naet, etc.

[Guest guest]

Listers

 

You know, I certainly think people should be able to do as they please

and I would rather see medical care dictated by actual market forces

rather than the current system, but we should consider what we do with

regards to the longterm viability of our profession. Most of you know

my feelings on the actual efficacy of naet and other similar methods.

Suffice it to say, these methods will never gain any form of mainstream

acceptance because they have already been so widely discredited in

mainstream medical literature over the past thirty years. during this

same period acupuncture and TCM have gained increasing acceptance, not

only amongst the public, but with many researchers and physicians as

well.

 

NAET is certainly not the future of medicine;it is the fringe. And the

only ones getting rich are those at the top of organization like any MLM

scheme. Their certification is meaningless because they have no

independent oversight. I think the future of TCM depends on scientific

research and classical scholarship. It certainly seems that many would

just take the easy faddish way out; consider how many do naet and how

few do scholarship or research.

 

Having just finished birch's " understanding acupuncture " , I am more

convinced than ever that we must pursue the high road, even if it is far

more demanding. I believe we will be the emperor with no clothes if

scrutinized too closely. Unless we pursue this tradition with the

seriousness it demands. First, It is time to dispense with the idea of

TCM as an " energy Medicine " , which is clearly the basis of all these

bizarre offshoots. We must see TCM for what it is, which is really

about recognizing patterns in nature. This puts us squarely in line

with actual developments in cutting edge neurobiology, systems science

and computer science.

 

It is this trend towards understanding patterns in nature that holds

exciting promise for proving chinese herbology, too. Birch and felt

make the overwhelming case that TCM is infinitely adaptable over time

and culture, but that it always gains acceptance through the lens of the

dominant society. It still maintains its own integrity, but must be

scrutinized by contemporary standards, whatever those may be. Thus,

some schools of traditional japanese acupuncture were influenced by

blindness and zen philosophy, which promoted both palpation and

intellectual minimalism.

 

Chinese herbology and acupuncture will ultimately be proven by modern

techniques that identify the patterns of TCM in some fashion. This is

already beginning to happen, as the most convincing research on

acupuncture involves MRI imaging, which provides a dynamic view of the

body. These approaches not only satisfy the scientific model, but do no

harm to the traditional concepts either. In fact, unlike chasing some

fictitious unmeasureable energy, mri scanning actually shows subtle

pattern changes not detectable by blood tests, etc., further lending

credence to the scholarly versus the new age interpretation of qi. It

is the idea of energy medicine and offshoots like naet damages both our

standing with the scientific and scholarly sinology communities, who

should be our true allies.

 

When we can see liver qi stagnation in an mri and show how xiao yao san

alters that pattern, then and only then will people say aha, you folks

might be up to something. That this whole idea of pattern

identification and rectification is the basis of a powerful holistic

modern medicine. I will admit I do not to the faith of TCM,

as much as I believe that TCM has carried this idea of bian zheng

through the ages, while it died everywhere else in the world. I am not

suggesting that mri's will replace traditonal diagnostics; that would

ruin the cost effectiveness of TCM. It is just a form of evidence that

actually validates the claims of our forbearers. And this will not only

prove TCM, but it will change the modern understanding of physiology and

medicine forever.

 

Now the irony of this is that we are the clinicians. We must

participate with the scholars and scientists or they will have their say

without us. Our experience has something valuable to add to the further

development of TCM and it is vital that this aspect not be left out of

the equation. So do what you please, this is america, after all. But

the more we seek out shortcuts, the more we look shallow under scrutiny.

So everyone is not a scholar or scientist, but everyone with clinical

experience can contribute.

 

Its like voting for Ralph Nader or Al Gore. You can vote for the

fringe, but then you essentially opt out of the process. Hey, I may

turn out to be dead wrong about energy medicine, but since I think the

human experience of TCM cannot be reduced to any fanciful theory anyway,

why swim upstream. Lets follow the thrust of modern science and use it,

not dismiss it to pursue metaphysics instead.

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Todd and all,

I was curious how the MRI research was done with acupuncture needles,

since almost all are stainless steel and would consequently be ripped

out of the person's body by the magnet. Did they use special

titanium needles, or did they stimulate in some other way?

 

On another note, I would like to make a comment about some of the

recent writings on the current state of Oriental Med in the states.

There have been a number of undertones, and overtones, throughout

these essays that basically say newly graduated practitioners are

inadequately trained and that their education is generally poor.

Although I agree that education can always be improved, I feel

somewhat disparaged by these comments as a new practitioner. I think

there was a lack of gentility for your newest colleagues of the

profession. In addition, almost all the comments failed to speak to

the realities of being a new practitioner. Where you are faced with

the task of building a practice, supporting yourself/family and

paying off what in some cases are sizeable student loans six months

after graduating. The current programs are much longer than those of

the past 10-20 years, and that trend is likely only to continue.

That we must continue to study the medicine is obvious, but to say

that we have to seek out a master and study with them for years after

graduation is not realistic in many cases. I think we are all eager

to learn as much as we can to better serve our patients needs. I

just hope we remember to temper knowledge with our hearts before

putting it to practice, or paper.

 

Humbly yours,

Sean Doherty

Nashua, NH