Guest guest Posted May 29, 2000 Report Share Posted May 29, 2000 David, oh of course homeopathy is covered in the survey course on medical history, but that is not enough knowledge to practice it! And even though some schools offer it as an elective, I don't personally feel that is enough training again, to practice it. Now if someone actually obtained a formal education from a school of homeopathy, as has one of our clinic supervisors, then I think that person should be given immunity from the scope of practice exclusion. Is this practical? If someone reported this person for practicing outside his scope, he could submit his training credentials. Julie Chambers, L.Ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2000 Report Share Posted May 29, 2000 In a message dated 5/28/00 7:07:11 PM, juliej8 writes: << I am against that movement (including homeopathy to the scope of practice in California) on the grounds that it is NOT taught in the schools, and I have expressed that opinion to the Acupuncture Board. To me, this is as wrong as DCs trying to practice " chiropractic acupuncture " . Doctors of homeopathy have a completely different training and they alone should be allowed to practice it. >> There is not doctor of homeopathy as independent medicine. It is always a modality of another field of medicine, and has always been so. Also, there is no way that there will eveer be an independent board of homeopathy, as they are even more fragmented (to the Nth degree) than acupuncturist/Oriental Medicine people. David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2000 Report Share Posted May 29, 2000 David, The big problem as I see it is not whether one should or shouldn't practice homeopathy. . . .I happen to love homeopathy, and have studied and read quite a few texts over the last 20 years. I had enough training to practice, but a number of years ago I reached a roadblock. . . .if I wanted to REALLY practice homeopathy at the level of total cure, I would have to devote an equal amount of time to the study and practice as I do with Chinese medicine. This would mean, in effect, cloning myself or growing an extra head and two limbs (like some of the hindu dieties)! I don't know anyone who has been able to combine both practices effectively, basically one has to specialize in one or the other. Another point. Although there have been intelligent attempts to rethink homeopathy in terms of Chinese medical theory, this is still at the theoretical stage, not the clinical stage. I agree that in principle, Chinese medical theory is truly all-embracing. One can definately coordinate and understand most medical treatments, and how to harmonize them. However, to actually master other modalities and have them blend in. . . .this requires, in my opinion, a formidable degree of mastery.. I cannot emphasize enough that we have just begun to grasp what Chinese medicine can do. Until we really penetrate the body of knowledge that remains to be read in Chinese or translated, it is quite premature to talk about rigidity. > >Does this mean that is not a paradigm of medicine, but a set >of textbooks that cannot be deviated from? >Can't a field of medicine be used to better understand observations made by >more current thinkers? >I was attracted to Oriental Medicine due to it's flexibility and it's ability >to fit alien observations into its milleau without confusion or judgement. >While I do understand that a number of generations of observation may be >necessary to codify, at the same time I am not of the belief of " withdrawing >certificates " or saying anyone is not doing Chinese medicine if they are >using treatment patterns other than those from ancient texts. >Oriental Medicine has always had the flexibility to embrace a variety of >views, which is its enduring legacy. Academic nationalism, while useful in >scholarly discussion, leads to a stunting of growth, as can be seen by the >present day pseudo-scientists who run the NIH and the FDA. >We need to remain open to the growth of our profession and to it's clinicians >using whatever means they feel comfortable with to dothe best for thier >patients. I might add that they also need to recognize the educational >requirements to ethically practice whatever they add on and that they are >best off looking at whatever they are doing and its results from an OM >viewpoint. >There is no doubt that OM can advance every patients well being, but when I >have a patient that can't handle herbs, I'll be damned if I don't use diet to >build them and NAET to remove impediments to their advance, and then use >herbs and whatever else I need to bring about a lasting state of health when >they can handle them. >I avoided NAET for 2 years as those around me had amazing success stories >because I thought it was flaky and I didn't understand it through my filters. >Then, I went for it and the results have been nothing short of miraculous, >but only if combined with herbs and diet at the right time and in the right >way. How do I know when that is? My Oriental Medicine diagnostic process. Do >we refuse patients who went to a homeopath before us? Then why can't we >integrate homeopathy into our practices as long as we get education to do so? >Don't get me wrong. I love academics. I have a friend who is an MD and whose >hobby is anatomy, for instance. He feels that MD's need another year of >anatomy. Could be. >College is there to provide inspiration and a construct from which to view >professional life. After college, one learns. Inspire your students to focus >on Chinese medicine and its uses, but don't denigrate their choices after >graduation, or work to legislate against their getting better at and using >those choices. Just an many remain dogmatically involved in Chinese medicine >as move away from it to look at other places where there is no set view vis a >vis textbooks. The way to tell if you have done your job as an OM instructor >is to find out how they look at the patient and the changes in that patient >they stimulate. >David Molony > >------ >Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. >Remember the good 'ol days >http://click./1/4053/9/_/542111/_/959638798/ >------ > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2000 Report Share Posted May 29, 2000 David, > << I'm not saying that such interests and pursuits are wrong. > Perhaps they are powerful and wonderful. I have not spent > much time pursuing them. And I do not mean to challenge > their efficacy, only to point out that they are not Chinese > medicine. >> > > Does this mean that is not a paradigm of medicine, but a set > of textbooks that cannot be deviated from? I don't think it means that. And as I look the statement over again, it's not clear to me how you conclude that it does. > Can't a field of medicine be used to better understand observations made by > more current thinkers? I should hope so. > I was attracted to Oriental Medicine due to it's flexibility and it's ability > to fit alien observations into its milleau without confusion or judgement. > While I do understand that a number of generations of observation may be > necessary to codify, at the same time I am not of the belief of " withdrawing > certificates " or saying anyone is not doing Chinese medicine if they are > using treatment patterns other than those from ancient texts. I was suggesting that a school observing a graduate who has clearly not made it could take effective steps to 1) identify and 2) correct the situation. > Oriental Medicine has always had the flexibility to embrace a variety of > views, which is its enduring legacy. Academic nationalism, while useful in > scholarly discussion, leads to a stunting of growth, as can be seen by the > present day pseudo-scientists who run the NIH and the FDA. I don't see that making the obvious distinction between Homeopathy, for example, and Chinese medicine is " nationalism " . These things are different. To notice and comment on the difference is not an error, is it? How can we represent that we even have a working definition of Chinese medicine when we have systematically ignored so much of the literature up until today? > We need to remain open to the growth of our profession and to it's clinicians > using whatever means they feel comfortable with to dothe best for thier > patients. Were the situation that exists today one in which we have a field full of highly comptent practitioners of Chinese medicine who now are moving on to the comingling of their skills with other useful modalities, I would not hesitate to agree with this remark without reservation. However, this is not the situation as I see it today. We need to remain open to the fact that the bulk of the Chinese medical literature that exists today remains beyond the reach of those who call themselves practitioners of Chinese medicine. So this means that the current material basis of instruction and examination is highly limited in terms of its origins and its extent. We need to open ourselves up to the extraordinary wealth of information that falls into this enormous category we call Chinese medicine. >I might add that they also need to recognize the educational > requirements to ethically practice whatever they add on and that they are > best off looking at whatever they are doing and its results from an OM > viewpoint. Which still leaves us with a more or less undefined quantity in " OM viewpoint. " > There is no doubt that OM can advance every patients well being, but when I > have a patient that can't handle herbs, I'll be damned if I don't use diet to > build them and NAET to remove impediments to their advance, and then use > herbs and whatever else I need to bring about a lasting state of health when > they can handle them. I don't know what NAET is. But certainly adjusting a patient's diet falls squarely within the traditions of Chinese medicine. The strategy of using herbs, exercise, qi gong, or whatever other means one finds necessary and useful to build up a weak patient is an approach that accords with ancient Chinese medical principles. > I avoided NAET for 2 years as those around me had amazing success stories > because I thought it was flaky and I didn't understand it through my filters. > Then, I went for it and the results have been nothing short of miraculous, > but only if combined with herbs and diet at the right time and in the right > way. How do I know when that is? My Oriental Medicine diagnostic process. Do > we refuse patients who went to a homeopath before us? Then why can't we > integrate homeopathy into our practices as long as we get education to do so? I, for one, would not seek to place such limitations on anyone. My primary concern here is that people