>>> WM > > >>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including > masters and > > >>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight in > the > > >>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM > practitioner in > > >>>> New > > >>>> Zealand? > > >>>> > > >>>> Best Wishes, > > >>>> > > >>>> Steve > > >>>> > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Hi Manu, On 02/11/2004, at 6:35 PM, manuhamlin wrote: > I knew this would happen as soon someone else read it I would get > caught out on all my mistakes. You say he just wants the the two > medicines two work together, however even if they work together as > seperate entities you can still view the two medicines as a singular > collective system with two unique parts. Medicine already is a collective system, nobody controls it or knows all there is to know about medicine. " Western " medicine has some specific techniques and beliefs, so does TCM, Western Herbal traditions, chiropractic etc. The wish for the two medicinal systems of Chinese and Western medicine working better together is a wish of all true healers; at least on the TCM side. If this is the real message of Dr. Lee's book is just to improve the ways in which TCM and WM work together for the benefit of our patients, you surely have made many mistakes in representing his position and I would suggest that you are more careful when presenting an individuals life work on a list such as this. If you knew someone else would read this book and you would get caught out on all your mistakes in representing someones life work; it makes anything you say suspect and without substance in the future. It is irresponsible to represent a doctors work inaccurately if you are aware of doing it, and if you think you MAY be doing it......then I suggest you refrain from posting it until you are SURE of what the author is really saying. At the very minimum, IMO you should word your posts as your thoughts and not those of the authors. My replies to your posts on this list have been to specific claims you made about changing the terminology of TCM to fit into Western Medicine paradigm without conflict if TCM is to survive. However, it is increasingly beginning to appear that this is not Dr. Lee's claim at all, but your wish and opinion using Dr. Lee as a reference source out of context. > As for terminology yes it is > true that he said you would not have to use his examples for it to > work however dont you agree that it makes things a hell of alot more > clear.He has explained his decisions very clearly wouldnt you agree, > looking forward to your response. > > Regards > > Manu > > Chinese Medicine , Kenneth Travis > <traviskenneth> wrote: >> >> Hi Manu >> >> I have now read the whole book and I have to say its bloody > brilliant, the thing that blows me away is how simple some of the > ideas are but they really work. I think the thing Dr Lee has over > most other people is plain and simply common sense. I have to say my > biggest concern was that CM would get watered down as I have seen too > many times, but he has not done that. One of the things you have been > misleading about tho is regarding these new laws and the terminology. >> >> You say he has changed the terminology to not conflict with WM but > thats not totally true. The reason he made changes was because of the > new laws which govern how the two medicines can work together, infact > he said its not even absolutely neccessary to change the terms, its > just to make things more clear. From your writing I was mislead, > however I have only read the book once so I may have missed a few > points. I also wanted to make clear his main purpose is really how to > make it possible for the two medicines to work together rather than > creating a whole new medicine, however the two could eventually mold > together. >> >> All in all I would have to say that I agree the book is brilliant, > I would even say it should be compulsory reading as that book will do > more for getting CM accepted than anything I have seen. So let me > know what aspects you wish to discuss. >> >> Cheers Ken >> >> manu hamlin <manuhamlin> wrote: >> >> Hi Kenneth >> >> Fantastic have been dieing to discuss this with someone who has > read the book and yes your right my explanations are often not very > clear but im working on that. I look forward to your reply. >> >> Regards >> >> manu >> >> traviskenneth <traviskenneth> wrote: >> >> Hi Manu >> >> I have been following this thread about combining medicines so I >> recently got the book to see what all the fuss is about. I have > only >> read the first few chapters but I will say from what I have read so >> far it has been very impressive. I have still got about 300 pages > to >> go so will leave my judgement to I am finished. You seem so keen to >> discuss this so I will be happy to do so, I must say from what I > have >> read you have not explained many of the points very clearly some of >> your points seem quite misleading from what the author is actually >> trying to say. Should be finished over the weekend will let you > know. >> >> Cheers >> >> Kenneth >> Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin >> <manuhamlin> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Steve >>> >>> Thanks that was really informative and certainly got me thinking. >> You are right about having to change the law and how differcult > that >> would be. I believe the only way we can change the laws is through >> public pressure, this can only come about through educating the > public >> (yes that is a big job). But I also believe if you can get some WM >> trained acupuncturists to do the course it could change there > mindset >> and start a chain reaction. The problem is WM Dr's believe >> acupuncture is simple according to their training, through proper >> education I believe they will relise there limitations and that of >> other WM doctors. At present they dont believe they need more >> training, I believe the more you learn the more you realize how >> little you know. Once a few learn they will encourage others due to >> there improved understanding and results, this will take time but > in >> time if enough Dr's demand it we can bring about change.The fact we >> have an interpratation that does not conflict is very good >>> attraction to WM. And yes you are right about the limits of what >> an association can do, but an association is just a base to > organize >> a groups efforts, to my knowledge they are non profit. Dr Lee is >> going above WM's head by going straight to the goverments minister > of >> health, where it gets him we will have to wait and see. The >> association is not just for TCM it is for WM and all other > effective >> medicines too, we need to bring everyone together to consolidate > our >> strength, I think his idea has some real advantages that could help >> tip the scales our way. What ever happens it will take along time > but >> I am passionate about getting it started. I tell you Steve some > might >> think I am running out of subjects, they are wrong that book has >> brought up many many more interesting arguments I havent mentioned >> yet so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks heaps >>> >>> Regards >>> Manu >>> >>> >>> >>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>> HI Manu, >>> >>> The association you mention is a professional association whose >> purpose >>> is to serve their members......not the public. As such, > membership >> is >>> not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or >> other >>> therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations >> perform >>> very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. >> What >>> I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM >> acupuncture >>> practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible > for >>> caring for their members. Sure, these associations have >> requirements >>> for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to >> be a >>> member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have >> control >>> over their members, not non-members. >>> >>> The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture >>> practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as > are >> all >>> scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two >> countries. In >>> Australia, the Bill only got through due to >> allowing >>> the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt > from >> the >>> new regulations introduced by the new bill. >>> >>> Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for > the >>> regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe >> Smoe " >>> from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this >> bill >>> must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very > unlikely >> to >>> happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over- > riding >>> self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the >> end. >>> >>> The only other option is if he can convince the current WM >> associations >>> to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed >> to >>> practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " >> of >>> these associations from practising without meeting these >> requirements. >>> As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can > choose >> not >>> to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe >> Smoe " >>> is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. >>> >>> As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards >> of >>> education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the > Bill, >>> since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have >> decided >>> to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal >>> requirements of the board for practice. >> Acupuncture is >>> a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn >>> acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). >>> >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Steve >>>> >>>> I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that >> is >>>> responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. > This >> is >>>> called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is >> apparently >>>> trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose >> control. >>>> But I will also say that many of there members were at a >> conference I >>>> was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about > the >>>> idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came > across >> as >>>> genuin. >>>> I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, > they >> are >>>> apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM > bias. >> I may >>>> have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial >> Association, >>>> will post it as soon as I get it. