Another play

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your reply.

Glad someone had the interest.

 

Your government (USDE) has just spoken on the issue in response to many

stakeholders concerns:

 

" You also address your ongoing concerns regarding the first

professional degree and the use of the word " consensus. " Again, this is a

professional disagreement and does not involve ED (Education Department).

However, it should be noted that while the agency is required to invite input

from

its communities of interest in the standards review process and to

demonstrate consideration of the input, the agency is not required to accept

all

input or to have consensus by the entirety of the profession. "

 

 

Yes.,....if there are at least 30,000 stakeholders it would a stretch to

believe that in order to move the FPD forward the profession would need ALL

30,000. But on the other end of the spectrum 900 for and 2000 against does

not make for consensus.

 

It appears that according to the USDE and this process, ACAOM could have

received 1000 responses with 700 AGAINST the FPD and not taken into account

those 700 and arrived at CONSENSUS.

 

I guess no one ever said that citizens of the USA were guaranteed honesty,

ethical standards or morality.

 

Why even bother to go through the process when the con doesn't even appear

right.

 

It's like what used to be referred to as justice. Not only is there NO

justice we do not even get the appearance of justice in the courts anymore.

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 8:38:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

Revolution writes:

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input

into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the

American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance

to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the

decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker

tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is

judged.

 

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to

be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the

COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified

person's opinion up to the most qualified.

 

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every

point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of

view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

 

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition

of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make

decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a

hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development and

merit

of individual's motivations and value systems.

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would

be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers

third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned

with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in

terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for

scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose

primary interests are motivated by the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Exactly!

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 10:01:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

writes:

 

 

 

 

I have to agree with Lonny here. After watching this past discussion and

seeing some of the completely uninformed opinions I have a hard time

believing that everyone should have equal say. One modification of Lonnie's

hierarchy is that first should be senior practitioners that are also

scholars and have access to primary source material.

 

-Jason

 

_Traditional_Traditional_<WBRTraditional_Tra_

(Chinese Medicine )

[_Traditional_Traditional_<WBRTraditional_Tra_

(Chinese Medicine ) ] On Behalf Of Lonny

Saturday, May 01, 2010 6:38 AM

_Traditional_Traditional_<WBRTraditional_Tra_

(Chinese Medicine )

Re: Another play

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input

into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the

American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the

chance

to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the

decision.

The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition

of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is

judged.

 

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to

be

solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the

COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least

qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified.

 

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every

point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points

of

view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

 

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition

of

hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions

regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy

of value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of

individual's motivations and value systems.

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would

be

senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third.

Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned

with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in

terms

of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for

scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose

primary interests are motivated by the bottom line.

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Lonny

 

As to " game " .....that all depends on where one sits and who is playing

because there are way too many games being played by special interests.

 

As to yapping - are you a proponent of an even more over bloated and

exorbitant FPD over the already over bloated and exorbitant FPM?

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 8:38:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

Revolution writes:

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input

into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the

American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance

to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the

decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker

tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is

judged.

 

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to

be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the

COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified

person's opinion up to the most qualified.

 

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every

point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of

view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

 

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition

of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make

decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a

hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development and

merit

of individual's motivations and value systems.

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would

be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers

third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned

with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in

terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for

scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose

primary interests are motivated by the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has no

sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view

that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a

process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American

Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak.

But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern

notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a

circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

 

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be

solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE

solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's

opinion up to the most qualified.

 

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point

of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But

the Truth never reflects compromise.

 

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of

hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions

regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of

value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of

individual's motivations and value systems.

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be

senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then

within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with

preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of

pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship

including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are

motivated by the bottom line.

[Guest guest]

M

 

You like to repeat previous discussions?

Obviously you don't trust other's statements of FACT.

I do.

Jessica hand delivered 2000+ signatures AGAINST the FPD.

I didn't see/hear Dort Bigg deny that he received those 2000+ signatures

and he had the chance to respond in this forum.