who purvey Chinese medical education as well as those who study it be attentive to the internal coherence of the subject itself. So far as fair and accurate labeling of professions and practices, if there is going to be a profession that combines one or more approaches to medicine, all I would want to see are accurate representations made about the combinatory process and the results that can and should be anticipated. > Don't get me wrong. I love academics. Let's not get each other wrong. I'm not arguing for any restrictions or regulations or stigmas. I'm just pointing out that Chinese medicine is a vast accumulation of heterodox traditions that ought to be properly represented in the systematic training of those who present themselves to the public as practitioners of Chinese medicine. No? > I have a friend who is an MD and whose > hobby is anatomy, for instance. He feels that MD's need another year of > anatomy. Could be. I think there is a good deal that med students and MDs could gain in the way of valuable insights into human anatomy from a solid familiarity with Chinese medical theory. But owing to the fact that the curricula of the schools is set virtually entirely by the requirements of the licensing exams the representation of this body of knowledge in extant American curricula is pitifully weak. > College is there to provide inspiration and a construct from which to view > professional life. >After college, one learns. Inspire your students to focus > on Chinese medicine and its uses, but don't denigrate their choices after > graduation, or work to legislate against their getting better at and using > those choices. I'm not denigrating anything. And I think I made that pretty clear in the bit that you quote at the top of your post. The people who engage in denigration are those who hang up a shingle calling themselves acupuncturists and dispense other forms of medicine because they can't get results from acupuncture or Chinese medicine. And here I'm not talking about veteran successful acupuncturists who have learned when to adjust their treatment plans to include other modalities. I'm talking about poorly trained people who just can't deal with patients' problems using Chinese medical means but who continue to operate as LAcs. >Just an many remain dogmatically involved in Chinese medicine > as move away from it to look at other places where there is no set view vis a > vis textbooks. I'd like to see the statistics that support this remark. I'd also like to know what precisely you mean by " dogmatically involved in Chinese medicine " as it seems like a loaded phrase to me. I don't think of Chinese medical literature as dogma. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. > The way to tell if you have done your job as an OM instructor > is to find out how they look at the patient and the changes in that patient > they stimulate. Well, another way is to find out if they are actually looking at patients and whether or not they are using OM in treating patients. If they're practicing mainly or only other modalities, I'd say that says something. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2000 Report Share Posted May 29, 2000 Homeopathy, Efficacious? I also know very little, but an interesting META-Analysis (Ernst E, et al; Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials. (Arch Surg, 1998 Nov, Abstract available) [MEDLINE] ) Reviewed all 'valid' studies done on Arnica (one of Homeopathy's bread & butter remedies) (which is also the most studied homeopathic remedy) and it could not even beat placebo... This does raise issues regarding studies ability to truly represent efficacy, but for something as simple as arnica for injuries (?) it should easily be able to beat a placebo (right?).. all that I hear about homepathics is " That my cousin took it and it helped her " ... -JAson HappyHerbalist.com [Health] Monday, May 29, 2000 12:16 PM RE: Re: Chinese medical education Julie. There is an argument that homeopathy is more akin to TCM than other professions that prescribe them (like medical doctors) or massage practitioners. The fact is homeopathy is not regulated anywhere in the U.S. There are also different schools of though as well. I think the question should be " Can you create a homeopathic remedy out of herbs? " and then 2. " Do you know what you are doing? " Of course underlining all of this is " What are you attempting to do? " As a TCM practitioners. I would ask " why don't you do what you know how to do - acupuncture and herbs " and the Default answer (to me) would be " ... I never really learned it !!! " There are other legitimate reasons to use homeopathy and not herbs. Lower cost and maintenance of inventory. Much lower than even comparable TCM Patents. Saves a lot of space and time not only in inventory but in putting together bulk herb formula vs. a patent Rx. Patient compliance (try offering a centipede to a veggie in Santa Cruz). More cost effective. More Money ! When I was in school my teachers would say " This is for the state boards, it doesn't matter if its correct or not " " If you don't pass the boards you don't practice period " . Homeopathy, et al, for some become " they don't make money they don't practice period. " Listing of Homeopathic web sites http://homepage.tinet.ie/~progers/homeo.htm BTW, I don't know homeopathy or practice it. Although I have used it personally for my 2 1/2 year old daughter and my Golden Retriever successfully. (neither truly appreciated acupuncture or herbs). Ed Kasper L.Ac., Santa Cruz, California juliej8 [juliej8] To all: can chiropractors practice homeopathy in California? What about elsewhere? Are they harrassed if they do? Julie ------ Big Groups = big savings @ beMANY! http://click./1/4112/9/_/542111/_/959626985/ ------ Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2000 Report Share Posted May 30, 2000 Nothing like ambiguity to attempt to confuse the masses! What are you talking about? What is your point? luke , " Cosmic Dragon LLC " <yulong@m...> wrote: > David, > > > << I'm not saying that such interests and pursuits are wrong. > > Perhaps they are powerful and wonderful. I have not spent > > much time pursuing them. And I do not mean to challenge > > their efficacy, only to point out that they are not Chinese > > medicine. >> > > > > Does this mean that is not a paradigm of medicine, but a > set > > of textbooks that cannot be deviated from? > > I don't think it means that. And as I look the statement over > again, it's not clear to me how you conclude that it does. > > > Can't a field of medicine be used to better understand observations made > by > > more current thinkers? > > I should hope so. > > > I was attracted to Oriental Medicine due to it's flexibility and it's > ability > > to fit alien observations into its milleau without confusion or judgement. > > While I do understand that a number of generations of observation may be > > necessary to codify, at the same time I am not of the belief of > " withdrawing > > certificates " or saying anyone is not doing Chinese medicine if they are > > using treatment patterns other than those from ancient texts. > > I was suggesting that a school observing a graduate who has clearly not > made it could take effective steps to 1) identify and 2) correct the > situation. > > > Oriental Medicine has always had the flexibility to embrace a variety of > > views, which is its enduring legacy. Academic nationalism, while useful in > > scholarly discussion, leads to a stunting of growth, as can be seen by the > > present day pseudo-scientists who run the NIH and the FDA. > > I don't see that making the obvious distinction between Homeopathy, for > example, and Chinese medicine is " nationalism " . These things are different. > To notice and comment on the difference is not an error, is it? > > How can we represent that we even have a working definition of Chinese > medicine when we have systematically ignored so much of the literature > up until today? > > > We need to remain open to the growth of our profession and to it's > clinicians > > using whatever means they feel comfortable with to dothe best for thier > > patients. > > Were the situation that exists today one in which we have a field full of > highly comptent practitioners of Chinese medicine who now are moving on to > the > comingling of their skills with other useful modalities, I would not > hesitate to agree with this remark without reservation. However, this is not > the > situation as I see it today. We need to remain open to the fact that the > bulk of the > Chinese medical literature that exists today remains beyond the reach > of those who call themselves practitioners of Chinese medicine. > > So this means that the current material basis of instruction and examination > is highly limited in terms of its origins and its extent. We need to open > ourselves up to the extraordinary wealth of information that falls into > this enormous category we call Chinese medicine. > > >I might add that they also need to recognize the educational > > requirements to ethically practice whatever they add on and that they are > > best off looking at whatever they are doing and its results from an OM > > viewpoint. > > Which still leaves us with a more or less undefined quantity in " OM > viewpoint. " > > > There is no doubt that OM can advance every patients well being, but when > I > > have a patient that can't handle herbs, I'll be damned if I don't use diet > to > > build them and NAET to remove impediments to their advance, and then use > > herbs and whatever else I need to bring about a lasting state of health > when > > they can handle them. > > I don't know what NAET is. But certainly adjusting a patient's diet falls > squarely within the traditions of Chinese medicine. The strategy of > using herbs, exercise, qi gong, or whatever other means one finds > necessary and useful to build up a weak patient is an approach that > accords with ancient Chinese medical principles. > > > I avoided NAET for 2 years as those around me had amazing success stories > > because I thought it was flaky and I didn't understand it through my > filters. > > Then, I went for it and the results have been nothing short of miraculous, > > but only if combined with herbs and diet at the right time and in the > right > > way. How do I know when that is? My Oriental Medicine diagnostic process. > Do > > we refuse patients who went to a homeopath before us? Then why can't we > > integrate homeopathy into our practices as long as we get education to do > so? > > I, for one, would not seek to place such limitations on anyone. My primary > concern here is that people who purvey Chinese medical education as