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Manu >>>> >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>>> HI Manu, >>>> >>>> I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... >>>> >>>> If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone >> propose >>>> that WM doctors need more training? How can the government > force >> anyone >>>> to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to > begin >>>> with? IT is simply impossible. >>>> >>>> For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any >> country >>>> it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to > regulate >> what >>>> WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not >> regulated >>>> itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand >> what I >>>> mean. >>>> >>>> If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full >> stop. >>>> You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with >> TCM if >>>> TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be >> better >>>> to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about >> training WM >>>> doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. >>>> >>>> So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting >>>> referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that >> improving >>>> any educational standard in NZ. >>>> >>>> Best Wishes, >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Steve >>>>> >>>>> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture > but >> they >>>>> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have >> proper >>>>> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you > got >> the >>>>> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you > really >> need 3 >>>>> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The >> doctor is >>>>> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper >>>>> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not >> the >>>>> case now). >>>>> >>>>> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will >> become >>>>> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more >> respect >>>>> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will > make >> it >>>>> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi >> stance is >>>>> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who >> practices TCM >>>>> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont >> worry >>>>> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> manu >>>>> >>>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are >> leeps >>>>>> and >>>>>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >>>>>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end >> theyGovernment >>>>>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing > for >> now >>>>>> as >>>>>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with >> minimal >>>>>> training, its a would be a double standard. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Manu >>>>> >>>>> HI Manu, >>>>> >>>>> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy > practising >> TCM >>>>> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal >> of the >>>>> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a > 1 >> year >>>>> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is > the >>>>> double >>>>> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice > WM >>>>> without >>>>> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair > and I >>>>> expect the same respect given to TCM. >>>>> >>>>> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have >> the >>>>> basic >>>>> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years >> won't cut >>>>> the mustard IMO. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New >> Zealand; >>>>> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's >> course? >>>>> >>>>> Best Wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Manu and all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " > unified >>>>>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it >> this >>>>>>> stage >>>>>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have > read. >> From >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the >> everyday >>>>>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at > least >> the >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>>>>>> practice >>>>>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been > integrated >> this >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial > Chinese >>>>>>> doctor >>>>>>> promoting his business in the West. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as > a >> TCM >>>>>>> practitioner? >>>>>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to > allow >> WM >>>>>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be > poorly >>>>>>> educated >>>>>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health > care >>>>>>> systems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to >> practice >>>>>>> WM >>>>>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including >> masters and >>>>>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight > in >> the >>>>>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM >> practitioner in >>>>>>> New >>>>>>> Zealand? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 HI Steve Wow not even my mum tells me off that bad but I guess to a degree its a fair comment. I will say this, I am writing into a forum not publishing anarticle so dont take it so seriously. Of course I could make mistakes, its a huge book and a very complex subject, its not easy trying to answer specific questions without showing the hole picture. I believe you will agree if ten different people read one book that would all interprit it slightly differently. I see these discussions about different books all the time with different perspectives, the purpose of this forum is for discussion and learning. The first thing you need to realise is all I am doing is using the forum as a bouncing board to learn like everyone else. Secondly many of my points were very accurate, I am not perfect get over it niether are you. Lastly I you really believe everything you just said to me you should never post a comment again as it would make you a hippocritt, as you stated nobody knows everything and you dont know you have made a mistake until you learn better or someone corrects you Regards Manu. Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: Hi Manu, On 02/11/2004, at 6:35 PM, manuhamlin wrote: > I knew this would happen as soon someone else read it I would get > caught out on all my mistakes. You say he just wants the the two > medicines two work together, however even if they work together as > seperate entities you can still view the two medicines as a singular > collective system with two unique parts. Medicine already is a collective system, nobody controls it or knows all there is to know about medicine. " Western " medicine has some specific techniques and beliefs, so does TCM, Western Herbal traditions, chiropractic etc. The wish for the two medicinal systems of Chinese and Western medicine working better together is a wish of all true healers; at least on the TCM side. If this is the real message of Dr. Lee's book is just to improve the ways in which TCM and WM work together for the benefit of our patients, you surely have made many mistakes in representing his position and I would suggest that you are more careful when presenting an individuals life work on a list such as this. If you knew someone else would read this book and you would get caught out on all your mistakes in representing someones life work; it makes anything you say suspect and without substance in the future. It is irresponsible to represent a doctors work inaccurately if you are aware of doing it, and if you think you MAY be doing it......then I suggest you refrain from posting it until you are SURE of what the author is really saying. At the very minimum, IMO you should word your posts as your thoughts and not those of the authors. My replies to your posts on this list have been to specific claims you made about changing the terminology of TCM to fit into Western Medicine paradigm without conflict if TCM is to survive. However, it is increasingly beginning to appear that this is not Dr. Lee's claim at all, but your wish and opinion using Dr. Lee as a reference source out of context. > As for terminology yes it is > true that he said you would not have to use his examples for it to > work however dont you agree that it makes things a hell of alot more > clear.He has explained his decisions very clearly wouldnt you agree, > looking forward to your response. > > Regards > > Manu > > Chinese Medicine , Kenneth Travis > <traviskenneth> wrote: >> >> Hi Manu >> >> I have now read the whole book and I have to say its bloody > brilliant, the thing that blows me away is how simple some of the > ideas are but they really work. I think the thing Dr Lee has over > most other people is plain and simply common sense. I have to say my > biggest concern was that CM would get watered down as I have seen too > many times, but he has not done that. One of the things you have been > misleading about tho is regarding these new laws and the terminology. >> >> You say he has changed the terminology to not conflict with WM but > thats not totally true. The reason he made changes was because of the > new laws which govern how the two medicines can work together, infact > he said its not even absolutely neccessary to change the terms, its > just to make things more clear. From your writing I was mislead, > however I have only read the book once so I may have missed a few > points. I also wanted to make clear his main purpose is really how to > make it possible for the two medicines to work together rather than > creating a whole new medicine, however the two could eventually mold > together. >> >> All in all