Also......I find it curious that both Mr Bigg and the Assistant ED have

left ACAOM in a hurry.

Possibly one day we will find out what was up with that.

 

How one goes about change is as important as the change.

It appears that just because it may be good ...you wouldn't mind if it was

just shoved down everyone's throats.

Is that true?

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 12:55:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

You are assuming that the 2000 signatures exist. Maybe we should state

that is an assumption and work from that as opposed to it being regarded as

fact. I have not seen these, have you?

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

CC: habeas_1

acudoc11

Sat, 1 May 2010 12:24:30 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Glad someone had the interest.

 

 

 

Your government (USDE) has just spoken on the issue in response to many

 

stakeholders concerns:

 

 

 

" You also address your ongoing concerns regarding the first

 

professional degree and the use of the word " consensus. " Again, this is a

 

professional disagreement and does not involve ED (Education Department).

 

 

However, it should be noted that while the agency is required to invite

input from

 

its communities of interest in the standards review process and to

 

demonstrate consideration of the input, the agency is not required to

accept all

 

input or to have consensus by the entirety of the profession. "

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.,....if there are at least 30,000 stakeholders it would a stretch to

 

believe that in order to move the FPD forward the profession would need

ALL

 

30,000. But on the other end of the spectrum 900 for and 2000 against does

 

not make for consensus.

 

 

 

It appears that according to the USDE and this process, ACAOM could have

 

received 1000 responses with 700 AGAINST the FPD and not taken into

account

 

those 700 and arrived at CONSENSUS.

 

 

 

I guess no one ever said that citizens of the USA were guaranteed honesty,

 

 

ethical standards or morality.

 

 

 

Why even bother to go through the process when the con doesn't even appear

 

 

right.

 

 

 

It's like what used to be referred to as justice. Not only is there NO

 

justice we do not even get the appearance of justice in the courts

anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 8:38:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

Revolution writes:

 

 

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

 

 

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

 

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

 

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input

 

into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True,

the

 

American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the

chance

 

to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the

 

decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the

Quaker

 

tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no

one is

 

judged.

 

 

 

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to

 

be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the

 

COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least

qualified

 

person's opinion up to the most qualified.

 

 

 

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather

a

 

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every

 

point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points

of

 

view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

 

 

 

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition

 

of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make

 

decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have

a

 

hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development

and merit

 

of individual's motivations and value systems.

 

 

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would

 

be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers

 

third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those

concerned

 

with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in

 

terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity

for

 

scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose

 

primary interests are motivated by the bottom line.

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

Hotmail.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28

326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

M

 

Alright......so let's use reasoning.

What is the world of numbers of stakeholders in/for the AOM profession?

Stakeholder category is supposed to include patients according to USDE.

If there are 25,000 licensees, 5,000 students, 2,000

teachers/administrators etc. then there might be an estimated 500,000 patients.

To gain CONSENSUS of over 530,000 individuals in the literal sense would

be impossible.

Agreed?

Then what would be a hypothetical reasonable number for CONSENSUS?

If the figures were 3,000 with 2,000 against......and ACAOM could throw out

(according to an interpretation of the USDE statement) then would 1,000

for FPD be CONSENSUS?

Because that's what it appears has transpired.

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 12:55:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

Maybe we should state that is an assumption and work from that as opposed

to it being regarded as fact.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Don

 

The AOM field can of course change the process or definition.... but

that's not what consensus means.

So change the rules....fine. No problem there. Just make sure to tell all

the stakeholders that the rules have been changed and that any changes in

requirements will be determined on 51% of those who respond or a quorum.

 

Who has decided up until now?

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 1:20:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

don83407 writes:

 

 

Consensus should be the majority who actually care to vote. It can be a

quorum or a simple majority of 51%. Who decides?

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hugo

 

I also agree.

 

But those who might be qualified to make these decisions as the tribal

council and Chief are nowhere to be found in the organizations at the helm.

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 1:24:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

subincor writes:

 

 

 

 

I would have to agree with Lonny on this one.