well as > those > who study it be attentive to the internal coherence of the subject itself. > So > far as fair and accurate labeling of professions and practices, if there is > going to be > a profession that combines one or more approaches to medicine, all I would > want to see are accurate representations made about the combinatory process > and the results that can and should be anticipated. > > > Don't get me wrong. I love academics. > > Let's not get each other wrong. I'm not arguing for any restrictions or > regulations or stigmas. I'm just pointing out that Chinese medicine is a > vast > accumulation of heterodox traditions that ought to be properly represented > in the systematic > training of those who present themselves to the public as practitioners of > Chinese medicine. No? > > > I have a friend who is an MD and whose > > hobby is anatomy, for instance. He feels that MD's need another year of > > anatomy. Could be. > > I think there is a good deal that med students and MDs could gain > in the way of valuable insights into human anatomy from a solid familiarity > with Chinese medical theory. But owing to the fact that the curricula of the > schools is set virtually entirely by the requirements of the licensing exams > the representation of this body of knowledge in extant American curricula > is pitifully weak. > > > College is there to provide inspiration and a construct from which to view > > professional life. > > >After college, one learns. Inspire your students to focus > > on Chinese medicine and its uses, but don't denigrate their choices after > > graduation, or work to legislate against their getting better at and using > > those choices. > > I'm not denigrating anything. And I think I made that pretty clear in the > bit that you quote at the top of your post. The people who engage in > denigration > are those who hang up a shingle calling themselves acupuncturists and > dispense other > forms of medicine because they can't get results from acupuncture or Chinese > medicine. And here I'm not talking about veteran successful acupuncturists > who have learned when to adjust their treatment plans to include other > modalities. I'm talking about poorly trained people who just can't deal with > patients' > problems using Chinese medical means but who continue to operate as LAcs. > > >Just an many remain dogmatically involved in Chinese medicine > > as move away from it to look at other places where there is no set view > vis a > > vis textbooks. > > I'd like to see the statistics that support this remark. I'd also like to > know what precisely you mean by " dogmatically involved in Chinese medicine " > as > it seems like a loaded phrase to me. I don't think of Chinese medical > literature as dogma. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. > > > The way to tell if you have done your job as an OM instructor > > is to find out how they look at the patient and the changes in that > patient > > they stimulate. > > Well, another way is to find out if they are actually looking at patients > and whether or not they are using OM in treating patients. If they're > practicing mainly or only other modalities, I'd say that says something. > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2000 Report Share Posted May 30, 2000 Jason, May I suggest that you delve deeper. Like in the " Lancet " ... Why is there so much opposition to homeopathic validation? And if all you hear is this cousin anecdote then you are perhaps deaf or choosing to not listen! Please refer to DIVIDED LEGACY,... by Harris L. Coulter. luke -- In , " " <@o...> wrote: > Homeopathy, Efficacious? > > I also know very little, but an interesting META-Analysis (Ernst E, et al; > Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo- controlled > clinical trials. (Arch Surg, 1998 Nov, Abstract available) [MEDLINE] ) > Reviewed all 'valid' studies done on Arnica (one of Homeopathy's bread & > butter remedies) (which is also the most studied homeopathic remedy) and it > could not even beat placebo... This does raise issues regarding studies > ability to truly represent efficacy, but for something as simple as arnica > for injuries (?) it should easily be able to beat a placebo (right?).. all > that I hear about homepathics is " That my cousin took it and it helped > her " ... > > -JAson > > > > > HappyHerbalist.com [Health@H...] > Monday, May 29, 2000 12:16 PM > > RE: Re: Chinese medical education > > Julie. There is an argument that homeopathy is more akin to TCM than other > professions that prescribe them (like medical doctors) or massage > practitioners. The fact is homeopathy is not regulated anywhere in the U.S. > There are also different schools of though as well. > > I think the question should be " Can you create a homeopathic remedy out of > herbs? " and then 2. " Do you know what you are doing? " Of course underlining > all of this is " What are you attempting to do? " As a TCM practitioners. I > would ask " why don't you do what you know how to do - acupuncture and herbs " > and the Default answer (to me) would be " ... I never really learned it !!! " > > There are other legitimate reasons to use homeopathy and not herbs. Lower > cost and maintenance of inventory. Much lower than even comparable TCM > Patents. Saves a lot of space and time not only in inventory but in putting > together bulk herb formula vs. a patent Rx. Patient compliance (try offering > a centipede to a veggie in Santa Cruz). More cost effective. More Money ! > When I was in school my teachers would say " This is for the state boards, > it doesn't matter if its correct or not " " If you don't pass the boards you > don't practice period " . Homeopathy, et al, for some become " they don't make > money they don't practice period. " > > Listing of Homeopathic web sites > http://homepage.tinet.ie/~progers/homeo.htm > > > BTW, I don't know homeopathy or practice it. Although I have used it > personally for my 2 1/2 year old daughter and my Golden Retriever > successfully. (neither truly appreciated acupuncture or herbs). > > Ed Kasper L.Ac., Santa Cruz, California > > > > juliej8@a... [juliej8@a...] > > To all: can chiropractors practice homeopathy in California? What about > elsewhere? Are they harrassed if they do? > > Julie > > > -- ---- > Big Groups = big savings @ beMANY! > http://click./1/4112/9/_/542111/_/959626985/ > -- ---- > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2000 Report Share Posted May 30, 2000 Luke, > Nothing like ambiguity to attempt to confuse the masses! > > What are you talking about? I'm talking about people who fail to learn how to apply the theories and methods of Chinese medicine but succeed at graduating from a training program and at obtaining a license to practice and who then turn to other modalities and methods in search of something effective to do for patients. I'm also talking about the people who have accepted such people's tuition payments and failed to convey an adequate education in exchange as promised. > > What is your point? First, that we should recognize that such people and situations exist. Next, that there are reasons for this that can be identified, understood, and dealt with. Many of these reasons can be found among the material basis of instruction and examination in Chinese medicine available in the English language. I agree that there is some confusion here, but I don't think it originates with either David or myself. I see the current situation like this: we have our own Tower of Babel in the English language literature on Chinese medicine. I encounter students on a daily basis who have been overwhelmed by the confusions and who have either given up or simply accepted some individual's highly idiosyncratic rendition of Chinese medicine as gospel. It's not at all surprising in such conditions to find people turning to other alternatives. I've felt for many years now that the solution lies in developing better access to the Chinese medical texts that have provided the material basis for the subject of Chinese medicine for the past many centuries. This is a big job. It will take years, decades. But then those years will come and go regardless of what we do. That's what I'm talking about. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2000 Report Share Posted May 30, 2000 Luke, Lancet?? Please be specific/... and re-read my original POST.. It is a META-Analysis of ALL 'valid' studies on ARNICA, this includes the Lancet, as well as all major medical journals.. And I am not saying I don't believe in it, I am merely pointing out a fact. Opposition? Well for me I have never seen it work, and see that it is a relativity new science... I am open, for I have been to Homeopathics (which is what they only do) and I have not got results. But I enjoy the concept and support its research. Currently I lump homeopathy in with western alternative medicine, which I do not (currently) put much faith in... There are modalities that of course are valid for certain individuals, but do to lack of regulation (for good or bad) there are many many quacks performing many many types of healing, and how do I know this, not from reading journals but from experience! -JAson Luke Klincewicz [l.klincewicz] Tuesday, May 30, 2000 12:16 AM Re: Chinese medical education Jason, May I suggest that you delve deeper. Like in the " Lancet " ... Why is there so much opposition to homeopathic validation? And if all you hear is this cousin anecdote then you are perhaps deaf or choosing to not listen! Please refer to DIVIDED LEGACY,... by Harris L. Coulter. luke -- In , " " <@o...