I would have to say that I agree the book is brilliant, > I would even say it should be compulsory reading as that book will do > more for getting CM accepted than anything I have seen. So let me > know what aspects you wish to discuss. >> >> Cheers Ken >> >> manu hamlin <manuhamlin> wrote: >> >> Hi Kenneth >> >> Fantastic have been dieing to discuss this with someone who has > read the book and yes your right my explanations are often not very > clear but im working on that. I look forward to your reply. >> >> Regards >> >> manu >> >> traviskenneth <traviskenneth> wrote: >> >> Hi Manu >> >> I have been following this thread about combining medicines so I >> recently got the book to see what all the fuss is about. I have > only >> read the first few chapters but I will say from what I have read so >> far it has been very impressive. I have still got about 300 pages > to >> go so will leave my judgement to I am finished. You seem so keen to >> discuss this so I will be happy to do so, I must say from what I > have >> read you have not explained many of the points very clearly some of >> your points seem quite misleading from what the author is actually >> trying to say. Should be finished over the weekend will let you > know. >> >> Cheers >> >> Kenneth >> Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin >> <manuhamlin> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Steve >>> >>> Thanks that was really informative and certainly got me thinking. >> You are right about having to change the law and how differcult > that >> would be. I believe the only way we can change the laws is through >> public pressure, this can only come about through educating the > public >> (yes that is a big job). But I also believe if you can get some WM >> trained acupuncturists to do the course it could change there > mindset >> and start a chain reaction. The problem is WM Dr's believe >> acupuncture is simple according to their training, through proper >> education I believe they will relise there limitations and that of >> other WM doctors. At present they dont believe they need more >> training, I believe the more you learn the more you realize how >> little you know. Once a few learn they will encourage others due to >> there improved understanding and results, this will take time but > in >> time if enough Dr's demand it we can bring about change.The fact we >> have an interpratation that does not conflict is very good >>> attraction to WM. And yes you are right about the limits of what >> an association can do, but an association is just a base to > organize >> a groups efforts, to my knowledge they are non profit. Dr Lee is >> going above WM's head by going straight to the goverments minister > of >> health, where it gets him we will have to wait and see. The >> association is not just for TCM it is for WM and all other > effective >> medicines too, we need to bring everyone together to consolidate > our >> strength, I think his idea has some real advantages that could help >> tip the scales our way. What ever happens it will take along time > but >> I am passionate about getting it started. I tell you Steve some > might >> think I am running out of subjects, they are wrong that book has >> brought up many many more interesting arguments I havent mentioned >> yet so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks heaps >>> >>> Regards >>> Manu >>> >>> >>> >>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>> HI Manu, >>> >>> The association you mention is a professional association whose >> purpose >>> is to serve their members......not the public. As such, > membership >> is >>> not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or >> other >>> therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations >> perform >>> very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. >> What >>> I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM >> acupuncture >>> practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible > for >>> caring for their members. Sure, these associations have >> requirements >>> for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to >> be a >>> member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have >> control >>> over their members, not non-members. >>> >>> The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture >>> practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as > are >> all >>> scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two >> countries. In >>> Australia, the Bill only got through due to >> allowing >>> the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt > from >> the >>> new regulations introduced by the new bill. >>> >>> Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for > the >>> regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe >> Smoe " >>> from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this >> bill >>> must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very > unlikely >> to >>> happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over- > riding >>> self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the >> end. >>> >>> The only other option is if he can convince the current WM >> associations >>> to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed >> to >>> practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " >> of >>> these associations from practising without meeting these >> requirements. >>> As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can > choose >> not >>> to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe >> Smoe " >>> is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. >>> >>> As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards >> of >>> education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the > Bill, >>> since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have >> decided >>> to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal >>> requirements of the board for practice. >> Acupuncture is >>> a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn >>> acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). >>> >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Steve >>>> >>>> I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that >> is >>>> responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. > This >> is >>>> called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is >> apparently >>>> trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose >> control. >>>> But I will also say that many of there members were at a >> conference I >>>> was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about > the >>>> idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came > across >> as >>>> genuin. >>>> I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, > they >> are >>>> apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM > bias. >> I may >>>> have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial >> Association, >>>> will post it as soon as I get it. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Manu >>>> >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>>> HI Manu, >>>> >>>> I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... >>>> >>>> If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone >> propose >>>> that WM doctors need more training? How can the government > force >> anyone >>>> to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to > begin >>>> with? IT is simply impossible. >>>> >>>> For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any >> country >>>> it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to > regulate >> what >>>> WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not >> regulated >>>> itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand >> what I >>>> mean. >>>> >>>> If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full >> stop. >>>> You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with >> TCM if >>>> TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be >> better >>>> to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about >> training WM >>>> doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. >>>> >>>> So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting >>>> referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that >> improving >>>> any educational standard in NZ. >>>> >>>> Best Wishes, >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Steve >>>>> >>>>> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture > but >> they >>>>> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have >> proper >>>>> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you > got >> the >>>>> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you > really >> need 3 >>>>> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The >> doctor is >>>>> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper >>>>> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not >> the >>>>> case now). >>>>> >>>>> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will >> become >>>>> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more >> respect >>>>> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will > make >> it >>>>> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi >> stance is >>>>> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who >> practices TCM >>>>> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont >> worry >>>>> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> manu >>>>> >>>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are >> leeps >>>>>> and >>>>>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >>>>>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end >> theyGovernment >>>>>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing > for >> now >>>>>> as >>>>>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with >> minimal >>>>>> training, its a would be a double standard. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Manu >>>>> >>>>> HI Manu, >>>>> >>>>> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy > practising >> TCM >>>>> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal >> of the >>>>> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a > 1 >> year >>>>> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is > the >>>>> double >>>>> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice > WM >>>>> without >>>>> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair > and I >>>>> expect the same respect given to TCM. >>>>> >>>>> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have >> the >>>>> basic >>>>> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years >> won't cut >>>>> the mustard IMO. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New >> Zealand; >>>>> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's >> course? >>>>> >>>>> Best Wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Manu and all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " > unified >>>>>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it >> this >>>>>>> stage >>>>>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have > read. >> From >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the >> everyday >>>>>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at > least >> the >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>>>>>> practice >>>>>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been > integrated >> this >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial > Chinese >>>>>>> doctor >>>>>>> promoting his business in the West. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as > a >> TCM >>>>>>> practitioner? >>>>>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to > allow >> WM >>>>>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be > poorly >>>>>>> educated >>>>>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health > care >>>>>>> systems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to >> practice >>>>>>> WM >>>>>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including >> masters and >>>>>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight > in >> the >>>>>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM >> practitioner in >>>>>>> New >>>>>>> Zealand? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Hi Manu I have read both yours and Steve's reply about misrepresentation and I have this to add. From what I have read so far you have not been that far off the mark however you often get some aspects wrong. Even though they are only slightly wrong they can totally alter the meaning giving people a wrong impression. I have reviewed several of your posts and I will say in your defence you have clearly stated that you will do your best to explain rather than state you are explaining the facts in perfect form. I will just say make sure at every post you are clear this is your opinion. Now what subjects did you want to discuss as the book has really touched on so many. What really impressed me the most is his outside the box approach to it all, his answers seem so simple you just so common sense. I have to agree with what most people have been saying about the terminology though, it would take a long time to learn. But then again TCM in its self already does take a very long time to learn so logically if you learned it from the beginning you would learn it even faster. Cheers Kenneth manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote: HI Steve Wow not even my mum tells me off that bad but I guess to a degree its a fair comment. I will say this, I am writing into a forum not publishing anarticle so dont take it so seriously. Of course I could make mistakes, its a huge book and a very complex subject, its not easy trying to answer specific questions without showing the hole picture. I believe you will agree if ten different people read one book that would all interprit it slightly differently. I see these discussions about different books all the time with different perspectives, the purpose of this forum is for discussion and learning. The first thing you need to realise is all I am doing is using the forum as a bouncing board to learn like everyone else. Secondly many of my points were very accurate, I am not perfect get over it niether are you. Lastly I you really believe everything you just said to me you should never post a comment again as it would make you a hippocritt, as you stated nobody knows everything and you dont know you have made a mistake until you learn better or someone corrects you Regards Manu. Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: Hi Manu, On 02/11/2004, at 6:35 PM, manuhamlin wrote: > I knew this would happen as soon someone else read it I would get > caught out on all my mistakes. You say he just wants the the two > medicines two work together, however even if they work together as > seperate entities you can still view the two medicines as a singular > collective system with two unique parts. Medicine already is a collective system, nobody controls it or knows all there is to know about medicine. " Western " medicine has some specific techniques and beliefs, so does TCM, Western Herbal traditions, chiropractic etc. The wish for the two medicinal systems of Chinese and Western medicine working better together is a wish of all true healers; at least on the TCM side. If this is the real message of Dr. Lee's book is just to improve the ways in which TCM and WM work together for the benefit of our patients, you surely have made many mistakes in representing his position and I would suggest that you are more careful when presenting an individuals life work on a list such as this. If you knew someone else would read this book and you would get caught out on all your mistakes in representing someones life work; it makes anything you say suspect and without substance in the future. It is irresponsible to represent a doctors work inaccurately if you are aware of doing it, and if you think you MAY be doing it......then I suggest you refrain from posting it until you are SURE of what the author is really saying. At the very minimum, IMO you should word your posts as your thoughts and not those of the authors. My replies to your posts on this list have been to specific claims you made about changing the terminology of TCM to fit into Western Medicine paradigm without conflict if TCM is to survive. However, it is increasingly beginning to appear that this is not Dr. Lee's claim at all, but your wish and opinion using Dr. Lee as a reference source out of context. > As for terminology yes it is > true that he said you would not have to use his examples for it to > work however dont you agree that it makes things a hell of alot more > clear.He has explained his decisions very clearly wouldnt you agree, > looking forward to your response. > > Regards > > Manu > > Chinese Medicine , Kenneth Travis > <traviskenneth> wrote: >> >> Hi Manu >> >> I have now read the whole book and I have to say its bloody > brilliant, the thing that blows me away is how simple some of the > ideas are but they really work. I think the thing Dr Lee has over > most other people is plain and simply common sense. I have to say my > biggest concern was that CM would get watered down as I have seen too > many times, but he has not done that. One of the things you have been > misleading about tho is regarding these new laws and the terminology. >> >> You say he has changed the terminology to not conflict with WM but > thats not totally true. The reason he made changes was because of the > new laws which govern how the two medicines can work together, infact > he said its not even absolutely neccessary to change the terms, its > just to make things more clear. From your writing I was mislead, > however I have only read the book once so I may have missed a few > points. I also wanted to make clear his main purpose is really how to > make it possible for the two medicines to work together rather than > creating a whole new medicine, however the two could eventually mold > together. >> >> All in all I would have to say that I agree the book is brilliant, > I would even say it should be compulsory reading as that book will do > more for getting CM accepted than anything I have seen. So let me > know what aspects you wish to discuss. >> >> Cheers Ken >> >> manu hamlin <manuhamlin> wrote: >> >> Hi Kenneth >> >> Fantastic have been dieing to discuss this with someone who has > read the book and yes your right my explanations are often not very > clear but im working on that. I look forward to your reply. >> >> Regards >> >> manu >> >> traviskenneth <traviskenneth> wrote: >> >> Hi Manu >> >> I have been following this thread about combining medicines so I >> recently got the book to see what all the fuss is about. I have > only >> read the first few chapters but I will say from what I have read so >> far it has been very impressive. I have still got about 300 pages > to >> go so will leave my judgement to I am finished. You seem so keen to >> discuss this so I will be happy to do so, I must say from what I > have >> read you have not explained many of the points very clearly some of >> your points seem quite misleading from what the author is actually >> trying to say. Should be finished over the weekend will let you > know. >> >> Cheers >> >> Kenneth >> Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin >> <manuhamlin> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Steve >>> >>> Thanks that was really informative and certainly got me thinking. >> You are right about having to change the law and how differcult > that >> would be. I believe the only way we can change the laws is through >> public pressure, this can only come about through educating the > public >> (yes that is a big job). But I also believe if you can get some WM >> trained acupuncturists to do the course it could change there > mindset >> and start a chain reaction. The problem is WM Dr's believe >> acupuncture is simple according to their training, through proper >> education I believe they will relise there limitations and that of >> other WM doctors. At present they dont believe they need more >> training, I believe the more you learn the more you realize how >> little you know. Once a few learn they will encourage others due to >> there improved understanding and results, this will take time but > in >> time if enough Dr's demand it we can bring about change.The fact we >> have an interpratation that does not conflict is very good >>> attraction to WM. And yes you are right about the limits of what >> an association can do, but an association is just a base to > organize >> a groups efforts, to my knowledge they are non profit. Dr Lee is >> going above WM's head by going straight to the goverments