 

Hugo

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

_http://middlemedicihttp://middlehtt_

(http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com/)

_http://www.middlemehttp://www_ (http://www.middlemedicine.org/)

 

________________________________

Lonny <_Revolution_ (Revolution) >

_Traditional_Traditional_<WBRTraditional_Tra_

(Chinese Medicine )

Sat, 1 May, 2010 8:38:06

Re: Another play

 

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input

into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the

American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance

to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the

decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker

tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is

judged.

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

And how can we get this instituted and imbedded in the organizations at the

helm?

 

Richard

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 8:38:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

Revolution writes:

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would

be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers

third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned

with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in

terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for

scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose

primary interests are motivated by the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Don

 

I don't see how anyone can be confused by such a word/concept.

 

The world recognized dictionary definition of CONSENSUS is very clear.

 

Bottom line it is UNANIMITY or UNANIMOUS.

 

Unanimity is improbable to ever arrive at.

At the same point ACAOM or whomever should not have come forth and

announced to the world of AOM stakeholders that it was only going to move

forward

with the FPD if there was CONSENSUS.

 

Again I have no problem if they announced to the AOM profession that it

would be evaluating based on a completely different set of guidelines. That's

what I meant by changing the rules.

 

You correctly want to know WHO is qualified to judge what you or I do.

Well if you hadn't noticed there are people in place who do just that

already and others in a line who have been doing that for some 40 years.

 

I played a key role in injection therapy in Florida. Many said they didn;t

want it. We moved forward anyway because they had the option not to do it

and they were not forced into any extra education. The same with titles.

Those who want to be technicians are free to go their way and here are NOT

forced into anything.

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 1:37:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

don83407 writes:

 

 

This thread is not about changing the rules. And if you look up the

definition of consensus you will really be confused. This thread is about who

changes them. I don't want any rules changed, I just want a scope of

practice that allows me to be paid for what I do for the patient's good. There

are some that don't think it is about the patient's good, but about staying

" pure " as of 200 or 2000 years ago. And then those folks think they

should, of course, be the one's who judge what is right or wrong, and the

patient be damned.

 

 

I can't agree with line of reasoning. So I put out a simple question.

Who in our profession is qualified to judge what you and I do?

 

As far as a FPD. I think people should have a choice. If I don't agree

with it, what gives me the right to deprive you of it? I chose to sacrifice

much time, effort, and money to go back and get the DAOM. Why. To many

that degree, or any higher degree means nothing. Mostly, I suspect, because

they don't have it nor do they want to sacrifice time and money to get it.

 

 

 

 

Just my two cents and opinion.

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 1 May 2010 13:24:49 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

 

 

 

 

 

Don

 

The AOM field can of course change the process or definition.... but

that's not what consensus means.

So change the rules....fine. No problem there. Just make sure to tell all

the stakeholders that the rules have been changed and that any changes in

requirements will be determined on 51% of those who respond or a quorum.

 

Who has decided up until now?

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 1:20:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

don83407 writes:

 

Consensus should be the majority who actually care to vote. It can be a

quorum or a simple majority of 51%. Who decides?

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

Hi Hugo

 

Form time to time I meant no pressure individually as I have suggested to

Z'ev that people like himself and a number of others including Ken, Don and

you and Lonny should be the kind of leaders to be at the helm of the

national organizations. Get rid of all the special interest politics and get

down

to rectifying and solidifying the profession.

 

I am not implying that you'all have not already contributed greatly.

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 1:52:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

subincor writes:

 

Hi Richard,

 

The whole situation is problematic, and these proposed hierarchies are

full of problems themselves. As Donald and you both point out, these people

still have to be chosen (and must step up). And who will write the standards?

And how can we be sure that the standards are fair or conducive to the

health of the profession? I already rbought up the fact that the WHO

guidelines have already been written and that there are NO classical

physicians,

scholars or elders taking up positions of power within that organisation, and

there is not even an organisation to oppose it.

I often bring up the loss of lineage/direct transmission to

university/western imitations of " education " and biomedically defined

foundations of CM.

