better

[Guest guest]

Trouble is how do you decide who gets to the better trained? MD's filter

through the "pre-med" classes. For TCM: those with the best Tai ji?

doug

 

whether it is fair to say that we are turning out thousands of

mediocre practitioners; and whether it would be preferable to have

fewer but better-trained practitioners who got better results.

Rory

--

 

[Guest guest]

Doug:

 

This is always an interesting---if unanswerable---question. If it

was Taiji, then the best could easily be determined by a fight: last

one standing is correct.

 

Alon suggested earlier that auditing a practice might determine how

effective someone's treatments were; but how to do that is arguable.

In Western medicine, as well as CM, as long as you do some sort of

innervention, people get better. This is part placebo effect and

partly the workings of the immune system itself. While we always

hear of miraculous cures of difficult cases, the real statistics are

still unknown. It's hard to get a straight answer when it comes to

WM's statistics. Many of their studies are, like the Chinese

studies, fudged and spun.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

In , wrote:

> Trouble is how do you decide who gets to the better trained? MD's

filter through the " pre-med " classes. For TCM: those with the best

Tai ji?

[Guest guest]

Alon suggested earlier that auditing a practice might determine how effective someone's treatments were; but how to do that is arguable. In Western medicine, as well as CM, as long as you do some sort of innervention, people get better.

<<<I think everybody should periodically audit is own practice. It can be quite informative and often humbling

alon