> wrote: > Homeopathy, Efficacious? > > I also know very little, but an interesting META-Analysis (Ernst E, et al; > Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo- controlled > clinical trials. (Arch Surg, 1998 Nov, Abstract available) [MEDLINE] ) > Reviewed all 'valid' studies done on Arnica (one of Homeopathy's bread & > butter remedies) (which is also the most studied homeopathic remedy) and it > could not even beat placebo... This does raise issues regarding studies > ability to truly represent efficacy, but for something as simple as arnica > for injuries (?) it should easily be able to beat a placebo (right?).. all > that I hear about homepathics is " That my cousin took it and it helped > her " ... > > -JAson > > > > > HappyHerbalist.com [Health@H...] > Monday, May 29, 2000 12:16 PM > > RE: Re: Chinese medical education > > Julie. There is an argument that homeopathy is more akin to TCM than other > professions that prescribe them (like medical doctors) or massage > practitioners. The fact is homeopathy is not regulated anywhere in the U.S. > There are also different schools of though as well. > > I think the question should be " Can you create a homeopathic remedy out of > herbs? " and then 2. " Do you know what you are doing? " Of course underlining > all of this is " What are you attempting to do? " As a TCM practitioners. I > would ask " why don't you do what you know how to do - acupuncture and herbs " > and the Default answer (to me) would be " ... I never really learned it !!! " > > There are other legitimate reasons to use homeopathy and not herbs. Lower > cost and maintenance of inventory. Much lower than even comparable TCM > Patents. Saves a lot of space and time not only in inventory but in putting > together bulk herb formula vs. a patent Rx. Patient compliance (try offering > a centipede to a veggie in Santa Cruz). More cost effective. More Money ! > When I was in school my teachers would say " This is for the state boards, > it doesn't matter if its correct or not " " If you don't pass the boards you > don't practice period " . Homeopathy, et al, for some become " they don't make > money they don't practice period. " > > Listing of Homeopathic web sites > http://homepage.tinet.ie/~progers/homeo.htm > > > BTW, I don't know homeopathy or practice it. Although I have used it > personally for my 2 1/2 year old daughter and my Golden Retriever > successfully. (neither truly appreciated acupuncture or herbs). > > Ed Kasper L.Ac., Santa Cruz, California > > > > juliej8@a... [juliej8@a...] > > To all: can chiropractors practice homeopathy in California? What about > elsewhere? Are they harrassed if they do? > > Julie > > > -- ---- > Big Groups = big savings @ beMANY! > http://click./1/4112/9/_/542111/_/959626985/ > -- ---- > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help ------ Missing old school friends? Find them here: http://click./1/4055/9/_/542111/_/959670980/ ------ Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2000 Report Share Posted May 30, 2000 In a message dated 5/29/00 7:34:33 PM, zrosenberg writes: << This would mean, in effect, cloning myself or growing an extra head and two limbs (like some of the hindu dieties)! I don't know anyone who has been able to combine both practices effectively, basically one has to specialize in one or the other. >> I had the same problem with Aruvedic medicine, but dont' find myself having a problem with homeopathy. Another person, in fact the one who teaches the AAOM homeopathy class, is Michael Ranft. It is definitly true that one can certainly focus on advancing ones knowledge in the field of Oriental medicine forever, or homeopathy for that matter. One can also focus on integrating the knowledge one has on a number of fields and achieve similar results. All are difficult paths which require persistence and only one thing is sure, the one you pick is always the best one. >>I cannot emphasize enough that we have just begun to grasp what Chinese medicine can do. Until we really penetrate the body of knowledge that remains to be read in Chinese or translated, it is quite premature to talk about rigidity.>> No one has ever said that everyone in college has to study all of the types of medicines to the point of being able to master them. We have enough trouble trying to get people to learn two modalities of OM well! A knowledge of when to refer might be nice. This is not to say that anyone can pick up homeopathy or Chinese medicine easily and integrate it, but that one can take a core traiining, be able to think in the terms of that construct well enough to work it and integrate it into prior knowledge, and use it. I do think that there is a problem with people trying to teach it as an integrated whole instead of by developing it slowly by obtaining a direct training in each medical construct. This is the problem with using multiple constructs. It is about an ability to understand, observe, and retain training and clinical knowledge. It certainly is not for everyone. I don't use classical homeopathy much at this point, but in cases where I think it is indicated, I do spend the time to understand the person and the case well enough to have a good shot at the remedy, which is all anyone gets. The same goes for herbs and acupuncture, which to be truthful are much more on the top because of an almost 80% orthopaedic type practice. In school, especially where there is a field of medicine being taught, single minded purpose is important, no doubt. But once outside of school, assuming that there is a good interest in one's profession, growth takes many shapes. David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2000 Report Share Posted May 31, 2000 Hello Ken, Thank for your clarification. It seems that there exist two groups of practitioners in this field of East Asian medicine. One group is focused on Traditional . The other is an eclectic collection of practitioners who practice other forms of East Asian medicine (e.g. various Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese systems) and who incorporate a variety of other medical systems. Each group has a role in the development of East Asian medicine and medicine in general here in the States. The situation you described originally re: your education and training and subsequent teaching in China is a recent historical development regarding the organization of education. I believe that for many centuries, native Chinese medicine consisted of many schools of thought, most of whom differed radically from one another. Only recently are we in the West being exposed to non-TCM systems. Let me describe a bit of my own training to shed light on my perspective. I began my studies at Chicago School of Oriental Medical Arts, under the direction of Korean Grandmaster Sung Baek. At the time I was not even aware that there existed many schools of thought. I studied there for 2 years. The program included instruction in all of the branches of Chinese medicine except Bone-setting. The school closed due to financial deficiency. Several years later, Dr. Baek accepted a handful of students as apprentices, and I was fortunate to be among them. There were several layers to this training. One class dealt with the Classics. Dr. Baek would start at the beginning of a book, say the Huang Di Nei Jing, and would read a sentence or two and would then spend approximately 15 minutes (often more) explaining that passage, clarifying, giving case examples or respective pulse patterns, etc. Another aspect of training revolved around pulses. This instruction lasted for several years. I and other students had the good fortune of watching a true master. As we progressed, we would first take each others pulses and report to Dr. Baek our findings. Dr. Baek would sometimes first take the patients pulses and guide us as to what we should observe and why. Let me note that I witnessed many times when he would sit down with a new patient, not ask a single question, and would merely palpate the pulses. He would then provide a detailed diagnosis of the patient's condition and a lengthy etiological history. Afterwards, he would explain what exactly he picked up and what each movement meant. For example, " this patient has cancer in the colon which is metastasizing to the bladder.... " He would indicate the specific location (there are 108 radial artery positions in this system), particular texture (pulse type) , and the relevant movement. Training included exercises to heighten our sensitivity. Although Dr. Baek did not really teach us anatomy or physiology, he assumed we understood. This meant that we students independently undertook these studies. We were a very dedicated bunch and would spend many hours together trying to grasp the depth of this teaching. We would read the Chinese texts and try to understand the meaning of characters and subsequent relation to specific passages. [ " Fire " means one thing in " Rising Liver Fire " , another in " Fire " in relation to " Water " , " King Fire " vs. " Minister Fire " , etc.] Let me note that Dr. Baek did not teach TCM style, so in addition we would privately study 8 parameters and the language of diagnosis and point and herb selection in order to sit for the NCCA Boards (now NCCAOM, and far more eclectic). So I, being Dr. Baek's most recent student (many had spent 10 years with him) passed the boards, opened a clinic and began my practice. More patients improved than didn't, but naturally, the patients who did not improve led me to many hours of research and seminar taking. To further improve my skills, I undertook training in Zentherapy, a form of bodywork based on Ida Rolf's [Rolfing] system of bodywork, Moshe Feldenkrais' work and the work of Tanouye Tenshin Rotaishi, master of the Chozen-Ji, an international Zen Dojo. Some of us students spent many hours in study groups trying to master the intricacy of musculoskeletal anatomy. Eventually, I apprenticed for a half-year, to further improve my skills. At this time, practicing acupuncture was legal only when performed by MD's, DO's and DC's here in Illinois; I decided to become one of these. I returned to UIC and underwent 3 pretty much full-time years in the study of Biology, Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Physics, and then Biochemistry, Physiology, Microbiology and Genetics. In these past 20 years I have studied Homeopathy, Anthroposophy, the work of Dr. Revici, nutrition, Functional medicine, Reiki, Pleiomorphic medicine, and work of Dr. Wilhelm Reich. I continuously supplement my knowledge of pharmacology, as many patients are using prescriptive medications. Ken, having re-read your comments, I agree that the training of many practitioners here in the States is sorely lacking and often merely directed toward the successful passing of certifying exams. My personal view is that education should be expanded and should better coordinate East Asian medicine with our allopathically-directed society. Furthermore, since we live in a culture where patients often undergo myriad forms of therapy, this education should include a fundamental education into other forms of " alternative " medicine [e.g., if a patient is currently on a homeopathic remedy, how does this effect their current diagnosis?; or if they under another physician's detoxification protocol, shouldn't you, a practitioner of Chinese medicine be aware of the consequences, whether they be diagnosed through tongue, pulse, smell, etc...] We do not live in China. We live in a very diverse environment. Let me note here that though I find some of the language of current popular TCM translation heavy-handed, I would not choose to eliminate it. Truth is found when diverse systems agree. I commend the efforts of all who devote themselves to a better understanding of Chinese medicine. I also commend those who