 

What I wish is that there were more of these scholar-talkers who were

willing to move right into the present and take actions like those you have

been taking, Richard, and that furthermore we, as a profession, started hiring

lawyers to get legislation enacted.

 

Unfortunately, the health of our profession requires work on the potential

stupidity and drudgery of legislation.

 

Hugo

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with Lonny here. After watching this past discussion and

seeing some of the completely uninformed opinions I have a hard time

believing that everyone should have equal say. One modification of Lonnie's

hierarchy is that first should be senior practitioners that are also

scholars and have access to primary source material.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Lonny

Saturday, May 01, 2010 6:38 AM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Another play

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input

into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the

American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance

to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision.

The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition

of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

 

 

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be

solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the

COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least

qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified.

 

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every

point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of

view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

 

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of

hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions

regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy

of value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of

individual's motivations and value systems.

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be

senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third.

Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned

with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms

of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for

scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose

primary interests are motivated by the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

 

I completely agree with you. How do we choose who is to be at the top

of the hierarchy? Self-appointed? By democratic/ consensus? I

think that is where the difficulty lies. When we can't agree on what

the values are, much less can we agree on who should be in the top

hierarchy. There is too much sense of false hierarchy with very

little integrity and concern for the whole. What do you suggest for

re-instating a recognition of true hierarchy?

 

Warmest regards,

 

Anne Biris

 

 

On May 1, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Lonny wrote:

 

> I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of

> course, one has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely

> likes to yap.

>

> The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based

> on the view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should

> have input into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize

> hierarchy. True, the American Indians did purportedly sit in a

> circle and everyone had the chance to speak. But their was hierarchy

> ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern notion of

> consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in

> a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

>

> The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that

> has to be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians

> look for the COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input

> from the least qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified.

>

> This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but

> rather a compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive "

> people. Every point of view is considered equal because, after all,

> they are all points of view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

>

> The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a

> recognition of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best

> equipped to make decisions regarding the future of the profession?

> We'd also have to have a hierarchy of value systems so we could

> assess the relative development and merit of individual's

> motivations and value systems.

>

> From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience

> would be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and

> policy makers third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy

> would be those concerned with preserving the core holistic, heart

> and soul of the profession in terms of pulse, hara, and tongue

> diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship including

> the language. After that would come those whose primary interests

> are motivated by the bottom line.

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

R,

 

You are assuming that the 2000 signatures exist. Maybe we should state that is

an assumption and work from that as opposed to it being regarded as fact. I

have not seen these, have you?

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

CC: habeas_1

acudoc11

Sat, 1 May 2010 12:24:30 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Glad someone had the interest.

 

 

 

Your government (USDE) has just spoken on the issue in response to many

 

stakeholders concerns:

 

 

 

" You also address your ongoing concerns regarding the first

 

professional degree and the use of the word " consensus. " Again, this is a

 

professional disagreement and does not involve ED (Education Department).

 

However, it should be noted that while the agency is required to invite input

from

 

its communities of interest in the standards review process and to

 

demonstrate consideration of the input, the agency is not required to accept

all

 

input or to have consensus by the entirety of the profession. "

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.,....if there are at least 30,000 stakeholders it would a stretch to

 

believe that in order to move the FPD forward the profession would need ALL

 

30,000. But on the other end of the spectrum 900 for and 2000 against does

 

not make for consensus.

 

 

 

It appears that according to the USDE and this process, ACAOM could have

 

received 1000 responses with 700 AGAINST the FPD and not taken into account

 

those 700 and arrived at CONSENSUS.

 

 

 

I guess no one ever said that citizens of the USA were guaranteed honesty,

 

ethical standards or morality.

 

 

 

Why even bother to go through the process when the con doesn't even appear

 

right.

 

 

 

It's like what used to be referred to as justice. Not only is there NO

 

justice we do not even get the appearance of justice in the courts anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 8:38:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

Revolution writes:

 

 

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

 

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

 

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

 

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input

 

into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the

 

American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance

 

to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the

 

decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker

 

tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is

 

judged.