minister > of >> health, where it gets him we will have to wait and see. The >> association is not just for TCM it is for WM and all other > effective >> medicines too, we need to bring everyone together to consolidate > our >> strength, I think his idea has some real advantages that could help >> tip the scales our way. What ever happens it will take along time > but >> I am passionate about getting it started. I tell you Steve some > might >> think I am running out of subjects, they are wrong that book has >> brought up many many more interesting arguments I havent mentioned >> yet so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks heaps >>> >>> Regards >>> Manu >>> >>> >>> >>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>> HI Manu, >>> >>> The association you mention is a professional association whose >> purpose >>> is to serve their members......not the public. As such, > membership >> is >>> not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or >> other >>> therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations >> perform >>> very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. >> What >>> I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM >> acupuncture >>> practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible > for >>> caring for their members. Sure, these associations have >> requirements >>> for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to >> be a >>> member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have >> control >>> over their members, not non-members. >>> >>> The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture >>> practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as > are >> all >>> scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two >> countries. In >>> Australia, the Bill only got through due to >> allowing >>> the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt > from >> the >>> new regulations introduced by the new bill. >>> >>> Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for > the >>> regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe >> Smoe " >>> from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this >> bill >>> must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very > unlikely >> to >>> happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over- > riding >>> self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the >> end. >>> >>> The only other option is if he can convince the current WM >> associations >>> to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed >> to >>> practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " >> of >>> these associations from practising without meeting these >> requirements. >>> As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can > choose >> not >>> to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe >> Smoe " >>> is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. >>> >>> As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards >> of >>> education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the > Bill, >>> since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have >> decided >>> to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal >>> requirements of the board for practice. >> Acupuncture is >>> a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn >>> acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). >>> >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Steve >>>> >>>> I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that >> is >>>> responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. > This >> is >>>> called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is >> apparently >>>> trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose >> control. >>>> But I will also say that many of there members were at a >> conference I >>>> was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about > the >>>> idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came > across >> as >>>> genuin. >>>> I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, > they >> are >>>> apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM > bias. >> I may >>>> have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial >> Association, >>>> will post it as soon as I get it. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Manu >>>> >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>>> HI Manu, >>>> >>>> I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... >>>> >>>> If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone >> propose >>>> that WM doctors need more training? How can the government > force >> anyone >>>> to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to > begin >>>> with? IT is simply impossible. >>>> >>>> For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any >> country >>>> it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to > regulate >> what >>>> WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not >> regulated >>>> itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand >> what I >>>> mean. >>>> >>>> If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full >> stop. >>>> You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with >> TCM if >>>> TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be >> better >>>> to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about >> training WM >>>> doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. >>>> >>>> So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting >>>> referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that >> improving >>>> any educational standard in NZ. >>>> >>>> Best Wishes, >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Steve >>>>> >>>>> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture > but >> they >>>>> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have >> proper >>>>> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you > got >> the >>>>> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you > really >> need 3 >>>>> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The >> doctor is >>>>> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper >>>>> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not >> the >>>>> case now). >>>>> >>>>> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will >> become >>>>> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more >> respect >>>>> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will > make >> it >>>>> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi >> stance is >>>>> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who >> practices TCM >>>>> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont >> worry >>>>> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> manu >>>>> >>>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are >> leeps >>>>>> and >>>>>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here >>>>>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end >> theyGovernment >>>>>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing > for >> now >>>>>> as >>>>>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with >> minimal >>>>>> training, its a would be a double standard. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Manu >>>>> >>>>> HI Manu, >>>>> >>>>> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy > practising >> TCM >>>>> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal >> of the >>>>> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a > 1 >> year >>>>> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is > the >>>>> double >>>>> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice > WM >>>>> without >>>>> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair > and I >>>>> expect the same respect given to TCM. >>>>> >>>>> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have >> the >>>>> basic >>>>> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years >> won't cut >>>>> the mustard IMO. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New >> Zealand; >>>>> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's >> course? >>>>> >>>>> Best Wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Manu and all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " > unified >>>>>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it >> this >>>>>>> stage >>>>>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have > read. >> From >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the >> everyday >>>>>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at > least >> the >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who >>>>>>> practice >>>>>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been > integrated >> this >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial > Chinese >>>>>>> doctor >>>>>>> promoting his business in the West. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as > a >> TCM >>>>>>> practitioner? >>>>>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to > allow >> WM >>>>>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be > poorly >>>>>>> educated >>>>>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health > care >>>>>>> systems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to >> practice >>>>>>> WM >>>>>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including >> masters and >>>>>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight > in >> the >>>>>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM >> practitioner in >>>>>>> New >>>>>>> Zealand? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 The Chakras appear to correlate with the Dantiens of . Whilst there are only 3 Dantiens - their upper, centre and lower regions are located at the areas associated with the Chakras. These also happen to be acupuncture points. - " Kenneth Travis " <traviskenneth <Chinese Medicine > Monday, November 08, 2004 5:21 AM Re: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > Hi Manu > > > I have read both yours and Steve's reply about misrepresentation and I have this to add. From what I have read so far you have not been that far off the mark however you often get some aspects wrong. Even though they are only slightly wrong they can totally alter the meaning giving people a wrong impression. I have reviewed several of your posts and I will say in your defence you have clearly stated that you will do your best to explain rather than state you are explaining the facts in perfect form. I will just say make sure at every post you are clear this is your opinion. Now what subjects did you want to discuss as the book has really touched on so many. What really impressed me the most is his outside the box approach to it all, his answers seem so simple you just so common sense. I have to agree with what most people have been saying about the terminology though, it would take a long time to learn. But then again TCM in its self already does take a very long time to learn so > logically if you learned it from the beginning you would learn it even faster. > > Cheers Kenneth > > manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote: > > HI Steve > > Wow not even my mum tells me off that bad but I guess to a degree its a fair comment. I will say this, I am writing into a forum not publishing anarticle so dont take it so seriously. Of course I could make mistakes, its a huge book and a very complex subject, its not easy trying to answer specific questions without showing the hole picture. I believe you will agree if ten different people read one book that would all interprit it slightly differently. I see these discussions about different books all the time with different perspectives, the purpose of this forum is for discussion and learning. The first thing you need to realise is all I am doing is using the forum as a bouncing board to learn like everyone else. Secondly many of my points were very accurate, I am not perfect get over it niether are you. Lastly I you really believe everything you just said to me you should never post a comment again as it would make you a hippocritt, as you stated nobody knows everything and you > dont know you have made a mistake until you learn better or someone corrects you > > Regards > > Manu. > > Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: > Hi Manu, > > > On 02/11/2004, at 6:35 PM, manuhamlin wrote: > > I knew this would happen as soon someone else read it I would get > > caught out on all my mistakes. You say he just wants the the two > > medicines two work together, however even if they work together as > > seperate entities you can still view the two medicines as a singular > > collective system with two unique parts. > > Medicine already is a collective system, nobody controls it or knows > all there is to know about medicine. " Western " medicine has some > specific techniques and beliefs, so does TCM, Western Herbal > traditions, chiropractic etc. The wish for the two medicinal systems of > Chinese and Western medicine working better together is a wish of all > true healers; at least on the TCM side. > > If this is the real message of Dr. Lee's book is just to improve the > ways in which TCM and WM work together for the benefit of our patients, > you surely have made many mistakes in representing his position and I > would suggest that you are more careful when presenting an individuals > life work on a list such as this. If you knew someone else would read > this book and you would get caught out on all your mistakes in > representing someones life work; it makes anything you say suspect and > without substance in the future. It is irresponsible to represent a > doctors work inaccurately if you are aware of doing it, and if you > think you MAY be doing it......then I suggest you refrain from posting > it until you are SURE of what the author is really saying. At the very > minimum, IMO you should word your posts as your thoughts and not those > of the authors. > > My replies to your posts on this list have been to specific claims you > made about changing the terminology of TCM to fit into Western Medicine > paradigm without conflict if TCM is to survive. However, it is > increasingly beginning to appear that this is not Dr. Lee's claim at > all, but your wish and opinion using Dr. Lee as a reference source out > of context. > > > As for terminology yes it is > > true that he said you would not have to use his examples for it to > > work however dont you agree that it makes things a hell of alot more > > clear.He has explained his decisions very clearly wouldnt you agree, > > looking forward to your response. > > > > Regards > > > > Manu > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , Kenneth Travis > > <traviskenneth> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Manu > >> > >> I have now read the whole book and I have to say its bloody > > brilliant, the thing that blows me away is how simple some of the > > ideas are but they really work. I think the thing Dr Lee has over > > most other people is plain and simply common sense. I have to say my > > biggest concern was that CM would get watered down as I have seen too > > many times, but he has not done that. One of the things you have been > > misleading about tho is regarding these new laws and the terminology. > >> > >> You say he has changed the terminology to not conflict with WM but > > thats not totally true. The reason he made changes was because of the > > new laws which govern how the two medicines can work together, infact > > he said its not even absolutely neccessary to change the terms, its > > just to make things more clear. From your writing I was mislead, > > however I have only read the book once so I may have missed a few > > points. I also wanted to make clear his main purpose is really how to > > make it possible for the two medicines to work together rather than > > creating a whole new medicine, however the two could eventually mold > > together. > >> > >> All in all I would have to say that I agree the book is brilliant, > > I would even say it should be compulsory reading as that book will do > > more for getting CM accepted than anything I have seen. So let me > > know what aspects you wish to discuss. > >> > >> Cheers Ken > >> > >> manu hamlin <manuhamlin> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Kenneth > >> > >> Fantastic have been dieing to discuss this with someone who has > > read the book and yes your right my explanations are often not very > > clear but im working on that. I look forward to your reply. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> manu > >> > >> traviskenneth <traviskenneth> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Manu > >> > >> I have been following this thread about combining medicines so I > >> recently got the book to see what all the fuss is about. I have > > only > >> read the first few chapters but I will say from what I have read so > >> far it has been very impressive. I have still got about 300 pages > > to > >> go so will leave my judgement to I am finished. You seem so keen to > >> discuss this so I will be happy to do so, I must say from what I > > have > >> read you have not explained many of the points very clearly some of > >> your points seem quite misleading from what the author is actually > >> trying to say. Should be finished over the weekend will let you > > know. > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Kenneth > >> Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin > >> <manuhamlin> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Steve > >>> > >>> Thanks that was really informative and certainly got me thinking. > >> You are right about having to change the law and how differcult > > that > >> would be. I believe the only way we can change the laws is through > >> public pressure, this can only come about through educating the > > public > >> (yes that is a big job). But I also believe if you can get some WM > >> trained acupuncturists to do the course it could change there > > mindset > >> and start a chain reaction. The problem is WM Dr's believe > >> acupuncture is simple according to their training, through proper > >> education I believe they will relise there limitations and that of > >> other WM doctors. At present they dont believe they need more > >> training, I believe the more you learn the more you realize how > >> little you know. Once a few learn they will encourage others due to > >> there improved understanding and results, this will take time but > > in > >> time if enough Dr's demand it we can bring about change.The fact we > >> have an interpratation that does not conflict is very good > >>> attraction to WM. And yes you are right about the limits of what > >> an association can do, but an association is just a base to > > organize > >> a groups efforts, to my knowledge they are non profit. Dr Lee is > >> going above WM's head by going straight to the goverments minister > > of > >> health, where it gets him we will have to wait and see. The > >> association is not just for TCM it is for WM and all other > > effective > >> medicines too, we need to bring everyone together to consolidate > > our > >> strength, I think his idea has some real advantages that could help > >> tip the scales our way. What ever happens it will take along time > > but > >> I am passionate about getting it started. I tell you Steve some > > might > >> think I am running out of subjects, they are wrong that book has > >> brought up many many more interesting arguments I havent mentioned > >> yet so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks heaps > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Manu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >>> HI Manu, > >>> > >>> The association you mention is a professional association whose > >> purpose > >>> is to serve their members......not the public. As such, > > membership > >> is > >>> not compulsory if a WM doctor wishes to practice acupuncture or > >> other > >>> therapies; it is entirely voluntary. Professional associations > >> perform > >>> very different functions than Bills, laws or registration boards. > >> What > >>> I mean is, these associations are not " responsible " for WM > >> acupuncture > >>> practice in any way to my knowledge........they are responsible > > for > >>> caring for their members. Sure, these associations have > >> requirements > >>> for membership, but to my knowledge, a WM doctor does not have to > >> be a > >>> member to practice acupuncture or TCM. Associations only have > >> control > >>> over their members, not non-members. > >>> > >>> The power for WM do make their own private rules for acupuncture > >>> practice are given to them by parliament (not associations) as > > are > >> all > >>> scopes of practice and health care regulations in our two > >> countries. In > >>> Australia, the Bill only got through due to > >> allowing > >>> the established WM bill to over-ride it i.e. they were exempt > > from > >> the > >>> new regulations introduced by the new bill. > >>> > >>> Dr. Lee can only lobby to get a new bill past in parliament for > > the > >>> regulation of acupuncture and/or TCM in general to stop any " Joe > >> Smoe " > >>> from practising these systems. To " go over the heads " of WM this > >> bill > >>> must NOT exempt WM form abiding by it. However, this very > > unlikely > >> to > >>> happen; WM will NEVER freely choose to relinquish their over- > > riding > >>> self-belief that they know better than all other therapies in the > >> end. > >>> > >>> The only other option is if he can convince the current WM > >> associations > >>> to demand that their members meet a higher standard to be allowed > >> to > >>> practice. This second option however would only prevent " members " > >> of > >>> these associations from practising without meeting these > >> requirements. > >>> As membership of associations is NOT compulsory; anyone can > > choose > >> not > >>> to join and thus would be exempt form such requirements i.e " Joe > >> Smoe " > >>> is still free to claim he a TCM guy and practice as he sees fit. > >>> > >>> As I mentioned earlier, although WM was exempt from the standards > >> of > >>> education for Chinese Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture in the > > Bill, > >>> since that time in regard to Chinese Herbal Medicine they have > >> decided > >>> to waive this right and demand that their members meet the normal > >>> requirements of the board for practice. > >> Acupuncture is > >>> a different story so far as they maintain that a doctor can learn > >>> acupuncture rather quickly (understatement). > >>> > >>> > >>> Best Wishes, > >>> > >>> Steve > >>> > >>> > >>> On 21/10/2004, at 2:51 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Steve > >>>> > >>>> I forgot to also tell you that WM does have an association that > >> is > >>>> responsible for WM acupuncture practice, so does Australia. > > This > >> is > >>>> called the society of medicial acupuncturists, Dr Lee is > >> apparently > >>>> trying to go over there heads as they would not like to lose > >> control. > >>>> But I will also say that many of there members were at a > >> conference I > >>>> was at and they seemed extremely interested and excited about > > the > >>>> idea. Well maybe they were just being polite but they came > > across > >> as > >>>> genuin. > >>>> I dont know how much power the society has here do you know, > > they > >> are > >>>> apparently reviewing the book as well however they have WM > > bias. > >> I may > >>>> have tracked down a review from the New Zealand Medicial > >> Association, > >>>> will post it as soon as I get it. > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> > >>>> Manu > >>>> > >>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >>>> HI Manu, > >>>> > >>>> I forgot to discuss one more thing about this post....... > >>>> > >>>> If there is no acupuncture registration in NZ, how can anyone > >> propose > >>>> that WM doctors need more training? How can the government > > force > >> anyone > >>>> to do " proper training " if such a thing is not recognised to > > begin > >>>> with? IT is simply impossible. > >>>> > >>>> For acupuncture and/or TCM in general to be established in any > >> country > >>>> it must first be regulated. There is no point trying to > > regulate > >> what > >>>> WM doctors do if the thing you are trying to regulate is not > >> regulated > >>>> itself. That is an awkward sentence but I hope you understand > >> what I > >>>> mean. > >>>> > >>>> If TCM is not recognised or regulated, anyone can do it...full > >> stop. > >>>> You can't try to stop a WM doctor from doing what he likes with > >> TCM if > >>>> TCM has no set standard in your country. IMO, Dr. Lee would be > >> better > >>>> to work towards recognition of TCM itself and forget about > >> training WM > >>>> doctors to a non-existant standard until this is achieved. > >>>> > >>>> So far, his proposal of a 1 year diploma smells more of getting > >>>> referral sources from the WM doctors who study under him that > >> improving > >>>> any educational standard in NZ. > >>>> > >>>> Best Wishes, > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> > >>>> On 19/10/2004, at 3:26 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Steve > >>>>> > >>>>> As usual I was not clear enough, WM can practice acupuncture > > but > >> they > >>>>> cant practice herbal medicine. Like you said there should have > >> proper > >>>>> training rather than a weekend course. Im not sure where you > > got > >> the > >>>>> one year diploma thing from as from my understanding you > > really > >> need 3 > >>>>> years. But like most things you can keep going higher. The > >> doctor is > >>>>> lobbying the government to force WM acupuncturists to do proper > >>>>> training so that they can practice safelt and effectively (not > >> the > >>>>> case now). > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe once a WM doctors gain some real education they will > >> become > >>>>> well aware to the limits of their knowledge and gain alot more > >> respect > >>>>> for TCM. Obviously not conflicting with what they know will > > make > >> it > >>>>> alot simpler and enticing to learn. From what I have read hi > >> stance is > >>>>> solid, he wants a high degree of training for anyone who > >> practices TCM > >>>>> and so do I. In this particular matter I believe we agree(dont > >> worry > >>>>> wont make habit of it luv the debates hehe). > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> > >>>>> manu > >>>>> > >>>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 18/10/2004, at 2:42 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Steve > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well I guess your talking about Australia, it seems they are > >> leeps > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> bounds ahead of New Zealand. They had a huge controversy here > >>>>>> regarding if you can practice both however in the end > >> theyGovernment > >>>>>> decided to go with just one. I believe this is a good thing > > for > >> now > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> I dont want some WM guy thinking he can practice TCM with > >> minimal > >>>>>> training, its a would be a double standard. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Manu > >>>>> > >>>>> HI Manu, > >>>>> > >>>>> This was my point as posted below. Having some WM guy > > practising > >> TCM > >>>>> with minimal training is exactly why I am against the proposal > >> of the > >>>>> author. In one of the articles you uploaded it talked about a > > 1 > >> year > >>>>> diploma......this is what scares the hell out of me. This is > > the > >>>>> double > >>>>> standard; don't expect any TCM doctor to be able to practice > > WM > >>>>> without > >>>>> normal full qualifications in the West.........this is fair > > and I > >>>>> expect the same respect given to TCM. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have no problem with WM doctors practising TCM if they have > >> the > >>>>> basic > >>>>> foundations that TCM doctors do; anything less than 3 years > >> won't cut > >>>>> the mustard IMO. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding only being able to practice one medicine in New > >> Zealand; > >>>>> where does this leave all the WM doctors that do the author's > >> course? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best Wishes, > >>>>> > >>>>> Steve > >>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi Manu and all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I just read what I could of the articles on this " new " > > unified > >>>>>>> medicine. I must first state I have not read the text and it > >> this > >>>>>>> stage > >>>>>>> and I see no reason to spend $200 on it from what I have > > read. > >> From > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> rough outlines of this integrated medicine it is simply the > >> everyday > >>>>>>> practice of TCM in a modern Chinese TCM hospital, or at > > least > >> the > >>>>>>> one > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>> worked in. Modren TCM education in China produces doctors who > >>>>>>> practice > >>>>>>> both WM and TCM side by side. WM and TCM have been > > integrated > >> this > >>>>>>> way > >>>>>>> for years, I see nothing new here but a entrepreneurial > > Chinese > >>>>>>> doctor > >>>>>>> promoting his business in the West. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To Ze'v and other experienced educators on this list...... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How many years do you think is minimum to enter practice as > > a > >> TCM > >>>>>>> practitioner? > >>>>>>> What do you think about the proposed 1 year " diploma " to > > allow > >> WM > >>>>>>> doctors to practice TCM? It scares the hell out of me. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If anything could kill off TCM in the West, it would be > > poorly > >>>>>>> educated > >>>>>>> WM doctors practising parts of it under our public health > > care > >>>>>>> systems. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Manu, do you know if this doctor is actually qualified to > >> practice > >>>>>>> WM > >>>>>>> in New Zealand or Australia? Medical degrees (including > >> masters and > >>>>>>> PhD's in integrated medicine) given in China hold no weight > > in > >> the > >>>>>>> West. Is this doctor a qualified and registered WM > >> practitioner in > >>>>>>> New > >>>>>>> Zealand? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best Wishes, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 I don't think at all that the chakras correlate with the three jiaos. The three jiaos are quite separate. Attilio Dermot O'Connor [dermot] 08 November 2004 11:31 Chinese Medicine Re: Unification articles RE: Steve The Chakras appear to correlate with the Dantiens of . Whilst there are only 3 Dantiens - their upper, centre and lower regions are located at the areas associated with the Chakras. These also happen to be acupuncture points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Who mentioned 3 jiaos? Are you confusing the jiaos with the dantiens? - " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto <Chinese Medicine > Monday, November 08, 2004 6:30 PM RE: Unification articles RE: Steve > > I don't think at all that the chakras correlate with the three jiaos. The > three jiaos are quite separate. > > Attilio > > Dermot O'Connor [dermot] > 08 November 2004 11:31 > Chinese Medicine > Re: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > The Chakras appear to correlate with the Dantiens of . > Whilst there are only 3 Dantiens - their upper, centre and lower regions are > located at the areas associated with the Chakras. These also happen to be > acupuncture points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Hi Dermot, Yes, I must be. I've never heard of three dantiens in Chinese medicine, only one. Can you explain a bit more about them please? Attilio Dermot O'Connor [dermot] 08 November 2004 18:55 Chinese Medicine Re: Unification articles RE: Steve Who mentioned 3 jiaos? Are you confusing the jiaos with the dantiens? - " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto <Chinese Medicine > Monday, November 08, 2004 6:30 PM RE: Unification articles RE: Steve > > I don't think at all that the chakras correlate with the three jiaos. The > three jiaos are quite separate. > > Attilio > > Dermot O'Connor [dermot] > 08 November 2004 11:31 > Chinese Medicine > Re: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > The Chakras appear to correlate with the Dantiens of . > Whilst there are only 3 Dantiens - their upper, centre and lower regions are > located at the areas associated with the Chakras. These also happen to be > acupuncture points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Dermot, Attilio, Recent discussions centered largely around this thread have illustrated the confusion between different systems, each with their own praxis, including the chakra systems of India, qi gong, and Chinese medicine. The tendency to 'universalize' Chinese medicine by linking the channel/network vessel system with more esoteric concepts leads to a meaningless conclusion, as the terms that are specific to each system are lost in the haze of fuzzy logic. On Nov 8, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Dermot O'Connor wrote: > > Who mentioned 3 jiaos? Are you confusing the jiaos with the dantiens? > > > - > " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto > <Chinese Medicine > > Monday, November 08, 2004 6:30 PM > RE: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > > > > I don't think at all that the chakras correlate with the three > jiaos. The > > three jiaos are quite separate. > > > > Attilio > > > > Dermot O'Connor [dermot] > > 08 November 2004 11:31 > > Chinese Medicine > > Re: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > > > > The Chakras appear to correlate with the Dantiens of Chinese > Medicine. > > Whilst there are only 3 Dantiens - their upper, centre and lower > regions > are > > located at the areas associated with the Chakras. These also > happen to be > > acupuncture points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Yes Attilio, A lot of people will have heard of one dantien, perhaps from Tai Chi or martial arts training. This is the Lower Dantien or centre of physical (or kinaesthetic) power. It is often described as 3 fingers below the naval. In fact its more proper location is described as a ball of energy within the triangle from the naval to the Mingmen and then to the centre of the testes (in men) or perenium in women. Dantien is sometimes translated as " Field of Elixir " . Although many will know about the Lower Dantien there are in fact three. The Middle Dantian is seen as the Emotional centre - a ball of energy between the solar plexus and the throat - at the heart (texts vary on this) and the Upper Dantian which is seen as the spiritual centre (a ball of energy within the triangle of Yintang, Bai Hui and Jade Pillow. There is a lot to say about the Dantiens - they are fundamental to the understanding of many Qigong practices. Kind regards Dermot - " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto <Chinese Medicine > Monday, November 08, 2004 7:10 PM RE: Unification articles RE: Steve > > Hi Dermot, > > Yes, I must be. I've never heard of three dantiens in Chinese medicine, only > one. Can you explain a bit more about them please? > > Attilio > > > Dermot O'Connor [dermot] > 08 November 2004 18:55 > Chinese Medicine > Re: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > > Who mentioned 3 jiaos? Are you confusing the jiaos with the dantiens? > > > - > " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto > <Chinese Medicine > > Monday, November 08, 2004 6:30 PM > RE: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > > > > I don't think at all that the chakras correlate with the three jiaos. The > > three jiaos are quite separate. > > > > Attilio > > > > Dermot O'Connor [dermot] > > 08 November 2004 11:31 > > Chinese Medicine > > Re: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > > > > The Chakras appear to correlate with the Dantiens of . > > Whilst there are only 3 Dantiens - their upper, centre and lower regions > are > > located at the areas associated with the Chakras. These also happen to be > > acupuncture points. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 I agree that we shouldn't try to universalise . However if there are insights to be gleamed from other sources that deepen our understanding of then that has to be a good thing. In my opinion the dantians are no more of an esoteric concept as the triple burners or indeed the meridians. Whats more the dantians are part and parcel of . Kind regards Dermot - " " <zrosenbe <Chinese Medicine > Monday, November 08, 2004 7:22 PM Re: Unification articles RE: Steve Dermot, Attilio, Recent discussions centered largely around this thread have illustrated the confusion between different systems, each with their own praxis, including the chakra systems of India, qi gong, and Chinese medicine. The tendency to 'universalize' Chinese medicine by linking the channel/network vessel system with more esoteric concepts leads to a meaningless conclusion, as the terms that are specific to each system are lost in the haze of fuzzy logic. On Nov 8, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Dermot O'Connor wrote: > > Who mentioned 3 jiaos? Are you confusing the jiaos with the dantiens? > > > - > " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto > <Chinese Medicine > > Monday, November 08, 2004 6:30 PM > RE: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > > > > I don't think at all that the chakras correlate with the three > jiaos. The > > three jiaos are quite separate. > > > > Attilio > > > > Dermot O'Connor [dermot] > > 08 November 2004 11:31 > > Chinese Medicine > > Re: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > > > > The Chakras appear to correlate with the Dantiens of Chinese > Medicine. > > Whilst there are only 3 Dantiens - their upper, centre and lower > regions > are > > located at the areas associated with the Chakras. These also > happen to be > > acupuncture points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Zev, Dermot, Thomas I agree that TCM is a complete system and shouldn't be mixed up with other energetic systems. They should be respected in their own right and not integrated with TCM. I understand the idea Dermot that insights taken from other forms of healthcare can indeed help our understanding of TCM. But so long as it doesn't distract us from the core understanding of the TCM classics. Attilio Dermot O'Connor [dermot] 08 November 2004 20:38 Chinese Medicine Re: Unification articles RE: Steve I agree that we shouldn't try to universalise . However if there are insights to be gleamed from other sources that deepen our understanding of then that has to be a good thing. In my opinion the dantians are no more of an esoteric concept as the triple burners or indeed the meridians. Whats more the dantians are part and parcel of . Kind regards Dermot - " " <zrosenbe <Chinese Medicine > Monday, November 08, 2004 7:22 PM Re: Unification articles RE: Steve Dermot, Attilio, Recent discussions centered largely around this thread have illustrated the confusion between different systems, each with their own praxis, including the chakra systems of India, qi gong, and Chinese medicine. The tendency to 'universalize' Chinese medicine by linking the channel/network vessel system with more esoteric concepts leads to a meaningless conclusion, as the terms that are specific to each system are lost in the haze of fuzzy logic. On Nov 8, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Dermot O'Connor wrote: > > Who mentioned 3 jiaos? Are you confusing the jiaos with the dantiens? > > > - > " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto > <Chinese Medicine > > Monday, November 08, 2004 6:30 PM > RE: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > > > > I don't think at all that the chakras correlate with the three > jiaos. The > > three jiaos are quite separate. > > > > Attilio > > > > Dermot O'Connor [dermot] > > 08 November 2004 11:31 > > Chinese Medicine > > Re: Unification articles RE: Steve > > > > > > The Chakras appear to correlate with the Dantiens of Chinese > Medicine. > > Whilst there are only 3 Dantiens - their upper, centre and lower > regions > are > > located at the areas associated with the Chakras. These also > happen to be > > acupuncture points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Hi everyone, >But so long as it doesn't distract us from the core understanding of >the TCM classics. Attilio In the spirit of clarity, can someone provide me with a brief list of the " TCM Classics " . Are we talking about Chinese medical classics such as the Neijing or are we talking about something else that was written in China after 1949 and is the basis for all of TCM as we know it today - e.g. Fundamentals of by Chu? If it is the Neijing, then there are certainly many " core understandings " that have been left out of TCM textbooks and are discussed in non-TCM books. If it is Fundamentals - or other such books - then this would certainly clarify for me the definition of " TCM classics " . Thanks for any clarification. Regards, Rich 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.