attempt to better understand the truth of what health and wellness means and what medical methods best apply to respective conditions. Let me pass on a bit of wisdom that my teacher presented to me. The Huang Di Nei Jing was written at a time when most natives never ventured far from their places of birth, they ate local food, they rose with the sun and went to bed accordingly, the climate was fairly stable, the food full of nutrients, etc. We now live in an world where I can be in Chicago on a day when the wind-chill factor is -40 degrees below and be in Phoenix later that day where the temperature may be 80 degrees above. I eat food from all over the world, much of it processed and lacking enzyme activity. I treat more patients in Chicago's hot and humid summers whose diseases result from exposure to the Cold Wind of air-conditioning then I treat for heat stroke. We must adapt. When I first began my study of medicine, there were less than one hundred texts in English on Traditional East Asian Medicine. Thanks to the efforts of many devoted practitioners, this number grows exponentially. Confusion and disagreement among various schools is part of the process. It is my hope that we continue to search for excellence without squelching diversity. This " Tower of Babel " exists in all developing systems, medical and other. [e.g., many physicists at first rejected quantum theory, many mathematicians still argue against complexity theory, the notion of who must feel " De Qi " , the physician or the patient, and on and on. This is healthy debate and 'growing pains'. Let us not move too quickly to rigidify our ways. Once again, thank you, Ken, for your insightful remarks. luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2000 Report Share Posted May 31, 2000 Personally, for what it's worth, I think trying to incorporate homeopathy into Chinese medicine is a huge mistake for several reasons. In my mind, the first and foremost of these is loss of credibility in the public's eye. We hold ourselves out to the public as practitioners of Chinese or Asian medicine, not as naturopaths. Part of what we are telling people is, in essence, " Trust us; our medicine is more than 2,000 years old. We know it works and we know it's safe. " I'm curious why people think they " need " to add homeopathy to their repertoire. What is people think homeopathy can do that Chinese medicine can't? Bob > [Original Message] > <acuman1 > > 05/30/2000 4:56:47 PM > Re: Chinese medical education > > > In a message dated 5/29/00 7:34:33 PM, zrosenberg writes: > > << This would mean, in effect, cloning myself or growing an > extra head and two limbs (like some of the hindu dieties)! I don't know > anyone who has been able to combine both practices effectively, basically > one has to specialize in one or the other. >> > > I had the same problem with Aruvedic medicine, but dont' find myself having a > problem with homeopathy. Another person, in fact the one who teaches the AAOM > homeopathy class, is Michael Ranft. > It is definitly true that one can certainly focus on advancing ones knowledge > in the field of Oriental medicine forever, or homeopathy for that matter. One > can also focus on integrating the knowledge one has on a number of fields and > achieve similar results. All are difficult paths which require persistence > and only one thing is sure, the one you pick is always the best one. > > >>I cannot emphasize enough that we have just begun to grasp what Chinese > medicine can do. Until we really penetrate the body of knowledge that > remains to be read in Chinese or translated, it is quite premature to talk > about rigidity.>> > > No one has ever said that everyone in college has to study all of the types > of medicines to the point of being able to master them. We have enough > trouble trying to get people to learn two modalities of OM well! A knowledge > of when to refer might be nice. > > This is not to say that anyone can pick up homeopathy or Chinese medicine > easily and integrate it, but that one can take a core traiining, be able to > think in the terms of that construct well enough to work it and integrate it > into prior knowledge, and use it. I do think that there is a problem with > people trying to teach it as an integrated whole instead of by developing it > slowly by obtaining a direct training in each medical construct. This is the > problem with using multiple constructs. It is about an ability to understand, > observe, and retain training and clinical knowledge. It certainly is not for > everyone. > I don't use classical homeopathy much at this point, but in cases where I > think it is indicated, I do spend the time to understand the person and the > case well enough to have a good shot at the remedy, which is all anyone gets. > The same goes for herbs and acupuncture, which to be truthful are much more > on the top because of an almost 80% orthopaedic type practice. > In school, especially where there is a field of medicine being taught, single > minded purpose is important, no doubt. But once outside of school, assuming > that there is a good interest in one's profession, growth takes many shapes. > David Molony > > ------ > Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. > Remember the good 'ol days > http://click./1/4053/9/_/542111/_/959727406/ > ------ > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > --- Robert Flaws --- bobflaws --- EarthLink: It's your Internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2000 Report Share Posted May 31, 2000 I would agree strongly with Bob on this point. Homeopathy may fill a need in someone's practice, but it underscores the lack of depth in their own training. For the industry as a whole to wish to incorporate it speaks to an ethical failure on our part. The resources already available in Chinese medicine are substantial, but largely unexplored by most practitioners (i.e., the classics, 5 Phases, pulse diagnosis, etc.). If practitioner's knew their own field better, they would use other systems to compensate for their weakness less often. Unless homeopathy can be incorporated into Chinese theoretical structures, it should remain outside the field. Isn't this the argument that we use against MDs and DCs who want to incorporate acupuncture into their practices? If Western medicine was so effective, they wouldn't need acupuncture. And if they were truly interested, they would do more than take weekend seminar. Jim , " Robert Flaws " <bobflaws@e...> wrote: > Personally, for what it's worth, I think trying to incorporate homeopathy > into Chinese medicine is a huge mistake for several reasons. In my mind, > the first and foremost of these is loss of credibility in the public's eye. > We hold ourselves out to the public as practitioners of Chinese or Asian > medicine, not as naturopaths. Part of what we are telling people is, in > essence, " Trust us; our medicine is more than 2,000 years old. We know it > works and we know it's safe. " > > I'm curious why people think they " need " to add homeopathy to their > repertoire. What is people think homeopathy can do that Chinese medicine > can't? > > Bob > > > [Original Message] > > <acuman1@a...> > > > > 05/30/2000 4:56:47 PM > > Re: Chinese medical education > > > > > > In a message dated 5/29/00 7:34:33 PM, zrosenberg@p... > writes: > > > > << This would mean, in effect, cloning myself or growing an > > extra head and two limbs (like some of the hindu dieties)! I don't know > > anyone who has been able to combine both practices effectively, basically > > one has to specialize in one or the other. >> > > > > I had the same problem with Aruvedic medicine, but dont' find myself > having a > > problem with homeopathy. Another person, in fact the one who teaches the > AAOM > > homeopathy class, is Michael Ranft. > > It is definitly true that one can certainly focus on advancing ones > knowledge > > in the field of Oriental medicine forever, or homeopathy for that matter. > One > > can also focus on integrating the knowledge one has on a number of fields > and > > achieve similar results. All are difficult paths which require > persistence > > and only one thing is sure, the one you pick is always the best one. > > > > >>I cannot emphasize enough that we have just begun to grasp what Chinese > > medicine can do. Until we really penetrate the body of knowledge that > > remains to be read in Chinese or translated, it is quite premature to talk > > about rigidity.>> > > > > No one has ever said that everyone in college has to study all of the > types > > of medicines to the point of being able to master them. We have enough > > trouble trying to get people to learn two modalities of OM well! A > knowledge > > of when to refer might be nice. > > > > This is not to say that anyone can pick up homeopathy or Chinese medicine > > easily and integrate it, but that one can take a core traiining, be able > to > > think in the terms of that construct well enough to work it and integrate > it > > into prior knowledge, and use it. I do think that there is a problem with > > people trying to teach it as an integrated whole instead of by developing > it > > slowly by obtaining a direct training in each medical construct. This is > the > > problem with using multiple constructs. It is about an ability to > understand, > > observe, and retain training and clinical knowledge. It certainly is not > for > > everyone. > > I don't use classical homeopathy much at this point, but in cases where I > > think it is indicated, I do spend the time to understand the person and > the > > case well enough to have a good shot at the remedy, which is all anyone > gets. > > The same goes for herbs and acupuncture, which to be truthful are much > more > > on the top because of an almost 80% orthopaedic type practice. > > In school, especially where there is a field of medicine being taught, > single > > minded purpose is important, no doubt. But once outside of school, > assuming > > that there is a good interest in one's profession, growth takes many > shapes. > > David Molony > > > > ------ > > Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. > > Remember the good 'ol days > > http://click./1/4053/9/_/542111/_/959727406/ > > ------ > > > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > > > > > > --- Robert Flaws > --- bobflaws@e... > --- EarthLink: It's your Internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2000 Report Share Posted May 31, 2000 " Unless homeopathy can be incorporated into Chinese theoretical structures, it should remain outside the field. " This is a very well stated idea. Cecilia James Ramholz wrote: > I would agree strongly with Bob on this point. Homeopathy may fill a > need in someone's practice, but it underscores the lack of depth in > their own training. For the industry as a whole to wish to > incorporate it speaks to an ethical failure on our part. > > The resources already available in Chinese medicine are substantial, > but largely unexplored by most practitioners (i.e., the classics, 5 > Phases, pulse diagnosis, etc.). If practitioner's knew their own > field better, they would use other systems to compensate for their > weakness less often. Unless homeopathy can be incorporated into > Chinese theoretical structures, it should remain outside the field. > > Isn't this the argument that we use against MDs and DCs who want to > incorporate acupuncture into their practices? If Western medicine was > so effective, they wouldn't need acupuncture. And if they were truly > interested, they would do more than take weekend seminar. > > Jim > > , " Robert Flaws " <bobflaws@e...