 

 

 

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to

 

be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the

 

COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified

 

person's opinion up to the most qualified.

 

 

 

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

 

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every

 

point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of

 

view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

 

 

 

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition

 

of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make

 

decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a

 

hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development and

merit

 

of individual's motivations and value systems.

 

 

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would

 

be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers

 

third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned

 

with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in

 

terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for

 

scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose

 

primary interests are motivated by the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

I would agree with you as well. We do not need more fear conjured up about some

unlikely outcome. There are some who will not want to relinquish their voice if

it means passage of the FPD, regardless of how we go about it.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

 

Sat, 1 May 2010 08:01:50 -0600

RE: Re: Another play

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have to agree with Lonny here. After watching this past discussion and

 

seeing some of the completely uninformed opinions I have a hard time

 

believing that everyone should have equal say. One modification of Lonnie's

 

hierarchy is that first should be senior practitioners that are also

 

scholars and have access to primary source material.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

 

Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Lonny

 

Saturday, May 01, 2010 6:38 AM

 

Chinese Medicine

 

Re: Another play

 

 

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

 

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

 

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

 

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input

 

into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the

 

American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance

 

to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision.

 

The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition

 

of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

 

 

 

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be

 

solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the

 

COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least

 

qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified.

 

 

 

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

 

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every

 

point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of

 

view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

 

 

 

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of

 

hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions

 

regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy

 

of value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of

 

individual's motivations and value systems.

 

 

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be

 

senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third.

 

Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned

 

with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms

 

of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for

 

scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose

 

primary interests are motivated by the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

That's right! But who is best equiped? Some want to live in the dark ages and

use age or seniority. Based on what? Because you yourself are a senior? If we

think for a moment we realize that many of our " seniors " had far less education

than the current Masters. And we are currently decrying the lack of education

today, when it was far less in the not so distant past in this country. Also, I

know many martial arts " masters " that have trained 20 or thirty years that, when

you cross hands with them, you find they are not really masters at all because

they are on the ground at your feet. Age or seniority does not necessarily mean

skill. By the way. What is the core? Did we not all study the same medicine?

Some more or less? The schools and the state decide what the " core " is and they

teach it. If you want more, do what I did and learn on your own. Then go back

to school and learn even more. And when you graduate, don't stop. There is a

lifetime of learning in our medicine and who is to tell you or me what we must

learn? Or, just as importantly, what we must not learn for the good of our

patient?

 

 

 

Yes, there is a hierarchy. My opinion is different than that of the previous

writer. If seniority does not necessarily mean skill or knowledge or wisdom.

What should we base our hierarchy on?

 

 

 

Why go to school and attain higher education and skill when all you have to do

is outlive or become more senior than the current batch of practitioners? I,

for one, am not living 200 or 2000 years ago. I live now, and in the now. I

practice my medicine now. I use the past as a guideline, but not a cook book.

I develop the protocols and methodologies based on the knowledge and theories

developed in the past. But who developed these theories? Men, people,

imperfect humans just like you and me.

 

 

 

So the question is still out there. Who are the judges? And when someone

actually attempts to answer the question, what are you basing your answer on?

 

 

 

Again my two cents.

 

 

 

Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

Revolution

Sat, 1 May 2010 12:38:06 +0000

Re: Another play

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has no

sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view

that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a

process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American

Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak.

But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern

notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a

circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

 

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be

solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE

solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's

opinion up to the most qualified.

 

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point

of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But

the Truth never reflects compromise.

 

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of

hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions

regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of

value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of

individual's motivations and value systems.

 

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be

senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then

within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with

preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of

pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship

including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are

motivated by the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Consensus should be the majority who actually care to vote. It can be a quorum

or a simple majority of 51%. Who decides?

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 1 May 2010 13:15:45 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

Alright......so let's use reasoning.

What is the world of numbers of stakeholders in/for the AOM profession?

Stakeholder category is supposed to include patients according to USDE.

If there are 25,000 licensees, 5,000 students, 2,000

teachers/administrators etc. then there might be an estimated 500,000 patients.

To gain CONSENSUS of over 530,000 individuals in the literal sense would

be impossible.

Agreed?

Then what would be a hypothetical reasonable number for CONSENSUS?

If the figures were 3,000 with 2,000 against......and ACAOM could throw out

(according to an interpretation of the USDE statement) then would 1,000

for FPD be CONSENSUS?

Because that's what it appears has transpired.

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 12:55:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

Maybe we should state that is an assumption and work from that as opposed

to it being regarded as fact.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I would have to agree with Lonny on this one.

 

 Hugo

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Lonny <Revolution

Chinese Medicine

Sat, 1 May, 2010 8:38:06

Re: Another play

 

 

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has no

sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

 

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view

that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a

process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American

Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak.

But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern

notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a

circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This thread is not about changing the rules. And if you look up the definition

of consensus you will really be confused. This thread is about who changes

them. I don't want any rules changed, I just want a scope of practice that

allows me to be paid for what I do for the patient's good. There are some that

don't think it is about the patient's good, but about staying " pure " as of 200

or 2000 years ago. And then those folks think they should, of course, be the

one's who judge what is right or wrong, and the patient be damned.

 

 

 

I can't agree with line of reasoning. So I put out a simple question. Who in

our profession is qualified to judge what you and I do?

 

 

 

As far as a FPD. I think people should have a choice. If I don't agree with

it, what gives me the right to deprive you of it? I chose to sacrifice much

time, effort, and money to go back and get the DAOM. Why. To many that degree,

or any higher degree means nothing. Mostly, I suspect, because they don't have

it nor do they want to sacrifice time and money to get it.

 

 

 

Just my two cents and opinion.

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 1 May 2010 13:24:49 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

 

 

 

 

 

Don

 

The AOM field can of course change the process or definition.... but

that's not what consensus means.

So change the rules....fine. No problem there. Just make sure to tell all

the stakeholders that the rules have been changed and that any changes in

requirements will be determined on 51% of those who respond or a quorum.

 

Who has decided up until now?

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

In a message dated 5/1/2010 1:20:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

don83407 writes:

 

Consensus should be the majority who actually care to vote. It can be a

quorum or a simple majority of 51%. Who decides?

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 Hi Richard,

 

 The whole situation is problematic, and these proposed hierarchies are full of

problems themselves. As Donald and you both point out, these people still have

to be chosen (and must step up). And who will write the standards? And how can

we be sure that the standards are fair or conducive to the health of the

profession? I already rbought up the fact that the WHO guidelines have already

been written and that there are NO classical physicians, scholars or elders

taking up positions of power within that organisation, and there is not even an

organisation to oppose it.

 I often bring up the loss of lineage/direct transmission to university/western

imitations of " education " and biomedically defined foundations of CM.

 

 What I wish is that there were more of these scholar-talkers who were willing

to move right into the present and take actions like those you have been taking,

Richard, and that furthermore we, as a profession, started hiring lawyers to get

legislation enacted.

 

 Unfortunately, the health of our profession requires work on the potential

stupidity and drudgery of legislation.

 

 Hugo

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

" acudoc11 " <acudoc11

Chinese Medicine

Sat, 1 May, 2010 13:27:40

Re: Re: Another play

 

 

Hugo

 

I also agree.

 

But those who might be qualified to make these decisions as the tribal

council and Chief are nowhere to be found in the organizations at the helm.

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 Hi Donald,

 

 All discussion regarding " hierarchies " , " purity " , and " integrity " must a heavy

footprint in the area called " personal freedom and choice " . This last must also

be defined, but pretending that we can have a sort of simple structure that has

clear delineations everywhere is a frank delusion. Our medicine depends

on spaces which allow for interpretation, variation and personal meaning. To

pretend to draw up rigid structures and protocols and procedures like

biomedicine does is not at the root of our medicine's foundational philosophy

- which is about the flux of change, not static know-it-all pronouncements.