> > wrote: > > Personally, for what it's worth, I think trying to incorporate > homeopathy > > into Chinese medicine is a huge mistake for several reasons. In my > mind, > > the first and foremost of these is loss of credibility in the > public's eye. > > We hold ourselves out to the public as practitioners of Chinese or > Asian > > medicine, not as naturopaths. Part of what we are telling people > is, in > > essence, " Trust us; our medicine is more than 2,000 years old. We > know it > > works and we know it's safe. " > > > > I'm curious why people think they " need " to add homeopathy to their > > repertoire. What is people think homeopathy can do that Chinese > medicine > > can't? > > > > Bob > > > > > [Original Message] > > > <acuman1@a...> > > > > > > 05/30/2000 4:56:47 PM > > > Re: Chinese medical education > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/29/00 7:34:33 PM, zrosenberg@p... > > writes: > > > > > > << This would mean, in effect, cloning myself or growing an > > > extra head and two limbs (like some of the hindu dieties)! I > don't know > > > anyone who has been able to combine both practices effectively, > basically > > > one has to specialize in one or the other. >> > > > > > > I had the same problem with Aruvedic medicine, but dont' find > myself > > having a > > > problem with homeopathy. Another person, in fact the one who > teaches the > > AAOM > > > homeopathy class, is Michael Ranft. > > > It is definitly true that one can certainly focus on advancing > ones > > knowledge > > > in the field of Oriental medicine forever, or homeopathy for that > matter. > > One > > > can also focus on integrating the knowledge one has on a number > of fields > > and > > > achieve similar results. All are difficult paths which require > > persistence > > > and only one thing is sure, the one you pick is always the best > one. > > > > > > >>I cannot emphasize enough that we have just begun to grasp what > Chinese > > > medicine can do. Until we really penetrate the body of knowledge > that > > > remains to be read in Chinese or translated, it is quite > premature to talk > > > about rigidity.>> > > > > > > No one has ever said that everyone in college has to study all of > the > > types > > > of medicines to the point of being able to master them. We have > enough > > > trouble trying to get people to learn two modalities of OM well! A > > knowledge > > > of when to refer might be nice. > > > > > > This is not to say that anyone can pick up homeopathy or Chinese > medicine > > > easily and integrate it, but that one can take a core traiining, > be able > > to > > > think in the terms of that construct well enough to work it and > integrate > > it > > > into prior knowledge, and use it. I do think that there is a > problem with > > > people trying to teach it as an integrated whole instead of by > developing > > it > > > slowly by obtaining a direct training in each medical construct. > This is > > the > > > problem with using multiple constructs. It is about an ability to > > understand, > > > observe, and retain training and clinical knowledge. It certainly > is not > > for > > > everyone. > > > I don't use classical homeopathy much at this point, but in cases > where I > > > think it is indicated, I do spend the time to understand the > person and > > the > > > case well enough to have a good shot at the remedy, which is all > anyone > > gets. > > > The same goes for herbs and acupuncture, which to be truthful are > much > > more > > > on the top because of an almost 80% orthopaedic type practice. > > > In school, especially where there is a field of medicine being > taught, > > single > > > minded purpose is important, no doubt. But once outside of school, > > assuming > > > that there is a good interest in one's profession, growth takes > many > > shapes. > > > David Molony > > > > > > > ------ > > > Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. > > > Remember the good 'ol days > > > http://click./1/4053/9/_/542111/_/959727406/ > > > > ------ > > > > > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > > > > > > > > > > > --- Robert Flaws > > --- bobflaws@e... > > --- EarthLink: It's your Internet. > > ------ > Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers. > http://click./1/4633/9/_/542111/_/959794367/ > ------ > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help -- Cecilia Lee cecilia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2000 Report Share Posted May 31, 2000 In a message dated 5/31/00 10:57:21 AM, bobflaws writes: << Personally, for what it's worth, I think trying to incorporate homeopathy into Chinese medicine is a huge mistake for several reasons. In my mind, the first and foremost of these is loss of credibility in the public's eye. We hold ourselves out to the public as practitioners of Chinese or Asian medicine, not as naturopaths. Part of what we are telling people is, in essence, " Trust us; our medicine is more than 2,000 years old. We know it works and we know it's safe. " I'm curious why people think they " need " to add homeopathy to their repertoire. What is people think homeopathy can do that Chinese medicine can't? >> This is true of so many things. Why use Western medicines or even some of th e more modern aspects of Chinese medicine? What works best for a single practitioner is how they develop their practice. It may even be the Qi they put into whatever they do, no matter what it is. No doubt, Oriental Medicine works great by itself. so does homeopathy. For some, we like to have a choice about what is better for a particular patient, say, one who doesn't want to deal with the taste of the herbs or vomits from them or even their smell. David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2000 Report Share Posted May 31, 2000 In a message dated 5/31/00 1:34:46 PM, OMJournal writes: << If practitioner's knew their own field better, they would use other systems to compensate for their weakness less often. Unless homeopathy can be incorporated into Chinese theoretical structures, it should remain outside the field. >> This must be where we agree to disagree, for I feel this is a fallacy perpetrated by those who could never get anything down very well clinically, at least if one is to use the same reasoning and subjectivity mentioned above. We all feel pretty good about ourselves and our choices, don't we? It is others choices we have to let go of. Isn't this the argument that we use against MDs and DCs who want to incorporate acupuncture into their practices? If Western medicine was so effective, they wouldn't need acupuncture. And if they were truly interested, they would do more than take weekend seminar. You are making assumptions here, or showing how deeply you went into a subject before giving up on it. I find that many MD's give up on OM after their quickie course. Many don't, especially if they have decided to go for a cash practice. We are talking apples and oranges here. Is it lack of education in other modalities or the use of those modalities at all we are speaking about? David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2000 Report Share Posted June 1, 2000 David, Within Chinese medicine, we have a number of different ways of administering medicine. If a person doesn't like decoctions, then there are pills, powders, tinctures, and even external applications. If a patient takes a decoction and then vomits, that suggests that either A) the formula was wrong, B) the dose was too strong, C) they took it at the wrong time vis a vis meals, or D) it was right and the vomiting was an appropriate therapeutic reaction, as in a Herxheimer reaction. When Chinese medicine truly does not have an appropriate medicine or modality in its arsenal, the why not refer to a practitioner of a system or style which is appropriate. I don't see why we need to be all things to all patients. If we're truly competent in our own field, we should be able to handle a huge range of problems. However, I believe professional competence also involves making good referrals to specialists either within Chinese medicine or outside Chinese medicine, including to trained homeopathic specialists. If you are talking about extremely low potency (1-3x) preparations of Chinese medicinals acting in a heteropathic manner, I can go along with that. In that case, I think we are only talking about a method of administration and dosage. I believe Chinese medical theory is broad enough to easily accomodate such minor administration modifications. But when you start talking about administering medicinals which have never been part of our materia medica in high potencies which are intended to work homeopathically, not heretopathically, then I think you are talking about a completely separate system of medicine with an extremely divergent prescriptive methodology. Are you familiar with David Coulter's Divided Legacy? If so, it seems to me that Chinese medicine is one of the world's greatest rational medicines. As Coulter describes the theories of Hahnneman, " classical " homeopathy is a purely empirical medicine. (I believe I'm using these terms as Coulter defines them.) If my reading is correct, that's a very large, very fundamental difference between these two systems. Bob > [Original Message] > <acuman1 > > 05/31/2000 6:09:39 PM > Re: Chinese medical education > > > In a message dated 5/31/00 10:57:21 AM, bobflaws writes: > > << Personally, for what it's worth, I think trying to incorporate homeopathy > into Chinese medicine is a huge mistake for several reasons. In my mind, > the first and foremost of these is loss of credibility in the public's eye. > We hold ourselves out to the public as practitioners of Chinese or Asian > medicine, not as naturopaths. Part of what we are telling people is, in > essence, " Trust