 

 Hugo

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think that the people who are the least motivated by personal ego,

but have the collective well-being in mind should make decisions for the

whole.

They should be voted in to a governing body by their peers, due to practical

considerations.

These people can be known by their transparent actions and words, their past

deeds and their future aspirations for the whole. If they have a personal

agenda of self-interest, they will be shown out by those who have critical

eyes and minds. In an organic process, those with experience, dedication,

generosity, vision and intelligence may step up to this responsibility and

then be held accountable for their actions.

 

Now, this is how the governing system is supposed to work in a democratic

republic. The media is supposed to tell us what's really going on and we're

supposed to be intelligent enough to decipher the wheat from the chaff. The

three bodies function in checks and balances, creating law, deciphering law

and enforcing law and the yin-yang dialectic of the more or less liberal and

conservative try to push and pull, but generally stay in the middle of the

room.

 

Who should be on top? The people. That's what it says in the Declaration

of Independence, which like it or not is a great spiritual document. Those

who can truly serve others so that we can all rise to our highest moral

aspirations can be chosen to represent the people.

 

K

 

 

 

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Anne Biris <lotuskarma wrote:

 

>

>

> Lonny,

>

> I completely agree with you. How do we choose who is to be at the top

> of the hierarchy? Self-appointed? By democratic/ consensus? I

> think that is where the difficulty lies. When we can't agree on what

> the values are, much less can we agree on who should be in the top

> hierarchy. There is too much sense of false hierarchy with very

> little integrity and concern for the whole. What do you suggest for

> re-instating a recognition of true hierarchy?

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Anne Biris

>

>

> On May 1, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Lonny wrote:

>

> > I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of

> > course, one has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely

> > likes to yap.

> >

> > The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based

> > on the view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should

> > have input into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize

> > hierarchy. True, the American Indians did purportedly sit in a

> > circle and everyone had the chance to speak. But their was hierarchy

> > ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern notion of

> > consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in

> > a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

> >

> > The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that

> > has to be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians

> > look for the COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input

> > from the least qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified.

> >

> > This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but

> > rather a compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive "

> > people. Every point of view is considered equal because, after all,

> > they are all points of view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

> >

> > The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a

> > recognition of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best

> > equipped to make decisions regarding the future of the profession?

> > We'd also have to have a hierarchy of value systems so we could

> > assess the relative development and merit of individual's

> > motivations and value systems.

> >

> > From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience

> > would be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and

> > policy makers third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy

> > would be those concerned with preserving the core holistic, heart

> > and soul of the profession in terms of pulse, hara, and tongue

> > diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship including

> > the language. After that would come those whose primary interests

> > are motivated by the bottom line.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Richard,

To paraphrase Mark Twain, " I wouldn't want to lead any organization that

would have me as a member " . Actually, you've got some good people in the

national organizations such as Will Morris, but I find big organizations very

slow and cumbersome to act, and I like to move quickly. As Lon points out, I'm

not a bottom-line kind of guy. Also, PCOM takes a lot of my time and energy,

and that's a fairly large institution.

 

But thank you for the recommendation :-)

 

 

On May 1, 2010, at 10:57 AM, acudoc11 wrote:

 

> Hi Hugo

>

> Form time to time I meant no pressure individually as I have suggested to

> Z'ev that people like himself and a number of others including Ken, Don and

> you and Lonny should be the kind of leaders to be at the helm of the

> national organizations. Get rid of all the special interest politics and get

down

> to rectifying and solidifying the profession.

>

> I am not implying that you'all have not already contributed greatly.

>

> Richard

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 5/1/2010 1:52:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> subincor writes:

>

> Hi Richard,

>

> The whole situation is problematic, and these proposed hierarchies are

> full of problems themselves. As Donald and you both point out, these people

> still have to be chosen (and must step up). And who will write the standards?