us; our medicine is more than 2,000 years old. We know it > works and we know it's safe. " > > I'm curious why people think they " need " to add homeopathy to their > repertoire. What is people think homeopathy can do that Chinese medicine > can't? >> > > This is true of so many things. Why use Western medicines or even some of th > e more modern aspects of Chinese medicine? What works best for a single > practitioner is how they develop their practice. It may even be the Qi they > put into whatever they do, no matter what it is. No doubt, Oriental Medicine > works great by itself. so does homeopathy. For some, we like to have a choice > about what is better for a particular patient, say, one who doesn't want to > deal with the taste of the herbs or vomits from them or even their smell. > David Molony > > ------ > Tired of searching? > Get the right answer, fast, from someone who's been there - guaranteed. > http://click./1/4520/9/_/542111/_/959818168/ > ------ > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > --- Robert Flaws --- bobflaws --- EarthLink: It's your Internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2000 Report Share Posted June 2, 2000 IDavid, Well Said. Bruce --------------------------(original message follows)----- << Subj: Chinese medical education 05/29/2000 3:21:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time acuman1 Reply-to: <A HREF= " " > @</A> In a message dated 5/28/00 2:20:43 PM, yulong writes: << I'm not saying that such interests and pursuits are wrong. Perhaps they are powerful and wonderful. I have not spent much time pursuing them. And I do not mean to challenge their efficacy, only to point out that they are not Chinese medicine. >> Does this mean that is not a paradigm of medicine, but a set of textbooks that cannot be deviated from? Can't a field of medicine be used to better understand observations made by more current thinkers? I was attracted to Oriental Medicine due to it's flexibility and it's ability to fit alien observations into its milleau without confusion or judgement. While I do understand that a number of generations of observation may be necessary to codify, at the same time I am not of the belief of " withdrawing certificates " or saying anyone is not doing Chinese medicine if they are using treatment patterns other than those from ancient texts. Oriental Medicine has always had the flexibility to embrace a variety of views, which is its enduring legacy. Academic nationalism, while useful in scholarly discussion, leads to a stunting of growth, as can be seen by the present day pseudo-scientists who run the NIH and the FDA. We need to remain open to the growth of our profession and to it's clinicians using whatever means they feel comfortable with to dothe best for thier patients. I might add that they also need to recognize the educational requirements to ethically practice whatever they add on and that they are best off looking at whatever they are doing and its results from an OM viewpoint. There is no doubt that OM can advance every patients well being, but when I have a patient that can't handle herbs, I'll be damned if I don't use diet to build them and NAET to remove impediments to their advance, and then use herbs and whatever else I need to bring about a lasting state of health when they can handle them. I avoided NAET for 2 years as those around me had amazing success stories because I thought it was flaky and I didn't understand it through my filters. Then, I went for it and the results have been nothing short of miraculous, but only if combined with herbs and diet at the right time and in the right way. How do I know when that is? My Oriental Medicine diagnostic process. Do we refuse patients who went to a homeopath before us? Then why can't we integrate homeopathy into our practices as long as we get education to do so? Don't get me wrong. I love academics. I have a friend who is an MD and whose hobby is anatomy, for instance. He feels that MD's need another year of anatomy. Could be. College is there to provide inspiration and a construct from which to view professional life. After college, one learns. Inspire your students to focus on Chinese medicine and its uses, but don't denigrate their choices after graduation, or work to legislate against their getting better at and using those choices. Just an many remain dogmatically involved in Chinese medicine as move away from it to look at other places where there is no set view vis a vis textbooks. The way to tell if you have done your job as an OM instructor is to find out how they look at the patient and the changes in that patient they stimulate. David Molony ------ Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. Remember the good 'ol days http://click./1/4053/9/_/542111/_/959638798/ ------ Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <sentto-201013-1242-959638798-GRCanning=aol.com (AT) returns (DOT) > Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by air-zd05.mail.aol.com (v73.13) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 May 2000 18:21:01 -0400 Received: from hh. (hh. [208.50.144.88]) by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (v74.10) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 May 2000 18:20:32 -0400 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-201013-1242-959638798-GRCanning=aol.com (AT) returns (DOT) Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hh. with NNFMP; 29 May 2000 22:19:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 13279 invoked from network); 29 May 2000 22:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 May 2000 22:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo13.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 May 2000 22:14:18 -0000 Received: from Acuman1 by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id a.97.5fed178 (4243) for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 18:14:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <97.5fed178.266445b3 X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 acuman1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list ; contact -owner Delivered-mailing list Precedence: bulk List-Un: <-> Mon, 29 May 2000 18:14:11 EDT Chinese medical education Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 In a message dated 6/3/00 5:11:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Health writes: << I have a question. Why can't/don't/won't the California AC Schools offer TCM 101. A simple straightforward primer on acupuncture and herbal treatments that is based on the classics and is taught in clinical practice and tested on the state boards. >> Dear Ed, I am not sure I understand your question. TCM 101? All the schools teach basic acupuncture theory, and as part of that course, simple textbook cases are presented along with classic herbal treatments and acupuncture points. Is this what you mean? For example, spleen deficiency with dampness, use Liu Jun Zi Tang and needle Sp 6, St 36, St 40, ren 12. Etc. What is your complaint specifically? What do you think the schools are teaching that they should not be and what is missing? Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 Some one comes in complains of ulcerative colitis and we take some ATRACTYLODES TABLETS off the shelf. Works. I say this as an example of the numerous " Health Care Professionals " out there (and not limited to Acupuncturists, Herbalists, DC's, Dr.'s, PhD's, massage therapists, health food clerks and store clerks) that dispense these all natural safe dietary supplements. To be " Professions " our schools have to produce professionals. Unless our schools - as the designated leaders for better or worse - collectively can come together on 1) what they can agree on and 2) avoid what they disagree on -- " we " will remain order takers in the eyes of the American public. I have a question. Why can't/don't/won't the California AC Schools offer TCM 101. A simple straightforward primer on acupuncture and herbal treatments that is based on the classics and is taught in clinical practice and tested on the state boards. (I wager not one graduate, saw one question with a classic acupuncture and herbal combination, on the answer, that they had experienced in 800 hours of clinical training !) Read the classics, practice in clinic, take the test. There's no relationship ! I may be wrong but I feel that the: Japanese Kanpo (Herbal) system is structured, unified and most importantly duplicable -- can be universally passed on to a new student. Worselys Five Element acupuncture system is structured, unified and most importantly duplicable -- can be universally passed on to a new student. Most important " any " of their graduates can talk to each other, share and learn in a common language ! Spending less time on politics. TCM's danger lies in the continuous fragmentation of TCM. ah, sour grapes ... maybe I should consider making some vinegar salad dressing Ed Kasper L.Ac., Santa Cruz, California (promising to be less-political) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 Julie. I had clinical rounds in three Northern California TCM schools (1983 - 1988) My experience was that not one of the many teachers there diagnosed and treated from the state boards herbal formula list nor from the prescriptions presented in either the Shanghai or Beijing texts. Every time - and I mean every time - it was explained to me " that's for the state boards THIS is for practical " . Formulas were also modified. I have no problem with the modifications but the base formulas were mostly empirical. I believe I would not have suffered so if a formula selected was a modified of say Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang with reasons given for additions and subtractions. And points selected from one of the many from the prescriptions in the Text books instead of the same St 36, Sp 6 Back Shu points along with " special points " of the teachers. The fact was most clinical teachers were not familiar with the text we were studying for the exams. They were good honest people and good acupuncturists/herbalist. The patient got better. But I was unable to relate their knowledge to the textbooks. When I had a question from the textbook, they could not answer from the textbooks point of view. I defienly say this as a pattern. As I did clinical rounds at three different schools with different teachers. Many of the teachers (at one of the schools) could not speak or understand English, and I and others had to huddle around the one student who could and would translate. But he was also another student - not an assistant and the teacher rarely waited for translation. (Why you may ask I attended 3 schools). Earlier discussions about translating the classics, I sure wish I could read Chinese and then I could point here - this chapter says this, Why? That's why TCM 101 (Bensky with Points) During that time many other students moaned as much if not more than I. If that is no longer the case, Great Thank you for your response, maybe I harbor resentment too long. I just see a lost opportunity for TCM here Ed Kasper L.Ac., Santa Cruz, California juliej8 [juliej8] Saturday, June 03, 2000 5:51 PM Re: Re: Chinese medical education In a message dated 6/3/00 5:11:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Health writes: << I have a question. Why can't/don't/won't the California AC Schools offer TCM 101. A simple straightforward primer on acupuncture and herbal treatments that is based on the classics and is taught in clinical practice and tested on the state boards. >> Dear Ed, I am not sure I understand your question. TCM 101? All the schools teach basic acupuncture theory, and as part of that course, simple textbook cases are presented along with classic herbal treatments and acupuncture points. Is this what you mean? For example, spleen deficiency with dampness, use Liu Jun Zi Tang and needle Sp 6, St 36, St 40, ren 12. Etc. What is your complaint specifically? What do you think the schools are teaching that they should not be and what is missing? Julie ------ Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup. @Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints. http://click./1/4935/9/_/542111/_/960079870/ ------ Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2000 Report Share Posted June 4, 2000 Ed, I see that you were educated a long time ago. Probably things have changed a lot. Now there are more and better texts. Probably there are better board exams. These days, a clinical supervisor not speaking English and not having a qualified translator is, hopefully, not the norm. Anyone else care to comment on the changes in education from the 80s to present? I was in school from 1991 - 1996 and involved in Yo San from 1997 to present. Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2000 Report Share Posted June 4, 2000 Hi Julie, I was in school from 84-87 and began teaching in 95 (PCOM, where I graduated) and I can't believe the difference. We had a handful of books (no: Bensky, Wiseman, Macciocia, Felt or Flaws translations!)We had some good teachers, but it has grown so much, just in the wealth of translated information alone, not to mention the list of teachers that now share their clinical knowledge and skills. As for the board exams, there seemed to be more problems in the mid 8o's that I recall (Usually centered around ambiguous questioning.) I haven't heard that complaint in awhile though. Anyone else care to comment? Shelly >juliej8 > > >Re: Re: Chinese medical education >Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:57:03 EDT > >Ed, I see that you were educated a long time ago. Probably things have >changed a lot. Now there are more and better texts. Probably there are >better >board exams. These days, a clinical supervisor not speaking English and not >having a qualified translator is, hopefully, not the norm. Anyone else care >to comment on the changes in education from the 80s to present? I was in >school from 1991 - 1996 and involved in Yo San from 1997 to present. > >Julie ______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2000 Report Share Posted June 5, 2000 Ed, Your point is a well put one. I have been saying for years that all aspects of our schools need to be well-planned and well thought out. I have heard similar complaints from numerous students and graduates all over the U.S. If I were running a school, I would make sure that every teacher and every clinical preceptor were on exactly the same page. Too many times schools hire whoever local is willing to work for them as opposed to either conducting national and international job searches as would any conventional college or university. Because these different teachers come from all, courses and clinics are a hodge-podge. As an educator, I believe (and have stated in print numerous times) that this is the kiss of death for medical students. So much of what we do requires our faith in what we are doing. I have frequently heard students at American schools that different clinical preceptos treating a single patient will use completely different treatments based on completely different theories and diagnoses. In my experience, this is extremely bad teaching methodology for entry level students. After one graduates and has a sound foundation, if one then wants to branch out and look around some more, so be it. But teaching students an eclectic mish-mash at the entry level is very much part of why so many of our graduates feel they have to add a varied bag of empirical tricks to their trade. When I was a student in Shanghai, I did not have all brilliant and superlative teachers. However, what we learned in class was what we saw in clinic that afternoon. In the hospital, there were other practitioners doing non-standard practices. However, they were not teaching any entry level students that I ever saw. When we asked about what those practitioners were doing, we were told that they had their own ideas and protocols that they were researching or advocated but that we should not become side-tracked too early in our education. Here's an example of something I heard at a school near me just last week. There is a well-known clinical teacher at this school who is an expert in moxibustion and a number of students wanted to study moxibustion techniques with this teacher this summer. Therefore, the teacher has been asked to treat every patient they see in this clinic with some form of moxibustion. In a way, this is an interesting exercise, but is it good clinical or teaching practice? How do we know that moxibustion is the best treatment for these patients. Yes, perhaps the teacher can " make it work, " but is that what the students should be seeing? Personally, I'd rather they see that same teacher use needles on those cases who would benefit most from needles, moxa on those patients who would benefit most from moxa, cupping on those who would benefit most from moxa, etc. I know for a fact that the way this clinica has been structured this summer with this teacher is not representative of how this practitioner actually practices. As far as I can see, the person who is going to learn the most from this exercise is going to be the teacher. It's a tour de force. All this goes back to developing (AND BEING WILLING TO PAY FOR) a full time professional faculty, not just hiring part time practitioners from every school, background, and persuasion and then trying to jerry-rig or retro-fit the curriculum after you've hired the instructors. Sincerely, Bob > [Original Message] > HappyHerbalist.com <Health > > 06/03/2000 8:35:23 PM > RE: Re: Chinese medical education > > Julie. > I had clinical rounds in three Northern California TCM schools (1983 - 1988) > My experience was that not one of the many teachers there diagnosed and > treated from the state boards herbal formula list nor from the prescriptions > presented in either the Shanghai or Beijing texts. Every time - and I mean > every time - it was explained to me " that's for the state boards THIS is for > practical " . Formulas were also modified. I have no problem with the > modifications but the base formulas were mostly empirical. > I believe I would not have suffered so if a formula selected was a modified > of say Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang with reasons given for additions and > subtractions. And points selected from one of the many from the > prescriptions in the Text books instead of the same St 36, Sp 6 Back Shu > points along with " special points " of the teachers. > > The fact was most clinical teachers were not familiar with the text we were > studying for the exams. They were good honest people and good > acupuncturists/herbalist. The patient got better. But I was unable to relate > their knowledge to the textbooks. When I had a question from the textbook, > they could not answer from the textbooks point of view. > > I defienly say this as a pattern. As I did clinical rounds at three > different schools with different teachers. Many of the teachers (at one of > the schools) could not speak or understand English, and I and others had to > huddle around the one student who could and would translate. But he was also > another student - not an assistant and the teacher rarely waited for > translation. (Why you may ask I attended 3 schools). > > Earlier discussions about translating the classics, I sure wish I could read > Chinese and then I could point here - this chapter says this, Why? > > That's why TCM 101 (Bensky with Points) > > During that time many other students moaned as much if not more than I. > > If that is no longer the case, Great > > Thank you for your response, > maybe I harbor resentment too long. > I just see a lost opportunity for TCM here > > Ed Kasper L.Ac., Santa Cruz, California > > > juliej8 [juliej8] > Saturday, June 03, 2000 5:51 PM > > Re: Re: Chinese medical education > > > In a message dated 6/3/00 5:11:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Health writes: > > << > I have a question. > Why can't/don't/won't the California AC Schools offer TCM 101. > A simple straightforward primer on acupuncture and herbal treatments that > is based on the classics and is taught in clinical practice and tested on > the state boards. >> > > Dear Ed, > > I am not sure I understand your question. TCM 101? All the schools teach > basic acupuncture theory, and as part of that course, simple textbook cases > are presented along with classic herbal treatments and acupuncture points. > Is > this what you mean? For example, spleen deficiency with dampness, use Liu > Jun > Zi Tang and needle Sp 6, St 36, St 40, ren 12. Etc. > > What is your complaint specifically? What do you think the schools are > teaching that they should not be and what is missing? > > Julie > > ------ > Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup. > @Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access > your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints. > http://click./1/4935/9/_/542111/_/960079870/ > ------ > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > > > ------ > Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. > Remember the good 'ol days > http://click./1/4053/9/_/542111/_/960086119/ > ------ > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > --- Robert Flaws --- bobflaws --- EarthLink: It's your Internet. 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.