> And how can we be sure that the standards are fair or conducive to the

> health of the profession? I already rbought up the fact that the WHO

> guidelines have already been written and that there are NO classical

physicians,

> scholars or elders taking up positions of power within that organisation, and

> there is not even an organisation to oppose it.

> I often bring up the loss of lineage/direct transmission to

> university/western imitations of " education " and biomedically defined

foundations of CM.

>

> What I wish is that there were more of these scholar-talkers who were

> willing to move right into the present and take actions like those you have

> been taking, Richard, and that furthermore we, as a profession, started hiring

> lawyers to get legislation enacted.

>

> Unfortunately, the health of our profession requires work on the potential

> stupidity and drudgery of legislation.

>

> Hugo

>

>

[Guest guest]

Z'ev

 

While I WAS seriously suggesting you....simultaneously I was simply

pointing out that there ARE a number of practitioners I certainly would trust to

be in control over and above what presently exists.

Will Morris is just one person. Many more are needed.

 

Richard

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/2/2010 4:58:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zro

senbe writes:

 

Richard,

To paraphrase Mark Twain, " I wouldn't want to lead any organization that

would have me as a member " . Actually, you've got some good people in the

national organizations such as Will Morris, but I find big organizations

very slow and cumbersome to act, and I like to move quickly. As Lon points

out, I'm not a bottom-line kind of guy. Also, PCOM takes a lot of my time

and energy, and that's a fairly large institution.

 

But thank you for the recommendation :-)

 

 

On May 1, 2010, at 10:57 AM, acudoc11 wrote:

 

> Hi Hugo

>

> Form time to time I meant no pressure individually as I have suggested

to

> Z'ev that people like himself and a number of others including Ken, Don

and

> you and Lonny should be the kind of leaders to be at the helm of the

> national organizations. Get rid of all the special interest politics and

get down

> to rectifying and solidifying the profession.

>

> I am not implying that you'all have not already contributed greatly.

>

> Richard

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 5/1/2010 1:52:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> subincor writes:

>

> Hi Richard,

>

> The whole situation is problematic, and these proposed hierarchies are

> full of problems themselves. As Donald and you both point out, these

people

> still have to be chosen (and must step up). And who will write the

standards?

> And how can we be sure that the standards are fair or conducive to the

> health of the profession? I already rbought up the fact that the WHO

> guidelines have already been written and that there are NO classical

physicians,

> scholars or elders taking up positions of power within that

organisation, and

> there is not even an organisation to oppose it.

> I often bring up the loss of lineage/direct transmission to

> university/western imitations of " education " and biomedically defined

foundations of CM.

>

> What I wish is that there were more of these scholar-talkers who were

> willing to move right into the present and take actions like those you

have

> been taking, Richard, and that furthermore we, as a profession, started

hiring

> lawyers to get legislation enacted.

>

> Unfortunately, the health of our profession requires work on the

potential

> stupidity and drudgery of legislation.

>

> Hugo

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

 

, L. Ac.

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

In either case .......none of this has developed in over 40 years.

So until such time as the elders and those who are not in the

school-cottage-industry and accreditation businesses GET involved the

profession will

continue to have a huge slant in the direction of special interests.

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

In a message dated 5/3/2010 10:58:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

don83407 writes:

 

 

I think seniority can play a part, but only a part. I believe that those

who have sacrificed time, money, and effort for further higher education

also have much to contribute. Seniority does not automatically mean

efficacy. Higher education also does not automatically mean efficacy. There

are

many parameters and attributes to consider when choosing those who should

make up the heirarchy. I know many practitioners in both AOM and martial

art with many years of clinical or martial experience with low level skills.

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

Chinese Medicine

Revolution

Mon, 3 May 2010 14:13:57 +0000

Re: Another play

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , Anne Biris

<lotuskarma wrote:

>

> Lonny,

>

> I completely agree with you. How do we choose who is to be at the top

> of the hierarchy?

 

Lonny: We don't choose whose on top. We acknowledge who is on top Natural

hierarchy is a reality. People with the most clinical experience who have

demonstrated the most integrity and care for the profession are on top.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.